Washings And Anointing: Is It Masonic And Or Ancient

[David T]

At best, there is a part of the Masonic ceremony where the initiate removes part of his clothing, and is given a pair of trousers to wear and is later given a new name. This change of garment and new name, though, has quite different meanings and purposes than the same in the LDS initiatory rite.

FWIW, Those are also all elements not present in the Kirtland rituals.

Edited October 20, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

I asserted nothing. I specifically asked if this connection had been previously made, and noted I was not familiar with such arguments.

Okay. My mistake. I read your question as rhetorical. I appreciate you clearing that up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

While I can't and won't discuss specifically the washings and anointings directly connected with LDS practice I can discuss with some clarity the practice of anointings in the ancient church. In the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Second Edition (Garland Reference Library of the Humanities,Everett Ferguson it outlines a procedure for 3rd century baptism discussed by Tertullian. After a period of as much as three years of instruction the initiate is brought before the baptismal waters, disrobes, renounces satan and his works, and is anointed with oil to exorcise any evil spirits. The candidate then confesses his faith in each person of the trinity, immersed three times after each confession, and then anointed again, reclothed, and anointed again with the laying on of hands signifying the reception of the Holy Ghost. After this the congregation has a Eucharistic meal. While such a practice differed slightly from area to area the key elements continued to be observed;

1. Anointing

2. Disrobing

3. Baptism by immersion

4. Re-anointed

5. Clothed with new clothing, and

6. Confirmation and anointing by the laying on of hands.

Excellent find. I hope you and others keep these ancient examples coming.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bjw]

I am a Freemason and have been through the Scottish Rite, York Rite, and blue lodge degrees. To answer the OP, the wording used in the LDS Initiatory is almost exactly like the wording used in the washing and anointing in the 14th degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, in addition, in earlier versions of the ritual the candidate was said to be ordained a "priest after the order of Melchizedek."

Interestingly, Wicca also copies a lot from Freemasonry (Gerald Gardner, father of modern Wicca, was a mason) and the ceremonial washing in one of the wiccan degrees also uses a similar wording to those in the LDS Initiatory and the 14th degree. My brother was a Wiccan High Priest in a coven in Oregon for awhile and he told me about this.

[wenglund]

So far we have two examples where washing and anointing has been a part of an ancient and modern religious ritual. These two examples of washing and anointing are liturgical and tend to relate to baptism and the Holy Ghost. I look forward to presenting other similar examples in the coming posts.

However, when I first started looking into this issue my research took me on a somewhat different tack. When I considered what the LDS initiatory work was in preparation for (I wont mention it here), it caused me to wonder if there were coronations of kings and queens that might contain at least some semblance of washing and anointing.

The first coronation that I examined was that of Queen Elizabeth the Second. I was pleased to find in section VII (The Anointing), that during this portion of the ceremony, Elizabeth took off one robe, leaving her metaphorically "uncovered," though still wearing a simple white "anointing robe" that is tied at the shoulders (this is disclosed elsewhere). She then was anointed with oil on the palms of both hands, on the breast, and on the head, all the while, and thereafter, the archbishop pronounced a series of prayers. At the close of the anointing, Elizabeth then put on a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colobium_sindonis]Colobium Sindonis (a shroud or tunic) and the http://www.latin-dictionary.org/A/4/supertunica]Supertunica or Close Pall (a robe or garment worn over a tunic) of cloth of gold, together with a Girdle of the same."

In section IX she was later vested with "the Armills, the Stole Royal, and the Robe Royal, and takes delivery of the Orb."

In section X, Elizabeth was then given "the Investiture," wherein she was consecrated as "Head and Prince," and blessed that she may "reign with him that is King of Kings."

Finally, in section XI, Elizabeth was crowned and the assembly repeatedly shouted, "God Save the Queen," thereby implicitly giving her a new name of Queen Elizabeth.

The Archbishop then goes on to say: "God crown you with a crown of glory and righteousness, that having a right faith and manifold fruit of good works, you may obtain the crown of an everlasting kingdom by the gift of him whose kingdom endureth forever. Amen.

Following the benediction, the enthroning, and the Homage, the proceedings drew to close with the purification ritual of communion (which included exhortations, confession, absolution, and consecration).

So, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth explicitly and implicitly contained the following elements (not necessarily in this order):

a. Removal of old cloths

b. the wearing of an anointing gown.

c. Washing or purification and prayer

d. Anointing and prayer

e. Putting on new garments

f. Receiving a new name.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

Of course, each and every one of these sources had access to Exodus 40:12-13

12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

...and the related passages.

Edited October 21, 2011 by nackhadlow

[wenglund]

I am a Freemason and have been through the Scottish Rite, York Rite, and blue lodge degrees. To answer the OP, the wording used in the LDS Initiatory is almost exactly like the wording used in the washing and anointing in the 14th degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, in addition, in earlier versions of the ritual the candidate was said to be ordained a "priest after the order of Melchizedek."

I appreciate you sharing this with us. Assuming you are correct (and I have no reason to believe you aren't), this brings a flood of investigative questions to my mind regarding both the Masonic rite and the LDS initiatory ceremony.

In terms of the wording in the Masonic rite, I would like to know if the context is the same? In other words, is it initiatory? Why does it show up in the 14th degree and not in the 1st degree. Is it referred to explicitly as "washing and anointing"? Does the wording contain the same elements mentioned earlier in the thread? Does it have the same meaning and purpose (what is it preparatory to?)? Has the same wording always been a part of the Masonic rite? If not, when was it introduced and from whence was it derived.? In short, was it part of what George Miller calls the "Christianization" of Masonry?

In terms of the LDS initiatory ceremony, I would like to know if it is pretty much the same today as it was in 1837? And, if not, when was the Masonic wording first introduced?

If anyone here has answers to these questions I would be grateful for them.

It might also be of interest to explore the Wiccan history to determine when the similar wording may have been introduced--i.e. whether it is ancient or modern? And, if modern, was there an ancient precursor?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Of course, each and every one of these sources had access to Exodus 40:12-13

12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

...and the related passages.

That is excellent, but you are getting a bit ahead of me. My intent is for us to lay out a paper trail back to the time of Moses and if possible well beyond. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 21, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

After learning about the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, I wondered how far back that ceremony went in British history. During my research, I found this fascinating elaboration on the ceremony http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret18.htm

]here (I can't vouch for the accuracy of all that is said):

When the Queen was crowned Elizabeth II on June 2nd 1953, all the regalia of the ceremony, the crowns, sceptres, gowns, orb and bracelets, were taken from the Tower of London and kept overnight in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey.

This chamber is where the scholars met to translate the King James ‘authorised version’ of the Bible under the overall supervision of Sir Francis Bacon and Robert Fludd, the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion.1 The British Royal family still hold the copyright for this! The Jerusalem Chamber is panelled with cedar wood brought from the Lebanon because that was the wood said to be used to build Solomon’s Temple. The tapestry in the chamber depicts the Judgment of Solomon. Westminster Abbey, the ‘Christian cathedral’, is in fact a Pagan temple. Even the floor is made of black and white squares like a Freemasonic temple.

At the start of the ceremony in 1953, the Queen sat on the Coronation Chair and under her bum was the Stone of Destiny which Edward I had stolen from Scone (pronounced ‘scoon’) Abbey in Scotland in 1246. The Stone was supposed to have been brought to Ireland from Israel via Egypt and is also known as Jacob’s Pillar or Pillow. I think the basic theme of that is correct, but there is a great deal more to know about the detail and its true significance. The Archbishop of Canterbury turned to the north, south, east, and west (the four points of the Pagan cross) and the congregation shouted “God save the Queen”. This was symbolic of the story in the Old Testament describing the crowning of ‘Saul’ as King of Israel when people shouted “God save the King”. (Samuel 10:24)

This cry can be found eight times in the Old Testament when the Kings of Israel are crowned. The Queen sat in the Coronation Chair holding the Egyptian symbols, a sceptre and a rod. On the top of the sceptre is the Maltese Cross and on the rod is a dove….The Queen was also anointed with oil at her Coronation, the ancient Aryan and reptile-Aryan tradition which goes back thousands of years. The word ‘Christ’ means the ‘anointed one’. The oil at the Queen’s coronation was the same mixture as that used in the ancient Middle East. It was carried in a gold vessel called the Ampulla made in the form of... a dove.( Britain’s Royal Throne, p 6)

This is symbolic of the messeh fat used in Egypt by the Royal Court of the Dragon. The anointing at the Coronation is supposed to elevate the monarch to the rank of High Priest, in this case, appropriately, High Priestess of the Church of England as well as head of state.

