Thanks for your comments. They are well taken.

Bryce Haymond said: "I believe Joseph might have borrowed some masonic elements to present the endowment to the Saints."

Are you sure that "Joseph" did such a thing? Have you read all of the accounts of that first day provided by the participants?

No I am not, and I have not. That is why I said “might.” I’m not ruling out the possibility.

I think we have to recognize that Joseph was a Mason, as well as several other early Church leaders and members. We can’t discount the possibility that there might have been some amount of influence of Masonry in the Church. But I think we can be clear that the endowment did not come from the Masons. Masonry was not the source. It was given by revelation from God.

Thanks again for all who commented on this post.

“Joseph used something they already knew
to teach them something new.”

http://mormonstories.org/?p=14

This assertion is not historically accurate. The small number of Mormon Masons in Nauvoo before the endowment was first given is clearly noted in the Founding Minutes of the Nauvoo Lodge.

Aha said: "the notion that while the content of endowment was obtained by revelation, Joseph was given more personal liberty in terms of formulating its presentation."

Which historical document states that "Joseph" formulated the presentation?

Aha said: "In the case of the temple, the message was certainly received by revelation"

But much MORE of the temple ceremony was received by revelation - as noted in D&C 124.

Bryce Haymond said: "I believe Joseph might have borrowed some masonic elements to present the endowment to the Saints."

Are you sure that "Joseph" did such a thing? Have you read all of the accounts of that first day provided by the participants?

Bryce Haymond said: "Perhaps the Lord consciously utilized the Masons as part of the restoration of some of the presentational elements of the ceremony."

Why would He need to do that when He listed the elements that are allegedly 'Masonic' right in D&C 124 (read the ENTIRE section carefully)?

Bryce Haymond said: "Your noting of some of the more peculiar "Masonic" elements of the presentation that have been dropped through the years is good."

If the elements that were dropped (or modified) are truly 'Masonic' then why can they be found among the temple worship of the Bible? You might want to pay attention to what is said at the next FAIR conference.

Jettboy said: "it wasn't considered a scandal by Joseph Smith's contemporary followers that he got some of the Temple ritual from Masonic rites."

Please feel free to produce historical documents where the Prophet or contemporary Saints claimed that he did any such thing.

Jettboy said: "[The temple ritual] was an inspired redaction of the Masonic message of the 'brotherhood' of human kind."

Does your viewpoint mean that we should all ignore the Lord's own definition of the temple ritual provided in D&C 124?

Elijah Sandalphon said: "To understand how Joseph may have viewed Masonry from a religious view I would suggest you read any of the work by Rev. George Oliver."

No thanks. Mindreading of dead historical figures isn't terribly compatible with good scholarship.

Bryce Haymond said: "I think we can all agree that there was at least some influence from Masonry when Joseph instituted the Mormon endowment. . . . Joseph didn't build the pinnacle of Christian worship around the rites of a fraternal brotherhood."

I don't agree ( I need real evidence to be convinced). Again, you might want to study the accounts of the first endowment session from all of the participants. Taken together, both of your statements almost sound contradictory.

Manuel said: "The Temple Endowment, in my opinion, is a modification of the Masonic Rite."

This 'opinion' contradicts the Lord's own words in D&C 124.

Manuel said: "I believe [Joseph Smith] becoming a Mason was an important factor in the development of his character and part of the training God had planned for him."

Those are some major assumptions. Do you have ANY historical documents to back them up?

Manuel said: "We can assume that Egyptian rituals, apocryphal descriptions, early Christian traditions, etc resemble the Temple Ceremony, but these sources were not as readily available to Joseph as Freemasonry was. And the early leaders of the Church did not embrace any other tradition as much as they did Freemasonry."

But the temple ceremony can be seen in great detail in the Book of Mormon (yes, that's right), the Bible, the Pearl of Great Price, and the D&C revelations. A careful study of all of these "readily available" sources indicates that Joseph Smith's knowledge of Nauvoo-era endowment rites were accessible to Joseph Smith long before he became a Freemason.

Manuel said: "I strongly believe God [H]imself used the Masons to teach Joseph Smith the principles and format that would later prove adequate for the restoration of the Endowment of the Saints."

See the comment directly above.

Manuel said: "Brigham Young stated . . . . . ."

Yes, he certainly did. But you are taking his viewpoint on this matter out of context.

David Littlefield said: "Baptism has been from antiquity. Joseph did not need to call it something else, he took a practice that was had among the apostate remains of earlier gospel dispensations, he said it will be done like this (immersion), with the authority of God, and these are the words that will be said. But an understanding of baptism already existed, with varying degrees of corruption. Joseph chose to call it the same thing, he framed it in the English language, with words representative of the original words."

You are ignoring all of those revelations from God on the matter of restoring baptism - including God-given and angel-delivered instructions on the form and the wording.

David Littlefield said: "We are afraid . . . to give an inch, conceding that a word, phrase, idea, or imagery was used from Masonry"

There is no need to concede when those allegedly 'Masonic' words, phrases, ideas, and images in the LDS endowment keep being found among God's ancient Covenant people, verifying that a restoration has taken place - especially when the context of these similarities matches the LDS version as opposed to the Masonic version. These discoveries are still happening (even as recently as last year). There is no need to throw in the towel.

-David

And I fully 100% agree.

I believe if a Hopi lodge was in Navuoo, and the people of Navuoo were active in it, the temple experience of today would have a Hopi flavor to it. But the kernel that is required to be an endowment would still be there, as it is with a Masonic influence.

In the same way that Joseph restord the church by revelation, I'll guarantee you LDS worship services resemble more of the protestant services of Joseph's time, than the first century worship services (they would have had a Jewish flavor to them). The flavor of the meeting is not what makes the church.

-David

Your example of the Hopi lodge is instructive. If there had been a Hopi kiva in Nauvoo, and if Joseph and the early Saints had been initiated into the Hopi rites instead of the Masonic ones, would the world have then cried, “Oh, Joseph clearly got it from the Hopis”? I think they would have. But is that correct? Is it accurate to say that he “modified” the Hopi rites? No.

Masonry has similarities with the temple, and the similarities were instructive to Joseph, perhaps even as a precursor or training in the process of the restoration, but I believe he received the endowment by revelation.

“Modify” is a strong word, and does have connotations that he took from one and changed it slightly for the Saints, which I don’t believe is what happened, and is an argument that our critics love to use to show that Joseph was not a prophet. I believe he was “influenced” by Masonry, but that the endowment was received by revelation.

The fact that the endowment has had changes in it since Joseph Smith’s time is not to be misunderstood that he did not receive it fully as an original from God. It is only further evidence that the endowment is given by revelation, and that continued revelation today will modify it as God so desires.

I don’t believe that Joseph had to become a Mason in order to introduce the endowment, but it was a sort of training for what was to be revealed to him. As for the word per word similarities, whether Joseph got them from the Masons or direct from revelation they came from the same source. Just because the Masons were using the same language does not mean that they are the source of it. They may have got it from somewhere much more ancient. Put differently, if two things exist that are similar it does not necessarily mean that one came from the other, but that they may have both sprung from the same source, which is what I believe happened here.

I’m glad we agree that Joseph didn’t “get the endowment from the Masons.” I, like you, believe that God may have used the Masons to teach Joseph in the modes of ceremony and ritual in preparation for the endowment.

I think we have a problem with nomenclature here, I suspect most us of here agree.

There is not a fragmented "authority" that is being revitalized, or something like that, but words and teachings. Earlier, someone used the example of baptism. Baptism has been from antiquity. Joseph did not need to call it something else, he took a practice that was had among the apostate remains of earlier gospel dispensations, he said it will be done like this (immersion), with the authority of God, and these are the words that will be said. But an understanding of baptism already existed, with varying degrees of corruption. Joseph chose to call it the same thing, he framed it in the English language, with words representative of the original words. This is the extent that I am comfortable with Mormonism's connection to Masonry.

While I love Hugh Nibley, and I take his point, in all fairness, there was no Hopi lodge in Navuoo, and as far as I know, none of the early brethren had been initiated in a Hopi lodge.

IMHO, the discussion on the Mormon-Masonic connections has been made hyper-sensitive because the enemies of both Mormonism and Masonry have driven a wedge between us. We are afraid (for good reason) to give an inch, conceding that a word, phrase, idea, or imagery was used from Masonry, because we know how that concession will be used against us. Even though that " word, phrase, idea, or imagery" originated or approximates the earliest temple teachings.

-David

“He didn't need to take the Masonic rite and modify it.”

The problem I see with this sentence is that it implies that Joseph Smith of his own will modified the rite, which I think is incorrect. Whether there is a hesitant nature among the Saints to use the word “modify,” I believe per the sources available it is not congruent to deny the possibility, and by not denying that possibility, still allow for the Prophet to work through the revelations of God.

“He was given the original by God.”

It needs to be mentioned that the “Endowment” that Joseph Smith established has had significant modifications in content/substance, and that the current Endowment Ceremony does not encompass many of the things the original had. There are quite a few sources on this subject, but due to its nature, it is not easy to openly discuss on a public forum; nevertheless, it is no secret today’s Endowment is not the same Joseph Smith/Brigham Young practiced in the Nauvoo temple.

Furthermore, prophets have continued to modify this ritual to better accommodate the needs and concerns of the saints. I don’t see why the word “modify” would imply that no divine inspiration/revelation was involved in the process.

Also, I we have to take into account the availability of the source (Freemasonry). Joseph Smith became a Mason after he became a Prophet. I don’t think he was moving backwards in the progression line, and I believe him becoming a Mason was an important factor in the development of his character and part of the training God had planned for him.

We can assume that Egyptian rituals, apocryphal descriptions, early Christian traditions, etc resemble the Temple Ceremony, but these sources were not as readily available to Joseph as Freemasonry was. And the early leaders of the Church did not embrace any other tradition as much as they did Freemasonry. It seems also a bit silly to deny the word per word similarities of the Masonic rite and the Temple endowment.

“Yes, because it did have similarities. But he did not get the endowment from the Masons. To believe that, in my opinion, is to believe Joseph did not receive it from God through revelation, and I believe dismisses Joseph as the prophet he claimed to be.”

I see your point above. I don’t think Joseph “got the endowment from the Masons.” But I strongly believe God himself used the Masons to teach Joseph Smith the principles and format that would later prove adequate for the restoration of the Endowment of the Saints. I find it a weak argument to try to divorce Joseph Smith’s teaching from his Masonic training. I also find unethical to completely discredit the Masons as factors in Joseph Smith’s formation of both doctrine and character, and I do believe they deserve a place in the process.

Brigham Young stated:

“I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it.”

I believe Masonry is the fragmented remains of earlier gospel dispensations. To use the language found in those remains to frame the restored ascension ritual, is only logical.

-David