foot Knee to Knee Heart to Heart, Hand to Hand and ear to ear. Then
mak
acknowledged a true mason. The words are in the I of the Kings Ch 7, v,
21, and in 2 chr: ch 3 verse last."[3]
To simplify, when British Freemasonry absorbed the Hiramic and Noachian
legends (ca 1720s) "hand to hand" became "hand to back"[4] for propping
up the raised initiate (a.k.a. the deceased Hiram Abiff [or Noah?]).
"Heart to heart" became "breast to breast," "ear to ear"/"cheek to
cheek" eventually became "mouth to ear," and the embrace name was
standardized to "the five points of fellowship." Only two of the five
Points survived from late-1600s to early-1800s unmodified: "foot to
foot" and "knee to knee."
William Morgan documented the Masonic Five Points of Fellowship
contemporary with Joseph Smith:
"[The Master Mason] proceeds to raise the candidate, _alias_ the
representative of the dead body of Hiram Abiff. He (the candidate) is
raised on what is called the five points of fellowship, which are foot
to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back and mouth to ear.
This is done by putting the inside of your right foot to the inside of
the right foot of the person to whom you are going to give the word, the
inside of your knee to his, laying your right breast against his, your
left hands on the back of each other, and your mouths to each other's
ear (in which position alone you are permitted to give the word), and
whisper the word _Mahhahbone_ ... [which] signifies marrow in the
bone."[5]
The antebellum Five Points of Fellowship emerged from a rich historical
evolution. From this Masonic trajectory, Smith copied the Five Points of
Fellowship into his temple ceremony:
"The Five Points of Fellowship are `inside of right foot by the side of
right foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back, and mouth to
ear.'"[6]
Smith's adaptation isn't too astonishing. As noted, he adamantly
affirmed Masonic antiquity, believing Masonry preserved authentic
ancient ritual.[7] Smith was wrong.
If the temple ceremony were ancient and Masonry degenerated priesthood,
pre-1800 Masonry should resemble Smith's temple rite more than post-1800
Masonry. But the opposite is the case: pre-1800 Masonry is gradationally
more dissimilar to the Mormon ritual. Exacerbating the dilemma, in April
1990 the LDS hierarchy removed the Five Points of Fellowship from the
Endowment. Laying aside temple antiquity, why would God inspire Smith to
include the Five Points of Fellowship then inspire subsequent prophets
to remove them?
Although we differ theologically, Joe and Lance embrace a laudable
post-critical apologetic that attempts to merge spiritual insights with
empirical data--a formidable task. Surely this refreshing approach
should placate the faithful. Lamentably--as some Mormhist-orians have
shown--apologists can't always distinguish friend from foe.
ENDNOTES:
[1] William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton,
"Mormon in the Fiery Furnace[:] Or, Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge"
(review of John L. Brooke, _The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon
Cosmology, 1644-1844_ [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994]),
_Review of Books on the Book of Mormon_ 6 (1994), 2:54.
[2] Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt, 17 June 1842, LDS archives
(cited in David John Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of
Mormon Temple Worship [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994], 40). See
also Michael W. Homer, "`Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry': The
Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism," _Dialogue: A Journal of
Mormon Thought_ 27 (Fall 1994): 67-75.
[3] Edinburgh Register House Ms., 1696, p. 1; cf. J. Mason Allan, "The
Edinburgh Register House Ms.," _Ars Quatuor Coronatorum_ XLIII (January
1930): 153-55; Douglas Knoop, G. P. Jones, and Douglas Hamer, _The Early
Masonic Catechisms_, Harry Carr, ed., 2nd ed. reprint (Kila, MT:
Kessinger Publishing Company, 1963), 31-34; David Stevenson, _The
Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590-1710_ (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1988), 143.
Two other mss. independently replicate the ERH Ms. Five Points of
Fellowship: Chetwode-Crawley Ms., ca 1700 (see Knoop, Jones, and Hamer,
1963, 38); Kevan Ms., ca 1714-1720 (see ibid., 44). The Kevan Ms.
appends "... Last Varse the wholl / Varse but especially the words
Jachin & Boaz" (ibid.).
The Sloane Ms. (ca 1700) offers an early descriptive--not
prescriptive--view of the Five Points of Fellowship:
"Another [salutation] they haue called the masters word and is Mahabyn
which is allways divided into two words and Standing close With their
Breasts to each other the inside of Each others right Ancle
Joynts the masters grip by their right hands and the top of their Left
hand fingers thrust close on ye small of each others Backbone and in
that posture they Stand till they whisper in each others eares ye one
Maha- the other repleys Byn" (ibid., 48; Stevenson [1988, 144] renders
the text with slight variations).
[4] Both "hand to hand" and "hand over back" are retained in some
British lodges (see James Dewar, _The Unlocked Secret: Freemasonry
Examined_ [Guildford, England: William Kimber and Co. Limited, 1966],
171).
[5] William Morgan, Illustrations of Masonry by One of the Fraternity
Who has Devoted Thirty Years to the Subject (Batavia, NY: David C.
Miller, 1827), 84-85. The Graham Ms. preserves an early necromantic
legend involving Noah:
"... we have it by tradition and still some referance to scripture cause
shem ham and Japeth ffor to go to their father noahs grave for to try if
they could find anything about him ffor to Lead them to the vertuable
secret which this famieous preacher had for I hop all will allow that
all things needful for the new world was in the ark with noah Now these
3 men had already agreed that if they did not find the verything it self
that the first thing that they found was to be to them as a secret they
not Doubting but did most ffirmly beLeive that God was able and would
allso prove willing through their faith prayer and obediance for to
cause what they did find for to prove as vertuable to them as if they
had received the secret at first from God himself at its head spring so
came to the Grave finding nothing save the dead body all most consumed
away takeing a greip at a ffinger it came away so from Joynt to Joynt so
to the wrest so to the Elbow so they RReared up the dead body and
suported it setting ffoot to ffoot knee to knee Breast to breast cheek
to cheek and hand to back and cryed out help o ffather as if they had
said o father of heaven help us now for our Earthly ffather cannot so
Laid down the dead body again and not knowing what to do--so one said
here is yet marow in this bone and the second said but a dry bone and
the third said it stinketh so they agreed for to give it a name as is
known to free masonry to this day so went to their undertakings and
afterwards works stood:yet it is to be beleived and allso understood
that the vertue did not proceed from what they ffound or how it was
called but ffrom ffaith and prayer so thus it Contenued the will pass
for the deed" (Graham Ms., 1726, p. 2; cf. H. Poole, "The Graham
Manuscript," _Ars Quatuor Coronatorum_ L [January 1937]: 5-17 [see also
18-28]; Knoop, Jones, and Hamer, 1963, 89-96).
[6] In Jerald and Sandra Tanner, _Evolution of the Mormon Temple
Ceremony: 1842-1990_ (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1990),
96; cf. "[The man and the woman] are then left to prove themselves
faithful, after which they are admitted into the terrestrial kingdom,
where at the alter they receive an additional charge and the second
token of the Melchizedek Priesthood and also the key word on the five
points of fellowship" (Heber C. Kimball/William Clayton Journal, 11
December 1845, in George D. Smith ed., _An Intimate Chronicle: The
Journals of William Clayton_ [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991],
201). See also Edward H. Ashment, "The LDS Temple Ceremony: Historical
Origins and Religious Value," _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_ 27
(Fall 1994): 289-98.
[7] I explore this issue further in my forthcoming "Joseph Smith's
Paradigm of Antiquity," in Brent Lee Metcalfe, _Revisioning the Book of
Mormon: Criticism Beyond Apologetics and Polemics_.