Temple Talk Guidelines

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Doesn't have anything to do with feeling uncomfortable. I'm a history major myself. It's a matter of recognizing the epistemological limitations of historiography. You simply cannot know what was going on in Joseph's mind based merely on what has survived of his cultural environment, regardless of how rigorous you've judged your reconstruction of his subjective lenses to be. In the end you appeal to the mere "probability" of certain claims being more likely than others, but unless you can somehow know what you don't know, "probability" is nothing more than an physics-envy-tinged reformulation of your own preexisting faith. *shrug*

[Bill Hamblin]

I basically agree that everything didn't come from Masonry, but "sufficient" sounds like we need parallels (either ancient or modern) for everything. We don't. There is no requirement to do so. You are also downplaying the similarities. Earlier publications of the endowment show similar wording that was later deleted and finally removed altogether.

I don't say you need evidence for everything; but you do need evidence for what you claim as a parallel. The more dependence on Masonry you claim, the more evidence you need.

But you are still not getting the point. I am not downplaying the similarities. I am simply observing that the similarities are in form, not in meaning.

Take the gesture of a salute, for example. Is it a knight raising a visor? An recognition of someone's higher rank? Honor for a symbol of our nation? A sign of respect for the dead? A way goodbye? A shading of the eyes? A boy scout gesture? It's all of those. It's meaning depends on its context. Although some of the symbolic gestures may be similar, they have completely different meaning in Masonry vs. the Endowment.

All one needs to do is read the Masonic three degrees to get a very quick grasp that it has very little to do with the Endowment, besides parallels with some symbolic gestures.

Absolutely and without question, far more significant sources for the Endowment is the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham.

[Mike Reed]

I really like Mike's quilt metaphor.

It reminds me of years ago when my grandmother cut up a bunch of my Dad's old suits and made quilt for me. Clearly, the cloth from the suits once served one purpose (to comprise several suite), but later served a different purpose (comprise a quilt). The pieces of cloth, like symbols if you will, were shared in common between the suits and the quilt, but the purposes or meaning of the cloth/symbols were quite different.

Was my Grandmother's quilt plagiarized from my Dad's suits? I don't think so--certainly not in terms of the critical matter of purpose or meaning. Quilts are not suits.

To me, the same is true of Free-Masonry and LDS temple rituals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think anyone has argued that the "quilt" is equal to the sum of its parts/sources.

[Bill Hamblin]

Just between you and me, I missed that post of Hamblin's that used that argument, and didn't see it until after I posted- we were just on the same wavelength. But I have no problem "playing off" his arguments- I happen to think he is a very smart guy. And with my ego, that's saying something. Most historians, as you demonstrate, are not even acquainted with my field, but clearly he is quite knowledgeable in philosophy, as is Dan Peterson. I would be honored to help amplify any point he raises. (Yes I am shamelessly kissing up to Hamblin)

Aw, shucks!

[Bernard Gui]

I had a thread a while ago with a text which spoke of Christs. Decent through the heavens and then his ascent back up to God glorified and how he had to have passwords to get between the last 4 levels.

Heres the link:

http://www.mormondia...__fromsearch__1

But this sort of thing is so generalized it is meaningless to bring it up in a discussion of the LDS endowment.

Bernard

[Bill Hamblin]

There are means for determining materials used. The same for determining sources of "patterns" used to piece materials together. The same for determining "lenses" through which certain materials and patterns are perceived/interpreted by the maker. The rigorous use of proper historical methods can (and do) do this for us, with great success, using empirical data.

Aye, there's the rub.

I await your paper so we can evaluate your rigor and appropriateness of your methods.

[Bernard Gui]

QUmran is one example. Another is R. Elimelech of Lizhensk who considered eating a religious duty of vital importance, as it separates the holly essence of food from its outer husks. These must be immediately discarded by defecation in order to get rid of impure elements. Doing this will bring about a union above between the forces represented by the name YHWH and those represented by Shadday.

Yet while the goblins in Discworld preserve earwax, finger- and toenail clippings, and snot in Unggue Pots (as part of their religion of the Unggue, whose central tenet is that anything expelled from a goblin's body was clearly once part of them and should be treated with reverence and stored properly so that it can be entombed with its owner until the resurrection in the fulness of time), they consider water as not Unggue, because it passes through the body without any apparent change (when compared with the water that already exists in their underground lairs), and they consider the product of defecation to be only food that has undergone a simple change of state, not worthy of preservation. Goblins craft their Unggue Pots carefully from precious materials. Theft of Unggue Pots by humans has caused serious problems. (Terry Pratchett, Snuff, 2011)

Bernard

Edited October 13, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Zakuska]

My sarcasm got me again. Sorry. No, I think it is highly relevant to the discussion. Thanks. I was being sarcastic. Clearly this is NOT masonic and clearly there are many many parallels here, it is an ancient Jewish source, it is relevant to Isaiah being in the BOM, etc.

