Posts Against The Church Or Misleading

[Jason]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Sep 22 2005, 10:40 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Soulsearcher@Sep 22 2005, 10:31 AM

While i understand the problems you have with Jason's postings about the temple ceremony, I'm not sure that action should be taken against him for open discussion about it.

The temple is one of the biggest mysteries for un non members.  If it is discussed here then you can control it, otherwise people go and look on other sites to satisfy their curiosity, and i know from experience that any site that explains the endowments is biased.

←

That's just it SS, it is suppose to be held sacred. It was also a mystery to me until I went into the temple for the first time. Of course I went through a temple preparation class and I knew of the names of the ceremonies but that was about it. In the last past couple of years I did serve with my husband as a ward missionary. We were asked to be the escorts to a couple we helped to become ready to be sealed into the temple. Even on a one on one basis we could not tell them things such as Jason is able to discuss openly here.

←

Strawberry,

Ive not revealed anything secret or sacred that pertains to the LDS temple ceremony! The words "Sign" or "Token" or "Penaty" are not secret or sacred. The actual sign that the word describes is considered sacred. The actual token that the word token describes is considered sacred. The penalty that the word penalty describes was considered sacred (I suppose it isn't sacred anymore now that it's been removed????)

Sorry 'berry, but I think you're being overly dramatic and paranoid.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Jason+Sep 22 2005, 11:22 AM-->

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Sep 22 2005, 10:40 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-Soulsearcher@Sep 22 2005, 10:31 AM

While i understand the problems you have with Jason's postings about the temple ceremony, I'm not sure that action should be taken against him for open discussion about it.

The temple is one of the biggest mysteries for un non members.  If it is discussed here then you can control it, otherwise people go and look on other sites to satisfy their curiosity, and i know from experience that any site that explains the endowments is biased.

←

That's just it SS, it is suppose to be held sacred. It was also a mystery to me until I went into the temple for the first time. Of course I went through a temple preparation class and I knew of the names of the ceremonies but that was about it. In the last past couple of years I did serve with my husband as a ward missionary. We were asked to be the escorts to a couple we helped to become ready to be sealed into the temple. Even on a one on one basis we could not tell them things such as Jason is able to discuss openly here.

←

Strawberry,

Ive not revealed anything secret or sacred that pertains to the LDS temple ceremony! The words "Sign" or "Token" or "Penaty" are not secret or sacred. The actual sign that the word describes is considered sacred. The actual token that the word token describes is considered sacred. The penalty that the word penalty describes was considered sacred (I suppose it isn't sacred anymore now that it's been removed????)

Sorry 'berry, but I think you're being overly dramatic and paranoid.

←

Maybe I am paranoid and overly dramatic we will see.

As to your further explaination ...

[Jason]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Sep 22 2005, 11:37 AM-->

Originally posted by Jason@Sep 22 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Sep 22 2005, 10:40 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-Soulsearcher@Sep 22 2005, 10:31 AM

While i understand the problems you have with Jason's postings about the temple ceremony, I'm not sure that action should be taken against him for open discussion about it.

The temple is one of the biggest mysteries for un non members.  If it is discussed here then you can control it, otherwise people go and look on other sites to satisfy their curiosity, and i know from experience that any site that explains the endowments is biased.

←

That's just it SS, it is suppose to be held sacred. It was also a mystery to me until I went into the temple for the first time. Of course I went through a temple preparation class and I knew of the names of the ceremonies but that was about it. In the last past couple of years I did serve with my husband as a ward missionary. We were asked to be the escorts to a couple we helped to become ready to be sealed into the temple. Even on a one on one basis we could not tell them things such as Jason is able to discuss openly here.

←

Strawberry,

Ive not revealed anything secret or sacred that pertains to the LDS temple ceremony! The words "Sign" or "Token" or "Penaty" are not secret or sacred. The actual sign that the word describes is considered sacred. The actual token that the word token describes is considered sacred. The penalty that the word penalty describes was considered sacred (I suppose it isn't sacred anymore now that it's been removed????)

Sorry 'berry, but I think you're being overly dramatic and paranoid.

←

Maybe I am paranoid and overly dramatic we will see.

As to your further explaination ...

←

What? I thought it was a good explanation. If you were in charge, we'd have to refer to the Temple as "that building" since you've never heard of the word Temple used before you were exposed to it by Mormons?

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Jason+Sep 22 2005, 12:05 PM-->

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Sep 22 2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Jason@Sep 22 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Sep 22 2005, 10:40 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-Soulsearcher@Sep 22 2005, 10:31 AM

While i understand the problems you have with Jason's postings about the temple ceremony, I'm not sure that action should be taken against him for open discussion about it.

The temple is one of the biggest mysteries for un non members.  If it is discussed here then you can control it, otherwise people go and look on other sites to satisfy their curiosity, and i know from experience that any site that explains the endowments is biased.

←

That's just it SS, it is suppose to be held sacred. It was also a mystery to me until I went into the temple for the first time. Of course I went through a temple preparation class and I knew of the names of the ceremonies but that was about it. In the last past couple of years I did serve with my husband as a ward missionary. We were asked to be the escorts to a couple we helped to become ready to be sealed into the temple. Even on a one on one basis we could not tell them things such as Jason is able to discuss openly here.

←

Strawberry,

Ive not revealed anything secret or sacred that pertains to the LDS temple ceremony! The words "Sign" or "Token" or "Penaty" are not secret or sacred. The actual sign that the word describes is considered sacred. The actual token that the word token describes is considered sacred. The penalty that the word penalty describes was considered sacred (I suppose it isn't sacred anymore now that it's been removed????)

Sorry 'berry, but I think you're being overly dramatic and paranoid.

←

Maybe I am paranoid and overly dramatic we will see.

As to your further explaination ...

←

What? I thought it was a good explanation. If you were in charge, we'd have to refer to the Temple as "that building" since you've never heard of the word Temple used before you were exposed to it by Mormons?

←

Was that meant to be funny?

[Jason]

Funny? Not really. It was meant to show you that what you are proposing is no different than removing the word "temple" from our discussions.

Just as using the word "Temple" does not describe the actions performed inside of the temple, the word "Sign" does not describe the manner in which is it given.

Do you understand what Im saying now?

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Jason@Sep 22 2005, 12:17 PM

Funny?  Not really.  It was meant to show you that what you are proposing is no different than removing the word "temple" from our discussions. 

Just as using the word "Temple" does not describe the actions performed inside of the temple, the word "Sign" does not describe the manner in which is it given. 

Do you understand what Im saying now?

←

I am now leaving for work.

[Jason]

Are you kidding? That doesn't make sense to you?

[pushka]

Heather, I think the Open Forum is the best and most logical approach to this problem.

I do question lots of LDS beliefs, and do wish to find out more about them, and find factual evidence to support them if possible, it does not mean that I do not respect the LDS church or its members.

I agree with the sentiments of others in this thread, that debate is essential to any website, whether it is between believing members or visitors that are curious or do not believe at all. Nobody who's faith is strong should be afraid of open debate.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Sep 22 2005, 09:47 AM-->

Originally posted by Jason@Sep 19 2005, 09:34 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Strawberry Fields@Sep 19 2005, 08:47 PM

Jason,

Just my thoughts here okay?

This is an LDS message board and I don't like it when someone questions the divinity of my Savior. I don't like to see things I consider to be sacred (things of the temple) smeared over a LDS message board.

I have seen you make some good efforts to not offend but I have also seen some things posted on an LDS message board that I don't think belongs here. Many of us know you therefore we care about you. We have new LDS Talk members that don't know anything about you and your "tone" could appear anti.

You are posting on an LDS message board and you should know what will offend and what will not offend.

←

Ok, the "Is Jesus real" thread maybe construed as "anti", but it's a very broad anti since im not specifically targeting the LDS church, but all of Christendom.

Delete it if you must.

But the Temple discussion is only about the source of the ceremony, and is neither for nor against it. LDS apologists speak more specifically about it than I have, so I don't really think you can call it anti.

Unless you're going to tell me that the actual, historical truth about the signs and tokes is "anti"?

