Ancient Origins Of Lds Temple Esoteric Rites?

[ChristKnight]

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.

Yes, this is something that I've thought as well (I think I brought it up, not sure). Yes, the washing and anointing being referenced in Cyril is not a separate initiatory ordinance(s) in addition to baptism and confirmation, but are the baptism and confirmation (chrismation in the East) rites. I am wondering if the early Christians practiced an initiatory washing and anointing outside of those two sacraments. I know that in the Orthodox church I visited a few times when I was in DC, they had an anointing that would be done, though I forgot the context of it (I'm 99% sure it wasn't initiatory though). I think the priest would anoint the hands and forehead, though it's been years since I saw this.

Anyway, from an LDS perspective, as mfbukowski alluded to, the apostasy would have already been in full force by that point, so various ordinances, such as the washing and anointing vs baptism and confirmation, could have been conflated (perhaps similar to the conflation of the temple and synagogue as discussed in the Catholic Liturgy article linked to earlier). Note that I'm just pointing that out as a possibility, I'm still trying to figure out all of this . For example, did the earliest instances of baptism and confirmation include elaborate anointings with oil as described? If not, where did they come from?

[Spammer]

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.

I was only trying to suggest that using Cyril as Nibley did (to demonstrate the ancient origins of the LDS washing and anointing ceremony) is an error. Cyril described the baptism and chrismation rites practiced in the Jerusalem church of the time, not a separate washing and anointing ceremony distinct from the baptism/chrismation rites of his church.

Are you also saying that Freemasonry is older than Cyril's Catechetical Lectures and that Freemasonry influence Cyril when he prepared those lectures? Is there documentary evidence for this from the time period?

[mfbukowski]

Yes, this is something that I've thought as well (I think I brought it up, not sure). Yes, the washing and anointing being referenced in Cyril is not a separate initiatory ordinance(s) in addition to baptism and confirmation, but are the baptism and confirmation (chrismation in the East) rites. I am wondering if the early Christians practiced an initiatory washing and anointing outside of those two sacraments. I know that in the Orthodox church I visited a few times when I was in DC, they had an anointing that would be done, though I forgot the context of it (I'm 99% sure it wasn't initiatory though). I think the priest would anoint the hands and forehead, though it's been years since I saw this.

Anyway, from an LDS perspective, as mfbukowski alluded to, the apostasy would have already been in full force by that point, so various ordinances, such as the washing and anointing vs baptism and confirmation, could have been conflated (perhaps similar to the conflation of the temple and synagogue as discussed in the Catholic Liturgy article linked to earlier). Note that I'm just pointing that out as a possibility, I'm still trying to figure out all of this . For example, did the earliest instances of baptism and confirmation include elaborate anointings with oil as described? If not, where did they come from?

Well baptism is certainly an "initiation" so perhaps the question becomes at what age is one properly initiated, and to what? Perhaps at one point in the apostasy, the idea of an "initiation" for someone who had already been baptized might have seemed superfluous if its true significance was lost, so putting it in as part of the baptism might have seemed perfectly logical.

I have quoted this before, but in the Coptic Orthodox church, these sacraments are still being performed- after baptism. This is a partial quote just to pique interest- the full annointing ceremony is quite long and detailed http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/2_confirmation.html

THE ANOINTMENTS

The priest places his right thumb on top of the opening of the Myron bottle, and turns it downwards to wet his finger with the Myron. He then anoints the baptized as follows :

The first four anointments (eight crosses) are on the senses

Firstly, the top of the head, the nostrils, the mouth, and the right ear

Then, the right eye, the left eye, an finally the left ear

Whilst anointing, the priest says, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The anointment of grace of the Holy Spirit, Amen.”

NOTES:

He anoints The Head to sanctify it. The head contains the brain, where thinking takes place. It is the brain which distinguishes humankind from other creatures. A good mind is of great use and benefit to oneself and to others also. King Solomon praises the mind saying, “When wisdom enters your heart and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, discretion will preserve you, understanding will keep you, to deliver from the way evil” (Proverbs 2: 10-12).

Also, the Lord Jesus praised the young man who answered wisely and said to him: “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). And St. Paul our teacher prays for us saying, “And the peace of God which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7).

The Nostrils contain the sense of smell, and it is an important sense, for if a person is not careful and alert, it is possible for impure thoughts to enter ones heart through this sense. Hence, the priest anoints it to protect it against all sin and lust.

The Mouth with the tongue is the most dangerous organ in a person...

“If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless” (James 1:26).

“If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:2).

“The tongue is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison, it defiles the whole body and sets on fire the course of nature, and it is set on fire by hell” (James 3:8,6), if it is not controlled.

The Psalmist prays, “Set a guard O Lord, over my mouth. Keep watch over the door of my lips. Do not incline my heart to any evil thing” (Psalm 141:3,4)

And the wise King Solomon said: “Whoever guards his mouth and tongue keeps his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23), and, “Put away from you a deceitful mouth, and put perverse lips far from you” (Proverbs 4:24. We ought to keep our tongue from sins such as swearing, insulting, lying, judging, and gossiping. Our words should always be graceful.

The Ears provide us with the important sense of hearing, which should also be controlled, and the anointing of the Myron is a strong weapon in control what we hear. We protect our ears from hearing such things as gossip, and other conversations which may poison our hearts with revenge and hatred. We also protect our ears from hearing certain songs which may poison our hearts with lustful thoughts.

The Eyes are the most important sense, through which enters more than 80% of information which may affect our hearts. If the information is holy, it sanctifies the heart, and vice versa. For this reason, we should control what we see so that we may keep ourselves pure. The tenth commandment says, “Do not covet”. The Psalmist prays, “Turn away my eyes from looking at worthless things” (Psalm 119:37), and, “Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law” (Psalm 119:17).

The second group of four anointments are as follows :

[mfbukowski]

Are you also saying that Freemasonry is older than Cyril's Catechetical Lectures and that Freemasonry influence Cyril when he prepared those lectures? Is there documentary evidence for this from the time period?

Sorry- no not for a minute am I suggesting that- I edited the post- that was sarcasm and poorly written and confusing I must admit upon looking back at it myself. My point was that since Freemasonry supposedly began in the 17th century, there was NO POSSIBLE WAY that it could have influenced Cyril in the 4th Century.

The point is that Cyril's anointing appears to be spot on compared to the LDS anointing, in fact the LDS anointing is closer to Cyril's account than the present Coptic Orthodox ceremony- which makes the idea that Joseph "got it from the Masons" a pretty untenable position in this case.

I hope I stated it better that time- sorry

Edited April 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

Yes, this is something that I've thought as well (I think I brought it up, not sure). Yes, the washing and anointing being referenced in Cyril is not a separate initiatory ordinance(s) in addition to baptism and confirmation, but are the baptism and confirmation (chrismation in the East) rites. I am wondering if the early Christians practiced an initiatory washing and anointing outside of those two sacraments. I know that in the Orthodox church I visited a few times when I was in DC, they had an anointing that would be done, though I forgot the context of it (I'm 99% sure it wasn't initiatory though). I think the priest would anoint the hands and forehead, though it's been years since I saw this.

Anyway, from an LDS perspective, as mfbukowski alluded to, the apostasy would have already been in full force by that point, so various ordinances, such as the washing and anointing vs baptism and confirmation, could have been conflated (perhaps similar to the conflation of the temple and synagogue as discussed in the Catholic Liturgy article linked to earlier). Note that I'm just pointing that out as a possibility, I'm still trying to figure out all of this . For example, did the earliest instances of baptism and confirmation include elaborate anointings with oil as described? If not, where did they come from?

I guess my position is that if the purpose is to find evidence of the ancient origins of the washings and anointings rite, why cite an ancient description of baptism and chrismation? Where's the ancient description of a separate washings and anointings rite? I am Eastern Orthodox and Cyril is one of ours. Cyril's 4th century description of baptism and chrismation is the same as how baptism and chrismation is experienced in the Orthdox church to this day. May 5 this year is Pascha (our Easter) and catechumens will be baptized and chrismated the day before, before the start of the Paschal LIturgy, in the manner described by Cyril. Read all of Cyril's lectures and visit an Orthodox church on May 4 and you'll see for yourself.

Cyril does not describe a washing and anointings rite. As you said, "Yes, the washing and anointing being referenced in Cyril is not a separate initiatory ordinance(s) in addition to baptism and confirmation, but are the baptism and confirmation (chrismation in the East) rites." I agree completely. It's a good question whether "the early Christians practiced an initiatory washing and anointing outside of those two sacraments." Nibley seems to have thought so and used Cyril's Catechetical Lectures to support his position. He was wrong to do so, however, as Cyril offers no such support.

Does Cyril's description of baptism and anointing with oil contain memories or echoes of an earlier, lost rite? That seems to be the argument I'm hearing here, that three hundred years is "more than enough time to have important practices lost" and that Cyril is evidence of similarity, that "various ordinances, such as the washing and anointing vs baptism and confirmation, could have been conflated" by the time Cyril arrived on the scene. Am I understanding the argument correctly? If so, where's the ancient documentary evidence of a separate washings and anointing rite? Can this claim be substantiated without reference to Joseph Smith or an LDS testimony? It seems that was Nibley's intent, but he really misunderstood Cyril in his work on the issue.

[Bill Hamblin]

I guess my position is that if the purpose is to find evidence of the ancient origins of the washings and anointings rite, why cite an ancient description of baptism and chrismation? Where's the ancient description of a separate washings and anointings rite? I am Eastern Orthodox and Cyril is one of ours. Cyril's 4th century description of baptism and chrismation is the same as how baptism and chrismation is experienced in the Orthdox church to this day. May 5 this year is Pascha (our Easter) and catechumens will be baptized and chrismated the day before, before the start of the Paschal LIturgy, in the manner described by Cyril. Read all of Cyril's lectures and visit an Orthodox church on May 4 and you'll see for yourself.

Cyril does not describe a washing and anointings rite. As you said, "Yes, the washing and anointing being referenced in Cyril is not a separate initiatory ordinance(s) in addition to baptism and confirmation, but are the baptism and confirmation (chrismation in the East) rites." I agree completely. It's a good question whether "the early Christians practiced an initiatory washing and anointing outside of those two sacraments." Nibley seems to have thought so and used Cyril's Catechetical Lectures to support his position. He was wrong to do so, however, as Cyril offers no such support.

Does Cyril's description of baptism and anointing with oil contain memories or echoes of an earlier, lost rite? That seems to be the argument I'm hearing here, that three hundred years is "more than enough time to have important practices lost" and that Cyril is evidence of similarity, that "various ordinances, such as the washing and anointing vs baptism and confirmation, could have been conflated" by the time Cyril arrived on the scene. Am I understanding the argument correctly? If so, where's the ancient documentary evidence of a separate washings and anointing rite? Can this claim be substantiated without reference to Joseph Smith or an LDS testimony? It seems that was Nibley's intent, but he really misunderstood Cyril in his work on the issue.

