Temple Clothes

[2bizE]

We know JS and many members in that time were Masons. Much of the temple ritual comes from Freemasonry.
Does anyone know why the bakers attire is used by Freemasonry and the Mormons? What is the symbolism?
I saw this photo on Reddit featuring the Royal Arch Masons from Illinois.

[Palerider]

Just doing a little checking.

"Meaning of the Scottish Rite Cap
“In the Scottish Rite, the caps [indicate] the consecration of one’s physical and spiritual (material and intellectual) attributes to the betterment of humanity. On the one hand, the caps are an inheritance from our chivalric tradition, as similar ones were associated with European Orders of Knighthood, where they evolved from the Arming Bonnet, worn under the helmet. On the other hand, they are also worn as a type of prayer cap, a tradition which also survives in some religions. Thus, the caps are a constant reminder that the physical must be subject to the spiritual and that, like knights, we must valiantly endeavor to maintain honor and virtue by applying the Moral Sense and Reason.”

The "lamb skin" apron was early on said to be a protective defense against the harsh work of stone cutting. It later took on other sacred symbolism.

"Presently, it is a badge of fraternal distinction. During his first degree, each Mason is given a plain white leather apron, it represents the white lambskin, a symbol of innocence. Here in Massachusetts, at least, it is Masonic tradition that after a man has completed his three degrees, he no longer wears that apron to lodge meetings. Instead he carefully puts it away and wears one of the cloth aprons each lodge supplies for its members and visitors. The white leather apron becomes a keepsake throughout his life and finally, at his passing, he wears it in death as an eternal symbol of hope. Every Mason should tell his wife and family where he keeps his apron."
http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Essays/ml.html

One really interesting concept I found was that of the "rough" and "perfect" ashlar (hewn stone).

"Rough and Perfect Ashlars:

In the Fellowcraft Degree, we see the use of the Rough and Perfect Ashlars. The lesson to be learned is that by means of education and the acquirement of knowledge, a man improves the state of his spiritual and moral being.

Like man, each Rough Ashlar begins as an imperfect stone. With education, cultivation and brotherly love, man is shaped into a being which has been tried by the square of virtue and encircled by the compasses of his boundaries, given to us by our Creator."

I'm sure this is where Joseph picked up (as usual) his idea that he was a "rough stone rolling", being perfected as he had a piece chipped off here and there.

And it promotes the idea of "perfectionism" through work, righteous living and special education. Which are actually great concepts for living in a temporal world but are corrupted when they are thought to gain a man or woman Heaven through one's own achievements.

Ashlars:

masonicashlars111.jpg (48.15 KiB) Viewed 10456 times

This is just a start. As you probably know this stuff goes on and on....

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

It is sad that one can learn more about the temple clothing symbolism from freemasonry than any temple president.

Typical question: what is the symbolism of the string tied from the hat to the robe shoulder?

Temple president: Oh that just keeps the robe up.

Probable Freemasonry answer: Something deeply mystical and inspiring.

[wtfluff]

It is sad that one can learn more about the temple clothing symbolism from freemasonry than any temple president.

This thread, and the above quote have become one of those mind-blown moments for my fluffy brain.

You're gonna have to "bare with me" while I brain-dump... So, the endowment is the absolute pinnacle of mormon worship for the vast majority of mormons. Most of them don't even know that there is such a thing as "the second endowment" and again, the vast majority will never be afforded the opportunity, and even those who get that opportunity don't get any answers. Even with that importance, literally no-one really understands what's going on, or any of the symbolism. Even a temple president can't give answers, and even if they think they have answers they won't talk about it because it's "too sacred." So you're told to jump on the endowment hamster-wheel and just keep going back, and if you're lucky, you might figure it out yourself. So basically, if you're lucky: At some point during your temple attendance, some random thought will pop into your mind, and that will become your own personal revelation as to what it all means. In other words: You're grasping for answers to the point that your confirmation bias will take over and give you answers. Basically, you're just making sh!t up.

Was there ever a point during the history of the mormon endowment where someone who wasn't Freemason could get any answers as to what it all meant?

What kind of loving "heavenly parent" comes up with something like this, and makes it a requirement for their children to be with them???

Seriously:

[jfro18]

I actually tossed that up on reddit... I actually had saved that months ago after Hagoth (I am almost positive) posted it on a thread here.

