Masonic Character of the Temple Ceremonies
James
(Message sent to Rocky and to a.r.m.)
The Masonic connection to Mormonism is very clear when examining
the rituals of both organizations. These very same similarities
did not exist in the Kirtland Endowment (prior to when Joseph Smith
joined Masonry in March 1842).
To view the similarities of both ceremonies visit:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
To view a very brief description of the Kirtland Endowment visit:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
Sincerely,
James
**************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
**************************************************************
Scott Kindorf
James!!!
Can I try to engineer your dna? Who knows what we'll get.
Maybe we'll get someone with a little more sense than to refer to his own
Web Pages that have been REPEATEDLY torn apart by other members of the
Church in A.R.M. and shown in plain view where he has erred.
I wonder if "James" also posts similarly whacked-out stuff in
alt.conspiracy?
"Aliens gave us the VegaMatic"
"Alien spacecraft revealed to be the source of Gatoraide"
"Beldar is the father of our love-child..."
"Ex-Government attorney claims Aliens to be the REAL creator of Pres.
Clinton's Health Care Reform Plan"
James, repeating a lie or deception doesn't make it any less of a lie or
deception.
ScottK, closet Geneticist, and Seattle "MiB" Agent.
"...Now, where is that AdenineTriPhosphate when I need it? Ah, there's the
Guanine link..."
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<<Totally Useless Web Page Links and description removed by "Web Link
Truth Dectector 2.0>>
FAWNSCRIBE
As a journalist..I work in a field that does a lot of research and has to
be pretty unbiased when compiling facts..I knew little if nothing on
Masonic infuences in LDS history..So I decided to read up on BOTH the
refutations of it and the assertation that it existed...I read a
lot..going in with an unbiased eye as I was not raised for or against any
of this knowledge that many take for granted no matter what side of the
fence they sit on..Unfortunatly..In what I have read..pure
facts..historical documents..it seems beyond a shadow of a doubt that
Masonry WAS a part of the history of LDS..there may STILL be a great deal
of influence..and to say otherwise in self justification is not looking at
the body of evidence out there in an unbiased way.How one determines to
assimilate the info..how one views its importance is a matter for each
individual and is their own choice..HOWEVER..yep..its there folks..in
black and white.
Scott Kindorf
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<33BFBF...@mindspring.com>...
> (Message sent to Scott and to a.r.m.)
>
> Scott Kindorf wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Can I try to engineer your dna?
>
Isn't that what your email address implies?
> I would rather you not. ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
> > Maybe we'll get someone with a little more sense than to refer to his
own
> > Web Pages that have been REPEATEDLY torn apart by other members of the
> > Church in A.R.M. and shown in plain view where he has erred.
>
> I certainly was not invited to the discussion that "REPEATEDLY ... shown
> in
> plain view" my errors. Would you be so kind to REPEAT these errors for
> me
> to see? (Hint: when responding to my posts send a copy to my e-mail
> address so at least I am aware of your concerns.)
>
Come off it, James! How many times have Kerry, I and others rebutted and
shown where your mistakes were made and conclusions come about in error -
and then forget what was posted by us and then re-post your deceptions? How
many times have we shown that the Book of Abraham content on your page is
inaccurate or of questionable sources?
> <snip>
>
> > James, repeating a lie or deception doesn't make it any less of a lie
or
> > deception.
>
> Mormons, repeating a lie or deception doesn't make it any less of a lie
> or
> deception.
>
You know James - I used to think of you as someone who was just deceived.
Now I know differently.
The Restored Gospel as preached by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day-Saints is true and correct in every way, whereas the works of
Men - such as your cute little Web Page - are as chaff in the wind. Go on,
James. Have your fun.
> Sincerely,
>
> James
>
****************************************************************************
*
For A Close Look at how to make a vain attempt at destroying the Lord's
Work, please visit James' web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
Then, for the truth, please visit:
>
****************************************************************************
*
>
James
(Message sent to Scott and to a.r.m.)
Scott Kindorf wrote:
<snip>
> Come off it, James! How many times have Kerry, I and others rebutted and
> shown where your mistakes were made and conclusions come about in error -
> and then forget what was posted by us and then re-post your deceptions?
Scott, if you have so well rebutted my arguments, why not present a
rebuttal for me and others to see?
I CALL YOUR BLUFF!
