Masonic Theories

[SeattleGrunge]

Please stay within the board guidelines when discussing this so the topic can stay open

I've had a lot of people come up to me lately and ask questions about the temple (because something about it bothers them) knowing that I usually do a lot of research on all the doctrines and history of the church. I usually say that I used to be bothered as well, but when I heard Greg Kearney's Mormon Stories podcast on the subject I came to the conclusion that JS took the familiar to everyone of his time Masonic Ceremony and applied the covenants God wanted him to get the members to commit to and mixed them into the temple endowment. Moreover, I feel even more confident in this when thinking about how the church has changed various aspects of the endowment ceremony when they don't and wouldn't change the baptismal or sacrament ordinances' wording.

That helps others feel comfortable like it did for me. I knew there were a couple things that Nibley found in Egyptian history and others showing some similarities, but I didn't think they were that exact, or similar to what we have. One example I remember hearing in the MTC from a speaker was that some mummies were found with little flowers that matched the positions of the markings in the temple garments. I was impressed, but this was back when I thought the similarities between masonic ceremony and the endowment ceremony were from the Masons looking into the ancient temples and seeing the temple ordinances, then promulgating their perverted versions of the endowment. Now, from that podcast, I see the masons not being that old and Joseph adapting what he was supposed to share to the masonic ceremony.

Also, I was always skeptical that what we do now in our temples was done before because the bible is pretty explicit as to what was done in the ancient temples. They were for the alter and sacrificing, not for an elaborate ceremony for multiple individuals.

Now, after discussing this further with a friend recently and him showing me a little more of what Nibley found I am not so sure anymore. Maybe the most correct answer is that there was anciently with Adam and Abraham (before Moses) a ceremony that was similar to ours, not worded exactly the same or presented the same, but the areas where our ceremony differs from the Masonic Ceremony (not just changing meaning of symbols, but actions that aren't in both) is because those things were done anciently.

Can anybody that knows more about this issue share with me their position and why they feel that way?

Thanks

[bjw]

I am currently in the F&AM blue lodge, York Rite, Scottish Rite, and AMORC (Rosicrucians) and am LDS as well. To me it seems that there are many things in the Temple Endowment and other aspects of the LDS faith that were not found in the degrees that were available to Joseph Smith and other church leaders in the 1800s.

For instance, without going into any specifics, in the 14th degree of the Scottish Rite (Perfect Elu) a washing and anointing ceremony is done that has similar wording to the Initiatory in LDS. In Albert Pike's lecture in one of the Council of Kadosh (I forget which one but its in my monitor if anyone would like a reference) degrees the gods Elkamer and Korasht (similar to Elkenah and Korash in the Book of Abraham) are mentioned as being planetary gods worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabian peoples. The good/evil teachings in 2 Nephi 2 is very similar to what is taught in the story of the 18th degree Knight Rose Croix where a duality between good and evil is necessary.

In the York Rite degree Knights of Malta, I've only been through this ceremony once but I remember in the backstory it mentions that water was used instead of wine when the knights would do communion since wine was not available to them.

In AMORC, the Rosicrucian Order, one of the teachings is that the contents of our spirits is immortal, and that our intelligence cannot be created. A similar idea is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants.

My opinion is that all the ancient mysteries have a common ancient origin, and that many of them consolidated into freemasonry at a later point to avoid persecution and ostracism. Simply learning the contents of the blue lodge 3 degrees and then claiming that Joseph Smith used elements to help us make covenants is not correct in my opinion, especially when you study Freemasonry as a whole and then compare it to the LDS Endowment. It seems that these elements are of ancient origin and can be found in many religions, and these ancient elements needed to be obscured for the purpose of hiding them from those that are not worthy of learning their true meaning. Remember, Brigham Young said the endowment is receiving all those ordinances to enable you to walk back to God's presence, and when you review Brigham Young's quote its obvious that in order for the LDS church to be true all of these elements, such as signs, tokens, key words, as well as the covenants, are eternal truths that were restored by Joseph Smith. Its remarkable when you consider that Joseph Smith only went to the 3rd degree of masonry.

[Saints Alive]

I for one have much respect for the Masons and cannot understand why so many get offended when it is suggested that Joseph Smith might have been inspired to adapt the ritual in order to express the endowment.