There is also washing and anointing for ordination to the priesthood and royal coronations.

[Spammer]

I have quoted this before, but in the Coptic Orthodox church, these sacraments are still being performed- after baptism. This is a partial quote just to pique interest- the full annointing ceremony is quite long and detailed http://www.copticchu...nfirmation.html

The same, in somewhat shorter form, is performed after baptism in the Eastern Orthodox church.

[Spammer]

Sorry- no not for a minute am I suggesting that- I edited the post- that was sarcasm and poorly written and confusing I must admit upon looking back at it myself. My point was that since Freemasonry supposedly began in the 17th century, there was NO POSSIBLE WAY that it could have influenced Cyril in the 4th Century.

The point is that Cyril's anointing appears to be spot on compared to the LDS anointing, in fact the LDS anointing is closer to Cyril's account than the present Coptic Orthodox ceremony- which makes the idea that Joseph "got it from the Masons" a pretty untenable position in this case.

I hope I stated it better that time- sorry

Ok, got it. Thanks for clarifying.

[Spammer]

There is also washing and anointing for ordination to the priesthood and royal coronations.

Are you referring to the ancient temple priesthood, anointed Davidic priest-kings, etc.? I assume so...

[Bill Hamblin]

Are you referring to the ancient temple priesthood, anointed Davidic priest-kings, etc.? I assume so...

And medieval Christian priests and kings.

Cyril didn't make his stuff up. He was adapting earlier Jewish temple rites and practices.

[Spammer]

Cyril didn't make his stuff up. He was adapting earlier Jewish temple rites and practices.

...or his stuff came from an unwritten esoteric tradition created and handed down by the apostles themselves, as his fellow Nicene St. Basil the Great asserts in his writings. Unfortunately, there isn't much written prior to the 3rd century to substantiate either Basil's claim of esoteric continuity or the claim that the first Christians practiced a separate 'washings and anointings' ritual which was then lost before Cyril wrote his Lectures. Pseudo-Dionysius or Clement of Alexandria might be exceptions. Both discuss the hidden tradition handed down from the apostles, but I don't recall either of them describing the esoteric content of the tradition like (the very Orthodox) Basil did. Of course, I haven't read all of the available ante-Nicene writings, so if there is anything that might serve as a smoking gun I'm all ears.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Does Cyril's description of baptism and anointing with oil contain memories or echoes of an earlier, lost rite? That seems to be the argument I'm hearing here, that three hundred years is "more than enough time to have important practices lost" and that Cyril is evidence of similarity, that "various ordinances, such as the washing and anointing vs baptism and confirmation, could have been conflated" by the time Cyril arrived on the scene. Am I understanding the argument correctly?

So far, yes you understand it but you are about to go off the rails here.

If so, where's the ancient documentary evidence of a separate washings and anointing rite? Can this claim be substantiated without reference to Joseph Smith or an LDS testimony? It seems that was Nibley's intent, but he really misunderstood Cyril in his work on the issue.

The entire POINT is that the evidence is LOST. First you ask if you are understanding correctly that we think that the evidence is lost and then in the next sentence you ask for the lost evidence.

If it is lost, it is LOST.

But you are also missing the point that BAPTISM ITSELF IS AN INITIATORY RITE in that it is what makes a Christian a Christian. It is itself an INITIATION.

A possible reason for the conflation here is clear: one might think that if you have Baptism itself as a ritual initiation, WHY IS THERE NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL WASHING AND ANOINTING?

In fact in the Western church the mere fact that the sacrament of Confirmation is a symbolic rite of passage into adulthood indicates that there has been a tradition that such a sacrament, and one of perhaps a fuller nature, (yes that is speculation) has always been there.

In fact when a convert is to be baptized as an adult, the process (which takes a year) is called the "Rite of Christian Initiation"- and there was confirmation for those who were not converts- which occurred years after baptism - in most cases many years after baptism. I myself was confirmed a Catholic at the age of 15 or 16 as I recall, and was given a new name as part of the process. I got to pick it out myself, and I picked the "coolest" name I could as a 15 year old.

It seems obvious to me that baptism became a substitute for the initiatory washing and so the washing was later lost in the the "initiation" (Confirmation) which happened later traditionally.

In fact, I would urge LDS to read the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults - I will quote specific lines below as a teaser. This is practiced by Catholics today http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_Adults

Receiving the Candidates

• Greeting (often with the RCIA teacher knocking at the door of the church and asking the congregation to allow the Catechumens to enter)
  
• Open Dialogue
  
• Candidates First Acceptance of the Gospel
  
• Affirmation by the Sponsors and the Assembly
  
• Signing of the Candidates with the Cross:
  

- Signing of the Forehead

- [signing of the Other Senses] - optional

- Concluding Prayer

.......... From this point until their baptisms, catechumens are dismissed after the liturgy of the word when they attend mass at the parish at which they had the rite of acception. This is to make the process feel more like it was in the early church, when Christian converts were dismissed before communion before their baptism, which often took years to prepare for, largely to make the communion more secret and more meaningful

........

Receiving the Candidates

• Greeting
  
• Opening Dialogue with Candidates for the Catechumenate and with the Candidates for Post-baptismal Catechesis
  
• Catechumens' First Acceptance of the Gospel
  
• Candidates' Declaration of Intent
  
• Affirmation by the Sponsors and the Assembly
  
• Signing of the Catechumens and of the Candidates with the Cross:
  

- Signing of the Forehead of the Catechumens

- [signing of the Other Senses of the Catechumens] - optional

- Signing of the Forehead of the Candidates

- [signing of the Other Senses of the Candidates] - optional

- Concluding Prayer

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

Third Step: Celebration of the Sacraments of Initiation [206 - 217]..........

- Profession of the Catholic Faith by the Catechumens and Candidates

• Baptism
  
• Explanatory Rites:
  

- [Anointing after Baptism] - if Confirmation is separated from the Catechumen's Baptism

- [Clothing with a Baptismal Garment] - optional

- Presentation of a Lighted Candle

Celebration of Confirmation

• Invitation
  
• Laying on of Hands
  
• Anointing with Chrism
  

The confirmation can take place at the same time as the baptism, by anointing with the oil immediately after the pouring of the water.

I highly recommend reading this entire page. Understanding these points I think is the key to this entire issue. All the elements of LDS initiatory ceremonies are there- just, to our way of thinking, scrambled up a little.

Edited April 4, 2013 by mfbukowski

[bjw]

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.

This makes sense, the person I talked to may have had the York and Scottish Rites mixed up. If he wrote an expose of the York Rite that may have been what the person was thinking of. Anyway, thanks for the response.

[Spammer]

The entire POINT is that the evidence is LOST. First you ask if you are understanding correctly that we think that the evidence is lost and then in the next sentence you ask for the lost evidence.

If it is lost, it is LOST.

Well, yea, since Nibley apparently thought he had a smoking gun with Cyril, I was curious if there were any other ancient documents LDS folks refer to to support their beliefs about the ancient origins of the washings and anointings ritual. I think it's a fair question, given that I don't accept LDS claims about revelation and a universal apostasy as evidence. Without any reference to Joseph Smith or the Great Apostasy, how do you know the evidence is lost? Is the ONLY evidence of such a loss and the ancient practice of such a ritual the testimony of Joseph Smith and a belief in a universal apostasy? Can the LDS view be supported at all without any reference to the Apostasy? I suppose not, if all of the evidence was lost.

But you are also missing the point that BAPTISM ITSELF IS AN INITIATORY RITE in that it is what makes a Christian a Christian. It is itself an INITIATION.

A possible reason for the conflation here is clear: one might think that if you have Baptism itself as a ritual initiation, WHY IS THERE NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL WASHING AND ANOINTING?

In fact in the Western church the mere fact that the sacrament of Confirmation is a symbolic rite of passage into adulthood indicates that there has been a tradition that such a sacrament, and one of perhaps a fuller nature, (yes that is speculation) has always been there.

In fact when a convert is to be baptized as an adult, the process (which takes a year) is called the "Rite of Christian Initiation"- and there was confirmation for those who were not converts- which occurred years after baptism - in most cases many years after baptism. I myself was confirmed a Catholic at the age of 15 or 16 as I recall, and was given a new name as part of the process. I got to pick it out myself, and I picked the "coolest" name I could as a 15 year old.

It seems obvious to me that baptism became a substitute for the initiatory washing and so the washing was later lost in the the "initiation" (Confirmation) which happened later traditionally.

In fact, I would urge LDS to read the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults - I will quote specific lines below as a teaser. This is practiced by Catholics today http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_Adults

I highly recommend reading this entire page. Understanding these points I think is the key to this entire issue. All the elements of LDS initiatory ceremonies are there- just, to our way of thinking, scrambled up a little.

Would this argument hold up if you don't first assume a universal apostasy? Can your speculation "It seems obvious to me that baptism became a substitute for the initiatory washing and so the washing was later lost in the the "initiation" (Confirmation) which happened later traditionally" be supported in any other way? I'm asking only because I really do think that, when push comes to shove, the buck always stops with a belief in the occurence of a universal apostasy, which in turn is based on a personal testimony. Lacking this belief myself, I just don't see any evidence that documents describing LDS-style temple rites in the early church ever existed. To me, it's all just flying teapots and claims that the evidence for their existence has been destroyed or was lost. IMO, unless you're only interested in preaching to the choir, the better approach is to completely drop all testimonies, apostasy claims, and attempts at linking LDS teachings with patristics (e.g. Nibley and Bickmore, etc.) and just focus on Joseph Smith's Nauvoo innovations. How on earth did a New York farm boy come up with all of that? Theories abound, but regardless it's still the better approach. The LDS focus on patristics only works for folks who don't know much about ancient Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and don't take the time to read the early church fathers for themselves.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Spammer

[ChristKnight]

Well, yea, since Nibley apparently thought he had a smoking gun with Cyril, I was curious if there were any other ancient documents LDS folks refer to to support their beliefs about the ancient origins of the washings and anointings ritual. I think it's a fair question, given that I don't accept LDS claims about revelation and a universal apostasy as evidence. Without any reference to Joseph Smith or the Great Apostasy, how do you know the evidence is lost? Is the ONLY evidence of such a loss and the ancient practice of such a ritual the testimony of Joseph Smith and a belief in a universal apostasy? Can the LDS view be supported at all without any reference to the Apostasy? I suppose not, if all of the evidence was lost.

I understand where both you and mfbukowski are coming from. To make it clear, your argument, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, is that the "mysteries" referred to anciently are the mysteries that are practiced in Orthodoxy to this day, and that the washing and anointing referred to by Cyril, specifically the text about the various anointings on body parts, is the Chrismation/Confirmation mystery/sacrament, which is still performed today. Baptism, Chrismation/Confirmation, and the Eucharist are still regarded as an "initiation" by Catholics and Orthodox (I don't believe any Catholic or Orthodox would not believe that they are regarded as initiatory sacraments, especially with the Catholic conversion process for adults referred to as the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, RCIA), and there is no evidence in the writings of the ECFs to support an initiatory washing and anointing outside of that found in baptism and chrismation. Is that accurate?

