Ancient Origins Of Lds Temple Esoteric Rites?

[ChristKnight]

I hope you will not give up on this... Every week for six years I went into Portland to serve as an ordinance worker... One of the sweetest, most profound experiences I had was the day I was set apart by the temple presidency... as I left the president's office and walked across the temple area toward the dressing rooms to change for a session, I was completely filled with such a deep love for everyone that I saw... I can't really describe how deeply I felt this all encompassing love... and I said to myself... aha, this has been a gift... I've been given just a brief glimpse of Heavenly Father's love for us... and it made serving my sisters so very special. I never got tired of it. I suffered the sense of sadness when for health issues I had to give up my calling.

So, I do hope you will continue to look forward to serving in the temple.

GG

Thanks for sharing GG. I have a few personal things that I'm trying to figure out at the moment, however if they work themselves out, I would love to be a temple worker (I'd pick serving as a temple ordinance worker over being EQP any day! ). I used to go to the temple once a week, but haven't been attending as much lately. I went a couple weeks ago and did sealings (always fun doing this as a YSA ). I'm definitely going to try and do Initiatory and an Endowment session this week, especially in light of this discussion.

[ERayR]

Reading about ancient parallels to the LDS temple ordinances, whether talking about the importance of the Creation in esoteric rites, prayer circles, the importance of washing, anointing, and sacred clothing (I love the Initiatory and the blessings pronounced within it), etc, if anything, it shows that even if it's true that the LDS temple ordinances are not in fact valid ordinances practiced throughout time, the critics must better account for where they came from, instead of just claiming it came from Freemasonry, since many, if not most aspects of temple ordinances find no Masonic parallels (hope I'm being as vague as possible!).

As long as we remember they are parallels not replicas of the ancient ordinances.

[Bill Hamblin]

The first thing to note is the basic purpose of the ancient temple was to reconcile Israel with God and bring all Israel (represented by the twelve stones inscribed with the tribal names) back into the presence of God, symbolically represented by the Holy Place and Holy of Holies within the veil.

The second thing to note is that Israel had exoteric rituals in the outer courtyard of the temple which could be witnessed by all (though only priests officiated). Esoteric rituals performed inside the temple itself could only be performed and witnessed by priests. LDS Endowment broadly corresponds to the esoteric rituals performed inside the temple, not the exoteric rituals performed outside. The ancient exoteric Israelite temple rituals correspond with the LDS weekly sacrament (the bread/wine offering of the Israelite temple).

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................

When I see the Old Testament, I see an entire ritual sequence from beginning to end that, after all, has only a limited connection to the stories themselves. That is, the stories are vehicles for the information--but the stories themselves are not the information. The stories are the veil over the information. That is why when I hear people dis-sing the Old Testament I wish I could shout, "You're looking at the pieces, not the whole puzzle!" or summat. Or as I understand it.

Yeh, they don't see the forest for the trees. The Song of Songs, for example, is a big stumbling block, and many people cannot imagine why it was even canonized. They don't realize what it is really about.

[mfbukowski]

It seems that some, such as Bryce Haymond on Temple Study (does he post here?) hold to the view that the mysteries practiced by the ancient Christians are the same as those practiced in the temple today (though of course with various cultural "updates", so to speak).

I would broadly agree with Bryce on that, but it is obviously a question of interpretation of how far one can take the "cultural updates" and still end up with the "same" ordinances. There have been many changes in the endowment since the restoration, and the changes continue, including unimportant points like when to stand and when to sit, and matters of convenience. I think that these changes alone are a signal from the First Presidency that we should not get too hung up on the words and exact symbolic "vocabulary" of how the truths behind the symbols are conveyed, but to remain focused on the spiritual significance behind the symbols.

I hear questions all the time about changes in the endowment- 'how can one change these ancient rites given to Adam?'

I always answer "do you think the First Presidency didn't think of that?"

I think the changes themselves point to the truth that we need not get too hung up on the externals, and concentrate on the truths found by the spirit through the externals. That's one of the reasons I don't get too hung up on the "origins"- if the present ceremonies can be changed- why worry about the way they might have been "originally"? They still speak to the same truths.

This question actually came up to me while still a Catholic- and a young one- at the changes made in the liturgy by Vatican II- how could these sacred symbols and words be changed?

