The Masonic Egyptian Temple Endowments

[Dario_M]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Netherlands! Excellent!

Dutch is VERY close to English in pronunciation- I recall being on a bus in Amsterdam listening to people behind me having a conversation, and it sounded to me that they were speaking English-all the sounds seemed IDENTICAL but I had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

Yeah that's true. A lot of words are the same. But you know...we are so close to England as well. So that's why we have so many similar words.

I mean me right now i life really close to the North Sea (In Beverwijk). And on the other side of the North Sea lay's England. That's not far. A km or 200 in between. 

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

   Not surprising considering its proximity to France and England!

Yes but France doesn't sound like English at all don't you think? It's a beautiful language though. But I can't understand a word those people are saying.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But you should seek out your bishop.   He can help you!

 

Yes then. I'm sure he would help me with those thinks. I also still need to get the Melchizedek priesthood.

Edited August 5, 2024 by Dario_M

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 hours ago, PacMan said:

Your best bet is to look at citations within LDS material.  After all, non-LDS are not going to be sensitive to the similarities to even look for them.

That’s exactly what I’m looking for. After all I’m deeply familiar with your endowment ceremony and its history(at least without all the substantial changes made in the last decade). If there are obvious parallels surely I’d be able to pick them out if you could only provide a link describing the ceremony.  It sounds like you don’t have it.
 

Oh and s far as I can tell, your only link doesn’t cite any Egyptian sources. Just Nibley. You will have to forgive me if I don’t take Nibley’s word for it. Here is what FAIR has to say about Nibley “He was also very creative and sometimes overagressive in his use of sources, and sometimes he was wrong about things, as are all scholars and indeed all human beings.” And “I have contacted many of the note checkers and editors of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley...and they all confirm that, while Hugh has been sloppy—at times mistranslating a text or overstating his case—he does not make up his sources”

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Mormon_scholar_Hugh_Nibley_fake_or_distort_most_of_his_footnotes%3F

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yes but France doesn't sound like English at all don't you think? It's a beautiful language though. But I can't understand a word those people are saying.

Well no,  I agree it is beautiful to hear,long ago I had to take courses in it to be able to read and write it- BUT the reason it relates to English is that the people who used to live in that area brought their language into what is now called "England" - in 1066 AD - and with it a lot of Latin- their language was based on Latin, and probably sounded more like Spanish and Portuguese - I bet you could read French quite well.  Anyway, the mixture of their language with that of the "natives" in the British Isles - evolved into what we now know as "English".

I think it is important to find a religious community that goes along with what you feel inside you-  and you seemed to be enough into the "Latter Day Saints"- so my advice for what it is worth - is to continue in that path- if it is still working for you.   I know that practically everyone in the Netherlands speaks English to some degree, - I would ask around and find someone who has heard of us. 

Glad you are safe!

[manol]

8 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yes then. I'm sure he would help me with those thinks. I also still need to get the Melchizedek priesthood.

During the decades when I was an active member of the LDS Church, the most real (to me at least) part of my religious experience was when I was asked to give someone a priesthood blessing.  In the LDS Church today, it is only those who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood who are asked to give blessings (although in my current opinion anyone who is a follower of Christ may do so).  I would hope for you to have the experience of laying your hands on someone's head and blessing them. 

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well no,  I agree it is beautiful to hear,long ago I had to take courses in it to be able to read and write it- BUT the reason it relates to English is that the people who used to live in that area brought their language into what is now called "England" - in 1066 AD - and with it a lot of Latin- their language was based on Latin, and probably sounded more like Spanish and Portuguese - I bet you could read French quite well.  Anyway, the mixture of their language with that of the "natives" in the British Isles - evolved into what we now know as "English".

Interesting. Yeah i love the English language. You know... English is my absolute favorite language. 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think it is important to find a religious community that goes along with what you feel inside you-  and you seemed to be enough into the "Latter Day Saints"- so my advice for what it is worth - is to continue in that path- if it is still working for you.   I know that practically everyone in the Netherlands speaks English to some degree, - I would ask around and find someone who has heard of us. 

Glad you are safe!

Yes the Netherlands has also some wards. Not much. But they are there. 

[Dario_M]

48 minutes ago, manol said:

During the decades when I was an active member of the LDS Church, the most real (to me at least) part of my religious experience was when I was asked to give someone a priesthood blessing.  In the LDS Church today, it is only those who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood who are asked to give blessings (although in my current opinion anyone who is a follower of Christ may do so).  I would hope for you to have the experience of laying your hands on someone's head and blessing them. 

Woow that's cool indeed. I can not give those blessings with my Aaronic priesthood right? 

[manol]

2 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Woow that's cool indeed. I can not give those blessings with my Aaronic priesthood right? 

My understanding is that the current policy and/or practice in the LDS Church only allows Melchizedek Priesthood holders give blessings.  Hopefully someone up-to-date on current policy and practice can confirm or correct this.  @mfbukowski?? 

[Dario_M]

15 minutes ago, manol said:

My understanding is that the current policy and/or practice in the LDS Church only allows Melchizedek Priesthood holders give blessings.  Hopefully someone up-to-date on current policy and practice can confirm or correct this.  @mfbukowski?? 

Yeah i also hope that. I'm curious to know.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, manol said:

My understanding is that the current policy and/or practice in the LDS Church only allows Melchizedek Priesthood holders give blessings.  Hopefully someone up-to-date on current policy and practice can confirm or correct this.  @mfbukowski?? 

 

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah i also hope that. I'm curious to know.

Blessings by the laying on of hands can only be done with the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

 

Blessings by the laying on of hands can only be done with the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Thank you for the right answer. At least that's clear now. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah i also hope that. I'm curious to know.

Yep, agreed.

Officially you have to have the MP according to doctrine but the prayer of a righteous person can do anything, imo.

But really imo, this is a matter of "authority"- having the MP gives you authority- like a policeman's badge- but a badge does not make one "better" than anyone else.

 

Edited August 5, 2024 by mfbukowski
a

[Dario_M]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep, agreed.

 

Have you read the answer? You probably allready knew the right answer didn't you haha😌

Edited August 5, 2024 by Dario_M

[PacMan]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s exactly what I’m looking for. After all I’m deeply familiar with your endowment ceremony and its history(at least without all the substantial changes made in the last decade). If there are obvious parallels surely I’d be able to pick them out if you could only provide a link describing the ceremony.  It sounds like you don’t have it.
 

Oh and s far as I can tell, your only link doesn’t cite any Egyptian sources. Just Nibley. You will have to forgive me if I don’t take Nibley’s word for it. Here is what FAIR has to say about Nibley “He was also very creative and sometimes overagressive in his use of sources, and sometimes he was wrong about things, as are all scholars and indeed all human beings.” And “I have contacted many of the note checkers and editors of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley...and they all confirm that, while Hugh has been sloppy—at times mistranslating a text or overstating his case—he does not make up his sources”

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Mormon_scholar_Hugh_Nibley_fake_or_distort_most_of_his_footnotes%3F

There isn't a singular source and, therefore, not a singular link.  I've provided a few.  The first was a summary of Nibley.  The second has other source citations.  If you're really interested, I'd get a copy of The Temple of Edfu by Kurth, translated by Alcock.  There's some interesting material in there.

Before dumping on Nibley, please understand that the Nibley criticism is grossly overblown.  He's actually very reliable.  I remember some statistics that his work was 90% correct, with a typographical error rate of 7%, with problematic citations covering the remaining 3%.  And, as the below link shows, just because a citation can't be found doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  In fact, Nibley may have been right all along.

https://www.fromthedesk.org/hugh-nibley-fake-notes-and-sources/

[mfbukowski]

On 8/4/2024 at 1:26 PM, Calm said:

“Objective” is a myth, so nowhere.  😛 

I get you but of course if we are talking about the boiling point of water, one would not expect much variation in the answer.   Anyone can do that experiment right at home, and agree with others across the world.

