- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hello, I am relatively new here. I have a question about the origins of the endowment ceremony. I do not wish to divulge anything that will upset anyone, so I will not go into detail, but courtesy of google I’ve become privy to some of the details of the endowment. I am also a freemason. There are aspects of the two that are almost identical. As freemasonry existed for several hundred years prior to Joseph Smith’s revelation, how is this explained? He used elements of his own exposure with freemasonry in creating the endowment. It really isn’t more complicated than that. Just to add a note of clarification, he never claimed that the endowment ceremony was given in vision form straight from God’s mouth to his mind to the pen. I view it as a grand morality play, with symbols and constructions that would make sense in the era of those viewing it. Many of the early leaders were freemasons, so those elements would have resonated with them.
Personally, I don’t have any problem with it, since I reject pretty much all variations of
ex nihilocreationism. I am on my way out the door, so I can’t post a lengthy response yet. This is a topic I love though. It is very interesting to me. To be clear on the rules of this forum, we are pretty open about nearly every topic. This is a touchy topic depending on the group. Here is the link to the rules of ettiquette for our board:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21 Specifically on the list of “don’ts:”
“No specific descriptions of the signs and tokens from the temple ceremony. General discussion about the content and nature of the ceremonies are fine.”
So feel free to discuss various aspects of the ceremony here, just not the signs and tokens. I believe that is the standard for Masonry as well (correct me if I am wrong).
I would love to hear more. Briefly, I currently see the temple ceremony as a 19th century creation of the mind of Joseph Smith. In contrast to that being the simple and mundane answer, I also believe it is the method Joseph saw as best for passing along a blueprint for an immensely valuable experience he wished people to achieve — that of a divine enlightenment. The mechanics of the ceremony are his creation. The “lifting up to God” experience JS wanted for people is through the symbology of the teaching method. The ceremony isn’t an end in and of itself. So I guess people could call me a symbolic and not a literal believer in the temple.
I think I will really limit what I say as this area of my testimony has been completely shaken and I no longer feel the temple is truth. I guess I take it all too literally or whatever but in my mind if it was all divine truth I do not understand why the endowment would need to be copied from the Masons in the first place, changed over time etc etc. I know many Brethren have made the comment over various times that what JS established was a “greater truth” then the freemasons had at that time but since discovering the connection, and the depth of that connection, and the amount of early leaders that were all into being Masons themselves etc, all credibility in the temple and its associated acts as being divine has now been lost on me, and I feel the whole secrecy thing had a lot more to do with the practice of plural marriage then anything else. I will be honest and say that my feelings regarding the temple in general do make staying LDS very hard as it seems “all paths lead to the temple” within the programs and teachings within the church. I am still pondering all of this. I am sorry if my feelings offend any of you reading my post.
Anyway I just wanted to present another side (ie a less then positive one) to how some people may feel about the connection of the endowment and masonary.
SallyM wrote:in my mind if it was all divine truth I do not understand why the endowment would need to be copied from the Masons in the first place, changed over time etc etc. I know many Brethren have made the comment over various times that what JS established was a “greater truth” then the freemasons had at that time but since discovering the connection
At the time of Joseph Smith, there were some groups of masons that asserted their rituals were descended from Solomon’s temple. That was a common belief at the time [edit: among masons]. Yes. Early church leaders took that theme [what the Masons said about their ceremony] and interpreted the new endowment as being a restoration of “true masonry.” I believe there are quotes from JS and BY to that effect. It wouldn’t be the first thing I thought people had gotten wrong in the past. That just isn’t correct IMO. They were wrong, but it sounded pretty good at the time. They believed it. Does it matter though? In some ways it does I suppose, but not so much to me personally now.
Masons generally do not hold that position anymore about the origins of their ceremonies. They have done a LOT of research on the topic, which is near and dear to them. There is no evidence that masonry goes back farther than the around the 1700’s (at least the form Joseph Smith encountered).
Now here is a point that I argue: People talk about the endowment being a copy of the the rites from the first 3 degrees of masonry. That simply isn’t substantive in my opinion. The only things that are close copies are the signs and tokens (which we can’t discuss directly here). A few aspects of dress are similar, an apron being about the only major thing. Beyond that, the mystery plays presented in both Mormon and Masonic temples are on completely different subjects.
I argue there being very little similarity. They both use similar methods to convey teachings and symbols. The Mormons tell a story of the creation, the fall of adam and eve, and redemption. The masons tell a story of Hiram Abiff in Solomon’s temple, and take the initiate on a personal journey much different.
Some handshakes and icons are the same, an apron is worn as part of the apparel, but beyond that there isn’t that much similarity to me.
Valoel beat me to the “it’s much more different than similar” point. That, ultimately, is the biggest reason I have no problem with it. I see the entire temple ceremonies as figurative, so the exact nature of the symbolism just doesn’t bug me. I like the experience, so I’m fine with it. I believe there is a great Mormon Stories Podcast in the StayLDS.com Library by Greg Kearney. He is both LDS and a mason and presents some very compelling ideas about the subject. I found it very helpful in explaining the similarities between the two. One point in particular is key IMO to the reason early Church leaders believed that the endowment was a restoration of true masonry. The masonic initiation tells a story of Hiram Abiff (the master architect) going to different exits of Solomon’s Temple in an attempt to escape pursuit, and being confronted by a villian character that wants one of the secret keys from him. The tokens and secrets are given to the initiate in the masonic ceremony; HOWEVER, the final secret was lost when Hiram Abiff was killed. Masonry does not know the final key (this is explained in their ceremony). They have what they call a “substitute” key, which they use in the ceremony, until some future day when the true final key is revealed or rediscovered. So…. In comes Joseph Smith with his endowment ceremony. We have a 4th key, the one revealed at the veil. This IMO is why it was such a popular idea in the early days of the Church that the endowment was a restoration of “ture masonry.”
1. Most of the men receiving the endowment from JS and BY were already Masons and knew this story.
2. Those that were masons were “raised up” in lodges that taught Masonry as decending from Solomon’s Temple (literal interpretation of their ceremony).
3. The Mormon Endowment has a final key, which is a focal point of the ceremony, and the connection is made in their minds to the missing key in Masonry.
So they believe that the endowment *IS* the real ceremony from Solomon’s temple, that Masonry has a corrupted version through stone mason workers, and is now complete because JS had the final secret revealed.
The main problems with this are: Masonry has pretty much confirmed through their own internal research that they are NOT decended from workers at Solomon’s Temple. Most lodges seem to make it clear that their rites are symbolic, but nevertheless “true.” The second problem is that it seems very unlikely that an “endowment” as we know it today was practiced in ancient Jewish temples either.
So what do we, specifically us here as Mormons today that question things and dig down to this level, do with this information? We each have to decide that for ourselves. None of this bothers me that much. That is just my reaction to it. I think I approach it that way because I spent a lot of time studying metaphysical texts related to temple symbolism for several years before I came across the “crisis of faith” type of confrontation. I more or less already believed the endowment and the temple was symbolic and important, but not so directly literal.
The ideas and symbols in both masonry and mormonism are found all over the world among ancient religions. They seem to me like ideas that very deep-thinking people have approached for all of human history. I see it all as a divine impulse towards something. In my day, the endowment is one cultural permutation or attempt at approaching something that is very difficult for our minds and souls to contain.
Just to add to what Valoel and Ray have already said so well, the “story” of the temple that JS was trying to portray is not only significantly different than the Masonic ritual story, it is really a unique concept to Mormonism: that throughout all time, the human experience has always been essentially the same and there has always been a Savior (pre-Christ Christology). This is in fact a very unique religious perspective in the scope of what he was communicating. It adds (restores?) a clearer strategic view than can be found elsewhere. In a very real way, the temple is more focused on Christ than our weekly worship is. The caveat is that people are not as symbolic (or interested in symbolism) as they were when JS was putting this together. We just don’t communicate this way. Symbolism was to JS what parables were to Christ. And, both can be hard to understand or to connect with.
hmmm….. I think that Joseph was really a prophet. That ‘God’ (be that whatever he/she may be) taught him important stuff about him/her and then told him to teach it to others. Thus, the Church was born, as a vehicle to teach ‘better’ things about the relationship between God and man. AND it was all done as a “restoration” of Christianity. Or in other words, Joseph took the basic framework of Christianity and CHANGED it, modified it to fit the ‘new old’ truths that Christ taught him.
Move now to the temple and Freemasonry. Same story. For many years before Joseph introduced the temple ceremonies, God had been telling him stuff about temples and washings and anointings and keys to mysteries, etc. LONG before Joseph became a Mason. So there was this build-up of information. But JS didn’t quite know what to do with it. There was an experiment in Kirtland, but that endowment was nothing like the Nauvoo endowment. Why?
I think it’s because when he saw the Freemason’s temple rites, the light dawned and he could see, finally, how to present all the material that God had been feeding him in one fell swoop. But he had to make substantial changes— Freemasons didn’t allow women to join. So Joseph swapped out Hiram for Adam & Eve. And so forth. But he kept a sort-of framework to couch it all in, that the people of the day were familiar with. So we still have artifacts like the “five points of fellowship” that we just lost in 1990. That is still done in Freemasonry, but we don’t know for how much longer.
The Masons have changed their temple rites just as much (well, more really, considering a greater passage of time) than we have. The point is the concepts being presented, the impact on the Saints, the faith it allows us to act on, not the nit-picky details. Can we really believe that a spiritual piercing of the veil is possible? The temple is there to tell us IT CAN. And, IMO, not in the afterlife, either. That is the genius (and inspiration, IMO) of Joseph Smith, the guy who probably didn’t really want to be president of the Church, but God wouldn’t leave him alone.
HiJolly
I read something fascinating about this and I think it was over at mormonmatters I will summarise the basic points that hit me (disclaimer I take no credit for the content and am not trying to infringe any copyright)
Basically we have here in J.S. a man who was not really well educated
Most people that were coming to the church at that time had the same kind of education as himself not that good
So when Joseph was pondering the way to teach all these deep doctrines to the saints – he at first didnt know what to do
through a chain of events he joined the masons and saw a group of men (yes only men in the masons) learning all these things by MEMORY
all these things they had to do and they could LEARN IT
this meant that in that time the saints could memorize this kind of ceremony and get to understanding what was behind it
so he adapted and used it
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.