Can you back up your claims of deception with facts and well structured
arguments?
I am waiting......... (please "cc" me on posts making rebuttals so we
can all be sure that I am aware of your arguments).
<snip>
Sincerely,
James
***************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
***************************************************************
James
(Message sent to Scott and to a.r.m.)
Scott Kindorf wrote:
<snip>
> Can I try to engineer your dna?
I would rather you not. ;-)
<snip>
> Maybe we'll get someone with a little more sense than to refer to his own
> Web Pages that have been REPEATEDLY torn apart by other members of the
> Church in A.R.M. and shown in plain view where he has erred.
I certainly was not invited to the discussion that "REPEATEDLY ... shown
in
plain view" my errors. Would you be so kind to REPEAT these errors for
me
to see? (Hint: when responding to my posts send a copy to my e-mail
address so at least I am aware of your concerns.)
<snip>
> James, repeating a lie or deception doesn't make it any less of a lie or
> deception.
Mormons, repeating a lie or deception doesn't make it any less of a lie
or
deception.
Sincerely,
James
*****************************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
*****************************************************************************
James
(Message sent to Craig and to a.r.m.)
Craig Anderson wrote:
>
> James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <33C2EA...@mindspring.com>...
>
> > Yes, you do need to say more. You need to explain why Joseph Smith
> > took from the Sensen text to fill in the blanks of the hypocephali.
>
> Actually, there's no proof that Joseph did any such thing.
I beleive that there is very SUFFICIENT evidence indicating that
Joseph Smith copied from the Sensen text and pasted the characters
into the hypocephali. For a description of the alteration visit:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/fac2text.htm
> This is an
> extrapolation. For that matter, there is serious doubt that the
> Egyptian Grammar was composed by Joseph. Current speculation
> centers around Oliver Cowdery.
What does the Egyptian Grammar have to do with the hypocephali?
The hypocephali was copied to make the Book of Abraham
facsimile no. 2. From examining facsimile no. 2 one can
easily tell (IMO) that Joseph Smith filled in the blanks.
(A reproduction of the original hypocephali was
copied down in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar,
but this is not even necessary to show that Joseph Smith
copied the Sensen Text.) If one examines the Sensen Text,
Book of Breathings Scroll, and then closely examines
facsimile no. 2 one can see where Joseph Smith cut and pasted
the text to place it improperly in the facsimile. Again visit this
link to see some of the text matched up:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/fac2text.htm
> > You need to explain why Joseph Smith cut and pasted from the other
> > Egyptian papyri, indicating a supreme lack of understanding of the
> > Egyptian language.
>
> I'm not aware of any proof for this one either. Again, AFAIK, this is
> simply extrapolation.
Have you taken a look at the Book of Breathings scroll and the
Book of Dead scroll? If you want to I encourage you to visit
my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
To see where Joseph Smith copied the boat figure from the
Book of the Dead scroll to the Book of Abraham facsimile no. 2
visit:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/agfac2r3.htm
What completes my argument is the fact that Joseph Smith did
this cutting and pasting in the portions of the hypocephalus
that were missing. You can see a copy of the hypocephalus
with its missing portions at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/egalgra2.htm
Sincerely,
James
Guy R. Briggs
I wrote:
|
| ... is "similar" to the crisp, new-style Franklin twenties that
| the USofA is printing these days ...
|
Erm ... actually, the USofA bill with Franklin on it is a $100, not a
$20. Haven't had many of the $100's in my posession, darn few of the
twenties, hence the slip.
I'd also like to observe that children in America are getting
stronger. In 1967 it took a grown man to carry $20 worth of groceries,
in 1997 any child can do it!
Best Regards,
Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs ----------- net...@mindspring.com
"All God's critters got a place in the choir,
Some sing low, some sing higher.
Some sing out loud on the telephone wire!
And some just clap their hands, or paws,
Or anything they got."
James
Guy R. Briggs wrote:
<snip>
> Again you're being misleading! JS did *not* have intimate knowledge
> of Masonry.
Joseph Smith was a Mason, how can you say that Joseph Smith did not
have intimate knowledge of the ceremony?
> He attended exactly *three meetings* before the endowment
> was introduced.
These are the meetings that are documented. The Masonic lodge
room was in Joseph Smith's own business office. His proximity
to the Masonic Lodge clearly indicates, in my opinion, his
connection and dedication to the group.
