Temple Talk Guidelines

[Calm]

Very... And smilies don't really carry the same tone, don't quite fit.

[mfbukowski]

I apologize coming in late and not reading every comment coming to this point, but just reading the bolded statement above I was dumbfounded. Do you really think there are times when doing what is right is not the right choice,...always?

That was sarcasm

[mfbukowski]

Since Joseph supposedly lifted the entire endowment from masonry, I would be interested in references to show that the initiatories also came from masonry and the sealing ordinances as well.

Additionally, for those who are unfamiliar with Nibley, here is a short, 4 page "readers digest" condensation of what Nibley terms "An Egyptian Endowment" which shows his personal understanding of the Egyptian rites included in the Book of Breathings some portions of which were on the papyrii in Joseph's posession. The parallels as Nibley saw them are striking, and of course they include NO references to masonry.

So if we are to believe that Joseph "took" the ordinances from masonry, we have to ignore the Egyptian parallels, OR admit that masonry does in fact have ancient origins, (as a number of scholars believe) with a possible "common ancestor" (the "true endowment" if there is such a thing) as practiced by the ancients.

Incidentally, for any of this to have any importance to anyone's faith, it also needs to be shown that the endowment is eternal and unchangeable and not subject to modification and further revelation.

But we already know that everything is subject to further revelation- including the endowment. It includes major changes made a mere 20 years ago as anyone knows who was endowed more than 20 years ago.

So clearly Joseph could have added or subtracted what he felt the Lord wanted him to, just as he did with the scriptures.

I really don't see the importance of all this fuss.

[mfbukowski]

I dn't believe these are the early swedenborgian rites, but rather the midified ones as they existed long after Joseph Smith's death.

Mike, you guys should know this stuff. This could be the whole "smoking gun" in your case- but you guys have not looked into this stuff? How can you be experts in the "Christianization of Masonry" as it relates to Joseph and not be aware of Swedenborg??

[thesometimesaint]

I've never seen much point to it either. There is a lot of symbology in the Temple, and as we all know symbols change meaning all the time depending on circumstances. At worst even if Joseph was influenced by Masonry. That would not indicated much as he changed the meanings and uses of those symbols to meet his theology. IE; The cross is an ancient symbol that predates Christianity, but Christians borrowed it, changed its meaning and made it their own.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

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.

Ascent narratives are supposed to be more significant than parallels to Masonic ritual? Do these ascent texts speak of signs and tokens? Is there anything in these texts that JS needed to know before Mormonizing the Masonic ritual? It seems ascent was unavoidable once Masonic ritual became temple ritual.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[Mike Reed]

Mike, you guys should know this stuff. This could be the whole "smoking gun" in your case- but you guys have not looked into this stuff? How can you be experts in the "Christianization of Masonry" as it relates to Joseph and not be aware of Swedenborg??

What on earth makes you think I am unfamiliar/aware of Swedenborg? I have read theese books you linked to (in fact, I own the second), and cite it in the footnotes of my MHA and Sunstone paper. Yes, Adam is mentioned in the ritual, but I was less impressed by the parallels I found, compared to more impressive ones I've found elsewhere. BUT, if I remember correctly, there was an earlier version the Swedenborgian rite. This earlier version is not found in the book you linked to, which is what Clinton and I are interested in getting our hands on. Comprende?

Edited October 11, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Cobalt-70]

The entire discussion is one about the similarities between Egyptian rites and the endowment- never mentioning Masonry of course, and explicitly stating that the source of the Endowment is a common ancestor of both sets of rituals

I think the point is that you would expect that if the Nauvoo Endowment were derived from an earlier pre-Egyptian ritual, then it is likely that what Nibley believed to be Egyptian parallels would be far more similar to the Endowment than the American Masonic ritual, given that the American ritual had many more centuries during which it could have mutated and evolved. Yet there are passages in William Morgan's 1827 exposé which are almost verbatim what was in early versions of the Mormon Endowment. There are no such verbatim correspondence with anything Egyptian. As a principle of historical analysis, the chain of influence passes to that which was more recent and more similar in preference to that which is more ancient and less similar.

[George Miller]

Mike, you guys should know this stuff. This could be the whole "smoking gun" in your case- but you guys have not looked into this stuff? How can you be experts in the "Christianization of Masonry" as it relates to Joseph and not be aware of Swedenborg??

MFB- As I mentioned before, I am interested in Swedenborgian ritual; however, my interest is largely unconnected with my research on Mormonism. Thank for the links, it has been some time since I looked to see if these were available via Amazon. Mike is of course right in his caution that when studying Masonic ritual that the time period and location in question is of paramount importance. To understand this fact one only need to look at Modern day Scottish Rite ritual in the NMJ and try and compare, for example the 4th degree, with the Scottish Rite ritual in New York in the 1820s. Additionally, even within the same time and place there are oft times subtle, and other times gross, differences. For example one only has to compare the Cerneau rituals with the Scottish Rite rituals in New York during the 1820s as an example of small and large differences. As for the Swedenborgian rituals, I have found no strong evidence for either the working or printing of these Rites in North America during the period of 1790-1850. As such I am unsure why you think they are a "smoking gun".

