Temple Talk Guidelines

[Bill Hamblin]

Typo. Posting from my cell. You cfr'd my question. And I gave you a source.

I've been very patient with you. I've asked for a single primary source by JS mentioning Freemasonry before the mid-1830s. A single one. You've provided NOTHING.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill, I think you're missing the message - you aren't going to be given a head-start for your inevitable Maxwell Institute/FARMS review. You'll just have to wait.

H.

Oh, no. I understand very well.

[Bill Hamblin]

I will neither confirm nor deny. You will have to wait for the paper/book.

What a preposterous joke.

[Mike Reed]

I've been very patient with you. I've asked for a single primary source by JS mentioning Freemasonry before the mid-1830s. A single one. You've provided NOTHING.

Ah yes... Your patience is loud and clear. You will get nothing from me. George made the statement. He is busy last time we talked. I doubt you will get anything from him. He will probably just retract the statement, and you will be left to do your own homework.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't what the effective "line" is for discussion of the temple ceremony in this particular forum, but I just want to make a few observations:

1. Technically, there are only a few particular words and gestures that Mormons have covenanted not to reveal outside the temple.The original purpose for this nondisclosure requirement was that in early Mormon theology, it was the knowledge of these sacred symbols that one obtains in the temple ceremony that would allow a person to literally pass by angels guarding the path to the Celestial Kingdom. Nowadays, the literality of this idea is somewhat weakened by the fact that these symbols are known to the public, and some of them have been known by Masons for centuries. Nevertheless, the symbols are at least symbolic of the idea that one must gain knowledge in order to obtain ones' exaltation.

2. Despite the fact that the actual nondisclosure commitment is rather limited, most Mormons are reluctant to discuss other details of the ceremony to outsiders. This reluctance is not because of the nondisclosure agreements made in the temple, but because many Mormons do not like to "cast their pearls before swine"--meaning that they do not want their faith to be ridiculed as a result of what happens in the temple. I think this is a very understandable reaction, and one that I share.

3. However, there are reasons why this reluctance to discuss the temple ceremony may work against Mormon apologetic discourse. If the only people discussing the Mormon temple ceremony are hostile evangelicals, then that is the only perspective out there.

4. If Mormons come across as embarrassed to discuss the temple ceremony, others will pick up upon those clues and be embarrassed for us.

5. Auras of secrecy tend to breed conspiracy theories. When Mormons appear appear to be hesitant to forthrightly discuss the temple ceremony, others imagine the worst.

6. Based on anecdotal evidence I think that many Mormons, even those who have been through a "temple preparation" class, are surprised and sometimes disconcerted when they first participate in the Endowment ceremony. It appears that we are not doing a very good job of explaining to new members and youth what happens there.

As a result, though I have always been hesitant to discuss the temple ceremony, and will of course never discuss the parts covered by my nondisclosure agreement, I have been increasingly willing to discuss what happens in the temple with outsiders and with Mormons who have not yet taken part in the ceremony, and when I do so, I try to be as straightforward as possible, and to show no embarrassment or uneasiness with the subject matter.

[LDSToronto]

I've been very patient with you. I've asked for a single primary source by JS mentioning Freemasonry before the mid-1830s. A single one. You've provided NOTHING.

Wait, Bill, what's really up here? Do you feel these guys owe you a reference? I mean, it sure does sound like you feel they are in your debt...

H.

[Nevo]

I'm asking for a CFR for a single example of JS explicitly mentioning Masonry before the mid-1830s. Do you have one or not?

I am aware of only one reference, in a postscript to Joseph Smith's letter to the Colesville Saints, dated 2 December 1830 (in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:22):

"Brother Hyrum, beware of the freemasons, McIntyre heard that you were in Manchester and he got out a warrant and went to your father's to distress the family but [samuel] Harrison overheard their talk and they said that they cared not for the debt, if they only could obtain your body. They were there with carriages. Therefore beware of the Freemasons, this from yours & etc."

Lucy Mack Smith later referred to this episode in her history: "Hyrum was flying from his home, and why I knew not; the secret combinations of his enemies were not yet fully developed." Alexander McIntyre was a member of Palmyra's Mount Moriah Masonic Lodge No. 112 (see EMD, 3:455). Another lodge member, Levi Daggett, had sued Hyrum six months earlier and had tried to have him arrested for an unpaid debt (EMD, 3:456).