[Verum]

I for one have much respect for the Masons and cannot understand why so many get offended when it is suggested that Joseph Smith might have been inspired to adapt the ritual in order to express the endowment.

I think the offense comes in when people are kept in the dark about the strong correlation between Masonry and the endowment. This is not taught anywhere in correlated material, and because of the overly-sensitive culture of never discussing temple outside of temple, the naivety perpetuates. And when the shock finally wears off when someone discovers it, they now have to readjust their paradigm of the idea that the endowment was not entirely revealed to Joseph or restored from Solomon's temple. It is now something that Joseph adapted, albeit with inspiration, instead of revealed completely and exclusively to him that just so happen to parallel other ancient ordinaces.

[mfbukowski]

I think it is just as simple as the fact that God uses what we are familiar with to teach us. Jesus talked about agriculture to an agricultural community full of fishermen lowering nets, planting wheat etc. Remember there is that line in the NT about "Tell the vision to no man until the Son of man is resurrected from the dead" (quoted from memory). Yet there is no mention of the teachings from that vision mentioned- even after the resurrection, in the NT. I think it is clear from Nibley et al that there were indeed ancient ceremonies regarded as essential for exaltation.

When it came time to restore the "higher ordinances", through Joseph, God used Joseph's experiences and environment to express the symbolic truths he was inspired to restore, just as he used the English language and the King James version to "translate" similar truths into the Book of Mormon and used the papyri to "translate" the Book of Abraham.

In a sense, I think the temple ordinances are a similar "translation" - a total reconstruction in a new context- of the ancient ordinances. They may not look or sound like the early ones, but the spiritual messages are the same, and the fundamental truths expressed are the same.

They can be changed through inspiration because they are not "magic words"- their spiritual meaning as covenants is where the spiritual power lies. What is important is the covenants- the "passwords" etc. are just outward manifestations of what is in- or should be in- our hearts.

Their outward similarities to other symbols is irrelevant. What is important is their meaning in the context of the covenants expressed.

Edited October 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

If the theory is that Joseph was just "using what he had" in Masonry to convey the principles of the endowment, I've always wondered how the Temple would be different if Joseph had been a Rotarian instead of a Mason. Maybe the Endowment would involve doing service projects or having lunch at the local Marie Callenders.

[Ares]

If the theory is that Joseph was just "using what he had" in Masonry to convey the principles of the endowment, I've always wondered how the Temple would be different if Joseph had been a Rotarian instead of a Mason. Maybe the Endowment would involve doing service projects or having lunch at the local Marie Callenders.

Be respectful of the Prophet please.

[etana]

I think it is just as simple as the fact that God uses what we are familiar with to teach us. Jesus talked about agriculture to an agricultural community full of fishermen lowering nets, planting wheat etc. Remember there is that line in the NT about "Tell the vision to no man until the Son of man is resurrected from the dead" (quoted from memory). Yet there is no mention of the teachings from that vision mentioned- even after the resurrection, in the NT. I think it is clear from Nibley et al that there were indeed ancient ceremonies regarded as essential for exaltation.

...

In a sense, I think the temple ordinances are a similar "translation" - a total reconstruction in a new context- of the ancient ordinances. They may not look or sound like the early ones, but the spiritual messages are the same, and the fundamental truths expressed are the same.

I think you are right on here. The same message is being taught. I see the ancient ceremonies (sacrifices done to atone for sins and edify the people) being moved into our chapels in the modern "rites". These were teaching tools representing principles of salvation that could (mostly) be administered by Levirate authority and keys. Being that we are all now of the family of the Priests we all share in partaking of the sacrifice.

There may well have been more that was available to some (Jesus' disciples maybe) that was alluded to in the NT and extra-canonical works like the Gospel of Philip that i would suggest told the same story of God's plan of Happiness. It's pretty easy to imagine the "bridal chamber" ceremony being some sort of covenental sealing into the Church that is symbolically represented as the Bride of Christ.

[mfbukowski]

I think you are right on here. The same message is being taught. I see the ancient ceremonies (sacrifices done to atone for sins and edify the people) being moved into our chapels in the modern "rites". These were teaching tools representing principles of salvation that could (mostly) be administered by Levirate authority and keys. Being that we are all now of the family of the Priests we all share in partaking of the sacrifice.

