Masonic Rites = Temple Signs

[Helorum]

I have reading-comprehension problems

Evidently you really do . . . Roper didn't write the book

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course there would be endowments just like today. God says right in D&C 124 that HE is going to restore that which was lost (and He clearly lists the endowment elements long BEFORE the Prophet became a Mason).

Now that seems to be the kicker right there. How would Joesph Smith know whatthe mason rights were if he wasnt a mason at that time?

[Garden Girl]

I just finished reading the "Temples" portion of Nibley's "Temples and Cosmos" and can't tell you how many ah-hah moments I had, particularly in regard to some of the symbols/symbolism... It's terrific and gave me a greater appreciation of that symbolism as used in our temple ceremony...

The Garden Girl

[John Williams]

Evidently you really do . . . Roper didn't write the book

OK, ya got me. I'm evil to the core.

Not to mention a little sloppy today. Sorry 'bout that.

[John Williams]

I found this interesting piece from John A. Widtsoe:

Nauvoo, the city beautiful, was founded by the Latter-day Saints in 1839, nearly ten years after the Church had been organized. The decade had been one of unreasoning persecution of the members of the Church. The forces of evil seemed to be combined against the restoration of the simple gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Prophet, to save his life, was obliged to flee from Kirtland, Ohio, headquarters of the Church where a lovely temple and many progressive enterprises had been built. The Saints as a body were expelled from Missouri, under an "exterminating" order by the governor of the state, despite several successful settlements by the Church within the state. In seeking a city of refuge, Nauvoo, then a squalid village called Commerce, was founded.

The settlement in Nauvoo was effected in the hope that the people might now live in peace to worship the God of heaven in their own way. There they built well, for soon Nauvoo was the most populous and thriving city in Illinois. But soon after their arrival there, neighbors began to question the doctrines of the Church, notably revelation. The prosperity of the industrious Saints also incited jealousy on the part of those who would not pay the price of toil for success, or who were speculating in lands and other properties. Persecution began to rise there as in other places. Political differences and hopes also entered into the picture.

The Saints knew well enough the sufferings from mob persecution. Joseph Smith, the leader, looked for means to quell the rising tide of opposition.

Many of the Saints were Masons, such as Joseph's brother Hyrum, Heber C. Kimball, Elijah Fordham, Newel K. Whitney, James Adams, and John C. Bennett. These members called attention to the spirit of brotherhood and brotherly love which are the foundations of Masonic fraternity and which characterize Masonic activities: -- as, for example, from this writer,

On the rolls of Masonry, those lodges will stand highest in which not some few, but each and every member cheerfully gives of his time and labors to make the others happier, not some of the time but all of the time.

This ideal agreed well with the high ideals of the Prophet. Moreover, it was conceded that many of the prominent and influential men of the state were Masons who could be friends when needed. Association with such a fraternity might help to lessen the mob persecutions to which the Church had been subjected in Ohio and Missouri, so reasoned the Prophet's advisors.

With the acquiescence of the Prophet, members of the Church already Masons petitioned the Grand Master of Illinois for permission to set up a lodge in Nauvoo. In answer they were granted permission, in October, 1841, to hold lodge meetings; but it was March 15, 1842, before authority was given to set up a lodge in Nauvoo and to induct new members. Joseph Smith became a member. At the time of the lodge organization, Joseph Smith received some of the degrees in Masonry. He was never an active Mason. His other work consumed his time and energy. His history shows that he was extremely busy at this time with a multitude of Church problems. Lodge matters would have to be left in other hands.

So, according to Widtsoe, Joseph Smith was familiar with Masons and their rites before section 124 was revealed.

[livy111us]

How do you figure? D/C 124 was revealed Jan 19 1841, Joseph Smith became a mason in March of 1842. No where does Widstoe say that he knew of masonic rituals.

