Johannes wrote:I thought this was an interesting post and deserved a thread to itself.
Let me say straight out that I can't agree with Kish, because it seems to me that Mormonism has only secondary characteristics of the Hermetic tradition, not the primary characteristics.
I would say that Hermeticism is committed to a basically pantheistic theology in which the world emanates from an ineffable deity. The different parts of the cosmos are interconnected by invisible spiritual correspondences (so e.g. astrology works because the planets are mystically connected with happenings on earth). Human souls are reincarnated and should try to escape from their cycles of incarnations. I just don't see these ideas in Mormonism. (That may, of course, be because my knowledge of Mormonism is limited.) I would have thought that the faith traditions that are closest to Hermeticism are eastern religions like Buddhism.
I suppose at a push you could see the Mormon idea of "as God is, man may become" as mirroring the Hermetic belief that a human being can enter into divinity (which is what inspired the orthodox Christian idea of theosis), but I don't see the ideas as being all that similar. And would a Hermetist agree that "as man is, God once was"? No way.
What I do see Mormonism as having is some other, secondary features associated with Hermeticism. The emphasis on secrecy and initiation (via the Temple). The idea of multiple divine beings. The importance of priesthood lineage. The advocacy of ascetic lifestyles. The idea of personal revelation. Even these things can be paralleled in conventional Christianity, though (priesthood lineage=apostolicity, ascetic morality, even personal revelation to an extant).
As for Freemasonry, it seems to me that the core principle of Freemasonry is male bonding, with the esoteric stuff being just an accompaniment to that. I guess there's a parallel there with Mormon priesthood quorums (quora?).
What do you think?
Wonderful to see you again, Johannes. It is always a pleasure to have you chime in on rich topics. I can definitely see what you are saying here, and I can sympathize with your intellectual reservations about making this leap. However, in my view it is important to keep a few things in mind:
1. There is no point in looking for complete doctrinal agreement between a hybrid form of something and the different traditions that make up the hybrid. Here the hybrid includes Hermeticism, Freemasonry, AND
Christianity. It seems to me that your disagreement suggests the hybrid must contain all of the elements of one of the parts in order for that part to be included in the hybrid.
In other words, I would call what you have done here a friendly and well-intentioned form of the straw man argument. You are demanding doctrinal purity in the Hermeticism of Mormonism, when the proposed hybrid assumes no such purity exists. What the hybrid does explain is why Mormonism does not behave like a mainstream Christian sect in very interesting and distinctive ways, and why it so easily took to Masonic ritual in the Temple. The answer is that the Masonry was there in the beginning, which, by the way, is also one of the major sources of Mormonism's Hermeticism.
2. Hermes Trismegistus was very nearly canonized by the Catholic Church, and that was stopped only by some decisive, expert, and ultimately wrongheaded philology by Isaac Casaubon. Casaubon's argument was effectively countered by Ralph Cudworth, but the matter had already been decided years prior. How could this happen? Because Christianity itself is a Hellenistic religion whose development is replete with Greco-Roman influences. In a sense, Christianity itself is a hybrid, and as a hybrid it remained open to influences within its cultural milieu. I would submit that it was almost inevitable that Hermeticism would continue to influence Christianity in some way, but that the influence in question would be less explicit than it might have been without old Casaubon.
3. Your understanding of Freemasonry does it little justice. English Freemasonry developed into the esoteric society of many wealthy and educated Englishmen and Europeans by the 18th century. It is full of esotericism, including Hermeticism, and has been the single most important midwife of modern esoteric movements up to the New Age Movement. That was not just true for Theosophy and the Golden Dawn; it was true in the days of Joseph Smith too. Joseph Smith encountered esotericism in a Masonic matrix. The war veterans and the treasure diggers were Masons. His family was Masonic. We can't wait until Nauvoo to look for Masonry. And the Masonry in the Book of Mormon is not simply anti-Masonry. One actually finds positive and negative Masonry therein. Masonry was in Mormonism at the beginning.
4. I just want to reiterate that the hypothesis that Hermeticism is at Mormonism's roots does not require that Mormonism maintain a pure form of Hermetic doctrine today. What it means is that we can look in the Hermetic-Masonic-Christian milieu to find important historical influences on Mormonism. Of course we should expect that, having started there, Mormonism, as a complex hybrid form, would end up somewhere else. It became its own thing. I doubt Rigdon, for example, was something other than a Christian primitivist, and he exercised great influence on early Mormonism.
Mormonism is a hodgepodge and Joseph Smith did not have a goal of restoring Hermes Trismegistus to his "rightful place." I doubt that would have even registered as an intelligible, much less possible, goal for Joseph. Joseph Smith was, in my view, a hermetic prophet by virtue of his environment, not because his conscious design was to promote Hermeticism or Freemasonry. Rather, Joseph Smith, living in a world full of esoteric, magical, and religious knowledge of different kids, set out to cobble together those things that made the best sense for him and worked to promote his own goals. That is why Mormonism ends up in quite a different place. It does not constantly return to its roots as it moves forward. Look at Freemasonry. As Mormonism moves forward, its connection to Freemasonry is consciously suppressed, not necessarily to hide the influence of Masonry deliberately but for other reasons. That amnesia promoted evolution in unique directions and allowed Mormons to take for granted that their truth was their own, not coming from some other earthly source.
So, that being the case, why do I make statements about Mormonism being Hermetic-Masonic Christianity? Because it is time for that historical amnesia to end. That amnesia actually feeds a number of unhealthy things. One is the historical gaps in Mormon cultural consciousness. Mormons, I believe, are more likely not to be aware of significant aspects of Western history between 100 AD and 1830 AD. What they do know is organized around the years 1820 and 1830. In their eyes, history points toward two events: the First Vision and the Founding of Joseph Smith's church. This understanding of history is obviously mythical and theological.
The other problem is the personality cult of Joseph Smith, which is much worse today than it was in Joseph Smith's own. Now it is canonized in scripture. It feeds an unhealthy dynamic in the church around authority. And, frankly, it is silly. Joseph Smith was crucial to the founding of Mormonism, no doubt, but so too were his associates, and his associates get short shrift. Joseph is credited with scripture and ideas that he did not come up with. Mormonism is the product of a certain community as much as it was the product of a certain person. The pendulum has swung too far and too long in the direction of "Joseph Smith cult."
At the same time, the answer to Mormonism's problems does not lie in becoming the Community of Christ Mk. 2 or 3. The recognition of Mormonism's roots (
in toto) ties it to a long tradition, one as long or longer than Christianity itself, and precludes the possibility of finding the Protestantization of Mormonism desirable. Elder Holland once fomented about the idea of others demanding that Mormons practice fourth century AD Christianity. Although the statement in itself is overly simplistic (as many public statements are), I think he is on the right track, and that Mormonism gains nothing by jettisoning what is distinctively Mormon in favor of going Evangelical, vel sim. It also does not take on greater health and vitality by milking its tradition in isolation and in the same, tired, authoritarian path it has been on for too long. Recognizing and going back to its roots would be healthy for Mormonism, if done in the right way. The Community of Christ, admittedly, went back to its roots, and maybe for its people those were the roots that matter, but the CoC is really only emphasizing one part of the picture. The LDS Church should not follow the same path as the CoC, and when I say this I am not talking about liberalism on social issues, I am talking about becoming more Protestant.