So this is a reference to freemasonry but it is not a positive one. Joseph warns of a Freemason plot to seize Hyrum ("obtain [his] body"). As he saw it, they weren't even interested in the money ("they cared not for the debt"), they wanted Hyrum himself ("they were there with carriages"). In light of the kidnapping of William Morgan, this simple debt collection scheme concocted by the local Masons takes on a rather ominous cast.

(FWIW, I don't believe Joseph Sr. was a Mason, and I don't think Joseph Smith had anything to do with Masonry until the Nauvoo period. I believe I've seen (or heard) George Miller's best arguments and I remain unpersuaded by them.)

[George Miller]

I've never made such a claim. CFR.

On January 19th, 2007 at 11:35 PM in response to Joe Swick you stated the following:

"I simply don't see the ritual of the first three degrees of Freemasonry describing a celestial ascent. Unlike all these other examples (and several hundred more I can give, some of which will appear on the ascent class web page), ascent is not explicit in the first three degrees of Freemasonry. There are allegorical, mystical or esoteric interpretations of Freemasonry relating to celestial ascent, but in these cases the interpretation of the ritual is about celestial ascent, not the original ritual."

At that time Joe Swick provided extensive evidence that indeed Freemasons both before and after Joseph Smith's time viewed the Masonic ritual as celestial ascent.

[Mike Reed]

On January 19th, 2007 at 11:35 PM in response to Joe Swick you stated the following:

"I simply don't see the ritual of the first three degrees of Freemasonry describing a celestial ascent. Unlike all these other examples (and several hundred more I can give, some of which will appear on the ascent class web page), ascent is not explicit in the first three degrees of Freemasonry. There are allegorical, mystical or esoteric interpretations of Freemasonry relating to celestial ascent, but in these cases the interpretation of the ritual is about celestial ascent, not the original ritual."

At that time Joe Swick provided extensive evidence that indeed Freemasons both before and after Joseph Smith's time viewed the Masonic ritual as celestial ascent.

Ouch! The quote is on the first three degrees specifically, not freemasonry generally. Even still, this does sound a lot "like" my question, does it not? Either way, the claim is preposterous. And having discussed this with Joe Swick, you should know that by now.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Mike Reed

[George Miller]

(FWIW, I don't believe Joseph Sr. was a Mason, and I don't think Joseph Smith had anything to do with Masonry until the Nauvoo period. I believe I've seen (or heard) George Miller's best arguments and I remain unpersuaded by them.)

At the time we discussed this, your main objection had to do with the Canandaigua lodge's records listing Joseph Smith Sr. as residing in Canandaigua. Since that time I have obtained these records, and as I suggested when we discussed this last time, Vogel who originally looked at the records both didn't know the nature of the records they were looking at, and from looking at the records it is clear that Vogel's objections can CLEARLY be shown be unfounded. So in fact you have not seen my best evidence with regards to Joseph Smith Sr. being a Freemason.

P.S. BTW thanks for providing Hamblin with that quote. Of course the really interesting story is WHY Joseph Smith thought there was Masonic plot afoot to kidnap Hiram. Yes, Joseph Smith believed they "wanted his body" but note the other aspects of the letter which parallel the abduction of William Morgan including them not caring about money and that they already had prepared carriages. This was actually the ploy by which they detained Morgan and the method by which he was abducted.

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[Cobalt-70]

(FWIW, I don't believe Joseph Sr. was a Mason, and I don't think Joseph Smith had anything to do with Masonry until the Nauvoo period. I believe I've seen (or heard) George Miller's best arguments and I remain unpersuaded by them.)

I don't think there is any reason why early Mormonism's relationship with Freemasonry cannot be seen as a pendulum. If Smith, Sr. and Hyrum were Masons in the early 20s (of which I think there is reasonable evidence), then either the young Joseph disagreed with them by 1829 when he dictated the anti-Masonic sections of the Book of Mormon, or the family as a whole had become disenchanted. Yet later, in Nauvoo, under the influence of prominent Mormon Freemasons and a growing personal interest in hermeticism, Smith could easily have had a change of heart and co-opted parts of Freemasonry for Mormonism.

