Masonry In Temples Ordinances

[Log]

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

And it was a very very very good point, too.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

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.

Just give me points, points, points....I like to collect things.

[mfbukowski]

Just give me points, points, points....I like to collect things.

Hey, they only let me do one at a time!

[phaedrus ut]

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.

I'm not saying that. I quoted the anti-masonic newspaper published in upstate New York in 1827. Due to the kidnapping and murder of William Morgan in 1826 there was a sudden rise of anti-masonic rhetoric. As I said it's probably just a coincidence that the anti-masons of the time and Moses six thousand years earlier used the same language.

Speaking of strange coincidences, in 1834 William Morgan's widow Lucinda and her new husband George joined the church. They moved to Missouri in 1838 Lucinda became one of Joseph's plural wives yet remained married to George. The couple moved to Illinois with the rest of the Saints and it was George Harris who presided over the Nauvoo City Council when they ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor which as we all know resulted in Joseph's arrest and murder.

What a small world.

Phaedrus

[mfbukowski]

I'm not saying that. I quoted the anti-masonic newspaper published in upstate New York in 1827. Due to the kidnapping and murder of William Morgan in 1826 there was a sudden rise of anti-masonic rhetoric. As I said it's probably just a coincidence that the anti-masons of the time and Moses six thousand years earlier used the same language.

Yes, virtually anyone who has even glanced at the history knows that.

But what was your point about George Washington being anti-masonic? Clearly you were wrong.

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.

This calls into doubt your entire understanding of what was happening here with both Joseph and the quote.

Edited April 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[phaedrus ut]

But what was your point about George Washington being anti-masonic? Clearly you were wrong.

You are confused. I didn't say George Washington was anti-masonic. And you're right if I had actually said that I would be wrong. Again I quoted a anti-masonic newspaper was quoting George Washing as saying that. The point was whether or not he said it(hint technically he didn't) the point was that the term "secret combinations" was part of the anti-masonic rhetoric of the time.

Phaedrus

[mfbukowski]

You are confused. I didn't say George Washington was anti-masonic. And you're right if I had actually said that I would be wrong. Again I quoted a anti-masonic newspaper was quoting George Washing as saying that. The point was whether or not he said it(hint technically he didn't) the point was that the term "secret combinations" was part of the anti-masonic rhetoric of the time.

Phaedrus

As were the words, "and" and "but" and several others.

People who are raised in any century use the terms of their culture when they are translating things. You find this shocking? 19th century translators will use 19th century language. The King James translators used the terms of their times as well.

And please don't tell me I am confused when it is you who are using a convoluted argument to prove absolutely nothing.

The idea that Joseph used anti-Masonic language when both he and many of his followers were Masons is what is "confused" here.

Furthermore you are of course aware that George Harris voted in favor of destroying the press and willingly moved to Nauvoo contrary to your implication that George was somehow opposed to the probably platonic sealing of his wife to Joseph.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/03-LucindaMorganHarris.htm

Edited April 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[why me]

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

Joseph would have to be very stupid to do this. First, many people were masons at that time. Masonary was very popular and many of america's founding fathers were masons. To copy a ritual and expect people not to question when one claims to be a prophet and retoring Christ's church, would be unattainable.

We need to remember that some members were also masons and they would have recognized the same rituals and they would have had a great belly laugh at the expense of Joseph Smith. <<< It would resemble this with Joseph wearing the hat.

[why me]

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.

I think that the founding fathers could not come out and say that they were also masons. But certainly masonic symbols are apart of early United States' history. I believe that it was an old boys club back at the time of washington and hamilton.

[why me]

I am not sure if anyone posted this link but here is john dehlin's podcast with greg kearney, a mason and life long member of the church. It is very interesting and informative.

http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-podcast-005-masonry-and-mormonism-and-interview-with-greg-kearney/

Greg used to post here when it was the MAD board. I hope that he can return and shed some light for this thread.

[Antoni]

I am not sure if anyone posted this link but here is john dehlin's podcast with greg kearney, a mason and life long member of the church. It is very interesting and informative.

http://mormonstories...h-greg-kearney/

Greg used to post here when it was the MAD board. I hope that he can return and shed some light for this thread.

I agree it's an excellent podcast.

[Mike Reed]

No offence to Greg... but his presentation and arguments are a little dated. And I suspect (if he's kept up on recent developments) that he'd agree.

[Antoni]

Hi Mike,

care to elaborate on which bits are dated?

Thanks

[David T]

Joseph would have to be very stupid to do this. First, many people were masons at that time. Masonary was very popular and many of america's founding fathers were masons. To copy a ritual and expect people not to question when one claims to be a prophet and retoring Christ's church, would be unattainable.

We need to remember that some members were also masons and they would have recognized the same rituals and they would have had a great belly laugh at the expense of Joseph Smith. <<< It would resemble this with Joseph wearing the hat.

Joseph had most of his soon-to-be-quorum of the Anointed pass quickly thorugh all of the Masonic levels (at least through the third (subline) degree before he initiated them into the Nauvoo Endowment and Sealing rituals. He appeared to view the Masonic rites somewhat how we view the Aaronic Priesthood in relation to the Melchizedek - preparatory lessons. Many of the symbols learned in the Masonic context were then used, expanded, and added upon in the Nauvoo Endowment.

There is Masonicly taught signficance in some of the physical actions we take in the Temple which were initially designed as assumed knowledge. You're not taught what they mean, because it's assumed you already know. But since very, very, very, very few members are actually taught that previous context, the significance and association attached with them are significantly less than they were with the initial initiates. Hence, the removal of the Five Ponts of Fellowship, etc as noted in the earlier link I provided. When nobody understands what it means anymore , it has no religious significance.

Early Mormons had the Masonic Lodge to explore and discuss the meanings of those traditional actions which were applied and assumed to already be understood in the Temple. Mormons today don't have any outlet or source to discuss and give background to specific traditional aspects of the actions taken.

I would love if we could start taking our Aaronic Priesthood (and Young Women) members through a watered-down, but Masonic-Inspired lodge experience as part of the Young Men/Young Women program, where the foundational associations with some of the symbols are made and explore. As you become a Deacon/Beehive, you perform one degree, when you become a teacher/MIA Maid, you learn a second degree, and when you become a Priest, you go through the Third Degree. Talk about powerful and practical temple prep!

Edited April 19, 2012 by David T

[Antoni]

Preparation is important I agree.

I was unusual in my masonic journey as I had done a huge amount of research and knew what each of the three degrees basically entailed. There were still surprises, but perhaps I had been a bit over zealous and done a bit too much research. I wanted to be comfortable knowing what I was going into. Masonry itself is coming to terms with how do you prep people correctly, yet still keep mystery and not spoil the experience. It has recently created the role of "mentor" as a specific office in the lodge, and that persons role is to prep and then continue assisting as the person goes through the three degress. Many lodges did that automatically, but many didn't and so the creation of that and the teahing of mentors I think has helped.

I can full understand why some LDS members feel out of their depth, especially if they are young people (masonry is open to those 21 and above - except for sons of masons who can join at 18 - I think that assume the father will prep the son a bit). Perhaps a bit of mentoring as mentioned above would help?

I visited my local temple recently and learnt more about it, I'm conscious I don't want to "run before I can walk" , but I'm grateful for time I spent there.

One of the reasons LDS appeals is because of it's Temple Ordinances.

Light, Love and Peace

[Calm]

I would love if we could start taking our Aaronic Priesthood (and Young Women) members through a watered-down, but Masonic-Inspired lodge experience as part of the Young Men/Young Women program

I would prefer a temple inspired.

[David T]

I would prefer a temple inspired.

But then we couldn't have cool talks about Hiram Abiff in Sacrament Meeting!

