Are The Lds Temple Rituals Supposed To Be Anything Like The Rituals Of The Old Testament Temple?

[Cobalt-70]

You do have the use of buzzwords down to a fine art. What the Mari fresco does is show the kind of imagery and concepts that were used in temples of the Ancient Near East. That the creation and Eden passages employ a good number of them ought to serve as an indicator of its conceptual millieu, and that Solomon's temple used these elements in its design and ritual as well. If we turn to later sources, the communities whose priestly course was serving in the temple would recite the creation account to concide with the priests' service. Ezekiel the Exagogue ritually recast the Exodus story (itself highly reminiscient of the creation and fall) to serve a similar purpose. The Avodah piyutim of Byzantine Judaism are about the high priest's service on the Day of Atonement. They usually tie that in to the creation, often going running into a large number of verses. Ritual retelling and reenactment of the creation and the Garden of Eden in general is very much at home with a temple setting, this is without even going into specifics.

A "conceptual milieu" of paganism, yes. Solomon's temple did have pagan gods (Asherah and Nehushtan) in it besides the invisible YHWH god who lived on the ark. But there is no evidence that the temple had Ishtar, and thus there is not much we can infer about Solomon's temple having Ishtar iconography. To get from the Amorite Ishtar iconography to the Mormon endowment, you have to pass through an awful lot of paganism. Yes, the Mormon endowment ceremony refers to multiple gods, but Ishtar is not one of them.

Please provide evidence that Ezekiel the Poet's Exagogue play was performed in the Second Temple. If not, then this drama has no more relevance to the Mormon endowment ceremony than does Milton's Paradise Lost.

As to the Avodah piyutim, this may reference the Yom Kippur ceremony in the temple, but can you provide any evidence it was recited in the temple, or that a reenactment of the Genesis myth was ever part of Yom Kippur? Obviously not, because this liturgy was developed in the Middle Ages. Likewise, can you provide any evidence that a reenactment of the Genesis myth was ever part of Yom Kippur in the Temple?

[Cobalt-70]

What is really true, Cobalt, is that you have proven that no matter how many top non-Mormon experts in Bible or ancient Near Eastern lore we cite, you will always take the response of automatic, knee-jerk denial. You are so invested in negativity, that no reasonable or logical discussion means anything to you.

Sorry. "Thinking happy thoughts" doesn't make the Mormon endowment ceremony appear in the ancient temple of Solomon.

What is really true is that you have no idea of the meaning of the word "endowment," nor what it means in a Mormon context. You have no idea what it might mean (as Jesus said) for the Law to be fulfilled, and you likely have no idea why I just capitalized the word "Law." Without a fundamental inkling of what is going on in standard scholarship, of course you will always take the negative position as a gut reaction to the object of your uncompromising hatred and contempt.

I know exactly what the word "endowment" means to Mormonism, perhaps more than you do, because I have specifically studied this issue quite extensively. "Restoration of the endowment" was a restoration of what happened with the apostles on the day of Pentecost, and it was in that context that Joseph Smith first used the term. An endowment is a gift of "power from on high." Originally, this "power from on high" was the Melchizedek priesthood, to which Mormons were first ordained in 1831. Later endowments were given in the School of the Prophets, and in the dedication of the Kirtland temple. The ultimate endowment of "power from on high" was the adapted Masonic ceremony in Nauvoo. While the endowment originally reference the New Testament Day of Pentecost, the Nauvoo endowment reached back to the Old Testament, because Joseph Smith apparently believed that the Masonic ceremony had a historical connection to the temple of Solomon and was preserved in secret over three millennia by the Masons--something that not even the Masons believe anymore.

[wenglund]

The first Mormon "endowment" was the ordination of Melchizedek priests in 1831,

CFR. I just did a search of the HoC and the first relevant mention of an endowment I could find was in the First Presidency Message to the Scattered Saints in 1834, which, in conjunction with D&C 105 (particularly verse 12, which says: "For behold, I have prepared a great endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them, inasmuch as they are faithful and continue in humility before me" and verse 18: "Verily I say unto you, it is expedient in me that the first elders of my church should receive their endowment from on high in my house, which I have commanded to be built unto my name in the land of Kirtland."), talked about afflictions experienced by the Church in preparation for an endowment from the Lord to those who repent. (History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.35, p.474)

Clearly, this endowment was to come some time after 1834, and was to occur in the Kirtland temple. And, as indicated in D&C 110:9 (April, 1836) it did occur in the Kirtland temple prior to its dedication. (See also DHC 2:308-310, where Joseph gives a more detailed explanation of the endowment)

But the Genesis and Masonic-based elements of the modern endowment ritual did not come until after Smith (1) dictated chapters 4-5 of the book of Abraham in 1842, which contain the Genesis story, and (2) became a Freemason around the same time in Nauvoo.

CFR that the creation and garden narrative elements weren't included until 1842. [reference only please, no content]

Regardless, the issue isn't when the creation and garden narratives were included in the endowment, but rather from whence did Joseph derive his symbolic understanding of the narratives.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 8, 2012 by wenglund

[volgadon]

A "conceptual milieu" of paganism, yes. Solomon's temple did have pagan gods (Asherah and Nehushtan) in it besides the invisible YHWH god who lived on the ark.

No, the conceptual milieu was the religious lingua franca, so to speak. It was how people expressed things, pure and simple. Also, CFR that the Nehushtan was a pagan god.

But there is no evidence that the temple had Ishtar, and thus there is not much we can infer about Solomon's temple having Ishtar iconography.

Utterly irrelevant.

To get from the Amorite Ishtar iconography to the Mormon endowment, you have to pass through an awful lot of paganism. Yes, the Mormon endowment ceremony refers to multiple gods, but Ishtar is not one of them.

Please provide evidence that Ezekiel the Poet's Exagogue play was performed in the Second Temple. If not, then this drama has no more relevance to the Mormon endowment ceremony than does Milton's Paradise Lost.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57922-ritual-retelling-of-biblical-narrative-in-lieu-of-temple-worship/ What I am saying is that instead of animal sacrifice, a ritual retelling of biblical events was used.

As to the Avodah piyutim, this may reference the Yom Kippur ceremony in the temple, but can you provide any evidence it was recited in the temple,

No, they postdate the temple's destruction. However, the avodah piyutim do stem from priestly circles, and they do more than reference the Yom Kippur ceremony in the temple, they were recited as an alternative to that service, since no temple was standing. The details in the piyutim compare well to those in Josephus, for instance.

or that a reenactment of the Genesis myth was ever part of Yom Kippur? Obviously not, because this liturgy was developed in the Middle Ages.

Nonsense. Your buzzwords are inaccurate as ever. Our earliest extant Avodah piyut was composed not that long after the Mishnah was compiled.

Likewise, can you provide any evidence that a reenactment of the Genesis myth was ever part of Yom Kippur in the Temple?

I find it very telling that of all the sources I mentioned in that post, you latched on to every one but the recital of the creation account that coincided with priestly service in the temple.The account of creation and the fall was recited to contextualise the temple services in the grand scheme of things. Ben Sirach, for example, prefaces his poetic description of the high priest's service by an account of the creation and God's dealings with Israel.

[ERayR]

It is relevant because the two most significant sources of subject matter in the Endowment ceremony came from 1842 developments in Mormonism, and are not a carry-over from some ancient practice in the temple of Solomon.

It is irrelevant where the symbol came from. The same symbol can mean different things to different groups. One group can adopt another's symbol and give it their own meaning. So it is utterly irrelevant where the symbol came from or what it means to someone else. What matters is what it means to the group in question. The only ones who really care are those critics and antis trying to find something to be incensed about. Knock yourself out.

[Bill Hamblin]

The "endowment" was discussed even earlier than that. The first Mormon "endowment" was the ordination of Melchizedek priests in 1831, and then there was talk of endowment in various forms throughout the 1830s. But the Genesis and Masonic-based elements of the modern endowment ritual did not come until after Smith (1) dictated chapters 4-5 of the book of Abraham in 1842, which contain the Genesis story, and (2) became a Freemason around the same time in Nauvoo.

This is nonsense. JS translated the Book of Moses (JST) in 1830, which contains many antecedents to the endowment (Bradshaw, In God's Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses (2010), and Temple Themes in the Book of Moses (2010).) And the degrees of Freemasonry to which JS was initiated have nothing to do with Genesis.

[Robert F. Smith]

The "endowment" was discussed even earlier than that. The first Mormon "endowment" was the ordination of Melchizedek priests in 1831, and then there was talk of endowment in various forms throughout the 1830s. But the Genesis and Masonic-based elements of the modern endowment ritual did not come until after Smith (1) dictated chapters 4-5 of the book of Abraham in 1842, which contain the Genesis story, and (2) became a Freemason around the same time in Nauvoo.