←

I let the go with just a PM to you. Now I can see that it doesn't matter to you that you use words that I had never heard of before going to the temple for the first time. I personally don't talk about the things you say the LDS apologists speak openly about and I don't go to those sites either. I was taught years ago that these things a sacred and they were not to be discussed outside of the temple. I have watched you lead another member here into this conversation in another post.

Moderators, Am I out of line in my thinking that this should not be allowed? I need to know if it is okay to use these words in reference to the temple ceremony here, I am at a loss.

←

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Sep 22 2005, 10:37 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Sep 22 2005, 11:22 AM

...I've not revealed anything secret or sacred that pertains to the LDS temple ceremony!  The words "Sign" or "Token" or "Penaty" are not secret or sacred.  The actual sign that the word describes is considered sacred.  The actual token that the word token describes is considered sacred.  The penalty that the word penalty describes was considered sacred (I suppose it isn't sacred anymore now that it's been removed????) 

Sorry 'berry, but I think you're being overly dramatic and paranoid.

Maybe I am paranoid and overly dramatic we will see...

SF - I found this at lds.org - it was from:

“Endowed with Covenants and Blessings,” Tambuli, June 1992, 9

The article is 13 years old, not sure if that matters; but I figure if they can print it in an LDS magazine why not print it on an LDS forum:

President Brigham Young,

second President of the Church:

“Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell” (Discourses of Brigham Young, compiled by John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1941, page 416).

M.

[Jason]

Thank you Maureen. I suppose I should have offered something like that before.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Maureen+Sep 22 2005, 06:16 PM-->

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Sep 22 2005, 10:37 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Sep 22 2005, 11:22 AM

...I've not revealed anything secret or sacred that pertains to the LDS temple ceremony!  The words "Sign" or "Token" or "Penaty" are not secret or sacred.  The actual sign that the word describes is considered sacred.  The actual token that the word token describes is considered sacred.  The penalty that the word penalty describes was considered sacred (I suppose it isn't sacred anymore now that it's been removed????) 

Sorry 'berry, but I think you're being overly dramatic and paranoid.

Maybe I am paranoid and overly dramatic we will see...

SF - I found this at lds.org - it was from:

“Endowed with Covenants and Blessings,” Tambuli, June 1992, 9

The article is 13 years old, not sure if that matters; but I figure if they can print it in an LDS magazine why not print it on an LDS forum:

President Brigham Young,

second President of the Church:

“Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell” (Discourses of Brigham Young, compiled by John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1941, page 416).

M.

←

Thanks Maureen. Because I was taught that it was forbidden to discuss these things outside of the temple I never thought to look at the church website.

[pushka]

So does the LDS church really believe that in order to 'walk back into the presence of the Father'...as well as leading a righteous life, believing in him, worshipping him, not questioning his motives, although possibly not belonging to the LDS church, you ALSO have to 'give them the key words, the signs and the tokens pertaining to the holy Priesthood'?

Sorry, but it sounds awful strange to me...

I know Please said that, because I'm not LDS, I wouldn't understand about the signs, tokens and key words, and how they have been interpreted in the way the LDS use them by Joseph Smith, but surely there must be some more concrete evidence to prove that all this is necessary to gain entry into the Celestial Kingdom!

Haven't most Christians believed that the Freemasons were involved with the occult, which is something the bible says you must not be involved with, for years...and wasn't Joseph Smith's father something to do with the Freemasons?

Please can somebody enlighten me a little on this, without 'giving the game away'...I still feel it's strange that there must be secrets in the church...

Sorry if this post doesn't make much sense, it's difficult for me to put my question into words...

I just want to add a link to a website which tries to explain the links between Joseph Smith, the LDS church and not only Freemasonry but the Occult...I apologise if any of it's content is considered 'off-limits', I hope that I do not get banned for including it in this open forum...for the sake of balance, I have also included the LDS response to these claims..which I will read in full, and comment upon at a later date if I feel it necessary.

http://www.irr.org/mit/masonry.html

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...ple_masonry.htm

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by pushka@Sep 22 2005, 08:37 PM

Please can somebody enlighten me a little on this, without 'giving the game away'...I still feel it's strange that there must be secrets in the church...

