Temple Talk Guidelines

[Tarski]

I looked at the section of the board guidelines titled "Topics We Don't Allow"

I found no mention of "temple content" though I know full well that there must be some rules (implicit or explicit).

I probably missed something since I haven't been around for a while. If so--well, sorry.

Disclosure: I have been though the temple but have not attended since about 1987.

Every now and then I think I want to say something tangentially related to the temple ceremonies that I think would be safe, or should be safe. But frankly, I don't dare. I think this merits careful and cautious discussion in both the context of this board and in the context of discussion with folks in our personal lives who have not been through the temple endowment ceremonies.

My initial guesses about what is safe:

1) Nonsepecific acknowledgement that such ceremonies exist.

2) That ceremonies have changed some in content. (no specifics)

3) That people have differing emotional and spiritual reactions upon first

"going though" the temple ceremonies.

4) That covenants are made.

My guesses about what must be avoided:

1) Discussion of specific content, specific phrases, specific images etc.

2) Overt mocking.

3) Directions or links to material that reveal content.

Some areas I am not sure of-- although I think they ought to be allowed:

1) Content-nonspecific acknowledgement of possible non-LDS influences and sources of temple material.

2) Joseph Smith's membership in organizations that may have infuence temple content.

3) Content-nonspecific descriptions of personal reaction to temple ceremonies ("My first experience with the temple made me feel as if I were....." or "felt wonderful" or "I felt uncomfortable".)

4) Reference to intuitively uncontroversial or nonthreatening facts about seating arrangements, colors, decor, or the existence or nonexistence of a temple movie, an alter, special prayers, celestial room etc.

How far off am I?

What informal guildelines can be suggested? What advice concerning matters of taste and respectful presentation of concerns can we give each other? Is there a respectful way to convey the mere fact one sometimes does not internally feel respect for the ceremony or at least that one has a less than fully complimentary view of some aspects of LDS temple rituals and traditions or the significance or truth of the latter. (respectful dissent from faithful veiws about the temple).

What counts as "specific"? How specific exactly? Is there a grey area? Can one carefully use generic nonspecific words such as "sign", "symbol", "token", "covenant", "gesture", "ceremonial dress", etc. Does the previous sentence itself risk violating implicit rules? (I hope not since I am trying to be careful while getting at nontrivial concerns).

Edited October 9, 2011 by Tarski

[thesometimesaint]

Essentially correct. We are under commandment not to discuss certain elements of the Temple Ceremony outside of the Temple. Though LDS do trend on the side of caution. Most of the time it is a good thing when in public, but it does limit the correction of wrong ideas about it in the non-LDS.

[Mike Reed]

I've mentioned the existance of signs/tokens/names in the endowment, and that the ceremony utilizes the narrative of Adam's fall and redemption. I've alluded to other details--by citing Isaiah 22:24, for example; and listed masonic parallels, without quoting from or citing specifics of the endowment itself. It is a fine line to walk, on this forum. Depending on the day, some moderators may be more uncomfortable than others... especially if disrespectful tone colors the discussion.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Nemesis]

From the board guidelines

This is not a free speech board. It's a respectful speech board. We want participation from LDS and non-LDS people. Mocking LDS beliefs will drive away LDS members. This means:

• Do not use offensive terms for things we hold sacred.
  
• Do not post temple content or links to temple content.

We leave it open to mod interpretation of what that means.

Depending on the day, some moderators may be more uncomfortable than others... especially if disrespectful tone colors the discussion.

Also I thought I would add it really depends on the tone and whats being discussed.

Nemesis

[thesometimesaint]

Mike Reed:

The biggest problems I have with trying to use the Masonic rituals as a proof text in the ceremony in LDS Temples is that the basics of the Temple ceremony were in place before JS was a Mason. Plus JS took so little of the Masonic, and added in his own definitions/understandings of that remainder. Plus we do have members here that are both. They say that there really is no connection.

Edited October 9, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

They say that there really is no connection.

Not sure what you mean by "no connection".

