I'm in Salt Lake right now, and I just noticed a lot of different symbols on the outside of the Temple such as the big dipper and like two hands shaking. What do they represent?

SHORT ANSWER:
Here you go: http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/whited/eastweb/index.htm

LONG ANSWER:
They are Masonic Symbols.

Both Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith were Freemasons and the LdS Temple Ceremony and system is rooted in Freemasonry. Therefore, you will find a smattering of symbols from from Freemasonry on the temples built under their direction from the Nauvoo period onward.

However, the modern temple built today downplay - or simply eliminate - any of these symbols as they have been a point of contention for Mormon Critics throughout Mormon History.

BTW, Freemasonry is rooted in Kaballah which is rooted in the occult.

http://www.mazeministry.com/resources/books/doombook/doomtext/20architecture.htm
http://www.luciferlink.org/mtemple.htm

Comments

The Church and the Masons are independent of one another.
And symbols are just symbols.
They may have different meanings to different groups.
They may simply be used as decorations.
.
The idea that a symbol used by each of two separate groups necessarily shows they are connected would require us to believe that the Nazis were secretly Jews, for the Jews used the Swastika long before there WERE any Nazis.
.
And I see that you love to answer your own questions.
In that respect you are a lot like a comedian who laughs at his own jokes.
- Report
by edndori on November 15th, 2009
Yes, Freemasonry is rooted in ancient Judaism, which is essentially what Kaballah is. What I’m wondering is where you get the idea that it’s rooted in the occult. Plenty of people claim that Christianity is rooted in the occult too; where’s the proof?