The KJV Genesis creation story was always available, the Book of Moses contains another such account, and the Book of Abraham was known to contain a creation story already in Kirtland (William West Journal, 1837). All that is pre-Nauvoo. We do not possess the original manuscript of the Book of Abraham, so your correlation with Nauvoo and freemasonry is bunk.

[Robert F. Smith]

A "conceptual milieu" of paganism, yes. Solomon's temple did have pagan gods (Asherah and Nehushtan) in it besides the invisible YHWH god who lived on the ark. But there is no evidence that the temple had Ishtar, and thus there is not much we can infer about Solomon's temple having Ishtar iconography. To get from the Amorite Ishtar iconography to the Mormon endowment, you have to pass through an awful lot of paganism. Yes, the Mormon endowment ceremony refers to multiple gods, but Ishtar is not one of them.

Aside from your absurd suggestion that Nehushtan was a pagan god, you seem to have an obsession with the goddess Ishtar. That might be alright if we are discussing the the festival origins of Jewish Purim (based on divination by casting of lots) in the story of Esther and Mordechai (Ishtar & Marduk) as replacements for Haman & Vashti (Hamman & Mashti) in ancient Persia. The symbolism escapes you there just as it does in the variety of names for the ancient mother goddess from Egypt to India. The late Cyrus Gordon could give you a non-Mormon appraisal of that milieu if you were to read his article on the subject of cross-identification of gods in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macropaedia, 12:917-920 (cf. H. I. Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt, 15,19,33; W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 128-135). The main point to be made is that the vast array of gods of the ancient world shared many characteristics in common and were simply considered by the ancients as different names for the same gods, i.e., Zeus ∥Amon ∥Reʿ ∥Marduk ∥Ahura Mazda ∥’El ∥Yahweh, etc., are all seen as the same god and using the same symbols.

Please provide evidence that Ezekiel the Poet's Exagogue play was performed in the Second Temple. If not, then this drama has no more relevance to the Mormon endowment ceremony than does Milton's Paradise Lost.

Funny you should mention Milton, since he features Satan shaking his fist at God and threatening to take his throne, which is a trope going back through "Piers Plowman," Chaucer's "Monk's Tale," the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Book of John the Evangelist, Papyrus Bodmer X, the Book of Adam & Eve, Slavonic Enoch (II Enoch), to Ugaritic Text 49:I:33-37 (CTA 6), and to Isaiah 14:12-15.

volgadon did mention on this board the following at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57922-ritual-retelling-of-biblical-narrative-in-lieu-of-temple-worship/ , citing Rachel Bryant Davies, “Reading Ezekiel’s Exagoge: Tragedy, Sacrificial Ritual, and the Midrashic Tradition,” GRBS, 48 (2008), 393-415, online at http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FTexts/48/Davies.pdf . volgadon said about this:

This is an interesting article. The Mishnah

Taanit

4:2 mentions that the creation account from Genesis was recited out loud in villages when their priests functioned at the temple. The article I've linked to shows how Ezekiel the Tragedian's play, the "Exagoge," used the Greek cultural medium of the tragedy in finding a substitute for the paschal sacrifice held at the temple. Alexandria was a long way from Jerusalem. The solution was a sacred performance (either recital or acting), indeed, a re-enactment of a scriptural narrative, using both Greek dramatic conventions and midrashic interpolations. I think this has implications for LDS temple worship as well, given the importance drama plays in it.

As to the Avodah piyutim, this may reference the Yom Kippur ceremony in the temple, but can you provide any evidence it was recited in the temple, or that a reenactment of the Genesis myth was ever part of Yom Kippur? Obviously not, because this liturgy was developed in the Middle Ages. Likewise, can you provide any evidence that a reenactment of the Genesis myth was ever part of Yom Kippur in the Temple?

As volgadon has made clear, this Jewish temple poetry was developed by the priests long before the Middle Ages. However, this sort of thing was central to ancient Israel, as noted by non-Mormon scholar Frank Moore Cross in his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973), preface:

Israel's religion emerged from a mythopoeic past under the impact of certain historical experiences which stimulated the creation of an epic cycle and its associated covenant rites of the early time. Thus epic, rather than the Canaanite cosmogonic myth, was featured in the ritual drama of the old Israelite cultus. At the same time the epic events and their interpretation were shaped strongly by inherited mythic patterns and language, so that they gained a vertical dimension in addition to their horizontal, historical stance. In this tension between mythic and historical elements the meaning of Israel's history became transparent.

