I generally consider myself pro-apologist. I think apologetics and apologists get a lot of undeserved grief in the Church (I see this as something of a pendulum swing from the 90s or so when Hugh Nibley types were rock stars that commanded huge fireside audiences). However, there have been a small handful of places where I personally found what I’ll call classical apologetics writ large to be a little coy (I’m making a distinction here between 2025 apologetics, which is more sophisticated by necessity, and, say late-20th century, “classical” apologetics). Well, actually really just two places, for all the other issues you can agree or disagree with their defense, but they actually do in fact articulate and address the issue head on, or in some cases the state of our knowledge was just super patchy to begin with (for example, Joseph Smith polygamy pre-Compton) and I don’t begrudge them having takes that haven’t really panned out.
The first issue is the Book of Abraham facsimiles. People may be able to find a disconfirming case, but it seems like classical apologetics really did dance around the simple issue of whether the hieroglyphics said what the PGP says they mean. Of course there are some intriguing hits and parallels that perhaps hint at Joseph trying to “study it out in his mind,” combined with some glossolalia and the assistance of the spirit on his part. For example, the creator God Amun-Re representing Kolob or the four cardinal directions (and no, contra Ritner and his patent inability to grant anything to the apologists he personally despised, this is a hit, the four sons of Horus were indeed the Gods of the four cardinal directions), but in classical apologetics it took a lot of reading between the lines to realize that most of the interpretations didn’t match up with their Egyptological meaning.
Again, pretending the issue is not there is not a problem anymore, apologetics is more straightforward and frank, and in my experience this issue is the one that really triggers certain antagonistic communities. Joseph said it meant X, we know it meant Y, therefore Joseph is a fraud, and it drives certain sectors of the r/exmormon world nuts that this isn’t the nail in the coffin for the Church.
There’s been enough ink spilled about Book of Abraham, more than perhaps any other critics/apologetics issue so I don’t have much more to say on that, I have a pretty typical 2025 apologist take on those issues, but the other issue where I think apologetics was a little coy was the endowment/freemasonry connection.
So to be clear, there’s simply no way that the parallels between Masonry and the temple ceremony are probabilistic happenstance. If an endowed member were to witness a masonic ceremony the parallels are quite obvious and really beyond any doubt. In fact, “parallels” is putting it generously, in some cases they are almost carbon copies. So any apologetics discussion about masonry and the temple needs to start from that premise.
Early apologetics material seemed to take advantage of the hesitancy of faithful members to engage details about the endowment ceremony in order to vaguely imply that the parallels were strained or superficial. I guess that’s true in the sense that the parallels are found in the mechanics instead of the deeper meaning, but that still raises the issue of why the connection between the mechanics. Also, as an aside, the temple ceremony and rhetoric is deadly serious about the importance of the mechanics themselves, so it’s a little misleading to imply that the technical details are superficial and are themselves bereft of deep meaning. As I have addressed elsewhere, the endowment is in the tradition of sacred sounds and sacred movements, so the technical aspects are indeed meaning-full.
So where am I on this? Simply put, the most parsimonious explanation for Joseph Smith’s modus operandi is that, perhaps drawing on his glasslooking and Book of Mormon experiences, where God clearly didn’t just give him the answers, he drew on pre-existing materials as a catalyst and wrestled with what the right answer was. This explains the Book of Abraham. This explains Zelph. This explains Masonry. This explains the use of his seerstone in the Book of Mormon translation process. This explains all the weird names in the revelations. You don’t have to carve out a thousand little niche exceptions to the standard narrative, since this one explains it all. This explains the Book of Mormon aspects that speak to particular 19th-century contexts. And less you think that I’m a super vanguard, Liahona Mormon, postmodernist on this, Brigham Young implied the same thing.
When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities . . . I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.
In terms of the temple, the famous instruction to Brigham Young that the ceremony was “not arranged perfectly” and that it was his responsibility to “organize and systematize all these ceremonies,” (which, incidentally didn’t really happen until deep into the Utah era, with different temples having different ceremonies) is another explicit acknowledgement of the develop-across time, wrestle with it while seeing through the glass darkly operandi. Again, this is what the most reliable primary sources convey, it’s not an ad hoc apologetic explanation after the fact.
