Back in late 2004/early 2005, I had a brief email exchange with D. Charles Pyle, a Latter-day Saint who is also a Freemason. The following are his comments on the purported relationship between the LDS temple ceremony and Freemasonry, as well as his brief comments on chs. 29-32 of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? by the Tanners that discusses various aspects of the Temple. I am reproducing them as they might add food for thought for readers:
I do not
believe that the LDS temple ceremony is a copy of Freemasonry. Neither do
I believe that Freemasonry was a source for the temple ceremony. Whether
there were elements of Masonic ritual that furnished an inspiration for
the temple ceremony or not is a matter for much debate. Personally, I do
not subscribe to that notion. I feel that if Freemasonry were a source for
the temple ceremony, that there would be far more elements of Masonic
ritual contained therein than there was.
Additionally, although there was a custom of giving a new name to an
entered apprentice, which new name always was 'caution' for all
candidates, the meaning of the rite, usage and significance are quite
different. Further, by Joseph Smith's time, most Grand Lodges had done
away with the practice or were in process of doing so. I have so far found
no evidence that the Lodge where Joseph Smith received the Degrees of
Masonry had this practice. I have searched through some old rituals from
the 1800s and have found nothing. It also must be remembered that Joseph
Smith received his degrees in a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand
Lodge of Illinois, which differed significantly from that which was done
in New York. In point of fact, I never received a new name in the Lodge.
When I was initiated some years ago, I purposefully looked for as many
real similarities as I could find during the ritual. I had expected to
find many. I was surprised to find very little. With the exception of
isolated verbiage, the LDS temple ceremony and Masonic rituals could not
be lined up together coherently. In order to do so, one must cut up and
rearrange the two rituals out of ritual contexts to make it all fit. If
any context is included, the parallels break down. If one examines the
actual movements of the hands, and so forth, the parallels break down in
many instances. It is not enough to look at a book and make a judgment
because the books only show one hand position in such a manner that it
looks more similar than they really are.
For the penalties (no longer part of the temple ceremony as of April
1990), there were rough parallels but the range of motion differed, the
count of each motion differed, the exact positions of hands and fingers
differed, and other hands were used in the LDS temple ceremony that are
not part of Freemasonry. But, there is no sign given in the temple
ceremony that I saw given in a Masonic Lodge. The signs are not penalties
and should not be confused as many critics do. In the Lodge, the signs are
the penalties and no Masonic sign is or was given in LDS temples as signs.
Just so you know, I received my endowment in 1988.
Something else you should know is that Joseph Smith never received any
Masonic Degrees beyond the three Degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry. Many
critics try to draw parallels between the Royal Arch (the Irish Royal Arch
Degrees are very much like those in the USA) and the Scottish Rite ritual
to the temple ceremony. The problem with these is that Joseph Smith was
never a Royal Arch Mason and the Scottish Rite did not make its way into
Illinois until 1859, too late to have been of use to Joseph Smith. Another
problem with many of these parallel lists is that they often draw upon
works published too late to have been of use to Joseph Smith. For example,
Richardson's Monitor was published in 1860, and itself contains elements
of ritual that either ceased to be used by Joseph Smith's time or were
unknown to him, or, in some cases, never were used, being the faulty
memories of someone who rather plagiarized other texts with incorrect
rituals written by those who never were Freemasons. Hope this helps. If
you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
In Christ,
D. Charles Pyle, 32°, K.T.
believe that the LDS temple ceremony is a copy of Freemasonry. Neither do
I believe that Freemasonry was a source for the temple ceremony. Whether
there were elements of Masonic ritual that furnished an inspiration for
the temple ceremony or not is a matter for much debate. Personally, I do
not subscribe to that notion. I feel that if Freemasonry were a source for
the temple ceremony, that there would be far more elements of Masonic
ritual contained therein than there was.
