Temple Talk Guidelines

[KevinG]

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)

I have heard that position and am somewhat sympathetic to it. There is also the possibility that God revealed things to Joseph and used the symbols from the Masonic rituals as a starting point. Given the refinements to the Temple ordinances through the years I suspect the eternal lessons and meaning we derive from the symbolic ritual is more important than the actual ritual itself.

In fact symbols that were appropriate for a 19th century agrarian society would do a poor job of conveying the same messges today.

[Saints Alive]

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)

Personally I feel the Joseph Smith was called by the Lord (perhaps you might say inspired instead) to create a ceremony outlining the most important aspects of the gospel and to present them in a symbolic manner. He likely borrowed masonic symbols (these would be easily understood by the saints at the time) because within masonry these symbols teach great moral truths. I feel that the symbols we use are no more sacred physically than the bread and water we use for sacrament, it is the meaning we attach to them that is important and eternal. I don't think they symbols themselves or the manner they are presented are.

[David T]

Freemasonry provided a structure, new symbols, and legitimate questions worth asking and exploring.Throughout scriptural history, I find that God often is quite happy to allow us to re-appropriate symbols, words, and actions from existing culture and give then a new meaning. He rarely has us re-invent the wheel, but inspires or overlays a new meaning or purpose to the wheel we already made.

It has more and more become my perspective that we look beyond the mark if we look for an exact restoration to historic usage of words, stories, and ritual actions. What I see being restored - piece by piece - is, through our own present day symbols and experiences, the divine perspective, and the overall meaning of the intended divine message.

I think modern scripture often overlays (translates?) the symbols and words we know and understand over the actual historic symbols, concepts and actions over historic contexts to better teach us today the important practical pattern, rather than to express details of history. I feel God is far less interested in us understanding the details of humanity's historical earthly, societal, and theological origins and development than he is in us actualizing our intended destiny in the here and now.

The purpose of authentic prophets are to warn us of current behaviors, and to show us the direction we need to be headed, and focused. I think God isn't too interested in the details and narrative structure used to get that message across, as long as it does get across. In many cases, I think the details of the prophetic storytelling method form a huge distraction from the actual principles of behavior and action. Although I don't think prophets always necessarily understand that, and can, from time to time, conflate the medium with the message proper, and give the former undue time and weight, leading to the need for some course correction.

The stories are fascinating, those historical, and those ahistorical. But practically, they're just a framework for teaching the lessons the prophets are prompted to get across.

At least that's my perspective on the matter.

Edited October 13, 2011 by nackhadlow

[KevinG]

Well... then why did the endowment change? Why does it continue to change?

See my response to Senator.

The symbolism doesn't contain the message, it helps convey the message.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

A useful perspective: One Eternal Round: The Hermetic Vision

[Saints Alive]

See my response to Senator.

The symbolism doesn't contain the message, it helps convey the message.

that is also basically what i was trying to convey in my response.

[LeSellers]

why did the endowment change? Why does it continue to change?

The Endowment has never changed. The Presentation of the Endowment has changed. It will doubtless continue to change as the needs and capacities of the Saints change.

Lehi

[KevinG]

that is also basically what i was trying to convey in my response.

We were writing at the same time. Your response was good.

[Mike Reed]

See my response to Senator.

The symbolism doesn't contain the message, it helps convey the message.

Modified to your response:

Where is the pre-existing unified message? The further back I go, the more fractured and independently dispersed the message seem to be found. Why is this? I would certainly not expect the similarities of the LDS message to most closely parallel what was found in Joseph's environment. The only way out of this (that I can think of), is to assume that dispersed fracturing of the message was pre-historic, and then imagine that the restoration process began with Joseph's predecessors, and that Joseph Smith completed the process. This of course leads to the question: Well... then why did the message change? Why does it continue to change, and thereby cause the fracturing of the church (into different Mormon denominations). Why did early saints believe that the signs/tokens/passwords were essential to entering into heaven? Why was (and still is) so much emphasis placed on the funtion of these three things, so much so, that they are guarded in secrecy? I think the answer is obvious. Because it wasn't just the message.

[Mike Reed]

The Endowment has never changed. The Presentation of the Endowment has changed. It will doubtless continue to change as the needs and capacities of the Saints change.

Lehi

Nonsense.

