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

[KevinG]

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

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=1358f48fa2d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

[Cobalt-70]

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.

In both cases, read 2 Kings 18:4. It says that the Hebrews offered sacrifices to the bronze serpent until the days of Hezekiah, and that it was Hezekiah who named it Nehushtan.

As Mormons, I think we ought to embrace this. There, in the Temple of Solomon, were three gods, one being the Father (YHWH), the other being Heavenly Mother (Asherah), and the third being the Son (Nehushtan). The Book of Mormon already recognizes Nehushtan as a graven image representing Jesus Christ. (Alma 33:19, Hel. 8:14)

Edited September 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Nobody offered sacrifices to the manna, the ephod, or the menorah.

[Cobalt-70]

"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.copticchu...nfirmation.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!

I don't mean to imply that Joseph Smith did not add a great amount of new material, or that he did not brilliantly re-frame the subject matter. Also, these were not the only sources. There's a little Jewish mysticism thrown in, too, and it is all put into a Christian framework. But Genesis and Freemasonry were the two biggest lumps of clay from which he sculpted the ceremony.

[USU78]

But Genesis and Freemasonry were the two biggest lumps of clay from which he sculpted the ceremony.

That's fair enough . . . though your refusal to give G-d any credit at all seems . . . I dunno . . . creepy

[KevinG]

You mean Joseph used existing symbols to frame the covenants, blessings and obligations of the endowment in a way that conveyed deep meaning to the faithful! Wow its almost like Jesus using parables. What a brilliant and inspired prophet!

[Cobalt-70]

That's fair enough . . . though your refusal to give G-d any credit at all seems . . . I dunno . . . creepy

God get's credit for inspiring the ceremony. (Which doesn't mean that it was perfect, either--hence the additions by Brigham Young and the later redactions.) But I could imagine God inspiring a completely different ceremony that had nothing to do with the Genesis myth or Freemasonry. In fact, isn't that what he did in Kirtland?

[ERayR]

But I could imagine God inspiring a completely different ceremony that had nothing to do with the Genesis myth or Freemasonry. In fact, isn't that what he did in Kirtland?

And I have an imagination too but that doesn't mean it coincides with God's.

Edited September 10, 2012 by ERayR

[KevinG]

God get's credit for inspiring the ceremony. (Which doesn't mean that it was perfect, either--hence the additions by Brigham Young and the later redactions.) But I could imagine God inspiring a completely different ceremony that had nothing to do with the Genesis myth or Freemasonry. In fact, isn't that what he did in Kirtland?

I think God is intelligent enough to know sometimes He has to tell us things a few times in a few different ways for us to "get it".

Having been a teacher that is IMO a primary duty of a good instructional design.

[mfbukowski]

I don't mean to imply that Joseph Smith did not add a great amount of new material, or that he did not brilliantly re-frame the subject matter. Also, these were not the only sources. There's a little Jewish mysticism thrown in, too, and it is all put into a Christian framework. But Genesis and Freemasonry were the two biggest lumps of clay from which he sculpted the ceremony.

I prefer to think that he was inspired and that God teaches us in parables with which are already familiar. Jesus used familiar activities- planting, reaping, fishing, drawing water, wedding feasts, men working in the fields, to teach spiritual lessons.

I think God still does the same thing.

[mfbukowski]

You mean Joseph used existing symbols to frame the covenants, blessings and obligations of the endowment in a way that conveyed deep meaning to the faithful! Wow its almost like Jesus using parables. What a brilliant and inspired prophet!

Dang!

You beat me to it!!

[USU78]

God get's credit for inspiring the ceremony. (Which doesn't mean that it was perfect, either--hence the additions by Brigham Young and the later redactions.) But I could imagine God inspiring a completely different ceremony that had nothing to do with the Genesis myth or Freemasonry. In fact, isn't that what he did in Kirtland?

There's, of course, the argument [based on pretty fair evidence] that Kirtland was and was always intended to be only preparatory, since only initiatory work was being done at that stage, but I get and appreciate your point.

What parent doesn't use repetition and "line upon line" and 90 degree different approach to the problem to get the point across?