While this was happening, the Archbishop of Canterbury said: “As kings, priests, and prophets were anointed: and as Solomon was anointed by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet, so be thou anointed, blessed and consecrated Queen over the peoples, whom the Lord thy God hath given thee to rule and govern...

The crown used in the ceremony goes back to the time of Edward the Confessor. He was the King of England who built the original Westminster Abbey in 1065 and later the present one was begun by the Templar controlled, Henry III. …The Coronation Crown is set with 12 jewels along with two depictions of the Maltese Cross which was one of the most prominent symbols of the Nazis. In the Levite-authored Exodus we hear of the Breastplate of Aaron which is set with 12 stones.( Exodus 28:1-2) The same stones, in the same order, appear in the British crown.( Britain’s Royal Throne, p 12)

The Archbishop placed his hands between the Queen’s to pay homage to the new head of his Church and he kissed her right hand. Then he said: “The Lord Almighty... establish your throne in righteousness, that it may stand for evermore, like as the sun before him, and as a faithful witness in Heaven.” This is almost a repeat of the words used in God’s covenant with David in the Old Testament.( Psalm 89: 35-37)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 23, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

So, how far back does the washing and anointing-like British coronation ceremony go in history?

According to westminister-abbey.org:

The essential elements of the coronation service used in modern times can be traced back to the crowning of King Edgar at Bath in 973. That tenth-century liturgy, drawn up by St Dunstan, underwent various adaptations in the early middle ages. Around 1382, probably in preparation for the crowning of Anne of Bohemia (Richard II’s consort), a new fine copy of the order of service was made. This illuminated manuscript, known as the Liber Regalis, is one of the great treasures of the Abbey’s library. It provided the order of service for all subsequent coronations up to, and including, that of Elizabeth I. For the coronation of James I the liturgy was translated into English. Nevertheless, with occasional adaptations to suit the political and religious circumstances of the time, the Liber Regalis remained the basis for all later coronation liturgies.

The '>ianpaisley.org suggests that the British coronation ceremony goes back even further:

It was of course the Old Testament anointing of Saul and the other Kings of Israel and Judah which inspired the first known Coronation ceremony in Britain – the designation in 787 AD of Ecgfirth as the future King of Mercia by his father, the better-known King Offa, who constructed the famous dyke to mark the border between the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons, now the long-distance footpath, Offa’s dyke. It was not King Offa’s only claim to fame…Ecgfirth was anointed with oil after the manner of Samuel anointing Saul.

In the very same year, the Ecclesiastical Synod of Chelsea emphasised the honour and dignity of Kings as ‘the anointed of the Lord’ and stipulated that they were to “conduct their government with great prudence and in obedience to the divine law … and to honour the church of God, which is the spouse of Christ”…. The first officially-designated ‘King of All England’ was King Edgar, and it was Dunstan who devised his Coronation ceremony – one which remains substantially unaltered to this day. Edgar was crowned in a ceremony in Bath Abbey in AD 973 – 1,030 years ago. The basic structure of that service, which did not make him King but was an act of consecration, were: (1) the formal election of the King and his promises to people (2) the consecration and anointing of the King, and (3) the vesting, coronation and enthronement of the King – all followed by a communion service.

The service moved to Westminster Abbey with the coronation of William the Conqueror in AD 1066. He claimed to be the successor of Edward the Confessor, and insisted on being crowned near his tomb in the Abbey.

In the twelfth century, the Coronation ceremony was revised to include a response by the clergy and the people declaring their allegiance to the monarch.

The test of the Service was altered for the Coronation of Charles II in 1661, but it was the strongly Roman Catholic James II who made substantial changes, omitting the communion service altogether and significantly abridging the ceremony. The further revision, which was undertaken by Henry Compton, bishop of London, of the Coronation of Protestant William III, has remained substantially unchanged to this day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As evinced, at the very least the British Coronation ceremony, which explicitly and implicitly contains all the key elements of the LDS initiatory ritual, can be traced further back in history than Free-Masonry (If I recall correctly, George Miller suggests that Free-Masonry began in the 1400's, whereas the British coronation dates to at least 787 AD), thus raising the question whether certain aspects of the Masonic rite (portions of the 14th degree?) may have been borrowed from the British coronation ceremony or a different source with more ancient and perhaps common origins with the British coronation?