[KevinG]

Modified to your response:

Where is the pre-existing unified message? The further back I go, the more fractured and independently dispersed the message seem to be found. Why is this? I would certainly not expect the similarities of the LDS message to most closely parallel what was found in Joseph's environment. The only way out of this (that I can think of), is to assume that dispersed fracturing of the message was pre-historic, and then imagine that the restoration process began with Joseph's predecessors, and that Joseph Smith completed the process. This of course leads to the question: Well... then why did the message change? Why does it continue to change, and thereby cause the fracturing of the church (into different Mormon denominations). Why did early saints believe that the signs/tokens/passwords were essential to entering into heaven? Why was (and still is) so much emphasis placed on the funtion of these three things, so much so, that they are guarded in secrecy? I think the answer is obvious. Because it wasn't just the message.

I'm not out planting mustard. I don't believe Christ requries me to plant mustard to return to Him. But I know what the parable of the Mustard Seed means in terms of my faith in Christ.

I learned the Temple ordinaces by wrote many years ago. I contiunue to learn more about what they mean every time I attend.

That is about all I can say without getting into sacred details that don't belong outside of the House of the Lord.

Edited October 13, 2011 by DaddyG

[Mike Reed]

I'm not out planting mustard. I don't believe Christ requries me to plant mustard to return to Him. But I know what the parable of the Mustard Seed means in terms of my faith in Christ.

I understand the difference between symbols and meaning/the message. Your distinction does not answer the seemingly problematic questions posed.

Dang... I can't continue this thread.

I need a moderator to ban me for a couple days.

Too much distraction keeping me from my homework.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Mike Reed

[KevinG]

Nonsense.

The blessings and covenants are unchanged. The symbols that convey meaning to the Saints and understanding about those blessings and covenants change as needed.

[LeSellers]

Nonsense.

It is most certainly not "nonsense".

The Endowment is not the same thing as the Presentation of the Endowment. If they were the same thing, there would be a very significant difference in the wording of the introduction to the Presentation of the Endowment. As it stands, the wording is there and that wording makes my point.

It is the same thing (or nearly so) as when the wedding ceremony has different words from "I now pronounce you man and wife." If the ceremony must be done using exactly one formula, there would be a very large number of people who only believe they are married. But, since the ceremony is not prescribed, it can take many forms, and the result, the marriage, is the same.

Endowment ≈ marriage

Presentation of the Endowment ≈ wedding ceremony

Lehi

Edited October 13, 2011 by LeSellers

[KevinG]

Two messages.

Luke 13:18 ¶Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I ^aresemble it?

19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and ^awaxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

- - -

Alma 32:36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

- - -

Same eternal meaning.

This could become a stumbling block to those too caught up in the message and not the meaning. Apostacy often comes of those who try to right the arc when there is no need to do so.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

There are more than just parallels with the symbolic gestures of Freemasonry. There is very nearly verbatim borrowing from the version of Masonic ritual published by William Morgan in 1827. The symbolic parts of the Masonic ritual, including the compass and the square, are almost word-for-word what was in the early Nauvoo Endowment ceremony, though the LDS Church has since made changes that reduce the level of similarity.

Obviously, Smith's previous theology developed in Moses and Abraham are part of the Endowment. That is where the Endowment's creation theology came from. However, this does not in any way weaken the fact that the Endowment was directly influenced by Masonic ritual. The original Nauvoo Endowment was a mixture of Masonic ritual and Mormon theology.

[Bill Hamblin]

Nonsense.

Nonsense!

I never realized how easy scholarship was until I tried the Mike Reed Method.

[Bill Hamblin]

There are more than just parallels with the symbolic gestures of Freemasonry. There is very nearly verbatim borrowing from the version of Masonic ritual published by William Morgan in 1827. The symbolic parts of the Masonic ritual, including the compass and the square, are almost word-for-word what was in the early Nauvoo Endowment ceremony, though the LDS Church has since made changes that reduce the level of similarity.

I haven't done calculations, but I suspect that the parallel words with Masonry is certainly much less than 1% of the Endowment, (and far, far less than 1% of the Masonic ritual). And it is associated with a ritual gesture. And, most importantly, it is given an entirely new context and meaning in the Endowment. Like I said.

[mfbukowski]

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?

It's not at all fractured if you look at the way Nibley saw it, or the post Zak made earlier regarding the Ascension of Isaiah, or the Greek evidence Hamblin posted. Same exact tokens there.

