2. The temple ordinances are the same as those practiced thousands of years ago. The
reason for the similarities to the Masonic rites is that the Masons carried
on a practice that gradually became corrupted which Joseph Smith restored as the 'true endowment'
after learning about Masonry.
(This
option was widely accepted by early church leaders such as
Heber C. Kimball who said, "...there is a similarity of
preasthood in Masonry. Bro. Joseph says Masonry was
taken from preasthood but has become degen[e]rated. but menny things are perfect." (spelling from the original)
Kimball also said,
"The Masonry of today (1840s) 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". Many
others also take this option such as Hugh Nibley and some Mormons who are also Masons. For
some of the problems with this belief, see this site, this page, and brush up on your history of
when the 5 points of fellowship were introduced into Masonry and why they were removed from
the revised 1990 endowment. If this option is the one selected, an adequate explanation as to why
the restored-through-Joseph-Smith-'true' endowment which more closely resembles early 19th century Masonry
(rather than earlier forms of Masonry) has
since been modified to make the similarities less obvious and smaller in number. See David Stevenson's
The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590-1710 for details on
the evolution of pre-Mormon era Masonry and the 5 points--of which only two of the five remained
unmodified during the 100+ years before Morgan's book.)
3. There is no connection between Masonry and the LDS temple ordinances. Joseph Smith
divinely received what he needed to know in order to create the temple ordinances.
The early Mormon involvement
with Masonry is either a lie (which need not be investigated) or the parallels between
Mormonism and Masonry are "superficial", "few", and/or "coincidental".
(This is the position
taken by many who either fail to research the issue or who would rather not admit that
the similarities
to the original endowment are very significant. This includes FARMS and
Jeff Lindsay
who states that the similarities to Masonry are both superficial AND indicative of ancient
rituals carried down
by the Masons. These contradictory views would seemingly be difficult to argue, but Jeff does
before coming to the conclusion that "...[I] reject
the allegation that the Temple was derived from Masonry".)
4. We should not be concerned with matters of the intellect. A reliance on faith is where I place
my trust. Although I know intellectually where the endowment came from, I choose to ignore the facts
and place my trust in God, the current prophet, and Joseph Smith.
(The reasoning is once again faulty based on the scripture noted in option #1.)
5. (this option came in from a site visitor) Although I know intellectually where the endowment came from, it seems to me that what is important about it is the way it affects the participant. If people find it to be a worshipful experience, and if it affirms values that are important to the participant, then its origins don't really matter. What matters is that it symbolizes and sacralizes important beliefs and behaviors such as family ties, fidelity, honesty, faith, and commitment to the community of faith and to the greater good of that community.
(Few in the church probably fall into this category although the number may be growing. This is basically a post-modernist view. It is a growing way of dealing not only with the the temple, but also with other Mormon truth claims and
scriptures.)
(an addendum to this option came in from another site visitor as follows:)
I can add a corrolary to number five - and a defense of that position. Many christians including myself, practice and participate in many, many, pagan rituals--Christmas Trees, yule logs, Halloween traditions, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. I choose to do so for the benefit to my family and the positive impact on my kids. I choose to disregard the documented and certified pagan roots. However, I do not claim any of them to be doctrine or God inspired. They are in no way part of my theological platform of faith. So, I guess you can add a 5b - participate, don't investigate or validate, enjoy but don't ascribe theology to anything so trite or ritualistic and so suspiciously connected to Masonry.
a response from the author of the original option #5
6. (this option and the next one came in from the same site visitor) Clearly options 1, 3, and 4 aren't valid. I think there could be some
truth to 2. However, I look at the endowment as something much deeper
than the language, signs, and tokens that it's dressed in. The elements
of the endowment that Smith adapted from Masonry were a sufficient
vehicle for the revelations God wanted to share with those who are
ready. The intrinsic messages the symbols convey are limited; their
real value is to serve as a catalyst to prepare peoples hearts and minds
for revelation from God.
7. Whoever in the Middle Ages developed the rituals that Smith
"borrowed" was inspired. Mormons generally believe that Christopher
Columbus, Martin Luther, and George Washington were inspired to lay
parts of the foundation for the restored gospel in 1830. Perhaps in the
same way the evolution of Masonry was being guided by Providence to
prepare for the endowment. Some reasons why this might have been
necessary or desirable would be 1) to serve as "hints" from God to
Joseph as to what the endowment should contain. 2) It allowed Smith to
have people to give the ritual to who wouldn't be alienated by this type
of ceremony. 3) It created a background in society against which the
true meaning and significance of the endowment could be camouflaged.
Shortly after President Hinckley's conversation with President Kimball, Pres. Kimball passed away. President Hinckley said that he didn't worry about the endowment because of Kimball's comments, but it wasn't long after that meeting in May of 1989 that the endowment lost its most offensive parts.
A site visitor writes:
When I was in the MTC in 1989, the negotiation for the ceremony change must have been ongoing. President Benson was not well, and I had recently received my endowments, with all the death penalties. I happened to be in the MTC during the Mission Presidents Seminar, and we had 9 of the 15 presidents and apostles attend one of our all MTC meetings. It was during this meeting that President Hinckley spoke with us about the temple. He related a conversation he had with President Kimball some years earlier, in which Kimball said that he didn't understand the endowment. Specifically he alluded to Kimball's statement that he understood only about 5% and that his understanding of the endowment had just started to increase. President Hinckley then instructed us not to worry about the mysteries of the temple endowment, but that when we attend the temple (missionaries attend once each week while in the MTC) we should let our minds be free of any outside influences such as our homes, families, even the work we were doing at the MTC, and think only of the work for the dead and listen for the spirit.