Washings And Anointing: Is It Masonic And Or Ancient

[wenglund]

For whatever reason, the issue of Free-Masonry and Mormonism is currently experiencing a resurgence. Much of the issue appears to be focused on the Endowment. However, for the purposes of this thread, I wish to shift focus and concentrate instead on washings and anointing.

I would like us to begin by discussing the nature (elements, meaning, and purposes) of washings and anointing, and then look at the plausible history of the rituals--seeing what parallels and possible common ancestry, if in, there may be with Free-Masonry. And, out of respect for the sacredness of certain of those rituals, I request that we refrain from discussing the sacred (except in general principles), and use the public-appropriate rituals to talk implicitly about the sacred.

By this I mean that within the Church there is, or has been, at least four, and possibly five washing and anointing rituals, some of which are appropriate to discuss publicly, and others that are sacred:

1. Healing the sick. This is something new to me that I came across during my research. Evidently, up until the last half century, the anointing and blessing of the sick also at times included a washing. It was also a ritual that could be administered by women. For further details, see A gift Given, A gift Taken Away, by Linda King Newell, as well as Michael Quinn's Review. I will leave further discussion of this specific ritual to another thread.

2. The washing of baptism and the anointing of the Gift of the Holy Ghost--to be discussed in detail in coming posts.

3. The sacrament. I may be stretching things a bit to consider this a washing and anointing ritual, though I believe that the washing may be emblemized in the water/wine and the anointing in the bread, each respectively symbolizing mortals being washed clean through death and anointed with glory through the resurrection. This is as much as I plan for us to mention about this specific ritual in this thread.

4. Initiatory ritual. This sacred ritual will be discussed indirectly or implicitly in the coming posts by way of explicating the comparable ritual of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. As we speak about the later, the reader is free to, in his or her own mind, compare and contrast it with what he or she knows of the temple ritual.

5. The washing of the feet and, at times, anointing of the head. I don't plan for us to discuss this ritual in this thread, though I may in a future thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 20, 2011 by wenglund

[annewandering]

I have to say this topic makes me feel very uncomfortable. Is it acceptable to discuss this beyond outside of temple rituals?

[wenglund]

Lets now look at the elements, meaning, and purpose of the washing and anointing ritual of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

First, this is an initiatory ritual for gaining membership into Christ's church.

Second, it may consists of the following elements:

a. Removal of old cloths

b. Dawning a washing and anointing gown (baptismal clothes)

c. Washing and prayer/blessing

d. Anointing and prayer/blessing.

e. Putting on a new garment.

f. Receiving a new name.

These elements will, to one degree or another, factor in heavily when we begin discussing the history of washings and anointing.

Third, this ritual is rich in symbolism and meaning. I wish to open this aspect up for further discussion.

However, I will simply state this: by taking off old cloths and putting on new garments, or immersing the initiate in water and bringing them back out, the washing and anointing of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost is emblematic of the washing away, death, and burial of the old man of sin, and the raising up and anointing anew a spiritual man. And, because the initiate is a new man, he or she needs a new name, which is "Christ" (meaning, "the anointed"). When we are baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, we become the adopted sons and daughters of Christ and his bride, the church, and we take upon us his name. We become his family, and are in a sense prepared to become Christs.

It should also be noted, that while the bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost doesn't involve anointing with oil, scholars have suggest that the anointing with oil in certain other rituals symbolizes the bestowal of the healing, purifying, glorifying, and edifying power of the Holy Sirit. (see HERE

Now, the extent and manner to which baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost may compare and contrast with the initiatory work in the temple, in terms of elements, meaning, purpose, I will leave that to you to ponder in private. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I have to say this topic makes me feel very uncomfortable. Is it acceptable to discuss this beyond outside of temple rituals?

I can respect this. And, if it will ease your mind, as explained, I don't intend to directly discuss the temple ritual, but will look instead at the publicly appropriate ritual of baptism and the Holy Ghost, and leave the reader to compare and contrast it in private with the temple ritual. I am committed to keeping sacred things sacred, and I wont personally disclose anything that the church hasn't made public, and I will discourage individuals from doing otherwise on this thread.

We'll see. If things begin to tread here on the sacred, I have no problem closing the thread down. However, I believe there may be some value gained from how I intend to discuss the topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 20, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

I have to say this topic makes me feel very uncomfortable. Is it acceptable to discuss this beyond outside of temple rituals?

In my opinion, the way to handle this is to discuss the rituals of others, not ours, and let the reader draw their own conclusions if the other rituals sound "familiar".

[wenglund]

In my opinion, the way to handle this is to discuss the rituals of others, not ours, and let the reader draw their own conclusions if the other rituals sound "familiar".

That is my plan, though I also wanted to use one of our own comparable rituals (one that is appropriate to discuss in public) to establish a framework for this discussion.

And, although I am not a Free-Mason, I wish to also respect the sacredness of their rites, and I won't disclose any specifics, but will talk instead in terms of general principles and elements and meanings--which generalities have already been made public with the approval of leading and faithful Masons.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 20, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Whenever I see this topic discussed, I refer people to this site, and particularly this page:

http://www.copticchu...nfirmation.html

The Sacrament of Myron, also known as the Holy Anointment, or the Sacrament of Confirmation, is a holy Sacrament, with which we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit. The word ‘Myron’ is a Greek word which means ‘ointment’ or ‘fragrant perfume’.

The baptized person receives it immediately after Baptism, so as to become a temple of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit aids him to grow in his spiritual life. Although it is received directly after Baptism, it is an independent Sacrament and the priests have to be very careful to grant it accurately to the baptized, anointing them with 36 crosses.

The Lord Jesus instituted it when He said: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water”. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom these believing in Him would receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:37-39).

The Baptized is anointed with 36 signs on his joints and senses so that the Holy Spirit can dwell within them. His body and soul becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this anointment, God grants the grace of confirmation to the baptized as well as the gifts of the Holy Spirit.....

THE ANOINTMENTS

The priest places his right thumb on top of the opening of the Myron bottle, and turns it downwards to wet his finger with the Myron. He then anoints the baptized as follows :

The first four anointments (eight crosses) are on the senses

Firstly, the top of the head, the nostrils, the mouth, and the right ear

Then, the right eye, the left eye, an finally the left ear

Whilst anointing, the priest says, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The anointment of grace of the Holy Spirit, Amen.”

NOTES:

He anoints The Head to sanctify it. The head contains the brain, where thinking takes place. It is the brain which distinguishes humankind from other creatures. A good mind is of great use and benefit to oneself and to others also. King Solomon praises the mind saying, “When wisdom enters your heart and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, discretion will preserve you, understanding will keep you, to deliver from the way evil” (Proverbs 2: 10-12).

Also, the Lord Jesus praised the young man who answered wisely and said to him: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). And St. Paul our teacher prays for us saying, “And the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7).

The Nostrils contain the sense of smell, and it is an important sense, for if a person is not careful and alert, it is possible for impure thoughts to enter ones heart through this sense. Hence, the priest anoints it to protect it against all sin and lust.

The Mouth with the tongue is the most dangerous organ in a person...

tongue from sins such as swearing, insulting, lying, judging, and gossiping. Our words should always be graceful.

The Ears provide us with the important sense of hearing, which should also be controlled, and the anointing of the Myron is a strong weapon in control what we hear. We protect our ears from hearing such things as gossip, and other conversations which may poison our hearts with revenge and hatred. We also protect our ears from hearing certain songs which may poison our hearts with lustful thoughts.

The Eyes are the most important sense, through which enters more than 80% of information which may affect our hearts. If the information is holy, it sanctifies the heart, and vice versa. For this reason, we should control what we see so that we may keep ourselves pure. The tenth commandment says, “Do not covet”. The Psalmist prays, “Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things” (Psalm 119:37), and, “Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law” (Psalm 119:17).

The second group of four anointments are as follows :

The priest wets his right thumb with the Myron another time and anoints,

The heart (chest)

The navel

The back

The lower back

Whilst anointing the priest prays : “An anointment as a token for the kingdom of heaven," as this holy anointment makes the Holy Spirit works in us and prepares us for the inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven

And so it continues- the entire site is quite interesting for LDS readers I think.

I think it is clear that the Coptic Orthodox church's sacraments did NOT of course come from Masonry, but they point to an origin for their sacraments in early Christianity.

Edited October 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[David T]

Is there anyone who claims that the Kirtland-era rituals were heavily and directly inspired by masonry? If so, I'm not familiar with those claims. Nauvoo-era, yes, which integrated with and gave additional meaning to the Kirtland rituals, But not the Kirtland-era rituals in and of themselves.

The Washings and anointing occurring in Kirtland were explained and taught in a significantly different way - and a very different context - than the washings in Nauvoo.

My question, really, is if this portion of the OP's title is more of a straw man than any discussion centered on Endowment ritual would be.

I think the discussion of the similarity between the different water-rituals is extremely useful, I just don't see the point of the Masonic connection in the OP.

Edited October 20, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

Whenever I see this topic discussed, I refer people to this site, and particularly this page:

http://www.copticchu...nfirmation.html

And so it continues- the entire site is quite interesting for LDS readers I think.

I think it is clear that the Coptic Orthodox church's sacraments did NOT of course come from Masonry, but they point to an origin for their sacraments in early Christianity.

I appreciate you providing this teaser for the next segment of discussion--i.e. the history of washings and anointing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[livy111us]

http://washings-anointings.blogspot.com/

I've always found this website helpful. They have a few articles dedicated to washings and anointings. Personally, I think that Matt Browns work could have contributed GREATLY to this discussion.

[wenglund]

Is there anyone who claims that the Kirtland-era rituals were heavily and directly inspired by masonry? If so, I'm not familiar with those claims. Nauvoo-era, yes, which integrated with and gave additional meaning to the Kirtland rituals, But not the Kirtland-era rituals in and of themselves.

The Washings and anointing occurring in Kirtland were explained and taught in a significantly different way - and a very different context - than the washings in Nauvoo.

My question, really, is if this portion is more of a straw man than any discussion centered on Endowment ritual would be.

Much of what I have read on the subject tends to deal with the subjectmatter generically--i.e. "Mormonism and Masonry," with little or no distinction being made between the Nauvoo and Kirtland temple rituals. As such, I view this thread as a way of encouraging drawing the distinction you mentioned.

Also, I have gotten the impression during online discussions with George Miller that he, and perhaps others, believe the influence of Masonry on the temple rituals predate the Nauvoo period. If so, then this will be a way of addressing his perceptions.

Besides, by discussing the temple rituals instituted during the Kirtland period, and given that they provide a proper foundation upon which the Nauvoo rituals may have been built, this thead may help in establishing a proper framework for understanding the richly inspirational nature of the temple rituals as a whole--a framework that goes well beyond what little may have been borrowed from Masonry, particularly in terms of meaning.

Furthermore, I believe there are other insights to be gleaned from this discussion in addition to the seemingly nominal relationship of Masonry to Mormonism, not the least of which is the remarkably extensive and ancient historical context of the LDS temple rites.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Let me state something about the 800 pound gorilla in the room, because some are not aware of this, I think.

I do not particularly subscribe to the validity of this argument, but I think it should be stated. The underlying assumptions here include the conclusion that if Joseph "got the endowment from the Masons" then they are not inspired, nor do they come "from God"

So the assumption that Joseph did not "get the endowment from the Masons" must be proven for the endowment to be "from God"

I will let Wade decide if this is a valid subject for discussion here, or if it should be on another thread, but I just wanted to clearly state the perceived need to prove the ancient origin of the endowment.

Edited October 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

http://washings-anoi...s.blogspot.com/

I've always found this website helpful. They have a few articles dedicated to washings and anointings. Personally, I think that Matt Browns work could have contributed GREATLY to this discussion.

I haven't had a chance to read over this website, but from a cursory glance, it looks interesting. However, since you seem to be familiar with it, then as we proceed in discussion the history of this ritual, preferably working backwards from 1836 to ancient times, I hope you will feel free to mention pertinent points brought out by that website or elsewhere by Matt Brown, or even share some insights of your own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 20, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Let me state something about the 800 pound gorilla in the room, because some are not aware of this, I think.

I do not particularly subscribe to the validity of this argument, but I think it should be stated. The underlying assumptions here include the conclusion that if Joseph "got the endowment from the Masons" then they are not inspired, nor do they come "from God"

So the assumption that Joseph did not "get the endowment from the Masons" must be proven for the endowment to be "from God"

I will let Wade decide if this is a valid subject for discussion here, or if it should be on another thread, but I just wanted to clearly state the perceived need to prove the ancient origin of the endowment.

You nailed it. That is exactly the bottom line that I had hoped to investigate during the course of this thread. So, yes, please don't hesitate to express views thereon.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

You nailed it. That is exactly the bottom line that I had hoped to investigate during the course of this thread. So, yes, please don't hesitate to express views thereon.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would be interested in George Miller's view of this question.

Obviously, this question is a subset of the entire question of "Historicity" of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, etc.

