Mormon Temple Ceremony is this real or fiction?

I'm a Mormon, and while I haven't been through the temple ceremony in question, from what I know about it, this does look like it is probably it. I didn't read through it all, but it seems to be the real deal. Incidentally, most Mormons will probably be rather annoyed that you posted it, since we consider it sacred and don't like to discuss it. I don't mind talking a little about it in generalities, but out of respect I don't like to get into specifics. Now, I did mention that I hadn't been through this ceremony before, but I did see a copy of it once, and I skimmed through it, and from what little I can remember, this seems to be a close/exact match of what I saw at that time.

I don't know a lot about Masonry, but from what I understand, it's pretty obvious that there are some similarities, the number of such similarities being heavily in dispute depending on the source.

brotherforchrist: Yes Smith borrowed heavily from Freemasonry, I would be interested to hear from some Mormons on this, although I don't believe that they can speak about what goes on in Temple, and I have heard that they are less than truthful when it comes to revealing temple ceremony.Also I have read that they believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.I also would like to know the reason that they wear the special Mormon underwear. Bear in mind I am not passing judgment on their religion, I am just curious as to what their theology is , as it is kept pretty secret generally.

While this is certainly subject to debate, the Mormon belief is that Smith received the ceremony directly from God, and that this same ceremony existed in ancient times. Some Mormons I have read have theorized that the Masonic rituals stem from Solomon's temple, and that is why they are so similar. And no, we aren't supposed to speak about the specifics of the temple ceremony out of respect for it. There is no prohibition against me saying, for example, that Mormon marriages are performed in temples, or that there is a baptismal font where people are baptised in proxy for their ancestors. Those are in fact, the two main purposes of a temple in our religion.

I would hope that no Mormon lies about what goes on in the temple, as you suggest. Most will simply say something like 'no comment' if asked to talk about something that they feel would violate the sacredness to discuss.

The Jesus and Lucifer as brothers thing: short answer is yeah. All human beings are children of God, and that includes you, me, Jesus, Lucifer, and everyone else. I think on the Mormon FAQ in my signature someone asked about that and I went into more detail, so I'll refer you to that.

The 'special underwear' is referred to as the 'temple garments'. It is worn under the clothing after you go through the temple ceremony, as a reminder of it. It's not really that different than a Catholic having a cross on their wall to remember Christ by.

ChrisJr03:
Most of what you say there depends on the individual. Some Mormons associate pretty much only with other Mormons, while others will associate with anybody. (the woman Whaaa asked out was obviously one of the former) I don't know about your uncle's case specifically, but I could see it happening that if he had quit paying tithing, that he would be removed from a position of leadership. It is one of the things we do as a sign of sacrifice, and a leader can hardly be called such if he isn't willing to show by example.

Annee:
From what I have read, Smith was a Mason, but not until after the temple ceremony had come out. However, to play devil's advocate, many of those close to Smith, such as his brother Hyrum, and Brigham Young, who would eventually be his successor, were Masons long before the temple ceremony came into existence. I do not recall the exact dates offhand, but I think Smith became a Mason in the early 1840s, and the temple ceremony came out in the mid 1830s. I think I researched and answered that question in my FAQ, as well.

Isaac:
Yeah, I never went on a mission, either, and I don't think of myself as any less a Mormon because of it. (I'm 25, now) Your point about the temple rituals, mission, etc, not granting salvation is also a good one. You don't get instantly saved just because you were in the temple for an hour or two. Salvation requires a lifetime of work, by trying to live a life as Christlike as possible.

Originally posted by Annee
My husband was born and raised Mormon. He's also an avid reader with excellent retention. If I have questions I ask him.

Fine and good. Read it, don't read it, it really doesn't matter to me. You are the one dealing in absolutes here, not me.

However - I am fully aware of all you are presenting. I am fully aware of different views on how much connection there is between Mormons and the Masons.

Apparently not "fully", judging by your previous posts...

There are many articles - websites - viewpoints - on this subject. Some claim everything came from the Masons - - some claim that is incorrect.

Fair enough. True of most things.

You are CHOOSING which one works for you. The one you want to believe.

It has nothing to do with what I want to believe or don't. I'm dealing in historical facts here, not opinions. I make my opinions and theories based on the facts that I uncover in my research. That is a very well written and comprehensive paper on the subject that I chose to post for the benefit of our readers, and for you, should you choose to read it for yourself. I guess you could have your husband read it and then tell you what you think about it if you prefer. Or ignore it completely; again, it affects me not.

Making up your mind then finding documentation to prove it - doesn't fly.

Agreed. If that was what I am doing, you would have a point... as it is not what I am doing, again you are making assumptions about my mind. Not good practice.

Go to LDS.org - - - and get the official version.