Additionally, although there was a custom of giving a new name to an
entered apprentice, which new name always was 'caution' for all
candidates, the meaning of the rite, usage and significance are quite
different. Further, by Joseph Smith's time, most Grand Lodges had done
away with the practice or were in process of doing so. I have so far found
no evidence that the Lodge where Joseph Smith received the Degrees of
Masonry had this practice. I have searched through some old rituals from
the 1800s and have found nothing. It also must be remembered that Joseph
Smith received his degrees in a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand
Lodge of Illinois, which differed significantly from that which was done
in New York. In point of fact, I never received a new name in the Lodge.
When I was initiated some years ago, I purposefully looked for as many
real similarities as I could find during the ritual. I had expected to
find many. I was surprised to find very little. With the exception of
isolated verbiage, the LDS temple ceremony and Masonic rituals could not
be lined up together coherently. In order to do so, one must cut up and
rearrange the two rituals out of ritual contexts to make it all fit. If
any context is included, the parallels break down. If one examines the
actual movements of the hands, and so forth, the parallels break down in
many instances. It is not enough to look at a book and make a judgment
because the books only show one hand position in such a manner that it
looks more similar than they really are.
For the penalties (no longer part of the temple ceremony as of April
1990), there were rough parallels but the range of motion differed, the
count of each motion differed, the exact positions of hands and fingers
differed, and other hands were used in the LDS temple ceremony that are
not part of Freemasonry. But, there is no sign given in the temple
ceremony that I saw given in a Masonic Lodge. The signs are not penalties
and should not be confused as many critics do. In the Lodge, the signs are
the penalties and no Masonic sign is or was given in LDS temples as signs.
Just so you know, I received my endowment in 1988.
Something else you should know is that Joseph Smith never received any
Masonic Degrees beyond the three Degrees of Ancient Craft Masonry. Many
critics try to draw parallels between the Royal Arch (the Irish Royal Arch
Degrees are very much like those in the USA) and the Scottish Rite ritual
to the temple ceremony. The problem with these is that Joseph Smith was
never a Royal Arch Mason and the Scottish Rite did not make its way into
Illinois until 1859, too late to have been of use to Joseph Smith. Another
problem with many of these parallel lists is that they often draw upon
works published too late to have been of use to Joseph Smith. For example,
Richardson's Monitor was published in 1860, and itself contains elements
of ritual that either ceased to be used by Joseph Smith's time or were
unknown to him, or, in some cases, never were used, being the faulty
memories of someone who rather plagiarized other texts with incorrect
rituals written by those who never were Freemasons. Hope this helps. If
you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
In Christ,
D. Charles Pyle, 32°, K.T.
Hello Brother Boylan,
I have read a great many of the Tanners' works, including Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? In fact, that book is the one that caused me to doubt the Church and to leave it before I began my quest for knowledge and research. After a while, I came to see that much of the book can easily be answered. I also found that there were portions that did not have ready answers, forcing me to go to God himself for answers and strengthening of faith. When reading that book, make sure that you do not move on to the next chapter until questions raised in previous chapters are answered as close to satisfaction as possible. Most of the book is filler and fluff but there are a few good questions strewn throughout the book and you fill need faith to get you through it as you find answers. In some rare cases, there are things that have no answer as of yet. Faith will help you to wait until answers can be found. In many cases, direct revelation was given to me to find some answers, and the Lord provided opportunities for travel to find some of the answers I needed. Some of them are staring you in the face but you may not know it at the time.
I wish I could give you my notes to this book so that it would be easier for you to build upon what I had found but both the copies of the Tanners' works and all my Tanner notes in the margins of the books were lost to a fire more than a decade ago. I regret to this day not having spared them from the flame. All I now have is what is in my head and what I find as I consult the new copies of a few of the their texts I have reacquired over the last few years. I have no written notes as of yet. I have another suggestion to make as well. You should obtain a used copy of the 1972 edition of their magnum opus for comparison to the 1987 edition which you have ordered. You will find that they have completely rewritten the preface, two chapters and have modified a point from time to time. It is good to have access to their dated material to see where their thinking has gone and to show that they had to rewrite certain texts as new information was found that undermined their position at times.