My position is that it is my personal belief that these books and ordinances ARE indeed "historical" but that it may not ever be able to be proven.

On the other hand, given my belief in a Pragmatic approach to epistemology and especially in the distinction between religion and science and what is objective and subjective, compels me to believe also that proving their historicity has nothing to do with my testimony that they are "from God" and delivered to Joseph as a prophet, who was inspired to create a new meaning and new way of seeing all that was around him, both physically and culturally speaking.

He did essentially what great philosophers and theologians have done throughout the ages, and he was inspired to do so. The only difference is that one can receive a testimony from God that Joseph was a prophet- but there is not a single philosopher who can make that claim.

[David T]

While I may be incorrect, my understanding is that Miller views the concepts and worldview of the Christianization movement of Masonry as being key early on, wherein the highly specific masonic rituals were not inserted and made part and parcel of the developing context/worldview until Joseph had experienced them himself in Nauvoo.

I do think it may be beneficial to note that another important thread to take into consideration is the influence of Sidney Rigdon, and his Campbellian Restorationist views of the 'Ancient Order'. Especially during the prime of his influence in Kirtland. He was highly influential in bringing forward OT ideas, and giving them a wider and stronger NT connection. Rigdon's views and writings doubtless formed the basis of inspired questions and innovation from Joseph. (for example, Rigdon was the first to express his speculation that the Ancient of Days was Adam, Rigdon was key in instituting the office of High Priest - which was directly related to the initial Washings, etc)

Edited October 20, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Maidservant]

Wade, an important connection between oil and fire and the Holy Ghost would be the parable of the ten virgins and the lamps they were holding.

Also, I should also point out that baptism, as a sign of death and resurrection, is meant to be a sign of each person that has entered death (that is, being born in mortality) and being risen again (receiving eternal life etc etc etc). Thus the sign of baptism is not primarily the locus of our physical death at the end of our life (although all things denote there is a God and all signs are holographic from any point of view) . . . the locus is our entire journey on earth, wherein we have died from God (Heavenly Father), wherein we have descended below all things, wherein we have entered the waters of the flood, wherein we have become clean/sanctified/forgiven [by process throughout mortality, by process of the Holy Ghost etc etc etc], and wherein we will be raised from the dead . . . not only that passage at the end of mortality, but raised from the death of the separation from our Father's presence that we agreed to (purposefully) enter when we became born in mortality. (Think very carefully on the experience of being held by the priesthood holder at all times, and then placed, immersed in the water, and held there very briefly, and then being brought up by those arms again. This cannot mean merely the death passage at our old age.)

And for that matter, this (baptism) is also the sign of Christ (think on the story/sign of the atonement sacrifice in the NT).

Edited October 20, 2011 by Maidservant

[annewandering]

Let me state something about the 800 pound gorilla in the room, because some are not aware of this, I think.

I do not particularly subscribe to the validity of this argument, but I think it should be stated. The underlying assumptions here include the conclusion that if Joseph "got the endowment from the Masons" then they are not inspired, nor do they come "from God"

So the assumption that Joseph did not "get the endowment from the Masons" must be proven for the endowment to be "from God"

I will let Wade decide if this is a valid subject for discussion here, or if it should be on another thread, but I just wanted to clearly state the perceived need to prove the ancient origin of the endowment.

I have always felt that the masons had gotten their rituals from the ancient ones. In fact that is what they claim and I see no reason to disbelieve them. In fact dont they believe that they are responsible to keep the rituals for a time when God will have need of them again in His temples? Now I got this from my aunt whos husband was active in the masons and they were not LDS so take it for what its worth.

Edited October 20, 2011 by annewandering

[mfbukowski]

I have always felt that the masons had gotten their rituals from the ancient ones. In fact that is what they claim and I see no reason to disbelieve them. In fact dont they believe that they are responsible to keep the rituals for a time when God will have need of them again in His temples? Now I got this from my aunt whos husband was active in the masons and they were not LDS so take it for what its worth.

Thanks for the comment- I am going to hold off on responding to this for a bit; but I think that view is a very common view, and I have no problem with it.

Edited October 20, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

I forgot to mention two other forms of washings and anointing.

6. As a part of fasting and prayer. (Matthew 6:17; 3 Nephi 13:17)

7. In preparation for receiving a vision. (Moses 6:35)

Regarding washing and anointing in relation to healing of sick and blind, please see John 9:11

Now, without intending to stifle discussion on the elements, meaning, and purpose of washings and anointing, or skip past exploring the fundamental question of whether the temple rituals are inspired or not, I wish to now also open discussion on the history of this ritual, working backwards from 1830's to ancient times.

