I remember spending hours in the library reading about temple symbols from old, “special collections” books — all in an attempt to satiate my curiosity about a historical and cultural custom that predominated religious life of which I could not participate in. I remember reading that the clasped hands could symbolize friendship, our relationship with the Lord, and/or the marriage relationship. It was time well spent.

Richard G. Oman, “The Exterior Symbolism of the Salt Lake Temple,” which was published a couple of years ago in BYU Studies.

You can download it from the BYU Studies website here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/productitem.asp?id=1131&type=7

One can point to the evolution of certain masonic borrowings as being problematic. Brent Metcalf has done this. But this simply raises the question of the role of 19th century religious perspective as a way of restoring ancient traditions. In other words it assumes that any genealogy of 19th century culture must directly maintain borrowed items all the way back to 1st century Palestine. (i.e. if masonry retained the endowment it must retain all borrowed items in a kind of purity of repetition) This is, to my mind, not only unnecessary to the LDS position but rather doubtful a priori. Of course Mormon critics don’t see it that way, as Brent Metcalf’s writings attest. (Although the item he wrote on – the five points of fellowship – have been removed from the endowment raising obvious questions about how essential it was to the endowment and undermining his position)

I do not know the history of the evolution of temple ordinances….so therefore I cannot comment on why or how they were changed.

On Changes: I think one important element is the changing social context of the endowment. It used to be something that a person would do just a few times in their entire life. It was very long (essentially all day). Now we have a concept of temple work for the dead in which we expect people to regularlly (where possible) attend the temple. The length (mainly as a result of repitiations) as been limited. I also think that there were teachings and oaths made in the temple which strictly speaking were not part of the endowment, which have been removed. Finally, I think that certain elements of simply been modified in light of current needs and conditions. I don’t find this problematic, but this is because I don’t really view ordinances as necessarily unchanging in their form or meaning. They are necessary not in some absolute or metaphysical sense. Rather they are relatively necessary, that is they are necessary because God requires them. And God can require different things at different times.

However the particular form they taken in early Mormonism is clearly masonic. A lot of the symbols are understood in a masonic sense. Joseph explicitly ties the restoration of the endowment to masonry. So merely finding ancient forms of this doesn’t really address the central issue.

However to follow up with my original point, I suspect many elements of Mormonism regarding Christology and so forth Joseph got from Protestantism and Biblical commentaries. Why is that OK while receiving information from Masonry bad? Why do we accept all the revelations Joseph received in response to studying the Bible or Hebrew as fine, but get uncomfortable if he claims the same kernel as coming from Masonry or perhaps even the general “hermetic” culture?

I think this gets back to the Biblical inerrancy issue. We’re comfortable, in a certain sense, with Protestant views of Biblical inerrancy, even if we intellectually discount them. Yet extra-Biblical sources we are also very comfortable with the Protestant distrust of them – especially the conservative Protestant dislike of what I prefer to call Renaissance philosophy. (Of which masonry is one manifestation)

The answer should be as obvious as it is unavoidable. Catholics and Protestants receive their “influences” from the same sources as do all Christian sects: directly from the Old and New Testaments. We as well as they are all Christians in belief, thus it is quite understandable and unavoidable that as they existed before us in worshipping Christ, we could not but receive some influence from their contemporary forms of very general worship (e.g., hymns, dress, perhaps architecture). However the deeper one proceeds into the weightier matters of faith, the less can be seen of any possible influence from other Christian denominations.

Freemasonry, on the other hand, is not at all Christian in either foundation or dogma; instead it is historically, dogmatically, and indisputably — Pagan. And most troublingly, unlike the mild Christian influences on general worship that can perhaps be said to exist in the Church from other sects, yet the deeper one proceeds into Mormon doctrine and ordinances the more influence Freemasonry has.

Freemasonry claims to have originated in ancient Egpyt from pagan religions and practices founded upon a very solid foundation of the Occult, astrology, numerology, and Magick, all of which are denounced in the strongest terms possible by the Old Testament, the New Testament, and — last but hardly least — the Mormon Church itself, irnoically.

In the Bible, the hatred with which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob denounces all “magicians,” “soothsayers,” “witches,” and pagan representatives is so great that entire cities were laid waste by His command. And this same righteous disdain is ironically found almost as strongly in the Mormon Church, too… though not at all in any genocidal sense, of course. Thus were God to truly have inspired Joseph as claimed, there can be not one shred of doubt but that He would most certainly not have done so in restoring such important lost Truths as the Temple and its ordinances through the influences of such pagan and borderline-Satanic beliefs and practices as those found in Freemasonry.

And that, I’m afraid, is why the Freemason influences matter so much to anyone for whom Truth also matters.

However for “Molly Mormons” and others like them for whom “warm fuzzies” matter more, please ignore these facts, take two chapters from Moroni, say a quick “cleansing” prayer to “feel the Spirit”… and prolly by morning you’ll again be able to face your Mormon painting of Christ as an auburn-haired, Caucasian BYU linebacker, and the photos of the nearest Temple and the First Presidency smiling so sweetly down at you… and feel the waves of Mormon “Stepford Family” catatonia descend, thankfully obliterating from your concern all the unsettlingly poignant facts herein contained.

Hmmm… perhaps a more suitable analogy of Mormon indifference to facts and complacent “contentment” can be found elsewhere in science fiction —

Landru: “You will be absorbed.
Your individuality will merge
into the unity of good,
and in your submergence into the
common being of ‘The Body,’
you will find contentment
and fulfillment.
You will experience…
the absolute good.”

Kirk: “Joy be yours–
and tranquillity, my friend.”

McCoy: “And peace and harmony.
Are you of the body?”

Kirk: “The body is one.”
Blessed be the body
and health to all of its parts.
My friends…
What is your theory, Mr. Spock?”

Spock: “This is a soulless society, Captain.
It has no spirit, no spark.
All is peace and tranquillity–
the peace of the factory, the tranquillity of the machine,
all parts working in unison.”

(“Return of the Archons”, Star Trek)