Moving up the Mormon ladder - what to expect

During a recent conversation with a current LDS bishop I mentioned how much I disliked the MTC as a young missionary. I explained how difficult it was for me to be surrounded by the kinds of impatient and intolerant kids that make up the missionary force. I heard horribly sexist conversations on a regular basis, endless trash talking of other religions, racist jokes and attitudes, bragging about idiotic things, macho confrontations, materialistic life goals, egotistical ambitions to climb the missionary leadership ladder, etc. It was disheartening for me, a slightly less sexist, less racist, less materialistic, less boastful, but still wholly argumentative and egotistical missionary.

The bishop's response to my complaint came without hesitation: THAT'S WHAT YOU FIND AT EVERY LEVEL. He explained that with every higher position attained the same horrible attitudes can be found and at no point are you likely to reach a level of LDS Church leadership where disgusting and horrible men have been weeded out. The idea of walking with spiritual giants as you climb the hierarchy is a myth.

In other words, the cream doesn't seem to be rising to the top... Should we be worried?

LDS FAQ - "Masonry and the Temple"

I found a brief Church-sanctioned (I believe) explanation of the LDS temple's relationship to Freemasonry. I'm curious what it says. Text found here.

Students of both Mormonism and Freemasonry have pondered possible relationships between Masonic rites and the LDS temple ceremony. Although some argue that Joseph Smith borrowed elements of Freemasonry in developing the temple ceremony, the Endowment is more congruous with LDS scriptures (especially the book of Abraham and the Book of Moses) and ancient ritual than with Freemasonry. Both the book of Abraham and the Book of Moses are texts Joseph made up out of thin air, so I personally don't see why anyone would feel better knowing that they've influenced the creation of the LDS temple ceremonies. Pointing out that the temple has more more in common with those writings than with Freemasonry still doesn't justify the presence of Masonic oaths and handshakes in the temple. Latter-day Saints view the ordinances as a revealed restoration of ancient temple ceremony and only incidentally related to Freemasonry. There's no good reason to think the LDS temple ceremonies are ancient and I'm looking forward to seeing how you continue to downplay the influence of Freemasonry. The two are not antithetical, however, nor do they threaten each other, and neither institution discourages research regarding the ancient origins of their two ceremonies. The origins of Freemasonry are not ancient at all, they are medieval, late medieval. Many sacred ceremonies existed in the ancient world. Modified over centuries, these rituals existed in some form among ancient Egyptians, Coptic Christians, Israelites, and Masons, and in the Catholic and Protestant liturgies. Is this written for 6th graders? I can't believe you dared list the Masons in this group. And Egyptians? WTF? Which Egyptians are you talking about? Common elements include the wearing of special clothing, ritualistic speech, the dramatization of archetypal themes, instruction, and the use of symbolic gestures. Levi Strauss would be so proud to read this, but aren't these elements too broad to be taken seriously in this particular discussion of Freemasonry in the LDS temple? One theme common to many—found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Egyptian pyramid texts, and Coptic prayer circles, for example—is man's journey through life and his quest, following death, to successfully pass the sentinels guarding the entrance to eternal bliss with the gods. Right, Thor and all his buddies in Valhalla. Though these ceremonies vary greatly, significant common points raise the possibility of a common remote source. Human psychology most likely. Mormon wishful thinking knows no ends.
 

The Egyptian pyramid texts, for example, feature six main themes: (1) emphasis on a primordial written document behind the rites; (2) purification (including anointing, lustration, and clothing); (3) the Creation (resurrection and awakening texts); (4) the garden (including tree and ritual meal motifs); (5) travel (protection, a ferryman, and Osirian texts); and (6) ascension (including victory, coronation, admission to heavenly company, and Horus texts). Oh my god, that's so... DIFFERENT from the Mormon temple! Wow. Like such ancient ceremonies, the LDS temple Endowment presents aspects of these themes in figurative terms. Only if you're working in the most sympathetic of generalizations. It, too, presents, not a picture of immediate reality, but a model setting forth the pattern of human life on earth and the divine plan of which it is part. We're going to need some actual details here. It sounds like you're seeing what you want to see. It's called confirmation bias.
 
