From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: More on Mormon temple ceremonies
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:33:10 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

This is a brief and disjointed response to Ken Arromdee's comments in
the discussion of Mormon temple ceremonies and the recently posted
material to which I responded.  I plan to treat only a few of his
points in the interest of brevity.  There is much to discuss, but I
have the fault of verbosity and don't wish to mire down in trivial
details.

First, Ken questions my judgement in calling dishonest those who
reveal LDS temple ceremonies.  Actually, such was not my charge.  The
dishonesty lies not in the subject matter revealed, but merely in the
act of revealing something which was received under an oath of
confidentiality.

In other circles, obligations of confidentiality are considered among
the most inviolable of pacts (e.g., non-disclosure agreements).  Those
who break them are frequently subject to review by ethical conduct
boards and may in some cases be held legally liable for their
disclosures.  I think a society which places so much emphasis on the
importance of keeping a trusted secret should rightly question those
who proudly publish information they have repeatedly vowed not to
disclose.

I'll treat this and other points in more detail in a separate post.

Ken makes some insinuations I'd like to ask him to clear up.  It might
be better to have him wait for the promised post, but I do think these
need an eventual answer.

It has to do with two characterizations he made of the LDS endowment
ceremony:  First, that it promotes prejudice of other religions; and
second, that the LDS Church is "internally dishonest" about its
source.  Ken's context may have been hypothetical, but these points
hit so close to frequently-raised criticisms that it is hard to view
them as other than intentional.

I'd like him to explain in more detail what, if any, criticism he
wants to make, and why he makes it.

And now for something completely different.  John Meuhlhausen in his
original post apparently quoted his source (which, by the way, I'd
still like to see referenced such that it can be located) as saying
the LDS endowment ceremony was borrowed from "ancient Babylonian
religions," among other things.

I asked for substantiation, and Ken noted that such would probably be
insufficient to convince me.  Allow me to clarify:  I really would
only like a substantiation of the charge.  Specifically:  From which
Babylonian religions do the authors claim the ceremony derived? and,
In what ways are the ceremonies similar?

What I'm really after here is twofold:  I would like a substantiation
of the charge, meaning there needs to be more detail, more substance.
And I would like some assurance that our authors have done enough
homework in Babylonian religions in order to make a judgement like
this.

I'm tempted to summarily dismiss this charge.  In order for it to be
true that LDS endowments were borrowed from Babylonian rites it would
also have to be true that the borrowing happened in the mid-1830s,
since that's when practice of the ceremony started.  But in the
mid-1830s nothing much was known of Babylonia, as Albright tells us in
_Archaeology and the Religion of Israel_.  In fact, he said that until
the 1920s nothing coherent had been understood about that region.

So I'm a little skeptical of a such charge which relies on comparison
of information known today, but not known at the time the causation is
alleged to have occured.  But I'm willing to hear the argument.  I
would like to see it in more detail, though.

And finally, the Mormon-Mason connection.  The question here is one of
authority and credence.  Reasoning in a vacuum is not a wise course of
action.  The average person on the street probably knows little of
Mormonism and little of Masonry.  His knowledge is inadequate to
render an authoritative answer -- he simply is not an authority.  His
response may be quite honest, but probably not useful.

One who is either a Mormon or a Mason is in possession of at least
some of the information.  Participation in one probably engenders
interest in the other, so it may be a safe assumption that in addition
to detailed knowledge about the organization to which he belongs, he
also has better-than-average information about the other.  For
example, I (in the position just described) can say that certain
geometric symbols used in the LDS ceremonies have approximately the
same meaning as the corresponding symbols in Free Masonry.  I have
detailed knowledge of one, and passable knowledge of the other.

But how useful is this?  We are not interested in detailed knowledge
of one side of the question, but in detailed knowledge of where the
two sides join.  Am I an authority on the question?  No -- I don't
have a detailed enough knowledge of Free Masonry, as is right and
proper, since I have not been initiated into its society.

But what if a Mormon and a Mason pool their knowlege?  This is
somewhat better.  In this situation there can be a limited exchanged
of dialogue which refines our judgement.  So in this paradigm it can
be shown that while the aforementioned symbols have similar meaning,
the ideals promoted by those meanings are applied toward two very
different goals in Masonry and Mormonism.  In this respect, at least,
one similarity is a bit more de-emphasized.

But we still have a problem in that our respective obligations of
secrecy prevent us from discussing the practices of these
organizations in anything but general terms.  We want to know about
specifics, but cannot do so without violation of a covenant.

So the ideal source of information is one who has experience in both
Mormonism and Free Masonry.  This individual is still bound by the
obligations of secrecy, but has personal possession of all the
information necessary to render an informed opinion.  This man is an
authority.

Fortunately we have such an authority, and his opinion is a matter of
record.  And the record says that the LDS endowment ceremony is
different enough from the Masonic rite that its similarities can be
categorized as superfluous and insignificant.

But Ken wants to speak of motives.  That's a dangerous subject,
because it involves peering into others' minds and second-guessing
them.  The question is not "Would our authority lie?" but "DID our
authority lie?"  I don't think Ken presumes to have an answer for
that.  His opinion is valid, but unfortunately it's only backed up by
"what ifs."  And an opinion substantianted solely by "what ifs" make
it just that -- an opinion.

Rather than trying to read the vibes of our authority, we should
simply examine the facts which are objectively visible.  We have a
person who is uniquely qualified to render judgement based on his
possession of the facts.  Is (for example) Steve Dtyer qualified to
judge in the matter?  He's neither a Mormon nor a Mason, so although
his opinion might be quite unfettered by personal bias, but he simply
doesn't have the necesary information.

Even John Meulhausen's authors can't be considered authorities.  Sure,
they're ex-Mormons, but are they Masons?  Probably not.  Further, if
we want to play Ken's motivational second-guessing game: Since these
authors have the obvious goal of debunking Mormonism, could it be that
THEIR assessment of the Mormon/Mason connection is biased?  At least
here there are SOME grounds for suspicion.  Ken merely states, in
effect, "what if your authority is biased?"

No, I'll take my chances with someone who is at least in possession of
all the facts, and who has yet to be shown unreliable.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc