Elks of a False Priesthood
Posted by Ryan on June 29th, 2006
Let me preface this post with a little disclaimer:
*Disclaimer: Neither the author, nor The Blogger of Jared officially harbour any ill feelings toward The Benevolent Order of the Elks, nor towards any similar organization such as the Rotary club, the Lions club or the Sisters of the Perpetually Knitting Kneedles.*
Hugh Nibley once proclaimed the caps and gowns of BYU’s (and by extension, every other) graduation ceremony to be robes of a false priesthood. Said he:
“Why a priesthood? Because these robes originally denoted those who had taken clerical orders, and a college was a “mystery” with all the rites, secrets, oaths, degrees, tests, feasts, and solemnities that go with initiation into higher knowledge.
But why false? Because it is borrowed finery, coming down to us through a long line of unauthorized imitators. It was not until 1893 that “an intercollegiate commission was formed to draft a uniform code for caps, gowns, and hoods” in the United States. Before that there were no rules–you designed your own; and that liberty goes as far back as these fixings can be traced. The late Roman emperors, as we learn from the infallible Du Cange, marked each step in the decline of their power and glory by the addition of some new ornament to the resplendent vestments that proclaimed their sacred office and dominion. Branching off from them, the kings of the tribes who inherited the lands and the claims of the Empire vied with each other in imitating the Roman masters, determined to surpass even them in the theatrical variety and richness of caps and gowns.”
Borrowed finery indeed.
But are robes and vestments the only things that have been borrowed from the gospel and imitated? Certainly not. The temple ceremony itself was borrowed by the freemasons (in what seemingly was a wise purpose in allowing for an eventual return to Joseph Smith.) And what about the Priesthood? Yes that concept has been borrowed as well. Usually in unfortunate ways (See: Noah and Turkey….err, Ham) But is the borrowing always unfortunate? I was recently approached about joining a local men’s club that goes around doing good things (fundraising to feed the needy, volunteering at charity events, neighborhood clean-ups, etc…). When they are not out and about doing good, they meet as a group and socialize, philosophize and legitimize (that is, they vote each other into various offices such as President, Treasurer, Secretary, Historian, etc…). It struck me as a wonderful community organization and sort of a cool club to make new friends and pretend to be important and organized. I am still unsure as to whether or not I will join, but I as I listened to what they do (both in the community and as an organization) I began to think:
“Hmm, this sounds just like the Elders Quorum”
Do you think that these organizations are just Quorums of a false priesthood?
Points to consider:
- These organizations do good works
- The unauthorized borrowing of priesthood robes eventually led to a prideful display of sparkle over substance - what does this history mean for unauthorized organizations?
- The Gadianton Robbers started basically as a club.
- Most early church leaders were Masons even though theoretically only Joseph would have needed to join to retrieve the endowment ceremony
- Without divine revelation to direct such a group, what is the potential for demoralization?
- Might these organizations fill the internal need that leads people to the gospel?
It is my understanding that the Hugh Nibley article was a follow-up written upon request after he had offered a prayer during a BYU graduation ceremony, saying: “…and Father, as we are gathered here in the robes of a false priesthood…”.
I didn’t hear that from a friend of a friend..
My professor, who was there, related the experience to me a couple months ago when I graduated.
Comment # 1 left by Connor Boyack on June 29th, 2006
Connor, you’re correct, in fact Nibley relates the entire story in the very beginning of his talk. I am too lazy to include the link now but you can find it by typing the name of the talk “Leaders to Managers, the fatal shift” into Google.
There are whisperings that the talk was written as a subtle jab at the leadership of the church. Whether that be the case, I know not.
Comment # 2 left by Ryan on June 29th, 2006
Great stuff Ryan!!! It’s about time someone posted on this infamous speech/prayer/talk.
I like the angle you’ve taken and the questions you’ve posed. But since you’ve written this post so well, I really don’t have much to say!
Nice job; thanks for adding it to our archives!
Comment # 3 left by Wade on June 29th, 2006
The Masons got that from us? I thought we got it from them.