[Tacenda]

Was Solomon's temple the only one that was Christian? If so, why are we bringing in other versions of temples?

One king, one temple, one God.

[wenglund]

...why are we bringing in other versions of temples?

Because they may provide evidence for and about a shared origin, though later corrupted. Both pure and spoiled fruit can tell us something about the hidden roots of the tree from which they both may have sprang.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 8, 2012 by wenglund

[Kevin Christensen]

See 2 Nephi 11:4, Jacob, a temple high priest with ties through Nephi and Lehi and the Brass Plates to the First Temple tradition (that is Solomon's Temple:

"all things which have been give of God from the beginning of the world unto man are the typifying of Christ."

And read some Nibley and Eliade on ancient temples. And WIlliam Hamblin and David Seeley's recent book on Solomons temple. And perhaps a bit of Frye on archetypal symbolism. Say, The Anatomy of Criticism, page 141.

divine world = society of gods = One God

human world = society of men = One Man

animal world = sheepfold = One Lamb

vegetable world = garden or park = One Tree (of Life)

mineral world = city = One Building, Temple, Stone

The conception "Christ: unites all these categores in identity. Christ is both the one God and the one Man, the Lamb of God, the tree of life, or the vine of which we are the branches, the stone with the builders rejected and the rebuilt temple which is identical with his body."

And of course the body is also the church.

This way of thinking about types and oneness is how Biblical imagery works.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited September 11, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[KevinG]

I still think looking for parallels in the symbolism is a false path. The changes in the LDS temple ceremony reflect a movement from an agrarian society to a modern one and the symbolism used fits our contemporary sensibilities better.

The purpose of Temple worship however was is and always will be to bring us closer to God. In our case to point our hearts and minds towards Christ and the atonement. the same as it was in ancient times looking forward to the coming of Christ. The symbolism and script used to do that would logically change as people come to the temple from different times.

[volgadon]

I still think looking for parallels in the symbolism is a false path. The changes in the LDS temple ceremony reflect a movement from an agrarian society to a modern one and the symbolism used fits our contemporary sensibilities better.

The purpose of Temple worship however was is and always will be to bring us closer to God. In our case to point our hearts and minds towards Christ and the atonement. the same as it was in ancient times looking forward to the coming of Christ. The symbolism and script used to do that would logically change as people come to the temple from different times.

I would say rather that they adopt further kinds of meanings and emphasis, rather than fundamentally changing.

[Robert F. Smith]

Was Solomon's temple the only one that was Christian? If so, why are we bringing in other versions of temples?

One king, one temple, one God.

I don't know that anyone would term Solomon's Temple "Christian." Nor the Temple of Herod, where early Jewish Christians often visited, and where Jesus preached. Most Jews would be astonished to find it being called "Christian," or even that Christians share with them "One King, one temple, one God."

Moreover, just as the Salt Lake Temple was designed and built like a Christian cathedral, so also the Israelite Tabernacle in the desert was built in Egyptian fashion, while the Temple of Solomon was built in Canaanite/Syrian style. We have many examples with which to compare these edifices, and much of the symbolism and terminology is common to each.

The ancient world was rife with temple rituals which we find quite familiar in our day (Nibley always pointing out they were debased forms of the authentic original), including Sacred Marriage and other rites of initiation in early Christianity. Cf. the following non-Mormon scholars:

Mia Rikala, “Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of ancient Egypt: Circumstantial Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation,” in Nissinen & Uro, eds., Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008), 115–144.

Mart Nissinen, “Song of Songs and Sacred Marriage,” in Nissinen & Uro, eds., Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity (2008),

S. N. Kramer, Sacred Marriage Rite (1969).

Hugh M. Riley, Christian Initiation: A Comparative Study in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of Milan (Wash., D.C., 1974).

Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. M. B. Vizedom & G. L. Caffee [1960], from the 1909 Les rites de passage.

[Cobalt-70]

The KJV Genesis creation story was always available, the Book of Moses contains another such account, and the Book of Abraham was known to contain a creation story already in Kirtland (William West Journal, 1837). All that is pre-Nauvoo. We do not possess the original manuscript of the Book of Abraham, so your correlation with Nauvoo and freemasonry is bunk.

the creation narrative from the last part of the Book of Abraham (chapters 4-5, at least) was not translated until March 8-9, 1842. DHC 4:548. Joseph Smith became a Master Mason on March 15, 1842, and rose to the "sublime degree" on March 16, 1842 (DHC 4:552). Smith then introduced the Nauvoo Endowment ceremony on May 3, 1842, which included both the Genesis story and Freemasonry as major elements. Coincidence? I think not.