It's from an Illinois Royal Arch Mason chapter and this picture is from 1930.

Obviously this is 90 years after JS "restored" the endowment session, but it's amazing that an Illinois chapter could be so close to what JS had "revealed" to him in Illinois 90 years earlier just after he went through a chapter of the local Masons...

The coincidences are just amazing, aren't they?

[moksha]

Speaking of copying the Masons and Masonic offshoots, what if the LDS Church, instead of spending all its time doing baptisms for the dead had put that enormous output of work hours into running and maintaining something similar to the Shriner's Hospitals?

They could have all worn white within this hospital environment and even added those nifty green masks for extra symbolism? Young Mormons could have been raised up righteously with their own candy stripe garments.

[Palerider]

What kind of loving "heavenly parent" comes up with something like this, and makes it a requirement for their children to be with them???

This question is why I have to keep riding this hobby horse of mine.

Gnosticism!

The ancient church really had to fight this at every turn. Doctrines and "special knowledge" that only certain church leaders were privy to. And you too could aquire this special, secret knowledge by devoting yourself and your money to those leaders (wolves) that were there only to fleece the naive. Corrupt doctrines brought in by men.

God designed his plan to bring salvation to his children to be as simple as possible, not complex and exclusive. His is the work of saving his children, not figuring out ways to send them to Hell.

The LDS (Mormon) church is based on and corrupted by gnosticism. It's a phony fraud but the families that are injured by it are real and their pain is real.

But teachers/leaders who have "itching ears" (ears that love to be massaged by people telling them how wonderful they are) don't really care about those who are in pain. They are only interested in growing the cancer, er, corporation, er, uh, church. Complainers just need to "get with the program" and their pain will go away. Easy Peasy.....

[Corsair]

Gnosticism!

The ancient church really had to fight this at every turn. Doctrines and "special knowledge" that only certain church leaders were privy to. And you too could aquire this special, secret knowledge by devoting yourself and your money to those leaders (wolves) that were there only to fleece the naive. Corrupt doctrines brought in by men.

Well stated. I am by no means some scholar of early Christianity. But reading early works like "Against Heresies" (Irenaus), "Apologies of Justin Martyr", or "the Didache" makes it clear that gnosticism was a serious problem in the early church. The English translations of these works are surprisingly easy to read and are an easy way to show how Article of Faith Number 6 fails for the LDS church.

Joseph Smith did not restore a lost Christianity. He was in no position to know it, of course. LDS temple rituals would have been looked at with horror and confusion by early church leaders in much the same way that modern unbelievers look at them.

[Hagoth]

It's from an Illinois Royal Arch Mason chapter and this picture is from 1930.

Which some people would say invalidates it because it doesn't predate Mormonism. Of course, if that were true it would have to mean that the entire masonic community decided to copy if from Mormons, even though the local masons were outraged that Joseph Smith was leaking their secrets by incorporating them in his temple ceremonies, and worse, revealing them to (gasp) women.

[Hagoth]

I was once in a special session where a temple president explained the meanings of the arm/hand positions used for the temple signs (e.g. cupping ) He had elaborate and randomish, reasons for them but I remember thinking, I dunno, maybe someone was just trying to look all Egyptian-y, like the poses on certain papyri.

[Red Ryder]

My brother in law once made the connection to "the right hand extended in cupping shape and the left hand held up to the square" with the same form used to bless his baby.

Baby was held in the right hand, while left hand was at the square on the guys shoulder to his left.

I called BS and pointed out it was only logistics during the baby blessing and it was coincidentally similar.

He disagreed and asked what I thought it meant then?

I said, "the right cupping shape of the hand is to catch your intestines when you disembowel yourself!"

He was shocked and confused so I told him to ask his dad who was a pre-1990 throat slitting pantomime.

[wtfluff]

Baby was held in the right hand, while left hand was at the square on the guys shoulder to his left.

Uh... Since when do all the dudes in the "circle" put their left arm "to the square" when blessing a baby?

[Red Ryder]

Baby was held in the right hand, while left hand was at the square on the guys shoulder to his left.

Uh... Since when do all the dudes in the "circle" put their left arm "to the square" when blessing a baby?