[Mike Reed]

At the time we discussed this, your main objection had to do with the Canandaigua lodge's records listing Joseph Smith Sr. as residing in Canandaigua. Since that time I have obtained these records, and as I suggested when we discussed this last time, Vogel who originally looked at the records both didn't know the nature of the records they were looking at, and from looking at the records it is clear that Vogel's objections can CLEARLY be shown be unfounded. So in fact you have not seen my best evidence with regards to Joseph Smith Sr. being a Freemason.

P.S. BTW thanks for providing Hamblin with that quote. Of course the really interesting story is WHY Joseph Smith thought there was Masonic plot afoot to kidnap Hiram.

Bracing for Dr Hamblin's CFR: "CFR that it is interesting!"

[George Miller]

I don't think there is any reason why early Mormonism's relationship with Freemasonry cannot be seen as a pendulum. If Smith, Sr. and Hyrum were Masons in the early 20s (of which I think there is reasonable evidence), then either the young Joseph disagreed with them by 1829 when he dictated the anti-Masonic sections of the Book of Mormon, or the family as a whole had become disenchanted. Yet later, in Nauvoo, under the influence of prominent Mormon Freemasons and a growing personal interest in hermeticism, Smith could easily have had a change of heart and co-opted parts of Freemasonry for Mormonism.

While this is possible, I think from a secular historian's point of view it is unlikely. Secular historians see in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses anti-Masonic sentiment. (Note that things are actually more complicated than these historians realize and this is only partially correct). Think about that for a second, this means Joseph Smith was anti-Masonic enough to canonize in scripture that Freemasonry was in effect started by the devil himself. In effect he has put an anti-Masonic sentiment in the very mouths of the ancient prophets and in effect out of God's mouth. Then just a few years later the same man not only becomes a Freemason, joining an organization founded by Satan himself, but then he encourages almost every eligible male in Nauvoo to join the lodge. Worse yet he is in effect accusing his uncles, father and brother of joining an organization in the 1820's established by the devil. While some have accused Joseph of swaying in the wind, (BTW a stance I do not believe, in fact I find Joseph to be highly consistent and brilliant thinker) I find this "pendulum swing" as you describe it unthinkable. Of course when Masonic legends provide a perfectly reasonable explanation for Joseph Smith's actions and utterances ....

But perhaps it would be best to let this thread return to its original intent ... which was "Temple Talk Guidelines".

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[Nevo]

At the time we discussed this, your main objection had to do with the Canandaigua lodge's records listing Joseph Smith Sr. as residing in Canandaigua. Since that time I have obtained these records, and as I suggested when we discussed this last time, those like Vogel who originally looked at the records both didn't know the nature of the records they were looking at, and from looking at the records it is clear that Vogel's objections can CLEARLY be shown be unfounded. So in fact you have not seen my best evidence.

Actually my main objection went beyond the mere fact that Joseph Sr. wasn't a resident of Canandaigua (although it is puzzling that a resident of the Palmyra/Manchester area would seek membership in a lodge in Canandaigua when there was a perfectly good lodge in Palmyra).

I also pointed out that Joseph Sr. would have been a very atypical Masonic initiate. Bullock's data from Danvers, Massachusetts indicated that less than 3% of lodge members joined after age 45. The vast majority joined in their 20s. "More than one-half the members...joined by age twenty-five; more than three-quarters entered the lodge before they were thirty" (Bullock, 208). According to Bullock, most who joined the post-Revolutionary Masonic fraternity were young, ambitious, and upwardly mobile. Also, as you noted, "Masonic lodges did not initiate transients." The indigent 46-year-old Joseph Smith Sr., the proprietor of a small Palmyra "cake and beer shop," sometime peddler of "rutes and yarbs," part-time day laborer, and recent arrival from Vermont—where he had been a tenant farmer living (according to one historian) a "quasi-vagrant" existence, never staying in a place more than a couple of years (and sometimes only a couple of months), and who had in fact been "warned out" of the last place he had lived on account of his family's poverty—seems an unlikely candidate for Canandaigua's prestigious Masonic lodge. If Joseph Sr. was fit to be a Mason in Canandaigua, why was he unfit to join in Vermont?

Anyway, I look forward to any new information you may have.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Nevo

[Mike Reed]

FWIW, some thought George Washington was an anti-mason. There is an important clue in this, I think.

[George Miller]

Actually my main objection went beyond the mere fact that Joseph Sr. wasn't a resident of Canandaigua (although it is puzzling that a resident of the Palmyra/Manchester area would seek membership in a lodge in Canandaigua when there was a perfectly good lodge in Palmyra).

