pumpkins, all right, I'll answer your question about Mormonism and Masonry by posting an article by Michael T. Griffith about this subject. Please note that a faithful Mormon will NEVER discuss the temple ceremonies with you, while a Mormon like myself, never having gone through the temple ceremonies, cannot discuss them either (obviously) and also wouldn't even if I could. The temple is sacred to the Church and its members.
And BTW, I'm replying to you because you seem to be less foaming-at-the-mouth and insulting than
Randolfo is. The man is obviously looking for a good fight. The only way I'll talk to
Randolfo again is if he apologizes for his abusiveness and rudeness and promises to play nice.
DISCLAIMER: The following article is about a subject which I know NOTHING about. The reason I copy it here is because, having read through it, it seems to make a lot of sense to me. I make no claims as to whether it is the actual view of the Church or not. That said, here is the article, taken from
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id107.htm
==========================
Preface: This article is an edited excerpt from my book A READY REPLY: ANSWERING CHALLENGING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GOSPEL (Horizon Publishers, 1994). The complete version of this article can be found therein. A more detailed discussion of the parallels between the Mormon temple and early Christian initiation ritual can be found in my book ONE LORD, ONE FAITH. Information on ordering these titles is provided at the end of this article, for those who might be interested.
Please feel free to download and/or print this article for personal, educational, or missionary purposes.
MASONRY AND THE MORMON TEMPLE
Michael T. Griffith
1994
@All Rights Reserved
Numerous anti-Mormon books and pamphlets have been written which document parallels between Masonry and the Mormon temple. These parallels consist of two general types: similarities between Masonic ritual and LDS temple ceremonies (especially the endowment ceremony), and parallels between Masonic symbols and Mormon temple symbolism.
In addition, anti-Mormons point to the 1990 introduction of a new version of the temple endowment as evidence against the ceremony because it does not contain some of the Masonic elements and other items from the previous version. They insist that if the endowment were inspired, no changes could be made in it.
What do the Masonic parallels and the changes in the endowment prove? According to the critics, the parallels prove that LDS temple ceremonies and symbolism are occultic and Satanic, and were for the most part plagiarized from Masonry, while the changes supposedly show the endowment to be a man-made product subject to the opinions and whims of the Mormon leadership.
Anti-LDS critics believe their case on the Masonic parallels is strengthened by the fact that Joseph Smith and several other early Mormon officials became Masons during the Nauvoo period.
Borrowing from Masonry
I am perfectly willing to grant that Joseph Smith borrowed from Masonry in preparing the symbolism and ordinances of the temple. However, I do not accept the anti-Mormon conclusion that this borrowing summarily invalidates the temple and its ceremonies. Logically and historically speaking, the temple's symbolism and ordinances are not automatically discredited because Joseph employed some Masonic elements to express the sacred rites and concepts that the Lord revealed to him.
There is evidence that Masonic ritual is derived from earlier sources that contained remnants of true temple worship. This evidence includes similarities between elements of Masonic ritual and certain early Christian initiation rites. Anti-Mormons avoid any discussion in this area.
Critics also tend to ignore the fact that Joseph Smith assigned new meanings to virtually all of the Masonic elements he used and placed them in Christ-centered contexts far removed from their original setting.
In doing so, Joseph Smith was not alone. In similar fashion, the ancient Hebrews employed many pagan religious designs and texts, and assigned new meanings and contexts to them. For example, scholars have pointed out that the very design of Solomon's temple was "characteristically Phoenician" and "somewhat reminiscent of Babylonian shrines" (Harrison 206-208). In addition, many of the symbols in Solomon's temple "show a marked indebtedness to Phoenician religious theory and practice" (Harrison 207).
Moreover, the Mosaic tabernacle was "very close in most essentials" to various pagan Egyptian portable structures, including the Egyptian "Tent of Purification" (McDowell 110-111). And yet, according to Exodus 25-30, it was Yahweh Himself who instructed the Israelites on how to build the tabernacle.
As is well known, there are numerous striking similarities between the Law of Moses and various EARLIER pagan legal codes, such as the Code of Eshnunna, the Code of Lipit-Ishtar, and the Code of Hammurabi (Harrison 59-61; Pritchard 162-169). Even the literary format of the Law, as it is presented in the book of Exodus, parallels the format used in earlier pagan codes of the ancient Near East (Achtemeier 1985:549). Virtually all Bible scholars have noted that the Law of Moses seems to have been patterned after pagan codes. Does this mean the Law was not inspired? If we were to follow anti-Mormon reasoning, we could very well answer in the affirmative. But many scholars disagree and note that there are also differences between the Mosaic Law and the pagan codes.