I don't think it's done purposely as in the temple. But rather my BIL (who is short) noticed his body position while blessing the baby fit similar to the temple instruction. Seems he was searching for explanations and his brain came up with one.

Ironically this is what happens when members participate in temple repetition and have to convince themselves it all means something special.

[Palerider]

Baby was held in the right hand, while left hand was at the square on the guys shoulder to his left.

Uh... Since when do all the dudes in the "circle" put their left arm "to the square" when blessing a baby?

It's an approximation of the form the arm takes as it rests on the shoulder of the man next to you. Not literal. I see what he's saying.

He just happens to still be wrong.....

[wtfluff]

Baby was held in the right hand, while left hand was at the square on the guys shoulder to his left.

Uh... Since when do all the dudes in the "circle" put their left arm "to the square" when blessing a baby?

I don't think it's done purposely as in the temple. But rather my BIL (who is short) noticed his body position while blessing the baby fit similar to the temple instruction. Seems he was searching for explanations and his brain came up with one.

Ironically this is what happens when members participate in temple repetition and have to convince themselves it all means something special.

Of course: See the bold portion in the above quote, and then refer to my previous statement about: "Making sh!t up."

It's an approximation of the form the arm takes as it rests on the shoulder of the man
next to you. Not literal. I see what he's saying.

He just happens to still be wrong.....

In all the "blessing circles" I participated in you rested your hand on the shoulder of the dude to your left, not your arm like instructed "somewhere else." I guess it could be an "approximation" of being to the square, as long as the dude to your left is quite a bit taller than you are. Again: "Making sh!t up."

[Palerider]

Uh... Since when do all the dudes in the "circle" put their left arm "to the square" when blessing a baby?

I don't think it's done purposely as in the temple. But rather my BIL (who is short) noticed his body position while blessing the baby fit similar to the temple instruction. Seems he was searching for explanations and his brain came up with one.

Ironically this is what happens when members participate in temple repetition and have to convince themselves it all means something special.

Of course: See the bold portion in the above quote, and then refer to my previous statement about: "Making sh!t up."

It's an approximation of the form the arm takes as it rests on the shoulder of the man
next to you. Not literal. I see what he's saying.

He just happens to still be wrong.....

In all the "blessing circles" I participated in you rested your hand on the shoulder of the dude to your left, not your arm like instructed "somewhere else." I guess it could be an "approximation" of being to the square, as long as the dude to your left is quite a bit taller than you are. Again: "Making sh!t up."

Technically I felt it was the hand and most of the lower arm (having been there, done that as well) but I don't want to be pedantic. The gesture is only partially like the one in the prayer circle.

One has to really want to find the comparison. It makes me sorry for Mormons who look for stuff that just isn't there. The BofM is the great example.

Got ancient civilizations in Central and South America? They must be Nephite/Lamanite!!! No other possible explanation. DNA, archeology, metallurgy and language differentiation be damned!! They're Lamanites I tell you!!!

[wtfluff]

In all the "blessing circles" I participated in you rested your hand on the shoulder of the dude to your left, not your arm like instructed "somewhere else." I guess it could be an "approximation" of being to the square, as long as the dude to your left is quite a bit taller than you are. Again: "Making sh!t up."

Technically I felt it was the hand and most of the lower arm (having been there, done that as well) but I don't want to be pedantic. The gesture is only partially like the one in the prayer circle.

One has to really want to find the comparison. It makes me sorry for Mormons who look for stuff that just isn't there. The BofM is the great example.

Got ancient civilizations in Central and South America? They must be Nephite/Lamanite!!! No other possible explanation. DNA, archeology, metallurgy and language differentiation be damned!! They're Lamanites I tell you!!!

The thing is: In a blessing circle where there aren't many dudes, they all put both hand in the circle to hold (bounce!) the baby.

There are no arms or hands or anything being raised anywhere if it is done "according to the book." (Literally: "The" Handbook.)

The left arm on the right shoulder of the dude next to you is literally an act of convenience.

[alas]

In all the "blessing circles" I participated in you rested your hand on the shoulder of the dude to your left, not your arm like instructed "somewhere else." I guess it could be an "approximation" of being to the square, as long as the dude to your left is quite a bit taller than you are. Again: "Making sh!t up."

Technically I felt it was the hand and most of the lower arm (having been there, done that as well) but I don't want to be pedantic. The gesture is only partially like the one in the prayer circle.