Masonic ceremonies are also allegorical, depicting life's states—youth, manhood, and old age—each with its associated burdens and challenges, followed by death and hoped-for immortality. The difference between your argument for the temple paralleling an Egyptian Book of Breathings and the Freemason ceremonies is that Joseph actually knew Masons and became one himself. On the other hand, he had no understanding of Egyptian despite having purchased a scroll containing a book of breathings. He feigned a translation that is laughable to today's Egyptologists. There is no universal agreement concerning when Freemasonry began. Maybe not, but no one can seriously claim it pre-dates the late Middle Ages. Some historians trace the order's origin to Solomon, Enoch, or even Adam. Only Mormon historians. Others argue that while some Masonic symbolism may be ancient, as an institution it began in the Middle Ages or later. Only everyone who isn't Mormon thinks this.
 
Though in this dispensation the LDS Endowment dates from Kirtland and Nauvoo, Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances are as old as man and that the essentials of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including its necessary ritual and teachings, were first revealed to Adam. Mormons have no basis for believing this other than the fact that Joseph Smith, a notorious conman, taught it to his followers and it has been believed and repeated for generations. These saving principles and ordinances were subsequently revealed to Seth; Noah; Melchizedek; Abraham, and each prophet to whom the priesthood was given, including Peter. There is no historical evidence to convince us most of these men ever existed (Peter is the exception) and much less evidence that they ever practiced the ceremonies of the current LDS temples. Latter-day Saints believe that the ordinances performed in LDS temples today replicate rituals that were part of God's teachings from the beginning. But they have no reason to believe anything similar. Hopefully the author of this article will cite some convincing texts.
 

The Prophet Joseph Smith suggested that the Endowment and Freemasonry in part emanated from the same ancient spring. Joe Smith? He's not a very trustworthy source. Do you know he tried to trick investors into funding an illegal bank? The man was as phony as a $3 bill. Thus, some Nauvoo Masons thought of the Endowment as a restoration of a ritual only imperfectly preserved in Freemasonry and viewed Joseph Smith as a master of the underlying principles and allegorical symbolism (Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt, June 17, 1842, Church Archives). I'm sure those few unnamed Freemasons were totally right... The philosophy and major tenets of Freemasonry are not fundamentally incompatible with the teaching, theology, and doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. Obviously not, but that does not mean they derive from ancient biblical patriarchs or that one group did not co-opt them from the other. Both emphasize morality, sacrifice, consecration, and service, and both condemn selfishness, sin, and greed. So what? You're talking about two groups who's morality is founded in Christian European thought. You're also ignoring the fact that essentially every ethnography you'll read will describe cultures who's beliefs include similar concepts and virtues. That says more about human psychology than it does about the LDS temple being ancient. Furthermore, the aim of Masonic ritual is to instruct-to make truth available so that man can follow it.
 
Resemblances between the two rituals are limited to a small proportion of actions and words; indeed, some find that the LDS Endowment has more similarities with the Pyramid texts and the Coptic documents than with Freemasonry. At this point, dear reader you should compare and contrast the text shared between the temple endowment and the Mason ceremonies. They are in many cases identical! Even if we are to accept the author's claim that they only make up a "limited" portion of the temple, that DOES NOT justify their presence in temple liturgy. I would love to see where the endowment plagiarizes Coptic liturgy in the way. Even where the two rituals share symbolism, the fabric of meanings is different. Because Joseph took the symbols and recast them for his own purposes. In addition to creation and life themes, one similarity is that both call for the participants to make covenants. You keep dancing around the details. I find this approach willfully dishonest. Yet, the Endowment alone ties covenants to eternal blessings and to Jesus Christ. How did you reach this conclusion? Your argument is "OK, we have similarities, but ours is legit, theirs isn't, trust me!"? I'm not impressed. The Masonic ceremony does not emphasize priesthood or the need to be commissioned by God to represent him. So whoever emphasizes that the most wins? What kind of moronic game are you playing? The active participation of God in the world and in men's lives is a distinctly LDS temple motif. As is God's active participation with women, but only through men. It's called divine sexism. While Masons believe in an undefined, impersonal God, everything in the LDS Endowment emanates from, or is directed to, God who is a personage and man's eternal Father. That doesn't mean Joseph Smith didn't steal the Masonic rituals and infuse them into his own thought. The Endowment looks to the eternities and to eternal lives, but Freemasonry is earthbound, pervaded by human legend and hope for something better. Because Joseph had to outdo everyone, including himself.
 