For example,

• 
  

  • the use of a ritual drama—the story of Hiram Abiff is used by the Masons, while the LDS endowment uses the story of Adam and Eve and the creation (the LDS versions have parallels to ancient Israelite temple worship).
    
  • some similar hand actions in the course of the rituals (the LDS versions having distinct parallels to ancient Israelite temple worship and early Christian usage).
    

  http://en.fairmormon.org/Temple_endowment_and_Freemasonry
  

also

In order to understand the relationship between the temple endowment and Freemasonry it is useful to consider the temple experience. In the temple, participants are confronted with ritual in a form which is unknown in LDS worship outside of that venue. In the view of some individuals the temple endowment is made up of two parts:

1. The teachings of the endowment, i.e., the doctrines taught and the covenants made with God.
   
2. The method of presenting the endowment, or the "ritual" mechanics themselves.
   

It is in the ritual presentation of the endowment teachings and covenants that the similarities between the LDS temple worship and Freemasonry are the most apparent. The question is, why would this be the case?

[thesometimesaint]

That's what they say. I have no reason to doubt their word.

[Calm]

That's what they say. I have no reason to doubt their word.

FAIR materials were written by several LDS Masons, so it would be interesting to see what your friends mean when they say "no connection".

[thesometimesaint]

Unless and until they respond. I just have to take them at their word.

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed:

The biggest problems I have with trying to use the Masonic rituals as a proof text in the ceremony in LDS Temples is that the basics of the Temple ceremony were in place before JS was a Mason.

Details of freemasonry were already widely dispersed prior to that time. Especially in upstate New York, which was the hot-bed of anti-masonry. Besides, Joseph's family members and friends were members long before Joseph was. Joseph Smith even had Lucinda Morgan as a polygamous wife. As you should know, Lucinda was the widow of William Morgan. Moreover, both WW Phelps and George W. Harris, worked in the anti-Masonic party with David Bernard and John G. Stearns, to expose freemasonry to the world. You should check out David Bernard's Light on Masonry, and see how many times you can find Phelp and Harris' names listed in it. Phelps even had his own anti-Masonic newspaper, the Ontario Phoenix.

Plus JS took so little of the Masonic, and added in his own definitions/understandings of that remainder.

I don't agree. I don't think you are aware of the various movements happening in freemasonry during the Jacksonian era.

Plus we do have members here that are both. They say that there really is no connection.

And they are basing such conclusions primarily upon their understanding of 20th-21st century Masonry. But if you research freemasonry of the Jacksonian era, and the various movements happening at the time... you get an entirely different picture. I recommend you study Hermetic masonry, as well as the Christianization movement. I presented a paper on the Christianization of Freemasonry at both Sunstone and MHA earlier this year. I think recordings of my presentation are available for purchase.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[thesometimesaint]

Mike Reed:

I've never said there weren't influences. In fact I think there were. But it is just too far a stretch from admitting influences to claiming prooftext for me. .

I've never had a big desire to be a Mason, but I have nothing against them either. I must of necessity leave it up to members of the Church who are also Masons to explain their beliefs.

Edited October 9, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Mike Reed]

the use of a ritual drama—the story of Hiram Abiff is used by the Masons, while the LDS endowment uses the story of Adam and Eve and the creation (the LDS versions have parallels to ancient Israelite temple worship).

I argue in my Sunstone and MHA presentations that claims (such as this) are misleading, and don't take into account the Christianization movement that emerged shortly after the American Revolution and culminated in Joseph Smith's day. For what it is worth, Michael W. Homer (a Mormon Mason who has published some of the best material on the subject) was the session’s respondent, and said I "nailed it."

I plan to write my dissertation on the "Christianization of Freemasonry." I am also working closely with George Miller (a Mormon Mason who participates on this forum now and again), and we plan to publish a series of articles together. He's got a wealth of knowledge and material on the subject.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Calm]

I argue in my Sunstone and MHA presentations that claims (such as this) are misleading...

Which part?

[Mike Reed]

I must of necessity leave it up to members of the Church who are also Masons to explain their beliefs.