> One of the causes of the persecution in Nauvoo was that
> JS had been made a Mason *on sight*, IOW, initiated into the
> brotherhood without really earning it.
Joseph Smith was initiated quickly into Masonry. As you have
referred he was made a *Mason-at-sight*. Typically this practice
is done with sons of Masons, but can also be extended to others.
<snip>
> |> Smith predicted as much *MONTHS* before he ever got involved with
> |> the Masons!
> |
> | Do you have a reference to this statement?
> |
> Been there, done that, but I'm happly to oblige again.
>
> January 19, 1841 - The revelation that would become Sec 124 of the
> D&C is given. Joseph specifically mentions anointings, washings, baptism
> for the dead, endowment, and a host of other things which the Nauvoo
> temple would be used for.
Anointings and washings were part of the Kirtland Endowment, there is
no surprise here. Baptism for the dead is not part of the endowment
ceremony.
> He predicts that the "fulness of the
> priesthood" would be restored and that "things which have been hid from
> before the foundation of the world" would be revealed therein.
The statements made in D&C 124 are very vague regarding what was to
done. In my opinion, this is a weak reference because Joseph Smith
could have meant almost anything.
> He's making this prediction *after* the saints had been shown the
> preparatory endowment in the Kirtland temple, but over a year *before*
> he becomes involved with the Masons. Pretty bold statement to make if
> the things which would be revealed/added weren't going to be "borrowed"
> from the Masons for another 14 months, no?
Not surprising at all. What Joseph Smith said in D&C 124 falls in
line with much of what he said prior to the building of the Kirtland
Temple in Ohio.
Let's look at what Joseph Smith told the Mormons before building
the Kirtland Temple...
D&C 105:18 "But inasmuch as there are those who have hearkened
unto my words, I have prepared a blessing and an endowment for
them, if they continue faithful".
and D&C 105:33 "Verily I say unto you, it is expedient in me
that the first elders of my church should receive their endowment
from on high in my house, which I have commanded to be built unto
my name in the land of Kirtland."
Now, what is very surprising is the fact that the Kirtland Endowment
was abondoned, at least partially. And, the Kirtland Endowment did not
have the many Masonic similarities and tone. If you claim that Joseph
Smith received the "endowment" by revelation, then why are the many
Masonic elements missing in the Kirtland Endowment, but ever present
in the Nauvoo Endowment?
> January 6, 1842 - JS records in his diary his thoughts, noting that
> the new year seems bright with promise, that the completion of the
> temple would be "a day long remembered by the Saints of the last days, a
> day in which the God in heaven [would] restore the ancient order of His
> kingdom."
Joseph Smith had been speaking this type of restoration rhetoric
for a long time.
<snip>
> March 15, 1842 - The Masonic lodge previously petitioned for is set
> up in Nauvoo. It's not a regular charter but rather the lodge is known
> as "U.D." meaning "Under Dispensation." For the "setter-upper" - one
> Grand Master Jonas, it is a matter of political expediency; He was
> running for public office and trying to woo the Mormon vote by granting
> their petition for a regular lodge. For the Mormons, it is hoped that
> the fraternity will provide friendship and protection at a time when the
> Mormons were solely in need of both.
To suggest that Mormons joined Masonry so as to provide only friendship
and protection completely misses the entire influence of Masonry on
the Mormon endowment, and Mormon life in Nauvoo. In fact, Masonry was
one element that was instrumental in causing Joseph Smith to be killed
in Carthage. Joseph Smith's initiation into Masonry along with its
incredible and unmatched growth in Nauvoo created more enemies
for Joseph than friends.
Soon after the Masonic lodge was installed, resolutions were passed
by other lodges that recommended an investigation. When the Mormon
lodges were subsequently reviewed, the lodge was suspended for
irregular conduct.
> May 4, 1842 - The endowment is taught in a room in the upper part of
> the store.
Also, known as the Masonic Lodge room. ;-)
> JS has been a Mason for less than two months and has attended
> a grand total of three meetings, but he's teaching the endowment - the
> whole enchilada, including "keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood,
> and ... the Melchizedek Priesthood."
A couple of weeks is all that would be necessary to take from the
Masonic endowment and incorporate into a new ritual.