Languages change- including symbols and their interpretations. Really that is all symbols are- a visual language. Instead of speaking Greek and Aramaic, Christians now speak modern languages, and changes in interpretation cannot be avoided

In speaking of the similarities between the Mass and temple rites I always link to the same thing on the off chance someone lurking has not read Von Wellnitz- it should be required reading for this thread!

http://byustudies.by...ab79854cbdf.pdf

Here is another link I just discovered- it is interesting though I have not reviewed all of it yet. Some of it appears a bit off in my opinion, but interesting anyway.

http://ancient-wisdo...mon-temple.html

Quite frankly some of the parallels Von Wellnitz points out seem to me to very convincing of the common origins of the mass and the endowment- so much so that they would be hard to explain. These are things Joseph could not have known about- he was not exactly a scholar on the Catholic liturgy and all its variations throughout the ages.

Edited April 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

I would broadly agree with Bryce on that, but it is obviously a question of interpretation of how far one can take the "cultural updates" and still end up with the "same" ordinances. There have been many changes in the endowment since the restoration, and the changes continue, including unimportant points like when to stand and when to sit, and matters of convenience. I think that these changes alone are a signal from the First Presidency that we should not get too hung up on the words and exact symbolic "vocabulary" of how the truths behind the symbols are conveyed, but to remain focused on the spiritual significance behind the symbols.

I hear questions all the time about changes in the endowment- 'how can one change these ancient rites given to Adam?'

I always answer "do you think the First Presidency didn't think of that?"

I think the changes themselves point to the truth that we need not get too hung up on the externals, and concentrate on the truths found by the spirit through the externals. That's one of the reasons I don't get too hung up on the "origins"- if the present ceremonies can be changed- why worry about the way they might have been "originally"? They still speak to the same truths.

This question actually came up to me while still a Catholic- and a young one- at the changes made in the liturgy by Vatican II- how could these sacred symbols and words be changed?

Yes, I thought of Vatican II when contemplating the longtime use of a Hebrew phrase in part of our temple liturgy, which later changed to the vernacular.

Languages change- including symbols and their interpretations. Really that is all symbols are- a visual language. Instead of speaking Greek and Aramaic, Christians now speak modern languages, and changes in interpretation cannot be avoided.

Just so. I have also noticed that certain key parts of our temple liturgy are now only implied through symbolism. I see the whole endowment as both catechetical and as formal worship. As the Brethren say, it is heavily metaphorical or symbolic in nature. Various means (and media) can be used to communicate the message, with apologies to Marshal McLuhan.

Still, some of us hanker after some of the earlier forms and words, the most archaic of which is a two-word Greek prayer which even occurs in the OT Septuagint: Κύριε ελέησον

[Robert F. Smith]

[bjw]

There are also interesting parallels with the Egyptian Opening of the Mouth ceremony. And, it is true that most of the temple ceremonies have no parallel with the rituals of Freemasonry. A number that seem to do belong to rites to which Joseph Smith did not belong, and which had no presence in Nauvoo or in the area, such as the various elements that come from the Order of the Royal Secret (also known to some writers as the Rite of Perfection) or from the Scottish Rite, which had no presence in Illinois until well after Joseph Smith's death.

MormonMason:

This is interesting because I tried to argue this with someone once and they told me that the Scottish Rite was available to the early Mormons because WW Phelps organized the degrees. I too was shocked at how many of the paralells to the Endowment were in the higher degrees and not actually in the blue lodge, but if other Mormons besides Joseph Smith had a part in writing the Endowment ceremony this may not be a defense that can be used. I still believe in the Endowment, but I want to make sure that I am not using outdated arguments when I talk about apologetics with people.

Is this true that other Mormons were familiar with the Scottish Rite at the time the Endowment was developed? (I know the AASR itself was established in Charleston, South Carolina in 1801, so it was around but just how widespread was it?)

[mfbukowski]

Still, some of us hanker after some of the earlier forms and words, the most archaic of which is a two-word Greek prayer which even occurs in the OT Septuagint: Κύριε ελέησον

Marvelous posts- Thank You!!

The ancient becomes new and relevant again in our lives- and indeed this is the essence of the Endowment as well.

[ChristKnight]

Just got my copy of Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. It's huge, didn't realize it's this big!

Looking at the table of contents, Nibley gives, in Chapter 2, a "Reproduction and Translation of Joseph Smith Papyri XI and X". Looks really technical and outside of my lay interest, though I'll browse through it.

What's really interesting, especially as relates to this thread are Part 2-"Initiation Rites and Entering the Temple" (the section on "Purification, the Preface to All Important Rites" looks interesting), which also includes discussion of "The Opening of the Mouth Rite, Its Purpose and Origin" that MormonMason had mentioned earlier. There's also "The Creation (Resurrection) of Man", "The Garden Story", "The Long Road Back", "The Fearful Passage", and the "Culmination and Conclusion", which includes discussion of Ritual Embraces, The Last Barrier: The Temple Veils, Seeing the God: The Culmination of the Mysteries. And as mentioned, the Appendixes also have a host of information, including discussion on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Pistis Sophia, Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Gospel of Philip.

Haven't started reading yet, but I'm definitely intrigued to see how Nibley understands ancient Egyptian practices, and how that is supposed to relate to Christian, specifically LDS, practices. I'm assuming it's because of the belief that the Gospel was had by Adam, and various cultures have had essentially "degraded" forms of it throughout time, including the Egyptians. This somewhat reminds me of a book I came across, The Lost Key of Freemasonry, by Manly P. Hall . It includes an essay titled "Freemasonry of the Ancient Egyptians", which seems to be found online here. What with the other thread on Freemasonry and the Endowment, I'm definitely wondering if anyone's familiar with that essay, if it's conclusions are valid, and whether it has any importance in understanding the relationship between the temple and Freemasonry, and purported common ancient origins.

[ChristKnight]

I think the changes themselves point to the truth that we need not get too hung up on the externals, and concentrate on the truths found by the spirit through the externals. That's one of the reasons I don't get too hung up on the "origins"- if the present ceremonies can be changed- why worry about the way they might have been "originally"? They still speak to the same truths.

This question actually came up to me while still a Catholic- and a young one- at the changes made in the liturgy by Vatican II- how could these sacred symbols and words be changed?

Right, I think LDS and Catholics generally would look at such things similarly: there is an essential core to each ritual that is necessary for it to be "valid" and which cannot be changed. Everything else is helpful and certainly points to the purpose of the ritual, but is not as necessary as the core. For example, the Endowment must include the various covenants entered into, and other knowledge given that is necessary to "pass the angels", as Brigham Young said. For the Mass, there must be the use of the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, "this is my body...this is my blood", the sacrificial component of the Mass, etc. This is also clear when we see that the Catholic Church has more than one liturgy in use for the Eucharist, including the various Eastern Divine Liturgies in the Eastern Catholic churches, held in common with the Eastern Orthodox.

Interestingly, the latest changes to the western Mass make it in many instances more in line with the Tridentine Mass (as well as the Divine Liturgy) that you probably grew up with, such as responding to "The Lord be with you" with "and with your spirit" (my favorite).

In speaking of the similarities between the Mass and temple rites I always link to the same thing on the off chance someone lurking has not read Von Wellnitz- it should be required reading for this thread!

http://byustudies.by...ab79854cbdf.pdf

Ah yes, I decided to read it again since you brought it up. Very interesting.

Here is another link I just discovered- it is interesting though I have not reviewed all of it yet. Some of it appears a bit off in my opinion, but interesting anyway.

http://ancient-wisdo...mon-temple.html

Thanks, yeah I've seen that before, particularly the Washings and Anointings page, which I enjoy (again, my favorite topic as relates to temple ordinances).

Quite frankly some of the parallels Von Wellnitz points out seem to me to very convincing of the common origins of the mass and the endowment- so much so that they would be hard to explain. These are things Joseph could not have known about- he was not exactly a scholar on the Catholic liturgy and all its variations throughout the ages.

Right, there are definitely some intriguing parallels there. While I don't agree with all of his characterizations of Catholic practices throughout the ages, it is clear that there are parallels between Catholic liturgy and the LDS temple ordinances.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks, yeah I've seen that before, particularly the Washings and Anointings page, which I enjoy (again, my favorite topic as relates to temple ordinances).

I hadn't gotten to that page, but as one who has the privilege of actually performing the ordinances and has them memorized, I must say this is one of the most extraordinary things I have seen. I knew there was a lot in Cyril of Jerusalem, but if these quotes are accurate contextually, let's just say that there are, uh, definite parallels.

Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 313 – 386) writes of the washing and anointing ceremony thusly...

You were true imitators of Adam, the first man to be created, who was naked in the Garden and was not ashamed.

Then, when you were stripped, you were anointed with exorcised oil , from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. (New Advent)

Having therefore become partakers of Christ, you are properly called Christs, and of you God said, Touch not My Christs, or anointed. Now you have been made Christs, by receiving the antitype of the Holy Ghost; and all things have been wrought in you by imitation, because you are images of Christ. He washed in the river Jordan, and having imparted of the fragrance of His Godhead to the waters, He came up from them; and the Holy Ghost in the fulness of His being lighted on Him, like resting upon like. And to you in like manner, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred streams, there was given an Unction [anointing], the anti-type of that wherewith Christ was anointed; and this is the Holy Ghost; of whom also the blessed Esaias, in his prophecy respecting Him, said in the person of the Lord, The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me: He has sent Me to preach glad tidings to the poor… (New Advent)

He was anointed with … what is called the olive oil of exaltation (agalliaseos elaio—a coronation figure) … while you were anointed with myrrh (scented oil), making you companions and copartners (koinonoi kai metochoi) with Christ.

You were anointed on your brow and your other sense-organs, and so while the body is anointed in outward appearance with myrrh, the soul (psyche) is sanctified by the life-bestowing Holy Spirit. First of all you were anointed on the brow (metopon, forehead and eyes, lit. “space between the eyes”) to free you from the shame which completely involved the First Man when he fell, and that you might clearly perceive (or reflect, katoptrizisthe), the glory of the Lord with wide-open mind (lit. with uncovered face). Then your ears that you might receive the hearing ears of the mysteries of God…. Next come the nostrils, that upon receiving the holy ordinance you may say: “We are the sweet odor of Christ to God among the saved.” After that (you were anointed) on the breast (tastethe, “the seat of feeling, passion and thought,” Liddell and Scott), that, clothed with the breastplate of righteousness, you may stand against the wiles of the Devil—(countering his evil thoughts with good ones).

As Christ after his baptism … went forth to confront the Adversary, so you after your holy baptism and mystic anointing, were clothed in the armor of the Holy Ghost to stand against the opposing … power.

It is because you are worthy of this holy anointing (chrism) that you are called Christians…. it is by following this road that you have advanced to the point of earning that title.

When Moses received the order to make his brother a High Priest, after washing him with water he anointed him, and he was called a Christ, because of the anointing which was the type. Thus also Solomon, being called to the Kingship, was anointed after a bath in Gihon by the High Priest. For them it was a type (making them kings and priests), but for us it is not symbolical but real, since you really have been anointed by the Holy Ghost. The King (arche) of your salvation is Christ, for he is the true first-fruits and you are the unleavened bread. If the first-fruits (i.e., the priestly office) is holy, that holiness will be transferred to the unleavened bread (i.e., you too will become kings and priests)

Having put off the old man’s garment of sorrow, you now celebrate as you put on the garment of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Lecture 1)

Having been baptized in Christ and having put on Christ like a garment, you come to resemble (symmorphoi gegonate) the Son of God. (Lecture 3)

After you put off the old garments and put on those of spiritual white, you should keep them always thus spotless white. That is not to say that you must always go around in white clothes, but rather that you should be always clothed in what is really white and glorious, that you may say with the blessed Isaiah (61:10), “Let my soul exult in the Lord, for he hath clothed me in a robe of salvation and clothing of rejoicing.” (The word here used for “clothe” is endy, to place a garment on one, and is the ultimate source of our word “endowment,” derived in the Oxford English Dictionary from both induere, to invest with a garment, and inducere, to lead into or initiate.) (Lecture 4)

[mfbukowski]

Right, there are definitely some intriguing parallels there. While I don't agree with all of his characterizations of Catholic practices throughout the ages, it is clear that there are parallels between Catholic liturgy and the LDS temple ordinances.

I would yield to your better understanding of Catholicism on those then. Are there specific contradictions or inaccuracies you see?

[MormonMason]

MormonMason:

This is interesting because I tried to argue this with someone once and they told me that the Scottish Rite was available to the early Mormons because WW Phelps organized the degrees. I too was shocked at how many of the paralells to the Endowment were in the higher degrees and not actually in the blue lodge, but if other Mormons besides Joseph Smith had a part in writing the Endowment ceremony this may not be a defense that can be used. I still believe in the Endowment, but I want to make sure that I am not using outdated arguments when I talk about apologetics with people.

Is this true that other Mormons were familiar with the Scottish Rite at the time the Endowment was developed? (I know the AASR itself was established in Charleston, South Carolina in 1801, so it was around but just how widespread was it?)

The Scottish Rite was not as widespread as one might think in those early days. The aftermath of the Morgan incident nearly extinguished the Rite. An attempt was made in 1846 to bring the Scottish Rite to Illinois but it ultimately failed. It was not until more than a decade after the first attempt that it actually made its way into Illinois.

As to other Mormons being involved in the Scottish Rite previously, I should like to see some good and valid evidence for each of the claims that people are making in this regard. I have yet to see it. I highly doubt that W. W. Phelps was involved with the Scottish Rite. I have yet to see a Masonic record that would confirm such.

I know he was a "Seceding Mason" but only have anything solid pertaining to the three degrees of Masonry. He may have had some involvement with the York Rite of Freemasonry. He worked with a group of individuals who published some rather incomplete (and some now-defunct) York Rite rituals in 1828, but I do not recall him specifically being involved with publishing or "organizing" any Scottish Rite rituals, although I have no recourse to my books at the moment to check this to be absolutely certain.

Phelps, so far as I am aware, also was not a member of the Nauvoo Lodge and, so far as I am aware, never petitioned to join. So far as I am aware, Phelps held onto his anti-Masonic views but also did not receive his endowment until 1843. Practicing Masons take their vows and obligations seriously, particularly in those days, and would not have discussed the subject of ritual elements in any depth or detail with non-Masons. In fact, some took them so seriously that they abducted William Morgan and removed him from the country, in 1826, in an effort to prevent him from acting on his designs to expose the rituals of the Blue Lodge to the public eye.

In addition, the early Latter-day Saints were of the opinion that the endowment ceremony was not to be written. It was not until Brigham Young actually wrote down and reorganized the Endowment ceremony that it was committed to writing and, thereafter, kept in temples for memorization by temple workers. Yes, some people wrote exposes (and put snippets into their journals, such as did Heber C. Kimball, but never the entire thing in that case). But, it was at the request of Joseph Smith that Brigham Young reorganized and standardized the presentation of the Endowment. President Young did not carry out that task until 1877.

[ChristKnight]

I would yield to your better understanding of Catholicism on those then. Are there specific contradictions or inaccuracies you see?

Not too many. One was his questioning of the introduction of altars in Catholic churches, where he rhetorically asks if the altars were deliberately introduced to give the appearance of a sacred sanctuary and allow for some nostalgia for Jewish and Pagan converts to help them become Christians. Instead of giving such an implication, it really is simple to see that Catholics and Orthodox have held to a notion of the Eucharistic celebration as being a sacrifice, where there is a re-presentation (not a redo) of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, with Christ the High Priest offering Himself through the priest (who acts in the person of Christ). So it would make sense that the sacrificial altar would be present, as an "adaption from the temple in Jerusalem", as he himself states.

Another is his characterization of the evolution of the Mass. I had a decent response to that, but accidentally closed the window, . Suffice to say that while I do agree that quite obviously there is a division between the Mass of the Catechumens and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which still exists to this day in Eastern and Western liturgies (including the dismissal of catechumens that are in RCIA or whatever catechumenate that is found in the specific Church), I don't see his characterization of the Mass of the Catechumens eventually disappearing, i.e. the scriptural readings, prayers, and sermon on gospel living, as he describes it (also, he references Justin Martyr on this, and I don't see Justin supporting the point he was making when he cited him). The Mass and Divine Liturgy, in their various forms, have always including scriptural readings and a sermon/homily.

Anyway, generally I found his portrayal of Catholicism good, along with the temple-related parallels (including the reception of the Eucharist with palm over palm, though I don't think he was explicit enough in saying that this was how the people received the consecrated bread, and wasn't a priestly hand gesture, since that was the context in which he brought it up. I also appreciated the discussion of the holy water at the entrance of the church as a purification rite, something that I admittedly miss doing), and just have a few nit picks with it. Still a great recommendation, though pretty much only for those that have gone through the Endowment and will recognize the parallels.

[ChristKnight]

I hadn't gotten to that page, but as one who has the privilege of actually performing the ordinances and has them memorized, I must say this is one of the most extraordinary things I have seen. I knew there was a lot in Cyril of Jerusalem, but if these quotes are accurate contextually, let's just say that there are, uh, definite parallels.

Indeed. . I have yet to really see a critical response to where Joseph and/or his associates could have "gotten" the washing and anointing from that explains the relevant parallels. I don't believe Freemasonry has any such rituals (obviously I have no experience with Freemasonry however).

Edited April 3, 2013 by ChristKnight

[Nathair/|\]

There are a number of endowment symbols here:

and here:

[MormonMason]

Indeed. . I have yet to really see a critical response to where Joseph and/or his associates could have "gotten" the washing and anointing from that explains the relevant parallels. I don't believe Freemasonry has any such rituals (obviously I have no experience with Freemasonry however).

I never seen the like of the Initiatories in LDS temples in any of the rituals of any of the Rites in which I have participated, have received the rituals, and have conferred them upon others. LDS Initiatories are much closer to Cyril of Jerusalem and to the Opening of the Mouth ceremony of the ancient Egyptians than it is to the rituals of Freemasonry. There are small portions of Masonic rituals in the Appendant Bodies of Masonry where anointing with oil is done but it is not even close to the same as what is in LDS temples.

No York Rite Blue Lodge ever anointed with oil, or had washings of various parts of the body preceding, or had special, marked undergarments, or matching, marked veils to the garments, not even in the time of Joseph Smith. And, Joseph Smith belonged to a York Rite Blue Lodge under dispensation of the Grand Lodge of Illinois.

Edited April 4, 2013 by MormonMason

[mfbukowski]

Not too many. One was his questioning of the introduction of altars in Catholic churches, where he rhetorically asks if the altars were deliberately introduced to give the appearance of a sacred sanctuary and allow for some nostalgia for Jewish and Pagan converts to help them become Christians. Instead of giving such an implication, it really is simple to see that Catholics and Orthodox have held to a notion of the Eucharistic celebration as being a sacrifice, where there is a re-presentation (not a redo) of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, with Christ the High Priest offering Himself through the priest (who acts in the person of Christ). So it would make sense that the sacrificial altar would be present, as an "adaption from the temple in Jerusalem", as he himself states.

Another is his characterization of the evolution of the Mass. I had a decent response to that, but accidentally closed the window, . Suffice to say that while I do agree that quite obviously there is a division between the Mass of the Catechumens and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which still exists to this day in Eastern and Western liturgies (including the dismissal of catechumens that are in RCIA or whatever catechumenate that is found in the specific Church), I don't see his characterization of the Mass of the Catechumens eventually disappearing, i.e. the scriptural readings, prayers, and sermon on gospel living, as he describes it (also, he references Justin Martyr on this, and I don't see Justin supporting the point he was making when he cited him). The Mass and Divine Liturgy, in their various forms, have always including scriptural readings and a sermon/homily.

Anyway, generally I found his portrayal of Catholicism good, along with the temple-related parallels (including the reception of the Eucharist with palm over palm, though I don't think he was explicit enough in saying that this was how the people received the consecrated bread, and wasn't a priestly hand gesture, since that was the context in which he brought it up. I also appreciated the discussion of the holy water at the entrance of the church as a purification rite, something that I admittedly miss doing), and just have a few nit picks with it. Still a great recommendation, though pretty much only for those that have gone through the Endowment and will recognize the parallels.

Interesting critique- thanks- I will note those sections and give them further study

[mfbukowski]

Indeed. . I have yet to really see a critical response to where Joseph and/or his associates could have "gotten" the washing and anointing from that explains the relevant parallels. I don't believe Freemasonry has any such rituals (obviously I have no experience with Freemasonry however).

It is my understanding that Freemasonry does have annointing rituals- but getting Cyril of Jerusalem word perfect is phenomenal.

Joseph could not possibly have know this.

Edited April 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[MormonMason]

It is my understanding that Freemasonry does have annointing rituals- but getting Clement word perfect is phenomenal.

Joseph could not possibly have know this.

Freemasonry does have anointing rituals but they are nothing like those of Initiatories (washings and anointings as an ordinance) in LDS Temples. They do not serve the same purposes, either. The modes of anointing are not the same, either. Of course, the current washings and anointings have been shortened so now they are actually made closer to Masonic ceremonies than they were in the past. Go figure.

Edited April 4, 2013 by MormonMason

[Tacenda]

So if Joseph had his own lodge, Nauvoo lodge, maybe they were able to rise to the highest rite more quickly and could this be why so many non Nauvoo Lodge members were upset with him besides the fact he was using Masonic symbolism in the temple.

[MormonMason]

So if Joseph had his own lodge, Nauvoo lodge, maybe they were able to rise to the highest rite more quickly and could this be why so many non Nauvoo Lodge members were upset with him besides the fact he was using Masonic symbolism in the temple.

It wasn't Joseph's own Lodge. He had to petition for membership, have his petition read, and have his petition balloted upon and approved, just as everyone else did. Joseph Smith, however, was made a Mason at Sight, which means that the Grand Master was able to allow skipping the normal waiting period between degrees with an abbreviated ritual of the Sublime Degree of Master Mason. However, the Lodge continued doing similarly and were balloting on multiple petitions at the same time, which was contrary to accepted Masonic practice at the time.

This was an irregular practice which was one of the main sticking points in getting the ire of the surrounding constituent Lodges and of the Grand Lodge. The following year the Nauvoo Lodges refused to allow investigation and told the Grand Master where he could stick their demands for their records. The Grand Lodge then, in retaliation, declared all Nauvoo Lodges clandestine, meaning that no member of the Nauvoo Lodges were any longer considered legitimate or regular Masons. No regular Mason would be allowed to associate with them in a Lodge setting from that point forward, without risking their own memberships.

Even the Nauvoo Lodge was a York Rite Blue Lodge, which means three degrees of Masonry, namely, Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Sublime Degree of Master Mason. Some Lodges in that time period did also confer the Royal Arch Degree and even more rarely the Order of the Temple, but Nauvoo Lodge was not under dispensation for such. Conferring the High Degrees without dispensation and proper chartering also was not among the list of irregularities mentioned by the Grand Lodge, and it assuredly would have been on the list of Masonic charges had it happened.

Ironically enough, the Grand Lodge of Illinois regularly has one-day classes of multiple candidates for the Degrees of Masonry, which practice was one of the reasons for the expulsion of all Nauvoo Lodges from the Grand Lodge of Illinois. Go figure....

Edited April 4, 2013 by MormonMason

[Spammer]

I hadn't gotten to that page, but as one who has the privilege of actually performing the ordinances and has them memorized, I must say this is one of the most extraordinary things I have seen. I knew there was a lot in Cyril of Jerusalem, but if these quotes are accurate contextually, let's just say that there are, uh, definite parallels.

These lectures from Cyril do not describe a separate "washings and anointings" ceremony. In the section of the Catechetical Lectures cited, Cyril is describing baptism and chrismation and explaining their significance to those who had recently been baptized and chrismated, i.e., those who had entered their first year (mystagogia) as a Christian in the ancient Nicene (i.e., Catholic/Orthodox) church of Jerusalem.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

These lectures from Cyril do not describe a separate "washings and anointings" ceremony. In the section of the Catechetical Lectures cited, Cyril is describing baptism and chrismation and explaining their significance to those who had recently been baptized and chrismated, i.e., those who had entered their first year (mystagogia) as a Christian in the ancient Nicene (i.e., Catholic/Orthodox) church of Jerusalem.

I am not sure how that is relevant. Cyril lived more than three hundred after these ordinances were instituted.

That is more than enough time to have important practices lost. What is miraculous is how much survived that long.

The point also is, it is clear that Cyril's quote was influenced by Freemasonry.

Edit- Just to clarify- that last line was sarcasm. There is no way, looking at the different historical periods, in which Freemasonry could possibly have influenced Cyril

Edited April 4, 2013 by mfbukowski