I also pointed out that Joseph Sr. would have been a very atypical Masonic initiate. Bullock's data from Danvers, Massachusetts indicated that less than 3% of lodge members joined after age 45. The vast majority joined in their 20s. "More than one-half the members...joined by age twenty-five; more than three-quarters entered the lodge before they were thirty" (Bullock, 208). According to Bullock, most who joined the post-Revolutionary Masonic fraternity were young, ambitious, and upwardly mobile. Also, as you noted, "Masonic lodges did not initiate transients." The indigent 46-year-old Joseph Smith Sr., the proprietor of a small Palmyra "cake and beer shop," sometime peddler of "rutes and yarbs," part-time day laborer, and recent arrival from Vermont—wAhere he had been a tenant farmer living (according to one historian) a "quasi-vagrant" existence, never staying in a place more than a couple of years (and sometimes only a couple of months), and who had in fact been "warned out" of the last place he had lived on account of his family's poverty—seems an unlikely candidate for Canandaigua's prestigious Masonic lodge. If Joseph Sr. was fit to be a Mason in Canandaigua, why was he unfit to join in Vermont?

Anyway, I look forward to any new information you may have.

While my memory is rusty ... I believe you said you "main" objection was the listing of the Canandaigua residence. Since our discussion Mike Reed has also obtained a rather thorough history of the lodge in Palmyra which reveals extensive reasons why Joseph Smith Sr. likely shied well away from Palmyra lodge. As for the other objections, we have covered that ground already, the reader is free to review my discussions of these point at their leisure.

Should you wish to converse on this topicfurhter, I would be more than happy to discuss and share data with you backchannel. My previous interaction with you showed you to be a man of good character, a keen mind and personally I found you to be a completely delightful person with which to discuss issues of Mormon history.

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[George Miller]

FWIW, some thought George Washington was an anti-mason. There is an important clue in this, I think.

Amen brother ... You are SOO right. :clapping:

[Bill Hamblin]

Wait, Bill, what's really up here? Do you feel these guys owe you a reference? I mean, it sure does sound like you feel they are in your debt...

H.

Well, the rules say people need to respond to a CFR.

On the other hand, they don't owe me an answer. But all they need to do is say, no, rather than play the silly games.

[Bill Hamblin]

I am aware of only one reference, in a postscript to Joseph Smith's letter to the Colesville Saints, dated 2 December 1830 (in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:22):

"Brother Hyrum, beware of the freemasons, McIntyre heard that you were in Manchester and he got out a warrant and went to your father's to distress the family but [samuel] Harrison overheard their talk and they said that they cared not for the debt, if they only could obtain your body. They were there with carriages. Therefore beware of the Freemasons, this from yours & etc."

Lucy Mack Smith later referred to this episode in her history: "Hyrum was flying from his home, and why I knew not; the secret combinations of his enemies were not yet fully developed." Alexander McIntyre was a member of Palmyra's Mount Moriah Masonic Lodge No. 112 (see EMD, 3:455). Another lodge member, Levi Daggett, had sued Hyrum six months earlier and had tried to have him arrested for an unpaid debt (EMD, 3:456).

So this is a reference to freemasonry but it is not a positive one. Joseph warns of a Freemason plot to seize Hyrum ("obtain [his] body"). As he saw it, they weren't even interested in the money ("they cared not for the debt"), they wanted Hyrum himself ("they were there with carriages"). In light of the kidnapping of William Morgan, this simple debt collection scheme concocted by the local Masons takes on a rather ominous cast.

(FWIW, I don't believe Joseph Sr. was a Mason, and I don't think Joseph Smith had anything to do with Masonry until the Nauvoo period. I believe I've seen (or heard) George Miller's best arguments and I remain unpersuaded by them.)

That's interesting. So the one reference anyone can come up with is anti-Masonic.

[Mike Reed]

Anyhoo... I need to get back to studying American Transcendendentalism. Back to my cave.

[Mike Reed]

That's interesting. So the one reference anyone can come up with is anti-Masonic.

One reference is all you required. You will have to wait for other sources--ahem! That is, IF any such sources exist.

Thx Nevo.

[George Miller]

That's interesting. So the one reference anyone can come up with is anti-Masonic.