You don't need to rely on them. The exposes have been published, as have countless pro-Masonic 19th century sources. You can access many of these and read them yourself via googlebooks. You can also read the following material from credible Historians:

Stephen C. Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of American Social Order 1730-1840

Mark C. Carnes, Secret Ritual and Manhood in Victorian America

Henrik Bogdan, Western Esotericism and Rituals of Initiation

David Harrison, The Genesis of Freemasonry

Dorothy Lipson, Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut

David Bernard, Light on Masonry, ed. Arturo De Hoyos

(David Bernard's Light on Masonry is a good primary source, since it is an expose of early 19th century Masonry. I recommend this edition as a good secondary source, since it has a huge introduction written by Arturo De Hoyos.)

Edited October 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

Which part?

The narrative of Adam's fall and redemption is not distinct from freemasonry, as is insinuated by LDS apologists. Masons like Salem Town interpreted masonic ritual in ways that have strong parallels with the LDS endowment. I argue that Joseph Smith, by placing the endowment in such a narrative, essentially participated in the Christianization movement that had culminated in his day.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Calm]

You don't need to rely on them.

There is however a distinct difference in reading about them or even viewing 'snapshots' and participating in the complete process. I don't think someone is ever going to get the whole picture of either Freemasonry or the Temple simply through research.

[Mike Reed]

There is however a distinct difference in reading about them or even viewing 'snapshots' and participating in the complete process.

Salem Town was very detailed in his interpretation of Masonic ritual, as were other 19th century masons and anti-Masons. Besides, I am quite familiar with the endowment, having gone through myself several times. My associate George Miller is personally familiar with both. Granted, we have not "experienced" 19th century Masonry, or the early Nauvoo endowment. But neither have LDS apologists. The question is, whose conclusions are best supported by available "snapshots" (historical data)? Who has done the rigorous research, and applied appropriate historical methods, to arrive at the best conclusions?

Like I said, the apologetic distinction quoted is misleading and false, and does not take into account the Masonic Christianization movement that culminated in Joseph's day. "Snapshots" are sufficient to invalidate the apologetic distinction.

Stay tuned for published material to come, authored by George Oliver (pseud) and I. Michael W. Homer also has a book in the works.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

I enjoyed this thread, but I've gotta get back to my cave/homework, and study American Transcendentalism.

[mfbukowski]

Salem Town was very detailed in his interpretation of Masonic ritual, as were other 19th century masons and anti-Masons. Besides, I am quite familiar with the endowment, having gone through myself several times. My associate George Miller is personally familiar with both. Granted, we have not "experienced" 19th century Masonry, or the early Nauvoo endowment. But neither have LDS apologists. The question is, whose conclusions are best supported by available "snapshots" (historical data)? Who has done the rigorous research, and applied appropriate historical methods, to arrive at the best conclusions?

Like I said, the apologetic distinction quoted is misleading and false, and does not take into account the Masonic Christianization movement that culminated in Joseph's day. "Snapshots" are sufficient to invalidate the apologetic distinction.

Stay tuned for published material to come, authored by George Oliver (pseud) and I. Michael W. Homer also has a book in the works.

Mike, as you know, we have discussed this before both publicly and privately.

The main objection that I have is that whether or not Joseph borrowed from Masonry is not in any way a doctrinal "gotcha" for church critics- and the main evidence I see for this is that ALL the early leaders of the church were themselves Masons and yet acknowledged the Endowment to be what it is, and that its source was inspired.

If those who were closest to Joseph and fellow members of his masonic lodge acknowledged the spiritual validity of the Endowment, and in fact passed it on to later generations, I don't think any of us are in a position to criticize their understanding of Joseph as a prophet and his restoration of the Endowment.

They were first hand witnesses to its development and sources, had the same associates Joseph did in their lodge etc, and they STILL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ENDOWMENT WAS FROM GOD.

If that's what they believed, I think there are no historical grounds which can be discovered which would contradict their testimonies of the endowment.