The ancient Christians likewise employed pagan symbols and motifs and applied new meanings and contexts to them. One of the most popular symbolic types of the resurrection among the early Christians was the phoenix bird, a pagan symbol. I quote Robin Lane Fox:
Among pagan men of letters, the phoenix had long exerted a particular influence. It created itself from its own ashes and united the mystery of a home in Egypt with the inauguration of a new age. Christians had been quick to use the bird as a type of their own Resurrection. . . . (639)
References to the phoenix are widespread in early Christian literature (Fox 639-641; Roberts and Donaldson 1:12, 3:554, 7:324, 441).
In fact, the early church used several representations that were either used by pagans or acceptable to them. Christians of all persuasions might be interested to know that the image of the Good Shepherd carrying his sheep was a pagan symbol, as were other images that the ancient church employed. I quote Henry Chadwick:
. . . before the end of the second century Christians were freely expressing their faith in artistic terms. Tertullian mentions cups on which there were representations of the Good Shepherd carrying his sheep. Clement of Alexandria gives instruction about the picture appropriate for a Christian's signet ring. . . . Clement recommends that Christians should use seals with representations that, without being specifically Christian, are readily capable of a Christian interpretation, such as a dove, a fish, a ship, a lyre, or an anchor. . . . It is noteworthy that Clement's suggestions for appropriate seals were all types that a pagan might use; that is, they are neutral from a religious or moral point of view, and either pagans or Christians could happily use them. Likewise, the Good Shepherd carrying his sheep was a conventional pagan symbol of humanitarian concern, philanthropia. The Christians were taking a common type and investing it with a new meaning. . . . (277-278)
Another conventional pagan symbol which the Christians adopted was the Orante (also called Orans), a veiled female figure with her hands uplifted in prayer (Chadwick 278; Snyder 19-20). The Orante had long been used as a pagan cultural symbol, and it appeared on Roman coins and in sepulchral art.
So what does all of this mean? Do we therefore reject Solomon's temple? Do we repudiate the Mosaic tabernacle? Do we spurn the Law of Moses? Do we denounce the early Christians? After all, surely God would not allow true prophets to use such repugnant pagan stuff to build sacred structures or to express His sacred truths? Right? Of course not. The plain fact of the matter is that prophets of God have frequently drawn on the symbols and literature of their cultural environment to express sacred truth.
The Changes in the Temple Endowment
The anti-Mormon view of the changes in the endowment is based primarily on a fundamentalist understanding of scripture and of how God interacts with His prophets. Anti-Mormons are scandalized that modern LDS prophets would claim the authority to alter a ceremony which was allegedly revealed by God to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
However, the anti-Mormon position is unreasonable in light of the fact that Bible prophets exercised similar authority with regard to scripture and to certain revealed ceremonies.
If anti-LDS critics are disturbed by the changes in the endowment, are they equally upset over the well-known fact that Mark and Luke deliberately downplayed Pilate's role in Jesus' execution in order to avoid offending their Roman audience? To this day, Jewish critics assail Mark and Luke on this point (Levine 26-27; Cohn 164-190).
Are anti-Mormons shocked that the authors of the New Testament Gospels took the liberty of omitting or correcting items from each other's writings that might have seemed offensive or inconsistent to their readers? Some Bible commentators consider this to be proof that the Gospels aren't inspired, while other scholars more correctly see this as clear evidence that the ancient Christians simply did not have a fundamentalist view of scripture.
If anti-LDS critics see the changes in the endowment as evidence against the temple, do they similarly call into question the ancient Hebrew faith because of the changes in Hebrew worship which Ezekiel was obliged to make as a result of the Babylonian captivity? Because of these changes, the Hebrews ceased to observe certain "eternal" rites which Jehovah had previously commanded them to observe (Harrison 267-268; Achtemeier 1985:80, 305-306, 1014, and the scriptural passages cited therein).