At Wikipedia there is mentioned: "The coronation of the British monarch is a ceremony (specifically, initiation rite) in which the monarch of the United Kingdom is formally crowned and invested with regalia. It corresponds to coronation ceremonies that formerly occurred in other European monarchies, which have currently abandoned coronations in favour of inauguration or enthronement ceremonies..." (bold mine)

For a description of coronations in Europe, see HERE. And, for a description of coronations in Russia, see HERE

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here is more on coronations or anointings of kings in Europe:

In Christian Europe, the Carolingian monarchy was the first to anoint the king [4-'The Lord's anointed and the people's choice: Carolingian royal ritual', in: Cannadine, David & Price, Simon: Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, Cambridge, et al.: Cambridge University Press, 1987, 137-180, p. 137 & 142, also: Angenendt, Arnold: 'Pippins Königserhebung und Salbung', in: Becher, Michael & Jarnut, Jörg: Der Dynastiewechsel von 751. Vorgeschichte, Legitimationsstrategien und Erinnerung, Münster: Scriptorum 2004, 179-210, pp. 179 f.] in 7th century AD at a coronation ceremony that was designed to epitomize the Catholic Church's conferring a religious sanction of the monarch's divine right to rule.

English and Scottish monarchs in common with the French included anointing in the coronation rituals (sacre in French). The Sovereign of the United Kingdom is the last anointed monarch. For the coronation of King Charles I in 1626 the holy oil was made of a concoction of orange, jasmine, distilled roses, distilled cinnamon, oil of ben, extract of bensoint, ambergris, musk and civet.

The French Kings adopted the fleur-de-lis as a baptismal symbol of purity on the conversion of the Frankish King Clovis I to the Christian religion in 493. To further enhance its mystique, a legend eventually sprang up that a vial of oil—the Holy Ampulla--descended from Heaven to anoint and sanctify Clovis as King. The thus "anointed" Kings of France later maintained that their authority was directly from God, without the mediation of either the Emperor or the Pope.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anointing of an Orthodox Sovereign is considered a Sacred Mystery (Sacrament). The act was believed to bestow upon the ruler the empowerment, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, to discharge his God-appointed duties, and his ministry in defending the Orthodox Christian faith. The same Myron which is used in Chrismation is used for the Anointing of the Monarch. In the Russian Orthodox Church, during the Coronation of the Tsar, the Anointing took place just before the receipt of Holy Communion, toward the end of the service. The Sovereign and his Consort were escorted to the Holy Doors (Iconostasis) of the Cathedral, and were there anointed by the Metropolitan. After the Anointing, the Tsar alone was taken through the Holy Doors (an action normally reserved only for bishops or priests) and received Holy Communion at a small table set next to the Holy Table, or altar. (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Going back even further on the eastern hemisphere--and this is where things begin to get even more interesting, according to Wikipedia: Holy Anointing, Anointing of Kings:

The Hebrew term "Messiah (in Greek Christos) means "the anointed one," and relates to anyone anointed to be king. Customs varied in the cultures of the middle east, however anointing with special oil was in Israel either a strictly priestly or kingly right. When a prophet was anointed it was because he was first a priest. When a non-king was anointed, such as Elijah's anointing of Hazael and Jehu it was a sign that Hazael was to be king of Syria, which Jehu would king of Israel.[3] Extra-biblical sources show that it was common to anointing kings in many ancient Near Eastern monarchies, therefore in Israel anointing was not only a sacred act but also a socio-political one[4]

Anointing synonyms: unction and chrism. "The title Christ is derived from the Hebrew Messiah (מָשִׁיחַ, "Mashiach") and means literally; covered in oil, anointed.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing ) In several temple reliefs in Ancient Egypt the Pharaoh is depicted being anointed by Horus (sun god and "father" of Pharaoh) and Thoth (god of wisdom), the oil of which is symbolically depicted as a stream of ankhs (symbols of life). Among the Hebrews, the act of anointing with the Holy anointing oil was significant in consecration to a holy or sacred use: hence the anointing of the high priest (Exodus 29:29; Leviticus 4:3) and of the sacred vessels (Exodus 30:26). Later, Kings and Prophets were given the right to partake in this sacrament as well. …The High Priest and the king are each sometimes called "the anointed" (Leviticus 4:3-5, 4:16; 6:20; Psalm 132:10). Prophets were also anointed with the Holy anointing oil.(1 Kings 19:16; 1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15). Anointing a king was equivalent to crowning him; in fact, in Israel a crown was not required (1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Samuel 2:4, etc.). Thus Saul (1 Sam 10:1) and David were anointed as kings by the prophet Samuel: Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.—1 Samuel 16:13.

