There are several genres of exit narratives of those who leave the church. One is the ‘discovery’ narrative which involves the finding of some clandestine truth that the church has so deceitfully kept concealed in the inaccesible place such as the volumes of the Journal of Discourses and Church History. To the person exiting, the truth they discover reveals a deep deception by the church and thus proves that it must not be true. This post is not a denial that the issues that raised are problematic; however, counter-proofs are sometimes used as weightier evidence than they really are.
Part of the ‘discovery of a hidden truth’ narratives is the claim that the church is a mix of cultures and traditions that Joseph Smith copied and plagiarised. One of these ‘truths’ that is claimed to contribute to proving the church is not true that often crops up is the magic world view, masonry and temple rituals, for how could Joseph be a prophet if he believed in folk magic or if he stole the temple ritual from the masons? I don’t aim to provide an apologetic answer. I simply want to explore a seventeenth century example that demonstrates that this type of discovery is not necessarily destructive to faith.
John Spencer was the master of Christi College Cambridge during the last half of the seventeenth century. He published two major works, De Legibus Hebræorum (1685) and Dissertatio de Urim and Thummin (1669). John Spencer pioneered oriental research and did a lot of anthropological research on Greek and Roman history. The seventeenth century faced several issues and crises to the Christian faith. One of them was that during this period there was a massive discovery of ancient documents, artefacts and manuscripts that challenged the traditional view of history. As they discovered more about the ancient world it threatened their view of history.
Before these discoveries it was generally believed that the Jews were the font of all human wisdom. Because of the important role of the Jews in biblical history, Christians saw them as the origin of all the good things in the world. They believed that the greatness of the Jews had permeated into the cultures around them. The similarities between Israelite rituals and the Egyptians was because the Egyptians had imitated the Israelites (think Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price). In short, human civilisation owed all that they were to the Israelites.
The problem was that the discovery of fragments and manuscripts challenged this view. Increasingly they were finding that the Egyptians, Greeks and other pagan societies around the Jews seemed to have the same rituals, temples and rites found in the Bible before they were revealed to the Jews. It seemed that the Jews were no longer the pioneers but were instead the imitators of the pagan religions around them. This challenged the faith of many Christians; how could the Jews be God’s chosen people if their religious practices were copies of pagan rituals?
John Spencer devoted his life to reconciling this discrepancy. His work De Legibus Hebraerum was his chief method. In it he argued that God had used natural history and cultural assimilation of the Egyptian practices to win over the Jews as his chosen people. Spencer said that:
“God tolerated and transferred not a few of the rites that were in use among the pagans into his own law and worship; after he had corrected and reformed them” (p. 640-641)
Spencer then saw God as using the rituals and practices that the Jews understood and modified them for the Jews. As he later said:
“It was almost necessary that God should indulge them the use of some of the ancient rites, and accommodate his sanctions to their taste and capacity.” (p. 645)
Spencer was able to maintain his faith in God by seeing God as cleverly adapting His teachings and rituals to the people in a way that they would understand and appreciate. God considered the culture that the Israelites were immersed in, then assimilated and adapted it to their capacities so that they could comprehend their place as his chosen people. Spencer then described the way in which God operated through natural processes in order to bring to pass his work. The revelation on Mount Sinai according to Spencer was not a radical new revelation but rather was a hybrid and refinement of practices already in existence from the culture in which Moses and the Israelites lived.
Following Spencer’s logic, it should not surprise us then if God continues to use cultural assimilation in the time of Joseph Smith and continues today. As Mormon historians such as D. Micheal Quinn and Richard Bushman look to the past and find traces of the appropriation of different cultures and traditions into Mormonism, these are no more surprising than the cultural assimilation of Jewish rites from Pagan rites. As history continues to unfold, it is likely that we will continue to find other cultures (such as western corporate culture) being morphed and incorporated into Mormonism. Spencer would attribute this to God’s handiwork.
Do you agree with Spencer that God use cultural assimilation in how he conveys his message to his children? How can this assimilation work with an international church? Does it matter if God incorporates other practices and traditions in how his message is presented? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
isnt it odd though that freemasonry played such a huge part in joseph smith’s life and the development of the temple (listen to the Mormon expression podcasts on freemasonry if you want to learn more) and yet it is never mentioned to the average mormon? i did 4 years seminary, 4 years byu, mission, grad school byu, 30 years sunday school, etc. etc. I never heard freemasonry metioned once.
I only learned about the connection when a friend told me he was worried about his initiation into his fraternity. he said he was uncomfortable with the ritual, so i googled the freemasonry ritual, and realized i knew like 90% of it.
What Joseph Smith brought forth really doesn’t all fit together unless you know his background in freemasonry, so why isn’t it taught? is it wrong to say it is hidden?
Interesting. Another example might be incorporation of Passover into the Last Supper?
Now, I’m going to have to consider incorporation of Mayan and Olmec rites and histories/myths into Joseph’s understanding of the BofM translation experience.
Interesting article and an interesting apologetic approach. While I understand your logic, my question is, did masonry have a “corrupted” version of the endowment? And where did they get this, since it only dates back to the 1400’s? So God took a made-up ritual, revised/corrected it (through JS), and then made that His holiest ordinance?
I agree with #1 hm that I have been taught the same things for over 50 years, sans masonry, JS plural wives, seer stones in hats, men sealed to men, the role of masonry, etc. etc. etc. and am expected to fully trust that I really am getting the only truth on the planet?
Seriously?
Part of the problem is framing the question, as well as simplistic notions of cultural influence, “copying”, and revelation.
“why isn’t it taught?” Because most people don’t know, and what they do know isn’t integrated very well because they have no framework for it. Most people have a very shallow grasp of historical data as well as historiography, whether recent Church history, 19th century history, or ancient Near Eastern (whether NT or Israelite) history.
Really interesting post. I’d personally come to Spencer’s conclusion some years ago.
To learn anything, you have to have some frame of reference. You have to see how it fits with what you already understand (or think you understand). This goes all the way back to babies, whose only frame of reference is sensory input and instinct.
I don’t have a problem with God using a familiar frame of reference as a basis for teaching us. For example, I suspect Joseph Smith only had certain elements of temple ritual revealed to him, and he had to encapsulate it somehow, so he used Mason ritual as a foundation.
I think the reason it’s “hidden” is simply because the church leaders really want the members looking to them for leadership, and that’s easier if everybody thinks they’re directed by God in everything they do.
Paolo — good question as to did masonry have a “corrupted” version of the endowment? And where did they get this, since it only dates back to the 1400′s? given that the similar Chinese rituals go back before 1 C.E. and the Egyptian use of similar rituals is a bit older than that.
Some very interesting questions there.
Firetag,
“Another example might be incorporation of Passover into the Last Supper?”
Huh? The Last Supper was Passover. And the Savior was correctly attributing the ritual to Him. And emphasizing the sacramental bread and water as the remnant of the Passover that is an “Ordinance Forever.”
If we gather truth from where we find it, why wouldn’t certain cultural practices be incorporated into the Church? Perhaps there are new practices yet waiting to be incorporated.
If Freemasonry has some truth in it and a usable teaching vehicle, then why not incorporate it?
Oh, and the History of the Church has plenty of references to Masonry in it, so it seems it would be hard to miss, if one studied, I think.
“Oh, and the History of the Church has plenty of references to Masonry in it, so it seems it would be hard to miss, if one studied, I think.”
Correct, if you study you will find it. but if you just live an ordinary mormon life, you will not. isn’t that the definition of hidden?
hm,
“Correct, if you study you will find it. but if you just live an ordinary mormon life, you will not. isn’t that the definition of hidden?’
Not exactly. Hidden would mean you COULD NOT find it, not something you never looked into.
Joseph Smith originally revealed the endowment to an audience of masons. They clearly recognized that Joseph was adapting the rituals of masonry to provide instruction and ritual within an LDS context. They probably felt that Joseph was doing a restoration or retranslation of the truths of masonry, same as he had done with his translation of the Bible.
So absolutely, Spencer’s argument is right.