One has to really want to find the comparison. It makes me sorry for Mormons who look for stuff that just isn't there. The BofM is the great example.

Got ancient civilizations in Central and South America? They must be Nephite/Lamanite!!! No other possible explanation. DNA, archeology, metallurgy and language differentiation be damned!! They're Lamanites I tell you!!!

The thing is: In a blessing circle where there aren't many dudes, they all put both hand in the circle to hold (bounce!) the baby.

There are no arms or hands or anything being raised anywhere if it is done "according to the book." (Literally: "The" Handbook.)

The left arm on the right shoulder of the dude next to you is literally an act of convenience.

One of the lessons in my pyschology classes was not to confuse convenience or creature comfort with “body language”. Most often, if you look too hard for what does their body language mean, you are only going to make a bigger mess of understanding because you will read all kinds of things in that are not there. It isn’t like the TV show “Bull” where he reads these tiny gestures and finds great meaning. That is just bull, excuse the pun. Or as Frued says, sometimes a banana is just a banana. And as again stressed in “dream interpretation” in psychology class, don’t go looking for symbolism that isn’t there. Because unless the dreamer knows what the symbol means, it most likely doesn’t. Dream symbols are usually obvious to the dreamer. They might not want to believe what their subconscious is telling them, but they know.

Which is part of why the temple made me so nuts. We are supposed to guess what the symbolism means??!?!?!?!!! That is just crazy and it doesn’t take a psychologist to diagnose it as batshit crazy. Oh, it made me crazy in AP English also when we read some book that was supposed to be deeply symbolic and I kept thinking, this isn’t deeply symbolic, it is just stupid, and here we are falling all over ourselves trying to find the deep symbolism and even if/when you think you find it, it is still stupid. Then a year after AP English, I am in the temple and that same feeling of “this is supposed to be deeply symbolic, and it is just stupid,” hits me.

Symbolism that is clear, like binding the two hands together as meaning you are binding your lives together in a pagan handfasting, well when it is clear it can be beautiful, or supper ugly as putting your hand in cupping shape to catch your guts after disemboweling yourself. But symbols that are confusing or the meaning is never given and could mean anything or nothing, well, it is just stupid pretending to be deep and meaningful.

God isn’t batshit crazy, nor is he stupid pretending to be deep and meaningful, so, therefore, the “symbolism” of the temple is not from God. And you can’t borrow symbolism because sometimes it does not carry the same meaning from one culture to another, which is what happened when Mormonism copied the Masonic symbolism. It is EXPLAINED in the Masonic temple, because I had a Masonic friend explain it to me. But Mormonism wants to pretend to be deep and meaningful by not explaining it, which just makes it stupid and meaningless. Actually, I think the church is embarrassed by it. For example, “Oh, ...well, the meaning of THAT is that you are going to slit your throat rather than reveal the meaning.” Yeah, they kinda don’t want to explain some of that.

[RubinHighlander]

He was shocked and confused so I told him to ask his dad who was a pre-1990 throat slitting pantomime.

That would be me...er, not his dad, but a pre-1990 throat slitting pantomime!

What a great story! I don't think any of my progeny will be members in the great and abominable corporation, but if they do I'll be happy to share that with them!

[Reuben]

Symbolism that is clear, like binding the two hands together as meaning you are binding your lives together in a pagan handfasting, well when it is clear it can be beautiful, or supper ugly as putting your hand in cupping shape to catch your guts after disemboweling yourself. But symbols that are confusing or the meaning is never given and could mean anything or nothing, well, it is just stupid pretending to be deep and meaningful.

I think the temple symbolism is perfectly clear.

Going to the temple symbolizes life within Mormonism. The structure is expensive and everyone has to say it's beautiful even though it's uninspired and imposing. Strict rules determine who can enter. You spend most of your time listening to things you already know, and you respond in rote. You do things that make no sense, but your eternal life depends on them and everyone else seems to be happy doing them. You initially enter because you want to be a better person or get closer to God, but you get tricked into promising your life to the church. There's stuff you can't talk about on pain of rejection and death. To keep things fresh, you scrutinize every little detail for meaning. In the end, even though it's boring and empty, you go and do because that's what your people expect and conforming makes you feel like you belong.

The temple is Mormonism.