What makes you think I haven't?

You're the one saying Joseph Smith didn't "borrow" (steal) Masonic ritual for his Endowment ceremony... I'm simply stating that I think you are wrong, why I think so, and some material to back my position. I can provide more, if you like.

P.S. To the best of my knowledge, Joseph Smith was indeed a Master Mason when he wrote the Endowment. I even think he was a Mason at the time the church was founded. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

If you have credible information to the contrary, I'd be pleased to see it.

I would hope that no Mormon lies about what goes on in the temple, as you suggest. Most will simply say something like 'no comment' if asked to talk about something that they feel would violate the sacredness to discuss.

The Jesus and Lucifer as brothers thing: short answer is yeah. All human beings are children of God, and that includes you, me, Jesus, Lucifer, and everyone else. I think on the Mormon FAQ in my signature someone asked about that and I went into more detail, so I'll refer you to that.

Lucifer is not a human being,also by Christian theology Jesus and God predated angels,and something that is created by God could not be a brother of God.There would be a difference between creator and created.

Lucifer as an entity of any sort is a mistranslation in the KJV.
Lucifer is a name for the morning star, Venus, and not an entity.

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne


The 'special underwear' is referred to as the 'temple garments'. It is worn under the clothing after you go through the temple ceremony, as a reminder of it. It's not really that different than a Catholic having a cross on their wall to remember Christ by.

Is it true that these are sometimes decorated with Masonic symbols. I have heard that the Temple undergarments sometimes show a square, a compass, or both.

If so, it leads me to think that Smith probably got the idea from the Masonic apron (also decorated with Masonic symbolism, and worn in the Lodge).

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Is it true that these are sometimes decorated with Masonic symbols. I have heard that the Temple undergarments sometimes show a square, a compass, or both.

If so, it leads me to think that Smith probably got the idea from the Masonic apron (also decorated with Masonic symbolism, and worn in the Lodge).

The way I understand it, the garment has a square over the left breast, and compasses over the right, or vice-versa, I'm not sure.

Point is, all these things were in use before Joseph Smith's revelation; along with the language, forms, and tokens used in the Endowment...

The Blazing Star comes to mind.

I've also heard (I didn't read the whole posting of the Endowment ritual) that in the ritual they actually wear Masonic-style aprons, though in the Endowment they are supposedly in the likeness of a fig leaf, for obvious reasons.

Not 100% sure about the last part, but I do believe I read that somewhere.

[edit on 6/5/07 by The Axeman]

I don't have time to post all the links right now, but if you want to get an idea of the real meaning of Christ and Lucifer being brothers and the fall of Adam and Eve, in relation to the Masonic Apron and the Mormon Temple rituals; then see the Geheime Figuren der Rosenkreuzer/Golden & Rosy Cross(PRS.org and levity.com/alchemy), and the 15th, 6th, and 16th Arcana of the Tarot(Thelema-Press/Gnosticteachings.org free online Courses).




[edit on 5-6-2007 by Tamahu]

You're the one saying Joseph Smith didn't "borrow" (steal) Masonic ritual for his Endowment ceremony... I'm simply stating that I think you are wrong, why I think so, and some material to back my position. I can provide more, if you like.

I did NOT say the above.

I specified - what Mormon's believe.

I never said Joseph Smith was not a Mason. I said there is major discrepancies on how much involvement. (how would I know there are discrepancies? Because I've read them)

I did not give my own personal opinion.



[edit on 6-6-2007 by Annee]

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Is it true that these are sometimes decorated with Masonic symbols. I have heard that the Temple undergarments sometimes show a square, a compass, or both.

Again, I haven't gone through this ceremony and thus don't actually wear these, but my understanding is that they show both the square and compass. I think one is on the left and one on the right, but I cannot recall which is which, and I don't know what significance these symbols have, at least in a Mormon context; I assume the answer is in the temple ceremony, somewhere. Certainly, in Masonry, they are very important symbols, and while your belief that Smith stole the symbols is plausible, I don't believe that is what happened. Religious faith is very hard to justify to someone who does not share it, so I won't try to do that, other than to say that I do believe in my religion.

Originally posted by Annee
I did NOT say the above.

Really?

Originally posted by Annee
The Mormon's did not get their endowment ceremony from the Masons. They got it from the same place the Mason's got theres.

I think you need to have some deep discussions with your Mormon friends to clear up a few things.

Looks like you said pretty much exactly what I said you said...

And BTW, are you saying that you think Masons got their rituals and symbols from aliens?

Originally posted by RWPBR
Lucifer as an entity of any sort is a mistranslation in the KJV.
Lucifer is a name for the morning star, Venus, and not an entity.

