What Can We Make of Our Rituals?

My dear readers,

I received a message from a fellow reader trying to reconcile with how the coronation ritual applies to our current temple worship (as mentioned in the previous blog article) and the struggle women carry from even our current temple verbiage. I felt this was the right time to address these matters and make this a follow up to the coronation post. I have been given permission to use her name as well as her response in order to open up this conversation, somethings that very well may be cause of concern for many. Hopefully I can oblige in answering some of the same questions that many of you may, too, be asking yourselves. I share this in hopes that you will seek Wisdom for yourself, be informed, and come to your own conclusions. I will be following this post up with others addressing more about my views and research on this matter, that will hopefully bring further clarity to these concerns.

Here are her remarks:

"I absolutely love what you do and write. How do you get around the fact that in our temple rituals, even still, we are not to be queens and priestesses to the most high. That goes to the men. When I first went I was a queen and priestesses to my husband. Note it’s just “in the kingdom.” It’s still not a direct connection to god. It has made me feel from the beginning that the church thinks I’m second class because of my gender. I don’t believe that. But it’s what the church teaches and it makes me sad and frustrated.

And in the original temple ceremony the signs were different, mimicking the ways you told be killed if you revealed them. Soo are those actually connected to the coronation ceremony? I don’t understand.

I love what you’ve written. But do we actually know what the signs now mean? I’ve not been able to get anyone to tell me, even inside the temple. I would love to understand."

- Lyric Montgomery Kinard

Here is my response to her:

Hello, Lyric,

I would like to express my genuine appreciation in your interest in my writing and for your feedback. There is much that I can share with you and I will try to address each of your concerns as best as I can.

In all honesty, I left my opinions vague on the latest blog article for a few reasons. One, out of hope that my readers would follow their intuition and come to their own conclusions. Secondly, I haven't been able to reconcile with the temple rituals in respect of how our religion has conducted it. I don't believe that evidence of the rituals being performed throughout history necessarily adds support to the idea that our religion knows all or has all power from God, due to its rituals. Nor does it speak to the significance of our religion enacting these rituals.

What I do find fascinating about these rituals that we have undergone in our society is that it was done anciently - prior to the overwhelming narrative of the singular male God. In that, women were able to be esteemed equally, as goddesses. Such a reality coming to the light allows for women to recognize their capability of taking on the same sacred tasks of all spiritual leaders from the beginning. That is the main reason I came to share this information on my page, to empower women to come to know their own potential and divinity. So, in this process, it wasn't my full intent to share this in order to provide evidence for the relevance of our own religion, but for the sake of women accepting the divine feminine within themselves. (However, it is helpful that endowed members can grasp the significance of these events within this context. It does give us a leg up when discussing coronations).

Now, to address your inquiries. I, too, have been truly disheartened that our leaders have not revised this particular verbiage, "unto the new and everlasting covenant" or in the past, "unto your husband" rather than directly "unto the Most High". It definitely does signify that our leaders do not see the need to accept that women can have the same, direct connection with God as men do, or obtain these blessings for themselves without the help of a male companion. Unfortunately, it goes to show that we still face misogyny in our circles - whether it is intended or subconscious, I do not know. I believe it is a mortal pattern we see throughout society, not necessarily a divine pattern - to honor men over women and consider men the only initiates with the divine.

I don't believe that is how God would want Their children to function. If we are to become like them, and our Mother is the Mother God of All Gods (as the Israelites and Canaanites believed Her to be), then She is all-powerful, omnipotent, and her daughters can become as such. I personally believe that She is the main missing link in our dialogue, ordinances, and worship. Without honoring and recognizing the strength and divinity of women, we are not in full alignment and are missing significant pieces in understanding the cosmic sphere.

What I gather, either our leaders have not asked these particular questions to the divine - as it doesn't appear to impact them personally with their background, paradigm, and power that society inarguably grants them - or perhaps, they are not receptive enough at this time to receive the answers. Answers that our Mother would grant them, if they so opened their hearts and eyes to it. [Or, if they are asking questions, perhaps it is the questions they are asking that do not allow for more insight or expansion.] Or perhaps, they do not see the need to bring about change. Or quite possibly it could be a matter of timing. Of this, I am doubtful, seeing as how God is omnipresent and omnipotent. That, and the Mother has been esteemed on and off throughout the ages, even prehistorically. But there are shifts within certain ages of time, and perhaps we are due for one.

