The Epistle Of Jude And Endowment Connections

[volgadon]

I dream in a foreign language some times--Pure Adamic! I dreamed I was called to a Russian mission. I showed up and was the only guy without a white shirt. Then they sent me out to go tracking and I went to the Hermitage Museum instead. (I alway loved Museum tracting in Italy.)

That is probably why I didn't serve in the St. Petersburg mission. They would never have gotten me out of the Hermitage.

My wife served there, and went to the Hermitage on p-days. I am of course insanely jealous.

Still, can't complain too much. My first area was in a charming German colony of the 18th c. with a nicemuseum complex. The Stalingrad memorial was not too far, and in a later area I visited an incredible museum of local history with stunning artefacts from Steppe and Caucasian culture.

[volgadon]

Wait...Our veils aren't made out of purified souls?

Not anymore. Don't you ever read the memos?

[mfbukowski]

Not anymore. Don't you ever read the memos?

There aren't any left!

Edited November 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[MormonMason]

...The veil in the Mormon ceremony was based on the veil in Freemasonry,...

Just dropping by after having been absent for many a moon. (I couldn't find the board for a while).

As to the statement quoted above, I can honestly say that in all the degrees of Masonry I have had conferred upon me, and in all the degrees I have participated in conferring upon others, in every state where I have been, I have never seen in Freemasonry, in any degree, anything like the veil used in LDS temple ceremonies.

Edited November 5, 2011 by MormonMason

[mfbukowski]

Joseph was inspired to take elements from many sources in his life including Masonry and put them together in a new way and give all those symbols a new context which is uniquely Mormon and reflects our theology.

The same English words can be used to write the works of Shakespeare, pornography, or reflect sacred ideas.

The use of words and symbols and where they derive from is irrelevant in deriving their "meaning" and it should be just as irrelevant in looking at the meanings found in temple worship.

Worrying about "masonic origins" makes about as much sense as throwing out all words in English which derive from French because they are "not English".

Edited November 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mike Reed]

Just dropping by after having been absent for many a moon. (I couldn't find the board for a while).

As to the statement quoted above, I can honestly say that in all the degrees of Masonry I have had conferred upon me, and in all the degrees I have participated in conferring upon others, in every state where I have been, I have never seen in Freemasonry, in any degree, anything like the veil used in LDS temple ceremonies.

Thanks for joining the thread, MM.

Personally, I don't expect the LDS endowment to harmonize most closely with 20-21st century freemasonry. My concern is freemasonry as it existed before Joseph Smith's death. You'd agree that uniform appearance and use of the veil was not regarded as a "landmark," right? If not, then shouldn't we expect there to have been some variation in Joseph Smith's day? How about for the countless irregular orders/degrees that developed prior to Joseph Smith's death? And during the Morgan era, when persistent Masons were forced to practice underground/clandestinely?

But here is the key question: How was Joseph Smith's use of the veil in the Endowment distinct from the Celestial Veil[s} (those which deceased Masons would pass through in order to enter the Grand Celestial Lodge in Heaven) imagined by his contemporary Christian Masons?

Did not Christians imagine such while pondering the significance of the RA veils? If you agree that they did, and if you also agree agree that the imagined celestial veils (as envisioned by Christian Masons) were quite consistant with the way Joseph Smith used them in the endowment, then I am not sure the distinction you draw (in response to Cobalt-70) is a very meaningful one.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

Just the facts:

http://royalarchmaso...-ceremony-r-a-m

Bernard E, Jones in his book, “Freemasons Book of the Royal Arch “writes;

“The ceremony of passing the veils, which formed part of the Royal Arch ceremony in the late 18th Century, probably had a Christian origin, and was customary only during the period when the RA. itself was largely a Christian degree. With the de-Christianization of the degree following, firstly, the union of the Grand Chapters in 1817 and, secondly, the drastic revision in 1835, the ceremony of the veils rapidly disappeared from English Royal Arch Masonry.”

Edited November 5, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mike Reed]

Just the facts:

http://royalarchmaso...-ceremony-r-a-m

[mfbukowski]

Yet of course the Mormon ceremonies are similar in only the most general way; in the Royal Arch ceremonies there is no mention of Christ or exaltation. Having a veil and going through it after speaking some words is about as close as it comes- the ceremony alludes to Old Testament themes.

There are other similarities to the Royal Arch, but nevertheless, Joseph was inspired to take what he knew and re-create it in a new way.

The source of all the elements is up to conjecture; they may have early origins, or they may not. It really doesn't matter. God uses what is at hand to teach us what we need to learn.

Edited November 6, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mike Reed]

Yet of course the Mormon ceremonies are similar in only the most general way; in the Royal Arch ceremonies there is no mention of Christ or exaltation.

They are symbolic. Since the rites are composed of symbols, they are understood to express meaning beyond (or in addition to) what is depicted/portrayed/expressed at the surface. Symbols don't need to "mention" or "depict" anything explicitly. Again... they are symbols. And what do they symbolize? Well... that depends on who you would ask. What did Christian Masons in Joseph Smith's day say they symbolized? What did they tend to think of while going through the rites, decorating the lodge, drawing their masonic charts, masonic aprons, etc? These are the sort of questions you should ask. They thought of both exaltation and Christ. Jacob's ladder, which was a common symbol among Masons (and was found on Joseph Smith's, in fact) symbolized exaltation to Christian Masons. The coffin on Joseph Smith's apron has a pentagram on it, and was understood by some to represent a mason's expectation of being raised/resurrected by the five points of fellowship (representing the five wounds of Christ). The rituals were also understood by Christian Masons in ways nearly identical to how Joseph Smith understood them--understanding them to represent the fall, probationary pilgrimage state, and redemption/exaltation through the atonement of Christ.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Mike Reed

[MormonMason]

There is no veil like the one used in LDS temple ceremonies in any Degree of Freemasonry, past or present. No veil that was used in Freemasonry has the markings, usage, meaning or purpose as that found in the LDS temple ceremony.

In Royal Arch Freemasonry the veils themselves (more like colored, two-part curtains, actually) literally referred to the veils and curtains of a literal Tabernacle that was set up to prevent easy intrusion to "the council" inside, which was comprised of three people, namely a member of the royal family and by right a king (Zerubbabel), a scribe, and the High Priest of Israel.

In addition, Joseph Smith was not a Royal Arch Mason. All he could possibly have known are the exposures that were published of the rituals, but even that was insufficient to teach him about working through a veil because such was not done. In all cases the curtains and veils were opened fully before the persons going through were stopped by armed persons which we now call Masters of the Veils and Royal Arch Captain, and were asked by what means they hoped to gain passage through the veils.

I've been through and have conferred the rituals. I also own copies of some of the oldest Royal Arch Rituals in the world, including ones in America from the time and locations of Joseph Smith. I know both ritual and floorwork, which is something that Joseph Smith would not have known in its full form.

Masonry also had and has no concept of Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms or worlds that the LDS temple ceremony does.

mfbukowski, your reference above refers strictly to British Royal Arch Masonry. In fact, American Chapters kept the passing of the veils ceremony even after the changes in England removed the ceremony from most Chapters. The rest of the page only deals with the Royal Arch Chapters of Alberta, Canada.

Edited November 6, 2011 by MormonMason

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski, your reference above refers strictly to British Royal Arch Masonry. In fact, American Chapters kept the passing of the veils ceremony even after the changes in England removed the ceremony from most Chapters. The rest of the page only deals with the Royal Arch Chapters of Alberta, Canada.

Yes, I only brought up that site because someone had said that veils were not used in masonry.

I have a strong testimony of our temple rites, and I think there is no point in avoiding the issues of the similarities between masonry and the endowment. As I alluded in that one post, the facts are the facts and ignoring them gets us nowhere.

I agree with you about the uniqueness of our veil ceremony and have not seen anything like it in masonry. Of course I am not a mason, though and I am not claiming necessarily that it IS unique. It really doesn't affect my beliefs either way.

The details and the symbolism of our rites, I believe, are crucial in transforming what may appear to be something "similar" to something totally unique.