[Cobalt-70]

This is nonsense....And the degrees of Freemasonry to which JS was initiated have nothing to do with Genesis.

I didn't say they did. All I'm saying is that the Nauvoo Endowment coincided with the translation of Abraham 4-5 and Smith's induction into Freemasonry, which together account for most of the Endowment ceremony.

[Cobalt-70]

CFR that the Nehushtan was a pagan god.

2 Kings 18:4 says that the Israelites offered sacrifices to Nehushtan (not its real name) up until the days of King Hezekiah. You don't put a graven image of a serpent in the holy part of your temple, next to the gods YHWH and Asherah, and then offer sacrifices to it unless it, too, is a god. And according to legend as recorded in the Torah, Nehushtan was also the god that the Israelites looked to to save them from poisoning by snakes. (Num. 21)

Edited September 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

CFR. I just did a search of the HoC and the first relevant mention of an endowment I could find was in the First Presidency Message to the Scattered Saints in 1834, which, in conjunction with D&C 105 (particularly verse 12, which says: "For behold, I have prepared a great endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them, inasmuch as they are faithful and continue in humility before me" and verse 18: "Verily I say unto you, it is expedient in me that the first elders of my church should receive their endowment from on high in my house, which I have commanded to be built unto my name in the land of Kirtland."), talked about afflictions experienced by the Church in preparation for an endowment from the Lord to those who repent. (History of the Church, Vol.1, Ch.35, p.474)

Clearly, this endowment was to come some time after 1834, and was to occur in the Kirtland temple. And, as indicated in D&C 110:9 (April, 1836) it did occur in the Kirtland temple prior to its dedication. (See also DHC 2:308-310, where Joseph gives a more detailed explanation of the endowment)

The first references to endowment, which are references to the Kirtland ordination of Melchizedek priests in June 1831, are in D&C 38:32-38, D&C 43:16, D&C 44:1-2, and the Kirtland Revelation Book, p. 91. Further references to this high priesthood restoration being an endowment are here and here.

CFR that the creation and garden narrative elements weren't included until 1842. [reference only please, no content]

The creation elements very well could not have been included in the Nauvoo endowment prior to 1842, because the Nauvoo endowment was not introduced until then. There is no record of anyone recounting the creation story in the Kirtland endowment, or when the High Priesthood endowment took place in June 1831.

[Cobalt-70]

Aside from your absurd suggestion that Nehushtan was a pagan god, you seem to have an obsession with the goddess Ishtar. That might be alright if we are discussing the the festival origins of Jewish Purim (based on divination by casting of lots) in the story of Esther and Mordechai (Ishtar & Marduk) as replacements for Haman & Vashti (Hamman & Mashti) in ancient Persia. The symbolism escapes you there just as it does in the variety of names for the ancient mother goddess from Egypt to India. The late Cyrus Gordon could give you a non-Mormon appraisal of that milieu if you were to read his article on the subject of cross-identification of gods in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macropaedia, 12:917-920 (cf. H. I. Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt, 15,19,33; W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 128-135). The main point to be made is that the vast array of gods of the ancient world shared many characteristics in common and were simply considered by the ancients as different names for the same gods, i.e., Zeus ∥Amon ∥Reʿ ∥Marduk ∥Ahura Mazda ∥’El ∥Yahweh, etc., are all seen as the same god and using the same symbols.

I don't disagree with you here in the slightest. But how does the pagan milieu from which Hebrew religion drew its theology and rituals have anything to do with the Mormon endowment? I'll believe you if you say that there were pagan influences in Solomon's temple. But not if you say that the Mormon endowment was practiced in Solomon's temple, as evidenced by pagan "parallels" to the endowment ceremony. The Mormon endowment's references to the creation myth come from the Bible, not (at least directly) from the epic of Gilgamesh. So any pre-Genesis imagery from an Amorite temple is totally irrelevant.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

The first references to endowment, which are references to the Kirtland ordination of Melchizedek priests in June 1831, are in D&C 38:32-38, D&C 43:16, D&C 44:1-2, and the Kirtland Revelation Book, p. 91. Further references to this high priesthood restoration being an endowment are here and here.

Several of these citations were actually in reference to the Endowment that later occurred around the time of the temple dedication in Kirtland. The other citations speak loosely about being endowed in various ways (prophesy, grace, gifts, etc.), though not about the Endowment. Sorry, your claim has yet to be reasonably substantiated.