Distinct from the Jewish view, Christians believe the "anointed" one referred to in various biblical verses such as Psalm 2:2 and Daniel 9:25-26 is the promised Messiah. According to the Jewish Bible, whenever someone was anointed with the specific Holy anointing oil formula and ceremony described in Exodus 30:22-25, the Spirit of God came upon this person, to qualify him or her for a God-given task. According to the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth is this Anointed One, the Messiah (John 1:41; Acts 9:22; 17:2-3; 18:5, 18:28).

The kings of the Old Testament were anointed with oil and only afterwards did they receive Power through the Holy Spirit that came upon them. Jesus on the other hand, was anointed because the Holy Spirit had come upon Him (Acts 10:38). Jesus was anointed with Power itself. God was pleased that Jesus should be His Son (Matthew 3:16) and Jesus was the anointed of God. So we can differentiate between the kind of power that the kings of Israel and the kind of Power that Jesus (The King of Israel) had – the difference is that the kings were anointed of a human high priest but The King was anointed of God Himself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Continuing with the history of coronations on the eastern hemisphere:

"There were two parts to every [coronation] ceremony in ancient Israel. The first part was conducted in the Temple sanctuary with great pomp, with the royal guard standing around. The crown and insignia were bestowed upon the king (investiture), and he was anointed with oil and acclaimed. After the acclamation, all left the sanctuary and entered the palace, where the king was enthroned and paid homage by the high officials.

"The anointing the king with oil in the Temple by the priest and/or prophet is mentioned also for Saul, David, Absalom, Joachaz and Jehu, and probably took place for all the kings of Judah and Israel. In this religious rite, the "coming of God's spirit" indicates that the king, as a consecrated person, shares in the holiness of God and is thus inviolable; anointing made the reigning monarch the Meshiah Adonai — God's Appointed One.[5] (Anointing was not a rite peculiar to Israel, and probably existed in Canaan before the establishment of the Israelite monarchy; the kings in Mesopotamia during this period, however, do not seem to have been anointed.)

[5] David, for example, refuses to raise a finger against Saul because he is God's Anointed (I Samuel 24:7,11; II:26:9,11,23), and he executes the man who had dared to lift his hand against the king (II Samuel 1:14,16)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

What about the ancient western hemisphere?

There is a detailed description of a coronation in the Book of Mormon that is paraleled only in ancient nonbiblical sources, notable Nathan haBablil's description of the coronation of the Prince of the Captivity. The Book of Mormon version in Mosiah 2-6 (c. 125 B.C.) is a classic account of the well-documented ancient "Year Rite": (a) The people gather at the temple, (b) bringing firstfruits and offerings (Mosiah 2:3-4); © they camp by families, all tent doors facing the temple; (d) a special tower is erected, (e) from which the king addresses the people, (f) unfolding unto them "the mysteries" (the real ruler is God, etc.); (g) all accept the covenant in a great acclamation; (h) it is the universal birthday, all are reborn; (i) they receive a new name, are duly sealed, and registered in a nation cencus; (j) there is stirring choral music (cf. Mosiah 2:28; 5:2-5), (k) they feast by families (cf. Mosiah 2:5) and return to their homes (CWHN 6:205-310). This "patternism" has been recognized only since the 1930s. (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, BOOK OF MORMON NEAR EASTERN BACKGROUND)

Then there is this from the Maxwell Institute:

Closely associated with the ideology of kingship is the coronation of the king. It is the central ritual act connected with kingship. In Mosiah 1-6 is found a fascinating text surrounding the coronation of Benjamin's son, Mosiah. A comparison of that text with the coronation ceremonies recorded in the Old Testament and with enthronement rituals among other peoples of the ancient Near East reveals striking parallels. For example: …3. Anointing. Anointing the king with oil is a significant element in the coronation ceremonies in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East generally. The Bible records the anointings of six Israelite kings: Saul, David, Solomon, Jehu, Joash, and Jehoahaz. In the Book of Mormon, following Benjamin's address and the renewal of the covenant by the people, Benjamin "consecrated his son Mosiah to be a ruler and a king over his people" (Mosiah 6:3). The text does not indicate whether this "consecration" included anointing. However, some ritual act was clearly involved. Other instances in Nephite history indicate that the coronation included anointing. Jacob records that his brother Nephi "began to be old, and he saw that he must soon die; wherefore, he anointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:9) 4. Receipt of a Regnal Name. At the time of his accession to the throne, the king usually also received a new name, either a title or a name possessed by a predecessor. Examples of this abound in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and ancient Israel. Similarly, in the Book of Mormon, Jacob describes the giving of regnal names in his day: "Whoso should reign in [Nephi's] stead were called by the people second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would" (Jacob 1:10-11). Whether Mosiah similarly had a regnal name is difficult to determine. He is invariably referred to as "Mosiah" (i.e., Mosiah 6:4-7), so it is unknown if this was a given name or a coronation name. The latter is possible, since the name Mosiah may be a title meaning "savior, deliverer."1 Evidently between the time that Jacob made his record and Mosiah acceded to the throne, the practice of using Nephi as a regnal name had been changed, perhaps because the kingdom was no longer located in the land of Nephi. It is also possible that Mormon, the editor of this particular part of the history, used only one name for Mosiah in order to eliminate further confusion about multiple "Nephis."… .From the evidence at hand, we can see that the Nephite coronation ceremony quite appropriately consisted of elements similar to those used in ancient Israel. This aspect of kingship is fully and properly represented in the royal record of the Nephites.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Some people may contend that Joseph learned about masonry years before joining. I suppose that is possible. However, let's grant, for the sake of argument, the highly unlikely prospect that some of Joseph's Masonic family and friends violated their Masonic oaths and disclosed the Masonic rites to Joseph during the 1830's or before. Or, let's grant that Joseph may have read a copy of Capt. Morgan's "Illustration of Masonry," published in 1827. Whatever the case, I have searched Morgan's expose, and could find nothing but the most strained parallels with the LDS initiatory rite.

I have noted many masonic references in the BOM and I believe that it is George Miller's contention that large portions of the BOM were conceptually and in some cases literally copied from masonic rites, specifically from Antiquities of Freemasonry by Oliver, which was written in 1823 and he contends easily available to lodges in New York State soon after its publication.

That was on some of the podcasts which have been referenced I think on this thread and others, in conversations with John Larsen which are now on Mormon Expressions.

I am not going to link to them because I don't have time to do so- but I think most here will have no trouble finding them. Antiquities is also available through google as a free download pdf.

I think it is important to note that the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the endowment cannot be proven or disproven by historical evidence.

Edited October 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

My apologies for inundating you with data today, but I will be out of town for some of the weekend, and hopefully I will be going in for cataract surgery on Tuesday morning, and so I wanted to post before then what I have found regarding washings and anointing preparatory to become kings (coronations).

However, there is still plenty of ground yet to be covered, particularly mapping back through to ancient history of liturgical washings and anointing, both in general, and focusing on specific elements like attaining a new name. But, I will let you rest from my inundations for a few days, though I would encourage others to post their related findings.

When considering whether the LDS initiatory ritual in particular, and the LDS temple ceremonies in general, were inspired of God, please keep in mind not only the rich and ancient history of the ceremonies, but also in addition to having received specific revelations during the early 1830's in anticipation of the temple ceremonies and having, acording to divine commandment, built temples specifically for such use (the Kirtland temple was dedicated in 1836), but also, as Bill Hamblin has pointed out, the point that Joseph had previous to that time translated the Book of Moses as well as portions of the Book of Abraham, each of which contain substantial portions of the temple Endowment.

Then, too, you can always do as God advises, and ask him if they are of him and inspired by him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 21, 2011 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

And, even if so, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the LDS version isn't the restoration of an ancient rite. But, we will see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am convinced also that it is, and looking at the Catholic and Orthodox ceremonies, and also the Egyptian ceremonies, it is hard to see how it is NOT a restoration of ancient ceremonies

Freemasonry may very well have copied Orthodox annointings, and Joseph may have been influenced by the masonic version of those copied annointings- I don't know, and such has not yet been shown to my knowledge- but nevertheless, these ancient elements are clearly just that- ancient. At some point what is regarded as "sources" become irrelevant, and able to be seen in many ways, as is any historic interpretation.

