Temple Talk Guidelines

[mfbukowski]

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.

I'll help you.

Discipline is a trait of a good scholar- and you are not exhibiting it at this moment.

[Cobalt-70]

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)

That assumes that the modern Nauvoo Endowment was, at some historical period in early Christianity, at the "pinnacle" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet nobody has come forward with evidence that such a ceremony was practiced in the early Christian era. And I'm not talking prayer circles (I'm aware of Nibley's article)--I'm talking about the whole ceremony, as it was practiced in the days of Brigham Young. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of the Endowment ceremony to Mormonism--but there is no real evidence that it existed in its modern form before the 1840s.

There was an endowment in New Testament times, but it was not the Nauvoo Endowment. It is the endowment that happened on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2. However, this endowment was much more like the Kirtland Temple endowment, and really had nothing in common with the Nauvoo Endowment. If the Nauvoo endowment were really at the "pinnacle" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then you would assume that someone would have at least mentioned it in the Bible, or certainly Joseph Smith would have picked up a missing "pinnacle" during his re-translation. Also, if it were the "pinnacle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," then you would expect that this pinnacle would be included in any representation of the "fulness of the Gospel," such as the Book of Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Absolutely.

[Zakuska]

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.

I used to hold that black and white fundamentalist idea myself. I think the idea stems from Isaiah.

Isaiah 24:5

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

Of course we have this example to the contrary...

Hebrews 7:12

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity change also of the law.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

. Also, if it were the "pinnacle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," then you would expect that this pinnacle would be included in any representation of the "fulness of the Gospel," such as the Book of Mormon.

Unless of course, our full understanding of its sacredness and intimacy required secrecy about its existence. There are of course, scriptural precedents for such things

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Matt 17:9

What all was really in that vision? Where is it described in later scripture, after the resurrection? It is not.

[Cobalt-70]

Unless of course, our full understanding of its sacredness and intimacy required secrecy about its existence. There are of course, scriptural precedents for such things

If the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a "pinnacle" that cannot be disclosed in Book of Mormon because of nondisclosure obligations, then it would still be a bit misleading to represent that it contains the "fulness." I think a better model is to consider the Nauvoo Endowment as something "added to" the Gospel of Jesus Christ to teach Mormons, in a very symbolic way, the principle of exaltation.

Is the precise Nauvoo Endowment necessary for salvation? Apparently not, because the ceremony has been changed. However, Mormon theology probably requires at least some form of instruction whereby the saved are taught how to ascend to godhood. If this takes place mainly in the afterlife, then perhaps the Nauvoo endowment is just a very symbolic and ritualized taste of that.

[William Schryver]

That assumes that the modern Nauvoo Endowment was, at some historical period in early Christianity, at the "pinnacle" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet nobody has come forward with evidence that such a ceremony was practiced in the early Christian era. ...

There was an endowment in New Testament times, but it was not the Nauvoo Endowment.

I confess I have not yet read his book on the topic (though I hereby commit to do so), but I remember a conversation I had with my good friend, the late Matthew Brown, in which he talked about the evidence of New Testament-era temple rituals he had discovered. I recall elements of the square and compass, as well as sacred garments bearing special symbols. As I also seem to recall, there was a connection between the people among whom these things were found and some of the contemporary ascent literature. Perhaps someone who has actually read Matt's book could elaborate on my fragmentary recollection.

[wenglund]

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.

I spent the morning reading through much of the linked text, and found it quite interesting.

However, since it didn't disclose the secret rites of masonry, and since, for the most part, aspects of those rites are what are in question, I am not sure about its relevance.

Now, if someone wishes to argue that certain LDS principles, beliefs, and perceptions may have Masonic origins, then that may be another matter--though, with all the talk of "Crhristianization of Masonry," which I interpret as relating to the principles, beliefs, and perceptions of Masonry, it may seem more practical to look at Christianity, rather than Masonry, for alleged origins of certain LDS notions.

Of particular interest in the text was the distinction drawn between operative and speculative Masonry, as well as the science and religious aspects of the same. I will have to go back through and re-read the material, but I am not real clear as to where the one begins and the other ends, and whether the secret rites of Masonry fit into one or the other or both. If someone here wishes to elucidate, I would appreciate it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

I like viewing the Temple experience as the globalization of the Prophetic Vision. Everyone gets to see the same basic Vision [the path from Origins to Exaltation], and still gets to apply it to their own immediate circumstances and understanding. Nephi and Lehi both saw the same vision, but brought different questions, culture, and experiences to their approach to and interpretation of it.