However, in my opinion, it’s pretty clear in the historical record that Joseph Smith was sincere in using this modus operandi to divine the will of God. He wasn’t just making things up for fun, possibly like L. Ron Hubbard. Whether it’s consulting his Book of Abraham translation to help with the Kinderhook plates or keeping his seerstone, there was just too much that doesn’t add up if he was some non-believer that was just making it up. So we have this pattern of him sincerely drawing on pre-existing sources to make sense of the will of God, And it’s clear from D&C 9 that that’s the way God wanted it. He wasn’t just going to give Joseph a to-do list printed out every morning. It’s never that easy for Joseph or for us for that matter.
So with that background framework the endowment aspects that were local to his environment fade in importance, and in its place we see a connecting common liturgical themes that pop up across time and space, from my Mormon Scholars Testify testimony.
While the details and specifics are obviously masonic, the structure of the temple endowment ceremony reflects themes found all over the ancient world (e.g. Wikipedia “Eleusinian Mysteries”): concentric spaces of increasing holiness and decreasing profaneness, liturgical re-enactments of creation stories, the use of secret names, words, or tokens for admittance into areas of holiness and teaching, and most importantly, symbolic entry into the presence of God. God speaks to different peoples in their own ways and according to their own understanding, and I believe that for the early nineteenth century the masonic rituals were the most accessible framework through which Joseph Smith could be instructed that could tap into that archetypal temple theme found throughout the world. These connections aren’t parallelomania, and they aren’t grasping for straws. It’s clear that through the temple ceremonies Joseph Smith tapped into something more archetypal and ancient than was found in his immediate, largely low-Church Protestant surroundings and historical context.
The endowment is where our sacred space, sacred sounds, and sacred movements are found, and my Latter-day Saint worship experience is greatly enriched by it.
Comments
18 responses to “My Take on Masonry and the Temple”
I believe that for the early nineteenth century the masonic rituals were the most accessible framework through which Joseph Smith could be instructed that could tap into that archetypal temple theme found throughout the world.
I agree with the vast majority of what you have written, including the above statement. But in writing it, you have deposited an elephant in the room (I know–it’s getting crowded) and then proceeded to ignore it. What was true in the early nineteenth century is surely not true in the early twenty-first century. The masonic rituals are not remotely accessible to us now. The whole concept of “sacred sounds and sacred movements” is totally foreign to most of us. It’s the same complaint I raise about the KJV. Why did earlier generations get the message in a form that was accessible to them, but we are stuck with these obsolete formats?
Not sure I understand the objection to be honest. Since “sacred sounds and sacred movements” are not to be found in our generally disenchanted society, we should discard the ones we will have?
I don’t think our generation is entirely bereft of the sacred–and inasmuch as it is that’s not to our credit. In regards to the Masonic rituals, in a sense once they have divine imprimatur they are sanctified independent of their roots. After they were appropriated from the background context, as long as they have God’s stamp they do in fact become an holy symbol autonomous of their background.
Thank you. The longer I live and the more I observe the process of revelation, both in my own life and in the church leadership around me, the more I agree that God works with us where we are, with what we know. And yes, sometimes this results in the establishment of traditions that can, over time, start to feel dated. But God will continue to work with us, where we are, with what we know and understand. This includes huge changes in the form of the endowment (read: simplification and removal of many of the Masonic elements) within my lifetime. And that all makes sense to me.
As for modern “sacred sounds and sacred movements” found in our generally disenchanted society, one need only follow an average teenager to discover the memes and TikTok dances that define the secret and sacred knowledge of the modern popular orthodoxy. ;-)
Since “sacred sounds and sacred movements” are not to be found in our generally disenchanted society, we should discard the ones we will have?
Not necessarily discard them. We all have different learning styles and those sounds and movements will speak to some. But despite the claims of 20th century apologetics, the sounds and movements we borrowed from the Masons are not the same as the ones experienced by Old Testament Jews. And if we can regard those of the Masons as being as sacred as those of ancient Jews, then we should be able to come up with something equally sacred that speaks to the modern world.
In that, I may be a lost cause. The “sounds and movements” of Tik-Tok are as baffling to me as the masonic elements of the temple.
Just as the restoration of the fulness of the gospel retained many elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition–so to the restoration of the endowment retained many elements of the Masonic tradition.
Joseph viewed Masonry as a corrupted priesthood of sorts. And as such, his goal (IMO) was to restore an ancient order–that is, more so than to create a new order.
And so with that in mind, what apologists are focusing on these days (vis-a-vis the OP) are the ancient roots that both the endowment and Freemasonry have in common–and there’s been some good work done in that area, IMO.
That said, while I’m convinced that that commonality does exist–that’s not to say that everything that Joseph retained from the Masonic tradition must’ve had ancient roots. I don’t have a problem with the idea that some of the more concurrent aesthetics of Masonry might’ve been retained–albeit for a different purpose it its new context.
Re: The Facsimiles: There’s been a lot of good apologetic work done there too. These days there seems to be more focus on how Egyptian Jews might’ve utilized the local iconography and language for their own purposes–that is, rather than trying to interpret the facsimiles in what might be viewed as strictly “Egyptian.”
The apologetics I read are new books usually from academic presses by members or non hostile others. I get there are apologetic podcasts and YouTube channels now but they haven’t sold me on them being use the time. They seem to be reacting to ex/anti podcasters/tic tocers. It may be because I’m old but mostly the social media apologetics or anti stuff just don’t seem to have deep information or well thought out cross contextulazition. Just more folks with hot takes.
Ritual is ubiquitous, even in this age if disenchantment, suggesting it meets a human need. Universities may be bastions of rationality, but they’re also thick with ritual. (It’s fun to watch a sociology department get all self-aware about its rituals.) Rituals differ from everyday life by design, so it’s a feature, not a bug, that for someone who doesn’t get into the spirit of the thing rituals may seem awkward (“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!”), bizarre (the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) or even comical (slamming the parliament doors in the face of Black Rod).
All of which is to say that I don’t think modernizing the “sacred sounds and sacred movements” of the temple would help them accomplish their purposes any better. (The discourse around them is another matter and I greatly appreciate how it has changed over my lifetime.) I suspect Stephen C is right that these particular sounds and movements were “adopted” by the Lord rather than being ancient, but I also suspect the idea of sacred sounds and sacred movements will turn out to be eternal and perhaps much more significant than we understand right now.
ditto what RL said.
Its seriously comforting to read your thoughts on this Stephen. I sometimes struggle to find my place among the faithful that insist on a God that creates everything ex-nihilo, I know that has particular meaning but I’m using it as broad way of speaking, because for them the temple ceremony must have been dictated verbatim from the lips of God.
I’ll identify several areas where your argument could be challenged or strengthened:
**Methodological Issues:**
1. **Cherry-picking concern**: You focus on two specific areas where you think classical apologetics was “coy” but acknowledge that in most other areas they addressed issues “head on.” This raises the question of whether you’re selecting cases that support your broader critique while downplaying counter-examples.
1. **Definitional vagueness**: Your distinction between “classical” and “2025” apologetics isn’t clearly defined chronologically or methodologically. When exactly did this shift occur? What specific scholars or works mark the transition?
1. **Unfalsifiability**: Your “modus operandi” framework is quite flexible – it can explain both hits and misses, both ancient parallels and 19th-century influences. This explanatory power might actually be a weakness if the theory is so adaptable that no evidence could potentially disconfirm it.
**Historical/Evidential Weaknesses:**
1. **The Brigham Young quote**: Using this to support your framework is problematic because BY was making a general theological point about progressive revelation, not necessarily describing Joseph’s specific revelatory methodology. You’re reading a lot into it that may not be there.
1. **Selective evidence on Joseph’s sincerity**: Your argument that Joseph “wasn’t just making things up” relies heavily on the Kinderhook plates example, but this actually cuts against you – Joseph’s apparent willingness to translate obviously fabricated plates suggests either deception or self-deception, not careful study.
1. **The “too much doesn’t add up” claim**: This is asserted but not demonstrated. What specific evidence would be inexplicable under a conscious fraud hypothesis that is explained by your sincere-but-drawing-on-sources model?
**Logical Problems:**
1. **False dichotomy**: You present the choice as either “making things up for fun like L. Ron Hubbard” or your sincere-wrestling model. But there are other possibilities – sincere self-deception, gradual evolution from sincerity to conscious elaboration, or different approaches for different revelations.
1. **Anachronistic application**: Your framework works well for some phenomena (Book of Abraham, Masonry) but may not fit others as neatly. The Book of Mormon’s creation process, for instance, seems quite different from your “drawing on pre-existing sources” model if we take the historical accounts of rapid dictation seriously.