It discusses what you have mentioned, as well as being "raised" to different degrees by being taken by the hand, receiving garments, and many other parallels, and those parallels have been recognized repeatedly by LDS scholars.

Clearly it is relevant to the discussion!

well you did put a Emoticon in the post and I should have picked up on that.

[Mike Reed]

delete

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

Doesn't have anything to do with feeling uncomfortable. I'm a history major myself. It's a matter of recognizing the epistemological limitations of historiography. You simply cannot know what was going on in Joseph's mind based merely on what has survived of his cultural environment, regardless of how rigorous you've judged your reconstruction of his subjective lenses to be. In the end you appeal to the mere "probability" of certain claims being more likely than others, but unless you can somehow know what you don't know, "probability" is nothing more than an physics-envy-tinged reformulation of your own preexisting faith. *shrug*

[Mike Reed]

I think I understand you now, Jeremy. Seems we were talking past each other. When I said "of course," I was speaking in regards to whether or not my position makes allowance for Joseph to modify the masonic materials, whatever the purpose for doing so may have been--"Joseph's needs" or otherwise (needs of the Church, logical flow, theological conformity, inspiration?, etc.). In other words, by saying "of course," I wasn't saying it was self evident. I was saying that I myself grant the possibility, and would infact expect it to have happened. And again... I wasn't meaning to deny that changes could have happened through inspiration. Even though I may not believe it, I intended to leave that possibility open with the phrase "creative freedom"... but I guess saying "Joseph's needs" obscured my remarks. Hope you understand me better now.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mike Reed

[LeSellers]

Trees with lights and decorations:

Druidic (and related) religions: representation of gods or places of worship

Christmas tree

Swastikas:

Hindu symbol for good fortune

NAZI symbol for the racially pure state

Serpents:

Adam in the Garden: Symbol of Satan:

Moses in the wilderness: Symbol of Christ

Spring bunnies and chicks:

Fertility

Resurrection

The list of symbols that have undergone significant changes from one culture to another is almost endless. They are both religious and secular, spiritual and mundane. They have switched from one set of categories to another as situations warrant.

Luther took the symbol of the return of light (a tree with lights, etc.) and turned it into a symbol of Christ. Why could Joseph not have done something similar with the Masonic ritual?

I am not totally convinced that the Masonic orders were anything other than an apostate version of the original Temple Endowment, with a lot, an awful lot, of additional material as well as much that was lost entirely. God, when He needed to have Joseph restore this critical ordinance, sent him to the Masons (maybe Joseph was reluctant or too busy, or not interested enough to go on his own earlier—could we have had the Endowment a decode sooner?—maybe Joseph himself wasn't ready until 1842) and Joseph saw the basic structure of the ritual, and then, with the guidance of the Holy Ghost, he was able to receive the details.

I am convinced that Joseph "imported" too much—at least that what he recorded and implemented was more than necessary for the Endowment as an ordinance.

That aside, we must constantly remind ourselves of something state much earlier in this topic: there are two distinct parts to the ordinance: the endowment itself, and the presentation of the Endowment. It is conceivable that the Endowment could be presented in a very much different way, as long as the "Gift" (literally what "endowment" means) is intact. The Presentation of the Endowment is an instructional tool for serious parts of the gospel of Jesus Christ that are difficult to teach (and receive) in less structured environments. Much of what we learn in the Temple may (and I believe does) not form part of the Endowment ordinance itself.The Presentation gives us a structure on which to "hang" the essential elements of the ordinance in order for us to remember it more easily.

I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to determine which parts are :essential" and which instructional. Even if I were 100% certain my insights were correct, I remain convinced that the effort to resolve the question is an extremely important element of the process of being truly endowed.

Lehi

[wenglund]

I don't think anyone has argued that the "quilt" is equal to the sum of its parts/sources.

Perhaps. However, I don't see your arguments considering the parts in relation to their respective sums. In other words, I don't see your arguments rightly considering the parts within the respective contexts of the metaphoric "quilt" and "suits"?

That may be the problem. The parts of my quilt, while the same as the parts of my Dad's former suits, serve a different purpose and have a different meaning than they did as parts of my Dad's suits.

This, to me, is significant, and the salient point that Bill Hamblin has been trying to get across. The context of Masonry is different from the context of the Endowment. So, whatever parts these two ritualistic entities may have in common, those parts have different purposes and/or meanings, and are thus different in meaningful ways.