[John Williams]

How do you figure? D/C 124 was revealed Jan 19 1841, Joseph Smith became a mason in March of 1842. No where does Widstoe say that he knew of masonic rituals.

His brother and most of his closest friends and advisers were Masons. You don't think he knew anything about it?

[HiJolly]

There is indeed a connection, but most anti-Mormons and LDS alike misunderstand the nature of that connection.

I don't doubt that, Helorum. And in fact, I agree 100% with that opinion.

For the simple fact that God Himself said He would PROVIDE Joseph Smith with every temple ordinance (see D&C 124).

Interesting. Both literalistic and assumptive, simultaneously. I also find your tone of authority quite interesting. You've got me wondering who you are, for sure.

Personal belief is very different from verifiable evidence.

True. Which is why science and the scientific method do not, and cannot, address God and the things of the spirit. Agree?

And Iâ??m quite sure that there is no first-hand statement from Joseph Smith in which he acknowledges that he â??took . . . and adapted [Masonic rites] to an LDS purpose.â? Please feel free to prove me wrong on this point.

Yes, I'd like to see that as well. Which is not to say that I doubt it, far from it.

Youâ??re dead wrong . . . and I CAN prove it.

I suppose the book you reference hereafter (and long before this post, of course) is the proof you speak of?

Then why does God say right in D&C 124 that He is going to supply those very things FOR Joseph Smith?

I took that scripture as the Lord saying those things were FOR the Saints. Not Joseph per se. Can you help me see your interpretation more clearly?

CFR

The afore mentioned and as yet unpublished book by Nick. We have discussed this many times. He has found some fascinating things in the masonic records of Illinois and thereabouts (including Vermont and New York).

You state this as if it were a FACT. Please provide specific evidence to support your THEORY. Are you seriously claiming that Joseph Smith modified Masonic rites in order to â??meet [God] the Fatherâ??s needsâ????

Oh, no, all this is merely my anecdotally informed opinion. In every case, and without apology. But yes, that is my opinion. Have you evidence to the contrary? I am nothing if not willing to receive additional truths.

Since Godâ??s temple rites are designed to exalt individuals in His kingdom please explain how Joseph Smithâ??s alleged use of a non-divine system of recognizing a qualified stonecutter helped God to bestow exaltation on anyone. And please provide reliable documentation to support your claim.

LOL. That's funny. So you're in the camp that believe the Freemasonry tradition/teaching has nothing to do with ascension, true?

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Tabernacle of Moses = initiation ordinances of priests (which took place in temple / the tabernacle was just a portable temple).

Temple of Solomon = initiation ordinances of kings (which took place in the temple).

I find that very interesting, since in one of the ancillary Masonic organizations, the progression is from Prophet >> Priest >> King. Very interesting.

http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=3907640

Hmm... Sounds interesting. Maybe the library's got a copy... ...after I get through the other 20 books I've actually purchased and have stacked up waiting for me...

HiJolly

[The_Monk]

Architectural motifs are NOT in the same category as the revealed rituals practiced within the walls of the building.

No, but neither are they divorced from them for the Israelites. The layout and design contributes heavily, as they did in Nauvoo and Salt Lake.

In any case, what is central for my comparison is that the design is explicitly said to come by revelation (Exo 25:9, for one) but it is exactly the design which scholars find so similar to it's neighbors.

Similarity/identicalness and/or borrowing does not preclude revelation.

[livy111us]

John,

Just because he knew masons does not mean that he knew their ordinances. Especially when masons weren't aloud to speak about them.

[John Williams]

John,

Just because he knew masons does not mean that he knew their ordinances. Especially when masons weren't aloud to speak about them.

True enough (and as a writer and editor, I'm biting my tongue). Either way, I don't see anything specifically Masonic in section 124. Do you?

[Aquilifer]

Are received-by-revelation and borrowed-from-Masonic-rites mutually exclusive theories? Couldn't JS have received revelation to restore the temple ceremony, but done so incorporating symbolism that may have been better understood by a 19th-century, North American audience than symbolism intended for an audience 8000 miles and several millenia away?

