Discussing temple stuff online

[clarkgoble]

20 hours ago, poptart said:

Was Joseph Smith Scottish rite too?  Kind a figured Illinois Masonic charterwas Scottish rite, either them or Ohio.  Know one of em was York rite. 

In Nauvoo, yes. Elements of his theology come out of that such as his exposition on Rev 2:17 in D&C 130:11 that seems influenced by the 17°. Although it's also in the main York rite for the Master Mark tied to the cornerstone. Of course the meaning is significantly transformed. Instead of it being a cornerstone or a token of friendship it's a seer stone. Particularly in the York rite it's a symbol of the covenant entered into. While it has the meaning too, the seer stone function becomes prime as is it's feature as a symbol of priesthood and kingship along with staff & sword. This highlights the problems of the Masonic influence since almost always the meanings are significantly transformed even when some similarity remains. Often into a form much more in keeping with ancient near eastern rites for coronation of kings, setting apart for priests, or more general heavenly ascents. (Indeed I'd say Joseph transforms it much better into matching the use in Revelation as well as compared to the Masonic use of Rev 2)

There's some parallels to Adoptive Masonry as well. Not just in terms of allowing women to be full initiates into the rites (now the endowment). Of course Adoptive Masonry, while a female adjunct masonry, doesn't actually allow women to go through the main York rites nor the Scottish rites. Rather women have a separate organization with their own rites. Still the Relief Society in some ways seems similar to Adoptive Masonry. The clothing and other elements also in many ways are closer to the Adoptive rites than York rites. I'd have to find my notes for all the parallels, but they are there. Although there's no evidence Adoptive Masonry was in the region around Joseph at the right time. Those speculating a direct influence rather than coincidental parallels usually ascribe it to Bennet - although there no real evidence he'd been exposed to Adoptive Masonry either. It was a somewhat unique French rite. But in many ways there are more parallels to Adoptive Masonry than York rite Masonry.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

It appears that there are levels and layers of symbolism in the temple not built by hands.  The link that I posted speaks of the idea you mention, but it also confirms the ideas that I mentioned, that the inner spirit (the Center) is the temple built without hands.

This still doesn't explain to me his appeal to Masonry.  Masonry understands the value and symbolism of physical temples.  It is like he wants to steal the heart of their teachings without doing the temple work necessary.  It doesn't make sense.  If he really understood the Masonic concept of the "temple built without hands", then he wouldn't diminish physical temples, as it is through the rituals of the temple that Masons learn how to construct the spiritual temple. 

By "his" I assume you mean "Poptart"?  I'm not sure what he's getting at. That's why I originally raised the celestial temple and particularly Stephen's comments in Acts 7. Ezekiel had a great focus on the Celestial Temple but he and most Jews also saw the importance of returning to Israel and rebuilding the Temple of Solomon. The idea is that our earthly religion and practices should be in the image of heavenly practice, just as we are in the image of God.

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The whole business of Joseph having gotten the idea of the endowment from Masonic rites (rather than, as Bushman proposed, some pedagogical language) always ignores the presence of explicit and detailed temple rites in the Book of Mormon.  John Welch's material in from this 2012 conference is the best and most detailed presentation so far with respect to 3 Nephi.

http://www.templestudy.com/2013/08/26/mormonism-temple-2012-conference-proceedings-pdf/

And that does not consider Mosiah, and Alma 9-13, and Jacob's Day of Atonement discourse.

I'd have to reread Bushman here but the borrowings from Masonry are really extensive. Indeed just look at the symbolism all over the Salt Lake City temple and most of it is masonic now alien to most Mormons. But it goes well beyond that. Brigham and many other early leaders saw the value of Masonry but saw it as apostate, much as Protestantism was apostate. However they didn't merely see Masonry as tied to the temple. Rather it perfused their lives. There's a compelling argument that at Joseph's death he may have been trying to make the Masonic cry for instance. In the Utah period Brigham regularly wore a Masonic pin and there's indication Masonic cyphers were in use.

If Bushman says the only influence is "pedagogical language" he's just wrong. The most interesting influences aren't even from the rites at all.

Also I know FAIR has up a page disparaging Scottish rite influences in Nauvoo arguing they only became formalized in the 1850's. While true, that really doesn't get at their diffusion nor Joseph's exposure. The current article tends to conflate the popularity of the Scottish rite due to Pike's writings with the early American history of the rite. Hopefully someone will update that. So far as I know there's no claims that the Scottish rite was done in Nauvoo formally. There was some confusion over what degree Joseph had been raised to prior to unveiling the endowment with a few claiming it was the 33° in the Scottish rite rather than the Master Mason in the York  rite. Yet there's fairly compelling indirect evidence for knowledge of the rite. Further at the time Inspectors going around the country would regularly teach and raise Master Masons to degrees in the Scottish rite despite there being nor formal lodge accepting the rite.

That said, clearly there were temple rites in ancient times. And further I completely agree that Alma 9-13 and other texts imply them. However as I mentioned there's a fairly clear line of influence. You have several main sources of ancient ideas along these lines. The first is the Art of Memory that persisted through medieval times but flourished in an unique fashion in the Renaissance. This was a huge influence on early speculative freemasonry including secondary rites that developed in the 18th century as a kind of underground remnant of Renaissance speculation. The second was the rise of platonism, particularly the more theurgical platonism of Iamblichus but also related movements like hermeticism. The latter in particular was a huge influence on freemasonry as well as the widespread myths of a 'pure' religion that needed restored from either Thoth, Hermes or Abraham.  The final influence was the more diffuse but equally important broad gnosticism and related movements such as the remnants of Merkabah and Hekhalot ideas within Kabbalism. (Mangled forms of Jewish myth were popular in the Renaissance, often called Cabalism, and carried with them key elements of heavenly ascents) While it's true that most gnostic texts had to await the 1940s for their discovery, there were ideas of gnosticism popular in the Renaissance. I'd likely add in as a more distant yet important fourth point medieval everyman plays and similar morality plays.

While they don't get much recognition in Mormonism, I'd say that the Renaissance caused by texts coming west after the fall of Constantinople and embracing esoteric Jewish teachings out of Spain were just as important as the Protestant Reformation in paving the way for the Restoration.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Also I know FAIR has up a page disparaging Scottish rite influences in Nauvoo arguing they only became formalized in the 1850's. While true, that really doesn't get at their diffusion nor Joseph's exposure. The current article tends to conflate the popularity of the Scottish rite due to Pike's writings with the early American history of the rite. Hopefully someone will update that.

Would you be willing to discuss what you see as needing to be changed with our Mason expert?  If so, I will let him know and hopefully he will be available to work on it.  Whether he will agree with you, I cannot say.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Would you be willing to discuss what you see as needing to be changed with our Mason expert?  If so, I will let him know and hopefully he will be available to work on it.  Whether he will agree with you, I cannot say.

He might just disagree. The main issue is over the extent the Royal Arch rite was in Nauvoo. We know for sure Heber C. Kimball was in it. We know for sure Brigham Young was using a Royal Arch cipher (although possibly encrypted by Heber C. Kimball). Beyond that it's a bit speculative. The Scottish rite is harder to establish than the Royal Arch although there's a lot of overlap between the two rites. I double checked my notes and I'd confused Scottish rite and Royal Arch rite a bit in a few places. I think in one place I wrote York rite too incorrectly. (Perils of going by memory and being up most of the night with a sick baby) I still think the Scottish rite was there, but it'd be harder to prove. The fact that Kimball was Royal Arch is significant though. After being initiated into the Holy Order Brigham doesn't find masonry as interesting. It's not clear what to make of the famous picture of him with a masonic pin in Utah. And, as I said, while the parallels to the Adoptive Masonry are the most interesting IMO there's no evidence for influence. Although the Adoptive Masonry and Scottish rite in some ways develop in France. So it's conceivable if hard to argue that the Scottish rite brought with it the Adoptive Masonry. As I said some have argued for Bennett having these although I've not seen a compelling argument for it.

While I have trouble how he consistently alludes to explicit evidence for more extensive Masonic elements and then refuses to present his arguments, Joe Swick has quite a bit on these influences. He argues in particular that the ring metaphor of the 14° of the Scottish rite is an important context for the KFD and other things for instance. I do wish Nick Literski made his notes available for the book he'd been writing before leaving the Church over the LGBT issue.

I assume the author of the article is Greg Kearney and I know we've disagreed in the past including back when I did volunteer work with FAIR. He pushes for a more minimalist view of Masonic influences. For all the annoyance of his frequent hit and run comments I think Joe is correct that we should look at the influence of language (the point Bushman seems to emphasize - although I've not had time to check the source) as well as common early 19th century interpretations. Although I'd urge caution using in particular later Pike interpretations as a guide to views in the 1830s -- one has to find contemporary sources. Typically people point to the George Oliver discussions of masonry from the 1820's and 1830's like The Antiquities of Free-Masonry. 

With regard to language I don't just mean language in the endowment but more broadly. I also think the Egyptian papyri dictionaries and grammar have a pretty strong Masonic component. Joe also argues (again without explicit evidence admittedly) for Joseph adopting the allegorical interpretation of Hirum Abiff as Christ with the significance in certain rites. He also argues the veil part of the Royal Arch rite is far more significant for deification than I think Greg would allow. There's been a few historians argue the Royal Arch cipher influenced how Joseph saw the papyri for instance. 

Overall I tend to take more of a middle position between say Greg and Joe. I tend to think Joe works in terms of his interpretations rather than dated texts which is problematic. It may be Joe can produce evidence for his claims, but after waiting since the 90's for the evidence from him I suspect it's never coming. However there definitely is more strong parallels there that I don't think can be so easily dismissed.

That said I also push a degree of skepticism. It'd be nice to have explicit evidence for Scottish rite. That's why Greg is able to make the argument he does. However it's ultimately an argument from silence. As I noted, even if there weren't Scottish rite lodges in Illinois, that doesn't mean Scottish rite information wasn't known by people in Nauvoo. (That's what I was ultimately objecting to on the FAIR page)  I do think Greg's argument that Bennett's lack of appeal to Masonry for criticizing the Mormons is an indication that Bennett knew less than it appeared. However there also may be more practical reasons for not violating Masonic secrecy by Bennett. i.e. I'm not sure Bennett's silence does quite the work Greg wants it to do. While we do have some strong evidence for the Royal Arch rite, the reality is that Scottish rite is at best indirect. And Adoptive Masonry is missing any evidence of influence beyond parallels. But by the same token the evidence against there being Scottish rite influence is I think missing as well. Also we have to distinguish between the formalized Scottish rite which really is the 1850's onward and the elements of the Scottish rite that weren't formalized which were available by the very beginnings of the 19th century. (In the US - the French history is more broad)

Anyway, before I discussed things with Greg (or whomever wrote the current FAIR page) I'd want to be a bit more awake and have my references ready and checked.

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

Yeah, it is probably Greg.  I wasn't involved so can't guarantee it, but I would be shocked if he didn't at least proof it.  Let me know if you want me to bug him for a discussion sometime...not that you couldn't just write in as well.  

Best wishes with the sick baby, those are hard times especially since they can't tell you what exactly is bothering them and what makes them feel better.

[clarkgoble]

I'd want to do an article review before commenting on the pages. Maybe if the baby gets more stable I'll have time to do that. Although at work I am moving our factory to a new location that's taking a lot of time too. So who knows if I'll have enough time. 

All that said, I do think the FAIR pages need some significant revision on the topic of Masonry. I think the page with the question "Did Joseph Smith copy Masonic material in order to create the Mormon temple rites" is a bit problematic. While speculative, I think explaining the relationship between Masonry and Renaissance philosophy ought be there -- the stuff Yates, Stevensen and others discuss. Right now the quotes are pretty dated and certainly don't engage in more recent historical papers on the Smith/Masonry connection. Any apologetic would be somewhat speculative, but there's a pretty compelling case to be made that Masonry has ties to the ancient texts & traditions that most older apologists like Nibely bring up as ancient parallels to the endowment.

[Stargazer]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 5:26 PM, poptart said:

Lol, that sure sounds like something Bro. Joseph and the rest of the early Masonic leadership as well as the Masonic family would have picked up in naovuoo lodge though.  Still amazed they made him a master mason on sight, politics...

Curious, that was something I thought the council of nicea addressed, the early church was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria and all kinds of other mayhem, the powers that be had to step in.

Where did you get the idea that the early church was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria?  Alexandria was not destroyed.  It's still there. What mayhem are you even talking about?  That the powers that be had to step in about?

Unless you're talking about the Library at Alexandria. But it wasn't the early church that destroyed that, and by the time Christianity was the state religion of the Roman Empire, the library was long gone.

You are a fine fellow, poptart, but sometimes you come up with the oddest claims, and I don't know where you get them.  Perhaps that's a plus.

[poptart]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Where did you get the idea that the early church was responsible for the destruction of Alexandria?  Alexandria was not destroyed.  It's still there. What mayhem are you even talking about?  That the powers that be had to step in about?

Unless you're talking about the Library at Alexandria. But it wasn't the early church that destroyed that, and by the time Christianity was the state religion of the Roman Empire, the library was long gone.

You are a fine fellow, poptart, but sometimes you come up with the oddest claims, and I don't know where you get them.  Perhaps that's a plus.

 Ops, the word library disappeared thre,  my bad.. interesting, when it was destroyed it didn' have any books in it, interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria

https://www.ancient.eu/article/207/what-happened-to-the-great-library-at-alexandria/

Huh, my bad again it wasn't so much the library they trashed it was the temple, they even made a movie about it, shame on me this is the kind of stuff I get into lol. To be fair, temples had a bunch of literature back in the day so I'm still.kinda right.

 

[poptart]

On 1/12/2018 at 9:13 AM, clarkgoble said:

I'd want to do an article review before commenting on the pages. Maybe if the baby gets more stable I'll have time to do that. Although at work I am moving our factory to a new location that's taking a lot of time too. So who knows if I'll have enough time. 

All that said, I do think the FAIR pages need some significant revision on the topic of Masonry. I think the page with the question "Did Joseph Smith copy Masonic material in order to create the Mormon temple rites" is a bit problematic. While speculative, I think explaining the relationship between Masonry and Renaissance philosophy ought be there -- the stuff Yates, Stevensen and others discuss. Right now the quotes are pretty dated and certainly don't engage in more recent historical papers on the Smith/Masonry connection. Any apologetic would be somewhat speculative, but there's a pretty compelling case to be made that Masonry has ties to the ancient texts & traditions that most older apologists like Nibely bring up as ancient parallels to the endowment.

Funny, when I worked in seattle I didn't hide the homosexual tendencies at all, mostly because of the awful politics and anger over trump.  Now that things are a bit quieter i heard something from a co-worker I've not heard in a looong time, wait till you're a father.  Lol guess not doing medical claims and asking about gays getting the same rights as hetro couples on day one leaves the hetro question mark there lol.  Props to you, sure you're a great parent.  The Mormons I've known make great parents.  

Anyway, I'll let this slip, there's a good reason why I have the bias I do.  I've had family in the fraternity literally for centuries, we're still in to this day.  Have a few relatives in grand lodge.  There's a very good chance either one of us was there when Joseph Smith was made a mason on sight or knew someone who did.  Gets better, we'e been in the Midwest forever, a few of us even in cartrage.  The whole Joseph Smith Masonic story was passed down to me from relatives at a reunion a looong time ago.  That's why whenever anyone says the whole thing about the Mormons having the real deal from the temple of Solomon thing or us possibly being one in the same long ago is nonsense.  Sucks how the innocents where just hanged and what not, but then again I'm just a bit more tolerant than some of the older family was.  Never try to pull.something on an old school Midwestern family lol.

Edited January 14, 2018 by poptart

[poptart]

On 1/11/2018 at 2:03 PM, clarkgoble said:

In Nauvoo, yes. Elements of his theology come out of that such as his exposition on Rev 2:17 in D&C 130:11 that seems influenced by the 17°. Although it's also in the main York rite for the Master Mark tied to the cornerstone. Of course the meaning is significantly transformed. Instead of it being a cornerstone or a token of friendship it's a seer stone. Particularly in the York rite it's a symbol of the covenant entered into. While it has the meaning too, the seer stone function becomes prime as is it's feature as a symbol of priesthood and kingship along with staff & sword. This highlights the problems of the Masonic influence since almost always the meanings are significantly transformed even when some similarity remains. Often into a form much more in keeping with ancient near eastern rites for coronation of kings, setting apart for priests, or more general heavenly ascents. (Indeed I'd say Joseph transforms it much better into matching the use in Revelation as well as compared to the Masonic use of Rev 2)

There's some parallels to Adoptive Masonry as well. Not just in terms of allowing women to be full initiates into the rites (now the endowment). Of course Adoptive Masonry, while a female adjunct masonry, doesn't actually allow women to go through the main York rites nor the Scottish rites. Rather women have a separate organization with their own rites. Still the Relief Society in some ways seems similar to Adoptive Masonry. The clothing and other elements also in many ways are closer to the Adoptive rites than York rites. I'd have to find my notes for all the parallels, but they are there. Although there's no evidence Adoptive Masonry was in the region around Joseph at the right time. Those speculating a direct influence rather than coincidental parallels usually ascribe it to Bennet - although there no real evidence he'd been exposed to Adoptive Masonry either. It was a somewhat unique French rite. But in many ways there are more parallels to Adoptive Masonry than York rite Masonry.

 

 

I'd disagree with Smith doing a better job of transforming anything, but as I just tipped my hand a bit my bias should be obvious now lol.

Honestly, I'd have to to some research, thing is most of the Smith family was Masonic at the time so I have to wonder.  That's also what made naovuoo lodge so controversial, getting your charter yanked, especially back in the day was huuuge! Seen it Happen a lot more nowadays, like a lot of churches even the fraternity gets scum a lot more now, sad.  

Also, atleast with York rite it's also a holdover from old school European masonry, Scottish rite was a huge game changer.  York rite has the order of athelstan, and a whole bunch of other bodies.  Across the pond commanderies/priories wear the old school templar tunics and regalia, unlike here with the class a uniforms which myself and many others despise.  

Edited January 14, 2018 by poptart

[poptart]

On 1/10/2018 at 12:19 PM, pogi said:

And last time I checked, Christ was still the head of the Church, even after his death and resurrection, and that the saints were commanded to keep an eye single to God...aka, "look up".  I like the saying, "pray is if it all depends on the Lord, but work as if it all depends on you."

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.  Please enlighten us. 

 post removed for inappropriate language

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, poptart said:

Honestly, I'd have to to some research, thing is most of the Smith family was Masonic at the time so I have to wonder.  That's also what made naovuoo lodge so controversial, getting your charter yanked, especially back in the day was huuuge!

By the time the charter was removed the Mormons no longer cared. 

7 hours ago, poptart said:

I've had family in the fraternity literally for centuries, we're still in to this day.  Have a few relatives in grand lodge.  There's a very good chance either one of us was there when Joseph Smith was made a mason on sight or knew someone who did.  Gets better, we'e been in the Midwest forever, a few of us even in cartrage.  The whole Joseph Smith Masonic story was passed down to me from relatives at a reunion a looong time ago.  That's why whenever anyone says the whole thing about the Mormons having the real deal from the temple of Solomon thing or us possibly being one in the same long ago is nonsense.  Sucks how the innocents where just hanged and what not, but then again I'm just a bit more tolerant than some of the older family was.  Never try to pull.something on an old school Midwestern family lol.

I think many early Mormons attributed more weight to the Masonic legends than was warranted. Most of them a clearly nonsense. That said, I think defending elements as ancient is fairly easy to do. 

[poptart]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

By the time the charter was removed the Mormons no longer cared. 

I think many early Mormons attributed more weight to the Masonic legends than was warranted. Most of them a clearly nonsense. That said, I think defending elements as ancient is fairly easy to do. 

So basically, it's all relativism?

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, poptart said:

So basically, it's all relativism?

That seems like a non sequitur. My apologies, but I honestly can't quite figure out how it relates to what I said. It'd be helpful in your comments if you put in your reasoning rather than just conclusions. I'm sure your conclusions are obvious to you but typically they're not to others. That makes it quite difficult to understand even what you are saying.

If the point is about not caring, it's not relativism. Rather it's that by then the endowment had been mostly created. (I think most assume the actual form was developed in Utah by Brigham - but certainly the basics were in Nauvoo) Say what one will about the similarities of the endowment to Masonry (basic, York, Scottish, etc.) but it really is a different rite with significant differences. Further the theology of the rite saw it as a restoration by means of authority. So if that's what your vague relativism comment is getting at, I just don't think it fits in the least. It's more akin to a division between two Grand Lodges. Less common in the past 50 years or so, but certainly not at all unheard of at Joseph's time. Indeed in England there were two different Grand Lodges in the 18th century and the schism wasn't healed until the late 19th century. I'd suggest seeing the Mormons more akin to that sort of schism if one must keep the Masonic ties. For a more American example consider the Prince Hall lodges.

Edited January 15, 2018 by clarkgoble