If one accepts Christianity (and by extension, pure Judaism) as true, doesn’t it make more sense that the occult would be rooted in it?
- Report
by the Otter on November 16th, 2009
"The Church and the Masons are independent of one another."
.
This may be so but they were also inseperably connected - e.g. The Nauvoo Lodge - Prominent leaders being Masons like the second prophet and president Brigham Young who was one amoung many. By saying they "are independent of one another" only tells one half of the story and is a part truth - this is how people decieve - like the serpent in the garden of Eden. It would have been nice to see you explain how they are historically connected even if they are independant groups.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 16th, 2009
If they were "inseparably connected" then ALL of the top church leadership would have been members, not just a few.
- Report
by edndori on November 16th, 2009
Oh they were - there were more LDS Nauvoo Masons than non-LDS Masons. All the members starting entering the brotherhood after they applied for and built their own Masonic Lodge (Church run might I add) that is now the Cultural Centre or something like that - owned by the Church today except they don't call it the Mormon Masonic Lodge.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 17th, 2009
In a predominantly Mormon city, equal interest inside and outside the church with respect to ANY organization would result in a predominantly Mormon membership. So that is not significant.
- Report
by edndori on November 17th, 2009
While it may not be significant, the numbers of LDS comapred to the total LDS male population is significant. Practically everyone was a Mason. But you can go and find out all this by yourself - a child that has the teacher do all their homework for them doesn't learn anything. I'm not an expert on the subject but it does seem that you don't know the facts from what I have discovered.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 17th, 2009
You're not my teacher.
And I'm not going to spend my time trying to figure out where you got this nonsense.
- Report
by edndori on November 17th, 2009
I did not say that I was your teacher - and you can hardy review something and call it nonsence when you haven't read into it and done the research! That's like reviewing a book and saying it was a load of 'nonsence' without even reading it! It would be totally and utterly pointles and stupid for someone to do that - so please don't comment about your opinion when you haven't even done the background research! You can only discredit something oe call it nonsence when you know it is far from the truth - if you do know that it is nonsence then please state WHY and I will reconsider my so called 'nonsence' based on your evidence.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 18th, 2009
By the way a quick search will give you some general information that you can check and go into a little bit more detail on - e.g.:
.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Freemasonry_in_Nauvoo
.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/42558/32061596.pdf?sequence=1
.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 18th, 2009
Prominent leaders in Mormonism who were also Masons include:
.
Joseph Smith (Founder of Mormonism)
Joseph Smith, Sr. (Joseph Smith's father)
Hyrum Smith (Joseph Smith's brother)
Samuel Smith (Joseph's brother)
William Smith (Joseph's brother)
Brigham Young (Mormonism's second president)
John Taylor (Mormonism's third president)
Wilford Woodruff (Mormonism's fourth president)
Lorenzo Snow (Mormonism's fifth president)
Sidney Rigdon (Counselor to Joseph Smith)
John C. Bennett (Assistant president to the First Presidency)
Willard Richards (Second counselor to Brigham Young)
Newell K. Whitney (Presiding Bishop)
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 18th, 2009
Heber C. Kimball (First counselor to Brigham Young)
Orson Pratt (Mormon apostle)
Parley P. Pratt (Mormon apostle)
Orson Hyde (Mormon apostle)
Orrin Porter Rockwell (Joseph Smith's bodyguard)
Lyman Johnson (Mormon apostle)
William Law (Second counselor to Joseph Smith)
William Marks (Nauvoo Stake president)
Erastus Snow (Mormon apostle)
William Clayton (Joseph Smith's secretary)
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 18th, 2009
http://www.mrm.org/masonic-influence
.
I just came across this list but I started making a list of all the apostles in 1841-1845 when the Nauvoo Lodge was in operation to see which were masons.
.
George A. Smith must have been a mason as he suggested having a "Mormon Grand Lodge" when they were in Utah.
.
I don't know about John E. Page, Lyman Wight or Amasa M. Lyman.
.
You said: "If they were "inseparably connected" then ALL of the top church leadership would have been members, not just a few." I think you can see that nearly all the 'top church leadership' were members! Happy researching! ;)
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 18th, 2009
More information is available today than any one person can hope to absorb. To deal with it we constantly make judgments as to what is worth pursuing, and what sources are trustworthy.
.
I am satisfied that there is not and never has been any actual connection between the Church and the Masons.
.
You apparently are willing to spend more time pursuing this particular Will-o'-the-wisp than I am. Go right ahead.
.
I have more important things to spend my time on.
- Report
by edndori on November 18th, 2009
"I am satisfied that there is not and never has been any actual connection between the Church and the Masons."
.
Please go right ahead - but it is staring you in the face! I seriously can't believe you can be so blind and dismissive.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 18th, 2009
I find it incredible you are willing to spend so much time pursuing nonsense.
Unless your purpose is simply to argue, and any pretext will do.
- Report
by edndori on November 18th, 2009
I find it incredible that you have some secret knowledge that for some reason you can't share. I might start taking you seriosuly if you started talking firm hard facts and evidence. And you know what I have to say about your 'nonsence' comments (that book's nonsence but I haven't read it) - there seems to be a reversal of roles - you are full of nonsence which you think isn't nonsence at all, and when you come across actual evidence that is anything but noncence you think it's nonsence.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
Blessed is he, who, having nothing to say, refrains from giving wordy evidence of the fact.
- Report
by edndori on November 19th, 2009
Your a joke - you really are.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
I didn't go looking for this as you might think - I just stumbled across it so I thought I would entertain myself as you as so amusing.
.
Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe admitted:
.
"Many of the Saints were Masons, such as Joseph's brother Hyrum, Heber C. Kimball, Elijah Fordham, Newel K. Whitney, James Adams, and John C. Bennett....
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
With the acquiescence of the Prophet, members of the Church already Masons petitioned the Grand Master of Illinois for permission to set up a lodge in Nauvoo. In answer they were granted permission, in October, 1841, to hold lodge meetings; but it was March 15, 1842, before authority was given to set up a lodge in Nauvoo and to induct new members. Joseph Smith became a member (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1 vol., pp.357-58)."
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
The following statement is recorded in Joseph Smith's History of the Church, volume 4, page 551, under the date of March 15, 1842: "In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office." The record for the very next day reads: "I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree" (vol. 4, p.552).
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
The Mormons who joined the Masonic Lodge soon found themselves in trouble with other members of the fraternity. They had inducted large numbers into the fraternity and had departed from some of the "ancient landmarks." Finally, the Masons refused to allow the Mormons to continue "a Masonic Lodge at Nauvoo" (Mormonism and Masonry, by S. H. Goodwin, p.34).
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
Although Joseph Smith found himself in trouble with the Masons, he is said to have given the Masonic signal of distress just before he was murdered. Mormon writer E. Cecil McGavin stated:
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
When the enemy surrounded the jail, rushed up the stairway, and killed Hyrum Smith, Joseph stood at the open window, his martyr-cry being these words, "O Lord My God!" This was not the beginning of a prayer, because Joseph Smith did not pray in that manner. This brave, young man who knew that death was near, started to repeat the distress signal of the Masons, expecting thereby to gain the protection its members are pledged to give a brother in distress (Mormonism and Masonry, by E. Cecil McGavin, p.17).
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
On page 16 of the same book, Mr. McGavin quotes the following from the Life of Heber C. Kimball, p.26: "Joseph, leaping the fatal window, gave the Masonic signal of distress."
.
In Utah the Masons will not allow a Mormon to become a member of their fraternity because of the things that happened in Nauvoo. One of the most important reasons for this ban is that they feel Joseph Smith stole part of the Masonic ritual and included it in his temple ceremony.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
I believe the Utah Grand Lodge now allows Mormons to be Masons - the Grand Master being a Mormon himself.
.
Mormon apologist Dr. Hugh Nibley has admitted concerning Mormonism and Masonry: "Among the first to engage in the Latter-day Temple work were many members of the Masons.... whose rites present unmistakable parallels to those of the temple" (What Is A Temple? BYU Press, 1968, p.247).
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
Since many members of the Mormon church were Masons and were familiar with its ritual, Joseph Smith must have realized that he would be accused of stealing the ceremonies from Masonry. In what was apparently a move to offset this criticism, Joseph Smith claimed that Masonry once had the true endowment and that it had become corrupted through the passage of time.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
E. Cecil McGavin explains: "In the diary of Benjamin F. Johnson, an intimate friend and associate of Joseph Smith, it is recorded that 'Joseph told me that Freemasonry was the apostate endowment, as sectarian religion was the apostate religion.' Elder Heber C. Kimball, who had been a Mason for many years, related that after Joseph Smith became a Mason, he explained to his brethren that Masonry had been taken from the priesthood" (Mormonism and Masonry, p.199).
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 19th, 2009
Believe what you wish.
If Masonry preserves part of the truth, just as Christianity does, Then both Masonry and traditional Christianity will both resemble he Restored Gospel and its ordinances.
The degree of resemblance depends entirely on how much of the ancient knowledge was preserved by Masons and traditional Christians.
.
But the restored Gospel derives from God, not from either Masonry or traditional Christianity.
- Report
by edndori on November 19th, 2009
Shame Masonry is an 18th Century creation and doesn't have a history as long as christianity. Joseph Smith seemed to have forgotten about that.
.
Yes - Believe what you wish.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 20th, 2009
Masonry under that name may have been traced back no further than the 18th century. Do you really believe is sprang full blown from nothing?
- Report
by edndori on November 20th, 2009
No - it linked itself to and borrowed from other legends and secret organizations - Freemasonry will fully admit to that, but that still makes it an C18th creation.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 21st, 2009
So what?
.
Traditional Christianity has its origins with Emperor Constantine as a political expedient. But it borrowed (including the name) from the remnants of the church Christ established.
.
But the origins of much of the doctrine and ritual in both cases is older than the organization that claims it.
- Report
by edndori on November 21st, 2009
>So what?<
.
Umm you asked the question!?!
.
>Do you really believe is sprang full blown from nothing?<
.
And I replied - so what what??
.
Oh and you need to read your early christian history a little more to get the facts staight. What you call 'traditional christianity' did not originate with Constantine but there are many misconceptions about Constantines involvement with christianity so it's understandable as many people get it wrong. Lost Christianities by Bart D Ehrman talks about all the early christian sects and the battle between them for dominance. I would recomend it.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 22nd, 2009
You've thrown out this same nonsense so often you are now cutting and pasting it.
.
Its still nonsense however, and not worth an answer.
.
Those who want more than that can find it in any of the treads where you've pasted it before.
- Report
by edndori on November 22nd, 2009
Sorry about that. My last comment was meant to be to something else entirely. It won't let me change it, so just ignore it.
.
Constantine created "traditional Christianity" using political power, and borrowing heavily from all these warring remnants of Christ's church, and taking their name for his own creation. Thee intend was to bring them under his control. He was successful because they had already divorced themselves from Jesus Christ, reinterpreting all he had said to suit themselves.
- Report
by edndori on November 22nd, 2009
Now your just rewriting history. Constantine allowed Christianity probably because he didn't want a group to rise up aginst his government, he 'converted' but he did not become christian until he was on his death-bed. He probably thought that the previous law that the people were only allowed to worship the roman gods would provoke the christians to rise up against him and did not show his convictions or support of christianity.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 22nd, 2009
And the early christian sects did not 'divorce themselves from Jesus Christ' - they all accepted Christ but in different ways - for example the Gnostics seperated Jesus and Christ, Jesus being a human and Christ being a personage of spiritual divinity that entered Jesus the man at the time of his baptism. Again read up on your christian history to get rid of your many misconceptions.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 22nd, 2009
They divorced themselves from Jesus Christ.
They did just as modern traditional Christians do.
The interpreted and modified what Jesus had said to suit their own desires, teaching the doctrines of men, having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof.
.
Because they were divided in what the WANTED to believe they had split in to the waring sects you speak of. Modern traditional Christians, with all their protestant sects, have done the same thing for the same reason.
.
Constantine took advantage of the situation and established HIS version of Christianity, even dictating some of the doctrines.
Thank you for outlining so concisely his political reasons for doing just that. And for pointing out that he was not, himself, a believer.
.
Of course, this is the LDS understanding of the whole thing.
(What did you EXPECT from the LDS?)
Just as your understanding of events comes from the traditional Christian point of view.
(Just as I would expect.)
- Report
by edndori on November 22nd, 2009
>What did you EXPECT from the LDS?<
.
Oh I forgot that the LDS rewrite history to suit them - does that make them divoreced from Christ? And I'm certain the LDS Church would not say that other christians are 'divoreced from Christ' - that spells out C-U-L-T and goes against LDS doctrine that all have access to Jesus Christ who earnestly seek him, even if it's in 'the wong place'. You discussed belief, I disucussed history - one is founded the other is not.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009
I have already discussed with two LDS your Constantine version using your own word, one was a little supprised i.e. 'What!?!' and said that it was 'silly' - the other said it was 'a shame' that your were LDS and understood things that way and that you had 'a pretty crazy understanding of what traditional christianity is' if you meant what you said.
.
My understanding is HISTORICAL and not a 'traditional christian point of view' - your seriously worse than the Jehovah's Witnesses in rewriting christian and scriptural history.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009
Oh and when your discussing your belief please state it as such - because then you wont be stating as history your belief when the historical record differs greatly from what you share as historical events.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 23rd, 2009
Oh? Who did you discuss it with?
And what changes did you make in "my own words"?
.
What you get will ALWAYS be my own opinion except when it is a quote from someone else.
You do the same thing whether you admit it or not.
- Report
by edndori on November 23rd, 2009
>What you get will ALWAYS be my own opinion except when it is a quote from someone else.
You do the same thing whether you admit it or not.<
.
Only when I state my belief - yes that is an opinion. Or if I state others beliefs. Lots of what I share I demonstrate from the historical record or state that you can check it out if your not happy.
.
>Oh? Who did you discuss it with?<
.
My wife and a friend of ours - both LDS.
.
>And what changes did you make in "my own words"?<
.
NONE - It was read from the computer screen the way you typed it.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 24th, 2009