Given the historical context and Joseph Smith's consistent views on the fraternity, this is EXACTLY how we should expect Joseph Smith to respond. I agree ... isn't that interesting. So completely and ENTIRELY consistent with Masonic legends of the day to which Joseph was privy. :acute:

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[Bill Hamblin]

On January 19th, 2007 at 11:35 PM in response to Joe Swick you stated the following:

"I simply don't see the ritual of the first three degrees of Freemasonry describing a celestial ascent. Unlike all these other examples (and several hundred more I can give, some of which will appear on the ascent class web page), ascent is not explicit in the first three degrees of Freemasonry. There are allegorical, mystical or esoteric interpretations of Freemasonry relating to celestial ascent, but in these cases the interpretation of the ritual is about celestial ascent, not the original ritual."

At that time Joe Swick provided extensive evidence that indeed Freemasons both before and after Joseph Smith's time viewed the Masonic ritual as celestial ascent.

Note this is precisely the opposite of what Mike claims as my position.

Mike claimed my position was "there is no ascension theology in freemasonry."

What I actually said was "There are allegorical, mystical or esoteric interpretations of Freemasonry relating to celestial ascent" which is precisely the opposite of what Mike claimed I said.

My claim is that the first three degrees are not an explicit ascent ritual. That is to say, they do not involve the initiate in a celestial ascent--no meeting angels, no entering heaven, no vision of God, etc. Anyone can read the first three degrees for themselves. Then compare the to, say Dante or 3 Enoch. Celestial ascent texts talk about actually ascending into heaven, seeing angels, meeting God, etc. The first three degrees of Masonry don't. Now there are esoteric interpretations of Masonry that talk about an allegory of ascent, etc. But celestial ascent is not explicit in the first three degrees. That should be obvious to anyone reading those texts. This is an important methodological distinction that needs to be made to properly investigate this issue. That's my point. And it is quite the opposite of what Mike attributed to me.

[Bill Hamblin]

While this is possible, I think from a secular historian's point of view it is unlikely. Secular historians see in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses anti-Masonic sentiment. Think about that for a second, this means Joseph Smith was anti-Masonic enough to canonize in scripture that Freemasonry was in effect started by the devil himself. Then just a few years later the same man not only becomes a Freemason, joining an organization founded by Satan himself, but then he encourages almost every eligible male in Nauvoo to join the lodge. Worse yet he is in effect accusing his uncles, father and brother of joining an organization in the 1820's established by the devil. While some have accused Joseph of swaying in the wind, (BTW a stance I do not believe) I find this "pendulum swing" as you describe it unthinkable. Of course when Masonic legends provide a perfectly reasonable explanation for Joseph Smith's actions and utterances ....

But perhaps it would be best to let this thread return to its original intent ... which was "Temple Talk Guidelines".

Of course, the other option is simply that the BOM and Book of Moses are not, in fact anti-Masonic, nor indeed have anything to do with masonry whatsoever. Just a thought.

[George Miller]

Note this is precisely the opposite of what Mike claims as my position.

Mike claimed my position was "there is no ascension theology in freemasonry."

What I actually said was "There are allegorical, mystical or esoteric interpretations of Freemasonry relating to celestial ascent" which is precisely the opposite of what Mike claimed I said.

My claim is that the first three degrees are not an explicit ascent ritual. That is to say, they do not involve the initiate in a celestial ascent--no meeting angels, no entering heaven, no vision of God, etc. Anyone can read the first three degrees for themselves. Then compare the to, say Dante or 3 Enoch. Celestial ascent texts talk about actually ascending into heaven, seeing angels, meeting God, etc. The first three degrees of Masonry don't. Now there are esoteric interpretations of Masonry that talk about an allegory of ascent, etc. But celestial ascent is not explicit in the first three degrees. That should be obvious to anyone reading those texts. This is an important methodological distinction that needs to be made to properly investigate this issue. That's my point. And it is quite the opposite of what Mike attributed to me.

Yes and as Mike at the MHA and others like Joe Swick have shown, ascent was a common interpretation of the ritual in Joseph Smith's day which Joseph Smith was exposed to via multiple readily available sources in Vermont, Palmyra, Missouri and Nauvoo. As Joe demonstrated, the framers of the ritual had a celestial ascent in mind when they framed the ritual. Joseph Smith largely following a Masonic lead in making what was implicit in the ritual explicit.

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller