Ancient Origins Of Lds Temple Esoteric Rites?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

On the nature of the ancient liturgical church, you might want to study Eric Werner's The Sacred Bridge: Liturgical Parallels in Synagogue and Early Church (Schocken, 1970). The comparative method is not automatically bad (parallelomania), and can be very instructive. Be careful of your tendency toward confirmation bias.

Again, it is silly and meaningless for a scholar to assume apriori that there was an apostasy. Scholars assemble evidence for the apostasy the way Nibley did, by going over the patristic writings in great detail. I'm sure that Church History would welcome an article by you refuting Nibley in detail based on your reading of the patristic writings. I see nothing wrong with that approach -- the warp and woof of scholarship. Yet, if it is so simple, why have we not seen it done?

We should carefully distinguish the work of scholars from the revelatory experience of prophets and saints. If God or angels tell them that there was an apostasy, they are not engaging in scholarly discussion. We should not confuse the two epistemic modes.

Whatever the case, I do enjoy your substantive comments. They are most enlightening and helpful.

[ChristKnight]

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.

Well in my cursory reading on this topic, I don't think there is any evidence of an initiatory washing and anointing outside of baptism and chrismation with the ECFs. As someone mentioned, apparently there is a washing and anointing associated with priesthood ordination and royal coronations, which could also be regarded as a type of initiation, though I personally haven't looked into these.

Also, I'm not necessarily sure that Nibley was referring to Cyril of Jerusalem's writings as evidence of an initiatory washing and anointing outside of baptism and confirmation/chrismation. as practiced by LDS. I think perhaps he was referring to it as evidence of a similarly performed ordinance, involving anointing of various "sense organs".

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.."

Thanks for that explanation. When you mentioned "bread, wine, oil, and water", you reminded me of the book "Bread and Wine, Water and Oil: An Orthodox Christian Experience of God" by Archimandrite Meletios Webber. I downloaded it for Kindle awhile ago, but haven't read it yet. It looks like it talks about how participating in the mysteries allows us to experience God, who, as you say, cannot be grasped by the mind. Very interesting. Also interesting to me is that the Orthodox apparently don't limit the mysteries/sacraments to "the 7 sacraments", though they certainly recognize the 7 as the "major" mysteries.

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.

Ahh, okay, thanks for sharing.

I think that an LDS apologetic approach to this (I'm sure someone could articulate this better than me) would be to see that there are parallel ordinances and practices found in the ancient world, such as with Cyril and with the Egyptian Opening of the Mouth ceremony. I agree with you that Cyril is within the Catholic/Orthodox tradition, and yes, the mystery he describes is still performed today by Orthodox and generally by Catholics. I don't think that LDS apologists and scholars would look to such rituals as evidence that the LDS Initiatory is restoring those specific rites, but that they are evidence of a similar practice being found anciently, that was perhaps "corrupted" or conflated with other rituals (maybe some would view Cyril's chrismation as such). If anything, it definitely is interesting to think of where Joseph Smith could have gotten the Initiatory from if it wasn't by revelation, and what churches or groups in his surrounding environment had similar ordinances. Below you say that various practices, including the LDS temple ritual use of anointing oil, derive from first temple Judaism. How do you see that derivation?

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.

Thanks. I'll take a look.

Very interesting. I have Barker's Temple Themes in Christian Worship, haven't finished it (a habit of mine), but I can understand why reading her would lead you to Catholicism/Orthodoxy, since she's talking about those traditions as far as liturgical practices related to the temple goes.

On parallelomania, perhaps you'd be interested in, or already have read Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?. I understand what you're saying though (I don't think I agree with it completely, but I do understand the point you're making, as I mentioned something similar in another thread I started recently on the LDS Church as a restoration of ancient doctrines and practices.

[Spammer]

On the nature of the ancient liturgical church, you might want to study Eric Werner's The Sacred Bridge: Liturgical Parallels in Synagogue and Early Church (Schocken, 1970). The comparative method is not automatically bad (parallelomania), and can be very instructive. Be careful of your tendency toward confirmation bias.

Again, it is silly and meaningless for a scholar to assume apriori that there was an apostasy. Scholars assemble evidence for the apostasy the way Nibley did, by going over the patristic writings in great detail. I'm sure that Church History would welcome an article by you refuting Nibley in detail based on your reading of the patristic writings. I see nothing wrong with that approach -- the warp and woof of scholarship. Yet, if it is so simple, why have we not seen it done?

We should carefully distinguish the work of scholars from the revelatory experience of prophets and saints. If God or angels tell them that there was an apostasy, they are not engaging in scholarly discussion. We should not confuse the two epistemic modes.

Whatever the case, I do enjoy your substantive comments. They are most enlightening and helpful.

Ha, not by a long shot am I equipped or qualified to be a credentialed biblical scholar. The idea of submitting my ramblings to peer review by people who can actually read ancient languages scares the crap out of me. My take on Nibley and Cyril is based only on my personal readings (in English translation!) and on my experiences. Maybe the reason no one has published on Nibley/Cyril is because no Catholic or Orthodox scholar is aware of Nibley on this issue? Just a hunch, but my guess is that they would agree with my viewpoint as Cyril is taken as one of the founding fathers of both churches. He's considered a Doctor of the Church by Rome. I agree that the comparative method is not necessarily bad, so long as an effort is made to compare in both directions - observed similarities and dissimilarities. My view of Nibley on Cyril is that he focused too narrowly on elements of Cyril's descriptions of washings/anointings that were similar to the LDS rite, while glossing over the dissimilarities, which become evident when the whole content of the Catechetical Lectures is taken into account. But again, that's based on my own personal reading of the various English translations and on my personal experiences.

When you say scholars "assemble evidence for the apostasy the way Nibley did, by going over the patristic writings in great detail", the same can probably be said about Catholic/Orthodox scholars, who pour over the same evidence to demonstrate continuity and consistency. Our differing world view frames how we approach and interpret the exact same details. This leads me to wonder, if God or angels tell some scholars there was an apostasy, is there any benefit from having a conversation about the details with scholars who employ a different epistemic mode? Is such an endeavor not useless in the end, unless the participants of the conversation get to the point where they mutally share the same epistemic mode of inquiry? This gets to the issue of bias-free approaches to evaluating historical evidence. Can any of us truly be 'objective'? This seems to assume that the facts speak for themselves. Are we able, in the interest of dialogue and mutual comprehension, to suspend our world views and deeply held beliefs to jointly approach the bare facts? I don't know that we can. This suggest to me that the logically prior project is to attempt to first persuade others to adopt our world view, before we look at the ancient evidences. But how can an LDS scholar persuade a Catholic or Orthodox believer to consider the LDS world view without pointing to the ancient evidences? This seems to be quite a dilemma.

At any rate, I appreciate your feedback very much. If nothing else, as a former Mormon and Orthodox Christian, I do appreciate the centrality of temples and sacred liturgy in Christian worship. Orthodoxy and Mormonism have an awful lot in common.Thanks for the Werner reference. That sounds like one I'd like to add to what I have on my book shelf: the Barker volumes I own, Deiss's Springtime of the Liturgy: Liturgical Texts of the First Four Centuries (Liturgical Pr, 1979) and Wybrew's The Orthodox Liturgy: The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (St. Vladimir's, 1989).

Edited April 8, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Well in my cursory reading on this topic, I don't think there is any evidence of an initiatory washing and anointing outside of baptism and chrismation with the ECFs. As someone mentioned, apparently there is a washing and anointing associated with priesthood ordination and royal coronations, which could also be regarded as a type of initiation, though I personally haven't looked into these.

It seems evident (following Barker and my reading of the OT) that all washing and anointing rites (initiatory, baptismal, royal coronation, ordination, etc.) derive from purification rites in the ancient Jewish temple. Whatever the provenance, and whichever tradition best preserves the original temple content, it does seem the intent is to purify, endow with authority, and divinize the recipient (however divinize is defined by the respective traditions). Fascinating stuff.

Also, I'm not necessarily sure that Nibley was referring to Cyril of Jerusalem's writings as evidence of an initiatory washing and anointing outside of baptism and confirmation/chrismation. as practiced by LDS. I think perhaps he was referring to it as evidence of a similarly performed ordinance, involving anointing of various "sense organs".

Hmm, I read him to be specifically referring to the LDS temple practice and understand those who quote Nibley (such as the website on washings and anointings you linked to) to understand him in that way.

Thanks for that explanation. When you mentioned "bread, wine, oil, and water", you reminded me of the book "Bread and Wine, Water and Oil: An Orthodox Christian Experience of God" by Archimandrite Meletios Webber. I downloaded it for Kindle awhile ago, but haven't read it yet. It looks like it talks about how participating in the mysteries allows us to experience God, who, as you say, cannot be grasped by the mind. Very interesting. Also interesting to me is that the Orthodox apparently don't limit the mysteries/sacraments to "the 7 sacraments", though they certainly recognize the 7 as the "major" mysteries.

Archimandrite Webber's book is a good one. The Orthodox view of the mysteries (sacraments) is precisely what you understand the book to say: they are the principle means through which we experience God, in particular the bread and wine of the Eucharist. But "sacramental" is not limited to these seven rites. Everything that exists - the elements of our rituals (bread, water, wine, and oil); icons, candles, incense, the unaccompanied human voices chanting the prayers and scriptural texts; the people in the church; nature, the universe; the whole show, in fact - discloses God to us, no more so than in Jesus, the Incarnate God, the ultimate revelation of God to his creation. Because of the incarnation, we believe that matter itself has the potential to be divinized. We believe that Christ's redeeming action does more than just save us, that action has a cosmic significance. The entire fallen cosmos is restored to communion with God through the Incarnation, Death of Christ, and Resurrection. This is very close to how Barker interprets the significance of the high priest's actions on the Day of Atonement in the ancient temple. This is the reason why the Orthodox Church does not limit the 'mysteries' to just the seven major Mysteries (sacraments). Everything changed when God became matter and took human flesh. It's not just the sacraments that are sacramental; all that exists, all of life is sacramental and discloses God to us, is a potential means for communion with God. It's a view where all that exists is holy. This has practical consequences for how life is supposed to be lived. In the Orthodox view, life isn't divided into "religious" (things you do at church or while praying, thinking about God, etc.) and "non-religious" or "secular" (everything else). Religion isn't "something you do" on Sundays or at home doing prayer. The Orthodox view (or are supposed to view) all of life sacramentally. The Orthodox don't view Orthodoxy as "a religion". It's a way of life. Everything lives and moves and has its being in Christ; God is "everywhere present and fills all things". The Orthodox don't view ourselves as "here" and God as "there".

Everything can be an encounter with the divine, especially our fellow human beings. "If you've done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you've done it unto me." We are taught to see Christ in every human being we meet. You may be aware that Orthodox kiss the priests hand when they greet him and receive a blessing in turn. This only makes sense if you understand that the priest (and the baptized Christian) are both Christ-bearers. We don't kiss the priest's hand, we're kissing Christ's hand. The same goes for kissing the icons. The disclose the underlying spiritual realities and we venerate them just as we would venerate Jesus's Mother, and the saints, if they were standing right there in front of us. And, in fact, they are standing right there in front of us invisibly, standing with as and around us, the entire great cloud of witnesses is with us right now, each and every one of them. This follows from what I've been saying. All of life, all of creation, is sacramental. We don't live "here" while heaven is somewhere "over there". Heaven and the divine world is right here with us right now, intermingled. You should check out Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (St. Vladimir's, 1973). The author describes the Orthodox view of things lucidly. I'm probably mangling it. The chapter on "The Eucharistic Dogma" in Sergius Bulgakov's The Holy Grail and the Eucharist (Lindesfarne Pr, 1997) delves into the same topic of the Orthodox world view through the context of the transmutation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ (as distinct from transubstantiation). The issue is one of showing how matter remains matter while being divinized (no switching or replacement of substances, or substances freed from accidents and vice versa. The Orthodox view the divinization of matter as a mystery (in the sense of mystery as I've defined it in this thread), without the need to explain it with the conceptual mind using Greek philosophy, which is where the Orthodox think Aquinas went off the rails). Bulgakov's goal is to show how divinized matter, matter elevated to the level of the divine, can dwell beyond space and time in the spiritual world. It provides the Orthodox answer to the common LDS question of "well, if God doesn't have a body, did Jesus just get rid of his body after the Ascension?" The Orthodox answer is "No" and the reason that's the answer speaks to how we view the relation between matter and the divine, and explains why the Orthodox church (following the ECFs) asserts that all of life is sacramental.

Ahh, okay, thanks for sharing.

I think that an LDS apologetic approach to this (I'm sure someone could articulate this better than me) would be to see that there are parallel ordinances and practices found in the ancient world, such as with Cyril and with the Egyptian Opening of the Mouth ceremony. I agree with you that Cyril is within the Catholic/Orthodox tradition, and yes, the mystery he describes is still performed today by Orthodox and generally by Catholics. I don't think that LDS apologists and scholars would look to such rituals as evidence that the LDS Initiatory is restoring those specific rites, but that they are evidence of a similar practice being found anciently, that was perhaps "corrupted" or conflated with other rituals (maybe some would view Cyril's chrismation as such). If anything, it definitely is interesting to think of where Joseph Smith could have gotten the Initiatory from if it wasn't by revelation, and what churches or groups in his surrounding environment had similar ordinances. Below you say that various practices, including the LDS temple ritual use of anointing oil, derive from first temple Judaism. How do you see that derivation?

Who knows for sure? I like how Barker traces the influence of the ancient temple liturgy through various remnant groups and offshoots (Jewish and Christian gnosticism, the Essenes), including the one that produced Jesus himself, who passed temple theology and knowledge of himself as the Great High Priest, the great consummator, the Messiah/Christ, to the apostles and the bishops who founded the ancient church I belong to. Others will disagree. The sparce evidence can definitely establish nobody's claim to be the most direct descendent of the earliest temple rites. Personally, my view is that Joseph Smith maybe got his ideas from several sources: careful reading of the Old Testament, Jesus's statements, the Book of Hebrews, Revelation; gnostic and/or kabbalistic writings in whatever esoteric Jewish texts Alexander Niebuhr (sp?) may have had with him when he tutored Joseph in Nauvoo (e.g., the King Follett discourse seems to borrow from the Zohar); his imagination applied to the aforementioned texts, elements of masonry learned in the Nauvoo lodge. I do realize each can be (and has been) disputed as the source of Joseph's info. Since I don't consider him to be a prophet, I naturally don't think he got his teachings from revelation. IBut I do understand the power of the argument "How could a country farm boy have come up with all of that?" "What an amazing library Palmyra must have had". Who knows? I agree, it's remarkable. Harold Bloom called Joseph Smith a genius for single-handedly reimagining, with just a few sources at hand, much of the original Jewish religion. I don't disagree with that assessment. However, I have my reasons for believing what I believe about Joseph and his esoteric rites. Getting in to those would be a huge derail and I have no desire to do so. I moved on years ago. Regardless, I do still have an interest in all things Mormon. My family is still LDS, after all, and it is my cultural legacy. But enough about me. I can go on and on like that, far too easily.

Very interesting. I have Barker's Temple Themes in Christian Worship, haven't finished it (a habit of mine), but I can understand why reading her would lead you to Catholicism/Orthodoxy, since she's talking about those traditions as far as liturgical practices related to the temple goes.

On parallelomania, perhaps you'd be interested in, or already have read Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-day Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?. I understand what you're saying though (I don't think I agree with it completely, but I do understand the point you're making, as I mentioned something similar in another thread I started recently on the LDS Church as a restoration of ancient doctrines and practices.

Thanks. Yet another interesting source! My wife's already complaining about the piles of books and papers lying around everywhere.....

Edited April 8, 2013 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Spammer

Thanks for your recent posts- I have really enjoyed them and think we got off on the wrong foot on that other thread dealing with the contingency of language. Sorry for my being curt and dismissive- I think I have a lot to learn from you about your experiences in Orthodoxy especially.

What I find phenomenal about Cyril is the degree of similarity with the LDS rites in the words of the blessings he quotes and in the overall similarity of the spirit of each blessing- not in there merely being an anointing of similar body parts.

I have not seen that in other anointing rituals, including any Orthodox liturgies I have had occasion to read or hear

[Spammer]

Spammer

Thanks for your recent posts- I have really enjoyed them and think we got off on the wrong foot on that other thread dealing with the contingency of language. Sorry for my being curt and dismissive- I think I have a lot to learn from you about your experiences in Orthodoxy especially.

What I find phenomenal about Cyril is the degree of similarity with the LDS rites in the words of the blessings he quotes and in the overall similarity of the spirit of each blessing- not in there merely being an anointing of similar body parts.

I have not seen that in other anointing rituals, including any Orthodox liturgies I have had occasion to read or hear

mfbukowski,

Please, I'm the one that needs to apologize. I have a lot of baggage, as folks can tell from some of the posts about my boy and about dealing with church members' well-meaning queries about my sincerity. It's even worse than I've let on, since my entire immediate family (multi-generational from pioneer stock) is a horrific, dysfunctional disaster. Some people in the church who know me and know my background say that my decision to leave the church was because of what happened, instead of granting that my decisions are research-based and (hopefully) honest. It's too easy for me to feel defensive as a result and I sometimes sit here typing with clenched mental fists. I know I came across as pugnacious and that was not what I wanted. If I sound like that again, just send me an emote indicating a long distance slap.

Our conversations about Rorty were awesome. I learned a lot. I'm enjoying this conversation about temple rites, as well. I look forward to future exchanges, including comparing wording of various rituals. I know that's problematic with the temple. I would never disclose nor encourage disclosure of the sacred here or anywhere else. I got my endowment in the '80s and I don't remember the exact words, just the overall thrust of things and the sequence of anointings. If the very words are the same, as you indicate, that truly is a remarkable similarity.

[Robert F. Smith]

------------

When you say scholars "assemble evidence for the apostasy the way Nibley did, by going over the patristic writings in great detail", the same can probably be said about Catholic/Orthodox scholars, who pour over the same evidence to demonstrate continuity and consistency. Our differing world view frames how we approach and interpret the exact same details. This leads me to wonder, if God or angels tell some scholars there was an apostasy,

I was referring here to God or angels telling prophets and saints that there had been an apostasy -- a revelatory epistemology.

is there any benefit from having a conversation about the details with scholars who employ a different epistemic mode? Is such an endeavor not useless in the end, unless the participants of the conversation get to the point where they mutally share the same epistemic mode of inquiry?

Thus, scholars work from an epistemology of science and rationalism. They do not share the same epistemology with prophets and saints. I was asking you to carefully distinguish between the two epistemic modes.

This gets to the issue of bias-free approaches to evaluating historical evidence. Can any of us truly be 'objective'? This seems to assume that the facts speak for themselves. Are we able, in the interest of dialogue and mutual comprehension, to suspend our world views and deeply held beliefs to jointly approach the bare facts? I don't know that we can. This suggest to me that the logically prior project is to attempt to first persuade others to adopt our world view, before we look at the ancient evidences. But how can an LDS scholar persuade a Catholic or Orthodox believer to consider the LDS world view without pointing to the ancient evidences? This seems to be quite a dilemma.

-----------------------

Not a dilemma at all when the two epistemic modes are separated.

Thank you for the good sources you provided here and in other posts on this thread.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Spammer]

I was referring here to God or angels telling prophets and saints that there had been an apostasy -- a revelatory epistemology.

Thus, scholars work from an epistemology of science and rationalism. They do not share the same epistemology with prophets and saints. I was asking you to carefully distinguish between the two epistemic modes.

Not a dilemma at all when the two epistemic modes are separated.

Thank you for the good sources you provided here and in other posts on this thread.

Ah, ok. Got it. I think I was trying to say the same thing, it's important to keep the modes separate, but I had an unstated assumption built into my comments - it seems to me that LDS church members by default begin with the apostasy assumption, so they're already in the revelatory mode when they approach the patristic writings.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

Not a dilemma at all when the two epistemic modes are separated..

Yep- that's exactly the problem. The reason that another "mode" is required is that it is a different subject-matter. The two different questions are "What happened?" vs "What is the significance of what happened?"

Science takes itself out of the significance business. On examining a death, science would take a CSI approach- the bullet entered here, exited here, destroyed this organ and that organ.

The other point of view is the significance of what happened. The person who died was a single mother of 6 who was the sole support for her family and what happened was an insurmountable tragedy.

Science does not give facts meaning or significance- it has taken itself out (rightly or wrongly) of that business. It is up to religion, among other human activities, to examine issues of what is important and why.

You can walk around with all the scientific instruments we have invented all day long, measuring things and never even see why one of those measurements might or might not have significance in someone's life, but create a wealth of knowledge about "facts"

Revelation deals just as exclusively with significance and the importance of events in our personal lives- they are different realms entirely. A prophet may look at scientific measurements all day and find them insignificant to what gives our lives meaning- because his area of inquiry is entirely different.

It's all really as simple as that.

One answers different questions using different tools.

Edited April 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

Ah, ok. Got it. I think I was trying to say the same thing, it's important to keep the modes separate, but I had an unstated assumption built into my comments - it seems to me that LDS church members by default begin with the apostasy assumption, so they're already in the revelatory mode when they approach the patristic writings.

I doubt that very many LDS members ever have or ever will approach patristic writings. The revelatory mode is fine for non-scholars.

[volgadon]

kabbalistic writings in whatever esoteric Jewish texts Alexander Niebuhr (sp?) may have had with him when he tutored Joseph in Nauvoo (e.g., the King Follett discourse seems to borrow from the Zohar); his imagination applied to the aforementioned texts,

I realise that you have admitted to difficulties with this theory, and stated that you don't really wish to pursue this further, but there are two big issues. One, we aren't even sure that Neibaur read the Zohar itself, let alone possesed a copy, and two, the actual content of the KFD differs significantly from the Zoharic statement in question. Now, I agree with Moshe Idel who stated that this is far too complicated an issue to be resolved in our current state of knowledge, but the difficulties have to be admitted even by those favouring naturalistic origins.

[MormonMason]

Personally, my view is that Joseph Smith maybe got his ideas from several sources:

There are lots of people who hold to that view. There is very little in the way of evidence that remains valid on close examination. But, it is also a fact that prophets do not and did not live in a vacuum. All prophets are and were influenced to greater or lesser degree by his surroundings. This is discussed in Klausner's The Messianic Idea In Israel and in Dummelow's One Volume Commentary on the Bible.

careful reading of the Old Testament,

Perhaps. But details would not have come from this for some elements of the LDS temple ritual.

Jesus's statements,

Probably.

the Book of Hebrews,

Possibly.

Revelation;

Definitely.

gnostic

Not likely.

and/or kabbalistic writings in whatever esoteric Jewish texts Alexander Niebuhr (sp?) may have had with him when he tutored Joseph in Nauvoo

While I believe that Joseph Smith had some contact with some ideas in kabbalistic thought, most likely through Alexander Neibauhr, these ideas likely were limited and most likely had little to nothing to do with temple content.

(e.g., the King Follett discourse seems to borrow from the Zohar);

Highly unlikely. As one who has read the Zohar, I disagree. In my opinion, that claim holds no water, particularly since the King Follet Discourse contains concepts in total opposition to the concepts and precepts of the Zohar. By the way, I have a complete set at home, in the original Aramaic and Hebrew.

his imagination applied to the aforementioned texts,

Many would say this and perhaps there may be a kernel of truth to this on some possible level.

elements of masonry learned in the Nauvoo lodge.

There are a few but these are limited to the endowment ceremony itself. Parallel quotes from books with pictures might lend more support to such an idea but there are significant differences that are not made apparent from the pictures. None of the Initiatories (washings and anointings) in LDS temples have parallels with Blue Lodge Freemasonry of the York Rite variety. He would not have seen anything like this in his or any other York Rite Blue Lodge.

I do realize each can be (and has been) disputed as the source of Joseph's info.

Glad that you admit that. Some are so dogged that they will accept nothing else because it has to be anything but revelation. Admitting even a bit of revelation would be problematic to the positions of many.

[ChristKnight]

Still going through the thread, been very busy lately, so I'll be responding to some posts later on.

Just wanted to share that yesterday I went to my brother's Confirmation in the Catholic Church. Very interesting witnessing that in light of this discussion. The bishop talked about this being the full initiation of the candidates into the Church, and that Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation are regarded as the sacraments of Initiation. He talked about the different oils/chrisms used in the Catholic Church, and how when he was ordained (I forgot if it was his priest ordination or bishop ordination), the bishop poured chrism on his head and allowed it to drip down his face, and jokingly said that that was how the Confirmation was going to be performed. He talked about how in baptism, we are brought into the life of Christ, and all participate in His life, and in baptism are called to participate in His office as Priest, Prophet, and King. There were lots of prayers invoking the Spirit, hymns, psalms and scriptural readings about the Spirit and God's guidance, and during the actual Confirmations (which began with the bishop and priests extending their hands, invoking the Holy Spirit on the candidates, then the bishop laid his hand on the head of each candidate then anointed them with oil in a cross-shape on their forehead, saying "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"), the cantor sung a litany asking various canonized saints to "pray for us". Then after that, they had Eucharist. Very interesting!

[MormonMason]

Still going through the thread, been very busy lately, so I'll be responding to some posts later on.

Just wanted to share that yesterday I went to my brother's Confirmation in the Catholic Church. Very interesting witnessing that in light of this discussion. The bishop talked about this being the full initiation of the candidates into the Church, and that Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation are regarded as the sacraments of Initiation. He talked about the different oils/chrisms used in the Catholic Church, and how when he was ordained (I forgot if it was his priest ordination or bishop ordination), the bishop poured chrism on his head and allowed it to drip down his face, and jokingly said that that was how the Confirmation was going to be performed. He talked about how in baptism, we are brought into the life of Christ, and all participate in His life, and in baptism are called to participate in His office as Priest, Prophet, and King. There were lots of prayers invoking the Spirit, hymns, psalms and scriptural readings about the Spirit and God's guidance, and during the actual Confirmations (which began with the bishop and priests extending their hands, invoking the Holy Spirit on the candidates, then the bishop laid his hand on the head of each candidate then anointed them with oil in a cross-shape on their forehead, saying "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"), the cantor sung a litany asking various canonized saints to "pray for us". Then after that, they had Eucharist. Very interesting!

I would agree that it would be interesting. Yet, no hint of such can be found in the baptisms and confirmations of the saints during the New Testament period. The ceremonies were so much simpler then than they are now.

[ChristKnight]

I would agree that it would be interesting. Yet, no hint of such can be found in the baptisms and confirmations of the saints during the New Testament period. The ceremonies were so much simpler then than they are now.

Very true. However, correct me if I'm wrong (and I don't believe I am), but Catholics and Orthodox don't claim that the way they perform baptisms and confirmations (outside of the basic form, matter, intent that is necessary), with the various associated liturgies and ritualistic actions, was the way that it was performed during the New Testament period. Indeed, the way that the Initiatory and the Endowment are performed these days is not how it was performed in the earlier periods of the restored Church.

[MormonMason]

Very true. However, correct me if I'm wrong (and I don't believe I am), but Catholics and Orthodox don't claim that the way they perform baptisms and confirmations (outside of the basic form, matter, intent that is necessary), with the various associated liturgies and ritualistic actions, was the way that it was performed during the New Testament period. Indeed, the way that the Initiatory and the Endowment are performed these days is not how it was performed in the earlier periods of the restored Church.

It depends upon which Catholic you speak with and which Catholic author you read. Some say it was and some say it doesn't really matter.

LDS modes of baptism and confirmation have not changed.

As to the endowment ceremony and the initiatories, it is a bit of a difference in that the previous endowment at Kirtland was preliminary and not the complete ordinances. They were only preparatory. The Nauvoo ordinances were the basic elements of the endowment but the presentation of the endowment was not fully organized. That was a task that Joseph Smith gave to Brigham Young to accomplish at a later time after leaving Nauvoo.

Once that was done the basic form remained the same, with minor tweaks to the presentation of the endowment at various times. The endowment itself, however, never changed and remains the same today as it was in the days of the early Restoration period. There is a difference between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment. One could cut out most all of the presentation and give the entire endowment in less than 20 minutes, if the need ever arose. The key to understanding the differences between the two is the wording of the presentation of the endowment and what Brigham Young taught about the elements specific to the endowment. S/he who has ears to hear, let him/her hear.

ETA: I neglected to mention that I am aware of the official teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter, and that this official teaching is that precise ceremonial forms do not matter so long as the general form of the wording is the basic form of the church (baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and that the person performing the baptism intends with the rite what the church would have.

For that matter, while this particular duty belongs to the priest in the Catholic Church, a priest does not even have to perform the baptism according to the official view. Virtually anyone can perform it, be they women or even heretics and/or pagans! This is so long as basic form and also intent to do what the Church would have done with the rite are the case. In all such cases the rite of baptism is accepted.

One notable case of exception to this understanding is the fairly recent exclusion of LDS baptism by the Catholic Church. You could be a pagan or a heretic and still administer the rite of baptism and receive remission of sins but not if your baptism were performed by a Mormon (originally it was understood that even that baptism could be accepted as valid before the change).

Just thought I would clarify my understanding of the matter. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Edited April 13, 2013 by MormonMason

[ChristKnight]

It depends upon which Catholic you speak with and which Catholic author you read. Some say it was and some say it doesn't really matter.

I would be very interested in reading some of the statements made by Catholics that claim that the way baptism, confirmation, and the various other sacraments they perform (or if it's just one they talk about) are done the same way today as they were done during New Testament times.

LDS modes of baptism and confirmation have not changed.

Indeed. However I think the point I was making remains the same regardless of the ordinance being discussed.

As to the endowment ceremony and the initiatories, it is a bit of a difference in that the previous endowment at Kirtland was preliminary and not the complete ordinances. They were only preparatory. The Nauvoo ordinances were the basic elements of the endowment but the presentation of the endowment was not fully organized. That was a task that Joseph Smith gave to Brigham Young to accomplish at a later time after leaving Nauvoo.

Once that was done the basic form remained the same, with minor tweaks to the presentation of the endowment at various times. The endowment itself, however, never changed and remains the same today as it was in the days of the early Restoration period. There is a difference between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment. One could cut out most all of the presentation and give the entire endowment in less than 20 minutes, if the need ever arose. The key to understanding the differences between the two is the wording of the presentation of the endowment and what Brigham Young taught about the elements specific to the endowment. S/he who has ears to hear, let him/her hear.

I agree with you! However I think Catholics and Orthodox would also make similar nuanced arguments as to various changes and expansions made in the rituals associated with their sacraments, as far as the "presentation" of the sacraments and the development of various liturgies and rites. For example, the various invocations, anointings, blessings, etc are not necessary for a valid Catholic baptism. What is necessary is water, immersion or pouring, and baptizing the person in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (and the intent to do what the Catholic Church desires, presumably with the same Trinitarian theological understanding of the Persons being baptized into, which is a whole separate issue for another thread ). Indeed, the Catholic Church has various rituals associated with the various sacraments (noting that the Catholic Church is actually 22 or 23 (I forgot) sui iuris churches, with the Eastern Catholics, separate from the Eastern Orthodox, being in communion with Rome, having various types of liturgies), showing that one form is not necessary for validity, and that it would be hard for one particular church of the Catholic Church to claim that their way is the way the New Testament did it, hence why I personally have never encountered Catholics that claim that the way they perform sacraments is the same way it was done during New Testament times. I believe Orthodox would view that similarly. I think we see parallels to that in the evolution in the presentation of the Endowment, as well as the...symbolic nature of the Initiatory (that's all I'll say on that, I'm sure you know what I'm referring to, I think you referred to that in post 46).

Anyway, that's about all. My long-winded point is that I haven't encountered Catholics or Orthodox claiming that the way they perform their ordinances is the same way that they were performed during the New Testament period, and would be interested in reading such claims. In my experience, they fully accept the elaborate nature of their rites and the various liturgies written over time as developments (as we see in the developments post-Vatican II, and even the more recent changes in the English liturgies. I'm still not used to hearing "and with your spirit" instead of "and also with you" in response to "the Lord be with you" ). I think they would fully accept that the ceremonies were much simpler during the New Testament period, and that many of the elaborations in the sacraments are not necessary (though they may invoke various blessings) for the validity of the sacrament in question.

[3DOP]

"Fr. Adrian Fortescue (1874-1923), was an English Roman Catholic priest and scholar...and liturgical expert in both the Western and Eastern Rites."---the cover flap for The Mass-A Study of the Roman Liturgy, third reprinting of the 1930 edition, Preserving Christian Publications, Boonville, New York, 2007

With regard to the primitive rite, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the statement that the great centuries of Christendom during the first three centuries had, at least in general outline and in many details, a uniform manner of celebrating the holy mysteries. How far this rite is represented in the so-called Church Orders, Apostolic Constitutions or another, is much less certain. So also it seems fairly certain that the present Roman canon is a reconstruction and rearrangement of an older form . But the various attempts to discover that earlier form are only more or less plausible conjectures.

There is no reason to be surprised that the present Canon is not exactly the original form; still less is there any controversial capital to be made out of this. After all, every liturgical form was composed by someone at some time. No one now believes that our Mass comes down unaltered from St. Peter.

---ibid. author's Preface to the Second edition, p. x

Hey Christ Knight.

What is true for theology is true for the liturgy. The Church is moving forward constantly without cutting its strings to the past. Of course we would welcome archaeological information that told us how exactly the first Mass was said by the Apostles, or any other of the Sacraments too. But legitimate theological and liturgical development is a necessary sign of vitality.

On one false side Catholics are told to realize that the past is gone and will never come back. This theory says we must move on regardless of whether we can maintain any continuity with our Fathers. On another false side, we are supposed to believe that if only we could know what the apostles did, it would be better. Anything that is more primitive is supposed to be better.

Neither of these false notions can be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. Catholic Tradition accepts legitimate development, true progress, never wishing that the flower that has bloomed should return to seed. But the seed remains important even if we prefer the flower. Of any proposed development, we must ask, "Did that flower bloom from apostolic seed or was it spread by a stranger?"

3DOP

Edited April 13, 2013 by 3DOP

[MormonMason]

I doubt that very many LDS members ever have or ever will approach patristic writings. The revelatory mode is fine for non-scholars.

And, still less will have approached patristic writings from the original languages of such treatises, where they exist as such. I think this is very important because a number of English translations actually are more paraphrases and mistranslations of the texts than faithful representations/approximations in another language of the originals. For example, one translated set of Early Church Fathers misrepresents and/or omits the intent of the originals. One example is the phrase where in Justin the Martyr says that "those only are made gods who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue." A Roman Catholic translation of the same passage in the same work has of these: "they shall have bliss." Another example is the omission of a sentence from one of Justin's works that refers to the Logos as a "second God." English translations render "in the second place." Over the years I have found a rather large number of such translational slips in certain places. I wish I had documented them all. Something like that may have proved useful in discussions such as this and the above.

[3DOP]

And, still less will have approached patristic writings from the original languages of such treatises, where they exist as such. I think this is very important because a number of English translations actually are more paraphrases and mistranslations of the texts than faithful representations/approximations in another language of the originals. For example, one translated set of Early Church Fathers misrepresents and/or omits the intent of the originals. One example is the phrase where in Justin the Martyr says that "those only are made gods who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue." A Roman Catholic translation of the same passage in the same work has of these: "they shall have bliss." Another example is the omission of a sentence from one of Justin's works that refers to the Logos as a "second God." English translations render "in the second place." Over the years I have found a rather large number of such translational slips in certain places. I wish I had documented them all. Something like that may have proved useful in discussions such as this and the above.

Mormon Mason, Hi.

I am doubting your recollection of these translations, but I would be delighted to find them. Where do you get English translations of the Fathers by Catholic translators? I have a thirty-eight volume set translated mainly by English speaking Anglicans in the 19th Century which were probably prompted by the "Oxford Movement". Most Catholic websites in English seem to have adopted these translations which I am sure are defective in ways detrimental to Catholic beliefs as well. The commentaries are certainly anti-Catholic.

Regards,

3DOP

[MormonMason]

Mormon Mason, Hi.

I am doubting your recollection of these translations, but I would be delighted to find them. Where do you get English translations of the Fathers by Catholic translators? I have a thirty-eight volume set translated mainly by English speaking Anglicans in the 19th Century which were probably prompted by the "Oxford Movement". Most Catholic websites in English seem to have adopted these translations which I am sure are defective in ways detrimental to Catholic beliefs as well. The commentaries are certainly anti-Catholic.

Regards,

3DOP

The ones I mentioned definitely were a Catholic enterprise as well, as it was so stated. I also recall my surprise at the renderings in some places. I just now remembered the title of the series. It is The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation series, published by the Catholic University of America Press. See here. Hardbound is out of print but you still can obtain both ebook and paperback versions. See volume 6, which is the writings of Justin Martyr. The specific chapter for the "shall have bliss" mistranslation was First Apology, chapter XXI. As to the other reference, the precise location escapes me at the moment. I'll have to try to remember and try to remember to get back to you on it. It would be a lot easier to remember and reference if I were home with my books and notes.

Edited April 13, 2013 by MormonMason

[ChristKnight]

"Fr. Adrian Fortescue (1874-1923), was an English Roman Catholic priest and scholar...and liturgical expert in both the Western and Eastern Rites."---the cover flap for The Mass-A Study of the Roman Liturgy, third reprinting of the 1930 edition, Preserving Christian Publications, Boonville, New York, 2007

---ibid. author's Preface to the Second edition, p. x

Hey Christ Knight.

What is true for theology is true for the liturgy. The Church is moving forward constantly without cutting its strings to the past. Of course we would welcome archaeological information that told us how exactly the first Mass was said by the Apostles, or any other of the Sacraments too. But legitimate theological and liturgical development is a necessary sign of vitality.

On one false side Catholics are told to realize that the past is gone and will never come back. This theory says we must move on regardless of whether we can maintain any continuity with our Fathers. On another false side, we are supposed to believe that if only we could know what the apostles did, it would be better. Anything that is more primitive is supposed to be better.

Neither of these false notions can be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. Catholic Tradition accepts legitimate development, true progress, never wishing that the flower that has bloomed should return to seed. But the seed remains important even if we prefer the flower. Of any proposed development, we must ask, "Did that flower bloom from apostolic seed or was it spread by a stranger?"

3DOP

Thanks. Yes, I see this as the standard Catholic and Orthodox view of the development of the liturgies around the various sacraments and mysteries. So, in your understanding, is it correct to not only say that Catholics accept the development of the sacramental rites (and don't claim that the way these liturgies are celebrated is the same way they were done during the New Testament), but that many of the developments, such as the various exorcisms, anointings, and blessings pronounced during baptism, are not seen as essential to the validity of the sacraments? And that, while such additions are nice, due to the additional priesthood blessings given, they are not, strictly, part of the actual sacrament of baptism (this makes sense to me due to the Catholic acceptance of "emergency baptisms" and accepting baptisms performed in non-Catholic, Trinitarian churches, churches that clearly don't celebrate baptism in the ways that the various Catholic particular churches do))?

And interestingly, to tie it back to the OP, it seems like these developments, such as the anointing of various body parts in Chrismation/Confirmation (however that originated), are seen as clear parallels to LDS temple practices, hence why many LDS authors and scholars refer to Cyril, for example.

[ChristKnight]

Interestingly, the New Advent Catholic website, which has the Fathers writings, gives it as "And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire."-First Apology 21

[MormonMason]

Interestingly, the New Advent Catholic website, which has the Fathers writings, gives it as "And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire."-First Apology 21

Yes, that quote actually comes from the Ante Nicene Fathers version. That series renders the passage correctly there. But the Catholic series published by the Catholic University of America Press does not. Here is the quote from page 57 of volume 6 of the said series (I was able to get a snippet view of the relevant page from Google Books):

We, however, have been taught that only they will have eternal bliss who live a holy and virtuous life close to God:...

My recall of the precise wording was not perfect but the gist of my recall was. The precise wording of the passage in translation is now given in the quote I just posted.

[gyrfalcon]

While I would think that since what goes on in the temple is true there would probably have to be some remnants of those truths that have remained. The Masons and others have retained elements of what was once the true ordinances.

Now I did not read all of the post here but I did not see any reference to any remnants that might be left in the Americas. You'd think that there would be something left on this continent as well.

I served my mission in the South West Indian Mission (SWIM) among the Navajo and spent a couple of months among the Hopi. The Hopi people have their Kivas which are in some respects like out temples, as they a required to be partially below ground. The Hopi have many beliefs that we think of as uniquely LDS including ceremonies similar to what goes on in the temple.

You'd think it would be easy to convert a Hopi to Mormonims since the missionaries can hardly teach a Hopi anything they don't already know and believe. But very few Hopi have joined the Church. They don't see the need. The Hopi are the most Christian non-Christians or the most Mormon non-Mormons for that matter that I have known.