I believe George Miller feels the same way I do about that, but of course I will not speak for him, but that was the impression I received in a lengthy conversation we had a few weeks ago.

[mfbukowski]

.... Again... they are symbols. And what do they symbolize? Well... that depends on who you would ask. What did Christian Masons in Joseph Smith's day say they symbolized? What did they tend to think of while going through the rites, decorating the lodge, drawing their masonic charts, masonic aprons, etc? These are the sort of questions you should ask. They thought of both exaltation and Christ. .... The rituals were also understood by Christian Masons in ways nearly identical to how Joseph Smith understood them--understanding them to represent the fall, probationary pilgrimage state, and redemption/exaltation through the atonement of Christ.

Interesting- it would be nice to see some references to show that. I am concerned that perhaps it asserts what is unknowable- what 19th century masons thought these very private ceremonies might have meant to them.

I would think that such information could only come from someone's private diary in which he wrote things which he personally would have thought inappropriate to write.

Implying that you know how Joseph understood the endowment, though, is, I think, a little far out there.

I also think it is important to realize that Joseph's companions were largely masons, who understood masonry as well, and they were not concerned with these similarities to the endowment.

For me, that is the bottom line. They knew all of this - as well as being close friends and confidants of Joseph himself- and if they had no problem with it, I can't see how we should.

Edited November 6, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Mike Reed]

There is no veil like the one used in LDS temple ceremonies in any Degree of Freemasonry, past or present. No veil that was used in Freemasonry has the markings, usage, meaning or purpose as that found in the LDS temple ceremony.

So you presume to know all degrees (clandestine or otherwise), all variations of those degrees, in all locations and time periods. That is quite unbelievable. I am unaware of a single masonic historian who would make such a claim. On the contrary... the greatest Masonic historians I've read seem quite willing to admit that there are many developments, irregularities, and clandestine orders that we know virtually nothing about.

In addition, Joseph Smith was not a Royal Arch Mason.

At least, not a regular and accepted one. Have you ever wondered why he owned a serpent cane? Does that seem a tad suspicious to you?

All he could possibly have known are the exposures that were published of the rituals,

I disagree. A couple of his associates were willing to divulge Masonic secrets. Obviously, you know about the history of WW Phelps and George W. Harris. Or don’t you? Have you heard of degree peddlers? Have you researched clandestine masonry that sprang up in the Morgan Era? So how did William Morgan obtained all of his masonic secrets? Have you read Arturo DeHoyos’ work on this topic? Think about it. Joseph smith's family lived in the HEART (both time and space) of anti-Masonry/Masonic expose. Why you assume that Joseph Smith's knowledge of FM must've been limited to what was "published" in the exposures, is beyond me. This stuff was the talk of the town.

but even that was insufficient to teach him about working through a veil because such was not done.

There was plenty of material published by Masons themselves, revealing the ways they interpreted the Rituals. Funeral sermons, for example, often spoke about passing through heavenly veils guarded by angels (who will test you), and pulled into the presence of God. Not only were these funerals open to the public, but the sermons were often published in newspapers. Lectures were given before the lodges/chapters. Children were mentored by masons, rearing them up with the expectation that they might one day join the fraternity. Antimasonic literature, like John G. Stearn's volume, heavily criticized Christian interpretations of the Masonic rites, which appeared (to Stearns) to unite both Church and Lodge. Masons themselves published material, trying to ease anti-Masonic concerns, explaining how the rituals are not at all in conflict with Christianity. Did Joseph Smith modify the use of the veil some? Probably. But he did so in ways that were not far from how Christian Masons envisioned the Celestial veils in heaven--and connecting it to the mysterious priestly garments that were said to contain "eyelet" holes. And of course, we both know that the two most prominent markings on the veil (as well as the garments) had masonic significance.

In all cases the curtains and veils were opened fully before the persons going through were stopped by armed persons which we now call Masters of the Veils and Royal Arch Captain, and were asked by what means they hoped to gain passage through the veils.

Do you deny that there were swords in the early endowment?

I've been through and have conferred the rituals.

Irrelevant. My concern is freemasonry as it existed before Joseph Smith's death.

I also own copies of some of the oldest Royal Arch Rituals in the world, including ones in America from the time and locations of Joseph Smith. I know both ritual and floorwork, which is something that Joseph Smith would not have known in its full form.

What do you know about freemasonry that existed prior to Joseph Smith's death? What do you not know about clandestine orders, degree peddlers, irregularities, etc.? What do you know about the ways Masons interpreted Masonic ritual, and how they envisioned their passage into the next life? What is the underlying divine message that Christians believed was communicated by the external sign? Your old copies of Royal Arch Rituals will not give you that, right? Where can we get this info? Answer: From Masons themselves. Although Masons were forbidden to divulge many details of the rite, they talked freely about their interpretation of the rite. And such discussion (and published material) was not restricted to fellow measons only.

Masonry also had and has no concept of Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms or worlds that the LDS temple ceremony does.

“[T]he system of Freemasonry… displays clearly the analogy between a Masons’ Lodge and the temple of Jehovah, in the city of God” (235). The author later reveals, “[Paul] mentions three heavens, and three states of the soul. And to close these coincidences, the heavenly Jerusalem of the Apocalypse had three gated in each of its quarters” (240). (George Oliver, “The Number Three,” Freemasons Quarterly Magazine, June 1843.)

This theme is played out in “Grand Pontiff, or Sublime Scotch Masonry.” We are informed that in this degree, “The draft (or carpet,) of the lodge, represents a square city, or celestial Jerusalem, descending on the clouds…. This celestial Jerusalem has twelve gates, three on each side. In the center is a tree which bears twelve different kinds of fruits.” Questions and answers then pursue: “Q. What does the draft of this lodge represent? A. A Square city of four equal sides, with three gates on each side, in the middle of which is a tree, which bears twelve different kinds of fruit. The city is suspended as on clouds, and seems to crush a three headed serpent. Q. Explain this to me. A. The square city represents ancient Free Masonry, under the title of Grand Pontiff, which comes down from heaven to replace the ancient temple, which is represented by the ruins and the three headed serpent underneath. Q How comes Masonry to have fallen into ruin, since we are bound to support it, and are attached to it by our obligations, which cannot be equivocal? A. It was so decreed in old times, which we learn from the writings of St. John, whom we know to have been the first Mason who held a Lodge of Perfection. Q. Where does St. John say this? A. In his revelation, where he speaks of Babylon and the celestial Jerusalem. Q. What signifies the tree, with the twelve different fruits, which stands in the center of the square city? A. The tree of life is placed there to make us understand, where the sweets of life are to be found.” (David Bernard, Light on Masonry [utica NY, 1829], 234-235)

In the Masonic Manual, a footnote is added after the phrase “three degrees of Masonry.” The footnote asks the question, “Have the three degrees of Masonry any hidden preference to the three heavens mentioned by St. Paul, and the three degrees of blessedness conferred on the human soul?” (Jonathan Ashe, notations by George Oliver, The Masonic Manual [London, 1843], 198)

How would Joseph Smith or Swedenborgians have answered this question?

Edited November 7, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

Implying that you know how Joseph understood the endowment, though, is, I think, a little far out there.

Having not done the research that I and my associates and I have done, I can understand why you'd think so.

I also think it is important to realize that Joseph's companions were largely masons, who understood masonry as well, and they were not concerned with these similarities to the endowment.

For me, that is the bottom line. They knew all of this - as well as being close friends and confidants of Joseph himself- and if they had no problem with it, I can't see how we should.

Have I said that you "should have a problem with it"? Personally... I think the endowment is one of the most interesting and attractive things the Church has.

[Mike Reed]

Just read several documents at UC Berkeley today illustrating the problems "Regular" masonry had in dealing with "irregularities" and independent orders, following the years of anti-masonry (1842-47); and other material showing major internal conflict prior to the Morgan affair.