What on earth makes you think I am unfamiliar/aware of Swedenborg? I have read theese books you linked to (in fact, I own it the second), and cite it in the footnotes of my MHA and Sunstone paper. Yes, Adam is mentioned in the ritual, but I was less impressed by the parallels I found, compared to more impressive ones I've found elsewhere. BUT, if I remember correctly, there was an earlier version the Swedenborgian rite.

Mike and I have had a few rather long discussions about the Swedenborgian Rite, and he has in fact done some research in that area. If I remember the institution at which he is doing his Ph.D. work has a rather extensive library of works in the Swedenborgian vain. As Mike mentioned, we have as of yet found little need to go looking for parallels in obscure Masonic rituals plastered across England and Europe when in fact the parallels between New York Masonry and the mainstream interpretations of these rituals provided all the key elements necessary to draw the conclusions we have made.

[George Miller]

Since Joseph supposedly lifted the entire endowment from masonry, I would be interested in references to show that the initiatories also came from masonry and the sealing ordinances as well.

The initiatory ceremony derives from the degree variously called the Order of Melchizedek, Order of High Priesthood and Holy Order of High Priesthood degree.

I really don't see the importance of all this fuss.

The only fuss is in getting an accurate view of history in front of the reading public interested in the issue. As you may, or may not know, I am an active member of my local ward who has served in a wide array of callings, though my favorite is Nursery. My knowledge of the connection didn't stop me from taking pleasure and insight from my participation in the endowment as I participated in the temple weekly after my mission until I was called as a temple worker in both the Chicago and St. Louis temple until I entered Grad School and had children. Personally, both as a historian and a participant, I believe Joseph Smith's authorial intent when he wrote the endowment is vitally important in understanding his intended message of the endowment. Sadly, when the membership of the church ceased participation in Masonry, they also lost the interpretive keys necessary to understand much of the Masonic content of the endowment.

As you mentioned before, depth of meaning in the temple ceremony is best understood by personal participation in the ritual and repeated exposure to the ritual. The same is true of Masonic ritual.

BTW my brother in the gospel, why the biting venom and snarled teeth? You realize if you happen to move to Michigan or I wherever you may live, we would likely find ourselves sitting in the same pew? Only the best of feelings my dear brother.

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[George Miller]

So, if its positive its consistent, and if its negative its consistent. There may be a historiographical problem with that methodology.

However, if Masonry is almost never mentioned at all by JS, is that consistent with your theory too? Is there actually any way to disprove your theory?

This sounds like the same erroneous criticism that was heaped on Brooke's book in the review on which your name appears.

Brooke seems to recognize both the paradox that the alleged Gadianton-Masons would be an indication that Joseph was anti-Masonic, and therefore would not have borrowed ideas from the Masons, as well as the ante hoc problem of Joseph being influenced by Masonic ideas before he became a Mason. He attempts to solve the anti-Masonic problem by claiming—without a shred of evidence, since the Prophet never made any statements about Masonry in his early years—that "Joseph Smith bore contradictory feelings about Freemasonry: he condemned the spurious tradition, while embracing the pure tradition" (p. 169). In other words, any positive links Brooke imagines between Masons and early Mormonism arise because Joseph was copying the "pure tradition," while his alleged anti-Masonry represents Joseph’s rejection of the "spurious tradition." Such a theory has the great advantage of being utterly unfalsifiable—everything can be influenced by Masonry, any piece of evidence can be accommodated.

Since this criticism is coming up again, can I assume that you wrote the Mormon-Masonic portion of this review? Sadly this is not "historiographical problem with that methodology" but instead a failure of someone to have read Masonic history.

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[mfbukowski]

This was the post which led me to believe you (and Mike) knew little about the Swedenborgian rites.

I have been trying to get ahold of Swedenborgian Masonic rites. Any chance you might be able to help me out?

I took this literally, that George had not read these books. Silly me.

I did not say they were a "smoking gun", I said they "might be" from your point of view.

So George, you are telling me that you are now an active, believing Mormon who attends the temple regularly? That is what your post implies. It is unclear however, because the relevant sections all seem to be in past tense.

The initiatory ceremony derives from the degree variously called the Order of Melchizedek, Order of High Priesthood and Holy Order of High Priesthood degree.

The only fuss is in getting an accurate view of history in front of the reading public interested in the issue. As you may, or may not know, I am an active member of my local ward who has served in a wide array of callings, though my favorite is Nursery. My knowledge of the connection didn't stop me from taking pleasure and insight from my participation in the endowment as I participated in the temple weekly after my mission until I was called as a temple worker in both the Chicago and St. Louis temple until I entered Grad School and had children. Personally, both as a historian and a participant, I believe Joseph Smith's authorial intent when he wrote the endowment is vitally important in understanding his intended message of the endowment. Sadly, when the membership of the church ceased participation in Masonry, they also lost the interpretive keys necessary to understand much of the Masonic content of the endowment.