Also, how do Orthodox view the concept of "mysteries" and Christianity as a "mystery religion", with esoteric rites, as we see in the practice of the early Christians?

On the other hand, mfbukowski is saying that the evidence for a separate initiatory washing and anointing (perhaps we can expand that to also include being clothed in a garment and receiving a new name) was lost, however we can see clear parallels in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem. Were confirmations/chrismations always involving all of that anointing of various body parts? Where did that practice come from? And really, how did the LDS practice of washing and anointing find such a clear parallel to an ancient practice, when Joseph Smith and his companions obviously didn't have access to that information? I'm assuming you've never been LDS and having gone through these temple ordinances, however I'm sure you can find the relevant information online if you desire. It certainly does cause pause to see the startling similarity in what is being done.

Perhaps you would be interested in this blog that refers to writings other that Cyril's in relation to the washing and anointing done in LDS temples. Again, some familiarity with LDS temple ordinances would be helpful in understanding why such information is important for LDS looking for ancient parallels to current practices.

[Robert F. Smith]

In fact in the Western church the mere fact that the sacrament of Confirmation is a symbolic rite of passage into adulthood indicates that there has been a tradition that such a sacrament, and one of perhaps a fuller nature, (yes that is speculation) has always been there.

In fact when a convert is to be baptized as an adult, the process (which takes a year) is called the "Rite of Christian Initiation"- and there was confirmation for those who were not converts- which occurred years after baptism - in most cases many years after baptism. I myself was confirmed a Catholic at the age of 15 or 16 as I recall, and was given a new name as part of the process. I got to pick it out myself, and I picked the "coolest" name I could as a 15 year old.

It seems obvious to me that baptism became a substitute for the initiatory washing and so the washing was later lost in the the "initiation" (Confirmation) which happened later traditionally.

In fact, I would urge LDS to read the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults - I will quote specific lines below as a teaser. This is practiced by Catholics today http://en.wikipedia....ation_of_Adults

I highly recommend reading this entire page. Understanding these points I think is the key to this entire issue. All the elements of LDS initiatory ceremonies are there- just, to our way of thinking, scrambled up a little.

The RCIA is very important.

One might also want to compare coronation rituals. For example, I am old enough to recall the televised coronation of Queen Elizabeth II depicted holding the orbis terrarum with cross, a scepter, and a rod (with dove), after having been anointed with oil (including the anointing of her breasts off camera) by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I believe there is a washing and clothing ritual in there somewhere also.*

* June 2, 1953 (See http://www.oremus.or...n/cor1953b.html “Form and Order for Service”). The same basic regalia and anointing were displayed at the coronation of Elizabeth I in the PBS-TV Masterpiece Theatre presentation of “The Virgin Queen” (BBC Power/ Boston: WGBH, 2005).

Edited April 5, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, yea, since Nibley apparently thought he had a smoking gun with Cyril, I was curious if there were any other ancient documents LDS folks refer to to support their beliefs about the ancient origins of the washings and anointings ritual. I think it's a fair question, given that I don't accept LDS claims about revelation and a universal apostasy as evidence. Without any reference to Joseph Smith or the Great Apostasy, how do you know the evidence is lost? Is the ONLY evidence of such a loss and the ancient practice of such a ritual the testimony of Joseph Smith and a belief in a universal apostasy? Can the LDS view be supported at all without any reference to the Apostasy? I suppose not, if all of the evidence was lost.

You have it backward. I don't know any LDS scholars who use revelation and the apostasy as "evidence." Rather they assemble evidence to show that there was an apostasy and that priesthood, revelation, etc., needed to be restored (since it was lost as part of that Great Apostasy). See Hugh Nibley, "The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme," Church History, 20 (June 1961):131-154 (see online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=55&chapid=523), which was followed by an angry and silly rebuttal by Hans Hillerbrand, and a defense of Nibley by Robert M. Grant. Non-Mormons in a non-Mormon journal!!

Would this argument hold up if you don't first assume a universal apostasy? Can your speculation "It seems obvious to me that baptism became a substitute for the initiatory washing and so the washing was later lost in the the "initiation" (Confirmation) which happened later traditionally" be supported in any other way? I'm asking only because I really do think that, when push comes to shove, the buck always stops with a belief in the occurence of a universal apostasy, which in turn is based on a personal testimony. Lacking this belief myself, I just don't see any evidence that documents describing LDS-style temple rites in the early church ever existed. To me, it's all just flying teapots and claims that the evidence for their existence has been destroyed or was lost. IMO, unless you're only interested in preaching to the choir, the better approach is to completely drop all testimonies, apostasy claims, and attempts at linking LDS teachings with patristics (e.g. Nibley and Bickmore, etc.) and just focus on Joseph Smith's Nauvoo innovations. How on earth did a New York farm boy come up with all of that? Theories abound, but regardless it's still the better approach. The LDS focus on patristics only works for folks who don't know much about ancient Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and don't take the time to read the early church fathers for themselves.

As Robert M. Grant pointed out, one needs more than bluster to refute Nibley's mastery of the patristic literature. No one has thus far been equal to the task.

Everyone should also pay attention to the following:

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),

Samuel Noah 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).