←

Pushka, Jesus taught the apostles for 40 days after his resurrection in Israel. We do not know what he taught them. It was knowledge for them only, not for everyone in the church at that moment. A discussion of how the gnosticism evolved from unenlightened individuals obsessing with these "secret" or hidden teachings is beyond my present scope.

I believe it is perfectly fine for there to be doctrines or ordinances that I am unaware of until the Lord decides I am ready. That is how it is with the temple. It is not for just anyone, but those who prove through righteous living and obedience to God that they are ready for more light and truth at His hands.

People may disagree about "what" is taught in the temple (and I'm grateful no one has been so artless as to openly discuss those sacred ceremonies on this board), but "how" it is taught is, in my belief, up to the Lord. There have always been people who love to go about, tossing temple terms around that make no sense out of context or with no background information, just to see the revulsion in some people as a result.

If I may reduce the matter to a simple image, we believe that those new to our beliefs are "children" in the gospel, learning to "crawl," then "walk," then "run" as anyone has to start at the beginning and move up one step at a time. We also have the saying, "milk before meat," meaning that just as a child needs milk before meat, a "child" in the gospel needs the foundational principles and teachings first, before moving on to more involved doctrines.

I would certainly think Einstein was a madman if I read his theories on relativity but had no knowledge of basic physics, science and mathematics. So it is with the LDS church. It is no great feat for someone to make a "child" choke on a piece of gospel "meat"...in fact many "adults" choke on gospel "meat" because they are not prepared for it yet.

I appreciate your fair-minded approach in looking at BOTH sides of the coin, as it were, and further appreciate your respect for our beliefs as shown in your not having posted detailed descriptions of the sacred temple ordinances on this forum.

[Faerie]

i for one thank you. i have been turned off of this site for many months now due to the "tone" in most posts.

as far as the temple discussion, oy!

[pushka]

ApostleKnight...Thanks for your reply to my enquiry...I have just spent the last couple of hours reading various websites about the early christian rites/rituals...their origin, believed to have been from Jesus, and their use by the Gnostics after an apostate revealed them to that group.

It has been very interesting reading, my eyes are very sore now! lol...however I have saved a few other sites which I will explore too, as it really is a fascinating subject.

Thanks for acknowledging that I did not mean your church any harm in my enquiries! :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by pushka@Sep 22 2005, 08:37 PM

Haven't most Christians believed that the Freemasons were involved with the occult, which is something the bible says you must not be involved with, for years...and wasn't Joseph Smith's father something to do with the Freemasons? 

←

This is to me very amusing, the claims about Joseph Smith copying from masonic ceremonies. It is amusing because it is backwards. Joseph Smith restored the ancient temple ceremonies that had been twisted and altered between the time of the New Testament church and his day. Masonry and Free Masonry appear to me to be nothing but apostate remnants of the true temple worship Christ no doubt established after his resurrection (all things had become new, the Law of Moses with its maze of animal sacrifices was fulfilled, it was time for new knowledge).

So it's funny to me that people point at Joseph Smith and say, "Ha! He's just copying masonic ways! What a charlatan!" When in fact Joseph Smith could just as easily have pointed to masonry and said, "Ha! They just twisted true temple worship and added false parts to it!" Joseph Smith received the temple ceremony of endowment and sealing through revelation...he didn't pore over masonic texts, pick and choose symbolism he particularly liked, and then slap it all together. He said bluntly that the Lord revealed the temple endowment to him...and I have a testimony that the Lord was restoring lost knowledge through that great man and prophet of restoration Joseph Smith. :)

And yes, Joseph Smith started a masonic lodge in nauvoo and was "grand master" there. Many people make too much of this, it was an all men's club (hence the reason Freemasonry developed...women were allowed too!) where socializing and fraternizing went on...nothing spooky or occult about a fraternity in and of itself.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Sep 19 2005, 06:32 PM

Is posting your opinion considered "against the church"? 

To my knowledge (one specific poster aside) nobody's accused me of posting anything "anti", and to my knowledge I've not said anything that specifically targets the LDS church. 

Thanks.

←

Jason's no "anti;" just critical... big difference.

Who thinks you're an anti?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by pushka@Sep 22 2005, 10:21 PM

Thanks for acknowledging that I did not mean your church any harm in my enquiries! :)

←

Thanks for being so fair and mature...it is a breath of fresh air. :) And I'm glad you are learning all kinds of history...it is fascinating to me too. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight@Sep 22 2005, 07:25 PM

This is to me very amusing, the claims about Joseph Smith copying from masonic ceremonies. It is amusing because it is backwards. Joseph Smith restored the ancient temple ceremonies that had been twisted and altered between the time of the New Testament church and his day. Masonry and Free Masonry appear to me to be nothing but apostate remnants of the true temple worship Christ no doubt established after his resurrection (all things had become new, the Law of Moses with its maze of animal sacrifices was fulfilled, it was time for new knowledge).

So it's funny to me that people point at Joseph Smith and say, "Ha! He's just copying masonic ways! What a charlatan!" When in fact Joseph Smith could just as easily have pointed to masonry and said, "Ha! They just twisted true temple worship and added false parts to it!" Joseph Smith received the temple ceremony of endowment and sealing through revelation...he didn't pore over masonic texts, pick and choose symbolism he particularly liked, and then slap it all together. He said bluntly that the Lord revealed the temple endowment to him...and I have a testimony that the Lord was restoring lost knowledge through that great man and prophet of restoration Joseph Smith. :)

An interesting theory surely.

I would be very interested to learn what evidence you have to support such a notion... that there was an ancient Temple ceremony established by Christ subsequent to the resurrection, that was then perverted and passed on by the Masons. later to be restored to it's pure original by Joseph Smith.

Please share.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 23 2005, 12:47 AM

An interesting theory surely.

I would be very interested to learn what evidence you have to support such a notion... that there was an ancient Temple ceremony established by Christ subsequent to the resurrection, that was then perverted and passed on by the Masons. later to be restored to it's pure original  by Joseph Smith.

Please share.

←

I'd be more than happy to, thanks for the invitation. :) There are numerous sources online (some not to be trusted) that deal with this issue, that of the masonic rituals being borrowed from New Testament times temple worship taught by Jesus to the apostles.

I will quote a few excellent sources on this area and invite the reader to pursue further research as their level of interest dictates. I do so after having made sure by checking official church publications that apostles in our day have mentioned outside of the temple what I am about to discuss, so as not to offend anyone (especially the Lord). I will first quote contemporary LDS church leaders, and after having laid a groundwork of elements in temple worship, review quotes relative to early Christianity (i.e. New Testament times) and temple worship then.

Elder Boyd K. Packer (apostle) in "Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple," a booklet adapted from his book "The Holy Temple."

"In the temples members of the Church who make themselves eligible can participate in the most exalted of the redeeming ordinances that have been revealed to mankind. There, in a sacred ceremony, an individual may be washed and anointed and instructed and endowed and sealed. And when we have received these blessings for ourselves, we may officiate for those who have died without having had the same opportunity."

"Upon entering the temple you exchange your street clothing for the white clothing of the temple. This change of clothing takes place in the locker room, where each individual is provided with a locker and a dressing space and is completely private. In the temple the ideal of modesty is carefully maintained. As you put your clothing in the locker you leave your cares and concerns and distractions there with them. You step out of this private little dressing area dressed in white and you feel a oneness and a sense of equality, for all around you are similarly dressed."

"Members who have received their temple ordinances thereafter wear the special garment or underclothing. Garments are provided by an agency of the Church—and are generally available to members throughout the world through a distribution program operated by the Church. The garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer."

"Among the ordinances we perform in the Church are these: baptism, sacrament, naming and blessing of infants, administering to the sick, setting apart to callings in the Church, ordaining to offices. In addition there are higher ordinances, performed in the temples. These include washings, anointings, the endowment, and the sealing ordinance, spoken of generally as temple marriage."

"The ordinances of washing and anointing are referred to often in the temple as initiatory ordinances. It will be sufficient for our purposes to say only the following: Associated with the endowment are washings and anointings—mostly symbolic in nature, but promising definite, immediate blessings as well as future blessings.

"In connection with these ordinances, in the temple you will be officially clothed in the garment and promised marvelous blessings in connection with it. It is important that you listen carefully as these ordinances are administered and that you try to remember the blessings promised and the conditions upon which they will be realized."

Now from the "Discourses of Brigham Young" his famous definition of the endowment:

"Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell."

Now from the "Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine" July 1930, Joseph Fielding Smith (10th president of the LDS church) says this:

"“If we go into the temple we raise our hands and covenant that we will serve the Lord and observe his commandments and keep ourselves unspotted from the world. If we realize what we are doing, then the endowment will be a protection to us all our lives—a protection which a man who does not go to the temple does not have."

Now from the scriptures. Elder Russel M. Nelson (an apostle) in his article "Prepare For the Blessings of the Temple" suggests reading these verses (among many).

Exodus 28:1,2,4,40-43

(1) "AND take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s sons."

(2) "And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty."

(4) "And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office."

(40) "And for Aaron’s sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty."

(41) "And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office."

(42) "And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:"

(43) "And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place;"

Exodus 29:1, 4-9

(1) "AND this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto me in the priest’s office:"

(4) "And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water."

(5) "And thou shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the robe of the ephod, and the ephod, and the breastplate, and gird him with the curious girdle of the ephod:"

(6) "And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre."

(7) "Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him."

(8) "And thou shalt bring his sons, and put coats upon them."

(9) "And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest’s office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons."

Leviticus 8:5-9, 12-13

(5) "And Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing which the LORD commanded to be done."

(6) "And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water."

(7) "And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith."

(8) "And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim."

(9) "And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the LORD commanded Moses."

(12) "And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him."

(13) "And Moses brought Aaron’s sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and put bonnets upon them; as the LORD commanded Moses."

And for interest, check out 2 Chronicles 6 for King Solomon's dedicatory prayer at Solomon's Temple. :)

Okay, let's review what we've learned so far. We know that as initiatory ordinances in the temple there is symbolic washing and anointing. As the Old Testament verses show, this was a practice even BEFORE the New Testament times, more to the point, BEFORE the Masons claim their origins. Yet it is still part of our temple worship today. So Joseph didn't just "copy the Masons" but the Masons, if anything, "copied the Bible."

We also know that from Old Testament times when priests entered the temple they received holy garments and other temple clothes described above, a few of which anyone who has been through the temple will readily recognize. So again, if anything, the Masons "copied the Bible" when determining what ritual clothes they'd wear. By the way, Masons sometimes claim their origins in antiquity, namely, that the builders of Solomon's Temple were the founders of Masonry, but the order can only be traced reliably back to medieval stone masons. So again, the Bible preceded the Masons and their ritual clothing.

Now from the website http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id107.htm we find:

"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.' (end quote)

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. Clement declared that these sacred teachings were the key to entering into the "highest sphere" of heaven.

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.

And from http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/1999TveJ.html we have:

"Especially significant in this respect are the five catechetical lectures delivered by the fourth-century bishop St. Cyril to newly-baptized Christians, comprising lectures 19-23 in the collection. In the first lecture (19:10-11), he speaks of the converts being "clothed in the garment of salvation, even Jesus Christ." And reminds them that "these things were done in the outer chamber. But if God will, when in the succeeding lectures on the Mysteries we have entered into the Holy of Holies, we shall there know the symbolical meaning of the things which are there performed."

In the second lecture (20:2-4), he reminds his listeners that "those things, which were done by you in the inner chamber, were symbolical. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds. Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked . . . Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ . . . After these things, ye were led to the holy pool of Divine Baptism."

In the third lecture (21:3-4, 6), he explains that the ointment is symbolically applied to the forehead and "thy other senses; and while the body is anointed with the visible ointment, the soul is sanctified by Holy and life-giving Spirit. And ye were first anointed on the forehead . . .Afterwards on your breast," then he notes that the anointing is for the high priest and king, suggesting that the initiate becomes [just that].

The Acts of Thomas [an apocryphal work] has several passages that seem to apply to temple rites, some of which we have already seen. In one passage, the apostle stands to pray and says, "thou Lord art he that revealeth hidden mysteries and maketh manifest words that are secret" (Acts of Thomas 10). During a subsequent prayer, he began, "Jesu, the hidden mystery that hath been revealed unto us, thou art he that hast shown unto us many mysteries; thou didst call me apart from all my fellows and spakest unto me three words wherewith I am inflamed, and am not able to speak them unto others" (Acts of Thomas 47).

The second-third century Christian writer Hippolytus wrote that the "heretics" Basilides and Isodorus "say that [the apostle] Matthias communicated to them secret discourses, which, being specially instructed, he heard from the Saviour."

[in the apocryphal book of] 2 Jeu 45-47, where Jesus has the disciples, men and women, dress in linen garments and surround him while he makes offerings at the altar and prays. The scene is followed by Jesus' instructions on how the disciples can use the signs and names to pass by both gods and angels to enter the presence of the Father (2 Jeu 48-50). In 1 Jeu 41, Jesus has the twelve surround him while he prays and they repeat after him. In the following chapters (2 Jeu 42-43, rather than 1 Jeu), Jesus asks that the twelve and the women disciples surround him so he can teach them the mysteries of God. What then follows in the text is a discussion of signs, seals, and how to pass by the guardians at the veils to the presence of God.

The third-century Christian writer Origen noted that the Orphian Gnostics believed that seven archons guarded the gates by which the soul ascends to heaven (Contra Celsum 6:24-38). According to 3 Enoch 18:3-4, an angel guards each of the doors of the seven heavenly palaces. The angels who guard the doors of heaven are mentioned in 3 Enoch 18:3; Chronicles of Jerahmeel 18:1, cf. 20:1-2; and Hekalot Rabbati 22:1. The guards of the gates of the aeons are also mentioned in Pistis Sophia 32, while Pistis Sophia 86 notes the nine guardians of the treasury of the light, which is the highest of the heavens in Gnostic lore. Even the Bible notes (Revelation 21:12-13) that twelve angels guard the twelve gates of the heavenly Jerusalem. In this respect, these heavenly gatekeepers are paralleled by the Levitic porters (doorkeepers) who served at the tabernacle and in the temple.

Epiphanius, a fourth-century bishop of Cyprus, cited the Gospel of Philip as saying, "The Lord revealed unto me what the soul must say as it goeth up into heaven, and how it must answer each of the powers above" (Against Heresies 36:13).

Chapters 33-40 of the Coptic 1 Jeu describe how Jesus instructed the apostles regarding the seals, names, and ciphers (hand-signs) they must use in order to prompt the "watchers" or guardians of the various heavens to open the veils and allow them entry.36 The account in 1 Jeu 33 is typical. It uses blanks and number-codes to conceal material that should not be revealed.

When you come to this place, seal yourselves with this seal: This is its name: . . ., while the cipher 70331 (?) is in your hand. Furthermore say this name . . . three times, and the watchers and the veils are drawn back, until you go to the place of their Father and he gives (you his seal and his name) and you cross over (the gate into his treasury).

Most of [1 Jeu] chapter 50 contains a list of the various individuals who will give to the individual their seals, mysteries, and the name of the Treasury of the Light. Regarding the soul's destination, the text says,

"Again you will pass in to their interior to the rank of the veils which are drawn before the great ruler (king) of the Treasury of the Light. They will give to you their great mystery and their seal and the great name of the Treasury of the Light. And they will be drawn back until you cross over and pass into them, until you reach the great Man, he who is the ruler (king) of this whole Treasury of the Light, whose name is Jeu."

And finally, anyone interested may read http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:UnK-MaN...g,+secret&hl=en (if you can't find this link, try a Google search for "Aspects of an Ancient Christian Initiation Ritual" by Hamblin) which ends with this conclusion by the author (Clement was considered an "orthodox" christian teacher in Alexandria who lived around 150-213 A.D.):

"I believe we can make the following conclusions based on the evidence of Clement's letter and the fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark. Clement's early branch of Christianity in Alexandria believed that there existed three levels of Christian knowledge: First, the canonical gospels, which were intended to bring new converts to Christianity. Second, a secret written tradition, exemplified by the Secret Gospel of Mark, which was only to be read by advanced Christians seeking higher, more esoteric, knowledge. Third, an even more secret oral tradition known as the "Hierophantic Teaching," and rituals, known as the "Great Mysteries," or "Mystery of the Kingdom of God." The "Mystery ofthe Kingdom of God" included secret teachings and some type of ritual initiation ceremony which lasted all night. The known elements of this initiation ceremony were being clothed in a ritual linen cloth or robe, and the use of seven veils (or perhaps doctrines, doors, angels, etc.) hiding an innermost sanctuary. At some time around A.D.125, Carpocrates acquired knowledge of some or all of these secret teachings and rituals from an apostate elder in Alexandria. A part of Carpocratian Gnostic teachings was thus derived from a modified form of the secret Alexandrian Christian teachings and rituals. Gnostic writings and rituals, which manifest many parallels to Latterday Saint temple ritual motifs, may in part represent a Gnosticized version of the Hierophantic Teaching and the Great Mystery mentioned by Clement. Thus by means of the newly discovered letter of Clement of Alexandria, it is possible to reconstruct a detailed outline of the origin, nature, transmission, and transformation of an early Christian secret initiation ritual system, purportedly established by Jesus himself."

Again, read the whole website for that to make more sense but I think it's indicative of the overall tenor of the article. Well, now that I've doused everyone with more information than they wanted, I maintain yet again that I believe Joseph Smith saw in Masonry the apostate remnants of a once divine system of worship established by Jesus through his apostles in New Testament times. Regardless of whether that is fact, I do KNOW for myself that Joseph Smith received the endowment by revelation, and all subsequent modifications of it by prophets of God have been to the RITUAL, not the ENDOWMENT or GIFT promised in the ritual.

[Jason]

LeGrand (aka ApostleKnight),

Great post (#47)!

I can only presume you graduated from the Michael Bagent and Richard Leigh College of Pseudo-History?

Did you have any classes with Dan Brown?

[Ray]

Heh, so even after that wonderfully detailed discourse, concerning an issue which we [LDS] consider to be most sacred, again we can see that Jason does not feel the promptings of the Holy Ghost to help him know the truth, even when the truth is phrased in words that he can understand and are right in front of his face.

But again, if it helps any, I for one truly do appreciate your thoughts, and in fact I am copying that post into my archives so I can read it again and possibly share it with someone else later. :)

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray@Sep 23 2005, 10:20 AM

Heh, so even after that wonderfully detailed discourse, concerning an issue which we [LDS] consider to be most sacred, again we can see that Jason does not feel the promptings of the Holy Ghost to help him know the truth, even when the truth is phrased in words that he can understand and are right in front of his face.

But again, if it helps any, I for one truly do appreciate your thoughts, and in fact I am copying that post into my archives so I can read it again and possibly share it with someone else later.  :)

←

Detailed discourse? Yes.

Accurate? Not really.

If LeGrand wishes, I'd be happy to correct his many errors. Might take a day or so, but I'll do it.

[pushka]

ApostleKnight, thanks for reprinting those pieces...I read quite a bit of what you printed during my own Google search last night...so I feel a little more knowledgeable about the subject matter overall.

I noticed, during my readings, that it was mentioned that Moses had used the same information, regarding signs, tokens, etc. as Pagans had, and that Christians and later Masons, followed by the LDS church had also used these same sources...but had altered them according to their own beliefs, eg: The Early Christians and the LDS church have stated that these originated from Jesus, and so on...

My question, therefore, is how can Christianity justify using Pagan symbols etc. and then alter them according to their own beliefs when the origins of the symbols is so obviously Pagan, Occultist even? Wouldn't that be akin to me making up my own story of a Jesus type figure, and doing just the same? How could I expect anyone to believe that it was for real?