There may well have been more that was available to some (Jesus' disciples maybe) that was alluded to in the NT and extra-canonical works like the Gospel of Philip that i would suggest told the same story of God's plan of Happiness. It's pretty easy to imagine the "bridal chamber" ceremony being some sort of covenental sealing into the Church that is symbolically represented as the Bride of Christ.

Yep, I agree with that last part too.

If you have not read this, you should:

http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=5448

It discusses how in Early Christianity- well into the Renaissance even- there were two separate religious buildings, the basilica or cathedral and the baptistry. The new baptized Catechumens were restricted to a separate building- the baptistry, where they were allowed only to practice the first part of the mass.

Later, as they grew in the gospel, they were allowed to hear the full mass, in the basilica which was divided into sections, with screens and veils.

As an "old" former Catholic who remembers well the pre- Vatican II mass in Latin very well (I went to Catholic school and went to mass every morning with all the kids in my grammar school, and practically had the Latin mass memorized- and studied Latin also) I found this VERY revealing and accurate. Growing up Catholic, I never understood where many of these traditions came from- things like the SIGN of the Cross etc, and now I do.

When I was an ordinance worker, another ordinance worker was a former Catholic priest- and of course we had time off in the temple, where you can discuss anything.

Man, did we have some conversations!!

If you know the old Catholic mass well AND know the temple ordinances well, there can be no doubt that the two are related. Wellnitz here, knows both as well- it's a great article!

On the other side of this, yes, the present endowment was influenced by Masonry.

Yet there is no question in my mind whatsoever that there WERE ancient ceremonies in early Christianity which parallel closely the endowment at least in spiritual meaning.

Edit: Additional material:

In European cathedrals it is common to have a "Baptistry" and the cathedral itself.

When you enter the cathedral, you see a basin of water- arguably similar to Solomon's temple- and historically as I recall, this was where baptisms were performed when there was no baptistry as a separate building.

Nowadays, one puts their right hand into the holy water and ceremonially "washes" different portions of the body in turn while making a ceremonial "sign"- the sign of the cross.

One then enters the church, which is divided into a main area where "the people" assemble, and a rail which ceremonially separates the people from the altar, paralleling the first veil in Solomon's temple. In many cathedrals in Europe (indicating their age- as opposed to US churches which date from much later) there is a "choir screen" which is essentially a veil which separates the people- behind the rail - from the actual altar. So functionally, there are three areas of sacred space- the people's area, the choir, and finally the altar, each area separated. To reach the altar, one would first perform the ablutions, then cross through the communion rail, then go through the choir screen, finally arriving at the altar.

Some cathedrals have an area behind the altar also separated by a screen which is often regarded as one of the most sacred areas of the church.

Edited October 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[LifeOnaPlate]

I wrote a book review of Matthew B. Brown's book on masonry and Mormonism. (Matthew recently passed away, incidentally, which was a shock to me, he was young and had much more to write.)

In that review I laid out a territorial guide of a few trails thus far trod on the subject—four general LDS approaches to the Mormon/Mason topic. These categories may overlap depending on who is making use of them, and they only deal with similarities in rites; i.e., they do not address supposed Masonic elements of the Book of Mormon, etc. A definitive treatment of Mormonism and Masonry would do well to explore that angle. I also left out the obvious option that Joseph Smith simply stole the Masonic ceremony.

Maps of Masonism & Mormonry

1. The LDS endowment is a ritual that was revealed directly to Joseph Smith and is unchanging in every respect from all eternity. It has no relationship whatsoever to Masonic rituals.

This is the weakest of the four options. I don’t recall anyone ever making this claim, including Joseph Smith and his contemporaries. Even the most casual study of the two rituals would eliminate it as an explanation.

2. The LDS endowment has been revealed during different time periods beginning in antiquity. It was revealed during the time of Solomon’s Temple from whence the Masons acquired it. As part of the apostasy the endowment was changed over the centuries. It was revealed exactly as it was in the beginning to Joseph Smith in 1842, independent of his becoming a Mason.

Brown does a fine job of putting the first part of this theory to rest, pointing out there is no conclusive historical evidence showing a direct descent from Solomon’s Temple to current Freemasonry.

3. LDS and Masonic ceremonies share a connection to rituals used in Old and New Testament times. The Masons acquired certain specific elements of the ritual from the orthodox Christian Church (medieval monks, etc.) and passed it along with some changes, whereas the entire endowment was revealed anew to Joseph Smith, independent of his involvement in Freemasonry.

As discussed in the rest of the review, this is closest to Brown’s position.

4. Joseph Smith used the 19th century Masonic ritual as a template for the development of the endowment ritual in addition to revealed instructions and scripture from God.

This is the approach of Greg Kearney and others.

I personally see the best argument residing somewhere between options three and four, and that Masonry played some role in Joseph Smith’s formulating many of the already-revealed temple principles into an enacted and institutionalized ritual. There are interesting similarities between Masonic elements and early Christian initiation rites and ceremonies, but the historical record is too vague to provide a reliable genealogy of influence either way. Also keep in mind that the problem of genealogy (origins of the ceremony) tends to be frowned on by some scholars today. People are becoming more interested in what Joseph Smith did with the ceremony, the meanings it was supposed to enact, the things it would connote to the people of his day, more than the origin being divine or human, which is seen as a more apologetic or polemic approach.

Here's the whole review:

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/10/review-matthew-b-browns-exploring.html

[etana]

Yep, I agree with that last part too.

If you have not read this, you should:

http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=5448

It discusses how in Early Christianity- well into the Renaissance even- there were two separate religious buildings, the basilica or cathedral and the baptistry. The new baptized Catechumens were restricted to a separate building- the baptistry, where they were allowed only to practice the first part of the mass.

Later, as they grew in the gospel, they were allowed to hear the full mass, in the basilica which was divided into sections, with screens and veils.

As an "old" former Catholic who remembers well the pre- Vatican II mass in Latin very well (I went to Catholic school and went to mass every morning with all the kids in my grammar school, and practically had the Latin mass memorized- and studied Latin also) I found this VERY revealing and accurate. Growing up Catholic, I never understood where many of these traditions came from- things like the SIGN of the Cross etc, and now I do.

When I was an ordinance worker, another ordinance worker was a former Catholic priest- and of course we had time off in the temple, where you can discuss anything.

Man, did we have some conversations!!

If you know the old Catholic mass well AND know the temple ordinances well, there can be no doubt that the two are related. Wellnitz here, knows both as well- it's a great article!

On the other side of this, yes, the present endowment was influenced by Masonry.

Yet there is no question in my mind whatsoever that there WERE ancient ceremonies in early Christianity which parallel closely the endowment at least in spiritual meaning.

Thanks for the link, i will check it out. I had heard that about the separate ceremonies and veils. I've always had a bit of a fondness for the Catholic Church (and the Catholics i know and their values) so i find this stuff interesting. One would definitely expect to find a few echoes still reverberating there.

I wish i could have eavesdropped on your Temple discussions.

[SeattleGrunge]

Thanks for the links guys.

I don't know the masonic stuff very well. I have read a little bit of a book on it, but not got too far. Surprisingly similar. Anyway, can anyone tell me what things the temple endowment might have that the masonic ceremony does not? It would probably be best to PM me to avoid inferences that shouldn't be done on this board.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the links guys.

I don't know the masonic stuff very well. I have read a little bit of a book on it, but not got too far. Surprisingly similar. Anyway, can anyone tell me what things the temple endowment might have that the masonic ceremony does not? It would probably be best to PM me to avoid inferences that shouldn't be done on this board.

There was a recent long long thread on this topic- it just ended, so there may be lots more there for you to read from both sides.

Edit: The title is misleading because we got off topic on post number 3 and remained off topic for mostly the whole thread, but I think Tarski got his answer at the end anyway. The thread is actually about masonry.

This is the thread:

http://www.mormondia...alk-guidelines/

Edited October 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[SeattleGrunge]

mfbukowski,

I read that entire thread. I think it came to the same question as what I have here without a great answer, albeit a few more things to consider thrown in. Here are my thoughts...

Senator wrote: "...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)"

to which you agreed

I don't think you can dismiss Mike Reed's comments though, like why is there a greater fracturing the farther back you go? And why does the “Nauvoo endowment ... closely parallel what was found in American freemasonry”

Some challenge that fracturing, so I can't make a call on that since I haven't researched that and it doesn't seem to be a general consensus on that, or at least I haven't hear anything from those who would know.

Saints Alive misses the point I think in what he feels to be the case (JS used freemasonry rites to convey the covenants/doctrine he was inspired to teach) because it seems to ignore the fact that similar things are found in other parts of the world, especially around Abraham's time.