Also, since very specific aspects of temple action and symbols that are still there are Masonic Inspired, and teach powerful and strong principles of loyalty, friendship, and commitments to seek knowledge and learning, they would be highly appropriate for youth, and fit in well with the curriculum - and have a cool connection to Solomon's Temple (the temple traditionally under Aaronic Priesthood administration!), and, according to the popular 19th Century Christianized Masonry volume Antiquities of Freemasonry, looks forward to a latter-day Temple being rebuit where the Lost Keys would be able to be Recovered! (Do modern day temple goers catch the story idea that the keys are something they're on a quest to recover?)

It's kind of like how many of the scriptural references and allusions in the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon wouldn't make any sense unless you could consult the Bible, and learn where they came from.

View the Temple as the D&C, and the Masonic Degrees as the Bible. With the Temple as it stands today, there are still explicit references to things we've lost the ability to access the context and explanation for. That doesn't mean there still aren't powerful principles and meaning and understanding and significance in the Temple today - I'm just in favor of anything that adds to the meaning and understanding and significance of the experience.

Edited April 19, 2012 by David T

[why me]

No offence to Greg... but his presentation and arguments are a little dated. And I suspect (if he's kept up on recent developments) that he'd agree.

Well, the podcast is dated. Contact Greg and have him join the discussion. You can also tell us about why the podcast is dated.

[mfbukowski]

I think that the founding fathers could not come out and say that they were also masons. But certainly masonic symbols are apart of early United States' history. I believe that it was an old boys club back at the time of washington and hamilton.

You should read up on this a bit- that is my suggestion.

[Mike Reed]

I agree with Greg that Latter-day Saints need to look at the endowment ritual as "having a more modern origin." I also admire his frankness, conceding that many elements in the endowment have originated from freemasonry, and for informing listeners that members in Joseph Smith's family were previously Masons.

He claimed that Joseph Smith didn't want the Saints to focus on the ritual, but just the teachings. I don't understand why he infers this about Joseph--maybe Greg meant to say God. And he justifies this by saying there would otherwise be two problems: 1) Joseph repeated false things other masons were saying about the ritual, and 2) that the endowment ceremony has since been changed. I didn't understand his reasoning here, but in all fairness to Greg... it is really hard to do these sort of interviews.

Greg also said that the Nauvoo endowment did not have the same meaning as the masonic ritual did. My recent work presented at Sunstone and MHA (on the [Re}Christianization of of Freemasonry) has shown this position to be extremely problematic. A lot of work that has since been done by folks like Nick Literski, Joe Swick, George Miller, Don Bradley, Dan Vogel, Mike Homer, and myself.

Well, the podcast is dated. Contact Greg and have him join the discussion.

If I had more time, I might... but I need to write my ritual theory paper for grad school. Again... I mean no offence to Greg. These sort of interviews are extremely difficult to do.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Mike Reed

[mfbukowski]

But then we couldn't have cool talks about Hiram Abiff in Sacrament Meeting!

And I think that is a good thing.

The sacred/secret element I think is essential to everyone being able to receive personal inspiration and come up with their own inspired understandings.

The idea that there is "one true understanding"- that kind of fundamentalism- I think should never creep into the temple rites. This is precisely why some are put off by the temple- because they take it all literally and think "that's all there is". "Joseph got it from the Masons and it's just a bunch of silly good old boy stuff". We see this among ex-Mormon critics all the time.

The key to temple worship is approaching God with a heart open to inspiration and allowing Him to tell us what he wants us to understand- and discussing it in sacrament meeting is about as far away from that goal as I can imagine.

[David T]

And I think that is a good thing.

The sacred/secret element I think is essential to everyone being able to receive personal inspiration and come up with their own inspired understandings.

The idea that there is "one true understanding"- that kind of fundamentalism- I think should never creep into the temple rites. This is precisely why some are put off by the temple- because they take it all literally and think "that's all there is". "Joseph got it from the Masons and it's just a bunch of silly good old boy stuff". We see this among ex-Mormon critics all the time.

The key to temple worship is approaching God with a heart open to inspiration and allowing Him to tell us what he wants us to understand- and discussing it in sacrament meeting is about as far away from that goal as I can imagine.