Joseph Smith's View of Masonry and the Differences Between Masonry and the Endowment
Two relevant topics that rarely if ever receive serious consideration in anti-Mormon literature are (1) Joseph Smith's view of Masonry, and (2) the many differences between the endowment and Masonic ritual. Anti-LDS critics often avoid the fact that Joseph Smith saw Masonic ritual as a corrupt form of a true original. And anti-Mormons are virtually silent on the numerous differences between Masonry and LDS temple rites. I think it would be useful at this point to quote LDS scholar Eugene Seaich:
The relationship between Freemasonry and the LDS temple Endowment has long been a matter of speculation amongst students of Mormon history. Joseph Smith was of the opinion that Masonic ritual was a corrupt form of the original Priesthood; but since the Masons themselves make no claim to have existed prior to the time of the great cathedral builders, anti-Mormons have argued that similarities between the two must be the result of deliberate plagiarism on the part of the Church. Very seldom, however, do they think to ask whether Masonic ritual itself might be derived from earlier sources, particularly traditions surviving from the Primitive Church. If this were to prove to be the case, then it might have been Providence rather than deception that led Joseph Smith to become a Third Degree Mason in 1842, perhaps as part of his divine education in the rudiments of the Restored Gospel.
More remarkable still is that the Prophet not only claimed to recognize in Masonry survivals of ancient temple practice, but that he dared to correct what he found, offering in its place what he said was the uncorrupt prototype. Thus, while Mormon temple ritual indeed bears some resemblance to Freemasonry, it also differs in significant points, showing that Joseph Smith had his own ideas about the proper form of the original. Today it is becoming possible to compare his insights with newly recovered material dealing at first hand with early temple traditions. (1984:1)
If the Freemasons happened to pick up surviving fragments of ... [the] ancient temple scheme, it is only proof that such worship actually existed on the earth at one time. The famous Mystery Plays of the Middle Ages also preserved elements of the temple scheme, with their cycles of didactic [instructional] OT stories repeated on major holy days for the edification and instruction of the masses. "Every man," for example, was but another "Adam" or "Israel" performing his ritual "pilgrimage" through the wilderness," a theme which reappeared also in Bunyan's PILGRIM'S PROGRESS.
We have no idea how many different ways God may employ to inspire men to the work he intends them to perform; but it is undoubtedly providential that Joseph Smith came into contact with both the Book of Abraham facsimiles and Freemasonry at a time when he was required to restore the original temple scheme in all its detail. . . . Joseph Smith knew far more than the Masons, whose rites are but scattered clues to a larger, more perfect picture. (1983:75)
Early Christian Evidence
The striking resemblance between the temple endowment and the early Christian rite of initiation is strong evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed restore the original ancient temple scheme.
The ancient Christian initiation rite appears to have been a conflation of the temple endowment with the ordinance of baptism. Non-members were not permitted to view the rite, and in most cases it was not administered to a person until he or she had been a believer for at least one year. The rite was sometimes referred to as "the mystery," and the things involved therein were on occasion called "the mysteries."
During the rite of initiation, the candidate could be taught certain "higher teachings" which were reserved only for members who were deemed ready and worthy to receive them.
Extra-scriptural higher teachings are mentioned by several early Christian bishops and apologists. For example, Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215), a prominent theologian in the early church and head of the Christian academy in Alexandria, stated that these higher teachings were not included in Christ's public preaching but were transmitted UNWRITTEN by the apostles and were given only to church members who were qualified to receive them (MaGill 47). Clement declared that these sacred teachings were the key to entering into the "highest sphere" of heaven (MaGill 47).
The rite of initiation also included the administering of sacred signs and tokens, Garden-of-Eden scenes in the background, the rebuking of Satan with upraised arm, the wearing of sacred white clothing (some of which had markings identical to those on LDS temple garments), and the anointing of various parts of the body with oil.
Of course, the sacred nature of the Mormon temple prevents me from explaining the significance of these items in relation to the endowment. However, suffice it to say that any Latter-day Saint who has been to the temple will immediately see the significance of these things.
For those who would like to learn more about the early Christian rite of initiation and the extra-scriptural higher teachings which accompanied it, I would suggest they consult the research that has been done on this subject by Seaich (1983:56-75; 1984), Stephen E. Robinson (96-103), Hugh Nibley, Blake Ostler, William Hamblin, Roger J. Adams, and Darrick Evenson (71-101).
Conclusion
When discussing Mormonism and Masonry, anti-LDS critics fail to deal with evidence which qualifies or disproves their arguments. Many of the criticisms they advance against the temple can also be made against ancient Hebrew and early Christian worship.
Anti-Mormons have yet to explain the impressive parallels between the LDS endowment ceremony and the early Christian rite of initiation. The early church's initiation rite provides evidence for the divine origin of the LDS temple endowment.
Joseph Smith saw in Masonry remnants of the original temple scheme. He therefore thought it appropriate and helpful to employ some Masonic elements to express the true original as it had been revealed to him by the Lord. This in no way detracts from the beauty and inspiration of the temple.
In employing Masonic elements, the Prophet Joseph assigned new meanings to almost all of them and placed them in theological contexts far removed from their original setting.
Although there are some similarities between Masonry and the Mormon temple, there are also many differences. Furthermore, Masonic ritual does not possess the intricate theological depth that is present in LDS temple ceremonies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Paul Achtemeier, editor, HARPER'S BIBLE DICTIONARY, San Francisco, California: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1985.
Roger J. Adams, THE ICONOGRAPHY OF EARLY CHRISTIAN INITIATION, Church Educational System Special Project, Salt Lake City, Utah: Unpublished manuscript, 1977, copy in my possession.
Ian Barber, WHAT MORMONISM ISN'T: A RESPONSE TO THE RESEARCH OF JERALD AND SANDRA TANNER, Auckland, New Zealand: Pioneer Books, 1981.
Henry Chadwick, THE EARLY CHURCH, Penguin Books Edition, London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1990.
Haim Cohn, THE TRIAL AND DEATH OF JESUS, New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1977.
Darrick Evenson, THE GAINSAYERS, Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1989.
Robin Lane Fox, PAGANS AND CHRISTIANS, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1987.
Michael T. Griffith, SIGNS OF THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST, Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1989.
William J. Hamblin, "Aspects of an Early Christian Initiation Ritual," in John Lundquist and Stephen Ricks, editors, BY STUDY AND ALSO BY FAITH, volume 1, Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.), 1990, pp. 202-221.
R. K. Harrison, OLD TESTAMENT TIMES, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.
Samuel Levine, YOU TAKE JESUS, I'LL TAKE GOD: HOW TO REFUTE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES, Los Angeles, California: Hamoroh Press, 1980.
Frank N. MaGill, MASTERPIECES OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963.
Josh McDowell, MORE EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 1975.
Hugh Nibley, "The Early Christian Prayer Circle," in BYU STUDIES, Fall 1978, pp. 41-78; "What Is A Temple?", in Truman Madsen, editor, THE TEMPLE IN ANTIQUITY, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, Religious Studies Center, 1984, pp. 19-38.
Blake Ostler, "Clothed Upon: A Unique Aspect of Christian Antiquity," in BYU STUDIES, Winter 1982, pp. 31-45.
Hugh Riley, CHRISTIAN INITIATION, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1974.
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson et al, editors and translators, THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, Ten Volumes, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980-1985, reprint of American Edition, 1869-1873. (The original edition consisted of only nine volumes; volume 10 is an added volume edited by Allan Menzies.)
Steph enen Robinson, ARE MORMONS CHRISTIANS?, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, Inc., 1991.
Eugene Seaich, ANCIENT TEXTS AND MORMONISM, Sandy, Utah: Mormon Miscellaneous, 1983; "Did the Freemasons Copy Their Ritual from the Mormons?", Sandy, Utah: Unpublished paper, 1984, copy in my possession.
Graydon Snyder, ANTE-PACEM: ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF CHURCH LIFE BEFORE CONSTANTINE, Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1985.
-----------------------------------
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Excelsior College in Albany, New York, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. He is the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient texts. He has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. While at Brigham Young University, he was a research assistant for Dr. Ross T. Christensen of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology. His published works on gospel subjects include Refuting the Critics (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1992) and A Ready Reply: Answering Challenging Questions About the Gospel (Horizon Publishers, 1994), and One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Early Christian Fathers as Evidences of the Restoration (Horizon Publishers, 1996).
*** One Lord, One Faith can be purchased or ordered from your local LDS bookstore, or you can order it directly from Horizon Publishers via their toll-free number 1-866-818-6277. One Lord, One Faith documents dozens of parallels between Mormonism and ancient Christianity and is an excellent book for investigators and members alike. It is also an excellent companion book to the famous talk tape "The 17 Points of the True Church." If you'd like to order the book online, click here.
Back to
http://www.geocities.com/mtgriffith1/lds.html
I find that most of the questions asked and accusations made in this thread are easily answered by a handful of well-put-together apologetic sites such as