It is a bit like contradicting the testimonies of the apostles of Christ's resurrection on historical grounds. But here the history is much clearer. There can be no doubt that Brigham Young for example, did not oppose the endowment because of its "masonic origins", and he was about as aware of Joseph's masonic activity as anyone.

Such an argument would have never even occurred to him.

Furthermore, just let me say that "several" trips "through the temple" is not even remotely enough to say that one has an inkling of what riches lie there; in my opinion, one has to virtually have the endowment memorized before one can start to see the relationships between different "layers" of meaning which do not present themselves symbolically until one compares the symbolic meanings "vertically" in time rather than in a linear fashion.

If the temple ceremonies were conceived as concentric rings, one would have to rotate those rings to make different sections align to see how they relate to each other vertically as it were- how the rings line up with one another.

Because that cannot be done unless one has each "ring" memorized- and since one must attend many many times to achieve that- it is not surprising that an ordinance worker's testimony of the endowment is quite different from one who has been "through several times".

I regard you as a friend, and did not mean that personally in any way, I just thought it was necessary to say that.

[mfbukowski]

How far off am I?

Well I myself have been known to make the mods uncomfortable on this topic, but I think you are right on the money.

[J Green]

The mythology of early Israel appears to have borrowed heavily from a Canaanite framework, as did their temple construction patterns. The Day of Atonement Ceremony (Lev 16), possibly the most significant temple ritual among ancient Israel, was likely influenced heavily by the Mesopotamian Akitu festival. And so on. And yet from a spiritual perspective I believe these ideas and rituals had divine approval and were salvific for the communities involved. So from a gospel standpoint, I'm not sure I care what percentage of the endowment is inspired by hermetic masonry (although I admit it does pique my academic interest), just as I don't necessarily think about all the borrowed hymns I'm singing in an LDS context when I'm worshipping with my family at our LDS chapel in West Jordan on Sundays. What matters to me is if in that worship itself I feel a divine connection and approval of my worship. Do I feel that through the endowment ceremony I make actual covenants that God approves? I do. That is what is important to me.

[Senator]

I have felt that most LDS are a bit hyper sensitive to temple confidentiality.

After all, there are but a few items, signs, tokens and names, in which we are instructed not to reveal.

I find it ironic that at one point in the temple drama, a sign and token is displayed......in front of Lucifer, no less!

Edited October 10, 2011 by Senator

[HiJolly]

Mike Reed:

The biggest problems I have with trying to use the Masonic rituals as a proof text in the ceremony in LDS Temples is that the basics of the Temple ceremony were in place before JS was a Mason. Plus JS took so little of the Masonic, and added in his own definitions/understandings of that remainder. Plus we do have members here that are both. They say that there really is no connection.

I wouldn't say that. I do agree that contextualization makes a big difference, though.

This is video is awesome:

HiJolly

[Calm]

I have felt that most LDS are a bit hyper sensitive to temple confidentiality.

When it comes to the internet, for me it is less about confidentiality and more about maintaining the proper spirit when speaking of the temple. I find that impossible to do in the usual critical atmosphere, even if conversation is limited to purely analytical without negative commentary, something is missing for me. I prefer to surround my temple experience with sacred space, both literally and figuratively and that entails limiting encounters to only those who are willing to take off their shoes because they recognize they are treading on holy ground.

Edited October 10, 2011 by calmoriah

[Senator]

When it comes to the internet, for me it is less about confidentiality and more about maintaining the proper spirit when speaking of the temple. I find that impossible to do in the usual critical atmosphere, even if conversation is limited to purely analytical without negative commentary, something is missing for me. I prefer to surround my temple experience with sacred space, both literally and figuratively and that entails limiting encounters to only those who are willing to take off their shoes because they recognize they are treading on holy ground.

I would agree with you when we're speaking of internet communications. However, even among those who "recognize they are treading on holy ground", and speaking face to face, seem to be overly skittish. Even in the temple I have had individuals look around and ask, "can we say this?"

Edited October 10, 2011 by Senator