As for imagined "Nauvoo innovations," nearly all of that was available in the Bible and Book of Mormon, and some other matters by 1832.

[Spammer]

I understand where both you and mfbukowski are coming from. To make it clear, your argument, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, is that the "mysteries" referred to anciently are the mysteries that are practiced in Orthodoxy to this day, and that the washing and anointing referred to by Cyril, specifically the text about the various anointings on body parts, is the Chrismation/Confirmation mystery/sacrament, which is still performed today. Baptism, Chrismation/Confirmation, and the Eucharist are still regarded as an "initiation" by Catholics and Orthodox (I don't believe any Catholic or Orthodox would not believe that they are regarded as initiatory sacraments, especially with the Catholic conversion process for adults referred to as the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, RCIA), and there is no evidence in the writings of the ECFs to support an initiatory washing and anointing outside of that found in baptism and chrismation. Is that accurate?

Yes. Exactly right. I was drawn to this thread by the claim that Nibley had found evidence in Cyril to "support an initiatory washing and anointing outside of that found in baptism and chrismation." Nibley was wrong. I'm still curious whether there is support for the claim in other ECFs. I'm unaware of any. It sounds like Mfbukowski believes all of it was lost. Assuming I've understood him correctly.

Also, how do Orthodox view the concept of "mysteries" and Christianity as a "mystery religion", with esoteric rites, as we see in the practice of the early Christians?

Eastern Orthodox call the sacraments, and the esoteric rites associated with them (e.g., as per St. Basil - facing East to pray, signing with the cross, anointing with oil, the words of the epiklesis), 'mysteries'. They disclose the ineffable God in his energies to us through matter: bread, wine, oil, and water (Roman Catholics do not make this essence-energy distinction). We call the sacraments mysteries because God is Mystery. His essence is unknowable. God is transcendent and "other". This God of mystery cannot be comprehended. Even though we can know and experience God through his energies, we cannot possibly know God as He is in Himself. For us, a mystery is not a puzzle or a problem to be solved, something that our minds can eventually grasp fully given sufficient willpower, tenacity, and hard work. We can never 'solve' God. "God cannot be grasped by the mind. If he could be grasped, he would not be God." (Evagrius of Pontus) Our approach to God is apophatic. As Cardinal Newman put it, we are continually saying and unsaying to positive effect. At the same time, a mystery is not something that's baffling, an enigma, or insoluble. Rather, we view a mystery as something revealed for our understanding, as something that unfolds for us as we dive in, but which we can never understand completely since, although the mystery discloses God to us, we are finite creatures and mystery takes us into the infinite depth or darkness of God. Although we enter the mystery in the Liturgy and in our Christian life, the mystery is inexhaustible. It's in this sense that Christianity is a mystery religion. At the Divine Liturgy, every rubric, every gesture, every symbol, takes us into the depths of God. That's why we view the mystery of the Incarnation as such a huge deal. The mysterious, incomprehensible God entered His creation, took on human flesh, and became one of us. We can come to know God best through Jesus. "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father! ...I am in the Father, and..the Father is in me.."

On the other hand, mfbukowski is saying that the evidence for a separate initiatory washing and anointing (perhaps we can expand that to also include being clothed in a garment and receiving a new name) was lost, however we can see clear parallels in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem. Were confirmations/chrismations always involving all of that anointing of various body parts? Where did that practice come from? And really, how did the LDS practice of washing and anointing find such a clear parallel to an ancient practice, when Joseph Smith and his companions obviously didn't have access to that information? I'm assuming you've never been LDS and having gone through these temple ordinances, however I'm sure you can find the relevant information online if you desire. It certainly does cause pause to see the startling similarity in what is being done.

I was born and raised LDS. I was endowed in the Jordan River Temple pre-1990 and married in the SLC temple a few years after my mission. My wife is still LDS. After leaving the church I was an atheist for quite a long time. I returned to Christ through Rome and some years later continued further to the East after I discovered Orthodoxy. My perspective in this thread is based on having personally experienced the initiatory rites of the LDS temple, of Catholicism through RCIA, and of Eastern Orthodoxy. I can definitely see your point that there are certain similarities between Cyril and what happens in the LDS temple, it's true - the parallels are there, but I don't think the parallels are nearly as clear as they seem to be to you. The only similarities between Cyril and the LDS temple are the use of oil and anointing certain parts of the body. That's where the parallels stop. The Orthodox similarly use oil and anoint the body in the chrismation rite, but it's obvious if you read all of the Catechetical Lectures that Cyril 'belongs' to the Catholic/Orthodox tradition. The Nicene character of his teaching is obvious (Lectures 6-18 are a walk-through of each of the articles of the Creed!). Cyril of Jerusalem was a contemporary of Basil of Caeserea and Chrysostom of Constantinople. The Byzantine Divine Liturgy we use in Eastern Orthodoxy (both text and rubrics) was written by Chrysostom. We also use Basil's somewhat longer liturgy at certain times during the year. Cyril's lectures on the mysteries (Catechetical Lectures 19-23), the lectures on which Nibley based his attempt to link Cyril to LDS washings and anointings, describe the rubrics of baptism and chrismation exactly as they are performed in the Eastern Orthodox church today. In his lectures, Cyril exactly described my experience when I became Orthodox (and more or less described my experience when I had earlier become Roman Catholic), and the theology I was taught - but he did so in the Fourth century! Cyril most definitely did NOT describe my experience in the Jordan River temple. That's why I think Nibley is way off base in his interpretations of Cyril.