[wenglund]

I am convinced also that it is, and looking at the Catholic and Orthodox ceremonies, and also the Egyptian ceremonies, it is hard to see how it is NOT a restoration of ancient ceremonies

Freemasonry may very well have copied Orthodox annointings, and Joseph may have been influenced by the masonic version of those copied annointings- I don't know, and such has not yet been shown to my knowledge- but nevertheless, these ancient elements are clearly just that- ancient. At some point what is regarded as "sources" become irrelevant, and able to be seen in many ways, as is any historic interpretation.

I agree, though I find the historical data to be satisfying to my faith, if not in a way somewhat faith promoting. I had a strong testimony of the divinity of the temple ceremonies prior doing this research, and I don't expect that will change much, except perhaps for the better.

I understand, though, that other people may lean more heavily than I on the arm of flesh, and as such their faith may benefit somewhat from these kinds of historical explorations.

I very much appreciate you keeping me re-focused on what is truly important to growth in faith in Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I love this scripture, its from Hebrews 10. I just posted it on another thread, about Paul, but thought it fit in this thread too.

¹⁵Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

¹⁶This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

¹⁷And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

¹⁸Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

¹⁹Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

²⁰By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

²¹And having an high priest over the house of God;

²²Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

In my temple experience, those covenants are definitely in my mind and heart, as we memorize the temple "sign language" which symbolize the covenants.

In our temple of course there is no longer a need for sacrifice, and we enter into the "holiest" part of the temple and into exaltation and the presence of God through the blood sacrifice of the savior who is our High Priest.

Through his sacrifice we are sprinkled with living water not only through baptism, but in other ways as well.

I love the LA temple because the decorations on the walls in the celestial room are full of images of fountains, and the image of living water is very clear. I often think of the sacrament when I am there as well, and how it connects to baptism and the temple.

The thoughts such symbols inspire in me are unquestionably from God, and the symbols are no more than letters and words; we need to be mindful that these thoughts are written with the same words we could use to write the most vile of thoughts.

Words are nothing more than symbols- what is important is not the symbols or the origins of letters, but what we personally do with the context in which we find them.

Edited October 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

In our temple of course there is no longer a need for sacrifice...

I would clarify that to say there is no longer a need for animal sacrifice, particularly for the remission of sins, because there is most definitely a law of sacrifice that we covenant to obey, as well as the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit that is expected of the faithful.

To me, some, though not all, of the OT rituals were fulfilled in Christ, but have a ritualistic counterpart under the new covenant. Perhaps when I get some time I will point out some of the corollaries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bjw]

I appreciate you sharing this with us. Assuming you are correct (and I have no reason to believe you aren't), this brings a flood of investigative questions to my mind regarding both the Masonic rite and the LDS initiatory ceremony.

In terms of the wording in the Masonic rite, I would like to know if the context is the same? In other words, is it initiatory? Why does it show up in the 14th degree and not in the 1st degree. Is it referred to explicitly as "washing and anointing"? Does the wording contain the same elements mentioned earlier in the thread? Does it have the same meaning and purpose (what is it preparatory to?)? Has the same wording always been a part of the Masonic rite? If not, when was it introduced and from whence was it derived.? In short, was it part of what George Miller calls the "Christianization" of Masonry?

In terms of the LDS initiatory ceremony, I would like to know if it is pretty much the same today as it was in 1837? And, if not, when was the Masonic wording first introduced?

If anyone here has answers to these questions I would be grateful for them.

It might also be of interest to explore the Wiccan history to determine when the similar wording may have been introduced--i.e. whether it is ancient or modern? And, if modern, was there an ancient precursor?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To protect the sancitty of both rituals I will make sure I do not mention any specific content from the ceremonies, but will only discuss what is common in print with both LDS and Masonic circles.

The 14th degree is called "Perfect Elu" and the ceremony is a continuation of the 13th degree (Royal Arch) where the lost word (sacred name of God) is recovered. The ceremony is to explain the nature of the lost word to the candidate and initiate him as a Perfect Elu, a prince of Israel that is the custodian of the secrets of the temple, including the lost word.