The creation elements very well could not have been included in the Nauvoo endowment prior to 1842, because the Nauvoo endowment was not introduced until then.

You evidently didn't correctly understand my CFR. I wasn't asking for reference to the Nauvoo endomwment prior to 1842, but reference that the creation story was not a part of the endowment (like those in Kirtland) prior to 1842.

There is no record of anyone recounting the creation story in the Kirtland endowment,

Which means that it is indeterminate whether it was included or not. In other words, you cannot rationally assume that the creation story wasn't included.

...or when the High Priesthood endowment took place in June 1831.

Again, you are confusing a type of "endowment" with THE "endowment." Do you not understand the difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

2 Kings 18:4 says that the Israelites offered sacrifices to Nehushtan (not its real name)

CFR on the Nehushtan not being the real name.

up until the days of King Hezekiah. You don't put a graven image of a serpent in the holy part of your temple, next to the gods YHWH and Asherah, and then offer sacrifices to it unless it, too, is a god. And according to legend as recorded in the Torah, Nehushtan was also the god that the Israelites looked to to save them from poisoning by snakes. (Num. 21)

I CFRd the Nehushtan being a pagan god. So far your reference hasn't shown that.

[USU78]

CFR on the Nehushtan not being the real name.

I CFRd the Nehushtan being a pagan god. So far your reference hasn't shown that.

Odd . . . by the logic of the Nehushtan being some kind of divine being, the pot of manna and the ephod and the menorah and the tables of the Torah would also be divine beings.

Maybe even the lavers and the spoons, too.

[mfbukowski]

I didn't say they did. All I'm saying is that the Nauvoo Endowment coincided with the translation of Abraham 4-5 and Smith's induction into Freemasonry, which together account for most of the Endowment ceremony.

"Account for"? What is that supposed to mean?

I think virtually anyone who posts here including Mike Reed and George Miller, who are probably the most informed here on this subject would disagree with such a sweeping use of ambiguous terminology.

There is no question that there are common elements found in both Freemasonry and in the temple ceremony, but even the Christianized Freemasonry found in Western New York that both Reed and Miller point to do not fully account for the incredible Christ centered re-contextualization that Joseph, through revelation, gave to those elements, effectively paralleling ancient ceremonies he could not possibly have known about including for example the Coptic confirmation rites, which point clearly to an ancient source, in my opinion, unless you think that the Coptic Orthodox Church "lifted" these rites from Masonry too. http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/2_confirmation.html

To say that freemasonry "accounts for" the endowment is about as vague and irresponsible a statement I have seen around here, and that says a lot!

[cassieblanca]

The oxen font that was placed outside in front of the temple was for washing before entering the temple.

I wonder if that compares with washing & anointing before receiving endowments...?

[Cobalt-70]

Several of these citations were actually in reference to the Endowment that later occurred around the time of the temple dedication in Kirtland. The other citations speak loosely about being endowed in various ways (prophesy, grace, gifts, etc.), though not about the Endowment. Sorry, your claim has yet to be reasonably substantiated.

No, they were references to the High Priesthood endowment in June 1831, in Kirtland. When these revelations were given, this was almost two years before the revelation came to build the Kirtland temple. D&C 38 said that the elders of the church were to go to Kirtland, where they would receive both the "law" and an endowment. The "law" was D&C 42 (Feb. 1831), and the endowment was the High Priesthood (June 1831). The Kirtland temple endowment was a separate endowment. Also, contemporary witnesses understood the June 1831 event to be an endowment. D&C 44 ties the prior promise of an endowment specifically to the June 1831 conference.

You evidently didn't correctly understand my CFR. I wasn't asking for reference to the Nauvoo endomwment prior to 1842, but reference that the creation story was not a part of the endowment (like those in Kirtland) prior to 1842.

As I said, there is no record of any recounting of the creation story in the Kirtland endowment. There are pretty extensive records of what happened during the 1836 endowment, and I'm sure somebody would have mentioned it if there was a reenactment of a creation drama. The 1836 endowment was a reenactment of the day of Pentecost as described in the book of Acts. Apart from the washing ritual, it did not have much in common with the Nauvoo ceremony.

Which means that it is indeterminate whether it was included or not. In other words, you cannot rationally assume that the creation story wasn't included.

Well, I have no absolute proof that Othello wasn't performed in the Kirtland temple during the 1836 endowment, either, but if they did, I'm sure somebody would have mentioned it.