First of all, that comment about Hiram Abiff was tongue in cheek

Second of all, there's a difference between saying what everything or the overall meaning of the Temple is, and understanding specific selected traditional symbols which were intended to bring a deeper understanding to the experience.

For example was the link that presented above, concerning The Sacred Embrace as Five Points of Fellowship. While the beautiful and practical symbolism of the points were explained and explored in the Masonic context, this understanding was designed to assumed and be brought into the deeper symbol of what is occuring in the Higher Temple Ordinance. In other words, that action was not designed to be something new being taught or experienced, but something old and traditional being applied and enhanced with something new.

This symbol was able to be discussed and explored in Masonic literature. For example, if the Sacred Embrace was known to members from an Aaronic Priesthood story, and taught its significance in that context, talks and explorations of the (established) meaning would be appropriate, and helpful. But then, when experienced in the New Context of the Temple, the new elements of the Sacred Experience would not need to be, nor should be discussed.

When the understanding of the old action was lost, and it was not viewed appropriate to discuss, it no longer added to the New element, and just became 'something weird that had to do with masonry'. Thus, its removal was seen as no great loss to many.

Edited April 19, 2012 by David T

[DBMormon]

Mike Reed

I agree with Greg that Latter-day Saints need to look at the endowment ritual as "having a more modern origin."

There is a Mr. Pyle who is the SHIELDS expert on this issues and he is very adamant that Masonry has rituals that date back to early Christianity and he knows many disagree but he had a boat load of evidence

claims that a person named Hiram Abif was unknown in the Bible. That is not the case (it all goes to which Bible one references). I have several electronic and other Bibles that do have the name, or a form thereof, contained therein. Here is one from the Darby Bible:

And the pots, and the shovels, and the forks, and all their instruments did Huram Abiv make king Solomon for the house of Jehovah, of bright brass.

Here is from a Swedish Bible:

Denne skicklige yrkesman, Huram-Abiv, tillverkade alla dessa föremål åt kung Salomo i polerad koppar.

Here is from a Bible in Portuguese:

Este hábil artífice, Hurão Abiú, fez todos esses trabalhos acima mencionados, para o rei Salomão, usando cobre polido.

Here is from the 1545 German Luther Bible:

dazu Töpfe, Schaufeln, Kreuel und alle ihre Gefäße machte Huram-Abif dem Könige Salomo zum Hause des Herrn aus lauterm Erz.

Here is the Miles Coverdale's (1535) Bible's rendition of 2 Chronicles 4:16 (this one is very likely where English and Scottish Freemasons got the name):

And pottes, shouels, fleshokes, and all their vessels made Hiram Abif of pure metall for kynge Salomon vnto the house of the LORDE.

Abiff is an alternative spelling of Abif I have seen in a couple of the 'Old Charges' documents as well as in a French Masonic document. You will find both spellings in the relevant literature if you read enough of it.

There are other errors as well. no one really knows the actual origins of Freemasonry. Everything--including the popular transitional theory from operative to speculative from the 1600s onward--are all speculations and theories based upon alternative interpretations of the available evidence. So, to hinge one's argument against Joseph Smith and his comments on Freemasonry and the temple on whether or not Freemasonry can be traced to Solomon's Temple or to ancient Christianity or otherwise is specious at best and is hardly a reason to lose faith over.

I do not believe that Freemasonry as it now exists came from the time of Solomon, but all indications are that elements of Freemasonry did come from Christianity and from other ancient sources. The symbolism of Freemasonry can be found in old Christian artwork (a small sampling of this can be seen in Alex Horner's Sources of Masonic Symbolism). Certain elements of the rituals have Christian elements and phraseology to them, particularly in the older varieties. Masonic Lodges are oriented the same way that Benedictine monasteries arrange their rooms of meeting. There is a whole lot more as well. In my view, Masonry is a lot of things and derives from a lot of streams both modern and ancient.