The context of the washing and anointing is that before the candidate can be entrusted with the nature of the lost word, signs, tokens, etc. he is given the ceremonial washing and anointing and takes an oath not to reveal any of the secrets of the degree. I will say that nowhere near as many parts of the body are treated in the 14th degree version as the LDS version, I won't go into any specifics to protect the sanctity of both rituals, but I performed in this degree recently at my local Scottish Rite Temple and me and one other actor that was LDS both went through the script in the locker room afterwards and were comparing what was similar to the LDS temple. I remember both of us decided that it confirmed our testimonies because there's no way two organizations trying to piece together the ancient mysteries could come up with the same things in such a precise manner without outside influence.

As to why this is done in the 14th degree and not sooner, the Scottish Rite is basically a dramatization of the Kabbalah divided into 29 ceremonies (4th through 32nd degree). It corresponds to the 32 parts of the tree of life. 14th degree is the culmination of the perfection of the symbolic lodge. In other words, it is meant to complete, or elaborate, on the lessons of the 3rd degree in the blue lodge. Masonically speaking, knowledge that appeared to be "lost" in previous degrees is now "recovered."

As for Wicca, I've heard that Gardner borrowed much from Masonic rituals when designing his own. He elaborated on a lot of what he learned and changed the mythology to a pagan, nature type religion. I'm not sure about that though because all that I really know about wicca I learned from my brother. However, he did tell me they had a system with three degrees.

[wenglund]

Professor John Hall, in his Notes from the Temple Studies Symposium III, a symposium on The Holy Anointing Oil, held by the Temples Studies Group at the Temple Church in London, had a number of interesting points to make, along with Margaret Barker and others, about ancient washing and anointing rites, particularly in regards to Egypt. I found this statement of most interest to this thread:

Similar themes are found in other Egyptian temple rituals, including the ordinance known as the “opening of the mouth.” Although some scholars see this as a rite performed only on the dead, there is evidence that it was part of an initiation into the temple mysteries for the living. (For a similar ritual among the Greeks, see my posts on the Orphic Gold Tablets) There is also evidence that this ritual was not only for royalty, but could be performed on deserving commoners, as well (e.g., Imhotep and Amenhotep, important architects — human beings who were believed to have been deified through this process).

During the opening of the mouth ritual, the initiate was:

• purified through washing
  
• anointed in specific order of mouth, eyes, ears, head, and different parts of body, including vitals and limbs
  
• reborn into a higher existence
  
• resurrected, given authorization to ascend through the seven houses of the gods to the eighth house, where the beings of light reside and where Osiris sits enthroned
  
• enabled to recall his life before mortal existence, through the oil of memory
  
• able to reverse the several “blows of death” inflicted from the beginning of the world
  

The express purpose of this ritual was to enable the individual to achieve exaltation and deification. "After the opening of the mouth the recipient of the ordinance becomes a Horus, with the name of Horus on his forehead, healed of mortality, resurrected and so ascending thorugh the heavens to the place where the great god Amun, the hidden one, sits upon the cosmic throne with its base of diamond and emerald." (Nibley, JSP, 170).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 22, 2011 by wenglund

[ldsfaqs]

Couple of must add additions.....

Valuable Temple Content from history....

http://web.archive.org/web/20030803232421/http://www.restorationhistory.com/&ps.html

[wenglund]

As you read through the information above regarding coronations (washing and anointing ceremonies), and in light of a point made in Matt's video above, please keep in mind these passages of scripture:

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (JST: And unto him who loved us, be glory; who washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, his Father. To him be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen.)

Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

There are at least two key points that may be extrapolated from these passages. First, the notion that the righteous and faithful followers of Christ would be made kings and priests, and implicitly the means/rituals to make them kings and priests, was revealed to the early-day saints of Christ's church, and was also revealed to the later-day saints as early as 1832--about 4 yeas prior to the dedication of the Kirtland temple and the practice washing and anointing being instituted.

Second, there is the implied merging of the offices of priest and king. From the time of Moses until the time of Christ, kings and priest were different offices held by different people. However, in Christ, the two were again merged. He was made both Great High Priest and King of kings.(JST, Hebrews 7:21;Revelation 19:16) The offices of King and priest had previously been merged with Melchizedek who was the King of Salem and the priest blessed Abraham and to whom Abraham paid his tithes. (Gen 14:18 ; Hebrews 7:1;Alma 13:14-18; D&C 107)

This last point will factor heavily in my next post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-