Comment # 4 left by annegb on June 30th, 2006
annegb:
Ryan was referring to the temple ordinances in the time of Solomon’s Temple. The Masons were the actual stone masons who built the temple and they mixed their craft with the ordinances of the temple and began a fraternal order which survives today.
Comment # 5 left by Wade on June 30th, 2006
Being both a Mormon and a Mason, I am well versed in this subject. As far as I can tell, Freemasonry appears to me, to be a deliberate preservation of old rites, by a group taking it underground in the generation when the Church suppressed the ordinances completely, and altered to be in a different enough form that no covenants would have been broken in the process of creating it, nor would any obligations be broken in restoring the original forms back out from it (which Joseph did).
Masonry is not a religion, and when it ever uses the title High Priest (which it does in the Royal Arch Chapter, but not in the Blue Lodge), it is used symbolically as a figure representing the High Priest, and not recognized as a real Priesthood in any way (it does not confer any priesthood power or authority upon the person) — it is just a glossed up re-titling of Worshipful Master, to fit the symbolic schema of the Royal Arch.
So, while it retains elements of the Temple rites (which I think are more accurately traced to the time of Christ, or at least had their lineage through him, not directly from Solomon’s temple), I believe it, its sibling the International Order of the Odd Fellows (which was organized formally around the same time as Masonry), and all of the groups deriving from them (including Elks, the Grange, etc), are more or less noble and upright before God and men, according, of course to the behavior of their members.
I am interested in the day, yet to come, that so many LDS splinter groups exist that we end up frequently converting members who have already been endowed in a splinter Temple. If I understand correctly, there are already four or five groups splintered off of the Restoration movement that currently perform Temple rites whether in an actual Temple (Eldorado FLDS), or in another structure (TLC Manti, the Cutlerites, etc.). Because of the power of the message of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, these types of splinters may well have a better chance of gaining converts than the various flavors of Protestantism do (although non-polygamous ones are more likely). This may be another hundred years down the road, but today we see Baptism, the Sacrament, Blessings, and Faith Healings practiced by other groups. The Temple seems as though it would be almost as likely to be part of sectarian Christianity, had it not been viewed as a threat to the authority and politics of the early Church.
Comment # 6 left by Jeff on June 30th, 2006
These organization do good things and serve a purpose. Our loyalties to the priesthood quorum should come first of course.
In some ways these groups have their advantages over a quorum I think. Speaking in terms of social interaction etc.
Comment # 7 left by Eric Nielson on June 30th, 2006
Thanks for your comments Jeff! I’ve always wondered if there are still some members who are Masons; now I know.
Comment # 8 left by Wade on June 30th, 2006
Good thoughts everybody. It seems somewhat unanimous that these organizations are good for us as members of the church to support (seeking after things that are praiseworthy, etc… )
But why do these groups exist? It seems that they fill a need within people (men mostly?) to have some type of fraternal order with a hierarchy and such.
By filling this need with a false priesthood, do they inadvertently compete with the gospel?
For example: I work for a landscape supply company. If people in our city need rock, they have three options. Us and two competitors. The reson some people don;t come to us is because their need for rock is filled by the other companies. They don’t need to search for us.
What if there were no other quorums/orders like the ones found within the Gospel? Would we find that more people come into the church as a result?
Comment # 9 left by Ryan on June 30th, 2006
Interesting thought Ryan! So, because it’s a zero-sum game (i.e. if they are in another fraternal order, they won’t be searching for the Elder’s Quorum), it makes it harder for us to do missionary work.
However, I think some could argue (e.g. Jeff who is both a Mormon and a Mason) that it isn’t a zero-sum game. In fact, as I understand it, the vast majority of Masons and members of other fraternal orders are very religious people of differing faiths.
Comment # 10 left by Wade on June 30th, 2006
yes that’s a valid argument. It would be interesting to know for certain wouldn’t it.
*sigh*
I guess until then we are left to decide for ourselves
Comment # 11 left by Ryan on June 30th, 2006