As to the temple ceremony, while they did not go through it themselves, they did manage to get information regarding the ceremony from people who left the Church and from a tape recording made by an apostate whose temple recommend had not yet expired. Chapters 29-32 discuss the temple ceremony. Chapter 29 is a sort of prelude. Chapter 30 is a direct and mostly complete reproduction of the temple ordinances from 1984, complete with picture of the temple clothing and portions of the old ceremony demonstrated by a man who belongs to the RLDS Church (now CoC) and who had no regard for the sacredness of the temple clothing and the ordinances of the temple, in addition to a text pointing to a more recent work detailing precise details to the 1990s.
Chapter 31 discusses changes in the temple ceremony prior to 1984. Chapter 32 discusses the temple ceremony and Masonry. Chapter 32 uses Morgan's exposure of what he remembered of New York based Masonic ritual (he gets a number of points wrong), and uses Richardson's 1860 Monitor of Freemasonry to construct their parallels list. The immediate problems with using these are that 1860 is too late to be of use to Joseph Smith (Masonic ritual has been modified extensively from time to time in order to keep people from getting it right should the older rituals fall into others' hands, and while the lessons remain the same the wording of the ritual is modified so as to detect imposters). Additionally, the Masonic work Joseph Smith witnessed was from Illinois, the workings of which differed quite extensively at places from what Morgan published. They are from somewhat differing types of ritual originating from before the Union of 1813 and the formation of the United Grand Lodge of England. In addition, most of the parallels are contrived. Joseph Smith was not a Royal Arch Mason and was not a member of either the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite or its predecessor, the Rite of Perfection. Neither of these latter related Rites existed in Illinois until 1859. This is why the fact that the Tanners quote from them is a laugh-getter for me. Further problematic for the Tanners is that the veils that are used in Royal Arch Masonry differ so extensively in use, form and function, that they cannot form the source for the use of a veil in the temple by Joseph Smith--never mind that Joseph Smith was not a Royal Arch Mason. :-)
In my experience, I have seen that the temple endowment ceremony is composed of two parts, the endowment itself and the presentation of the endowment, which contains the endowment and by which the endowment is presented to the candidate. The temple ceremony itself, in fact, uses the precise term "presentation of the endowment". The presentation of the endowment has received a number of modifications over the years, mostly tending toward shortening the ordinance and modification of the covenants in order to prevent abuse by husbands looking for loopholes to exploit their wives. The endowment itself, so far as I have witnessed for myself, has never really been changed. The endowment is the signs, tokens, and keywords, and nothing more. The temple ceremony is itself the manner of presenting the endowment. There was a slight modification of the manner in which one of the signs is given because of extensive misunderstanding. Critics of the Church would take the three-word phrase originally used there and make it into something evil. Because few understood what the words meant, most members felt very uncomfortable with it and the Church leaders, after extensive prayer and preliminary study, dispensed with the three words and put in their place the translation of the words in each of the languages of people in the Church. This, of course, made things more difficult for the critics of the Church. The sign itself remained the same however, notwithstanding the wording accompanying it was modified. Aside from this, the endowment itself was left untouched while the presentation of the endowment was modified.
Chapter 31 also mentions that an ordinance was dispensed with, namely, sealing unrelated men to men. However, the Tanners did not understand what that ordinance was and are not aware that the ordinance still continues in the Church. What really was done was that the ordinance was restricted in scope, not fully done away with. I am the beneficiary of the ordinance (which could not have happened if no ordinance was in place for it). My eldest son (unrelated to me) was sealed to me as my son. The difference between practice from the past and that of today is that a legal adoption is required before the ordinance could be performed. In the past, there was no legal adoption requirement. Families were sealed together and then heads of households were sealed to various individuals in the Church, usually a President of the Church or some other General Authority, as members of their eternal families. Under Wilford Woodruff, this general practice was dispensed with and requirement for legal adoption was put in place. In addition, stipulation was put in place for the limitation of the practice to those who could no longer trace their line back any further. Provision was made for sealing the final link in the chain at some future time to designated individuals of the families' choice, not the entire abolishment of the ordinance.
I hope this helps you in some small way. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. I will try to get back to you as soon as I can.
Take care,
D. Charles Pyle