Going through the three degrees of Masonry gave me a much greater appreciation for the spiritual brilliance of Joseph Smith, and his inspired synthesis of these rituals within his cosmological world view. Becoming a Mason greatly strengthened my testimony of the endowment, and did not detracted from it. It also gave me so many more insights into the mysteries of the endowment, with so much more to ponder and understand as it relates to the symbols and rituals of masonry.
Folks who’ve never encountered syncretic religion need to get out more.
“One is the ‘discovery’ narrative which involves the finding of some clandestine truth that the church has so deceitfully kept concealed in the inaccesible place such as the volumes of the Journal of Discourses and Church History”
Is this sarcasm or am I misinterpreting the tone?
When some very relevant details are left out of the history the church presents in lesson manuals that *is* deceit. Many church members have never even *heard* of the Journal of Discourses.
Nate, could you please elaborate further on how you experience with Masonry has helped you better appreciate your temple experience. I have a difficult time understanding why God would reveal sacred temple rituals to Joseph Smith that so closely resemble the rituals of an organization that, from what I have observed and read, it not inspired at all.
Jeff:
I think we’re on the same page here. Consider that He might have implemented the same sacrament at a different time of year, or incorporated a ritual involving the healing serpent raised up to heal the Israelites in Moses time. He incorporated the most obvious Jewish ritual and transformed its meaning in a way the Jews had not (and many continued to not) understood.
Hm,
I agree that it features very little in the correlated material published by the church.
I don’t think that its fair to say that the church is being deceptive or hiding things. For what the church is aimed to do which is promote faith, I don’t see how they could actively teach it without in some way undermining faith. Partly, because if they were to teach that Joseph Smith incorporated different cultures and rituals into Mormonism then it complicates the narrative of God directly revealing to Joseph Smith and casts doubt over his originality. Joseph Smith becomes more a synthesiser of existing ideologies and ideas then a direct revelator of a new truth. Perhaps that is more reason why it should be taught though as it reveals the mechanics through which God speaks to us – through mediums and channels already established.
Paulo,
“did masonry have a “corrupted” version of the endowment? And where did they get this, since it only dates back to the 1400′s? So God took a made-up ritual, revised/corrected it (through JS), and then made that His holiest ordinance?”
I think that these questions assume that the endowment is universal and timeless. The endowment and its presentation is culturally specific and so I don’t think you can consider it a corrupt form of the endowment but simply a highly symbolic ritual. I think its important to distinguish between the symbol and the signified. The endowment is a symbolic representation of something transcendental. The symbolic language in which this is conveyed is not universal but context specific. So I think that the Masons simply had a very rich symbolic language that was useful in conveying the truths to the people in the time of Joseph. I would tend to think that God used a symbolic language in existence to transmit truths, just as he used English to speak to Joseph, rather, then taking a made-up ritual and using it.
Jan,
Having studied Masonry a little, I think its benefit is that it helps one to understand the semiotics of the endowment. To decipher the symbolic language in which it is encoded. God simply revealed sacred truths through an existing system of symbols that were established in Masonry rather then directly copy it.
Ren,
“Is this sarcasm or am I misinterpreting the tone?”
Yes, it was a bit sarcastic. I just think its a bit unfair to say that just because the church isn’t actively promoting it manuals and they haven’t heard it in church that they are being deceitful.
“When some very relevant details are left out of the history the church presents in lesson manuals that *is* deceit. Many church members have never even *heard* of the Journal of Discourses.”
If they haven’t heard of the Journal of Discourses then I don’t think you can blame the church for this ignorance. Look at any manual from the recent Teachings of the Presidents series and you will find a plethora of references to the JD. So if they don’t know about it then its simply because they haven’t looked at what is right in front of them every Sunday (the manual). Its simply not the churches fault that they don’t open their eyes and read the sources of the manuals.
As to what is relevant details its all in the eye of the beholder. Whats relevant and important to me may be superfluous to others. All writing is a selective exclusion of one thing or the other. Yes, I would like to see this discussed more at church, yes I think its important for it to be understood. But I don’t think its the churches duty to do it but it comes down to us as individuals to do it. As simply I don’t want the church to spoon feed me answers, but give me the ability and tools to find out my own answers.
So theoretically, had Herman Cain been in Joseph Smith’s role, we might have an endowment based on Pokemon . . .