**Theological Tensions:**
1. **Divine involvement unclear**: If Joseph is primarily working through existing sources with occasional divine guidance, what exactly is God’s role? When does human wrestling become divine revelation? Your framework risks making revelation indistinguishable from inspired human effort.
1. **Scriptural authority implications**: If revelations are substantially shaped by Joseph’s cultural environment and study process, what grounds do we have for treating them as binding doctrine rather than as Joseph’s best understanding filtered through his limitations?
The strongest part of your argument is probably the observation that earlier apologetics sometimes avoided direct engagement with clear parallels. The weakest might be the assumption that your explanatory framework is more parsimonious than alternatives – it may just be trading one set of complications for another.????????????????
That smacks of LLM pseudo-reading, especially the part about “relying heavily on the Kinderhook plates” when he mentions them only as an illustration. Also, it’s kind of rich to argue that Brigham Young wasn’t talking about the nature of Joseph Smith’s revelation when he specifically uses Joseph’s single biggest revelation as an example. I wouldn’t expect a literate human to make these kind of mistakes, or even a well-promoted LLM.
Did you just copy-paste the OP into ChatGPT and ask it to come up with a critique for you?
Joseph’s single biggest revelation? What would that be, pray tell? Surely not copying or borrowing from the inspired Masonic tropes?
Seeing nothing to rebut my thesis here. The question “what was Joseph Smith’s biggest revelation” is pretty easy to answer if you just look at the Brigham Young quote, he literally names it.
You are a combo of bad faith and brain-outsourcing. Do better.
It’s charitable your feel the need to defend Stephen’s article, even if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. It’s the Lord’s work after all, I’m sure. Keep on keeping on, Brother.
Buddy, you outsource your thinking to ChatGPT! You quite literally contributed nothing and are indistinguishable from a bot. As far as evidential weaknesses go, I have absolutely no reason to believe that you are even a real person.
For instance, your bot talks about “Joseph’s apparent willingness to translate obviously fabricated plates” when it has been evident since the Bradley/Ashurst-McGee paper that Joseph Smith was not willing to translate the Kinderhook plates. The evidence suggests he gave them a cursory comparison with the Kirtland Egyptian Papers before declining to have anything further to do with them. The bot is either dishonest or ill-informed, problems to which LLMS are prone, and which transfer to you if you depend on them like this.
Same with the stupid argument that Brigham Young was talking about revelation generally, not specifically, when he brings up a specific instance of revelation (the Book of Mormon) to demonstrate his point!
Same thing with the LLMs seeming inability to engage with what Stephen actually says about the Book of Mormon’s translation and how it influences his thoughts (he never asserts that cultural borrowing explains the Book of Mormon text in toto, though it explains aspects of it), its apparent inability to use the word “anachronistic” correctly, and its pedantic assertions that the OP is about a totalizing theory of all scripture, which it is not, which fact is plainly obvious to actual sentient humans who read it.
Drive-by ChatGPT gish-gallops function like a game of Reddit Mad Libs and are an actual detriment to intelligent conversation.
I first went through the temple in 1964. In those day the ceremony included overt implication that the Catholic Church was the church of the devil. After pressure from Catholic hierarchy this part of the endowment was changed. Recently Pres Oaks has likened secular humanism to the devil’s church.
Also, in 1964 the ceremony described graphic descriptions of penalties if endowment information was made public. These have also been deleted.
It’s hard for me to understand why God would have included either of these components. And if he didn’t, why He didn’t have them deleted. I don’t know if either of these have Masonic roots.
What blathering nonsense! (Made much more maddening – as a result of the arguments being made by supposedly very smart, articulate people).
So what y’all are saying is that all of this was nothing more than a spiritual, visionary catalyst for young Joseph; and once exposed to Masonic practices (and other religious pageantry) that his “mind was opened to the Heavens”….and voila the restoration is on it’s way?!
So, God really is playing “Hide and Seek” with us (and the Prophets) and ours is an endless game of trying to find him – in hidden, obscure, peek a boo fashion; and then attempt to understand what he is trying to communicate to mankind?
You know how really silly you sound…..don’t you?….don’t you?
Note: Give me a Ritner anyday; especially when compared to a Gee, a Muhlstein….or a Stephen C.