You may be right, edndori, but note that the question was asked almost 4½ years ago.

(Of course, if Anonymous really was in the Salt Lake 4½ years ago, I wonder where he was getting a wireless signal, and if s/he accidentally drowned in the crap-infested waters after typing this.) ^_^
- Report
by the Otter on November 16th, 2009
Oops! I didn't notice the date, and somehow I got the notion it was posted by Mister_IT.
.
Back then I didn't even know AB existed.
.
Is My Face RED!
- Report
by edndori on November 16th, 2009
Always on the defensive - now this to me sets of all the 'warning' signals and alarms.
- Report
by Richard the Anonymous on November 16th, 2009

Interesting links
Are you on f**king crack????
- Report
by Haywood Jablowme on November 15th, 2009
Many interpretations on those sites use meanings not common in the days of Joseph Smith Jr.
- Report
by laie_techie on November 15th, 2009
touché' laie_techie an I bid you adieu
- Report
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on November 16th, 2009
frechie, no I am not on crack. I have a crack though.
- Report
by Joseph Smith was a fraud and Eisegete on November 16th, 2009

Question

I'm in Salt Lake right now, and I just noticed a lot of different symbols on the outside of the Temple such as the big dipper and like two hands shaking. What do they represent?

Answers. 8 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Do Mormons use the sun, moon, and stars as key symbols in the temple?

Why is some of the architecture in the Nauvoo Illinois Temple similar to Masonic symbols and motifs?

Why do couples hold hands during their wedding? It's a formality just like two boxers shaking hands before the fight begins!

How many stars are in the big dipper?

Is the big dipper visible from vietnam?

Professionally Researched

Is the big dipper visible from vietnam?

How many stars form the Big Dipper?

How many stars are in the big dipper?

When was the Big Dipper founded?

Why is the Big Dipper called the Big Dipper?

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Question

I'm in Salt Lake right now, and I just noticed a lot of different symbols on the outside of the Temple such as the big dipper and like two hands shaking. What do they represent?

Answers. 8 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!