Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The Temple

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to MormonThink page "The Temple"

The Greek Psalter Translation

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

Lying for the Lord

Quick Navigation

• "We were somewhat startled to find that FAIR admits that Masonry does not date back to Bible Times"

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
WEBSITE EDITOR COMMENT: Due to the sacred nature of the temple ceremony, we initially tried to be sensitive and not use any specific references to temple ordinances. However, we found it impossible to really discuss the issues that trouble many Latter-day Saints without being somewhat open and specific about the activities in the temple. It shouldn't come to anyone's surprise that the complete, accurate temple ceremony is available many places on the Internet with just a click of the mouse, so there really isn't anything new revealed on this website that can't be found in many other websites and books. However we give our own opinions in response to the critic's arguments as well as true-believing member responses.

FairMormon commentary

• If any reader still thinks that MormonThink is run by active members of the Church, this statement ought to disabuse them of that notion. They are basically saying "Despite our covenant with God to keep the temple ordinances sacred, everyone else talks about them, so we might as well talk about them anyway."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The temple ceremony appears to be copied from the Masons. Heber C. Kimball, a Mason himself said, "We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon, and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing."

Author's source(s)

• Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 13 November, 1858, 1085, LDS archives; see also Stanley B. Kimball, "Heber C. Kimball and Family, The Nauvoo Years, BrighamYoung University Studies 15 (Summer 1975): 458. See also David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship, Smith Research Associates, San Francisco, 1994, 56.)

FairMormon commentary

• Joseph Smith's critics want to label him as an intellectual thief by claiming that he stole some of the ritual elements of Freemasonry in order to create the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony. The greatest obstacles to this theory are the facts that

1. Joseph Smith claimed direct revelation from God regarding the Nauvoo-era endowment,
2. Joseph Smith knew a great deal about the Nauvoo-era endowment ceremony long before the Nauvoo period - and thus long before his entry into the Masonic fraternity, and
3. the Nauvoo-era temple endowment ceremony has numerous exacting parallels to the initiation ceremonies of ancient Israelite and early Christian kings and priests—parallels which cannot be found among Freemasons.

Additional information

• Freemasonry—Some critics of Mormonism see similarities between the rites of Freemasonry and LDS temple ceremonies and assume that since Joseph Smith was initiated as a Freemason shortly before he introduced the Nauvoo-style endowment he must have plagiarized elements of the Masonic rituals. This viewpoint leads them, in turn, to conclude that the LDS endowment is nothing but a variant form of Masonic initiation and therefore not from a divine source. (Link)

• Temple ordinances: revealed—It is claimed that the LDS temple ordinances were either made up by Joseph Smith or borrowed, by him, from an earthly source. This collection of quotes has been divided into two sections. The first section consists of statements from the LDS Church's official website indicating that the temple ordinances were 'revealed' by the Lord and 'restored' from antiquity. The second section consists of statements from scripture and the General Authorities of the LDS Church. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
A detailed comparison between the endowment and Masonry shows beyond any doubt a strong connection between Masonry and the LDS temple ceremony....Joseph's introduction of the endowment ceremony came two months after he had been initiated into Freemasonry.

FairMormon commentary

• Joseph's initiation into Freemasonry (15–16 March 1842) predates his introduction of the full temple endowment among the Saints (4 May 1842), however, there is evidence that Joseph was discussing elements of the endowment in early 1841. The source of this information is Book of Abraham Facsimile 2, for which Joseph explained that Figures 3 and 7 were related in some manner to "the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood" and "the sign of the Holy Ghost." Joseph's explanation of Figure 8 was that it contained "writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God."

Quotes to consider

On 5 May 1841 William Appleby paid a visit to Joseph Smith, who read to him the revelation on temple ordinances, now identified as Doctrine and Covenants 124, that was received 19 January 1841. After the two men discussed baptism for the dead, the Prophet got out his collection of Egyptian papyrus scrolls and, while exhibiting Facsimile 2, explained to Appleby that part of the drawing was related to "the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed."

It is also clear from Doctrine and Covenants 124 that Joseph Smith was well aware of the main ritual elements of the Nauvoo endowment ceremony at least as early as 19 January 1841. (See DC ꞉124.)^[1]

Additional information

• Temple endowment and Freemasonry—Some critics of Mormonism see similarities between the rites of Freemasonry and LDS temple ceremonies and assume that since Joseph Smith was initiated as a Freemason shortly before he introduced the Nauvoo-style endowment he must have plagiarized elements of the Masonic rituals. This viewpoint leads them, in turn, to conclude that the LDS endowment is nothing but a variant form of Masonic initiation and therefore not from a divine source. (Link)

Question: Where did 19th-Century Latter-day Saints believe that Freemasonry came from?

It was a common 19th century belief of both Mormons and Masons that Masonry had it origins in the Temple of Solomon

The Saints of Joseph Smith's era accepted the then-common belief that Masonry ultimately sprang from Solomon's temple. Thus, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball understood Masonry to be a corrupted form of a pristine ancient temple rite. One author later wrote that masonry as an "institution dates its origins many centuries back, it is only a perverted Priesthood stolen from the Temples of the Most High."

It was a common 19th century belief of both Latter-day Saints and Masons that Freemasonry had it origins in the Temple of Solomon. Some modern Masons continue to hold to this idea, or believe Masonry is (at least in part) derived from other ancient sources. Although this is a minority view that has been forcefully challenged, it was the view held by the early Latter-day Saints and apparently the prophet Joseph Smith himself.

Early Latter-day Saints' views of Freemasonry

Joseph Fielding wrote during the Nauvoo period:

Many have joined the Masonic institution. This seems to have been a stepping stone or preparation for something else, the true origin of Masonry. This I have also seen and rejoice in it.... I have evidence enough that Joseph is not fallen. I have seen him after giving, as I before said, the origin of Masonry.

Heber C. Kimball wrote of the endowment:

We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the Priesthood which would cause your soul to rejoice. I cannot give them to you on paper for they are not to be written so you must come and get them for yourself...There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from Priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect.

Thus, to Joseph's contemporaries, there was much more to the LDS temple endowment than just warmed-over Freemasonry. None of Joseph's friends complained that he had simply adapted Masonic ritual for his own purposes. Rather, they were aware of the common ritual elements, but understood that Joseph had restored something that was both ancient and divinely inspired.

Early Church leaders believed that Freemasonry was an "apostate" form of the Endowment

• Willard Richards (16 March 1842): “Masonry had its origin in the Priesthood. A hint to the wise is sufficient.”
• Heber C. Kimball (17 June 1842): “There is a similarity of priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph [Smith] says Masonry was taken from priesthood.”
• Benjamin F. Johnson (1843): Joseph Smith “told me Freemasonry, as at present, was the apostate endowments, as sectarian religion was the apostate religion.”
• Joseph Fielding (December 1843): The LDS temple ordinances are “the true origin of Masonry.”
• Saints in Salt Lake City (1849–50): “Masonry was originally of the church, and one of its favored institutions, to advance the members in their spiritual functions. It had become perverted from its designs.”
• Heber C. Kimball (9 November 1858): “The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy. . . . They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.”
• Church Authorities (1842–1873): “The Mormon leaders have always asserted that Free-Masonry was a . . . degenerate representation of the order of the true priesthood.”

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances"

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (June 5, 2015)

Joseph Smith taught that the origins of modern temple ordinances go back beyond the foundation of the world.1 Even for believers, the claim that rites known anciently have been restored through revelation raises complex questions because we know that revelation almost never occurs in a vacuum. Rather, it comes most often through reflection on the impressions of immediate experience, confirmed and elaborated through subsequent study and prayer.2 Because Joseph Smith became a Mason not long before he began to introduce others to the Nauvoo endowment, some suppose that Masonry must have been the starting point for his inspiration on temple matters. The real story, however, is not so simple. Though the introduction of Freemasonry in Nauvoo helped prepare the Saints for the endowment — both familiarizing them with elements they would later encounter in the Nauvoo temple and providing a blessing to them in its own right — an analysis of the historical record provides evidence that significant components of priesthood and temple doctrines, authority, and ordinances were revealed to the Prophet during the course of his early ministry, long before he got to Nauvoo. Further, many aspects of Latter-day Saint temple worship are well attested in the Bible and elsewhere in antiquity. In the minds of early Mormons, what seems to have distinguished authentic temple worship from the many scattered remnants that could be found elsewhere was the divine authority of the priesthood through which these ordinances had been restored and could now be administered in their fulness. Coupled with the restoration of the ordinances themselves is the rich flow of modern revelation that clothes them with glorious meanings. Of course, temple ordinances — like all divine communication — must be adapted to different times, cultures, and practical circumstances. Happily, since the time of Joseph Smith, necessary alterations of the ordinances have been directed by the same authority that first restored them in our day.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The temple ceremony coincided with plural marriage as practiced by the early saints. As Joseph did not want to let the masses know about polygamy, he may have introduced the temple ceremony as a way of keeping polygamy a secret while introducing select members into the practice of plural marriage. As an important element of the temple ceremony is to never reveal what happens in the temple, even under penalty of death (before 1990), this would help keep the polygamous marriages a secret by the people that knew about them.

Author's source(s)

• D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power," p. 146; see Quinn's citation of Heber J. Grant's journal sheets, 7 June 1907, LDS Archives

FairMormon commentary

• The presentation of plural marriage was part of the original endowment, therefore everyone who received their endowment would have known about it. In fact, in 1864 George A Smith indicated that at the first endowment, approximately 60 of them apostatized.
• The endowment was given to hundreds of people before the Nauvoo Temple was abandoned. Nobody has ever claimed that all of those were involved in plural marriage.

Quotes to consider

George A. Smith, General Conference, Thursday, April 7, 1864 forenoon. [Deseret News 13. 29 April 13, 1864): 224-5; Millennial Star 26. 23 (June 4, 1864): 353-7; Journal History 6-10 April, 1864]. Elder George A. Smith delivered a discourse on the influence of false spirits. The Gospel was preached to accomplish the salvation of the people, and with that object they received it, and knew that they had the world afterwards to contend with; yet, many had permitted some trifling, unimportant object thrown in their path, to cause them to stumble. He had been acquainted with the Church almost from the beginning, and dark clouds had almost constantly attended its growth and progress….After the first endowment was given, some sixty persons apostatized and essayed to form a new church, that would get along easier with the world than the Church established by the commandment of God, but they had dropped into oblivion.
Increase McGee Van Dusen and Maria Van Dusen, Positively True. A Dialogue between Adam and Eve, The Lord and the Devil, called the Endowment: As was acted by Twelve or Fifteen Thousand, in Secret, in the Nauvoo Temple, said to be revealed from God as a Reward for Building that Splendid Edifice, and the Express Object for which it was built (Albany: C. Killmer, 1847). 10, 15-16.

• One of those first apostates were the van Deusen couple. Craig Foster wrote about them, and included this comment, taken from their book, published almost immediately after their apostasy:

The initiates are led through a series of rooms which are said to represent the Garden of Eden and the fall of Adam and Eve, as well as what he describes as "a Burlesque on all the Sects." The final room, representing the celestial kingdom of God, is the setting for the teaching of the "Spiritual Wife Doctrine," or polygamy. The people are told that all former marriage contracts, as well as the laws of the land, have been "cut asunder"[1]: "It is now the woman's privilege to choose whom she sees fit; if she likes the one she has been living with, she can keep him; if not, she is at liberty to ship him and take another; and it is the man's privilege to have one, two, four, ten, or twenty . . ."
Ibid., 16. in From Temple Mormon to Anti-Mormon: The Ambivalent Odyssey of Increase Van Dusen Craig L. Foster. Dialogue, 27. 3, (Fall 1994): 276

Additional information

• Removal of temple garments before leaving for Carthage—Joseph and others with him removed their garments before traveling to Carthage Jail. Why did they do this? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why would Joseph Smith want to wear garments?...One answer of course, is that God commanded Joseph to institute the wearing of garments. Another possibility is that Joseph believed in magical and mystical things such as seer stones; he believed that putting symbols on clothing would protect him from harm. When Joseph was killed, they found a Jupiter Talisman on his body. This supports his belief in magical ornaments and symbols.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using an unsupported implication  —The critic wishes to make an implication based upon anonymous sources or heresay.
  This is simply pure speculation with no basis in anything found in contemporary sources.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We have to wonder why would God want us to be unnecessarily uncomfortable? It's especially difficult on women... It's one thing to tell people to dress modestly, but that can certainly be done without garments. If you can control people down to their underwear, then you really have them....Garments are the Mormon burqas - just worn on the inside.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using mocking language and hyperbole to try to make his or her point  —The critic intentionally exaggerates claims in order to mock believers.
  Latter-day Saints consider the garment sacred and do not appreciate them being referred to as the "Mormon burqas".

