Masonry In Temples Ordinances

[wenglund]

No, thank You. A completely nonsensical, supposedly humorous, irrelevant and sarcastic comment always lightens up my day.

Then, aside from the humorous (at least intentionally), your first post to this thread must have set your day ablaze.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

My thoughts too.

Josephy Smith was appointed Chaplain of his lodge after becoming a member, in this capactiy his role would be to open and close the lodge with a prayer, the rest of the time during the rituals he'd have watched. Using his gifting, I think he'd have seen the impact participatory ritual can have on an individual and group and that's why God placed him there, so that he could see/learn and then develop the Temple Ordinances.

I am glad to see more and more members moving beyond a fundamentalistic view of the endowment. I think you are right on the money. There is nothing like these rituals to move the mind toward elevated thoughts and seeking inspiration. And the "secrecy" is fundamental to each person attaining their own understanding independent from others allowing each to attain their own level of understanding.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we had "experts on what the endowment means" writing papers and such?

The purpose of the ordinances would be completely destroyed.

Edited April 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If I understand correctly, at least some portions of the temple ceremony had been revealed as early as 1835, in preparation for the dedication of the Kirtland temple. This predates Joseph's membership in the Nauvoo lodge by about seven years.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

True as I understand it also- just sayin'.

But this does not negate the spirit of my post above. I didn't mean to imply that Joseph "got it all from the Masons"- clearly he didn't.

[mfbukowski]

Masonry is relatively modern phenomenon , with the first grand lodge being founded in the 1700's. It was made up as a secret society with secret words and handshakes that had no links to ancient ceremonies other than merely proclaiming that they were ancient. One of my grandfathers was a Freemason who later joined the Oddfellows. My other grandfather was a Shriner and played the Tuba in their marching band. I think that both saw the fellowship of their organizations as a community of friends and a good excuse to get out of the house.

Joseph Smith was a mason and copied the ceremonies complete with secret words, oaths and handshakes.

This reflects no understanding of the issues here whatsoever.

[bcuzbcuz]

Sure he did. That's not the question, or the problem. At least it shouldn't be. The question is the significance, and if the fact that he re-contextualized them, added to them, and gave them a new meaning is a legitimate inspired prophetic action, whether or not the originals he was influenced by were ancient or not.

I do not consider myself expert enough to evaluate significance for anyone other than myself. Wenglund wrote about the temple ceremonies, "the rest was pretty much new to me, and even a bit outside my comfort zone."

I went through the Salt Lake Temple long before the ceremonies were changed. Saying it was "outside my comfort zone" is putting it mildly. As many have done, I pushed the experience to a back burner of relevance for my daily living but returned to it later in life. For me, it is enough to say that "Joseph Smith copied the ceremonies complete with secret words, oaths and handshakes."

[selek1]

I do not consider myself expert enough to evaluate significance for anyone other than myself.

But that's never prevented you from trumpeting your ignorance from the highest steeple...

For me, it is enough to say that "Joseph Smith copied the ceremonies complete with secret words, oaths and handshakes."

And facts be damned, right?

Aren't you usually near the head of the line proclaiming that the Church "hides important stuff from members"?

And yet here you are- rejecting the "important stuff" in favor of a shallow, tendentious, and inaccurate sound byte.

Well, so long as you're happy...

Edited April 17, 2012 by selek1

[bcuzbcuz]

Then, aside from the humorous (at least intentionally), your first post to this thread must have set your day ablaze. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're picking a fight with someone whose comments were neither meant as humorous nor irrelevant. If sarcasm is your weapon of choice, pick someone who is a match for your wit.

[wenglund]

I do not consider myself expert enough to evaluate significance for anyone other than myself. Wenglund wrote about the temple ceremonies, "the rest was pretty much new to me, and even a bit outside my comfort zone."

I went through the Salt Lake Temple long before the ceremonies were changed. Saying it was "outside my comfort zone" is putting it mildly. As many have done, I pushed the experience to a back burner of relevance for my daily living but returned to it later in life. For me, it is enough to say that "Joseph Smith copied the ceremonies complete with secret words, oaths and handshakes."

I, too, went through the temple many times prior to "the change." I have also conducted a rather thorough comparative study of the masonic ceremony and the "old" temple ceremony, and found only a small percentage of overlap in language, and even less in meaning and purpose. This is enough for me to say you know little of what you are talking about in this case. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 17, 2012 by wenglund

[selek1]

Wenglund wrote about the temple ceremonies, "the rest was pretty much new to me, and even a bit outside my comfort zone."

I went through the Salt Lake Temple long before the ceremonies were changed. Saying it was "outside my comfort zone" is putting it mildly. As many have done, I pushed the experience to a back burner of relevance for my daily living but returned to it later in life.

It's interesting to me that you chose to omit the rest of Wade's comment- particularly the part about "gaining a loving appreciation for those things."

Wade's experience mirrors my own- and that of countless other Saints with whom I've discussed the matter.

One cannot help but wonder what crucial difference lies between the disparate groups: those who study the endowment in faith and humility and those for whom "Joseph copied it" is "good enough".

There's a critical, crucial difference there- but I can't put my finger on it.

Hmmm.....

[wenglund]

You're picking a fight with someone whose comments were neither meant as humorous nor irrelevant. If sarcasm is your weapon of choice, pick someone who is a match for your wit.

I am not sure it works well to play the victim card when you were the one who first came out swinging.

And, so much for your claim about lightening your day. LOL

But, whatever the case, feel free to passive-aggressively flog me at your leisure.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bcuzbcuz]

I, too, went through the temple many times prior to "the change." I have also conducted a rather thorough comparative study of the masonic ceremony and the "old" temple ceremony, and found only a small percentage of overlap in language, and even less in meaning and purpose. This is enough for me to say you know little of what you are talking about in this case. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It doesn't surprise me at all that two people can look at the same thing and come away with different opinions. I never had any means to do a "thorough comparative study" of the masonic and former temple ceremonies. I have, to this date, never seen any transcript of the temple ceremonies, old or new. I have never looked for any: I assumed most held their vows sacred. I do think my memory is quite sound. But I'll take your word for it, I "know little" of what I'm talking about.

[bcuzbcuz]

experience mirrors my own- and that of countless other Saints with whom I've discussed the matter.

You've discussed the temple ceremonies with countless others? Interesting.

[selek1]

You've discussed the temple ceremonies with countless others? Interesting.

I've discussed the temple experience with countless others- which is almost precisely what we are doing here.

I understand the temptation towards tendentious myopia, but please do not put words in my mouth.

[phaedrus ut]

Whether the temple ceremony is a restoration of a ancient practice or a creative borrowing from the masonic ceremony we do know there was quite a bit of fervor at the time about masonry. A interesting quote from a local NY newspaper seems to provide a warning many saints will find familiar.

"BEWARE OF SECRET COMBINATIONS." These are the dying words of General George Washington. Do not these words ... point with an index that cannot be mistaken, to the Society of Freemasons? (The Morgan Investigator,29 Mar. 1827, Batavia, New York).

Then of course there are the original secret combination(Moses 5:51) from the very first practitioner known as a Master Mahan(Moses 5:31).

Phaedrus

[Calm]

I never had any means to do a "thorough comparative study" of the masonic and former temple ceremonies.

Then why do you feel it is appropriate for you to state as if demonstrated fact that it was a "complete" borrowing, etc.?

[Antoni]

I am glad to see more and more members moving beyond a fundamentalistic view of the endowment. I think you are right on the money. There is nothing like these rituals to move the mind toward elevated thoughts and seeking inspiration. And the "secrecy" is fundamental to each person attaining their own understanding independent from others allowing each to attain their own level of understanding.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we had "experts on what the endowment means" writing papers and such?

The purpose of the ordinances would be completely destroyed.

This is one of the KEY parts of why masonry refuses to be dogmatic about what its rituals mean, it is for the individual to discover/interpret. It is a VERY powerful spiritual tool and the secrecy is necessary in order to keep the solemnity and seriousness of it. That's not to say it can't also be joyous. I speak as a mason, not as one that has received Temple Ordinances (yet ). They are valuable because they DO take you out of your comfort zone, and you have to process information in a different way, internalising is harder than just accepting what a teacher says.