> Question: Why was JS administering the endowment in May, before the
> temple is finished? Answer: The hoped-for "Masonic protection" was far
> less that his bretheren had expected and JS seemed to know his days were
> numbered. He knew that the Temple could not be completed as soon as he
> had hoped, so he proceeded to administer the Temple endowment which had
> been revealed to him many months before, but which he wished to reserve
> until the House of the Lord was finished.
This is an interesting take on Masonry. Joseph Smith had only been
a Mason for less than two months, and you are guessing that Joseph
"seemed to know his days were numbered." As I mentioned above,
Joseph Smith joining Masonry probably shortened his life greatly.
Not because Joseph Smith joined Masonry in itself, but because
Joseph Smith stole the Masonic elements from Masonry. Anyone
familiar with the Masonic oaths and the time period would be full
aware that people had been silenced before for revealing the
Masonic rituals to non Masons, which is exactly what Joseph
Smith did (IMO).
> Orson Hyde wrote:
>
> "Before I went east on the 4th of April, last, we were in
> council with Brother Joseph every day for weeks. Says
> Joseph Smith in one of those councils, 'There is something
> going to happen; I don't know what it is, but the Lord
> bids me to hasten, and give you your endowment before the
> temple is finished' ... when he had gone through all the
> ordinances he rejoiced very much, and says, 'now if they
> kill me you have got all the keys, all the ordinances, and
> you can confer them upon others' ... 'on your shoulders
> will rest the responsibility of leading this people, for
> the Lord is going to let me rest a while.'"
>
> Noticeably absent from these meetings are his brother Hyrum and
> Sidney Rigdon, the other counsellor in the first presidency. JS probably
> knew that his brother would be taken as well, and the first presidency
> dissolved, but this is just a guess.
>
> Also note that he is teaching the apostles *all the ordinances* "for
> weeks" prior to April 4th. Since there are only 19 days between March
> 15th and April 4th, it would seem to indicate that he walked out of the
> lodge and started teaching the endowment (note: I'm speculating here
> that "all the ordinances" includes the endowment.
You are really speculating here. Joseph Smith's own temple records
indicate that he received the endowment on May 4, 1842. How can you
teach the endowment, without receiving it?
> I'm also making a
> distinction between teaching the endowment and administering the
> endowment, which clearly didn't happen until later.) One might even
> argue that he was teaching it *before* the lodge was set up, but this
> is, admittedly, a stretch. In any case, there was precious little time
> for JS to take a Masonic ceremony he had scarcely seen and turn it into
> the LDS endowment in the short time (less than 3 weeks) between March
> 15th and whenever he taught it to the 12 apostles.
I think it is obvious that Joseph Smith was moved by his Masonic
experience. The growth of Masonry within Nauvoo is a clear example
of the leadership supporting this new organization. Mormons rushed
into the Masonic lodge to be initiated, within months the Nauvoo lodge
outnumbered all of the initiates from other lodges in the entire
state. The Nauvoo Masonic Temple was constructed even prior to
the Mormon Temple, it was as if many Mormons, including Joseph Smith,
in Nauvoo had shifted their focus to Masonry for that period of time.
<snip>
> These men would have known in an instant if the thing had been
> purloined from the Masons.
Your exactly right, and this most assuredly shortened Joseph Smith's
life.
> Judge Adams, for example, a prominent
> authority and official in the Masonic fraternity would *surely* have
> known if JS was stealing secrets from Masonry, yet he came down from
> Springfield to spend three days with JS "in conversation, instructions,
> and teaching concerning the things of God."
The Nauvoo Masonic Lodge was suspended in 1844 by the Grand Lodge,
not long after the lodge was installed in Nauvoo in 1842.
> On the other side of the coin, John C. Bennett was excommunicated
> from the church and expelled from the Masonic Lodge at the same time.
> Yet in all his bitter, slanderous writings he never once accused JS of
> having stolen the TC from the Masons.
John C. Benett was under an oath not to reveal the Masonic or the
Mormon rituals. He obviously respected them or valued his life
enough, not to reveal them.
> Increase Van Deusen had received the endowment and also been a Mason.
> In 1847 he and his wife wrote a pamphlet entitled _Spiritual Delusions_.
> In it he revealed much of the TC, but never mentions Masonry.