But I know what you meant and agree.

[Analytics]

 

On 8/2/2024 at 8:57 AM, PacMan said:

...

The interesting thing is that the Egyptian Endowment has significant parallels with the LDS endowment and Masonic ceremonies.  I think Masonry is more similar to LDS endowment in form while Egyptian is more similar to the LDS endowment in substance:

https://www.scribd.com/document/47210789/An-Egyptian-Endowment-A-Summary-of-Nibley-s-Book-on-the-Joseph-Smith-Papyri

My question is, what’s the critics’ response to the similarities with the LDS and Egyptian endowments? I have never heard a remotely adequate response to the parallels.

Since you asked, I started to read the Kelly Ogden paper you linked to, but I find it to be a religious document that is talking about his religious beliefs, which have very little correlation to actual history. For example, it says “the Egyptians were highly interested in Abraham and his record...”  However, he just made that up--we have no historical record of ancient Egyptians knowing anything about Abraham, much less being interested in him. If we are talking about the real world, in all likelihood Abraham existed only as a character in stories. Despite Ogden saying otherwise, Egyptian religious beliefs were not “an historical corruption of the achievements of Enoch and the people of Zion.” Enoch is mythological. Egyptians were real.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on Egyptian temples. It goes into a bit of detail about what their temple worship was like and why. You’ll see very little correlation between how Ogden describes Egyptian temples and how non-Mormons do. Which one is closer to being right?

I Googled "what is the relationship between Hebrew religion and Egyptian religion?” to see what would come up. The first relevant link was to a redit thread that said:

Has anyone else noticed how diametrically opposed Judaism is to early Ancient Egyptian religion?

I just finished reading Jodi Picoult’s The Book of Two Ways and it really got me thinking about this idea that maybe Judaism was built as an opposition to Egyptian religion.

Judaism’s one G-d vs Egypt’s many gods. Judaism’s laws against mutilating the body vs Egypt’s entire embalming process. Judaism’s rejection of idols vs Egypt’s embracing of statues and temples. Judaism’s lack of discussion about the afterlife vs Egypt’s obsession with it.

If we were to look at the religions in this historic context you’d probably see Judaism’s entire ethos and creation as a rejection of Egyptian life.

Now of course we can’t deny influences from other polytheistic religions at the time but Egypt is the one that’s primarily referenced in the Torah. And geographically it’s the closest.

What do you think?

 

[PacMan]

On 8/6/2024 at 8:05 AM, Analytics said:

 

Since you asked, I started to read the Kelly Ogden paper you linked to, but I find it to be a religious document that is talking about his religious beliefs, which have very little correlation to actual history. For example, it says “the Egyptians were highly interested in Abraham and his record...”  However, he just made that up--we have no historical record of ancient Egyptians knowing anything about Abraham, much less being interested in him. If we are talking about the real world, in all likelihood Abraham existed only as a character in stories. Despite Ogden saying otherwise, Egyptian religious beliefs were not “an historical corruption of the achievements of Enoch and the people of Zion.” Enoch is mythological. Egyptians were real.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on Egyptian temples. It goes into a bit of detail about what their temple worship was like and why. You’ll see very little correlation between how Ogden describes Egyptian temples and how non-Mormons do. Which one is closer to being right?

I Googled "what is the relationship between Hebrew religion and Egyptian religion?” to see what would come up. The first relevant link was to a redit thread that said:

Has anyone else noticed how diametrically opposed Judaism is to early Ancient Egyptian religion?

I just finished reading Jodi Picoult’s The Book of Two Ways and it really got me thinking about this idea that maybe Judaism was built as an opposition to Egyptian religion.

Judaism’s one G-d vs Egypt’s many gods. Judaism’s laws against mutilating the body vs Egypt’s entire embalming process. Judaism’s rejection of idols vs Egypt’s embracing of statues and temples. Judaism’s lack of discussion about the afterlife vs Egypt’s obsession with it.

If we were to look at the religions in this historic context you’d probably see Judaism’s entire ethos and creation as a rejection of Egyptian life.

Now of course we can’t deny influences from other polytheistic religions at the time but Egypt is the one that’s primarily referenced in the Torah. And geographically it’s the closest.

What do you think?

 

Well, Ogden's point was to summarize Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment.  So focusing on Ogden's introductory comment in the third paragraph (of 10 pages) isn't particularly helpful.

So, I'll summarize a few points that Nibley actually made for you to review and consider:

1. Deification was not only possible, but came through knowledge and power (p. 5).

2. Progression included the family.

3. Deification required obedience to certain laws, including sacrifice and consecration.

4. The further into the temple the initiate traveled, the higher the law to be lived until his nature became as God in the holy of holies (p. 6).

5. Purification was needed to keep the body both pure and intact.

6.  Anointing followed to make the initiate a king and priest.

7. The initiate received a white ceremonial garment, showing properly cleansed and empowered (p. 7).

8. The initiate was given a new name, which gave him power.

9. The presence of Ma'at is necessary to ensure one is a bonafide candidate.

10. The temple ritual included a dram of actors about the creation of earth, and Thoth and Atum working under the direction of a higher god in that creation.

11. Atum is created asleep, and Ptah and Amon awaken him with the breath of life, before being introduced to a lady called the mother of all (p. 8).

12.  A garden scene proceeds, with the Ished tree and a serpent.

13. The parties are forced on a long and dangerous journey, changing clothing, and receiving knowledge.  Atum becomes the guide who all must follow to cleanse themselves of all legal and moral problems.

14.  Gates representing rebirth are presented, graduating the initiate from a lower to higher level, which required certain formulas, creeds, and passwords.

15. The initiate was able to escape the power of evil by using different names along the way.

16.  The initiate was engaged in ritual wounding or blows, reminding him of the real danger (p. 9).

17. The climax is the divine embrace when the initiate was clasped to the breast of Amon, which represents the acceptance back to Amon and receiving everlasting dominion.  As a recognition rite, the initiate provided answers to certain questions, shown using three symbols: Ankh, Was, and Djed.

18.  The initiate was presented to a large theatrical veil that allowed an uninterrupted passage to eternal progression.  It had four elements, which are also on the garments worn by the initiate.

19.  Stepping through, the initiate would end the ceremony in a blaze of glory stepping into a court in full power of the sun (p. 10).

Now, if one of these points is inaccurate, I'd be interested to know.  But simply saying that it's not covered in a Wiki article aint going to cut it for me.

Edited August 8, 2024 by PacMan

[Analytics]

On 8/7/2024 at 6:03 PM, PacMan said:

Well, Ogden's point was to summarize Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment.  So focusing on Ogden's introductory comment in the third paragraph (of 10 pages) isn't particularly helpful.

So, I'll summarize a few points that Nibley actually made for you to review and consider:

1. Deification was not only possible, but came through knowledge and power (p. 5).

2. Progression included the family.

3. Deification required obedience to certain laws, including sacrifice and consecration.

4. The further into the temple the initiate traveled, the higher the law to be lived until his nature became as God in the holy of holies (p. 6).

5. Purification was needed to keep the body both pure and intact.

6.  Anointing followed to make the initiate a king and priest.

7. The initiate received a white ceremonial garment, showing properly cleansed and empowered (p. 7).

8. The initiate was given a new name, which gave him power.

9. The presence of Ma'at is necessary to ensure one is a bonafide candidate.

10. The temple ritual included a dram of actors about the creation of earth, and Thoth and Atum working under the direction of a higher god in that creation.

11. Atum is created asleep, and Ptah and Amon awaken him with the breath of life, before being introduced to a lady called the mother of all (p. 8).

12.  A garden scene proceeds, with the Ished tree and a serpent.

13. The parties are forced on a long and dangerous journey, changing clothing, and receiving knowledge.  Atum becomes the guide who all must follow to cleanse themselves of all legal and moral problems.

14.  Gates representing rebirth are presented, graduating the initiate from a lower to higher level, which required certain formulas, creeds, and passwords.

15. The initiate was able to escape the power of evil by using different names along the way.

16.  The initiate was engaged in ritual wounding or blows, reminding him of the real danger (p. 9).

17. The climax is the divine embrace when the initiate was clasped to the breast of Amon, which represents the acceptance back to Amon and receiving everlasting dominion.  As a recognition rite, the initiate provided answers to certain questions, shown using three symbols: Ankh, Was, and Djed.

18.  The initiate was presented to a large theatrical veil that allowed an uninterrupted passage to eternal progression.  It had four elements, which are also on the garments worn by the initiate.

19.  Stepping through, the initiate would end the ceremony in a blaze of glory stepping into a court in full power of the sun (p. 10).

Now, if one of these points is inaccurate, I'd be interested to know.  But simply saying that it's not covered in a Wiki article aint going to cut it for me.

From my perspective, Hugh Nibley isn’t an authoritative, much less unbiased expert on these topics, and I simply don’t believe this is accurate and don’t feel a response is necessary.

But I asked ChatGPT what he thought. For your consideration:

The points you provided are not entirely accurate descriptions of ancient Egyptian temple worship. While they do contain elements that resonate with certain aspects of Egyptian religion, they are largely influenced by modern interpretations or comparisons with other religious traditions. Here's a breakdown of each point in the context of ancient Egyptian religious practices:

1. Deification through Knowledge and Power:
   • Accurate in a limited sense: The concept of deification in ancient Egypt existed, especially in the afterlife where pharaohs and certain individuals could be deified. However, it was not strictly through "knowledge and power" as we understand those terms today but through adherence to maat (cosmic order) and the proper performance of rituals.
2. Progression Included the Family:
   • Inaccurate: While family relationships were important in Egyptian society, the concept of eternal progression in a familial sense does not align with Egyptian religious beliefs. The afterlife was more about ensuring one's own safe passage and continued existence rather than a focus on family progression as understood in other religious contexts.
3. Deification Required Obedience to Laws, Including Sacrifice and Consecration:
   • Partially Accurate: Obedience to laws, particularly maat, was crucial. However, "sacrifice" in the sense understood in other religious traditions was not a central part of deification. Offerings were made to gods, but these were more about maintaining cosmic balance than personal deification.
4. Higher Laws in the Temple, Leading to Deification:
   • Inaccurate: Egyptian temple rituals did not involve the initiate moving progressively deeper into the temple in a way that led to deification. The temple's layout was hierarchical, with access restricted by status, but this was more about proximity to the divine presence rather than personal spiritual progression.
5. Purification to Keep the Body Pure and Intact:
   • Accurate: Purification rituals were indeed essential in Egyptian religion, especially for priests and during mummification, to ensure the body remained pure and could be preserved for the afterlife.
6. Anointing to Become a King and Priest:
   • Partially Accurate: Anointing was part of the coronation ritual of kings and some religious ceremonies, but it was not a widespread practice for all initiates in the temple. Kings were seen as priests, but this was specific to their role and not a general practice for all worshipers.
7. White Ceremonial Garment:
   • Accurate: Priests often wore white linen garments symbolizing purity, but this was more about ritual cleanliness than empowerment in a spiritual sense.
8. New Name Giving Power:
   • Partially Accurate: Names were indeed significant in Egyptian belief, as they were thought to contain power. However, the specific idea of receiving a new name during temple rituals as a way to gain power is not accurate for general temple worship.
9. Presence of Ma'at to Ensure Bonafide Candidate:
   • Accurate: Maat, representing truth and order, was central to Egyptian religion, and adherence to maat was crucial for both priests and the deceased in the afterlife.
10. Creation of Earth and Divine Actors:
    • Inaccurate: While creation myths were part of Egyptian religion, these were not reenacted in temple rituals in the way described. The idea of gods working under a higher god in creation is not a standard part of Egyptian myth.
11. Atum, Ptah, and Amon in Creation:
    • Inaccurate: This narrative does not reflect standard Egyptian creation myths, where Atum is often the creator god himself, and the other gods have different roles.
12. Garden Scene with Ished Tree and Serpent:
    • Inaccurate: The Ished tree is associated with the royal annals, but there is no specific garden scene involving a serpent that parallels what is described here.
13. Dangerous Journey and Atum as Guide:
    • Inaccurate: Egyptian mythology involves journeys in the afterlife (like the journey through the Duat), but the idea of Atum as a guide through legal and moral cleansing is not consistent with Egyptian beliefs.
14. Gates Representing Rebirth and Passwords:
    • Partially Accurate: The journey through the Duat involved passing through gates and giving passwords, but this was specific to the afterlife rather than temple worship and not about rebirth in the same way as other religious traditions.
15. Escape from Evil through Names:
    • Accurate: The use of names and knowledge of spells was indeed believed to protect the deceased from dangers in the afterlife.
16. Ritual Wounding or Blows:
    • Inaccurate: There is no evidence of ritual wounding or blows as part of Egyptian temple worship. This seems to be an imposition from other traditions.
17. Divine Embrace by Amon and Recognition Rites:
    • Inaccurate: The concept of a divine embrace and recognition rites with specific symbols is not part of Egyptian temple rituals. The symbols Ankh, Was, and Djed do have significance, but not in this context.
18. Theatrical Veil and Eternal Progression:
    • Inaccurate: There is no equivalent to a veil representing eternal progression in Egyptian temples. The focus was more on the pharaoh's role as intermediary between the gods and people.
19. Blaze of Glory in a Court with the Sun:
    • Inaccurate: While Egyptian temples often symbolized solar themes, the idea of ending a ceremony in a blaze of glory as described is not part of Egyptian temple worship.

Conclusion:

The descriptions provided mix elements of Egyptian religion with concepts that are more aligned with modern religious practices, possibly influenced by specific interpretations or comparisons. While some points have a basis in Egyptian beliefs, they do not accurately represent ancient Egyptian temple rituals as a whole.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But I asked ChatGPT what he thought. F

The AI tool which makes up things if it doesn’t have an answer?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The AI tool which makes up things if it doesn’t have an answer?

It’s the AI tool that passed the bar exam.

On this question, I trust ChatGPT 4 infinitely more than I trust Nibley. But you are free to believe whatever you want.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The AI tool which makes up things if it doesn’t have an answer?

Ward Radio recently featured a guy that also asked AI what he thought:

 

 

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It’s the AI tool that passed the bar exam.

On this question, I trust ChatGPT 4 infinitely more than I trust Nibley. But you are free to believe whatever you want.

I have used ChatGPT to help with difficult-to-answer questions at work.  I have learned not to depend on it to always answer correctly.  I have tested it by asking previously-researched questions.  I have found that one can ask a cut-to-the-chase type question and the answer simply is not correct.

But when I “lead” it by asking a series of smaller more fundamental questions, ChatGPT is forced to “consider” its previous response to maintain consistency — culminating in a final question with an answer that is quite different from the first “cut-to-the-chase” response.  For example, I took your first “inaccurate” result (point #2) above and asked ChatGPT a series of more fundamental questions:  

“Did the Egyptian religion include the concept of progression in the afterlife?”

Answer:  Yes (abbreviated)

”Did the Egyptian religion believe that familial relationships continue in the afterlife?”

Answer: Yes (abbreviated)

“If the Egyptian religion believed in progression in the afterlife as well as the continuation of familial relationships, does that mean the family played a role in progression?”

Answer:  “In summary, the family played a vital role in the deceased’s progression in the afterlife.”

“Did the family also progress in the afterlife?”

Answer:  “While ancient Egyptian religion primarily emphasized individual progression in the afterlife, there was a concept of collective familial progression as well. The family unit was seen as interconnected, with the success and well-being of each member in the afterlife contributing to the overall spiritual prosperity of the family. Familial relationships were believed to continue in the afterlife, and the actions of both the living and the dead played a role in ensuring the collective progression of the family in the eternal realm.”

To me, ChatGPT’s initial response (i.e., “inaccurate”) is — well — inaccurate.  When “forced” to deal with the big question via a series of smaller, more fundamental questions, ChatGPT’s answers change.  I have used this method to test ChatGPT with similar results on multiple occasions.  
 

By the way:  It is also quite interesting to compare and contrast ChatGPT’s answers to Copilot’s.  They do not always agree.

[PacMan]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

It’s the AI tool that passed the bar exam.

On this question, I trust ChatGPT 4 infinitely more than I trust Nibley. But you are free to believe whatever you want.

Completely unhelpful. But thank you. 

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I have used ChatGPT to help with difficult-to-answer questions at work.  I have learned not to depend on it to always answer correctly.  I have tested it by asking previously-researched questions.  I have found that one can ask a cut-to-the-chase type question and the answer simply is not correct.

But when I “lead” it by asking a series of smaller more fundamental questions, ChatGPT is forced to “consider” its previous response to maintain consistency — culminating in a final question with an answer that is quite different from the first “cut-to-the-chase” response.  For example, I took your first “inaccurate” result (point #2) above and asked ChatGPT a series of more fundamental questions:  

“Did the Egyptian religion include the concept of progression in the afterlife?”

Answer:  Yes (abbreviated)

”Did the Egyptian religion believe that familial relationships continue in the afterlife?”

Answer: Yes (abbreviated)

“If the Egyptian religion believed in progression in the afterlife as well as the continuation of familial relationships, does that mean the family played a role in progression?”

Answer:  “In summary, the family played a vital role in the deceased’s progression in the afterlife.”

“Did the family also progress in the afterlife?”

Answer:  “While ancient Egyptian religion primarily emphasized individual progression in the afterlife, there was a concept of collective familial progression as well. The family unit was seen as interconnected, with the success and well-being of each member in the afterlife contributing to the overall spiritual prosperity of the family. Familial relationships were believed to continue in the afterlife, and the actions of both the living and the dead played a role in ensuring the collective progression of the family in the eternal realm.”

To me, ChatGPT’s initial response (i.e., “inaccurate”) is — well — inaccurate.  When “forced” to deal with the big question via a series of smaller, more fundamental questions, ChatGPT’s answers change.  I have used this method to test ChatGPT with similar results on multiple occasions.  
 

By the way:  It is also quite interesting to compare and contrast ChatGPT’s answers to Copilot’s.  They do not always agree.

I was chatting with somebody at an airport lounge yesterday, and he said that his company was working on a big project and wanted to leverage AI. They called up a Big-4 accounting firm and asked for some help, and they said they had a team of “AI Prompt Engineers” who would be glad to help with the project for the reasonable rate of $1,100 per hour. That conversation is what inspired me to use Chat GPT to respond to PacMan. I’ve noticed the same thing that AI can be susceptible to leading questions. What’s more challenging is to ask questions that will be the most insightful, which should be trying to give answers without bias from leading questions.

I will state for the record that my prompt was geared to making Chat GPT answer this question as objectively as possible, with the context of whether the similarities and alleged similarities between Egyptian temples and Mormon temples are so similar that an explanation for that similarity is needed.  

 

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, PacMan said:

Completely unhelpful. But thank you. 

How so? To refresh, you asked:

"Now, if one of these points is inaccurate, I'd be interested to know."

An explanation of how many of these points are in fact inaccurate has been offered. 

We can disagree about whether ChatGPT4’s answer is adequate, but I do have one followup question for you:

In the context of Mormon temple worship, why would one expect Mormon temple ceremonies to resemble ancient Egyptian temple ceremonies rather than ancient Jewish temple ceremonies? 

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In the context of Mormon temple worship, why would one expect Mormon temple ceremonies to resemble ancient Egyptian temple ceremonies rather than ancient Jewish temple ceremonies? 

Because the Endowment of the House of the Lord is patterned after (higher) pre-Israelite religion, not the (lesser) Law of Moses.