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Where's the Love? There seems to be an absence of love in the actual temple marriage ceremony. It seems to be more about obeying God and the Church.

FairMormon commentary

•   Trivialization  —Critics take a complex idea and attempt to trivialize it down to a few simple sound bites in order to prove their position.
  This is an absurd claim. The critic simply wishes to trivialize the ceremony by claiming that it is all about obedience to the Church.
• The temple marriage ceremony is a very special experience that is performed in a quiet and sacred setting in the presence of immediate family and friends. The ceremony is also an ordinance which binds two people together for eternity. Claiming that there is an "absence of love" is utterly ridiculous.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Comments: Even among faithful members, very few people honestly say that their first temple experience was a complete joy or how they could really feel God's love or how Christ-centered they thought the experience was. At a minimum, people are kind and just say that it wasn't what they expected or that it just seemed strange to them.

FairMormon commentary

•   Generalization  —The non-believing critic attempts to speak on behalf of the majority of believing Church members.
  We know many people for whom the temple is a very special experience. Just ask any temple-attending active member. If the temple makes them feel "strange," why do they keep going?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We've been hearing more and more stories that temple names are being recycled. Many people are reporting that temple patrons are performing endowments for the same deceased people multiple times. Some people report it as clerical errors while others state that sometimes the temples run out of names and just use names over again so the temple goers have someone to perform ordinances for....We imagine it would be quite a let-down if someone drove five hours to do a temple session to only be told that they ran out of valid names. So we understand why the temples may sometimes recycle names but it doesn't change the fact that the dead do not benefit at all from having their ordinance work done a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th time.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is applying circular reasoning  —The premise used by the critic depends upon validity of the conclusion.
  The critics state that they have "been hearing" stories and that "many people are reporting" things without any substantiation whatsoever. The critics end their summary by assuming that these "stories" are true and that they "understand" why it is necessary.
•   Wishful thinking—  Critics often come up with ideas on ex-Mormon message boards that represent "wishful thinking" that supports their idea that the Church is in decline.
  The idea that temple work is in decline and that it is necessary to recycle temple names is an idea that is often floated around on ex-Mormon message boards.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
"The St. George Temple endowment included a revised thirty-minute 'lecture at the veil' which summarized important theological concepts taught in the endowment and also contained references to the Adam-God doctrine. For example, Brigham Young taught in this lecture that Adam 'had begotten all the spirit[s] that was to come to this earth, and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.... [They] consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in.' *(see footnote) This teaching may have been included in the veil lecture as late as the turn of the century. It is uncertain whether the St. George Temple veil ceremony's Adam-God teaching was included in all temples."

Author's source(s)

• David John Buerger "The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 20, No. 4,(Winter, 1987).

FairMormon commentary

• The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into LDS doctrine.
• After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine. If there is anything true in that doctrine, one would expect that truth to be in harmony with what is already revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed can clear up the matter.

Additional information

• Adam-God and the "Lecture at the Veil"—Was "Adam-God" ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony? I've read about something called "the lecture at the veil" that was supposedly in the endowment at one time. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why would the church place such emphasis on the temple?...Money...Control...Church importance...Peer pressure.

FairMormon commentary

• The Church emphasizes temple attendance as a way of helping members understand the importance of the plan of salvation and the atonement of Jesus Christ. It is a way for us to renew and remember the covenants that we have made with God.
• If the Church were emphasizing temple attendance simply for the purposes of acquiring money and exercising control, then why would they emphasize attending the temple often? Would that not simply use up more Church resources such as power, heat and time?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Shouldn't your entrance into God's Kingdom be based on how you lived your life and what's in your heart, and not dependant on your knowledge of the signs and tokens you learned in the temple?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is "speaking for God"  —The critic, despite not believing in God, presumes to know what God ought to require.
  