That is a view espoused from people who speak from an intellectual luciferian worldview. Yes I know the claims that it was allegorical to a fallen Babylonian king.It is just all dependent upon your theological beliefs.If you say that this passage is not about a fallen angel, then basically you deny the existence of Satan as an entity as well, as the the fall of Lucifer through his pride and wanting to elevate his status to that of an equal with Almighty God is in essence the genesis of Satan's existence, remember Satan is more of a title than a formal name, a title meaning adversary, as he goes against God.

Without Lucifer's fall you have no Satan. without Satan you have no Garden of Eden, without the Garden, you have no original sin or fall of man,without a fall of man, you have no need for a covenant with God, without a covenant you have no falling away from that covenant, and without a falling away from God's covenant you have no restoration of God's covenant through Christ's death to save mankind from sin.All from an attempt to cut Christianity down from the base, if you knock out the base, the whole structure collapses.

Following that logic, Lucifer's fall is the ultimate reason for Christianity; for without him there would be no need for The Christ.

Was this God's plan all along. To be rebeled against by Lucifer.

God knew what was going to happen.

How could there be any competition between a GOD and an angel.

Doesn't make sense to me.

The anthropomorphizing of God is the main error in most religions.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa
Following that logic, Lucifer's fall is the ultimate reason for Christianity; for without him there would be no need for The Christ.

An excellent point. I don't get why people must insist that Lucifer or the "Devil" are necessary aspects to Christianity. All of that seems to be rooted in mistranslations and misconceptions.

Besides that, like you said; if God created everything (which is my belief) then that means that he created evil. I believe He created it for a purpose but I don't think that the personification of evil should be taken literally.

Sin is referred to in the manner you would refer to an individual in the OT. Does this mean that Evil is an entity? Not to me. To me it is an expressive way of writing, and if you take the Bible for what it is, that causes no contradiction.

Christianity is about Christ, not Lucifer. Christ wants you to be good for goodness' sake, not because you fear Hell or the Devil.

Originally posted by The Axeman

Originally posted by whaaa
Following that logic, Lucifer's fall is the ultimate reason for Christianity; for without him there would be no need for The Christ.

An excellent point. I don't get why people must insist that Lucifer or the
"Devil" are necessary aspects to Christianity. All of that seems to be rooted in mistranslations and misconceptions.
_______________________________________________________________

I would say that Satan testing Jesus in the wilderness in an attempt when he was at his weakest physically from fasting in an attempt to get him to do sinful actions in order to usurp the ability of Christ to die for our sins as a blameless pure sacrifice was needed, which consequentially meant that if Christ had ever given into temptation there would be no salvation,or Christ saying that He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies (John 8:44).By Christian Theology Satan knows that ultimately the battle is lost, he has no power over God and therefore can not harm God himself overtly, he harms god through us through situations,can the devil ultimately "make" anyone sin? NO. You can be tempted but ultimately choosing to sin is your choice to disobey god.
_______________________________________________________________

Besides that, like you said; if God created everything (which is my belief) then that means that he created evil. I believe He created it for a purpose but I don't think that the personification of evil should be taken literally.
_______________________________________________________________

God did not create evil, stating that would assume that God were evil.
________________________________________________________________

Sin is referred to in the manner you would refer to an individual in the OT. Does this mean that Evil is an entity? Not to me. To me it is an expressive way of writing, and if you take the Bible for what it is, that causes no contradiction.
_______________________________________________________________

What do you mean by take the bible for what it is? You either believe or you don't.It's pretty cut and dry, either in your life the Bible is the divinely inspired perfect word of God, or it is not.And I have no qualms about people not believing, you can worship the pencil on your desk for all I care, and I am not intending for someone to take it to bizarre rationalizations,( ow i tripped Satan must have put that object on the floor to get me), but if you think that Satan holds no place in the bible, I would suggest that you read the New Testament over.
_______________________________________________________________

Christianity is about Christ, not Lucifer. Christ wants you to be good for goodness' sake, not because you fear Hell or the Devil.

_______________________________________________________________
Ephesians 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.


Yes the message of Christianity is following Christ, however to assume that Satan has utterly no place in Christian theology is erroneous.

Originally posted by brotherforchrist
I would say that Satan testing Jesus in the wilderness in an attempt when he was at his weakest physically from fasting in an attempt to get him to do sinful actions in order to usurp the ability of Christ to die for our sins as a blameless pure sacrifice was needed, which consequentially meant that if Christ had ever given into temptation there would be no salvation,or Christ saying that He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies (John 8:44).By Christian Theology Satan knows that ultimately the battle is lost, he has no power over God and therefore can not harm God himself overtly, he harms god through us through situations,can the devil ultimately "make" anyone sin? NO. You can be tempted but ultimately choosing to sin is your choice to disobey god.

Exactly. Jesus/God wants you to be virtuous by your own free will that's the whole point. Righteousness for the sake of fear of the consequences of wickedness is of little or no value. Righteousness for the sake of being righteous in the sight of God is the goal.

God did not create evil, stating that would assume that God were evil.

No, stating that would assume that God created evil in order to give us the oppertunity to choose to be good. The ideas of Good/Evil are useless without the contrast between them.

Evil obviously exists; if God didn't create it, where did it come from?

What do you mean by take the bible for what it is? You either believe or you don't.It's pretty cut and dry, either in your life the Bible is the divinely inspired perfect word of God, or it is not.

It is Man's attempt at recording and explaining the nature of God, and a history book of sorts to the Hebrews. Does it have value as Divinely inspired literature? Absolutely. Does it contain errors, inaccuracies, and contridictions? Yes. Does it contain allegories and stories to teach lessons that more than likely have no place in historical fact? Yeppers. Does it contain the "Perfect Word of God"? In my opinion, no. It contains men's descriptions and accounts of what God showed to them. Big difference.

Does that keep me from making it the "Rule and Guide to my Faith and Practice? An emphatic No.

Does that mean I'm occasionally at odds with my Baptist wife? You betcha.

And I have no qualms about people not believing... but if you think that Satan holds no place in the bible, I would suggest that you read the New Testament over.

Not what I'm saying.

Yes the message of Christianity is following Christ, however to assume that Satan has utterly no place in Christian theology is erroneous.

Again, not what I'm saying. But most people today have no idea why the church doctrines are what they are today, nor what they were in the time of Christ, comparatively.

The words of Christ in the Bible are certainly compelling and are the basis of what I believe, but to say that they are 100% word-for-word exactly what came out of His mouth is in my opinion teetering on the brink of folly.

Considering that the New Testament was written 100 some-odd years after Christ died, it just doesn't seem very likely. It is Man's interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, not a verbatim transcript.

There's something to be said for Faith, of course, don't get me wrong. I have Faith, too. But where does faith become blind? God blessed us with Reason and intellect; why wouldn't He want us to use it and apply it to our relationship with Him?

Yes - The Axeman

"The Mormons" - - we could nit pick till there is full UFO disclosure.

When I said "The Mormons" - - I meant their position on it.

I did not say "I believe this and that" - - Got it?

Originally posted by Annee
Yes - The Axeman

"The Mormons" - - we could nit pick till there is full UFO disclosure.

Uhh... come again? So they did or did not get it from aliens? I'm fairly certain of the origin of the symbols, etc. in question, and I can tell you that the likelihood that it came from aliens is virtually nil.

When I said "The Mormons" - - I meant their position on it.

Their position on what? The origin of the symbols and language?

I did not say "I believe this and that" - - Got it?

You didn't have to; it was implied by what you wrote. No need to get snarky about it.

Sheesh.

Axeman - my husband was raised Mormon - I was baptized at his wishes - we were married and sealed in the Los Angeles Temple. And yes I wore the undergarments for a while.

There are many great things about the Mormon faith. I especially enjoyed the early writings that leaned toward metaphysics. Unfortunately - IMO Mormons are moving more toward fundamental Christian right. Both hubby and I have ended our involvement.

What I believe - is Everything is Energy - - the Creator is intelligent energy consciousness - - physical is manifested.

So here's the alien part. I personally believe in levels of consciousness and energy or manifested beings on many levels. Some more highly evolved then humans of Earth.

I personally believe Joseph Smith was a Contactee and was given knowledge by higher level beings. This coincides with the actual Mormon belief that Joseph Smith received the laws directly from God by revelation.

As I believe Moses was given the lower law by higher level beings.

As far as being a Mason - it was hardly unusual for men to belong to one of the male only orders. My ancestor was an Oddfellow.

It does not prove any connection between Masons and Mormon rituals. It could be just coincidence.

Do I personally believe the Mason's have a higher level secret order connected to the Knights Templar - also Jesse James and the Knights of the Golden Circle - the current NWO - etc. Absolutely.

Annee,

Looks like we are more or less in agreement about some things - we could talk semantics all day long though.

But we're talking about the Endowment... The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants? Well that is a seperate issue altogether and I really have no position on them. Who am I to say God didn't speak to him?

I think there are a great many Divinely inspired writings, and you'll not catch me downplaying one in favor of another... I think they ALL have value. I have my favorites, of course.

However, I still maintain that Joseph Smith practically plagiarized Masonic ritual for his Temple ceremonies. That much I will say.

[edit on 6/6/07 by The Axeman]

He may have - but then again I believe he was a Contactee and could have received the Endowment ritual directly from "those who came from the sky".

Where do the Masons claim their's came from?

Coincidence is never proof.