[Cobalt-70]

I did supply a reason for looking at an Aramaic original, at least in thought: Jude spoke Aramaic as his maternal tongue, being raised in the some house where Jesus was. My personal examples for Italian and French versus my English were precisely to underscore that rationale: one thinks best in his native language, and Jude doesn't seem to present a counterexample.

This presumes, however, that the epistle was actually written by Jude the brother of James and Jesus. Most likely it was not, given that it is typically dated to the turn of the 2nd century AD, and had to have been written after there was understood to have been a "faith once for all delivered to the saints," including an apparently well-developed liturgy.

[diglot]

This presumes, however, that the epistle was actually written by Jude the brother of James and Jesus. Most likely it was not, given that it is typically dated to the turn of the 2nd century AD, and had to have been written after there was understood to have been a "faith once for all delivered to the saints," including an apparently well-developed liturgy.

The epistle of Jude is asserted to have been a product of the "early Catholic" era, meaning it was written in a post-apostolic setting sometime during 80-150. A couple of key concepts underlying "early Catholicism" are:

1. the death of the apostles led to an increased institutionalization of the church in order to preserve the apostolic tradition through defining the faith into more concrete forms
   
2. a fading hope of Christ’s parousia due to the failure of its imminent occurrence.
   

It must be noted, though, that the early Catholicism model has been undergoing revision over the last few decades due to its rather simplistic view regarding the development of nascent Christianity. As Martin Hengel judiciously noted: "The term ‘early Catholicism’, so often misused, is inappropriate and does not add anything to our understanding of earliest Christian history … If we want to, we can find ‘early catholic traits’ even in Jesus and Paul" [Acts and The History of Early Christianity, (London: SCM Press, 1979), 122]

The two aforementioned aspects of early Catholicism are noticeably absent in Jude. Signs that Jude was written during a period of increasing institutionalization of the church would be evident through an emphasis on the necessity of the recipients to obey an ecclesiastical office (i.e. the Bishop), which is ably seen in the epistles of Ignatius, written ca.108. Conversely, in v. 18 of Jude we find that the recipients are told to build themselves up in the faith, rather than an exhortation to rely on an episcopal office. This is followed with the exhortation in v. 20 to remember what the apostles had “said” to them rather than what they had “written”, which is what one would reasonably expect to be present in Jude if it was truly written in an early Catholic setting. Also, the fading hope of the parousia is nowhere apparent in Jude. In fact, quite the opposite considering that it is depicted as a lively imminent expectation where Jesus will return to judge the ungodly and provide salvation for his own (vv. 1, 14-15, 21, 24).

The primary arguments from the text which are used to support the early Catholic reading of Jude are found in v. 3 and v. 17. In v. 3, the author refers to “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints”, where “the faith” is taken to refer to an unchangeable body of orthodox teaching that has been handed down by the apostles and needs to be defended. While it is true that precise doctrinal definitions came about with the imposition of centralized ecclesiastical authorities (cf. see the usage of “the faith” in the late pseudepigraphal Pastoral epistles), the term was nevertheless also used as a simple reference to the Christian gospel message in earlier times (e.g. 1 Cor. 16.13; Gal. 1.23). Ostensibly, Jude’s mention of “the faith” as something “once and for all delivered to the saints”, combined together with the exhortation for the readers to “contend” for it, would seemingly place it in the same category of usage as the Pastorals. Yet, the whole theological contour of Jude portrays “the faith” not as some sort of proto-creedal orthodox belief system but as the Lordship of Christ over the believer and the concomitant effect on one’s ethics and living.

The other main text from Jude used to argue in favor of an early Catholic reading is the call to remember the apostles’ words in v. 17. This is seen as consequently placing the apostles in the distant past, yet this conclusion is not a necessity derived from the text, as it does not claim that the apostles themselves are from the past but only that the time in which the recipients heard them is. Additionally, the fact that the recipients are told to “remember” what the apostles had “said” to them implies that the recipients had indeed heard the apostles directly.