Freemasonry is a fraternal society, and in its ritual all promises, oaths, and agreements are made between members. In the temple Endowment all covenants are between the individual and God. You finally seem to be admitting they use the same oaths (which they do), even if directed to different entities. In Freemasonry, testing, grading, penalizing, or sentencing accords with the rules of the fraternity or membership votes. In the Endowment, God alone is the judge. You lost me. Do you mean that the Freemasons actually take quality control seriously while Mormons just let anything go in the temple? That's dishonest. In the Mormon temple you have someone checking on you every step of the way making sure you do everything just right. The difference being that Freemasons have to learn everything by heart and then get tested, whereas Mormons get to copy what's shown to them on the spot. Within Freemasonry, rank and promotions are of great importance, while in the LDS temple rites there are no distinctions: all participants stand equal before God. Not really. Men and women have separate seating and gendered clothing, including a veil to cover the faces of women. Husbands are placed over wives in the temple. Men get to become king and priests and women queens and priestesses. Historically kings ruled over their queens and we have no idea what a priestess even does according to Mormon doctrine. This is not equality. The clash between good and evil, including Satan's role, is essential to, and vividly depicted in, the Endowment, but is largely absent from Masonic rites. So Joseph added a maniacal Satan to the stage, so what? This is a red herring. You need to look at the details you so diligently avoid! That's where you'll find the real devil. Temple ceremonies emphasize salvation for the dead through vicarious ordinance work, such as baptism for the dead; nothing in Masonic ritual allows for proxies acting on behalf of the dead. Because it's a ridiculous notion. Why would a fraternity need to induct the deceased? Women participate in all aspects of LDS temple rites; though Freemasonry has women's auxiliaries, Masonic ritual excludes them. Freemasonry is a men's club, just like the LDS endowment was back when it was introduced. Both have changed (Mormonism first, thanks to polygamy) to be more inclusive of women. The Endowment's inclusion of females underscores perhaps the most fundamental difference between the two rites: LDS temple rites unite husbands and wives, and their children, in eternal families (see Eternal Lives; Marriage). Now you've moved away from the endowment, where the Masonic plagiarism is found, to the sealing room. You've just moved the goal posts, moron. Latter-day Saint sealings would be completely out of place in the context of Masonic ceremonies. Incredible. I almost want to give you points for trying, except I feel like you're purposefully being sloppy in your analysis of Freemasonry and the LDS temple. I don't know if you're being dishonest or if you simply don't know what you're doing.
 

Freemasonry's 5 points of contact as used in the LDS temple endowment until 1990.

Thus, Latter-day Saints see their temple ordinances as fundamentally different from Masonic and other rituals and think of similarities as remnants from an ancient original. This conclusion is only reached by ignoring the verbatim theft of oaths, the co-opting of symbols, the exact copying of handshakes, and many other elements, while simultaneously cherry picking cultures to compare your beliefs to and then staying back in the vaguest of generalities in order to avoid seeing your comparison implode.

KENNETH W. GODFREY should be ashamed of himself.

Temple prep - "'We Saw the Lord'"

The following text is taken from the pamphlet "Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple" (2002) and annotated by me.

The day of the return of Elijah was a Sunday afternoon, April 3, 1836. A sacrament meeting had been held in the Kirtland Temple. Right, because the concept of the temple was more like a stake center or cathedral, not a Freemason temple. The Prophet described that afternoon in these simple terms:

In the afternoon, I assisted the other Presidents in distributing the Lord’s Supper to the Church, receiving it from the Twelve, whose privilege it was to officiate at the sacred desk this day. After having performed this service to my brethren, I retired to the pulpit, the veils being dropped, and bowed myself, with Oliver Cowdery, in solemn and silent prayer. After rising from prayer, the following vision was opened to both of us. (D&C 110, introduction.)

The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. So this is all imaginary...

We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. You know where else Joseph saw visions of gold? In a hat.

His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: This is sounds like one very horrifying acid trip.

I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Lord, are you really going to run through all your titles?

Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice. Yay!

Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name.

For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house. You're not pissed that they didn't built it by a beach or a lakeside resort, Lord? There's not even a patio for your sun chair.

Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house. Is this where Mormons get the misguided idea that the prophet sees and hears the Lord? Who was the last prophet who said he saw Jesus in the temple?

Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house. Tens of thousands? Proportionally to the world's population, that not very impressive.

And the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands; and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen. The fame of the Kirtland temple is known abroad only to members and they have been given a whitewashed and embellished version of its history and meaning.

After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north. Ah, yes, the 10 tribes!

After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed. The "gospel of Abraham"? Is that the gospel where you circumcise yourself, your sons and all other males in your household?

After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said: WHOA! Hang on a sec. You made a big booboo, Joseph. I think we can safely say you're pulling this vision out of your ass.

Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—

To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—

Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors. (D&C 110:1–16.) I can't wait for the day of the Lord. That's Sunday, right?

I saw Jesus in the temple. He was so beautiful.

It had happened! This signal event went unheeded by the world, but it would influence the destiny of every soul who has ever lived or will live. In the words of Ken Ham, WERE YOU THERE? How do you know this happened? The story appears grossly fabricated. Things began quietly to happen. What things?! The Church became a temple-building church. The Church is definitely not quiet about its temple building! It is very quiet about how the purpose of temples has drastically changed and even quieter about how the ordinances continue to change today.

In the world there emerged here and there, in a way thought to be spontaneous, people and organizations and societies interested in tracing genealogies. This happened thanks to John Farmer's efforts in the more heavily populated New England area throughout the 1820s, not Joseph Smith receiving "keys" in on of America's sparsely populated frontier towns in the mid-1830s. This has all taken place since the appearance of Elijah in the Kirtland Temple. Or do you mean Elias? Please reread my comments above.

From that very day, April 3, 1836, the hearts of the children began to turn to their fathers. Before that, all children hated their fathers and never thought of them, especially not to help them. Thereafter ordinances were not tentative, but permanent. Baptism was tentative before 1836? Ordination to the Priesthood was tentative!! Are you serious? The sealing power was with us. Rest easy, kids, this highly suspicious story Joseph Smith told means we've got the most powerful magic of any religion. You're in the right place! No authorization transcends it in value. So never ever under any circumstance take seriously what other religions say they have to offer. That power gives substance and eternal permanence to all ordinances performed with proper authority for both the living and the dead. You'll feel it, brothers and sisters. It will feel low key. Almost anticlimactic. Kind of like the awesomeness of it all was in what was said, not so much in what was done and what happened afterward. What I'm saying is don't expect to see the Lord or anything amazing like that. Keep your expectations to a minimum.

The Land of Make-Believe

For [D. W.] Winnicott, play is acknowledged as other than reality: children grant that they are must playing. Play grants itself the right to treat a spoon as a train, and a parent is barred from asking whether the spoon really is a train. But once play is over, the train is again a mere spoon. Still, play is more than fantasy or escapism. It is the construction of a reality with personal meaning. It takes something from the everyday world - a spoon - and transforms it into something more - a train.

Mormon Barbie's sacred garments.

In Winnicott's terms, play is a 'transitional' activity. It provides a transition form childhood to adulthood, from the inner world of fantasy to outer reality, and from the known outer world to the unknown one. Just as a child clings to a physical object - a teddy bear - to create a safe world that then enables the child to explore with confidence the outside world, so an adult clings to an internalized object - a hobby, an interest, a value, or, I suggest, a myth - that then enables the adult to deal with a much wider world. Just as the child knows that the teddy bear is not Mummy yet clings to it as if it were, so the adult recognizes that the myth is not reality yet adheres to it as if it were. Myth is 'make-believe'. (Robert Segal, Myth: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 138, 139)

Mormon-style robes of the Holy Priesthood.

The temple - re-enacting myth

Robert Segal's explanation of Mircea Eliade's approach to myth strikes me as particularly applicable to Mormons' motives for enacting the endowment ceremony.

To hear, to read, and especially to re-enact a myth is magically to return to the time when the myth took place, the time of the origin of whatever phenomenon it explains:

But since ritual recitation of the cosmogonic myth implies reactualization of that primordial event, it follows that he for whom it is recited is magically projected in illo tempore, into the 'beginning of the World'; he becomes contemporary with the cosmogony. (Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, p. 82)

Playing Adam and Eve in the LDS temple.