As you may well know, prior to 1836, Joseph received several revelations regarding baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, including in 1829 receiving the power and authority to baptize (Doctrine and Covenants 13:1), the promise to receive the authority to confirm (See section 27:7, 8, 12.), and the proper mode of baptism (Doctrine and Covenants 20:37; 20:72) and confirming (Doctrine and Covenants 20:41).

According to Joseph Fielding Smith, in his book on Church History and Modern Revelation, Vol 4, p.113, he states: "In Kirtland, November 12, 1835, in a council meeting with the apostles, the Prophet said: 'You need an endowment, brethren, in order that you may be prepared and able to overcome all things; and those that reject your testimony will be damned.'" (D.H.C. Vol. 2:309)

In January of the following year (1836), William W. Phelps remarked: "Our meeting will grow more and more solemn and will continue [two words unintelligible] great solemn assembly when the house [Kirtland Temple] is finished! We are preparing [to receive an endowment] to make ourselves clean, by first cleansing our hearts, forsaking our sins, forgiving every body, all we even had against them; anointing washing the body; putting on clean decent clothes, by anointing our heads and by keeping all the commandments. As we come nearer to God we see our imperfections and nothingness plainer and plainer."(Church Archives, p.1)

As official historian for the church at the time, John Whitmer records: "[January, 1836]Now the time drew near when the Lord would endow his servants, and before he could do this we must perform all the ordinances that are instituted in his house. There was one ordinance, viz, the washing of feet, that we had not yet observed but did perform it according to revelation, which belongs only to ordained members and not the whole Church…. After this washing of feet came the anointing with holy oil, which was performed by Joseph Smith Senior among the presidents, then the presidents of each quorum proceed to anoint the members thereof, in their proper time and place."(John Whitmer Book of John Whitmer, typescript, BYU-A, p.38)

On January 21st, 1836, Joseph records: "At early candle-light I met with the Presidency at the west school room, in the Temple, to attend to the ordinance of anointing our heads with holy oil; also the Councils of Kirtland and Zion met in the two adjoining rooms, and waited in prayer while we attended to the ordinance.

"I took the oil in my left hand, Father Smith being seated before me, and the remainder of the Presidency encircled him round about. We then stretched our right hands towards heaven, and blessed the oil, and consecrated it in the name of Jesus Christ.

"We then laid our hands upon our aged Father Smith, and invoked the blessings of heaven. I then anointed his head with the consecrated oil, and sealed many blessings upon him. The Presidency then in turn laid their hands upon his head, beginning at the oldest, until they had all laid their hands upon him, and pronounced such blessings upon his head, as the Lord put into their hearts, all blessing him to be our Patriarch, to anoint our heads, and attend to all duties that pertain to that office. The Presidency then took the seat in their turn, according to their age, beginning at the oldest, and received their anointing and blessing under the hands of Father Smith. And in my turn, my father anointed my head, and sealed upon me the blessings of Moses, to lead Israel in the latter days, even as Moses led him in days of old; also the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. All of the Presidency laid their hands upon me, and pronounced upon my head many prophecies and blessings, many of which I shall not notice at this time. But as Paul said, so say I, let us come to visions and revelations." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.27, p.379)

In consequence of the anointing, the prophet and others received a pentacostal-like outpouring of the spirit. (ibid. p. 381) And, this ordinance of holy anointing was given periodically over the next several days, and was sealed on the 28th (ibid. p. 386) as well as encouraged further during the Kirtland temple dedicatory prayer, March 27th, 1836. (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.29, p.420; D&C 109)

It isn't certain whether the washing portion of the ordinance was included at this time (though from what Phelps said, it was likely), but it is clear that it was included sometime before the following year. According to Joseph Smith's History of the Church, in January of 1837, regarding the following April, "A brief notice only was given, that a solemn assembly would be called, of the official members of the Church, on the 6th of April, for the purpose of washing, anointing, washing of feet, receiving instructions, and the further organization of the ministry. Meetings were held by the different quorums on Monday 3rd, Tuesday, 4th, and Wednesday, 5th, to anoint such of their respective members as had not been washed and anointed, that all might be prepared for the meeting on the 6th." (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.33, p.475)