So, in the end, I'm still left stuck somewhere in the middle. I don't think either argument adequately takes all the facts into account to give a good explanation. I would love for someone to show me how I'm interpreting this wrong or show me another explanation that does take everything into account.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think you can dismiss Mike Reed's comments though, like why is there a greater fracturing the farther back you go? And why does the “Nauvoo endowment ... closely parallel what was found in American freemasonry”

I would disagree with Mike on a number of issues there, one of which is just the idea that there IS in fact "greater fracturing" the farther back you go. One must factor in the fact that we have cultural differences and translation issues between these ceremonies.

Here's more evidence from the Coptic Orthodox Church:

The Sacrament of Myron, also known as the Holy Anointment, or the Sacrament of Confirmation, is a holy Sacrament, with which we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit. The word ‘Myron’ is a Greek word which means ‘ointment’ or ‘fragrant perfume’.

The baptized person receives it immediately after Baptism, so as to become a temple of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit aids him to grow in his spiritual life. Although it is received directly after Baptism, it is an independent Sacrament and the priests have to be very careful to grant it accurately to the baptized, anointing them with 36 crosses.

The Lord Jesus instituted it when He said: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water”. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom these believing in Him would receive, for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:37-39).

The Baptized is anointed with 36 signs on his joints and senses so that the Holy Spirit can dwell within them. His body and soul becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this anointment, God grants the grace of confirmation to the baptized as well as the gifts of the Holy Spirit.....

THE ANOINTMENTS

The priest places his right thumb on top of the opening of the Myron bottle, and turns it downwards to wet his finger with the Myron. He then anoints the baptized as follows :

The first four anointments (eight crosses) are on the senses

Firstly, the top of the head, the nostrils, the mouth, and the right ear

Then, the right eye, the left eye, an finally the left ear

Whilst anointing, the priest says, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The anointment of grace of the Holy Spirit, Amen.”

NOTES:

He anoints The Head to sanctify it. The head contains the brain, where thinking takes place. It is the brain which distinguishes humankind from other creatures. A good mind is of great use and benefit to oneself and to others also. King Solomon praises the mind saying, “When wisdom enters your heart and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, discretion will preserve you, understanding will keep you, to deliver from the way evil” (Proverbs 2: 10-12).

Also, the Lord Jesus praised the young man who answered wisely and said to him: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). And St. Paul our teacher prays for us saying, “And the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7).

The Nostrils contain the sense of smell, and it is an important sense, for if a person is not careful and alert, it is possible for impure thoughts to enter ones heart through this sense. Hence, the priest anoints it to protect it against all sin and lust.

The Mouth with the tongue is the most dangerous organ in a person...

“If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless” (James 1:26).

“If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:2).

“The tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison, it defiles the whole body and sets on fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire by hell” (James 3:8,6), if it is not controlled.

The Psalmist prays, “Set a guard O Lord, over my mouth. Keep watch over the door of my lips. Do not incline my heart to any evil thing” (Psalm 141:3,4)

And the wise King Solomon said: “Whoever guards his mouth and tongue keeps his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23), and, “Put away from you a deceitful mouth, and put perverse lips far from you” (Proverbs 4:24. We ought to keep our tongue from sins such as swearing, insulting, lying, judging, and gossiping. Our words should always be graceful.

The Ears provide us with the important sense of hearing, which should also be controlled, and the anointing of the Myron is a strong weapon in control what we hear. We protect our ears from hearing such things as gossip, and other conversations which may poison our hearts with revenge and hatred. We also protect our ears from hearing certain songs which may poison our hearts with lustful thoughts.

The Eyes are the most important sense, through which enters more than 80% of information which may affect our hearts. If the information is holy, it sanctifies the heart, and vice versa. For this reason, we should control what we see so that we may keep ourselves pure. The tenth commandment says, “Do not covet”. The Psalmist prays, “Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things” (Psalm 119:37), and, “Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law” (Psalm 119:17).

The second group of four anointments are as follows :

The priest wets his right thumb with the Myron another time and anoints,

The heart (chest)

The navel

The back

The lower back...

and on it goes. And this is only ONE of the sacraments which parallel our ordinances. You should look at the whole site in my opinion.