Herod's Temple had a sign that warned visitors to the of the Goyim that they take their lives in their own hands and consent to their own deaths if they try to enter the Temple proper: Everybody's welcome to the outer chamber; Few make it inside the Holy Place; Dang Few enter the Holy of Holies.

[KevinG]

Dang!

You beat me to it!!

Don't feel bad. Your posts are much more informed and backed by good scholarship. It takes longer to form them.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

As Mormons, I think we ought to embrace this. There, in the Temple of Solomon, were three gods, one being the Father (YHWH), the other being Heavenly Mother (Asherah), and the third being the Son (Nehushtan). The Book of Mormon already recognizes Nehushtan as a graven image representing Jesus Christ. (Alma 33:19, Hel. 8:14)

Yes! I've been saying this all along! *is a broken record*

Edit: Wait, I read that quote wrong. I haven't been saying that all along. See link for my version.

Edited September 10, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Bill Hamblin]

Some of my reflections on the esoterica and mythos of Israelite temple as an ancient context for the endowment.

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/divine-council-and-celestial-ascent/

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

You have ignored the pre-existing Genesis story in the KJV, and in the Book of Moses. You have ignored William West's Journal in which he affirms while in Kirtland that the BofA contained a creation account. You have ignored the lack of any such Book of Abraham translation manuscript. And you have ignored the construction of the History of the Church (there is no DHC) as finally edited by B.H. Roberts long after the death of Joseph -- in which many third person notes by clerks were changed to first person references.

When you say that you "think not." I agree.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Glad to find that you are starting to respond to reality therapy. However, I never said that the LDS endowment sequence of today was fully practiced in Solomon's Temple. Indeed, I pointed out that the Aaronic priesthood running the Solomonic and Herodian Temples had no such authority. Only part of the current sequence of esoterica could be practiced before the Melchizedek Priesthood took over.

Also, I did not suggest "that there were pagan influences in Solomon's temple," bur rather that pagan temples used the same symbolism and imagery as debased forms of the authentic original rites. The restoration by God of those pristine rites has occurred at various times and places according to His will. Apostasy is nothing new, and even the Valentinian Gnostics possessed some surprisingly authentic rites, as indicated by the following from the 3rd century A.D. Gospel of Philip:

1. baptism

2. chrism-anointing

3. eucharist-thanks

4. sote-ransom-redemption-salvation

5. koiton-bridal chamber = Holy of Holies

According to Isenberg, these are apparently the "five stages of a complete initiation," though the ritual itself is not given in detail – aside from baptism being by immersion. See Nibley, CWHN XII:54, citing Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Codex II,3) 115:27-30 = 67:27-30 in James Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library in English, 3rd ed., 140-141, 150-154; Gaye Strathearn, “The Valentinian Bridal Chamber in the Gospel of Philip,” Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, 1 (2009), 83-103.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.copticchu...nfirmation.html

Thank you, Mark.

First I had seen anything about the Coptic Orthodox anointing sequence, white garments, etc Extraordinary!!

[Cobalt-70]

You have ignored the pre-existing Genesis story in the KJV, and in the Book of Moses. You have ignored William West's Journal in which he affirms while in Kirtland that the BofA contained a creation account. You have ignored the lack of any such Book of Abraham translation manuscript. And you have ignored the construction of the History of the Church (there is no DHC) as finally edited by B.H. Roberts long after the death of Joseph -- in which many third person notes by clerks were changed to first person references.

You are misrepresenting William West's jorunal. He never said that there was a manuscript translation of the Book of Abraham in Kirtland which contained a creation account. Here's what he said:

"[The Mormons] say that the mummies were Egyptian, but the records are those of Abraham and Joseph, and contain important information respecting the creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the patriarchs, the book of Mormon, the lost tribe, the gathering, the end of the world, the judgment, &c. &c. This is as near as I can recollect; if there is an error I hope some of the Mormons will point it out, and I will recall it. These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith

is to translate the whole

by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved; and a larger volume than the Bible will be required to contain them."

Clearly he is talking about what Joseph Smith claimed was in the books of Abraham and Joseph, but this information had not been translated yet, and was not in a manuscript.