"At an early hour on Thursday, the 6th of April, the official members assembled in the House of the Lord, when the time for the first two or three hours was spent by the different quorums in washing of feet, singing praying and preparing to receive instructions from the Presidency. The Presidents, together with the Seventies and their presidents, repaired to the west room in the attic story, where, for want of time the preceding evening, it became necessary to seal the anointing of those who had recently been anointed and not sealed." (ibid.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

While I may be incorrect, my understanding is that Miller views the concepts and worldview of the Christianization movement of Masonry as being key early on, wherein the highly specific masonic rituals were not inserted and made part and parcel of the developing context/worldview until Joseph had experienced them himself in Nauvoo. I do think it may be beneficial to note that another important thread to take into consideration is the influence of Sidney Rigdon, and his Campbellian Restorationist views of the 'Ancient Order'. Especially during the prime of his influence in Kirtland. He was highly influential in bringing forward OT ideas, and giving them a wider and stronger NT connection. Rigdon's views and writings doubtless formed the basis of inspired questions and innovation from Joseph. (for example, Rigdon was the first to express his speculation that the Ancient of Days was Adam, Rigdon was key in instituting the office of High Priest - which was directly related to the initial Washings, etc)

As the discussion progresses I hope you will expound upon your view of Rigdon's supposed influence on initial Washings. It may prove enlightening.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

As the discussion progresses I hope you will expound upon your view of Rigdon's supposed influence on initial Washings. It may prove enlightening.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Seconded!

[wenglund]

As indicated, the temple ritual of washing and anointing began to be practiced by Christ's church prior to 1837.

So, where did Joseph get this ritual? Was it a restoration of an ancient ritual, the possible corrupted remnants of which may be found in a broad spectrum of religions and religious practices? Was it borrowed from Masonry?

Contrary to what Nack asserted earlier, I found a few websites claiming that the LDS initiatory ceremony was borrowed from Free-Masonry. I won't provide links to them, but if the reader is interested, a Google search for "washing anointing masonry" should bring them up.

This claim is interesting given that the LDS initiatory ceremony predates Joseph's membership in Free-Masonry by about six years. This raises the question as to how Joseph could have borrowed something six years before he became as Mason?

Some people may contend that Joseph learned about masonry years before joining. I suppose that is possible. However, let's grant, for the sake of argument, the highly unlikely prospect that some of Joseph's Masonic family and friends violated their Masonic oaths and disclosed the Masonic rites to Joseph during the 1830's or before. Or, let's grant that Joseph may have read a copy of Capt. Morgan's "Illustration of Masonry," published in 1827. Whatever the case, I have searched Morgan's expose, and could find nothing but the most strained parallels with the LDS initiatory rite.

At best, there is a part of the Masonic ceremony where the initiate removes part of his clothing, and is given a pair of trousers to wear and is later given a new name. This change of garment and new name, though, has quite different meanings and purposes than the same in the LDS initiatory rite.

More important, within the first three degrees of Masonry, I could find no washing or anointing to speak of. Granted, there is a point at which the initiate is touched in the chest area by an object that has significance in relation to the LDS temple garment, but the touching is described as "torture," and thus has no relevance to the LDS washing and anointing.

I suppose it is possible that similarities of the washing and anointing may be found in higher degrees of Masonry, though I am not sure how Joseph may have known about them prior to becoming as 32nd degree Mason himself. And, even if so, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the LDS version isn't the restoration of an ancient rite. But, we will see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ron Beron]

While I can't and won't discuss specifically the washings and anointings directly connected with LDS practice I can discuss with some clarity the practice of anointings in the ancient church. In the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition (Garland Reference Library of the Humanities,Everett Ferguson it outlines a procedure for 3rd century baptism discussed by Tertullian. After a period of as much as three years of instruction the initiate is brought before the baptismal waters, disrobes, renounces satan and his works, and is anointed with oil to exorcise any evil spirits. The candidate then confesses his faith in each person of the trinity, immersed three times after each confession, and then anointed again, reclothed, and anointed again with the laying on of hands signifying the reception of the Holy Ghost. After this the congregation has a Eucharistic meal. While such a practice differed slightly from area to area the key elements continued to be observed;

1. Anointing

2. Disrobing

3. Baptism by immersion

4. Re-anointed

5. Clothed with new clothing, and

6. Confirmation and anointing by the laying on of hands.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Ron Beron

[David T]

Contrary to what Nack asserted earlier...

I asserted nothing. I specifically asked if this connection had been previously made, and noted I was not familiar with such arguments.