- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
While we don’t talk specifically about temple signs and tokens and sacred matters, the ceremony and ordinances going on in the temple are of such importance to today’s church, I wonder how the group feels about the history of temple ceremonies. Answer the poll question and discuss why you chose your option.
Here is one quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to provide some food for thought:
Quote:The individuals who toiled as pilgrims to reach the waters of life that flowed from the temple were not passive spectators. They came to obtain knowledge and regeneration, the personal attainment of eternal life and glory. This goal the individual attempted to achieve through purification (washing), initiation, and rejuvenation, which symbolize death, rebirth, and resurrection.
In Solomon’s temple, a large bronze font was used for ritual washings, and in the Second Temple period, people at Jerusalem spent much of their time in immersions and ablutions. Baptism is one specific ordinance always mentioned in connection with the temple. “When one is baptized one becomes a Christian,” writes Cyril, “exactly as in Egypt by the same rite one becomes an Osiris” (Patrologiae Latinae 12:1031), that is, by initiation into immortality. The baptism in question is a washing rather than a baptism, since it is not by immersion. According to Cyril, this is followed by an anointing, making every candidate, as it were, a messiah. The anointing of the brow, face, ears, nose, breast, etc., represents “the clothing of the candidate in the protective panoply of the Holy Spirit,” which however does not hinder the initiate from receiving a real garment on the occasion (CWHN 4:364). Furthermore, according to Cyril, the candidate was reminded that the whole ordinance is “in imitation of the sufferings of Christ,” in which “we suffer without pain by mere imitation his receiving of the nails in his hands and feet: the antitype of Christ’s sufferings” (Patrologiae Graecae 33:1081). The Jews once taught that Michael and Gabriel will lead all the sinners up out of the lower world: “they will wash and anoint them, healing them of their wounds of hell, and clothe them with beautiful pure garments and bring them into the presence of God” (R. Akiba, cited in CWHN 4:364).
LOSS OF THE TEMPLE ORDINANCES. The understanding of the temple and its ancient rites was eventually corrupted and lost for several reasons.
Both Jews and Christians suffered greatly at the hands of their enemies because of the secrecy of their rites, which they steadfastly refused to discuss or divulge because of their sanctity. This caused misunderstanding and opened the door to unbridled fraud: Gnostic sects claimed to have the lost rites and ordinances of the apostles and Patriarchs of old. Splinter groups and factions arose. A common cause of schism, among both Jews and Christians, was the claim of a particular group that it alone still possessed the mysteries of God.
The rites became the object of various schools of interpretation. Indeed, mythology is largely an attempt to explain the origin and meaning of rituals that people no longer understand. For example, the Talmud tells of a pious Jew who left Jerusalem in disgust wondering, “What answer will the Israelites give to Elijah when he comes?” since the scholars did not agree on the rites of the temple (Pesahim 70b; on the role of Elijah, see A. Wiener, The Prophet Elijah in the Development of Judaism [London, 1978], pp. 68-69).
Ritual elements were widely copied and usurped. The early Christian fathers claimed that pagan counterparts had been stolen from older legitimate sources, and virtually every major mythology tells of a great usurper who rules the world.
Comparative studies have discovered a common pattern in all ancient religions and have traced processes of diffusion that spread ideas throughout the world. The task of reconstructing the original prototype from the scattered fragments has been a long and laborious one, and it is far from complete, but an unmistakable pattern emerges (CWHN 4:367).
…
THE RESTORATION AND THE TEMPLE. Latter-day Saint temples fully embody the uncorrupted functions and meanings of the temple. Did the Prophet Joseph Smith reinvent all this by reassembling the fragments-Jewish, Orthodox, Masonic, Gnostic, Hindu, Egyptian, and so forth? In fact, few of the fragments were available in his day, and those poor fragments do not come together of themselves to make a whole. Latter-day Saints see in the completeness and perfection of Joseph Smith’s teachings regarding the temple a sure indication of divine revelation. This is also seen in the design of the Salt Lake Temple. One can note its three levels; eastward orientation; central location in Zion; brazen sea on the back of twelve oxen holding the waters through which the dead, by proxy, pass to eternal life; rooms appointed for ceremonies rehearsing the creation of the world; and many other symbolic features.
There was a Mormon Stories episode a while back with Greg Kearney, a master mason and 6th generation Mormon. It was really good. The similarities to masonry are striking, and I don’t know how you can see it an other way. Cool poll! I didn’t know we could do that here.
I think they constituted the wisdom of the time. Yes, there definitely are some similarities with the ancient Israelite tabernacle and the Jewish temple, but the ordinances certainly are very different.
Kearney thought that JS used the masonic ceremony as a way to teach and said without going into detail that most of the temple ceremony was identical to the masonic version. I think that JS adopted it as a way of introducing charisma and making his inner circle feel special and apart. Back in the ’50s I was watching a TV show about Robin Hood and saw him given the five points of fellowship by a master mason so he could go to a neighboring city and enter a guild hall. It was a bit of a surprise to go through the temple for the first time in 1964 and see it again. The changes over the last nearly 50 years have been interesting. I guess I’ll leave it at that. MH, I also found that podcast interesting, although in some areas I felt he was stretching some connections, but for the most part it was very interesting and pretty clear where influences are seen. Ray, I would agree with your statement and think it is the same as church organization. We claim a restoration, but while the church has some similarities with the ancient church, it is certainly very different in regards to specific ordinances and structure. It is adapted by prophets to meet our needs in our day, temple included, right?
GB, good post. When I think of the changes from Kirtland to Nauvoo to Utah to today, it seems that if changes occur in those time frames, it is likely it will continue to change in the future, and very unlikely it was the exact same back in history. As a people, it seems change is the constant, and grasping on to certainty in our church can be a risk. My question for you…the quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states
Quote:“Latter-Day Saints see in the completeness and perfection of Joseph Smith’s teachings regarding the temple a sure indication of divine revelation.”
Can it be complete and perfect and also change considerably since JS?
Heber13 wrote:My question for you…the quote from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states
Quote:“Latter-Day Saints see in the completeness and perfection of Joseph Smith’s teachings regarding the temple a sure indication of divine revelation.”
Can it be complete and perfect and also change considerably since JS?
For me, no. The ceremony has changed because people have wanted it changed, because of things that were upsetting to them, both teachings and ritual. And I don’t see how you can describe the teachings as complete or perfect when so much of substance has changed. Some would argue that the message is the same and only parts of the ritual have been either done away with or modified but it isn’t. The way I see it it’s why JS did it not what he did. People become masons, oddfellows, eastern star, knights or pythias, etc. becuase they want to be special and different and that, to me, is why JS added the temple and all that went with it. We’ve all been initiated into a modern mystery “cult” and it keeps us tied and committed to the group. Sorry for the rant but it’s been a thorn in my paw for a long time.
I voted for “other” because I think it’s a complicated mixture of all those answers. Before I start my deconstruction answer, I want to say that it is perfectly acceptable to see the temple ceremonies as revealed and/or restored from God. If you want to include the changes since the early prototype in Kirtland, then you can decide it was restored over time (polished and refined); or you can also decide there is a core revelation/restoration with non-eternal parts that can be adapted over time to fit the needs of people (i.e. the Sabbath is for man, not the man for the Sabbath).
My deconstruction:
I strongly disagree that the LDS temple ceremony is just a copy of masonry. That is far far too reductionist! To me, it’s like saying that baseball and tennis are the same sport: they both have players that run, hit a ball with a stick and score points. The balls are pretty much the same size too. Therefore, tennis and baseball are the same thing.
Some of the key symbols, signs and tokens in the LDS temple ceremony are the same as in a Masonic initiation, but the purposes are not the same, and the story or initiation narratives are completely different. They are both initiation ceremonies, that is true. It’s like my tennis vs. baseball comparison. They are both sports with a ball.
Mystical initiations are as old as human civilization. So you can see this as a divinely inspired process that becomes corrupted and restored many times (which doesn’t match our Correlated narrative either), or as simply something humans feel a deep need to enact from our social evolution. Either way, it has always been with us. The symbols and archetypal concepts are so universal that you will find them in every culture all throughout time. Take the garment/veil symbols for example. Those IMO are
CLEARLYthe classic geometer’s tools for the age-old puzzle called “squaring the circle.” This dates back at least 4,000 years as a symbolic wisdom exercise. All cultures that develop mathematics have this at some point as a “sacred” wisdom teaching — how to merge the earth and the heavens, how to harmonize the spirit and the flesh, how to find the perfect ratio and balance between the real and the abstract ideal. So you can decide to see that perhaps as a teaching given to the first humans by the gods (aka the Adam & Eve story) that comes and goes through corruption and restoration. Or you can see it as a universal and eternal truth that we discover/recover over and over again.
In the end, Joseph was a great collector of religious ideas. He was inspired or felt free to cherry pick some of the best esoteric wisdom traditions available to him, and to sculpt those into the higher ceremonial traditions in Mormonism. Why do we look around and see the temple all over the place in ancient history (brass fonts, oxen, temple symbols, ancestor veneration, etc.)? Well, I personally think it’s because Joseph was a huge fan of the Old Testament and also the European Mystery School traditions (which carried on Egyptian and Greek mystery traditions, Isis/Osiris worship, etc.). BTW, Freemasonry draws from those same deep wells of tradition.
What is REALLY cool about it is there is pretty much no other significant western, Christian religious tradition that seems comfortable with these things. I happen to connect with them and find them inspiring. I think it’s cool we have this stuff in our religion, even if I am not attached to our particular Correlation story about how we got them.
That’s a great answer, Brian. Would you agree that if we used your tennis analogy, ancient civilizations may have had racquetball or squash or cricket (as an example, not literal sports ancient history being discussed here) but we don’t have tennis today because of tennis in ancient civilizations? Does that analogy work?
To me, clearly the temple serves a purpose and I’m glad it is in our religion too. I’m just trying to do the “symbolic wisdom exercise” to add more meaning to it for me and my experience.
Voted “Other”. JS clearly used Masonic symbols. BY institutionalized those symbols into something divine (my opinion). That doesn’t mean that it is just made up, though. I voted other, because I think the temple did try to coalesce various elements, including the ancient. For example, according to the NT, there was a veil in the temple (which was rent, when Jesus died on the cross). The temple altar is another component from the old world.
The matter of whether there is offense to be taken in the Masonic symbols is an interesting tidbit in Mormonology. To me, when I used to attend the temple, I was there more to BE IN the temple, or for the FEELING of the temple, than the specifics of the ritual. I’m guessing it’s the same for most of you. Given that, I would say that the temple rites, like all religious rituals, are less important, and the implication of them is more important. When a person is baptized, they are not literally washing away anything. If in NT times, the ritual had been defined as removing one hat and putting on another, then that’s what we’d be doing today, and we’d all talk about the rich symbolism of it. If some obscure person on a forum said, “imagine that baptism were immersing a person in water”, then we’d all kind of chuckle to ourselves. The temple ritual is just a progression of story, covenants, and personal acting in a play meant to represent the existence, purpose, and potential of mankind. JS and BY may have had a very human hand in forming the ritual itself, but they didn’t make up the ideas of the creation, the fall, the Messiah, commitment to God, and salvation. They just organized it into a tangible experience to be performed in a sacred occasion, allowing us to come near to God and to commit ourselves to him. In that way, it’s a parallel concept to baptism.
To me, it makes no difference whether some of the symbols that JS/BY built into the temple rites were borrowed or even stolen from Freemasonry, as long as the overall effect is the construction of a ritual that helps us frame our dedication to God.
On Own Now wrote:To me, it makes no difference whether some of the symbols that JS/BY built into the temple rites were borrowed or even stolen from Freemasonry, as long as the overall effect is the construction of a ritual that helps us frame our dedication to God.
The question I have, then, is the temple there to help us “frame our dedication to God” or is it necessary to our exaltation in a literal way such that without the signs, tokens, and keywords we can never return to the presence of God?
GBSmith wrote:The question I have, then, is the temple there to help us “frame our dedication to God” or is it necessary to our exaltation in a literal way such that without the signs, tokens, and keywords we can never return to the presence of God?
In my opinion, it’s the former; in Brigham Young’s opinion, it is the latter.
I just tend to look for the message behind the symbols more than some.
In the temple there are covenants that LDS adherents make. What if you don’t live up to your covenants, but you still know the signs and tokens… Of course, you don’t get in to heaven. What if you faithfully live the covenants, but forget the signs and tokens because you have a bad memory. I’m assuming you get into heaven anyway.
So, to me, the signs and tokens are just representative, in the interactive play that is the endowment, of our living up to the covenants that we have made.
I love the temple and the symbolism in it, but I don’t think ANYTHING is literally necessary – and I certainly don’t believe the tokens and signs will be shown and verbalized in the hereafter. I also don’t like the completeness and perfection quote about Joseph’s teachings. It isn’t consistent in any way with history OR Joseph’s own words.
Old-Timer wrote:I love the temple and the symbolism in it, but I don’t think ANYTHING is literally necessary – and I certainly don’t believe the tokens and signs will be shown and verbalized in the hereafter.
I also don’t like the completeness and perfection quote about Joseph’s teachings. It isn’t consistent in any way with history OR Joseph’s own words.
So, genealogy and seeking after your kindred dead, baptisms and confirmations, washings and anointings, ordinations, endowments, sealings. If not literally necessary then what’s the point? To make me a better person for going through a ritual that doesn’t do what we’re told it does? A test of obediance? Help me out here. Just how many things can you say don’t really matter and still be LDS?
I obviously said what I meant to say really badly, GB. Let me try to say it better: I don’t think the EXACT actions performed in the temple are eternal actions that MUST occur for each and every person who has lived throughout history for those people to be saved / exalted in the kingdom / presence of God. If circumcision could be replaced by baptism as a sign of a people’s covenant relationship with God, then I’m open to just about ANY sign of that sort of covenant relationship. (Seriously, cutting off a bit of someone’s penis changed to immersing them in water?! There is absolutely NO connection there, EXCEPT the symbolism behind the actions.) It’s not the exact FORM of one’s actions that I believe is important; it’s the intent and symbolism of those actions that I think is critical, important, vital, significant, empowering, etc.
So, I believe in LDS temple work passionately for what it represents and symbolizes – but I could feel the same way if the exact nature of the actions was something totally different. Thus, I don’t think the actions themselves need to be taken literally (in the sense that we use to extrapolate baptism back to Adam, which I just don’t believe at all) – but I do believe the purpose / symbolism behind them is literal and powerful.
I wrote once that if jumping around like a monkey while barking like a dog somehow carried deep, symbolic meaning and purpose for a people, and if they chose, therefore, to enact sacred rituals in which they jumped around like monkeys and barked like dogs, I would have NO problem with that – none, at all. If they were able to feel close to God in that manner, if they really were able to tap into the divine in that way, God bless them and keep them. I wouldn’t try in any way to shatter that and substitute something that wouldn’t resonate with them and create that same wonder and relationship, just because their format wouldn’t work for me. Therefore, I can appreciate much of what I see in lots of religious / sacred traditions and sometimes gain much from borrowing elements that actually do resonate with me – symbolically.
I do believe that SOME form of communal “ordinances / ritual” is important – that, literally, people have to create some form of worship that draws them to God. That, imo, is literal – and I personally LOVE the way that it is structured in Mormonism in the temple. I love the concept and principle of turning our hearts to our ancestors and believing that they have turned their hearts to us. I wish BADLY that we as a people would look at temple ordinances more like Jacob (not the prophet) described in a post on BCC recently (
http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/03/07/generational-translation-and-work-for-the-dead/ Does that make more sense, GB?
It does but I wouldn’t want to bring it up in Gospel Doctrine and expect to get a pass from your bishop about it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.