Does this compute?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 13, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

...the endowment itself, and the presentation of the Endowment. It is conceivable that the Endowment could be presented in a very much different way, as long as the "Gift" (literally what "endowment" means) is intact. The Presentation of the Endowment is an instructional tool for serious parts of the gospel of Jesus Christ that are difficult to teach (and receive) in less structured environments. Much of what we learn in the Temple may (and I believe does) not form part of the Endowment ordinance itself.The Presentation gives us a structure on which to "hang" the essential elements of the ordinance in order for us to remember it more easily.

To me, the Endowment includes being endowed with given knowledge. So, to my way of thinking, the Endowment and the presentation are one and the same.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike Reed]

This, to me, is significant, and the salient point that Bill Hamblin has been trying to get across. The context of Masonry is different from the context of the Endowment.

The narrative context? No. At least, not in any meaningful way that I can think of. Each time Hamblin tries to make a meaningful distinction, he fails. He cites the Book of Abraham as being such a huge influence, for example... without realizing that the seemingly uniqueness of the Book of Abraham was actually developed using masonic sources and masonic interpretative lenses (see nackhadlow's post below). The papyrus facsimiles, as someone else alluded to earlier, were also interpreted through a masonic lens. There is so so much to support these conclusions... but sadly, George and I cannot do so here. Most of what we post are indeed assertions, but these assertions are backed up by a great deal of evidence that will be published... hopefully sooner than later.

So, whatever parts these two ritualistic entities may have in common, those parts have different purposes and/or meanings, and are thus different in meaningful ways.

The meanings were more similar than different. Joseph's interpretation was quite consistent with those found in the masonic Christianization movement. Joseph Smith may have perceived it a step further, by degree. But not so much in kind. He believed he was providing higher "Celestialized" degrees. And so Mormons became Masons first, since it was assumed that the blue lodge degrees were preparatory to the higher degrees of the Nauvoo endowment.

My quilt analogy doesn't fit perfectly, since Joseph Smith not only used materials from freemasonry. But also Patterns and lenses. Granted, lenses were tinted by previously established doctrines... and Patters were modified according to his and the Church's needs. But what Joseph Smith did was take a step further in the Christianization Movement.

All of this is hard to put into words. Our position should be more clear and evident in our publications to come.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mike Reed

[David T]

Absolutely and without question, far more significant sources for the Endowment is the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham.

And it is highly arguable that some of the key narrative context, language, interpretation, and elements in both of those were influenced by the concepts popularized and very specifically laid out in Antiquities of Freemasonry (1823), which speaks of Adam having the Christian gospel: the pure religion known as LIGHT, being granted signs, tokens and landmarks to mark one's orientation to the path of Truth, God organizing and not creating ex nihilo, Cain leading out a spurious form of the true religion, which culminated in the counterfeit egyptian Order. The primacy of the Enochian Order, and the knowledge a new Revelation or Restoration of ancient religion occurs regularly as the culmination of a Temple to the True God being built. Just as the building of the Temple of Solomon resulted in the restoration of the Ancient Rite, so would a modern construction of a True Temple result in the restoration of the Key of Knowledge. Hiram Abiff is but a footnote in the text, being assumed that all reading are generally and perhaps explicitly familiar with his story.

Reading that text blew my mind. You don't have to go searching for parallels there. I see the narrative presented there a potentially very powerful framework for understanding specific cultural assumptions, questions, and interpretive reasoning behind many of the directions Joseph headed in. I think ignoring such a thing is highly unwise, just as much as it would be unwise to say that of course everything came from it.

[Mike Reed]

And it is highly arguable that some of the key narrative context, language, interpretation, and elements in both of those were influenced by the concepts popularized and very specifically laid out in Antiquities of Freemasonry (1823), which speaks of Adam having the Christian gospel: the pure religion known as LIGHT, being granted signs, tokens and landmarks to mark one's orientation to the path of Truth, God organizing and not creating ex nihilo, Cain leading out a spurious form of the true religion, which culminated in the counterfeit egyptian Order. The primacy of the Enochian Order, and the knowledge a new Revelation or Restoration of ancient religion occurs regularly as the culmination of a Temple to the True God being built. Just as the building of the Temple of Solomon resulted in the restoration of the Ancient Rite, so would a modern construction of a True Temple result in the restoration of the Key of Knowledge. Hiram Abiff is but a footnote in the text, being assumed that all reading are generally and perhaps explicitly familiar with his story.