... In returning one to primordial time, myth reunites one with the gods, for it is then when they are nearest, as the biblical case of 'the Lord God['s] walking in the garden in the cool of the day' typifies (Genesis 3.8) That 'reunion' reverses the post-Edenic separation from the gods and renews one spiritually:

What is involved is, in short, a return to the original time, the therapeutic purpose of which is to begin life once again, a symbolic rebirth. (Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, p. 82)

The ultimate payoff of myth is experiential: encountering divinity. (From Myth: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 55-56)

Aaaaand... welcome to the Celestial Room!

A toppled tower

I'm not sure how long I believed in the literal existence of the Tower of Babel and all its linguistic consequences. I'm pretty sure I believed in it as a little kid, probably didn't believe in it as teen (because who's stupid enough to try to find God living in the sky when we all know he's near Kolob?), tried really hard to regain belief in it as a missionary, and gave up entirely after taking a few linguistics courses and an Old Testament one at BYU post-mission.

The story of the Tower is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it must have been quite an undertaking to intimidate God enough that he felt he had to stop construction (but not destroy the tower), and yet there is no solid archeological evidence for it. Secondly, it seems this story has more to do with Mesopotamian myth designed to explain where languages come from and teach us not to challenge God. And most importantly, we know damn well that the languages of the world definitely did not all spring into existence circa 2300 BC. The very idea is simply ludicrous.

Even without knowing the first thing about historical linguistics you can see that the oldest texts we've found include more than one language pre-2300 BC.

This is all very bad fucking news for Mormons. Why? Because The Book of Mormon requires a literal belief in the Tower of Babel, that's why. Read for yourself...

the Title Page

 the Introduction

and the story in Ether.

"Dear Heavenly Father, I know this story isn't true, 

but please tell me it's True. Thanks. Amen."

Predictably - because The Book of Mormon must be understood as a literal history - the LDS Church still insists on a literal understanding of the Tower of Babel story. It's totally moronic, but somehow we find a way to doubt. There has to be an explanation. Heavenly Father will explain everything after we've proven ourselves. We'd better keep doubting this doubt.

Virtue of abstaining

In the LDS Church we grow up admiring Joseph Smith for his unwavering courage and astonishing moral strength because at the age of seven he declined to drink alcohol as an anesthetic before undergoing bone surgery.

But we also grow up failing to address his willingness to imbibe alcohol as and adult, including the day he was killed.

Rather than consider what this might mean about Joseph's character, let's reflect instead on what this says about LDS culture. Why can't we be honest with ourselves about Joseph Smith's behavior? Do we think that his drinking in adulthood shows a fallen man, someone who was stronger as a seven year old? Does Joseph's drinking undermine our faith in the World of Wisdom? Will admitting that he liked alcohol somehow give members the green light to start drinking? Why can't we be honest?

Sun miracles

God's awesomest miracles happen in the sky. According to scripture the Sun, err... Shinehah miraculously did not set because Joshua prayed that it wouldn't. That's pretty amazing. We all know that the setting sun is really just the Sun fading from our view as the earth spins away from facing it, so saying the Sun stood still actually means the earth stopped spinning, and we know that if the earth were to suddenly stop spinning (coming to a halt in less than 24 hours is extremely sudden for a massive object like the earth to stop spinning at it usual speed of 1038 mi/hr along the equator if you're American or 2670 km/hr if you're not) anything that isn't bedrock would keep spinning around. think about what would happens inside a snowglobe when you stop shaking it - the internal atmosphere keeps shaking and splashing around for a while. We're talking about massive tsunamis and land upheavals that would trash the world worse than the Flood. And yet the holy word of God cannot be wrong! (For anyone tempted to play the "symbolic language" card, please explain how a symbolic reading is supposed to fit the context of this miracle.)

"C'mon, God! Please? We're not done killing people yet."

Then there was that time in 3 Nephi when the Sun set but it was still as bright as noon day. The star of Bethlehem hadn't even shown up yet to help illuminate the earth and some how no darkness fell at all that night. Amazing! What on earth or in heaven could equal the brightness of another star that's only 8 light minutes away from the earth? Don't worry about the science, just believe.

Plains Indians go to Mesoamerica to venerate the cross with the Nephites.