I think a persuasive case can be made for describing it as an apocalyptic piece of literature deriving from an early Palestinian Jewish-Christian milieu. (note: I do not think that Jude fits the apocalyptic genre, but it does manifest the apocalyptic worldview). Certain features of the epistle point towards this conclusion, as well as supporting a provenance of early Palestinian Jewish-Christianity:

• the midrashic hermeneutic used in vv. 5-19 (which is very similar to that displayed in the Pesharim of Qumran)
  
• the use of Testament of Moses and 1 Enoch (the Aramaic version)
  
• the emphasis on angelology (referenced as κυριοτης, δοξας, αρχαγγελος, διαβολος, and αγιαις μυριασιν in vv. 6, 8, 9, 14)
  
• the emphasis on orthopraxis rather than an emphasis on a proto-creedal orthodoxy.
  

Edited November 8, 2011 by diglot

[mfbukowski]

So you presume to know all degrees (clandestine or otherwise), all variations of those degrees, in all locations and time periods. That is quite unbelievable. I am unaware of a single masonic historian who would make such a claim. On the contrary... the greatest Masonic historians I've read seem quite willing to admit that there are many developments, irregularities, and clandestine orders that we know virtually nothing about.

Just read several documents at UC Berkeley today illustrating the problems "Regular" masonry had in dealing with "irregularities" and independent orders, following the years of anti-masonry (1842-47); and other material showing major internal conflict prior to the Morgan affair.

This is not well-formulated in my mind (yet)- or perhaps I am looking at it incorrectly at the moment, but with all this variation and irregularity, at what point do we say that "Joseph got it from the masons" when what "it" is is not clear? What is "masonic" when everything is "masonic", Christian, non-Christian, renegade lodges

It seems that there were tons of different "elements" of "regular masonry" and "irregular masonry" and it seems that any distinction defining the endowment as "masonic" becomes more and more difficult.

The time period was a cultural masonic stew where "anything goes"; to me, this represents "matter unorganized" from which Joseph, though inspiration, was able to create/restore/translate a whole new system perfectly reflecting the Mormon conception of the universe.

[Mike Reed]

It seems that there were tons of different "elements" of "regular masonry" and "irregular masonry" and it seems that any distinction defining the endowment as "masonic" becomes more and more difficult.

I think the difficulty exists for apologists who (like MormonMason and others) try to distinguish the endowment from freemasonry. It is relatively easy for a historian to responsibly connect the two by focusing primarily on a single masonic movement that culminated in Joseph Smith's day: The Christianization movement among the Ancients. Outside of masonic exposes, two of the top three masonic authors that influenced Joseph Smith (directly or indirectly) were Salem Town and George Oliver. They were the foremost contemporaneous leaders of the Christianization movement. But again... the RA veils represented what they expected to approach in the hereafter, and this was a predominant view. So although I like your stew/chaos analogy, it doesn't seem to fit... at least, not for the specific details I've discussed in this thread.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

Clearly it comes down to interpretation of all this.

Members who believe that Joseph was not influenced by masonry don't have it right, and neither do critics who think Joseph "got it all" from masonry.

To me, it is clear that there is plenty of room for revelation and Joseph using what truths were available to him. If there was so much truth available to him in his community, I am sure it was not an accident that he was in that place at that time.

God uses what is available to teach us what we need- just as Jesus used agrarian parables with which to teach the culture in which he was immersed, I am sure God used what was available to Joseph also.

[David T]

To me, it is clear that there is plenty of room for revelation and Joseph using what truths were available to him.

I don't think those need to be separated. I think in many ways, making an inspired connection and recognizing useful truth from an outside source and gathering it in can indeed in and of itself be a form of revelation.

Edited November 9, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Mike Reed]

Members who believe that Joseph was not influenced by masonry don't have it right, and neither do critics who think Joseph "got it all" from masonry.

Agreed.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

I don't think those need to be separated. I think in many ways, making an inspired connection and recognizing useful truth from an outside source and gathering it in can indeed in and of itself be a form of revelation.

Absolutely!

[mfbukowski]

Agreed.

I'm glad that you agree to that, and I think it is important for forum members to better understand that you are not an "anti-mormon", bent on "destruction of their faith".

I think that you are just sincerely seeking the truth as you see it, and no one can fault anyone for that.