As you mentioned before depth of meaning in the temple ceremony is best understood by personal participation in the ritual and repeated exposure to the ritual. The same is true of Masonic ritual.

No one is required to declare their religious status. If you get personal again you will be suspended.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Minos

[George Miller]

Do you grasp the difference between ascent mythos as "a common interpretation" of the three degrees, and the three degrees as being not explicitly an ascent ritual? Do you understand the significance of that distinction? Do you understand its methodological implications?

Of course I understand the distinction you are trying to draw. However, given that the interpretation of celestial ascent in Masonic ritual (at least to the extent it exists in the endowment) was readily available to Masons and non-Masons New York during the 1820s, and that even in the absence of these written interpretations the celestial ascent theme is fairly obvious since the framers of the Masonic ritual inherited by Americans planned it that way, your distinction makes little to no practical difference.

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[George Miller]

Ascent narratives are supposed to be more significant than parallels to Masonic ritual? Do these ascent texts speak of signs and tokens? Is there anything in these texts that JS needed to know before Mormonizing the Masonic ritual? It seems ascent was unavoidable once Masonic ritual became temple ritual.

Good point Dan --- especially when the most explicit reference to celestial ascent is not in the endowment, but instead in Brigham Young's interpretation of the ritual, the verbiage which BTW echos common Masonic sentiments about their own ritual.

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[George Miller]

So George, you are telling me that you are now an active, believing Mormon who attends the temple regularly? That is what your post implies. It is unclear however, because the relevant sections all seem to be in past tense.

No I have always, from birth till the present day, not just now, been an active believing Mormon. Why the continuous confrontational responses my brother? Need I remind you that only the best of feelings should prevail in all you interactions with your fellowman, and to coin a Masonic turn of phrase, more especially a brother.

[venom I changed to confrontational responses to appease the audience]

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[Calm]

No I have always, from birth till the present day, not just now, been an active believing Mormon. Why the venom my brother? Need I remind you that only the best of feelings should prevail in all you interactions with your fellowman, and to coin a Masonic turn of phrase, but more especially a brother.

Venom?

[wenglund]

The initiatory ceremony derives from the degree variously called the Order of Melchizedek...

Is this what you had in mind?: Order of Melchizedek

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[George Miller]

Is this what you had in mind?: Order of Melchizedek

Uhhhhhh .... That would be a no-a-rooney my dear friend Wade.

[Tarski]

Has anyone else noticed that my thread immediately went off on a tangent never to return? I still have several outstanding questions about how far I can go in talking about the temple and my personal feelings about the experience.

[mfbukowski]

George:

So what is your position then regarding the degree of inspiration and/or the status of the endowment as compared to scripture?

I raised the question because I thought that you were denying that there was inspired content in the endowment.

Edited October 11, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Is this what you had in mind?: Order of Melchizedek

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ewwww....I want the Illuminati Card Game so I can predict world disaster as well....

Urgh..love/hate auto spell

Edited October 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

This sounds like the same erroneous criticism that was heaped on Brooke's book in the review on which your name appears.

Since this criticism is coming up again, can I assume that you wrote the Mormon-Masonic portion of this review? Sadly this is not "historiographical problem with that methodology" but instead a failure of someone to have read Masonic history.

I guess we'll see when you finally publish something. So far, it's just your assertion.

[Bill Hamblin]

Of course I understand the distinction you are trying to draw. However, given that the interpretation of celestial ascent in Masonic ritual (at least to the extent it exists in the endowment) was readily available to Masons and non-Masons New York during the 1820s, and that even in the absence of these written interpretations the celestial ascent theme is fairly obvious since the framers of the Masonic ritual inherited by Americans planned it that way, your distinction makes little to no practical difference.

Again, there is no way to evaluate these types of claims, which, so far, are mere assertion. I look forward to reading your paper.

[George Miller]

Ewwww....I want the Illuminati Card Game so I can predict world disagree as well....

As a Mason I can get it for you ... all you have to do is wear this silly costume, give me you first born child and infiltrate the world bank .... {smile} {chortle} {guffaw}

Edited October 11, 2011 by George Miller

[George Miller]

Brooke seems to recognize both the paradox that the alleged Gadianton-Masons would be an indication that Joseph was anti-Masonic, and therefore would not have borrowed ideas from the Masons, as well as the ante hoc problem of Joseph being influenced by Masonic ideas before he became a Mason. He attempts to solve the anti-Masonic problem by claiming—without a shred of evidence, since the Prophet never made any statements about Masonry in his early years—that "Joseph Smith bore contradictory feelings about Freemasonry: he condemned the spurious tradition, while embracing the pure tradition" (p. 169). In other words, any positive links Brooke imagines between Masons and early Mormonism arise because Joseph was copying the "pure tradition," while his alleged anti-Masonry represents Joseph’s rejection of the "spurious tradition." Such a theory has the great advantage of being utterly unfalsifiable—everything can be influenced by Masonry, any piece of evidence can be accommodated.

I guess we'll see when you finally publish something. So far, it's just your assertion.

So did you or did you not write this portion of the review?