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Ending summary by critics. If potential temple goers knew that they would have to wear silly robes at their own weddings, and that they needed to learn secret handshakes and passwords to get into heaven, they wouldn't go. And why is Satan such a big part of the ceremony? Where's Christ?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using mocking language and hyperbole to try to make his or her point  —The critic intentionally exaggerates claims in order to mock believers.
  Temple robes are treated as sacred. They are only "silly" in the eyes of those who no longer believe.
• Are they seriously asking where Christ is in the temple ceremony? That would be the personage who goes by the name "Jehovah."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our thoughts Temples are beautiful buildings that many Latter-day Saints have pictures of hanging on the walls of their homes. If they were just used for public weddings, sealings and special worship services, then the temple would be viewed by members and nonmembers alike as holy places. Baptisms for the dead might still be looked at as a strange practice, but at least it perhaps may have some Biblical justification.

FairMormon commentary

• This is an arrogant assertion. The critics are claiming that if the Church simply removed several of its most important ordinances and turned the temples into something similar to public cathedrals, then everyone would be happy? Latter-day Saints view the temple as a sacred space, and do not have any desire to modify ordinances to make the rest of the world comfortable.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
However the temple endowment ceremony seems so foreign to the nice, friendly worship services we attend every Sunday in the LDS chapels. The temple ceremony seems almost pagan in nature. It's like a ritual we would expect the Druids to practice. Very few members are really spiritually uplifted when they first go through the temple to take out their endowments. Most feel confused, shocked and not quite sure what to make of their experience in what is supposed to be one of the holiest places on earth. We were always offended when members of other churches referred to our church as a cult. We never really understood why -- until we went through the temple endowment ceremony.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using mocking language and hyperbole to try to make his or her point  —The critic intentionally exaggerates claims in order to mock believers.
  Comparing temple ceremonies to pagan practices is offensive.
•   Generalization  —The non-believing critic attempts to speak on behalf of the majority of believing Church members.
  Many currently active members are spiritually uplifted when they first go through the temple, and revisit the temple often. Just because the critic was not uplifted does not give him or her the ability to speak for the majority of Latter-day Saints and assume that "very few" members are uplifted.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Adam and Eve play a major part in the temple ceremony and are treated as actual, real, historical people (the first humans on the planet), which indicates that the temple ceremony is not factual, as Adam and Eve are very likely a myth.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is applying circular reasoning  —The premise used by the critic depends upon validity of the conclusion.
  The critic draws a conclusion that the temple ceremony is invalid based upon an assumption that Adam and Eve did not exist. Latter-day Saints believe that Adam and Eve were real people.

== Notes ==

1. [note]  Matthew B. Brown, "Of Your Own Selves Shall Men Arise, Review of The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship by David John Buerger," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 97–131. off-site
2. See Footnote 30, Matthew B. Brown, "Of Your Own Selves Shall Men Arise, Review of The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship by David John Buerger," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 97–131. off-site
3. H. Belnap, "A Mysterious Preacher," The Instructor 21 no. ? (15 March 1886), 91.; cited in Matthew B. Brown, "Of Your Own Selves Shall Men Arise, Review of The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship by David John Buerger," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 97–131. off-site
4. Andrew F. Ehat, "'They Might Have Known That He Was Not a Fallen Prophet'—The Nauvoo Journal of Joseph Fielding," BYU Studies 19 no. 2 (1979): 145, 147. Spelling and punctuation standardized.
5. Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt, 17 June 1842, Parley P. Pratt Papers, Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah, spelling and punctuation standardized.
6. Letter, 7–25 March 1842, Willard Richards to Levi Richards, published in Joseph Grant Stevenson, ed., Richards Family History (Provo, UT: Stevenson’s Genealogical Center, 1991), 3:90.
7. Stanley B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1981), 85.
8. Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life’s Review (Heber City, UT: Archive Publishers, 2001), 113.
9. Brigham Young University Studies, vol. 19, no. 2, Winter 1979, 145; hereafter cited as BYUS.
10. John W. Gunnison, The Mormons, or Latter-day Saints, in the Valley of the Great Salt Lake (Philadelphia: Lippincott and Company, 1856), 59.
11. BYUS, vol. 15, no. 4, Summer 1975, 458.
12. Thomas B. H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1873), 698.