[John Williams]

Are received-by-revelation and borrowed-from-Masonic-rites mutually exclusive theories? Couldn't JS have received revelation to restore the temple ceremony, but done so incorporating symbolism that may have been better understood by a 19th-century, North American audience than symbolism intended for an audience 8000 miles and several millenia away?

Well, that's always been my position. I believe it's the most reasonable explanation. Maybe that erroneous belief is what led to my apostasy.

[HiJolly]

Well, that's always been my position. I believe it's the most reasonable explanation. Maybe that erroneous belief is what led to my apostasy.

Nope. Must be something else...

HiJolly

[John Williams]

Nope. Must be something else...

HiJolly

Yeah, I know. I'm a tool of Satan.

[gkearney]

Getting back to the original question here. The signs and tokens found in both Masonry and the temple endowment are very similar in some, but not all, cases. This is, in my opinion, due to Joseph Smith's usage of Masonic elements in the development of the endowment ritual.

As anyone who has read anything I have written on this issue knows, I draw a distinction between the ritual, the presentation of the endowment, and the endowment itself. The endowment, what is taught in the temple is revelatory in nature. The ritual, how the endowment is presented, is in some instances Masonic in nature. That said the meanings and names of the signs and tokens differ between the endowment and Masonry.

It would be a mistake to presume that Masons do not know the meaning ascribed to the sign and tokens in Masonry as has been suggested in this forum. They are reminded of those meanings at each lodge meeting.

I do not believe that the current temple ritual, outside of those portions making direct reference to scripture such as the washings and anointing, has any connection to antiquity, neither does Freemasonry which originated with mediaeval craft guilds.

To suggest otherwise creates a serious problem. For if the endowment ritual was in fact an restored ritual from antiquity as some would like to suggest; then one if forced to explain the constant modification made to it over time. With in my lifetime there have been two major and several minor changes to the endowment. The endowment ritual changes to meet the needs of modern members. Members in the 19th century, accustomed as they were to Masonry and its traditions, used an endowment ritual far more infused with material from Masonry. Members in the 21st century, not accustomed to such rituals need, and in fact have, an endowment ritual with less of these elements. The temple endowment is there to educate and enlighten the members not the other way around.

So while there is similarity between the two the meaning and reason for the sign and tokens is very different. In Masonry they remind us of our obligations to our fellow men. In the endowment they serve to remind us of our obligations to God and Christ. Masonry is a nice thing, the endowment is an essential thing.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to contact me privately should you so wish.

Greg Kearney

gkearney@gmail.com

[HiJolly]

Yeah, I know. I'm a tool of Satan.

Satan = goad

Christ = carrot

people = donkeys

Both the goad and the carrot are motivators, and lead to learning.

And thus you see MY apostacy. *

HiJolly

* fortunately, my apostacy allows me full fellowship with the Saints.

[John Williams]

Satan = goad

Christ = carrot

people = donkeys

Both the goad and the carrot are motivators, and lead to learning.

And thus you see MY apostacy. *

HiJolly

* fortunately, my apostacy allow me full fellowship with the Saints.

Well, technically, so does mine. I haven't been brought before a disciplinary council. Maybe I should be.

[HiJolly]

Well, technically, so does mine. I haven't been brought before a disciplinary council. Maybe I should be.

Gee, I've got a whole SLEW of options in this response, can I handle it??!!?

I think I'll pass. You sound like a reasonable guy to me, John.

HiJolly

[Baurak Ale]

John,

Just because he knew masons does not mean that he knew their ordinances. Especially when masons weren't aloud to speak about them.

Hmm. . . dunno about that one. I think its very well within the boundaries of possibility that Joseph Smith could of known the masonic rituals before he was initiated. Joseph Smith easily one the love of people and many many people would of laid down their lives for him at the drop of a hat. So when it comes to devulging to him the contents of secret rituals to Joseph Smith I think the majority of people wouldn't of thought twice if asked by him. Anyhow I don't think this should be discounted as a possibility. Brigham Young was not an initiated Royal Arch Freemason, however he was in possession of Royal Arch secret cipher code and perfectly understood how to use it and did so.

Actually I do not think, hmm. . . I am quiet certain there is not a single masonic sign or grip that is precisely exactly the same as found in the endowment. Although I could be wrong that is just from thinking about it off the top of my head.

[HiJolly]

Hmm. . . dunno about that one. I think its very well within the boundaries of possibility that Joseph Smith could of known the masonic rituals before he was initiated.

I agree with that. Relax, Matt -- just my opinion.

<snip> Brigham Young was not an initiated Royal Arch Freemason, however he was in possession of Royal Arch secret cipher code and perfectly understood how to use it and did so.

LoL. Yes, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall when the Fraters in Quincy opened and read that one!

Actually I do not think, hmm. . . I am quiet certain there is not a single masonic sign or grip that is precisely exactly the same as found in the endowment. Although I could be wrong that is just from thinking about it off the top of my head.

Close enough only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades, eh? I wouldn't know, not being a Mason myself...

HiJolly

[Aquilifer]

As anyone who has read anything I have written on this issue knows, I draw a distinction between the ritual, the presentation of the endowment, and the endowment itself. The endowment, what is taught in the temple is revelatory in nature. The ritual, how the endowment is presented, is in some instances Masonic in nature. That said the meanings and names of the signs and tokens differ between the endowment and Masonry.

Thanks for eloquently stating what I was clumsily proposing.

Well, that's always been my position. I believe it's the most reasonable explanation. Maybe that erroneous belief is what led to my apostasy.

Oh, dear! It seems I'm following you then!

[The_Monk]

I do not believe that the current temple ritual, outside of those portions making direct reference to scripture such as the washings and anointing, has any connection to antiquity, neither does Freemasonry which originated with mediaeval craft guilds.

This I disagree with. My position is somewhere between that of GKearney and Helorum.

For if the endowment ritual was in fact an restored ritual from antiquity as some would like to suggest; then one if forced to explain the constant modification made to it over time.

Not necessarily so. If I understand Greg to be saying that the Endowment ritual as an organic whole is identical to something in the past, then I agree with him. This point has already been made, namely that you can't copy something, modify it, and claim it is the same as the original.

However, if Greg is saying that nothing save the initiatory is restored, then I flatly disagree. I see the endowment as a collection of elements that have been arranged and structured in a certain way. That arrangement is subject to modification. Individual elements may be ancient, but the English is clearly not and the arrangement is also different. (See the blog post already linked to once.)

This is no different than my wife borrowing a recipe from someone, cooking it once, and then rearranging or modifying the amount of ingredients, or substituting walnuts for pecans. Is it the exact same recipe? No. Is every ingredient of equal value? No. Are all the important elements of the recipe there? Yes, simply arranged differently. An imperfect metaphor, but an accurate one, IMO.

[oMtonic]

I'm liking Mr. Monk's approach the best; I think it's the most reasonable and sensible. Of course, while I haven't read a plethora of material on this topic, I've read around a bit and talked to different people about it.

I've read some things on FAIR by Greg Kearney and have listened to a podcast that features him as a guest in which he basically reiterates the content of his FAIR presentation. At the same time, I've read things from FARMS including articles by Matthew Brown (heh). Additionally, I ordered The Gate of Heaven back on August 2nd, but it's been back-ordered and I still don't have it yet ( @ Deseret Book). I also recently received Nibley's Joseph Smith Papyri book for my birthday, but haven't had time to read it yet. Kevin Christensen pointed out to me that the appendices are useful in this area of discussion.

I think this thread will continue to be very instructive.