October 31, 2009

Review: Matthew B. Brown's "Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons"

Title: Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons
Author: Matthew B. Brown
Publisher: Covenant
Genre: Apologetics/History
Year: 2009
Pages: 211
ISBN13: 9781598118933
ISBN10: 1598118935
Price: 19.95

The connection between Latter-day Saint temple ceremonies and Freemasonry has yet to be fully explored. To be frank, the connections may never be adequately explored due to the obligations of privacy placed upon participants of the respective rites. Of course, this hasn’t stopped exposé artists from publishing details about Mormon and Mason rites—including Captain Morgan’s 1827 book on Masonry and the Salt Lake Tribune’s 1878 publication of a former Mormon’s recollections of LDS ceremonies. These pot-boilers only hamper fruitful dialog. Several brave cartographers have attempted to respectfully navigate the issues, providing various maps comparing the rites.1 Matthew B. Brown’s latest book Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons hopes to take the conversation “a few significant steps forward” (Brown, p. 1). Before discussing the specifics regarding Exploring, I want to provide a territorial guide of a few trails thus far trod—four general LDS approaches to the Mormon/Mason topic.2 I’ll situate Exploring within that dialog then briefly review its contents chapter by chapter.

Maps of Masonism & Mormonry

1. The LDS endowment is a ritual that was revealed directly to Joseph Smith and is unchanging in every respect from all eternity. It has no relationship whatsoever to Masonic rituals.

This is the weakest of the four options. I don’t recall anyone ever making this claim, including Joseph Smith and his contemporaries. Even the most casual study of the two rituals would eliminate it as an explanation.

2. The LDS endowment has been revealed during different time periods beginning in antiquity. It was revealed during the time of Solomon’s Temple from whence the Masons acquired it. As part of the apostasy the endowment was changed over the centuries. It was revealed exactly as it was in the beginning to Joseph Smith in 1842, independent of his becoming a Mason.

Brown does a fine job of putting the first part of this theory to rest, pointing out there is no conclusive historical evidence showing a direct descent from Solomon’s Temple to current Freemasonry. 

3. LDS and Masonic ceremonies share a connection to rituals used in Old and New Testament times. The Masons acquired certain specific elements of the ritual from the orthodox Christian Church (medieval monks, etc.) and passed it along with some changes, whereas the entire endowment was revealed anew to Joseph Smith, independent of his involvement in Freemasonry. 

As discussed in the rest of the review, this is close to Brown’s position.

4. Joseph Smith used the 19th century Masonic ritual as a template for the development of the endowment ritual in addition to revealed instructions and scripture from God.

This is the approach of Greg Kearney and others.3

I personally see the best argument residing somewhere between options three and four, and that Masonry played some role in Joseph Smith’s formulating many of the already-revealed temple principles into an enacted and institutionalized ritual. There are interesting similarities between Masonic elements and early Christian initiation rites and ceremonies, but the historical record is too vague to provide a reliable genealogy of influence either way. Brown situates himself under number three, arguing that the elements of the endowment were fully revealed to Joseph Smith independent of Masonry.

Chapter 1: “The Lord’s House and the Mason’s Lodge” (pp. 7-23).
In the first chapter, Brown contrasts LDS Temples and Masonic lodges by answering a set of ten questions for each tradition. He is careful to employ “common courtesy” by using “respected” sources for each tradition and avoiding discussion of more private elements (p. 7). He is also careful to mainly contrast as opposed to compare; similarities are downplayed and differences exaggerated. He concludes: “The fundamental natures of the two institutions (as presently constituted) are completely opposite each other” (p. 14). This overstatement doesn’t fruitfully account for similarities that could better help members of the Church understand and appreciate the role ritual can play in binding a community together, be it Masonic or Mormon. Brown’s decision in this chapter to contrast the institutions “as presently constituted” misses the opportunity to compare similarities that existed during the milieu when Joseph first administered the endowment. The possibilities for comparison here are ripe!

For instance, consider Brown’s question: “Who is allowed to enter within their walls?” Comparing the requirements for entry is a fascinating subject and because interview requirements have changed over time for both groups an entire chapter could have been devoted to this question alone. Worthiness interviews, recommendation of current members, qualifications—and these possibilities are latent in only one of Brown’s ten questions from this short chapter.4 Again, the goal of the chapter seems to be to describe differences rather than to trace respective historical developments or influences.

Chapter 2 “From Stonemasons to Freemasons” (pp. 25-39).
This chapter digs at the foundations of Freemasonry as an institution to discover where it came from, as opposed to where the actual “practices” came from (p. 41). Brown rightly notes: “Masonic history is very problematic for historians” (p. 25).

This is probably Brown’s strongest historically-based chapter. After describing a few of the best available primary sources on the subject he explains the “romantic school” and the “authentic school” of Masonic history—the first is older, based largely on lore, while the second makes better use of contemporary academic tools. The authentic school has practically overturned the romantic idea that Masonry directly descended from workers on Solomon’s Temple. Brown follows suit—an important and responsible conclusion based on the available historical data and current thought on the matter. Even though the romantic idea is all but demolished, however, “there seems to be no solid consensus on where the Masonic organization and its rituals came from” (p. 28) so historians currently offer a best plausible case and leave it at that. In the rest of the chapter Brown does likewise, outlining the “operative” origins of the movement (consisting of actual masons of stone who created a sort of workers union in the 1300s) to the “speculative” Freemasons who “do not [necessarily] engage in any such physical activities but are concerned with integrating a system of ethics into their lives” (p. 28). Brown briefly describes religious, political and social influences, internecine Masonic debates, and the ideological backgrounds of key participants, up to 1813 when Joseph Smith turned eight years old (p. 34). This is a subject that could fill volumes but Brown does a workable job in fourteen pages. A full treatment from an LDS perspective has yet to be completed.

Chapter 3 “The Origins of Masonic Practice” (41-67).
This chapter is where much of the meat ought to be. It's also one of the most challenging historical questions of the venture. Exploring reads more like a summary of potential starting points than a set of documented conclusions here. For Brown, “Orthodox Christianity is the place to start looking when it comes to the question of Masonic origins” (p. 42). Though he leaves out many specifics, he lists similarities between Masonic lodges and early Christian churches in architecture, ornament, furniture, and symbolism. Next he notes a parallels between Masonic ceremonies and early Christian initiation rites including catechism formulae, dramatization, oaths and obligations, and secrecy.

Some of the parallels seem quite striking on the surface and I wish Brown spent more time detailing specific connections and actually arguing for (or demonstrating) connection or dependence; admittedly a particularly sticky realm for historians. This chapter seemed incomplete.

Chapter 4 “Freemasonry in Nauvoo” (69-83).
Brown breezes through the institution of Masonry at Nauvoo in fifteen pages. His history of the actual intersection of Masonry and Mormonism begins in this chapter in the year 1841. Unfortunately, this leaves unexplored the previous interactions Joseph Smith and other Mormons had with the institution prior to the petition to start a Nauvoo lodge—a  critical gap in the book. (Fortunately he does include useful bios of nine participants of the first LDS endowment session including their Masonic involvement and degree in the next chapter, pp. 106-111.)

He argues that Masonry was implemented largely under the influence of John C. Bennett and there is “no evidence Joseph Smith played a direct role” in establishing a lodge among the Saints (pp. 69-70). Nevertheless, Brown says Joseph would have seen the attraction of Masonry in its capacity to forge alliances with non-Mormons and other influential people throughout Illinois. Or, in the words of Lorenzo Snow, it could help “obtain influence in furtherance of the purposes of the Lord.”5 After describing the process of installing a lodge at Nauvoo he notes Joseph Smith’s initiation into Freemasonry which took place on 15-16 March 1842 (p. 73). He dispels the myth that Joseph was made a “Mason at sight” in that Joseph actually participated in the Masonic initiation rituals (p. 74).

After a somewhat confusing table of dates listing when Joseph participated in other Masonic ceremonies Brown notes a forty-eight day interim between Joseph’s becoming a Master Mason on 16 March 1842 and his institution of the temple endowment on 4 May 1842 (p. 77). Over the next four pages he lists an “abbreviated day-by-day accounting of what the Prophet is known to have been doing during this time frame” as described in vol. 4 of the History of the Church (pp. 78-81). It’s unclear what is paraphrase and what is left out of this accounting, and Brown doesn’t investigate what sources the information in that volume of the History of the Church was gleaned from, so this accounting seems problematic.6

Brown concludes the chapter arguing that Joseph was “an exceptionally busy man who had little time to prepare for the inauguration of the endowment” during the forty-eight day interim he outlined, and his limited involvement with Masonry indicates he did not rely upon it to help formulate the endowment (p. 81). Instead, “when a much broader survey of time is taken by the student of the past and the events of history are scrutinized in a much more careful manner” it will become obvious that “the Nauvoo-era temple ordinances and doctrines did not suspiciously materialize after Joseph Smith became a Freemason” (pp. 85, 98). Which leads to the next chapter.

Chapter 5 “Return to Mount Zion” (pp. 85-102). 17
Here Brown traces a chronology from Joseph’s first conversations with the angel Moroni in 1823 to Joseph’s death in 1844, tracing revelations that would inform the endowment ceremony proper. Temple themes are pinpointed in the instructions from angelic messengers like Moroni, John the Baptist, Elias, Elijah and others, as well as chapters from the inspired translation of the Bible resulting in the Book of Moses. This is an interesting chapter arguing that the concepts, keys, and rituals of the endowment were made known to Joseph before he actually became a Freemason in 1842.

I enjoyed many of the parallels Brown included, he points out concepts in Doctrine and Covenants section 76 that I hadn’t considered in light of the Temple before, for instance. But at the same time Brown flatly rejects the possibility that Masonry provided a Joseph with a useful tool to help formulate the endowment, which has been a successful apologetic angle for other LDS writers.  

Chapter 6 “A Provisional Temple” (pp. 105-123).
Next, Joseph’s institution of the endowment on 4 May, 1842 is described. Brown adroitly avoids specifics that might make Latter-day Saints uncomfortable outside of the sacred space of the temple. He includes Joseph’s interesting follow-up instructions to Brigham Young, that “this is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies.”7

This is another area that demands fuller attention than Exploring affords—how to untangle the endowment as given by Joseph compared to what later became more “set in stone” over time. Evidently, Joseph himself acknowledged some flexibility and adaptation regarding the endowment in his instructions to Young, who later assisted Wilford Woodruff and others in formulating the ritual. Brown rightly notes none of the brethren accused Joseph of stealing from the endowment despite their being Masons; indeed, they saw it as part of the restoration of apostatized elements of true religion. Discovering where the soul of the endowment meets its body, so to speak, is perhaps the most difficult task facing a Mormon historian on this subject.8 Again, this chapter left me wanting more.

Chapter 7 “History, Theory and Myth” (pp. 125-169).
The longest chapter addresses “fifteen of the more commonly championed ideas about the relationship between Mormonism and Masonry” (p. 125). In question two Brown argues directly against the idea that Joseph would have “borrowed” elements from Freemasons in constructing the endowment, emphasizing Joseph’s statement that the “ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed,” and that God would “not acknowledge that which He has not called, ordained, and chosen.”9 However, one should
still consider, in light of these statements, Joseph’s own instructions that the endowment still needed formulating even after his death. Moreover, this simply begs the question as to how influential God and man are in the process of revelation itself—an area budding with possibilities for analysis, especially with the Joseph Smith Papers Project in full motion.10

Brown confronts some of the statements of early Church leaders to the effect that the temple endowment is “true Masonry,” or “Freemasonry as being a counterfeit of the true Masonry of the Latter-day Saints.” He rightly concludes many of these Saints were informed by the “Romantic school” of Masonic origins tracing it back to Solomon’s Temple, and thus would have understood Masonry as being a more directly apostate version of the endowment (pp. 153-154). Earlier in the book he outlines a less direct, but still Christian-influenced source for many Masonic elements (see chapter 3).

Brown’s fifteen questions are interesting, but Exploring runs through them too quickly without enough time to sit near a stream and stretch ones legs before moving to the next turn in the trail and I could think of fifteen more before the book was over.

Appendices, etc. 
Brown’s first appendix, “Early Mormon Symbolism” (pp. 171-177), is too skimpy to provide much food for thought, it is a list of some scripture references and quotes that touch on temple or Masonic elements from Mormon sources. The second appendix, “An LDS View of Derivation” (pp. 179-181), lists seven one-line quotes from early Mormons to the effect that similarities between Masonry and Mormonism exist “because Masonry is a product of apostasy or degeneration from a priesthood-based prototype” (p. 179). Perhaps it would have been better simply to include the quotes directly in one of the chapters instead. Brown doesn’t provide a rubric regarding the reliability of any given quote, though he sometimes notes the problematic nature of late reminiscences when they counter his theories.11 A rubric isn’t necessarily required in every historical work, but it would have been useful for Brown to be more consistent or explicit regarding what quotes he employed or doubted. A thirteen-page selected bibliography and a thirteen page Index round out the book at 211 pages.

In sum, Exploring does not provide enough evidence of the direct dependence of Masonry on ancient Christian rites, though it outlines many interesting possibilities that deserve fuller attention. Overall it feels incomplete and I disagree with some of Brown’s conclusions. More importantly, I was more interested in questions Brown didn't ask, such as how do the shared elements inform Masons and Mormons differently? Why have Masonic rituals been resilient over so many centuries and how are they holding up currently compared to how temple ceremonies continue to inform the faith of today's Latter-day Saints? I enjoyed  elements of the book that provided interesting food for thought from some of the revelations Joseph Smith received that later informed the endowment; there are enough leads to keep a reader busy if they want to dig into the sources. Exploring takes the third trail described in my imperfect taxonomy above, but the definitive work on the connection between Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry has yet to be fully mapped.

See for example, Michael W. Homer, “Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry”: The Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27 (Fall): 2-113, and Greg Kearney, "The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry," 2005 FAIR Conference.

My gratitude to Greg Kearney for his e-mailed advice as I suffered in bed with the dreadful swine flu. I have made a few adjustments to his proposal. The categories may overlap depending on who is making use of them and they only deal with similarities in rites; i.e., they do not address supposed Masonic elements of the Book of Mormon, etc. A definitive treatment of Mormonism and Masonry would do well to explore that angle, and though it was not within the purview of Brown’s book he includes some footnote references on the subject. I also left out the obvious option that Joseph Smith simply stole the Masonic ceremony. I do not accept that theory, but a book review isn’t the best place to counter it.

Michael Homer gives a more precise overview of the various positions and individuals who have employed them. See his article referenced in footnote 1 above.

Andrew F. Ehat’s BYU Master’s thesis has a wealth of information that describe how the first endowed members were selected and found worthy compared to the temple recommend interview process today. Ehat hasn’t circulated the thesis widely, it remains slightly flawed due to the inclusion of a few yet-debunked forgeries. See “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question” (1982, 307 p.). See also Edward L. Kimball's "The History of LDS Temple Admission Standards," Journal of Mormon History Spring (1998): 135-175.

Brown, p. 71, cites Stan Larsen, ed., A Ministry of Meetings: The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson, (Signature Books and Smith Research Associates, 1993), p. 316.

For a useful collection of sources dealing with the compilation and reliability of the History of the Church, see “The Curriculum Department and the Search for the Authentic Joseph Smith,” Appendix II, LifeOnGoldPlates.com, 13 July 2009.

Brown, p. 112, citing Andrew F. Ehat, ed., “‘They Might Have Known That He Was Not a Fallen Prophet,’—The Nauvoo Journal of Joseph Fielding,Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1979, p. 159.

Up and coming historian Ben Park recently mused about this fascinating and sticky subject in “Joseph Smith, Thomas Dick, and the Tricky Task of Determining Influence,” juvenileinstructor.org, 12 October 2009. He argues it may be faulty to fall into an “either/or” dichotomy of influence without acknowledging how environment and culture plays a part in the revelatory process. Others fear the danger of not acknowledging the hand of God enough when environmental influences are emphasized. This is a long-standing puzzle for Mormon studies and religious history generally.

Brown, p. 128, citing Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, rev. ed. (Grandin Books, 1990), pp. 40-41. Brown also cites WJS pp. 209-216 where Joseph explains that the “order and ordinances of the kingdom were instituted in heaven before the world was” and they have “not been changed.”  In the recorded notes Joseph specifies “baptism for the dead, washing, anointings, etc.” Again, I don’t see this as precluding adjustments for culture, space and time, though there are striking similarities across cultures that still puzzle anthropologists, sociologists and other researchers of cult and religion. In my view Brown is relying on Joseph’s recorded statements without fully exploring their implications or how they interact with available evidence regarding the temple. Again, Joseph’s statements to Brigham Young on the need to better formulate the endowment come to mind.

See BHodges, “‘In their weakness, after the manner of their language’: Joseph Smith's Revelations, Revisions, and Canonization,” lifeongoldplates.com, 21 October 2009. This is similar to ongoing conversations about Joseph Smith’s inspired translation of the Bible, and even the possibility of “expansions” in the Book of Mormon employing Joseph’s 19th century language to express ancient ideas in a meaningful way to contemporaries. Again, where “prophet meets God” in communication and language is a fascinating topic that deserves much thought and study.

The most obvious example of an interpretation of a historical source I strongly disagree with is from John D. Lee’s journal on Brown's pp. 149-151. Brown argues that “implements” refers to firewood and “degrees” refers to levels of a building, but it is evident Lee is simply using Masonic terms in the context of the LDS temple.


Norbert said...

Wow. You've raised many important questions here, and your footnotes are a start for some reading in an area that has intrigued me.

Blogging from Imperial said...

Also see Mr Litersky's review which is online. While it is less of an issue, the author M. Brown makes a number of errors regarding Masonic ritual. A better explanation of Masonic ritual and history, though again with some errors, can be seen in Kinney's Masonic Myth, published in 2009.

joeswick3 said...

You state: "[Brown] dispels the myth that Joseph was made a “Mason at sight” in that Joseph actually participated in the Masonic initiation rituals (p. 74)." But in fact, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon WERE "made Masons at sight." This is no myth.

Making a Mason at sight doesn't mean the person being made a Mason doesn't participate in Masonic initiation rituals. Rather, as explained by Louis L. Williams, to make a Mason at sight "the Grand Master would convene an Occasional Lodge, with the requisite number present, and then, by issuing a dispensation for the purpose, proceed to conver all three degrees on the candidate. The Grand Master could waive the petition, balloting, Catechism, and the like, but the degrees themselves were usually conferred in full including lectures and charges, but usually on the same day, and in proper succession. This is the usual and proper way it is done, although using his unique and unquestionable power, the Grand Master could pretty well proceed as he might see fit" (Williams, _Making a Mason at Sight_, Bloomington:Illinois Lodge of Research, 1983, p 10).

In the case of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, the customary waiting period between the degrees was waived, but the degrees were delivered in full, and in the presence of the Grand Master, over a period of two days. This precisely fits the idea that they were "made Masons at sight."

joeswick3 said...

You say, "The authentic school has practically overturned the romantic idea that Masonry directly descended from workers on Solomon’s Temple."

Actually, this is untrue. The legenda of the Craft fundamentally serves an allegorical purpose in Freemasonry; that is not changed simply because it differs from the actual historical origins of Masonry.

It is important to not lose sight of the fact that it was the legenda of the Craft --i.e., it's "romantic" history-- which so significantly influenced Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, precisely because Masons in that day (including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) were much more likely to confuse that which was allegorical with that which was strictly historical.

Also, the legenda of Freemasonry doesn't begin with King Solomon's Temple. Rather, it begins in the Garden of Eden, where God revealed the sacred science of Geometry to Adam, who wrote it in a book to be passed down to his posterity:

"ADAM, the first of humane Kind
Created with GEOMETRY
Imprinted on his Royal Mind,
Instructed soon his Progeny
CAIN and SETH, who then improv'd
The lib'ral Science in the Art
Of ARCHITECTURE, which they lov'd
And to their Offspring did impart" (Anderson, "The Master's Song," Constitutions of the Freemasons, London: Hunter, 1723, pg 75)

Brown's intellectual sleight-of-hand allows him to redirect the reader's attention away from the legendary history of the Craft, perhaps because to engage this in an honest way would be extremely uncomfortable, and raise questions that Brown might find difficult to address.

joeswick3 said...

You say: "Brown rightly notes none of the brethren accused Joseph of stealing from the endowment despite their being Masons."

That is not entirely true. In his book, "History of the Saints," John C. Bennett unambiguously accused Joseph of plagiarizing from Masonry.

BHodges said...

Joe: I agree Brown should have spent time looking at the Adam stuff. This by itself could have filled quite a few pages.

You said: "Actually, this is untrue. The legenda of the Craft fundamentally serves an allegorical purpose in Freemasonry; that is not changed simply because it differs from the actual historical origins of Masonry."

Allegorical purpose does not indicate "direct descent," though, and current scholarship doesn't argue otherwise, which is my point in that sentence.

Also, to be more precise: Brown isn't dispelling something there that hasn't already been dispelled, rather he is following already-traced conclusions of scholars, many of which were known by earlier LDS writers on the subject as Homer describes in his Dialogue article. I believe an actual descent from Solomon's Temple to then-current Masonry can't be definitively shown, despite the understanding of many earlier LDS leader/Masons who followed the understanding of Masonic origins common to their time, though I think those ideas were already beginning to fade even then (correct me if I'm wrong, I got that impression from Homer).

Also, Joe, thanks for the important distinctions you make regarding being made Masons "at sight." The phrase has a more precise parlance than most casual readers will know; "at sight" has been taken to mean Joseph basically was pronounced a Master Mason without actually participating fully in the rituals; the time period considerations etc. are important to be precise. I was referring to a lay or common understanding of what being made a Mason "at sight" would entail. My review failed to make the distinction properly, Brown actually makes the distinctions you refer to on p. 74: "It is often said by commentators on the subject of Mormonism and Masonry that Joseph Smith became a Mason 'at sight.' If it is meant by this phrase that he was allowed to go through all three of the initiation degrees--in physical sight of the Grand Master--without submitting to the typical waiting period between them, then such is a correct characterization. However, it would not be correct to say that the Prophet became a Freemason without experiencing the full initiation rites, but simply had the status bestowed upon him by verbal decree of the Grand Master."

Oh yes, and John C. Bennett! my bias shows through. I was not thinking of him in terms of being one of the "brethren." Homer's Dialogue article talks a little about Bennett's problematic claims.

Thanks for your insights Joe.

Also, thanks for stopping by Norbert and Imperial.

Loyd said...

While Joseph's colleagues may not have accused him of "stealing" from Masonry, several of them, especially Heber C Kimball, claimed that Joseph restored the true rights of Masonry which (like their view of Christianity) had become corrupted over time. They clearly saw and explicitly claimed a relationship between Masonry, Joseph, and the Mormon endowment.

While I have yet to look at the dating for the composition of the specific parts of the Book of Abraham, it would seem that the BofA parallels Joseph's going to the Freemasons to restore the rites of the priesthood by having Abraham do the very thing by going to the Egyptians to get the rites (not rights) of the priesthood.

BHodges said...

While Joseph's colleagues may not have accused him of "stealing" from Masonry, several of them, especially Heber C Kimball, claimed that Joseph restored the true rights of Masonry which (like their view of Christianity) had become corrupted over time. They clearly saw and explicitly claimed a relationship between Masonry, Joseph, and the Mormon endowment.

Yeah, Brown points this out but a fuller investigation is in Homer's Dialogue article.

I'm also interested in the Egyptian connection and the BoA, Loyd.

Anthony E. Larson said...

It's all quite simple, from my perspective. Masonry shares some common ritual themes from antiquity. The lineage is thus: During their excavation of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Knights Templar discovered texts containing the temple rituals used in the Herodian era. They modified them to fit Christian values (the Herodian version probably struck them as too pagan with elements such as planetary references and the Hieros Gamos, which was replaced with our ritual at the veil) and used them in their 'secret' rituals. When they were arrested en mass or forced underground, they reinvented themselves as Free Masons, co-opting the fraternal organization of the masonry guilds, complete with its symbolic tools and rules for proper construction.

Charged by God to prepare a temple endowment, Joseph Smith began a search for correct elements in ancient tradition. He drew on any source available to him. We see in our endowment elements of the Masonic tradition as well as those of the Egyptian endowment, which he obtained from the papyri that came into his possession (see Nibley). He could have used the temple tradition of any ancient culture, since they all share common, cosmological elements--the same elements that still form the basis of our present temple endowment (again, see Nibley). But since Masonry was common on the American frontier and therefore more acceptable to the conservative Christian types converting to Mormonism, Joseph chose to incorporate a few of its elements in order to make the endowment seem less foreign. It was, after all, descended from an authentic source through the Templars.

It is true that Joseph Smith saw the endowment as more fluid than the inflexible structure it became under Brigham Young. And rightfully so. Ancient temple ritual rehearsed several thematic dramas, such as those we find in Greek tradition, born in ancient cosmological events common to all mankind. In fact, our endowment more accurately reflects the prophetic 'ascension' tradition, which is found in ascension texts, based in what Nibley called cultural "cosmism" than it does the Masonic tradition. So had Joseph not been assassinated, we might have several versions of the endowment rather than the single version we now employ because there are several, traditional and prophetically correct versions seen in ancient texts.

See my blog (www.mormonprophecy.blogspot.com) for more details.

BHodges said...

Thanks for visiting Anthony.

dong dong23 said...

louis vuitton handbags
ed hardy clothing
louis vuitton handbags
oakley sunglasses
ugg boots
michael kors outlet
nike tn pas cher
lebron james shoes 2015
kevin durant shoes
louis vuitton outlet
jordan 11
louis vuitton handbags
nike basketball shoes
uggs australia
canada goose uk
boston celtics jerseys
louis vuitton outlet
true religion
abercrombie and fitch
canada goose jackets
coach outlet
ralph lauren sale
ralph lauren uk
michael kors outlet
giuseppe zanotti sneakers
oakley vault
moncler outlet
true religion jeans
louis vuitton paris
coach outlet
uggs uk
christian louboutin
rolex submariner
ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg boots
louis vuitton handbags
longchamp handbags
cheap jerseys
abercrombie outlet

Post a Comment

All views are welcome when shared respectfully. Use a name or consistent pseudonym rather than "anonymous." Deletions of inflammatory posts will be noted. Thanks for joining the conversation.