Sources for Josephs Temple Revelations

[SettingDogStar]

Of course I know that Joseph received the temple ordinances, robes, and design of the Garments through revelation and maybe a mix of other things. What I'm curious about is if anyone knows of, or can help me locate, journals/minutes/sources of members or leaders writing down Josephs mentioning of his sources for the various pieces of the Temple? I've only seen a couple quotes where a member would mention that the Prophet had said "he saw Moroni wearing the garment" or something to that effect. I'm trying to compile a collection of quotes that, even vaguely, reference where members felt/heard Joseph got His teachings. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by SettingDogStar

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Of course I know that Joseph received the temple ordinances, robes, and design of the Garments through revelation and maybe a mix of other things. What I'm curious about is if anyone knows of, or can help me locate, journals/minutes/sources of members or leaders writing down Josephs mentioning of his sources for the various pieces of the Temple? I've only seen a couple quotes where a member would mention that the Prophet had said "he saw Moroni wearing the garment" or something to that effect. I'm trying to compile a collection of quotes that, even vaguely, reference where members felt/heard Joseph got His teachings. 

This book is a great resource for historical quotes where they mention anything related to the temple and is meticulously sourced.  I would definitely suggest starting here.  

https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1540399727&sr=8-1

[Bernard Gui]

From the review...

Quote

Yes, the temple ceremonies have changed since their inception in Nauvoo in the 1840s. The liturgy was originally conveyed as a memorized, oral tradition, then in 1877 the leadership committed it to writing to guarantee consistency among several temples and facilitate changes they wanted to make at that time. This was repeated in 1922 when George F. Richards and a committee of apostles was charged with reviewing and rewriting the ceremonies—again in the 1950s when the dramatic presentation was replaced with a motion picture and the script was shortened.

?

[snowflake]

I've always been told by my LDS friends and family that the modern LDS temple and it's ordinances was a "restoration" from the original 1st century church. Robes, design of the temple, procedures, washings and annointings are described in the Torah and are very detailed. Would the OT be Joseph's chief source for the "restored temple"? If not why? 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I've always been told by my LDS friends and family that the modern LDS temple and it's ordinances was a "restoration" from the original 1st century church. Robes, design of the temple, procedures, washings and annointings are described in the Torah and are very detailed. Would the OT be Joseph's chief source for the "restored temple"? If not why? 

Because Jewish temple rites under the lesser Aaronic law would be very different from the First Century Christian ones. They also undoubtedly changed quite a bit from those when restored. There is no mysterious perfect Ur Text of the temple. The rites are adapted to the time and place and symbology of those being taught to convey similar teachings.

[SettingDogStar]

57 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

From the review...

?

The first temple ritual videos were created in the 1950s for the Swiss and New Zealand Temples. It was simply to shrink temple designs from fives rooms to two for convenience. It wasn't very complicated or dramatic like we have now, it was literally just a film of a "live" endowment in the Salt Lake Temple rooms. The more dramatic ones with sets and such started to be filmed in the 1960s.

Edited October 24, 2018 by SettingDogStar

[SettingDogStar]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because Jewish temple rites under the lesser Aaronic law would be very different from the First Century Christian ones. They also undoubtedly changed quite a bit from those when restored. There is no mysterious perfect Ur Text of the temple. The rites are adapted to the time and place and symbology of those being taught to convey similar teachings.

That perfect Ur Text would be nice huh? I imagine it came to Joseph in pieces until he had the fullness and God helped him organize it more succinctly.  

[The Nehor]

Just now, SettingDogStar said:

That perfect Ur Text would be nice huh? I imagine it came to Joseph in pieces until he had the fullness and God helped him organize it more succinctly.  

An Ur-text would only be useful if culture, language, and religious practice went unchanged throughout history. Heaven might have such ordinances that can be perfectly unchanging but they would not be helpful to us even if we had them.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Of course I know that Joseph received the temple ordinances, robes, and design of the Garments through revelation and maybe a mix of other things. What I'm curious about is if anyone knows of, or can help me locate, journals/minutes/sources of members or leaders writing down Josephs mentioning of his sources for the various pieces of the Temple? I've only seen a couple quotes where a member would mention that the Prophet had said "he saw Moroni wearing the garment" or something to that effect. I'm trying to compile a collection of quotes that, even vaguely, reference where members felt/heard Joseph got His teachings. 

https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119

https://www.amazon.com/Nauvoo-Endowment-Companies-1845-1846-Documentary/dp/1560851872/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4

https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smiths-Quorum-Anointed-1842-1845/dp/1560851864/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1560851864&pd_rd_r=3220ff44-d7d1-11e8-ad21-c9b035b72b90&pd_rd_w=qTR85&pd_rd_wg=OU6rr&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4

[jpv]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119

https://www.amazon.com/Nauvoo-Endowment-Companies-1845-1846-Documentary/dp/1560851872/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4

https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smiths-Quorum-Anointed-1842-1845/dp/1560851864/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1560851864&pd_rd_r=3220ff44-d7d1-11e8-ad21-c9b035b72b90&pd_rd_w=qTR85&pd_rd_wg=OU6rr&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4

Agree, Devery's work is some of my favorite.

Mostly raw sources instead of just commentary like Breuger.

William Clayton's diaries, specifically the ones he kept for Heber C. Kimball are very good too.

Also if you haven't read Andrew Ehat's thesis on Joseph Smith and Temple ordinances in the 1844 succession question it's highly recommended.  

 

If you can't find it DM me and I can get it to you.

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, jpv said:

Also if you haven't read Andrew Ehat's thesis on Joseph Smith and Temple ordinances in the 1844 succession question it's highly recommended.  

Note that many historians now see Ehat's thesis as problematic. I know Jonathan Stapley thinks it's all wrong. He has his own work The Power of Godliness. I'm still not fully convinced by Jonathan but do admit Ehat's thesis is pretty dated at this stage.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

I've always been told by my LDS friends and family that the modern LDS temple and it's ordinances was a "restoration" from the original 1st century church. Robes, design of the temple, procedures, washings and annointings are described in the Torah and are very detailed. Would the OT be Joseph's chief source for the "restored temple"? If not why? 

The OT is not the source. The Aaronic priests washed themselves at the sea inside the temple walls in reference to the duty of performing their sacrifices. While roughly similar in effect to washings and annointings in preparation for entering modern temple covenants, they are quite different otherwise. I do see the endowment as a covenant with OT meaning, but it is nothing like any OT rite which were temporal rather than spiritual. In other words the modern covenant can be seen as a spiritual fulfillment of the old temporal rite. I see sealings as a completely new covenant rather than a restoration of a 1st century church rite.

The only real "restored" church practice from the 1st century imho is baptism for the dead - a practice which I believe was lost from the church when Jerusalem was destroyed and the church experienced several decades of intense persecution and destruction of its records.

Hopefully, that answered your questions.

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Note that many historians now see Ehat's thesis as problematic. I know Jonathan Stapley thinks it's all wrong. He has his own work The Power of Godliness. I'm still not fully convinced by Jonathan but do admit Ehat's thesis is pretty dated at this stage.

I’ve read Ehat but what about it was problematic? I think that his mention of the blessing of Joseph the III was a little dated 😂

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’ve read Ehat but what about it was problematic? I think that his mention of the blessing of Joseph the III was a little dated 😂

His take on the Patriarchal Priesthood as it relates to the temple is the major element that comes to mind. Stapley rejects that model.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119

https://www.amazon.com/Nauvoo-Endowment-Companies-1845-1846-Documentary/dp/1560851872/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4

https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smiths-Quorum-Anointed-1842-1845/dp/1560851864/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1560851864&pd_rd_r=3220ff44-d7d1-11e8-ad21-c9b035b72b90&pd_rd_w=qTR85&pd_rd_wg=OU6rr&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=WGVNE2MYJG82PNC1NXS4

Claaaark! I have to spend 120 bucks? I was just thinking what an interesting thread this is but not quite that interesting! 

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I do see the endowment as a covenant with OT meaning, but it is nothing like any OT rite which were temporal rather than spiritual. In other words the modern covenant can be seen as a spiritual fulfillment of the old temporal rite. I see sealings as a completely new covenant rather than a restoration of a 1st century church rite.

Is anything purely temporal? I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here.

Interestingly some washings prior to Nauvoo were done with whisky and cinnamon. That may be the meaning of D&C 89:7 which allows for the use of alcohol for "washing of your bodies."

What counts as an Old Testament rite ought be questioned as well. It's hard to discuss that without discussing the heavenly ascent literature and related texts which pre-date Christianity. Likewise I think most scholars see many of the rites and holidays in the Torah as developing in the post-exilic period. The rites that say Nephi was exposed to may well have been quite different.

10 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Claaaark! I have to spend 120 bucks? I was just thinking what an interesting thread this is but not quite that interesting! 

Definitely books you check out at the library although the one book is only $9.99 for the Kindle version and is quite good.

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

I've always been told by my LDS friends and family that the modern LDS temple and it's ordinances was a "restoration" from the original 1st century church. Robes, design of the temple, procedures, washings and annointings are described in the Torah and are very detailed. Would the OT be Joseph's chief source for the "restored temple"? If not why? 

Masonry is an explicit source. However Masonry itself largely comes out of the Art of Memory in the Renaissance along with the rediscovery of gnostic and pagan works - especially the hermetic tradition. That in turn ends up being fairly similar to early Jewish and Christian texts where one passes by angels or guards, has sacred clothing, gives signs and tokens, all as one ascends to heaven. There's tons of examples of this sort of literature both as its own genre and associated with the Apocalpyse genre. Those are quite different from how the Old Testament was viewed at the time of Joseph but part and parcel of how Masonry saw things. As more texts have been discovered or at least acknowledged the early parallels for the temple have become quite pronounced. For instance it's hard to read 1 & 2 Jeu without thinking of the temple ceremonies.

Likewise if you read The Gospel of Philip, while a gnostic text are adopting a more platonic conception, it talks of a sacred marriage rite done in a mirrored room off the holy of holies in the temple. It also talks of the garden and becoming a God.

None of these were known at the time of Joseph but elements as I said found their way into speculative and mystical traditions in the Renaissance. (Primarily by books coming to the west after the Muslims sacked Constanople and refugees fled to the west bringing their books with them)

Edited October 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[SettingDogStar]

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

His take on the Patriarchal Priesthood as it relates to the temple is the major element that comes to mind. Stapley rejects that model.

And I thought I grasped Ehats ideas decently, in what context does Stapley put it?

[Duncan]

7 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Claaaark! I have to spend 120 bucks? I was just thinking what an interesting thread this is but not quite that interesting! 

you could get those books on inter-library loan!

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, snowflake said:

I've always been told by my LDS friends and family that the modern LDS temple and it's ordinances was a "restoration" from the original 1st century church. Robes, design of the temple, procedures, washings and annointings are described in the Torah and are very detailed. Would the OT be Joseph's chief source for the "restored temple"? If not why? 

Revelation trumps the Bible.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

And I thought I grasped Ehats ideas decently, in what context does Stapley put it?

Stapley sees a divide between what he calls the cosmological priesthood and ecclesiastical priesthood. He tends to see discussions of Patriarchal Priesthood as subsumed in Melchezedek Priesthood but then divided along those two categories. Ehat by contrast sees three priesthoods with the Melchezedek being both (in Stapley's terms) cosmological and ecclesiastical. Stapley makes a good argument and his book is most definitely worth reading. I just find Joseph using the same term for both yet their being separate a fundamentally unintuitive position. So I'm never completely convinced. There are other flaws with Ehat primarily because he was the first to really try thematizing these texts and because there were far fewer texts available at the time.

This gets at Oaks recent (over the last 5 years) talks on priesthood. In a certain way he's following Stapley (and I suspect is well read on the latest scholarship and thus likely influenced by Stapley). You remember his talk on women and the priesthood makes a big distinction between women in the temple as priests from priesthood office. That's effectively Stapley's distinction and is different from how that first generation in the 90's tended to place things. So Quinn for instance made no distinction between ecclesiastical priesthood and cosmological priesthood. Likewise some of the initial work on women healing that was thematizing things now tends to get rejected by historians like Stapley. (Say most of the book Women and Authority from the 90's)

Since Stapley's book just came out this year we'll have to wait a while to see how influential it becomes. As I said there are some things that just don't sit right although I can't really make a compelling argument about how his theories are wrong. He does some pretty compelling arguing in his book and his well known papers.

I'd add that recent work suggesting a lot of temple themes are far earlier than Nauvoo may well turn upside down a lot of theories about the evolution of the temple. In particular Don Bradley has done some ground breaking work there. His thesis that came out this summer (and discussed here) was very persuasive IMO. I'm excited to see his book on the 116 pages when it comes out. What's most interesting is that he's finding OT and Jewish themes as much more dominant than Masonic ones - although I'd argue that they blur and overlap quite a bit. Particularly the place of Royal Arch Masonry on American Judaism and notions of gatherings. All that in turn may cause a rethinking of the issues that Ehat and Stapley deal with. But again it's too early to say for sure. One thing that's sure is that this is a subfield of Mormon Studies that is rapidly changing. Things get dated pretty quickly. I've definitely not been able to keep up on everything relevant.

Edited October 25, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

The first temple ritual videos were created in the 1950s for the Swiss and New Zealand Temples. It was simply to shrink temple designs from fives rooms to two for convenience. It wasn't very complicated or dramatic like we have now, it was literally just a film of a "live" endowment in the Salt Lake Temple rooms. The more dramatic ones with sets and such started to be filmed in the 1960s.

That’s not what the statement in the review says. It’s probably a typo for 70s.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

The only real "restored" church practice from the 1st century imho is baptism for the dead...

I disagree. Please see a paper I wrote on this topic published here: https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FMPapers_2.pdf

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

Masonry is an explicit source. However Masonry itself largely comes out of the Art of Memory in the Renaissance along with the rediscovery of gnostic and pagan works - especially the hermetic tradition. That in turn ends up being fairly similar to early Jewish and Christian texts where one passes by angels or guards, has sacred clothing, gives signs and tokens, all as one ascends to heaven. There's tons of examples of this sort of literature both as its own genre and associated with the Apocalpyse genre. Those are quite different from how the Old Testament was viewed at the time of Joseph but part and parcel of how Masonry saw things. As more texts have been discovered or at least acknowledged the early parallels for the temple have become quite pronounced. For instance it's hard to read 1 & 2 Jeu without thinking of the temple ceremonies.

 

I don't totally disagree with this. I would just add or clarify that Freemasonry is to the temple what the KJV of the Bible is to the Book of Mormon. 

Masonry is no more the source of the temple than the KJV is the source of the Book of Mormon. Does the Book of Mormon allude to KJV Bible, or outright borrow from it in places? Yes. Does the temple allude to or outright borrow from Masonry in places? Yes. But the Book of Mormon translation is of a true, ancient source. Likewise, the temple has its source in antiquity. 

[clarkgoble]

I don't think that a good analogy for various reasons. Joseph Smith never called the KJV the apostate BoM. He did call masonry the "degenerate" version of the endowment. (According to Kimball anyway) Now of course the endowment is pretty different from the masonic rites overall. Even when you include Royal Arch Masonry or Adoptive Masonry. So in the sense that the endowment isn't just masonry is completely true. But the key features are. Also many other elements of Masonry were part of the endowment although many of those aspects have been removed or abstracted more over the last century.

So Tylers who originally represented the angel guarding Eden become people checking you as you go to the escalator. The five points of fellowship tied to the resurrection of Hirum Abiff are removed. And so forth.

It's also worth noting that many people misunderstand the endowment. At the beginning it's clear we're endowed to become something but are not endowed as something. It's preparatory. As such it need not match the actual realization of the endowment at a later time. That actualization is what is more discussed in the various pseudopigraphal, apocalyptic and gnostic texts.

Edited October 25, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Guest]

23 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

The first temple ritual videos were created in the 1950s for the Swiss and New Zealand Temples. It was simply to shrink temple designs from fives rooms to two for convenience. It wasn't very complicated or dramatic like we have now, it was literally just a film of a "live" endowment in the Salt Lake Temple rooms. The more dramatic ones with sets and such started to be filmed in the 1960s.

My wife and I, two children (then) were sealed in the Swiss Temple as a family. It was a wonderful experience,it  took place on April 25, 1981. That family then of "4", has now grown to family "19", for now. No attempt to derail, I just viewed your comment concerning the Swiss Temple. The Temple ceremony has changed since then of course, as have a number of designs, even smaller Temples such as Atlanta, (where I live) have changed from the "Swiss Temple" model (one room and then to Celestial Room) design to moving from one room to another, (also almost, if not all), now have the Baptismal Font, resting on the back of 12 Oxen. As to times and dates when such changes have been made, I have not kept track. What would be great, would be to use "CGI", and create films depicting the creation, that would rival any that have come before. Doing so, we could teach and hold captive the wonder, imagination and awe, of every patron.