All saints ascend the Mountain and receive the Prophetic Vision. That's the Endowment. It's left up to us and our culture, experience, and maturity to know what to make of it, and to make up what knowledge we actually descend with and declare (Prophecy) to the world based on that experience - or rather our evolving understanding of it. Everytime we experience the vision, we are a different person, and, thus, our context approaching the vision has changed.

I think it's highly instructive in how we read and understand the writings of prophets explaining and interpreting their own visionary experiences, and learning to seaprate the revelation experience from the human expression or explanation of it (IE, what often gets canonized).

Edited October 13, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

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)

What makes this even more interesting is, as pointed out in the linked article, Free-Masons view other secret societies, philosophers, and mystagougues throughout the ages as apostate or corrupted versions of the pure mysteries found in Masonry. The author mentioned that while the two sets of institutions agree on some points, "it only proves that the one was founded on the general principles of the other," though "Their discrepancies already noticed are too evident and irreconcilable, to sanction the hypothesis, that these mysteries were the Masonry of ancient times."

I suspect the same of Masonry in relation and the LDS Endowment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I like viewing the Temple experience as the globalization of the Prophetic Vision. Everyone gets to see the same basic Vision [the path from Origins to Exaltation], and still gets to apply it to their own immediate circumstances and understanding. Nephi and Lehi both saw the same vision, but brought different questions, culture, and experiences to their approach to and interpretation of it.

Do you get the same from reading about or participating in Masonic rites?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Thanks for your remarks, Senator.

I think the following problematic questions would follow:

Where is the pre-existing unified form?

I don't know. Given its guarded and "never to be (publically) revealed" status, like it is today, it is likely that it rarely, if ever, gets recorded for public consumption. When certain elements of the endowment are transmitted only from lip to ear, as if in a wisper, and that while in a close embrace......it is no wonder that it is not to be found in the annals of history, or only in fragmentary form.

I would certainly not expect the similarities of the Nauvoo endowment to most closely parallel what was found in American freemasonry.

What would you expect it to most closely parellel?

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 is possible, given the fact that it has been recognized by church authorities, that the restoration of the "public" Gospel in the last dispensation had its beginnings in the protestant reformation.

This of course leads to the question: Well... then why did the endowment change? Why does it continue to change?

It's my personal belief that the endowment wasn't received in its perfect form. But was "as close as they could get it". (was that B. Young?)

Edited October 13, 2011 by Senator

[wenglund]

The original Nauvoo Endowment was a mixture of Masonic ritual and Mormon theology.

Just curious, where did you gain access to the original Nauvoo Endowment?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Just curious, where did you gain access to the original Nauvoo Endowment?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think somebody smuggled in an iphone and videoed it.

[Bernard Gui]

For those who were interested in Prof. Hamlin's photos, look at this altar painting

in a Polish church. I saw it when Mrs. Gui and I visited Poland at the end of our son

Bustamente's mission:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Das_Jüngste_Gericht_%28Memling%29.jpg

Bernard

[wenglund]

I think somebody smuggled in an iphone and videoed it.

Would that be in 1080p HD?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Just curious, where did you gain access to the original Nauvoo Endowment?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, admittedly, the endowment has been changing since the beginning, and we (meaning anyone standing outside the First Presidency vault) don't have perfect information about the ceremony in its earliest form. However, we know that the Masonic elements were there since Nauvoo, because we have contemporary statements to that effect,

[Hannah Rebekah]

I think somebody smuggled in an iphone and videoed it.

And then they posted it on the internet.

"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

[wenglund]

Yes, admittedly, the endowment has been changing since the beginning, and we (meaning anyone standing outside the First Presidency vault) don't have perfect information about the ceremony in its earliest form. However, we know that the Masonic elements were there since Nauvoo, because we have contemporary statements to that effect,

Which statements would that be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

Which statements would that be?

There's a book full of them.

The Nauvoo Endowment Companies 1845-1846: A Documentary History

I have it. It's a fascinating book. It's the follow-up/companion to Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed:1842-1845: A Documentary History

Plenty of 'cast lists' as in who is playing what roles on what day, dates Brigham Young re-arranged/added specific "roles", full description of the processes, clothing, etc. All from contemporary journals, official records and minutes, etc.

[Senator]

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.

I generally agree with this. However I think we need to be careful not to take this too far. I don't think we can say that the Lord allows us to implement any old ritualistic gesture or emblem and attach eternal principles to them. The ordinance of Baptism comes to mind. The precise manner and element used are absolute requirements (at least in LDS theology) for the ordinance to be deemed efficacious. And that appears to be pretty static through time.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Senator

[wenglund]

There's a book full of them.