As for where the use of oil to anoint priests, kings, new Christians, and LDS in the temple came from, I think it's clear that it all derives from first temple Judaism. The problem is tracing all of the lineages to find which thread most directly ties the ancient temple to Jesus to the early church to modern Christianity, using evidences that are increasingly scattered and fragmented the further back you go. We're all stuck with the same evidence and have to make the best of it and hope for the best. Near the end of my atheist period, I felt strongly pulled (thanks to C.S. Lewis) to give Christ a try again. so I delved into the New Testament and the ECFs as an atheist, with an eye to trying too discern whether those writings "felt" Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, or Gnostic. I ignored the scholarship surrounding these writings and just focused on the ancient writings themselves, including the Nag Hammadi writings. That experience brought me to the ancient, creedal church. For me, I can see the esoteric rites of Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism in Cyril, Chrysostom, Basil, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Pseudo-Dionysius. I can also see them in ancient Judaism with the help of Margaret Barker (ironically, it was an LDS poster on another board about 10 years ago, someone who claimed to be a student of Nibley's, who introduced me to Barker. He hoped it would help me see the parallels between Mormonism and the ancient temple. Instead, reading Barker helped to turn me into a Catholic!). I'm unaware of any orthodox Christian writing prior to Clement/Origin that so clearly speaks of a hidden tradition handed down by Jesus through the apostles, but I can see Catholic/Orthodox church structures and belief in the Real Presence in Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Iraneus, and Tertullian. I never have received any answer to any of my prayers as to which church is true, but it's clear to me that the weight of the patristic evidence (if i want to be a Christian) is on the side of the ancient churches of Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. That's why I'm Orthodox. My journey from atheism to Christianity through the patristic literature has led me to conclude that the LDS apologetic method is based on confirmation bias and cherry-picking. I've heard it referred to derogatorily as parallelomania, Rude, but apt, IMO.

Perhaps you would be interested in this blog that refers to writings other that Cyril's in relation to the washing and anointing done in LDS temples. Again, some familiarity with LDS temple ordinances would be helpful in understanding why such information is important for LDS looking for ancient parallels to current practices.

Thanks. I'll take a look.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

You have it backward. I don't know any LDS scholars who use revelation and the apostasy as "evidence." Rather they assemble evidence to show that there was an apostasy and that priesthood, revelation, etc., needed to be restored (since it was lost as part of that Great Apostasy). See Hugh Nibley, "The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme," Church History, 20 (June 1961):131-154 (see online at http://maxwellinstit...&chapid=523), which was followed by an angry and silly rebuttal by Hans Hillerbrand, and a defense of Nibley by Robert M. Grant. Non-Mormons in a non-Mormon journal!!

I mentioned revelation and apostasy with mfbukowski's claim of lost evidences in mind (who I like chatting with very much, by the way. He opened my eyes regarding our conceptual dependence on contingent language - it confirms for me the primary importance of an experience of the divine, common to both Orthodox and LDS spirituality, as compared to an over-reliance on the dictates of reason to find truth, which IMO is the hallmark of Western Christianity). If all of the ancient documents that described an ancient LDS-style washings and anointing rite in an ancient LDS-style temple were lost, how does anyone know those documents even existed in the first place? I see no way to support that claim without reference to revelation and apostasy.

As Robert M. Grant pointed out, one needs more than bluster to refute Nibley's mastery of the patristic literature. No one has thus far been equal to the task.

I haven't read Nibley relating to other ECFs, but it wasn't hard to refute Nibley's interpretation of Cyril regarding washings and anointings - cited in this thread. Nibley got it completely wrong.

Everyone should also pay attention to the following:

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),

Samuel Noah 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).

Thanks for these references. They look fascinating, although I prefer reading the primary sources for myself.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Well, yea, since Nibley apparently thought he had a smoking gun with Cyril, I was curious if there were any other ancient documents LDS folks refer to to support their beliefs about the ancient origins of the washings and anointings ritual. I think it's a fair question, given that I don't accept LDS claims about revelation and a universal apostasy as evidence. Without any reference to Joseph Smith or the Great Apostasy, how do you know the evidence is lost? Is the ONLY evidence of such a loss and the ancient practice of such a ritual the testimony of Joseph Smith and a belief in a universal apostasy? Can the LDS view be supported at all without any reference to the Apostasy? I suppose not, if all of the evidence was lost.

Would this argument hold up if you don't first assume a universal apostasy? Can your speculation "It seems obvious to me that baptism became a substitute for the initiatory washing and so the washing was later lost in the the "initiation" (Confirmation) which happened later traditionally" be supported in any other way? I'm asking only because I really do think that, when push comes to shove, the buck always stops with a belief in the occurence of a universal apostasy, which in turn is based on a personal testimony. Lacking this belief myself, I just don't see any evidence that documents describing LDS-style temple rites in the early church ever existed. To me, it's all just flying teapots and claims that the evidence for their existence has been destroyed or was lost. IMO, unless you're only interested in preaching to the choir, the better approach is to completely drop all testimonies, apostasy claims, and attempts at linking LDS teachings with patristics (e.g. Nibley and Bickmore, etc.) and just focus on Joseph Smith's Nauvoo innovations. How on earth did a New York farm boy come up with all of that? Theories abound, but regardless it's still the better approach. The LDS focus on patristics only works for folks who don't know much about ancient Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and don't take the time to read the early church fathers for themselves.

Read the New Testament. Now look at the modern Catholic church- ALL of it. I don't care about all the traditions that were introduced after the first century.

