Melchizedek Priesthood

[SGMan]

Does anyone know how the Freemasons got the Melchizedek priesthood? There are certificates, mostly dated in the 1790's that have survived and have as a heading, "Sacred Band of Royal Arch Templar Priests after the Order of Melchizedek".

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Honestly, I think the connections between Mormonism and Masonry each fall into one of two categories:

 

1)  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day; and/or

2)  Frankly, I think Joseph Smith found Masonic symbolism to be an effective learning tool and beautiful/powerful in its own right, and so (with the Lord's approval) he co-opted elements of it into his version of the temple endowment. 

 

The concept of Melchizedek Priesthood has fascinated "fringe" Christians from the time of the Gnostics onwards.

[kapikui]

From what I understand the Freemasons started when masons were stoneworkers.  When rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem, the priests didn't want to stop the ceremonies while the work progressed, so the masons working there witnessed them and imitated them.  They then passed them down, and most likely adulterated them over time. 

 

The temple ceremony is just that a ceremony.  It is important, but the actions done are only truly important as far as the symbolism and learning they impart.  The actual importance in the authority.

 

Anyone, anywhere could observe every public LDS ceremony and replicate it.  If there is no authority there, any ordinance mimicked would have no power.

 

Now let's examine another interesting thing.  God tends not to reveal things that we can go get for ourselves.  If there is no where we can get the information we need, then we will get the pure revelation, otherwise we'll get "read here" or go listen to so and so.  We get told instead where we can go to get the information we need. 

 

Is it just possible that the Freemasons had as part of their traditions pieces of the actual temple ceremonies being performed in a previous dispensation? They seem to date back far enough. As I pointed out above, the mimicry of an ordnance by someone without authority does not render that ordinance valid.  It does, however render the information contained within the mimicked ordinance useful to someone to whom the authority has been restored, and who is now tasked with restoring the ordinance.

[SGMan]

I appreciate the answers. They make sense  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

2)  Frankly, I think Joseph Smith found Masonic symbolism to be an effective learning tool and beautiful/powerful in its own right, and so (with the Lord's approval) he co-opted elements of it into his version of the temple endowment. 

 

For what it's worth, I adamantly and firmly disagree with this. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

For what it's worth, I adamantly and firmly disagree with this. :)

 

*Shrug*  I wouldn't be terribly displeased to be proven wrong; but my understanding is that scholars have been pretty much unable to track masonic rituals any earlier than medieval times.

 

But I'd be interested to know what leads you to your conclusion.  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

*Shrug*  I wouldn't be terribly displeased to be proven wrong; but my understanding is that scholars have been pretty much unable to track masonic rituals any earlier than medieval times.

 

But I'd be interested to know what leads you to your conclusion.  :)

 

My conclusion comes from the idea of not relying upon the arm of flesh or the those who think they are wise (or, "scholars", in other words). :) Even if scholars found "proof" of the source of Masonry, showing it to be tied into something entirely separate from the temple, I wouldn't trust that.

 

I don't really think it much matters, so it's just an opinion. The temple ceremony is as it is meant to be, regardless of the means whereby it came to be. However, as I have increased experience and knowledge in and of the temple (I am currently an ordinance worker), I am learning more and more that there is greater meaning and depth behind what is in the temple than what I ever imagined before...and I'm only brushing the surface of these meaning I'm sure.

 

Ultimately, as there is no proof one way or the other, I choose to believe that God gave the temple ceremony to Joseph as it was meant to be, not in accordance with Joseph's preferences or learning, but in accordance with absolute, pure, and eternal truths.

 

I do not think we'll get to the other side and find that the things given therein were merely symbolism. I know that symbolism is an important part of of it all. But that is not ALL there is to it, imo. There are, I believe, concrete things behind what is given and taught in the temple as well. And the details matter very much. I cannot see simply replacing these symbols - as if they were different in ye olden days than today. That would be akin to replacing the symbol of baptism with something else representative of being re-born. Sure, you could find something else that carried the symbolism. But I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve and their posterity were all baptized in water by immersion the same as we are. I do not believe God just used what Joseph knew to fill out the ceremony.

 

I believe very firmly that what was given and taught to Adam and Eve via the ordinances of God is the same thing that is given and taught to us.

[MarginOfError]

It's funny how differently people can interpret the same thing.  When I was an ordinance worker, I became more and more convinced that very little of what was presented in the temple was beyond "mere symbolism."  And I came of the persuasion that people take it far too literally.

 

I'm inclined to agree with JAG, that the masonic rituals were a timely and convenient vehicle in which Smith recognized (or was inspired to recognize, whatever you want to term it) an opportunity to teach eternal principles.

 

It isn't like these principles haven't been taught in varying ways before.  The Israelites built the Tabernacle to be an allegory to one's journey back to God's presence.  In their legends, Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden Eastward in Eden and expelled further west after the transgression.  God, then, lived in the western part of Eden.  The door of the tabernacle was on the east side, and the holy of holies was on the west side.  So as you progressed from the door to the God's presence, you were--in a sense--acting out the journey of returning to God's presence.

 

Paul completely restructured this allegory to include a vertical progression culminating in a return to the heavens---the home of the Greek and Roman Gods.

 

It's also interesting that Smith used the Masonic rituals in his time because Free Masons weren't exactly uncommon.  Familiarity with the rituals was, I believe, much more prevalent in that time than it is today.  A couple of rounds of anti-Free Masonry led to a decline in the organization's popularity.

 

Thus, I'm of the persuasion that if the temple ordinances were to be revealed today, I suspect they would look very little like how we currently practice them.  I suspect a form would be chosen that was more familiar to the general populace.

[The Folk Prophet]

It's funny how differently people can interpret the same thing.  When I was an ordinance worker, I became more and more convinced that very little of what was presented in the temple was beyond "mere symbolism."  And I came of the persuasion that people take it far too literally.

 

I'm inclined to agree with JAG, that the masonic rituals were a timely and convenient vehicle in which Smith recognized (or was inspired to recognize, whatever you want to term it) an opportunity to teach eternal principles.

 

It isn't like these principles haven't been taught in varying ways before.  The Israelites built the Tabernacle to be an allegory to one's journey back to God's presence.  In their legends, Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden Eastward in Eden and expelled further west after the transgression.  God, then, lived in the western part of Eden.  The door of the tabernacle was on the east side, and the holy of holies was on the west side.  So as you progressed from the door to the God's presence, you were--in a sense--acting out the journey of returning to God's presence.

 

Paul completely restructured this allegory to include a vertical progression culminating in a return to the heavens---the home of the Greek and Roman Gods.

 

It's also interesting that Smith used the Masonic rituals in his time because Free Masons weren't exactly uncommon.  Familiarity with the rituals was, I believe, much more prevalent in that time than it is today.  A couple of rounds of anti-Free Masonry led to a decline in the organization's popularity.

 

Thus, I'm of the persuasion that if the temple ordinances were to be revealed today, I suspect they would look very little like how we currently practice them.  I suspect a form would be chosen that was more familiar to the general populace.

 

I accept this thinking as potentially correct. But I don't believe it to be so. It will be interesting to find out in the next life, eh?

[MarginOfError]

I can honestly say I have no idea how political correctness got brought into this.

[Dravin]

I can honestly say I have no idea how political correctness got brought into this.

 

Unless he did a stealth edit, he said potentially correct, not politically correct.

[The Folk Prophet]

No stealth edits. Just a misread.

[MarginOfError]

I feel pretty stupid right now.

[The Folk Prophet]

I feel pretty stupid right now.

 

I wouldn't. It's an easy mistake. We have a history of seeing things differently, and it is, theoretically, something that one like me might have said, were I in the right (or, rather, wrong) sort of mood.

 

I suppose you could call it politically correct to try and fit something Joseph taught into historical context -- though it would be a stretch, I think, of the use of the phrase.

[MarginOfError]

I wouldn't. It's an easy mistake. We have a history of seeing things differently, and it is, theoretically, something that one like me might have said, were I in the right (or, rather, wrong) sort of mood.

 

I think what really took me by surprise was that pulling in political correctness on this one seemed extreme even for you.  The first thought that went through my head was.....well, it wasn't politically correct.  At the very least, I'm glad I don't have to retain that thought now :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I feel pretty stupid right now.

 

Stupid enough to become a Republican?  (I kid, I kid . . .)

 

Going back to TFP's post--yeah, I think specific parts of the temple endowment are almost certainly of ancient origin.  I think the concepts of coming back into God's presence, of making specific covenants along the way and gaining greater portions of light and knowledge as one makes and keeps those covenants--are no improvisation.  I don't really like Nibley's approach to the temple and ancient times--the bits I've read of his work come off as disorganized and "proof-texty"--but I do think it's interesting how certain ideas, phrases, and, occasionally, gestures, seem to keep "popping up" across various ancient near-east religions.

 

But there are certain quarters in the Church who seem to think that God dictated the endowment text verbatim directly to Joseph Smith, and that these are the exact same rites that were performed in the Temple of Solomon.  This creates no small degree of angst every time changes are made to the modern endowment ritual.  There's a difference between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment.  The former is unchanging in nature; the latter, changed even between Smith and Young (as Young himself admitted), was not committed to writing until Smith had been dead for thirty years, and was not standardized throughout all temples in the Church until the early 20th century.

[MarginOfError]

Stupid enough to become a Republican?  (I kid, I kid . . .)

 

 

If I really wanted to make political correctness an issue in this thread, I could say something like, "I'll never be that stupid."

[The Folk Prophet]

Stupid enough to become a Republican?  (I kid, I kid . . .)

 

Going back to TFP's post--yeah, I think specific parts of the temple endowment are almost certainly of ancient origin.  I think the concepts of coming back into God's presence, of making specific covenants along the way and gaining greater portions of light and knowledge as one makes and keeps those covenants--are no improvisation.  I don't really like Nibley's approach to the temple and ancient times--the bits I've read of his work come off as disorganized and "proof-texty"--but I do think it's interesting how certain ideas, phrases, and, occasionally, gestures, seem to keep "popping up" across various ancient near-east religions.

 

But there are certain quarters in the Church who seem to think that God dictated the endowment text verbatim directly to Joseph Smith, and that these are the exact same rites that were performed in the Temple of Solomon.  This creates no small degree of angst every time changes are made to the modern endowment ritual.  There's a difference between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment.  The former is unchanging in nature; the latter, changed even between Smith and Young (as Young himself admitted), was not committed to writing until Smith had been dead for thirty years, and was not standardized throughout all temples in the Church until the early 20th century.

 

I think it needs to be clearly understood what is and what is not "the endowment". The endowment itself is not everything said and spoken in the endowment room. There are specific bits that are the actual ordinance. Those are the parts that I question having once been different. The rest...as you say, is only presentation.

[Just_A_Guy]

Agreed.

[Guest AnthonyNole]

sbiancamento dei denti costo