[Calm]

It is a VERY powerful spiritual tool and the secrecy is necessary in order to keep the solemnity and seriousness of it

As well as to avoid interpretation occurring out of context, which could then inhibit discovery during the actual ritual, I would think.

An analogy....

For me, I hate to see a movie about a book prior to reading that book because then the vision that occurs during the reading isn't mine, it is the director's of the movie. Even after reading the book, I am cautious because if the movie vision is strong enough, it can be substituted for my own...and then my experience of the book becomes shallow and repetitive rather than one of exploration.

Edited April 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Antoni]

Yep, good point and analogy

[wenglund]

It doesn't surprise me at all that two people can look at the same thing and come away with different opinions. I never had any means to do a "thorough comparative study" of the masonic and former temple ceremonies. I have, to this date, never seen any transcript of the temple ceremonies, old or new. I have never looked for any: I assumed most held their vows sacred. I do think my memory is quite sound. But I'll take your word for it, I "know little" of what I'm talking about.

Some less-than-honorable people have violated their sacred vows and posted both ceremonies (Masonic and Temple) in books and on-line.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Whether the temple ceremony is a restoration of a ancient practice or a creative borrowing from the masonic ceremony we do know there was quite a bit of fervor at the time about masonry. A interesting quote from a local NY newspaper seems to provide a warning many saints will find familiar.

Then of course there are the original secret combination(Moses 5:51) from the very first practitioner known as a Master Mahan(Moses 5:31). Phaedrus

Since the moniker, "secret combinations," was used back in the day in reference to Free Masonry; and given what is said about "secret combinations" in the Book of Mormon, some people have conjectured that the Book of Mormon may have been, in part, "creatively borrowed" from the anti-Masonic fervor of the early 1800's.

However, to me, the meaning of the moniker in each case is quite the opposite. With Masonry, it is a secret combination designed for good, and in the Book of Mormon it is secret combination designed for evil, murder, and destruction.

So, while the vernacular may be the same, the notions are opposed. Thus, at best, if there was any borrowing from anti-Masonic fervor in the Book of Mormon, it may nominally be in terms of vernacular and not the notion.

Besides, to me, it strains credulity to suppose that keystone of our religion would allegedly borrow from the anti-Masonic Movement, while our most sacred rituals would be borrowed from Masonry. It doesn't add up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[phaedrus ut]

Besides, to me, it strains credulity to suppose that keystone of our religion would allegedly borrow from the anti-Masonic Movement, while our most sacred rituals would be borrowed from Masonry. It doesn't add up.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you're a bit confused. I was referring to Moses(JST &PoGP) using the term "secret combination" and "master mahon" six thousand years ago. It's just a amazing coincidence that Moses' words were revealed to Joseph Smith at a time when the same terms we part of the anti-masonic language of the day as evidenced by the George Washington quote.

Phaedrus

[mfbukowski]

Yep, good point and analogy

Yeah, you will find that she does that regularly. She's great. But don't tell her that because she will get a big head.

Edited April 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I speak as a mason, not as one that has received Temple Ordinances (yet ).

I think you are in for some surprises.

[wenglund]

I think you're a bit confused. I was referring to Moses(JST &PoGP) using the term "secret combination" and "master mahon" six thousand years ago. It's just a amazing coincidence that Moses' words were revealed to Joseph Smith at a time when the same terms we part of the anti-masonic language of the day as evidenced by the George Washington quote. Phaedrus

No. I wasn't confused about what you said. My comment was only partially applicable to yours, and spoke also to the larger issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I think you're a bit confused. I was referring to Moses(JST &PoGP) using the term "secret combination" and "master mahon" six thousand years ago. It's just a amazing coincidence that Moses' words were revealed to Joseph Smith at a time when the same terms we part of the anti-masonic language of the day as evidenced by the George Washington quote.

Phaedrus

So you are apparently saying that George Washington, who was buried with masonic implements and has masonic symbols on his headstone condemned the Masons and called them a "secret combination"?

I think you are mistaken.