The Early Christians, unlike so many members of the Church today, kept their vows and did not reveal the methodology directly as members of the Church who have been unfaithful and untrue to their covenants have been. There are only bits and pieces available from the ancient world. We know so very little about what the early Christians did and did not do. The same is to be said for the Eleusinian Mysteries and a whole host of other forms of mysteries communicated to initiates in the mystery religions.

One of said pieces can be found in the Apocalypse of Paul, which is a Gnostic Christian document. I referred to it in a previous email. In that email, Paul is stopped in his progress through the heavens by an angelic being. He is directed to give the angel a sign and that the angel would open his way for him if he did so. Paul gives the sign and the angel lets him pass. In other words, pieces of early Christian thought contained the idea that a sign can be given and angels will let one pass in giving signs.

In Freemasonry, passes and signs are given to gain entrance to various places in the Lodge. In Mormonism, in the temple particularly, the idea of signs and so forth being communicated by angels to men and vice versa is the same methodology seen in Freemasonry (although Freemasons would not say that their signs and so forth were had by communication with angels) and partially revealed in various writings of early Christians.

That said, I have said several times that the Masonic Fraternity has always been very synchretistic, and, while its form today is relatively modern a good deal of material contained in our modern rituals actually does come from many and varied ancient sources. One has to know what to look for to find the information, however.

Have you read Nibley's Temple and Cosmos? Have you read his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri? Have you read his Mormonism and Early Christianity? Those would be excellent places for a starting point because these books are filled with ancient parallels to the LDS temple ceremony. Many of these sources then can be studied and pursued more in-depth.

early Christians also communicated a hidden wisdom "in a mystery" so that outsiders would not learn of the teachings. That is the exact same methodology used by Freemasons and it is also practiced in Mormon temples--although people today are not as keen to keep their covenants not to reveal sacred things as were the ancients.

you can find quotes about secrets and secret rites among Christians (Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, for one, which can be found online in places). I explained the differences between the "presentation of the endowment" and "the endowment." I explained how it was that the presentation can be modified any way that is needed to communicate the endowment. I explained how it was that the "presentation" can be and has been modified over more than a century. As can be seen from the "presentation of the endowment" there are a number of elements that in no way could have been part of any ancient ceremony (recall my mention of quotes from literature that did not exist in the time of Christ in the ceremony of the temple).

The fact that the endowment and "the presentation of the endowment" are two different things is the key to understanding is something I also pointed out, as well as the fact that it could all be shortened to about 20 minutes or less by removing everything but the covenants and endowment itself, if the Lord felt that there was a need for it. So what and if Joseph Smith just took entire sections of Masonic ritual perfectly verbatim and stuck them in the temple ceremony (I can testify that he didn't and I am very familiar with both ceremonies and even intimately familiar with the temple ceremony before April 1990)?

"In a mystery" is a technical term used by the ancient mystery religions for their "mysteries" which were kinds of 'plays' in which symbolic information is communicated to initiates in secret. Paul used that term, knowing how it would be understood by his readership. He wrote in Greek to Greek readers. These people would have known what the terms in his letter meant. Otherwise, his writing would have been unintelligible to his readers and he would have been writing gibberish.

This same methodology is used by Freemasons. This same methodology is used in the LDS temple ceremony.

Edited April 20, 2012 by reelmormon

[Mike Reed]

There is a Mr. Pyle who is the SHIELDS expert on this issues and he is very adamant that Masonry have ritual that on dates back to early Christianity and

Yes. I'm aware of who Pyle is. I was an active LDS apologist between 1998-2005. I remember him from the days of ZLMB, but I haven't seen him around lately. And according to his profile on this forum, he hasn't been back since 2005 (but maybe he has a different profile that he now posts under, I don't know). I'd really be surprised if he's done any new research related to Mormonism and Freemasonry over the past couple of years. Why do you call D Charles Pyle an "expert on the issue" anyway? Expert according to who? I would be surprised if he considers himself an expert on the issue in the light of more recent work done by folks like Nick Literski, Joe Swick, George Miller, Arturo DeHoyos, Michael W. Homer, Don Bradley, myself, and others.

he knows many disagree but he had a boat load of evidence claims that a person named Hiram Abif was unknown in the Bible. That is not the case (it all goes to which Bible one references). I have several electronic and other Bibles that do have the name, or a form thereof, contained therein. Here is one from the Darby Bible

Wow. There was a Hiram Abiff mentioned in the Bible? That's amazing! So who are the "many people" that denied such?

