George Miller wrote:I actually have to back off my argument to a small degree. סוד can in fact have the meaning of council, therefore Hamblin's interpretation is more valid than I first thought.
OK. But that does not really address the methodological issue that we are discussing. It is common for LDS scholars to use their interpretation of Mormonism as the interpretive key for reading these things. Which, as you rightly point out, is dangerous when they do not really understand Joseph Smith's point of view to begin with. So there are all of these layers of erroneous reading involved in these LDS scholarly interpretive acts. What is lost is a solid understanding of the ancient texts and Joseph Smith on their own terms.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
George Miller wrote:I actually have to back off my argument to a small degree. סוד can in fact have the meaning of council, therefore Hamblin's interpretation is more valid than I first thought.
OK. But that does not really address the methodological issue that we are discussing. It is common for LDS scholars to use their interpretation of Mormonism as the interpretive key for reading these things. Which, as you rightly point out, is dangerous when they do not really understand Joseph Smith's point of view to begin with. So there are all of these layers of erroneous reading involved in these LDS scholarly interpretive acts. What is lost is a solid understanding of the ancient texts and Joseph Smith on their own terms.
If I am reading you correctly, I agree with you. What methodological issue am I not addressing?
My husband thinks God chose the Masons to preserve the endowment through the centuries until the priesthood could be restored to Joseph and then the endowment returned to its proper status.
Sounds plausible to him, and it must be correct because that's what he learned in church.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:My husband thinks God chose the Masons to preserve the endowment through the centuries until the priesthood could be restored to Joseph and then the endowment returned to its proper status.
Sounds plausible to him, and it must be correct because that's what he learned in church.
My wife thinks that perhaps God wanted Joseph to 'bump into' Masonry and so facilitated it getting to America. And my wife is a very educated intelligent woman.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
harmony wrote:My husband thinks God chose the Masons to preserve the endowment through the centuries until the priesthood could be restored to Joseph and then the endowment returned to its proper status.
Sounds plausible to him, and it must be correct because that's what he learned in church.
Apparently "focused discussion" = agree with what the OP says. Therefore, a more appropriate response would have been, "Great post, Bill", "Amen, brother", "dittos", or "mega dittos."
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Runtu wrote:I had one memorable encounter with Hamblin a couple of years ago. He started a thread insisting that unless critics came up with a detailed theory of exactly how Joseph Smith perpetrated the fraud of the Book of Mormon, they had no grounds to doubt Joseph's story. .
That's a dumb challenge. To someone outside of Mormonism, almost any theory is more plausible than Joseph Smith's story, no matter which of his various stories you choose from. Aliens landing and giving him the Book of Mormon is more believable. Thomas S. Monson building a time machine, traveling back to the 1820s, visiting a young Joseph Smith, giving him the finished Book of Mormon, and telling him what to do to create the church, thus creating a Terminator-like circular paradox, is more believable (and cooler).
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
George Miller wrote:What methodological issue am I not addressing?
All I am saying is that the existence of a reference to the divine council in the term does not vindicate the reading as a whole, but you already know that.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
George Miller wrote: No I think the sod of jehovah is speaking of the shem ha foresh or the ineffable pronunciation of God's name. That this was thought by the Jews to be conveyed in the throne room of God during an heavenly ascent is accurate. However, Hamblin is conflating the sod of Jehovah with the heavenly council itself. It is in this interpretation that I think he is stretching.
I would, however, point out that the heavenly ascent motif is in Freemasonry and the Masonic parallels are MUCH stronger than those presented here by Hamblin. I have beef with anyone who tries to talk about the subject without first discussing the contemporary genetic Masonic connections that influenced Joseph Smith.
Got a dozen viruses after googling sod of Jehovah. Crap. By the way I fail to understand why Mormons want to ignore the obvious that Joseph Smith got the Endowment Revelation spun off from masonic rites. Why is that a problem? Like nobody can write an inspired symphony because there already exists an earlier symphony, so the second symphony must be a phony and cannot be inspired? What the heck?
George Miller wrote:What methodological issue am I not addressing?
All I am saying is that the existence of a reference to the divine council in the term does not vindicate the reading as a whole, but you already know that.
I agree with you 100% here. The is another problem that Hamblin is in fact dodging here. The accusation he is addressing is that an endowment ceremony like the Mormon endowment didn't exist in antiquity. To counter this claim he brings up biblical references to a divine council. While there are elements in Joseph Smith's theology that are compatible with ancient beliefs in a divine council, the LDS endowment as it exists today doesn't actually portray that divine council. It does take one up to the precipice of this conceptually, but it, so to speak, leaves the initiate hanging. In other words Hamblin's argument doesn't really address the critics' argument.