Reading that text blew my mind. You don't have to go searching for parallels there. I see the narrative presented there a potentially very powerful framework for understanding specific cultural assumptions, questions, and interpretive reasoning behind many of the directions Joseph headed in. I think ignoring such a thing is highly unwise, just as much as it would be unwise to say that of course everything came from it.

Was it George Miller who directed you to George Oliver's Antiquities of Freemasonry? If so, be careful not to steal too much of his thunder.

Edit to add: George Oliver and Salem Town were the two great leaders of the Christianization movement in Joseph Smith's day. George Oliver cites Salem Town quite a bit in his works.

--

--

Now I really have to go. Bye all. (double stamp it, no erasies)

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mike Reed

[David T]

Mike:

No, not directly. However, my own observations and questions from that text (as noted above) did lead me to becoming more aware of and familiar with George Miller's usage of some of that material. Don't worry. There's plenty, plenty, plenty more that could have been said that I didn't out of respect for George's far more in depth work and upcoming and updated analyses.

[Mike Reed]

Mike:

No, not directly. However, my own observations and questions from that text (as noted above) did lead me to becoming more aware of and familiar with George Miller's usage of some of that material. Don't worry. There's plenty, plenty, plenty more that could have been said that I didn't out of respect for George's far more in depth work and upcoming and updated analyses.

It is fascinating stuff.

[Zakuska]

Trees with lights and decorations:

Druidic (and related) religions: representation of gods or places of worship

Christmas tree

Swastikas:

Hindu symbol for good fortune

NAZI symbol for the racially pure state

Serpents:

Adam in the Garden: Symbol of Satan:

Moses in the wilderness: Symbol of Christ

Spring bunnies and chicks:

Fertility

Resurrection

The list of symbols that have undergone significant changes from one culture to another is almost endless. They are both religious and secular, spiritual and mundane. They have switched from one set of categories to another as situations warrant.

Speaking of snakes... and swasticas... Ancient Aliens last night had some information on the Sumarian creation myths I was not aware of that were fascinating.

The Brotherhood of the Snake.

http://www.bibliotec...erhoodsnake.htm

Edited October 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[Saints Alive]

Wow! i cant believe there are 16 pages discussing appropriate temple talk guidelines

[LeSellers]

Wow! i cant believe there are 16 pages discussing appropriate temple talk guidelines

To be fair, we haven't talked about "appropriate guidelines" for a very long time.

Lehi

[Senator]

It is fascinating stuff.

It is indeed.

The scenario that is forming in my mind (which obviously is not novel, but it is to me) is that with the proposed demonstration of a high degree of parallels or borrowings of freemasonry in the endowment, that, from a believers standpoint, freemasonry must be viewed as a surviving, yet tainted relic of an ancient, divine ordinance.

The significance of JS's restoration of the endowment, lies not merely in the reorganizing and repolishing of its puzzle pieces, but in returning the ordinance to its rightful place, which is, at the very pinnacle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it having become detached. (perhaps due to its esoteric nature)

Edited October 13, 2011 by Senator

[mfbukowski]

It is indeed.

The scenario that is forming in my mind (which obviously is not novel, but it is to me) is that with the proposed demonstration of a high degree of parallels or borrowings of freemasonry in the endowment, that, from a believers standpoint, freemasonry must be viewed as a surviving, yet tainted relic of an ancient, divine ordinance.

The significance of JS's restoration of the endowment, lies not merely in the reorganizing and repolishing of its puzzle pieces, but in returning the ordinance to its rightful place, which is, at the very pinnacle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it having become detached. (perhaps due to its esoteric nature)

Completely agree with this point of view.

[Mike Reed]

It is indeed.

The scenario that is forming in my mind (which obviously is not novel, but it is to me) is that with the proposed demonstration of a high degree of parallels or borrowings of freemasonry in the endowment, that, from a believers standpoint, freemasonry must be viewed as a surviving, yet tainted relic of an ancient, divine ordinance.

The significance of JS's restoration of the endowment, lies not merely in the reorganizing and repolishing of its puzzle pieces, but in returning the ordinance to its rightful place, which is, at the very pinnacle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it having become detached. (perhaps due to its esoteric nature)

Thanks for your remarks, Senator.

I think the following problematic questions would follow:

Where is the pre-existing unified form? The further back I go, the more fractured and independently dispersed endowment elements (which are shared with freemasonry) seem to be found. Why is this? I would certainly not expect the similarities of the Nauvoo endowment to most closely parallel what was found in American freemasonry. The only way out of this (that I can think of), is to assume that dispersed fracturing was pre-historic, and then imagine that the restoration process began with Freemasonry (and their predecessors), and that Joseph Smith completed the process. This of course leads to the question: Well... then why did the endowment change? Why does it continue to change?