So, to hinge one's argument against Joseph Smith and his comments on Freemasonry and the temple on whether or not Freemasonry can be traced to Solomon's Temple or to ancient Christianity or otherwise is specious at best and is hardly a reason to lose faith over.

Huh? Did I say that this is something to lose faith over?

I do not believe that Freemasonry as it now exists came from the time of Solomon, but all indications are that elements of Freemasonry did come from Christianity and from other ancient sources.

Who denied that certain elements didn't come from Christianity?

The symbolism of Freemasonry can be found in old Christian artwork (a small sampling of this can be seen in Alex Horner's Sources of Masonic Symbolism).

Um... and your point?

Certain elements of the rituals have Christian elements and phraseology to them, particularly in the older varieties.

Ok... and?

Masonic Lodges are oriented the same way that Benedictine monasteries arrange their rooms of meeting.

The exact same way, eh? And what might that be. Documentation please.

There is a whole lot more as well.

The Early Christians, unlike so many members of the Church today, kept their vows and did not reveal the methodology directly as members of the Church who have been unfaithful and untrue to their covenants have been. There are only bits and pieces available from the ancient world. We know so very little about what the early Christians did and did not do. The same is to be said for the Eleusinian Mysteries and a whole host of other forms of mysteries communicated to initiates in the mystery religions.

Not sure why you think I am unaware of these things.

One of said pieces can be found in the Apocalypse of Paul, which is a Gnostic Christian document. I referred to it in a previous email. In that email, Paul is stopped in his progress through the heavens by an angelic being. He is directed to give the angel a sign and that the angel would open his way for him if he did so. Paul gives the sign and the angel lets him pass. In other words, pieces of early Christian thought contained the idea that a sign can be given and angels will let one pass in giving signs.

I don't think anyone here has denied that certain elements found in freemasonry/endowment also existed in antiquity.

In Freemasonry, passes and signs are given to gain entrance to various places in the Lodge. In Mormonism, in the temple particularly, the idea of signs and so forth being communicated by angels to men and vice versa is the same methodology seen in Freemasonry (although Freemasons would not say that their signs and so forth were had by communication with angels) and partially revealed in various writings of early Christians.

What masons say today is irrelevant. Do you know what sort of things Masons (regular or otherwise) were saying between the American Revolution and Civil War? Have you, for example, bothered to research funeral sermons of this time period? Perhaps you should before you claim to know what Masons would "not have said".

That said, I have said several times that the Masonic Fraternity has always been very synchretistic

Yes you have. In this thread even. But this is very strange to me, since I never claimed the contrary.

and, while its form today is relatively modern a good deal of material contained in our modern rituals actually does come from many and varied ancient sources. One has to know what to look for to find the information, however.

You don't say?

Have you read Nibley's Temple and Cosmos? Have you read his The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri? Have you read his Mormonism and Early Christianity?

Yep, yep, yep. And I own them to boot!

Those would be excellent places for a starting point because these books are filled with ancient parallels to the LDS temple ceremony. Many of these sources then can be studied and pursued more in-depth.

Sigh...

early Christians also communicated a hidden wisdom "in a mystery" so that outsiders would not learn of the teachings. That is the exact same methodology used by Freemasons and it is also practiced in Mormon temples--although people today are not as keen to keep their covenants not to reveal sacred things as were the ancients.

And...?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

you can find quotes about secrets and secret rites among Christians (Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, for one, which can be found online in places).

Which I have also read and own.

*snip*

Waste of time.

Need to get back to my school work.

Bye all.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Mike Reed