Of course you will not look at it that way, because it does not fit your preconceived idea that the church could not possibly be "true", or understand that theological principles cannot be proven or disproven by historical evidence.

It is amazing to me how people will actually leave the church over "historical issues" and then join another church which postulates that some semi-legendary person rose again from the dead, is the Son of God, and somehow by dying, took away our "sins". Christianity as a whole makes no sense whatsoever based on historical evidence. As a former atheist, boy let me tell you, I could go on all day on that one.

If one starts from a preconceived idea that there is no God, then of course, one would see this all as total bunk.

On the other hand, if one has a personal revelation which changes one's life and perspective totally, things look very, very different.

That also accounts for why the endowment changes.

It changes through ongoing revelation to fit the needs of humanity as we change. We are no longer pre-historic nomads, nor do we need to see God as angry and vengeful to understand moral principles.

We have progressed, and will continue to do so. Remember that little doctrine of "eternal progression"? That God progresses as we do ? It's all right there if you choose to see it.

Edited October 13, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nonsense!

I never realized how easy scholarship was until I tried the Mike Reed Method.

Lol, that is too funny.

[mfbukowski]

The Endowment has never changed. The Presentation of the Endowment has changed. It will doubtless continue to change as the needs and capacities of the Saints change.

Lehi

I'll agree to that modification of my post. The endowment is the set of blessings we receive- certainly the presentation changes to communicate better as we change culturally.

Changes have happened as recently as a few years ago- the biggest recent changes were in 1990. All of them have reflected our changing circumstances

[KevinG]

I'll agree to that modification of my post. The endowment is the set of blessings we receive- certainly the presentation changes to communicate better as we change culturally.

Changes have happened as recently as a few years ago- the biggest recent changes were in 1990. All of them have reflected our changing circumstances

Conveying the same eternal message to nomads in 1000BC, Roman Citizens in 32AD, Farmers in 1840AD and Accountants in 1990AD would take some modification to the presentation.

[Bill Hamblin]

There are more than just parallels with the symbolic gestures of Freemasonry. There is very nearly verbatim borrowing from the version of Masonic ritual published by William Morgan in 1827. The symbolic parts of the Masonic ritual, including the compass and the square, are almost word-for-word what was in the early Nauvoo Endowment ceremony, though the LDS Church has since made changes that reduce the level of similarity.

Obviously, Smith's previous theology developed in Moses and Abraham are part of the Endowment. That is where the Endowment's creation theology came from. However, this does not in any way weaken the fact that the Endowment was directly influenced by Masonic ritual. The original Nauvoo Endowment was a mixture of Masonic ritual and Mormon theology.

The really crucial thing to note in regard to this type of claim is that the percentage of the Endowment representing near verbatim quotations from the Bible/Moses/Abraham is many times greater than the small portion that parallels Freemasonry. It's simply no contest whatsoever.

[Bill Hamblin]

Conveying the same eternal message to nomads in 1000BC, Roman Citizens in 32AD, Farmers in 1840AD and Accountants in 1990AD would take some modification to the presentation.

Of course it would be different. We have the Endowment translated into dozens of languages, it is changing all the time. Why someone would claim that a church based on continuing revelation can't change the Endowment (or anything else) is unfathomable to me.

[mfbukowski]

Why did early saints believe that the signs/tokens/passwords were essential to entering into heaven? Why was (and still is) so much emphasis placed on the funtion of these three things, so much so, that they are guarded in secrecy? I think the answer is obvious. Because it wasn't just the message.

On one hand, I believe they ARE essential, when you understand that what they represent are in fact the covenants you are making illustrated symbolically.

What is important is keeping the covenants.

Secrecy is essential not to guard the symbols, but to convey the sacredness of the covenants, and to etch them into your memory. It is essential to us psychologically to understand the nature of the sacred as personal and intimate.

There are many things which are personal and intimate to us individually which we would never discuss, except in a special place where such discussions may be appropriate. Human intimacy and privacy is completely intertwined with the sense of the sacred- you cannot have one without the other.

Your deepest feelings, emotions, and activities are only discussed, if ever, perhaps with your most intimate friends, spouse, therapist, etc.

THAT is the purpose of keeping those things secret. That's why we say it is "sacred" not "secret". It is the intimacy of our relationship with our Father we seek to preserve