Your complaint that the History of the Church reference being written in 1908 shows that you are not familiar with where the passages came from, which said that Smith "recommenced translating from the Records of Abraham" on March 8-9, 1842. These were from Smith's journal, and were also published in the 1857 volume of the Millennial Star in exactly the same form that Roberts presents them. Certainly you don't think that somebody in March 1842 doctored Joseph Smith's journals to falsely indicate he was translating the last parts of the Book of Abraham that year.

As to the Genesis story in the bible and in Joseph Smith's version of the bible in 1830, so what? I'm not saying that Joseph Smith invented the book of Genesis. I'm just saying that March 1842 was a busy time for Smith, and two of the big things that he was working on that month happen to be the primary subject matter for the Endowment ceremony a few weeks later.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Calm]

contain important information respecting the creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the patriarchs, the book of Mormon, the lost tribe, the gathering, the end of the world, the judgment, &c. &c.

Considering the likely process of translation (the same one used for the BoM) how would this content be known prior to translation?

[Cobalt-70]

Glad to find that you are starting to respond to reality therapy. However, I never said that the LDS endowment sequence of today was fully practiced in Solomon's Temple. Indeed, I pointed out that the Aaronic priesthood running the Solomonic and Herodian Temples had no such authority. Only part of the current sequence of esoterica could be practiced before the Melchizedek Priesthood took over.

"Respond to reality therapy"? I've always argued that the early Hebrews practiced their religion within an earlier pagan Canaanite milieu. Maybe you weren't paying attention.

Also, I did not suggest "that there were pagan influences in Solomon's temple," bur rather that pagan temples used the same symbolism and imagery as debased forms of the authentic original rites. The restoration by God of those pristine rites has occurred at various times and places according to His will. Apostasy is nothing new, and even the Valentinian Gnostics possessed some surprisingly authentic rites, as indicated by the following from the 3rd century A.D. Gospel of Philip:

That's quite a trick for pagan temples that pre-date the temple of Solomon to have been "debased" forms of the Hebrew temple practices. I don't think there is archaeological evidence that the Canaanites had time machines.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you, Mark.

First I had seen anything about the Coptic Orthodox anointing sequence, white garments, etc Extraordinary!!

Yes, I thought it was pretty extraordinary the first time I saw it as well!

[wenglund]

Considering the likely process of translation (the same one used for the BoM) how would this content be known prior to translation?

The answer to that question will be obvious to most everyone but Cobalt-70.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Considering the likely process of translation (the same one used for the BoM) how would this content be known prior to translation?

The same way that Joseph Smith was able to tell his family all about the minute details of Nephite society before he ever even got his hands on the golden plates.

Also, the Chandler papyri contained images, such as the walking serpent next to a female figure, which seemed biblical to Oliver Cowdery, which he broadcast to Kirtland Mormons in the official church newspaper. William West was recording what everybody in Kirtland evidently believed, based on Cowdery's description.

[Robert F. Smith]

You are misrepresenting William West's jorunal. He never said that there was a manuscript translation of the Book of Abraham in Kirtland which contained a creation account.

Neither did I. You need to read more carefully what people in fact say. We do not know when Joseph actually translated the papyri, but we do know for certain that the creation story was a known part of the contents already in Kirtland -- not Nauvoo. Thus, because you so readily admit that the Genesis and Book of Moses creation stories were already available, it is obtuse of you to suggest somehow that the creation story in the Book of Abraham had any sort of big impact on Joseph. That is nonsense.

Your complaint that the History of the Church reference being written in 1908 shows that you are not familiar with where the passages came from, which said that Smith "recommenced translating from the Records of Abraham" on March 8-9, 1842. These were from Smith's journal, and were also published in the 1857 volume of the Millennial Star in exactly the same form that Roberts presents them. Certainly you don't think that somebody in March 1842 doctored Joseph Smith's journals to falsely indicate he was translating the last parts of the Book of Abraham that year.

I already referred to Joseph's clerks. I believe them to have been very sincere in their efforts. They are the ones who wrote his journals, and the 1857 publication was made after Joseph's death, just as I stated. The process of creating the History of the Church took many years, Roberts merely being the final hand to bring it to publication. We do not in fact know when Joseph actually translated the papyri, even if it was done in steps. It is quite likely that a final manuscript was prepared for publication in early 1842. It is unfortunate that we don't have that MS. Bear in mind, however, that the use of the term translate was often confused by Joseph and the brethren with transcribe.