But he is not here and it is unfair to go down that road too far; but to me, the fact that you have Nibley's understanding of the Egyptian ceremonies, Wellnitz's understanding of the Catholic ceremonies, the Orthodox ceremonies, and the Masonic ceremonies which scholars differ about when they were organized- some Masons themselves believing they go back to Solomon's temple- when you take all that, I cannot help but conclude that there is clearly SOMETHING there.

No proof, but to me, it is clear to the preponderance of the evidence that all of these have ancient sources. I cannot understand how you could not come to that conclusion.

But guess what- all of that is inconclusive anyway, and ultimately the Spirit is the only thing that can "prove" it to you. That's something the critics will never ever understand.

That Joseph was influenced by the Masonic ceremonies is unquestionable, imo.

But the question remains, with all these ancient similarities, then where did the Masonic ceremonies originate? Though they differ, many scholars will tell you the 17th century, but that does not account for all these ancient parallels.

But ultimately, it is your testimony and that only that makes a difference. But please tell me about all those Coptic Orthodox in Palmyra in the 1830's

Edited October 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here is how the conversation might go with a hypothetical critic:

Critic:"The endowment came from Masonry"

Me: Ok, where did Masonry come from?

Critic: "Well, ultimately probably from Catholicism"

Me: Where did Catholicism come from?

Critic: "Well, most of the ceremonies came from Judaism"

Me: Well where did the Jewish ceremonies come from?

Critic: "Well, from ancient Mesopotamian ceremonies, and Egypt"

Me: Bingo!

So to account for the similarities between Masonry and Catholic/Orthodox ceremonies, one must go back to the origins of Catholicsm.

That's close enough for me

Edited October 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[SeattleGrunge]

Thanks for the other link and notes. Like I said in my post, I don't know enough about the fracturing statement to say anything either way. One thing is for sure, this isn't a topic that is easily figured out and moved on past.

[mfbukowski]

Hi Mike!

Hope you can jump in

[Calm]

For me the only question that really matters is whether or not the Lord inspired Joseph in his selection of sources and his use of them. Everything else is fun to explore and can add layer of meanings to the experience but it is the question that determines the value of the experience in my view.

[LDSToronto]

But the question remains, with all these ancient similarities, then where did the Masonic ceremonies originate? Though they differ, many scholars will tell you the 17th century, but that does not account for all these ancient parallels.

But ultimately, it is your testimony and that only that makes a difference. But please tell me about all those Coptic Orthodox in Palmyra in the 1830's

mfbukowski,

Are you saying that you learned what you know about masonry through the Holy Ghost? Are you pitting your testimony against scholarly research? If you would just listen to George Miller's podcasts on masonry, you'd be exposed to a wealth of information that seems to have escaped your study; information that includes references to 16th century origins of masonry and explanations of so-called 'ancient' parallels.

H.

[bjw]

That Joseph was influenced by the Masonic ceremonies is unquestionable, imo.

But the question remains, with all these ancient similarities, then where did the Masonic ceremonies originate? Though they differ, many scholars will tell you the 17th century, but that does not account for all these ancient parallels.

But ultimately, it is your testimony and that only that makes a difference. But please tell me about all those Coptic Orthodox in Palmyra in the 1830's

Sorry, I accidentally hit "Report," instead of quote, I didn't mean to report this poster, but to quote him.

I think that the question of where the masonic ceremonies originate is something that will never be established anytime soon. A lot of people have a misconception about freemasonry that there is one general consensus, but I've noticed three different types that attend the masonic lodge meetings that I go to, and I think it conveniently corresponds to the three different popular masonic rites today:

The first I would say is the blue lodge mason. To this person masonry is all about potlucks and men meeting together one night a month to get away from their wives. As far as they are concerned all of the symbolism doesn't matter because it was probably made up by some guy in the back room of a bar in England in the 1700s. Therefore, the symbolism of the signs, tokens, and rudimentary architechture is just a moral lesson and "secrets" that allow them to identify each other as part of the same secret club, no different than a college fraternity. This person sees no reason to go beyone the 3rd degree in Masonic Education, because unless you have more time to kill, all the other degrees and rites do is elaborate on the already useless symbolism.

Then the next type is the Scottish Rite mason, or Rosicrucian. This person sees masonry as a ladder to climb on the way to spiritual development. They see all religions originating from a common source, that Christianity is nothing special, just another expression of ideas that spring up from primitive man and the original religion. They believe the signs, tokens, and architectural symbolism originate from the kabbalah, and contain the secrets of the creation of the universe. They see masonry as the consolidation of all the previous ancient mysteries, and that by studying the advanced degrees they are keeping the ancient mysteries alive in our own time.

The third type is the York Rite mason. This person sees masonry as a vestige from early Jewish and Christian practices, and that the truth could no longer be taught, so it had to go into hiding, revealing its secrets only to initiates. This group gives preference to those of the Christian religion, but believe that all relgions ultimately come from the same spring.

Unfortunately, many are those of the first type, and do not believe that anything in masonry existed before the 1700s. Therefore, they scoff at someone like Joseph Smith for actually buying into the mythology and starting a religion around it. While it cannot be denied that modern-day masonry did not exist as an organization before the 1700s, it is hard to not believe an ancient origin for many of its elements (or even the ancient mysteries themselves) when you read the early masonic thinkers like Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, AE Waite, Manley P Hall, George Oliver, etc. These writings show that the early masons at least had some belief that their fraternity contained mysteries of ancient origin.

With that said, we need to remember that Joseph Smith did not have access to many of the high degrees, I believe Greg Kearney has established that he only was familiar with the three blue lodge degrees and possibly the Royal Arch. With that in mind, it is hard to understand how we could have gotten the Temple Endowment, which contains many elements that are only found in the higher degrees.

[mfbukowski]

The Regius Poem dates from 1390, "or earlier" and in just reading it, it clearly refers to a well-established structure at that time, which it states came from much earlier origins.

http://freemasonry.b...xts/regius.html

I don't hold myself out as an expert on Masonry at all- I just have read a bit on it. My training is in philosophy.

Edited October 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

While it cannot be denied that modern-day masonry did not exist as an organization before the 1700s, it is hard to not believe an ancient origin for many of its elements (or even the ancient mysteries themselves) when you read the early masonic thinkers like Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, AE Waite, Manley P Hall, George Oliver, etc. These writings show that the early masons at least had some belief that their fraternity contained mysteries of ancient origin.

With that said, we need to remember that Joseph Smith did not have access to many of the high degrees, I believe Greg Kearney has established that he only was familiar with the three blue lodge degrees and possibly the Royal Arch. With that in mind, it is hard to understand how we could have gotten the Temple Endowment, which contains many elements that are only found in the higher degrees.

I totally agree. I have books by both Pike and Hall, and it is abundantly clear that the elements of masonry are much older, though I would concede in a heartbeat your point that as a fraternal organization it is pretty clearly much more recent.

I don't see how anyone could dispute that the annointing rituals go back at least as far as early Christianity both in the early Roman rite and in the Orthodox church.

Again, note that I am talking about the elements which were later quilted together into the patchwork that became the fraternal organization. The question is, what was the origin of these rituals, and I think it is clear that they are very old.

And again, Nibley saw the parallels in Egypt- as seen in this readers digest version of his "Message", for those who are not familiar with the Nibley volume itself.

http://chapmanresear...20Endowment.pdf

Busy day tomorrow

Edited October 19, 2011 by mfbukowski

[floatingboy]

I STRONGLY agree with LDSToronto that everyone interested in the subject should listen to the multi-part podcast (6 episodes) on mormonexpression (http://mormonexpression.com/?s=george+miller). Start with episode 144a. George is a very active Mormon and also very active Mason. He is highly intelligent and is the type of person gifted with the ability to delve into texts and information in a way most of us could only dream of.

I guarantee you will learn things you didn't know.

[mfbukowski]

I STRONGLY agree with LDSToronto that everyone interested in the subject should listen to the multi-part podcast (6 episodes) on mormonexpression (http://mormonexpress...s=george+miller). Start with episode 144a. George is a very active Mormon and also very active Mason. He is highly intelligent and is the type of person gifted with the ability to delve into texts and information in a way most of us could only dream of.

I guarantee you will learn things you didn't know.

WAAAAAAH

Do I HAAAAAAVVVEE TOOOOOOOO?

I hate podcasts. They droll on forever.

You can't skim until you finally get to the good parts. You are their prisoner until they get around to telling you something important!

And then when you find it, you have to listen to it over again, find the stupid button to do that, and then you go back too far, or not far enough......

Are they written down somewhere?