The explanation that most resonates with me is that we, as fallible human beings, limit ourselves from receiving more enlightenment by living passively, not being emotionally and intuitively present with the world and the divine. So perhaps it is more a matter of us not being ready to receive what has always been accessible to us, set as an offering from our Parents, but that we have forgotten or closed our minds and hearts to. And perhaps that is why we have not received more from our leaders on behalf of women. [Even if our leaders, seek inspiration, they may not receive it if they are not prepared for it. They may not be in a space to accept it.]

In either case, I believe society at large has a massive mother wound, in the fact that we have not come to recognize the silenced feminine strengths in individuals and in our worshipped deity. If our own leaders cannot come to see their own potential errors, or the patterns to which they potentially follow, then progress is going to be put off. That is, until they come to work through the pains that patriarchy has put upon them - as it has impacted both men and women alike. Until then, I believe that if women cannot fully rise and coexist in this space as equals, we will continue to see negative effects upon all of our relationships and the well-being of individuals.

Now, onto the oaths. The blood oaths were definitely a part of our religion, and came about with Brigham Young, from what I gather. I believe they stemmed prior to masonry. You may already be aware of this, but these rituals were performed in the Old Testament. It was made not only in spiritual spheres, but with common folk making binding agreements (covenants) with others in obtaining land or allyship. These oaths regarded promises that they were bound to abide by throughout their lives or - yes - lose their lives or their chattel for it. It is actually where the concept of blood brothers comes from. Handshakes were made from this, by both parties drawing blood and sharing them in a hand grasp to combine their lives, and take on each other's blood and DNA.

These gestures and handshakes may or may not have taken place within the walls of Solomon's temple. That is where some scholars believe the temple tokens originated. The brick masons who worked outside of Solomon's temple have been thought to be the ones to take the oaths from a sanctified space to the "secret combinations," or created the ritual themselves. However, if you look even further back, you can see semblances of these tokens in about every written culture. You can see them in sculptures of royalty upon their throne with their arm raised and orb in hand, as Elizabeth had.

Now, from what I have read up on this, there was nothing concerning blood oaths in the initiation process of the late Queen. And perhaps, the blood oaths may not have had significance within sacred halls. But I have not found conclusive evidence of this at this point; there may be a connection between the two, but I cannot be sure.

What I do know about the signs is that there is a lot of confusion about their original meanings. The masonic handshakes were simply set in a sequence, to signify the entering into each new phase of masonry, or from one ritual to another, similarly to how we see it done. It signified rank and the level to which they could perform at within the masonic order, from apprentice to master.

But, there is another narrative that I am more aligned with. If we want to discuss this in pre-masonic context, cross culturally, it was simply done in a manner to exalt a noble person to the position as queen or king, and grant them access to divinity. We see this in Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese ceremonies, and further cross-culturally. Cleansing them from a mortal state, enrobing, adorning, and setting them up as a goddess.

The hand gestures we make, I believe, are in preparation for our true initiation and stepping forward to our own throne. Whether allegorical, hypothetical, symbolic, or a legitimate enthroning, I believe it is for us to go through that process. And this process being, to envision ourselves stepping forward, grasping the swords, the scepters, and the orb, and stepping into our divine powers and into the heavenly kingdom. To step into godhood alongside our gods, in the divine council.

So, are the gestures separate from blood oaths? I do not know. But I don't believe that is of God. I do believe that God would want their children to initiate in the taking on of their names, and possessing all of the capabilities they have, and rising into a higher version of ourselves with all of the promised blessings - as queens, priestesses, and goddesses. And I believe that was the original intent behind the signs and tokens.

And do I believe that we can only access these blessings and this power through our temple covenants? I have questions, but ultimately, I think that there are ways of stepping into that space outside of temple walls... but perhaps not. Are our temples the only space to receive these blessings and initiation? I think history provides enough evidence to suggest otherwise.

I know this may not be an entirely satisfactory response. I hope this answers a lot of your questions, or at least gives you a good guide as to what you can take from this subject. If you would like to communicate further, I am happy to oblige.

With your permission, I would love to share this response to your inquiry on the blog. I think many have the same questions.

Good luck in your endeavors.

Warm regards,

Krystal Barnes

@myheavenlymother

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I believe that the origins of temple rituals and signs predated patriarchal societies and masonic order, and that it existed in the prehistoric era. I will explain this in a future post, but suffice it to say that I believe that these rituals were divinely inspired. Not of men, but from a divine source -a source that prehistory defined as the Mother God. More on that to come. Stay tuned for a follow up article.

Thanks for tuning in today! If you have any thoughts you would like to share or inquire of me, feel free to reach out.

My Heavenly Mother Blog