>
> George W. Harris knew both ceremonies. After the exodus from Nauvoo,
> he wanted to make Kanesville, Iowa the new home of the Saints. He and
> his wife (the widow of William Morgan, who had earlier written an
> expose' on Masonry) both apostatised and remained in Ohio, and wrote
> books against the Church. He wrote of certain "signs, tokens, grips of
> the hands, key words, etc.," and affirmed that "they were *peculiar to
> this organization*" IOW, not part of Masonry.
Again, a Mason would be an unlikely candidate to point the Masonic
similarities out because of their Masonic oaths.
Sincerely,
James
*******************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
*******************************************************************
For a look at the Masonic similarities to the LDS Endowment visit:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
*******************************************************************
David Bowie
Once upon a time, Michael Graves <mgr...@ccnet.com> wrote:
: Craig Anderson wrote:
: <section elided.>
: > I'm not aware of any proof for this one either. Again, AFAIK, this is
: > simply extrapolation.
: You say "exptrapolation" like it's a bad thing...
. ^
Well, *you* try saying "exptrapolation" some time!
David "Thhhpphth!" Bowie
--
David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
Guy R. Briggs
enginee...@mindspring.com (James) wrote:
| Guy R. Briggs wrote:
|
|>| The Masonic initiate undergoes specific penalties/oaths/signs/
|>| handgrips
|>| The Mormon initiate undergoes specific penalties/oaths/
|>| signs(pre-1990 handgrips
|>|
|> Well, you've got us on this one. LDS and Masons both make
|> covenants in their ceremony. As noted above, however, Masonic
|> oaths and promises are between members, but LDS promises and
|> oaths are between us and God.
|
| Masonic oath: (William Morgan's 1827 book, Illustrations of
| Masonry) "I ... of my own free will and accord, in presence of
| Almighty God and this worshipful lodge of Free and Accepted
| Masons, dedicated to God, and held forth to the holy order of
| St. John, do hereby and heron most solemnly swear ...."
|
| To me, the Masonic oath certainly pertains to God.
|
Yeah. Swick pointed this one out to me as well. It has always been my
understanding that the only belief needed to be a Mason was a belief in
a Supreme Being. Not Christian, not even Judeo-Christian. But I suppose
it depends on which Order you belong to.
|
|> Yes, there were penalties associated with the pre-1990 ceremony
|> but, as has recently been noted in another thread, the penalties
|> were identical to the sacrifices offered in the Temple of Solomon.
|
| No, there is absolutely no historical evidence indicating
| that the Masonic penalties originated from the Temple of Solomon.
| This is Masonic folklore and myth.
|
You see anything about Masonry in the above paragraph? I don't. I see
a mention of the pre-1990 TC. I see a mention of offerings in ancient
Israel. No Masonry.
I was talking about a recent post where the penalties were compared
with various forms of sacrifice in ancient Israel. Throat-slashing (in
one form - a bit of the blood from the sacrifice is put on the priest's
ear, another drop on his thumb) Chest-slashing where the poor animal was
split open shoulder to shoulder, another for where the belly is opened
up and various things are done with the entrails.
All pretty gorey stuff - yuck! Of course, crucifixion is pretty nasty
business as well. But I'm pretty sure you can see the similarities being
such an expert on the TC and all.
You're right. No known historical connection between Masonry and the
Temple of Solomon. Mostly tradition. But sometimes traditions have a
basis in fact, even when you can't prove the connection.
|<snip>
|
|> | The Masonic initiate undergoes a ceremony indicating their death.
|> | The Mormon initiate has a specific handgrip which emultates a
|> | crucifixion.
|
|<snip>
|
|> The Mormon initiate never experiences physical death in the TC;
|
| I would sure hope that Mormons do not experience physical death
| in the LDS Temple ceremony. ;-)
<blush>
|
|> he is never resuscitated (as is Hirum Abiff) and is never
|> resurrected.
|
| Didn't you argue the other day that:
|
| <begin quote>
|
|> Furthermore, according to Cyril, the candidate was reminded
|> that the whole ordinance is "in imitation of the sufferings
|> of Christ," in which "we suffer without pain by mere imitation
|> his receiving of the nails in his hands and feet: the antitype
|> of Christ's sufferings"
|> -- From (Patrologiae Graecae 33:1081,
|> as quoted by Hugh Nibley).
