Freemasonry And Endowment?

[Damien the Leper]

While the endowment has been revealed to the public by apostates, revelations pertaining to it will not occur outside of the temple.

That's fine and I respect that. But there is much to learn about the theology from the historical perspective as the endowment developed.

[Mike Reed]

The further back one goes in time the more fragmented and scattered ALL sources become on everything.

All sources?

True or false? When fragmentation and diversity is found to increase the further one traces back various elements of a particular ritual/practice, scholars tend to see this fragmentation as evidence of either eclectic syncretism of the practice/ritual (that the ritual/practice was at one time--or through a process--fabricated, bringing together various elements from diverse sources), or see this increased fragmentation as an indication of a bottleneck that happened some time in history, perhaps caused by censorship and/or an attempt to uniform, etc.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Mike Reed

[SamIam]

Some reflections on meta-questions

http://mormonscriptu...-and-endowment/

Please don't divert this thread with minutia

It is easier for me to formulate my response when I can refer often to the points of the discussion. For that purpose I am placing what I believe to be your three posits from the post to which you referred to in the link.

They are:

Apr

1

by

William Hamblin

Critics of the Church often posit a close relationship of some sort between Freemasonry and the LDS Endowment. When considering such matters, it’s useful to remember a couple of important points.

1- Freemasonry is an

initiation

ritual by which one

becomes

a Freemason. The Endowment is a ritual which reveals

higher

mysteries to those who have already been

initiated

into the Church of Jesus Christ by baptism.

2- Some claim that the Endowment parallels the higher degrees of Freemasonry (in which Joseph Smith never participated). To receive the higher degrees of Freemasonry, however, one must have previously received the first three degrees of Freemasonry. To receive the endowment one does not have to have previously received any masonic degree whatsoever.

3- Likewise, the higher degrees in Masonry build closely upon the teachings and practices of the lower degrees; the higher degrees only make sense when contextualized within the framework of the lower degrees. Understanding the Endowment requires absolutely no knowledge of Freemasonry whatsoever.

First to respond to the points above.

Point #1 - I accept as it is written. I am not a Freemason but feel perfectly justified in commenting within the constraints of my knowledge of them and LDS theology for reasons that will become obvious in a moment.

Point #2 – Is also quite reasonable as written as best as I can tell. Buerger in his book The Mysteries of Godliness further emphasizes that during the time of the Book of Mormon translation Joseph was completely disinterested in his father and Hyrum’s activities with the Masonic order. Joseph would have nothing to do with the organization in those early years.

Point #3 – I will have to accept as a logical observation on the Freemasonry advancement process and definitely agree on the endowment requiring no knowledge of Freemasonry.

I will also posit why I think the discussion is misdirected when people look to the Freemasons as the source of Joseph Smiths knowledge of the temple ritual.

There are many, but we can illustrate two very clear, beyond coincidental types and shadows of specific elements of the Endowment found in the Book of Mormon that I prefer to see as what might have sparked Josephs interest in the Freemasons when he realized they possessed fragments of things he learned from his translation of the Book of Mormon.

1. Find a small stone the size of a quarter. Sit on a couch and place it in front of you on a table. Now reach forward and touch the stone with your finger. Do not stop touching the stone until you have analyzed and recognize this very peculiar and specific symbol. It will help to pretend you are the Brother of Jared watching this. Perhaps even make yourself a makeshift veil in the form of a piece of paper and hold it in reasonable place as verse 6 describes it as if you are seeing the finger of the Lord protruding through the veil which is removed from his eyes.
   

1. Analyze the verse structure and the speaker and the expectations of who should be speaking when, based on the dialogue from verse 9 through verse 13 of Ether 3. Verse 9 has the Lord speaking and he asks The Brother of Jared a question. We expect BO Jared to answer which he does in verse 10. Thus we expect a response from the Savior to Jared’s request which is forth coming in the form of a question to the Brother of Jared in verse 11. We expect Jared to answer the Lords question which he does in verse 12. Now verse 13 is very cleverly written to flow as if it meets the expectations of verse 12, however it completely fails to answer the expectations of verse 11 wherein Christ had originally asked “believest thou the words which I shall speak”. We expect Christ to speak something that the Brother of Jared is prepared to believe. There is a hole in the dialogue here and we have no idea what the words are that Christ spoke to the Brother of Jared. There are none recorded at this precise juncture of their dialogue. However, we still have the BO Jared saying something to the Lord that is also not recorded in detail of content at the start of verse 13. After whatever Bo Jared says to the Lord the Lord provides summary by stating, "Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall". What things? Who told him these things? and when? Is there something in the hole in the dialogue that is significant? Must be because, as the Bo Jared illustrates this something specific that he knows, he is ushered through the veil and brought into the presence of the Lord who shows himself unto him.
   

I’m comfortable discussing the contents of the Book of Mormon that are found in these points above but not the other portion of the discussion that brings all of this into focus. If one has knowledge one can overlay the endowment to the examples above and note that this is a very exact reproduction of very specific events. None of this will make even the least degree of sense if one does not carefully think through points 1 and 2 above and follow the leads. It is my position that Joseph was intrigued by the similarities he noted in the Masonic ritual to understandings that he gleaned from his translation of the Book of Mormon during a time when Freemasonry was of no interest to him whatsoever. As his temple theology developed, I suspect his recognition of key elements as found in the Book of Mormon paved the way for a softer attitude towards the Freemason materials. I also, recognize that the better part of this discussion can never be had outside of the temple as an evidence of Joseph’s prior knowledge of Masonic ritual before ever being exposed to the details of the rituals themselves. So we must ever suffer detractors to posit that Joseph procured his insight from other than the divine sources which seem at the least chronologically evident and to some, spiritually obvious.

Thus the real approach is that while understanding of Freemasonry is clearly not required to understand the endowment, understanding the endowment might provide a reasonable LDS Freemason with insights impossible to find within the Freemasons own materials.

Edited April 5, 2013 by SamIam

[theplains]

The further back one goes in time the more fragmented and scattered ALL sources become on everything.

I found a pdf file that looks at the various levels of Freemasonry (and whether Christians or

other faiths should participate) but it didn't seem to show any connection with the Endowment

Ceremony per se.

Thanks,

Jim

[bjw]

The further back one goes in time the more fragmented and scattered ALL sources become on everything.

With the research I've done, I think the further back you go in time away from the "Grand Lodge" period is the less fragmented it becomes. I think the problem is that when the Grand Lodge period started they had a tendency to water down the mysteries to the point that the meaning is not even recognizable among 75% of today's masons. For instance, I was a master in one of the Scottish Rite bodies a few years ago and I noticed that most masons did not even comprehend what the degrees were all about. Degrees 4 to 32 were conferred in two weekends with only 4, 14, 18, 30, and 32 actually being dramatized in the temple, all other degrees explained to the candidate verbally in a small room taking less than 5 minutes per degree. A brief spiel is given and the candidate raises his arm to the square and takes the oath based on the short story he just heard.

It's sad that high level masonry has degenerated into this. For instance, the 32nd degree confers the Holy Doctrine and Royal Secret. I can guarantee you if you ask 90% of the masons at my Scottish Rite none of them can tell you what either of these even are, most do not even remember what knowledge is conferred in the degrees.

The Traditional Martinist Order claims to be the originator (or at least share a common source) of the Elus-Cohen degrees (4 to 14 in Scottish Rite) and teaches esoteric Christianity. It goes in depth with actual doctrines and candidates must do an in-depth proficiency (masonry speak for what is basically a verbal quiz) before getting passed to the next degree. Going through the three degrees of Martinism takes the candidate six years (studying the doctrines of each degree in-depth for two years). After candidates are through the degrees they can tell you in-depth what each doctrine teaches.

This proves that by the time the Elu degrees got to Scottish Rite masonry much of the doctrines of the ancient mysteries were lost from them. Now, we are seeing even more truth getting lost with fewer degrees being required to be presented, no proficiencies required of the candidate, fewer ideas presented with degrees being cut to short-form or mythologies being changed, etc.

The sad part is that it is almost like Masonry is being sanitized for people who are less "esoterically" inclined. I think the Grand Lodge period is when things began to be more and more fragmented. They had a good idea to consolidate all the ancient mysteries into one large fraternity, but I think the idea backfired with more ideas getting lost over time.

[tyler90az]

The Temple Endowment is so sacred that God had the most secret society carry it through until the restoration. Then well the restoration occurred God guided Joseph Smith to the Free Masons, which held a form of the Endowment.

Could one of the many experts in this thread explain to me why my post makes no sense. I have never heard a better argument for why there is resemblance to free masonry rituals. One of the core beliefs we have about the apostasy is that pieces of truth went every which way. Maybe it did not initially start out with the Free masons but another similar organization. Then it was continued by the Free Masons. This not only explains why the Temple rituals and Free mason ritual are not completely identical. It also explains why some parts would be restored.

Edited April 5, 2013 by tyler90az

[Mike Reed]

With the research I've done, I think the further back you go in time away from the "Grand Lodge" period is the less fragmented it becomes.

Anyone with a wit of common sense would realize that this (less fragmentation) would be a good thing, right? An indication that Joseph Smith may have actually restored something, right?

Edited April 5, 2013 by Mike Reed

[bcuzbcuz]

Here are a few more for fun:

Following is one used for burial, displayed flat and in a case. Notice the switched emblems?

I wish I could display the one I have. It is the most beautiful and best preserved one I have ever seen, done in beautiful shades of green around the figures, with a clearly drawn Big Dipper on the middle of the side with the Square. (You will recall that the Big Dipper appears on the side of the Salt Lake Temple and also on the aprons of later Scottish Rite Masonic rituals postdating Joseph Smith). But, I do not have permission to post it or to reproduce it. Wish I could.

Hate to rain on your parade but your pictures show scissors and square, not a compass.

Edited April 5, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[Mike Reed]

Hate to rain on your parade but your pictures show scissors and square, not a compass.

thanks.

[wenglund]

Could one of the many experts in this thread explain to me why my post makes no sense. I have never heard a better argument for why there is resemblance to free masonry rituals. One of the core beliefs we have about the apostasy is that pieces of truth went every which way. Maybe it did not initially start out with the Free masons but another similar organization. Then it was continued by the Free Masons. This not only explains why the Temple rituals and Free mason ritual are not completely identical. It also explains why some parts would be restored.

Proportionately, very little of the LDS Endowment correlates with the Free Mason rituals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MormonMason]

Hate to rain on your parade but your pictures show scissors and square, not a compass.

Ummm, no. The archaeologists who found the items are clear that they are compasses in the depiction. In addition, scissors do not fit the mythos behind the figures, being the creation. They are building tools in the hands of the divinities. One does not put scissors with a carpenter's square in a creation mythos involving Fu-hsi and Nuwa.

ETA: Here is one section of the report I mentioned above:

Ast. ix. 2. 054. Painted silk hanging. Silk is now dark ivory color, perhaps originally white. Subject, the legendary Emperor Fu-hsi with his consort, Nu-wa, facing each other 3/4" to L. and R. respectively; about 3/4 life-size. The bodies rise from a continuous flounce-like short white skirt, and lean away from each other.

Their two inner arms stretched stiffly and horizontally towards each other and fused into the appearance of one arm joining both bodies; but the hand of each appearing under opposite armpit of the other shows that they are embracing.

Both wear close-fitting dull red tunics fastened down centre, with wide-mouthed elbow sleeves. Fu-hsi holds in his uplifted L. hand a mason's square and two other objects not recognizable, but perhaps plummet and lines. Nu-wa holds in her R. uplifted hand a pair of compasses.

(Sir Marc Aurel Stein, Innermost Asia: Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia, Kan-Su, and Eastern Iran, 4 volumes [London: Oxford University Press, 1928], 2:707; bold emphasis mine)

Edited April 5, 2013 by MormonMason

[wenglund]

Hate to rain on your parade but your pictures show scissors and square, not a compass.

Sorry to put an umbrella up to block your rain, but would you be so kind as to explain the sense of depicting scissors along with a square in the posted ancient Chinese art--particularly in relation to the other symbols in the artwork?

Here is an explanation for the compass and square: Nüwa and Fuxi in Chinese Mythology: Compass & Square (Nuwa is a creator goddess and Fu Xi is her brother, and as I understand it, the two are the Chinese equivalent of Adam and Eve). See also, Circle and Square: Explorations in Symbology

Here is an interesting article; Use of Masonic Symbols in Early Chinese Literature (there are multiple quotes from antiquity where the compass and square are mentioned together).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 5, 2013 by wenglund

[Biz]

I found this podcast to be extremely informative and balanced on the topic.

http://mormonexpression.com/2011/07/12/145a-mormonism-and-masonry-into-the-restoration-part-1/

http://mormonexpression.com/2011/07/05/144b-mormonism-and-masonry-the-background-part-2/

http://mormonexpression.com/2011/08/02/149-mormonism-and-masonry-the-book-of-abraham-and-nauvoo/

http://mormonexpression.com/2011/08/23/152-mormonism-and-masonry-part-4-joseph-smith-and-beyond/

[Mike Reed]

Ummm, no. The archaeologists who found the items are clear that they are compasses in the depiction. In addition, scissors do not fit the mythos behind the figures, being the creation. They are building tools in the hands of the divinities. One does not put scissors with a carpenter's square in a creation mythos involving

Ummm, no. The archaeologists who found the items are clear that they are compasses in the depiction. In addition, scissors do not fit the mythos behind the figures, being the creation. They are building tools in the hands of the divinities. One does not put scissors with a carpenter's square in a creation mythos involving Fu-hsi and Nuwa.

.

Then why do you suppose that the British Museum of Art says that Nuwa is holding scissors?

"Funerary banner depicting the mythical ancestors of the human race, Fu Xi and Nu Wa, with their serpentine bodies entwined, and the sun and the moon encircled by stars at the top and bottom. Fu Xi is holding a ruler while Nu Wa is holding a pair of scissors. Brightly coloured against blue background. Painted in Ink and colours on silk."

LInk

[Mike Reed]

Then why do you suppose that the British Museum of Art says that Nuwa is holding scissors?

"Funerary banner depicting the mythical ancestors of the human race, Fu Xi and Nu Wa, with their serpentine bodies entwined, and the sun and the moon encircled by stars at the top and bottom. Fu Xi is holding a ruler while Nu Wa is holding a pair of scissors. Brightly coloured against blue background. Painted in Ink and colours on silk."

LInk

More chinese scissors from the British Museum of Art:

and here:

Edited April 5, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

"In his left hand, Fuxi holds a scissor, and Nuwa holds a ruler in her right hand. In the middle of the top of the painting is the sun and the moon is in the middle below. Nuwa holds a ruler symbolizing Heaven, while Fuxi holds a scissor symbolizing Earth. Fuxi and Nuwa are the mythical ancestors of humans. According to legend, humans came into being through Fuxi and Nuwa, a combination of brother and sister."

http://masterpieces.asemus.museum/masterpieces.aspx?o=eb0504e0-23da-4041-8c07-a505273629bc

[MormonMason]

"In his left hand, Fuxi holds a scissor, and Nuwa holds a ruler in her right hand. In the middle of the top of the painting is the sun and the moon is in the middle below. Nuwa holds a ruler symbolizing Heaven, while Fuxi holds a scissor symbolizing Earth. Fuxi and Nuwa are the mythical ancestors of humans. According to legend, humans came into being through Fuxi and Nuwa, a combination of brother and sister."

http://masterpieces....07-a505273629bc

I'll check that but did you by chance catch the quote above from the actual archaeologist on the scene?

ETA: I just checked that. The guy cannot even get his deities right and you expect me to take his word for the rest?

Edited April 5, 2013 by MormonMason

[Mike Reed]

I'll check that but did you by chance catch the quote above from the actual archaeologist on the scene?

Yes I did. I also caught his age (1862 – 1943) and the year of publication (1928).

[Mike Reed]

I'll check that but did you by chance catch the quote above from the actual archaeologist on the scene?

ETA: I just checked that. The guy cannot even get his deities right and you expect me to take his word for the rest?

You missed the British Museum of Art quote.

[mfbukowski]

Then why do you suppose that the British Museum of Art says that Nuwa is holding scissors?

"Funerary banner depicting the mythical ancestors of the human race, Fu Xi and Nu Wa, with their serpentine bodies entwined, and the sun and the moon encircled by stars at the top and bottom. Fu Xi is holding a ruler while Nu Wa is holding a pair of scissors. Brightly coloured against blue background. Painted in Ink and colours on silk."

LInk

As a student of art history, when I looked at these, the first thing I saw were scissors. But I would not be too concerned either way, frankly, no matter which side of the debate you are on- these kinds of notes are often notoriously inaccurate about matters of symbology and iconography and, as is evident from the quote, more interested in the artistic features of the piece.

I think one could make a case on either side of this issue, which is why I have avoided it.

What I do find fascinating about these pieces is the dual-serpents entwined (remember the firey serpent as a figure of Christ at the same time the serpent is identified with Satan) and the obvious "unity in duality" theme seen throughout the pieces.

But it seems quite clear in some of the pieces that the scissors (if that's what they are) are secondary to a compass shape, in one the compass becomes a Y-shaped branch with the "scissors" appended, and perhaps some of the others are an attempt to emphasize that more than others.

Frankly I don't see much difference - the interpretation could be a "time to cut and a time to sew"- perhaps the "square" is a measuring device.

I don't think that whether or not this is a compass or scissors makes much difference to my understanding of the art pieces, or for that matter my understanding of Masonry OR my testimony of the endowment. They are interesting pieces, no question, which point to profound truths.

Are they "Mormon"? Obviously not but why should we expect them to have any relevance to things Mormon anyway?

[MormonMason]

Then why do you suppose that the British Museum of Art says that Nuwa is holding scissors?

"Funerary banner depicting the mythical ancestors of the human race, Fu Xi and Nu Wa, with their serpentine bodies entwined, and the sun and the moon encircled by stars at the top and bottom. Fu Xi is holding a ruler while Nu Wa is holding a pair of scissors. Brightly coloured against blue background. Painted in Ink and colours on silk."

LInk

On this one, the curator himself is not sure that these are scissors. Notice the question mark in the curator's remarks below the text you cited? As for this one you link to it also is identified by the archaeologist himself in his published report concerning it as a pair of compasses that looks like a set of calipers.

[MormonMason]

You missed the British Museum of Art quote.

Just responded... Did you notice that the curator inserted a question mark in parentheses after "scissors" in his remarks on the object? Even the curator identifies the object in the hand of the other as a set-square.

But I have seen various errors on the British Museum pages like this before. Someone I know has several times written to get things clarified and corrected on those pages. I think I'll have him contact these chaps and try to figure out why they have "scissors" and "scissors (?)" on that page when the archaeologist stated that it was a pair of compasses.

Edited April 5, 2013 by MormonMason

[Mike Reed]

Just responded... Did you notice that the curator inserted a question mark in parentheses after "scissors" in his remarks on the object? Even the curator identifies the object in the hand of the other as a set-square.

Indeed. He is uncertain. And and for good reason. Why have are you so certain?

Even the curator identifies the object in the hand of the other as a set-square.

Your point? That we can therefore conclude with certainty that the other depicted object is a compass?

Edited April 5, 2013 by Mike Reed

[MormonMason]

Indeed. He is uncertain. And and for good reason. Why have are you so certain?

Why are the original archaeologists so certain? I merely quoted and referenced them. One would think that archaeologists would know a pair of scissors when they saw one.

Edited April 5, 2013 by MormonMason

[Mike Reed]

A task for you, MM. Provide pics of an ancient chinese compass, so we can then compare it to the images and see how closely it resembles.