The Nauvoo Endowment Companies 1845-1846: A Documentary History

I have it. It's a fascinating book. It's the follow-up/companion to Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed:1842-1845: A Documentary History

Plenty of 'cast lists' as in who is playing what roles on what day, dates Brigham Young re-arranged/added specific "roles", full description of the processes, clothing, etc. All from contemporary journals, official records and minutes, etc.

To underscore Bill Hamblin's salient point, it would be interesting to see a comparative analysis between the temple ceremonies contained in the books you listed and the Masonic ceremonies contained in either Capt. Morgan's Illustrations of Masonry, 1827, or Richardson's Monitor of Free-Masonry, 1860, available through the Tanner's.

I would like to see the following questions answered:

1) Is the general purpose for the ceremonies basically the same? (are they both an Initiation or an endowment?)

2) Is the narrative context basically the same--i.e. are the settings for the story lines the same?, are the story lines, themselves, the same?, are the characters the same?, etc.?

3) What is the proportion of each ceremony that may meaningfully be shared in common?

4) Of the presumably nominal amount of parts meaningfully shared in common, are they presented in the same sequence, and are the functional intents the same. For example, is the first sign and "due-guard" of the temple ceremony intended as a signal of distress to fellow saints as it is with Masonry?

5) Are there any females initiates and female characters and female-specific aspects to the Masonic ceremonies as there is with the temple ceremonies?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I generally agree with this. However I think we need to be careful not to take this too far. I don't think we can say that the Lord allows us to implement any old ritualistic gesture or emblem and attach eternal principles to them. The ordinance of Baptism comes to mind. The precise manner and element used are absolute requirements (at least in LDS theology) for the ordinance to be deemed efficacious. And that appears to be pretty static through time.

Excellent point. There is much symbolic meaning tied directly to ritualistic elements like the bread in the sacrament. Granted, the bread can differ in terms of it being white, wheat, enriched or un-enriched, or unleavened (as with bagels), etc. However, the intended symbolism may be lost were the bread replaced with say, gummy bears.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

To underscore Bill Hamblin's salient point, it would be interesting to see a comparative analysis between the temple ceremonies contained in the books you listed and the Masonic ceremonies contained in either Capt. Morgan's Illustrations of Masonry, 1827, or Richardson's Monitor of Free-Masonry, 1860, available through the Tanner's.

I would like to see the following questions answered:

1) Is the general purpose for the ceremonies basically the same? (are they both an Initiation or an endowment?)

2) Is the narrative context basically the same--i.e. are the settings for the story lines the same?, are the story lines, themselves, the same?, are the characters the same?, etc.?

3) What is the proportion of each ceremony that may meaningfully be shared in common?

4) Of the presumably nominal amount of parts meaningfully shared in common, are they presented in the same sequence, and are the functional intents the same. For example, is the first sign and "due-guard" of the temple ceremony intended as a signal of distress to fellow saints as it is with Masonry?

5) Are there any females initiates and female characters and female-specific aspects to the Masonic ceremonies as there is with the temple ceremonies?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your questions go from the assumption that the Nauvoo Temple was designed to replace the Masonic degrees, rather than add to, or surpass them. There are aspects of the signs and tokens and motions and clothing and other symbols that gain some additional significance if the context by which they were introduced in Masonry are assumed and added, rather than replaced. (Joseph had most of his Quorum of the Anointed who weren't already Masons pass through the first 3 masonic degrees very quickly before introducing the Endowment to them- they already had the 'language' utilized in the Endowment.)

Some of the elements that give significance to some of the things we do in the temple have since been removed in post-nauvoo years,having them actually lose a degree of their initial meaning and context, with nothing to replace or make up for it in their place.

Edited October 14, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Cobalt-70]

I generally agree with this. However I think we need to be careful not to take this too far. I don't think we can say that the Lord allows us to implement any old ritualistic gesture or emblem and attach eternal principles to them. The ordinance of Baptism comes to mind. The precise manner and element used are absolute requirements (at least in LDS theology) for the ordinance to be deemed efficacious. And that appears to be pretty static through time.

Even with baptism, there is some flexibility. The baptism ceremony described in Mosiah 18:13-14 is far different from the one that the LDS Church prescribes. It is immersion, but the prayer is completely different. Plus, Alma baptizes himself at the same time as he baptizes Helam. But that should not trouble Mormons. Baptism is a manifestation of faith marking one's entrance into the "new and everlasting covenant," not a magic ritual.