The Apostasy is obvious to many, not just LDS. I believed in the apostasy long before I became Mormon- in fact while I was still Catholic, and that is the reason I left. Protestants do not accept that Catholicism is Christianity as it was founded, and neither does ANY OTHER CHRISTIAN who is not Catholic or Orthodox.

Your opinion may vary- you have a right to that opinion. There is no question that the Catholic church has done wonderful things and its members are choice, choice people. But there is no reason to debate the apostasy here. This thread is not about the apostasy and any discussion about it would not be convincing to any of the parties anyway. It's a waste of time to debate it.

Edited April 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The RCIA is very important.

One might also want to compare coronation rituals. For example, I am old enough to recall the televised coronation of Queen Elizabeth II depicted holding the orbis terrarum with cross, a scepter, and a rod (with dove), after having been anointed with oil (including the anointing of her breasts off camera) by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I believe there is a washing and clothing ritual in there somewhere also.*

* June 2, 1953 (See http://www.oremus.or...n/cor1953b.html “Form and Order for Service”). The same basic regalia and anointing were displayed at the coronation of Elizabeth I in the PBS-TV Masterpiece Theatre presentation of “The Virgin Queen” (BBC Power/ Boston: WGBH, 2005).

Absolutely! Thanks for this!

[mfbukowski]

* June 2, 1953 (See http://www.oremus.or...n/cor1953b.html “Form and Order for Service”).

Wow that old Joseph Smith had quite a library!

[Spammer]

Read the New Testament. Now look at the modern Catholic church- ALL of it. I don't care about all the traditions that were introduced after the first century.

The Apostasy is obvious to many, not just LDS. I believed in the apostasy long before I became Mormon- in fact while I was still Catholic, and that is the reason I left. Protestants do not accept that Catholicism is Christianity as it was founded, and neither does ANY OTHER CHRISTIAN who is not Catholic or Orthodox.

Your opinion may vary- you have a right to that opinion. There is no question that the Catholic church has done wonderful things and its members are choice, choice people. But there is no reason to debate the apostasy here. This thread is not about the apostasy and any discussion about it would not be convincing to any of the parties anyway. It's a waste of time to debate it.

I have read the NT, many times. I have looked at the modern CC - all of it. That's one of the reasons I'm Orthodox and no longer Catholic. I see no evidence that a total apostasy occured, even if Rome has innovated and has left behind much of what it once possessed (which is the Orthdox view). Corruption, abuses, inquisitions, crusades, etc., are not evidence of a total apostasy of the ancient, liturgical church. Even if they were, that would only be evidence of apostasy in the Roman church. But, you're right, of course. I was not intending to debate the apostasy. I agree, it's a waste of time. I was only suggesting that it seems that the existence of an ancient washings and anointing ritual distinct from baptism/chrismation can only be supported if the apostasy is first assumed to have occurred. There just doesn't seem to be any ancient evidence that clearly describes a disinct washings and anointings ritual in the early church. Cyril was trotted out, but Cyril was describing baptism and chrismation. What I asked is whether there is any other ancient witness besides Cyril that describes such a separate ritual, either preceding or following baptism/chrismation, since I've never come across anything in my reading. You responded with "all of the evidence has been lost," which in turn seems to derive from assuming the existence of the apostasy. This suggests to me that, barring the existence of an ancient witness that describes it, reaching common ground with a Mormon on this issue of a separate washings and anointings rite is a priori impossible to achieve for someone who is Orthodox or Catholic. Given that we don't share the apostasy assumption (which frames how each of us interprets the ECFs), it seems that any discussion of ancient evidences in relation to unique LDS beliefs is pointless and a waste of time. I suppose I just should have pointed out that Nibley got Cyril completely wrong and left it at that.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

I was only suggesting that it seems that the existence of an ancient washings and anointing ritual distinct from baptism/chrismation can only be supported if the apostasy is first assumed to have occurred.

Absurd. I can completely imagine a totally faithful Catholic scholar to theoretically find evidence of such a rite and simply believe it was correctly incorporated into some other rite. Such a position in no way implies an apostasy any more that other changes in rites over the years, including the massive changes in the mass. Everyone acknowledges those, without implying an apostasy.

But again, this conversation is going in the same direction all of our conversations have gone- endlessly repetitive and pointless.

Edited April 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

Absurd. I can completely imagine a totally faithful Catholic scholar to theoretically find evidence of such a rite and simply believe it was correctly incorporated into some other rite. Such a position in no way implies an apostasy any more that other changes in rites over the years, including the massive changes in the mass. Everyone acknowledges those, without implying an apostasy.

But again, this conversation is going in the same direction all of our conversations have gone- endlessly repetitive and pointless.

Not so absurd, since the ancient evidence describing a distinct initiatory washing/anointing rite has been lost, right? What's the point of speculating about lost documents containing reference to washing/anointing rites when there is no evidence, apart from assuming the apostasy, that such documents ever existed in the first place? Since we don't share that assumption, we are indeed taking in circles, pointlessly. All of this imagining is equally useless. I can imagine the existence of a 1st century document that describes baptism/chrismation rites with the same degree of detail as Cyril's orthodox Lectures. I can imagine it's existence and even assert it was lost, possibly destroyed by arian apostates opposed to creedal trinitarianism during the 4th Century christological debates. But imagining such a document and saying it was lost because of apostasy from the ancient Catholic/Orthodox church won't get us anywhere, will it? I don't share your apostasy assumption and imaginings are useless. I agree; this leaves us at an impasse.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Spammer