|
| <end quote>
|
| The imitation of Christ's crucifixion is most certainly an
| imitation of death, in my opinion.
|
What we're mostly tlking about is acknowledging the supreme sacrifice
in order to overcome the spiritual death. Cyril emphasizes that we don't
even suffer *pain* much less death.
|
|> The one death implied in the TC is that of Jesus the Christ. He died
|> on the cross in terrible agony so that we could re-enter our Heavenly
|> Father's presence, thus overcoming the spiritual death.
|
| Exactly my point. This is a clear parallel with the Hiram Abiff
| account.
|
And then overcame death, once and for all! Where do you see Abiff
overcoming death? He is *resuscitated* (a pretty neat trick, considering
that he has been decapitated) but still mortal.
|>|
|>| The Masonic initiate is raised from death.
|>| The Mormon initiate is raised from death. (Celestial Room)
|>
|> Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Mormon initiate is *never* raised
|> from the physical death. In the first place, the Masonic initiate
|> is resuscitated - brought back to life, but still mortal. Nothing
|> like that in the LDS TC. Nor is there any mention of resurrection.
|>
|> Since we believe that *all* men will be resurrected (see NT:1 Cor.
|> 15:22), it's not a part of the TC. Though resurrection may be
|> *implied* in passing to the Telestial Room, we're still talking
|> resurrection, not resuscitation.
|
| What is the difference between being brought to life after dieing
| and resurrection? I thought Mormons believe that resurrection was
| being brought back from the dead. The very reason Mormons practice
| is to be buried in their temple garments and not cremated.
|
I think you're just trying to be difficult, James. Let me ask you a
question: Do you think there's a difference between being mortal and
being immortal?
When a person is resuscitated, i.e. brought back from the dead, he
still has blood coursing through his veins. ITMSOT, this means that he
is still *mortal*. Still going to die someday. Hiram Abiff (if he really
existed), Lazarus, daughter of Jairus - all came back to life, all died
again later.
OTOH, Christ was *resurrected*. Appeared to the apostles and said a
spirit doesn't have flesh and bone. This is significant to Mormons who
believe that the seeds of mortality are in the blood. The point is that
Christ became immortal when he was resurrected. Never to die again.
So yes, we are buried in our temple clothes and yes we believe we
will come forth on the morning of the 1st resurrection never to die
again - but this is *vastly* different that what happened to Abiff,
Lazarus or Jairus' daughter. The difference is mortal vs. immortal.
|>
|>| The Masonic initiate is raised by Master Mason standing at
|>| the five points of fellowship, in special handgrip, whispering
|>| special passwords, wearing special clothing.
|>|
|>| The Mormon initiate is brought through the veil by God, or Husband,
|>| at the five points of fellowship, in special handgrip, whispering
|>| special passwords, wearing special clothing.
|>|
|> All well and good, except for:
|>
|> (1) The distinction noted above vis-a-vis physical and spiritual
|> death
|
| Mormons most certainly believe in a physical resurrection. Correct?
|
| At least that is what I learned from my LDS Institute course on
| the Book of Mormon, "Physical death is automatically overcome
| for all men by Christ through the Resurrection, wherein the body
| and the spirit are reunited, never to be separated again."
| ("Book of Mormon, Student Manual Religion 121 and 122", published
| by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. page 29).
|
Exactly - but Abiff wasn't resurrected.
|> (2) 5PofF is no longer part of the TC (one of those
|> "embellishments")
|>
|> (3) Even if the 5PofF *were* still a part of the TC, there are
|> examples of it in antiquity from the middle and far east
|>
|> (4) The "handshake" is different in form, fit and function
|
| The ONE handshake is not identical (how soon you forget the other
| handshakes), yet it is still a handshake, and still represents
| a portion in the ceremony.
|
| Let's look at the Mormon and Masonic handshakes that are in
| question again:
|
| The Master Mason handshake is used for the raising of Hiram Abiff
| from the dead. Here it is described during part of the Masonic
| ceremony, "The Master's grip is given by taking hold of each
| other's hand as though you were going shake hands, and sticking
| the nails of each of your fingers into the joint of the
| other's wrist where it unites the hand." (William Morgan's,
| Illustrations of Masonry ...)
|
Morgan's wrong. The fingers form a "V" (like the Vulcan "live long
and prosper" sign on star trek). It's also called the "Lion's Paw Grip
of Judah." Jewish priests made the exact same sign with both hands, then
raised their arms above their heads, touching thumbs and index fingers.
Made a symbol like a lotus flower. Then they offered a prayer that's
recorded in the OT somewhere, don't remember the reference right now.
<snip Mormon description, I'm already at the line I promised I wouldn't
cross>
| Now, let's look deeper into the Masonic Master handshake and
| Hiram Abiff's resurrection. In Masonry, the initiate represented
| the " ... tragical catastrophe of his death, burial, and
| resurrection..." (William Morgan's, "Illustrations of Masonry ..."
| 1827)
|
Morgan's wrong again. Abiff wasn't resurrected. He was resuscitated.
Christ was the "first fruits of them that slept." The one that overcame
death, the only one who ever could.
Guy R. Briggs
jsw...@cris.com (Rocky Raccoon) wrote:
|
| __Guy R. Briggs__
| Resemblances between the two rituals are limited to a small
| proportion of actions and words
| -----
|
| False. Resemblances extend to the structure of the ordinances,
| and include numerous symbols, phrases, expressions. It extends
| outside the Endowment, into such organizations as the Relief
| Society.
|
Well, you certainly seem to know more about it than I do, being a
Mason and all. Perhaps you'd like to help us understand where all of the
following are found in the LDS TC (list courtesy of Arden Eby):
* Blindfolded candidates
* The use of nooses and ropes
* The use of gavels
* The use of bricks
* The use of globes
* The use of set "dance steps"
* The use of trowels
* Mock battles
* The mock funeral for Hiram Abiff, the widows son
* The anchor and ark
* The use of Euclid's 47th problem
* The use of winged hour-glass
* The use of the Scythe
* The use of a coffin
* The use of a spade
* The sign of the "heave over"
* "Three time Three" (Three points of fellowship)
* The triple tau cross
Also, if you would be so kind, explain where you find these in the
Masonic rite:
* Garden of Eden story
* Biblical figures as characters in the dramas
* References to priesthood
* Women
I know, I know, there is something out there called "CoMasonry," in
which women *are* allowed, but I certainly don't think that this
organization was around in Joseph's time, which is of couse, what we're
discussing - whether or not Joseph co-opted the Masonic rite into the
TC.
And I'd *love* to know what you think is Masonic about the R.S.!
|
| ___Guy Briggs___
| some find that the LDS Endowment has more similarities with the
| Pyramid texts and the Coptic documents than with Freemasonry.
| -----
|
| This has nothing to do with the issue of borrowing. How Joseph Smith
| may have reworked Masonic material is another issue altogether. And,
| I doubt seriously that the wording of the Endowment matches the
| Pyramid texts and Coptic documents as nicely as it does Freemasonry.
| There is a demonstrable, causual, genetic link between the Endowment
| and Masonry.
|
If you'll note above, I said (or, rather, the Encyclopedia of
Mormonism said) that "a small proportion of actions and words" *are*
similar (in some cases *identical*!) Some of these things have been
edited out over the years (5PofF, for example), and some are still
there. There *is* a masonic influence in the TC, no question about it.
Question is, who's influencing whom?
IMHO, this is a forest/trees issue - CsOTMC in general and James in
particular (and now you, a member) are claiming that since we've got
some pine trees, Masons have some pine trees, we must have come
from the same forest. But when you step back and look at the both
forests you can see that they're different. If you're astute, you'll see
that ancient Israelites, Buddhists, Egyptians, Fijians Indians and
Africans have got some "pine trees" in their forests as well!
In 1977, when he wrote this, Stephen E. Robinson was a doctoral
candidate in Biblical Studies at Duke University:
"The importance of the Nag Hammadi texts to LDS scholars is
that they not only witness an early Christianity significantly
different from the orthodox tradition, but that they witness
the existence of certain peculiar doctrines and bits of
tradition in very early Christianity that in modern times are
found almost exclusively among the Mormons. The following few
examples will demonstrate some of these teachings and
traditions.
"The term Gnostic comes from the Greek word for knowledge
(gnosis). Fundamental to Gnosticism was the belief that the
principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation and that
it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. Personal
revelation was crucial. The knowledge necessary for salvation
consisted, according to many Gnostic writings, of higher
teachings and ordinances taught by Jesus and his disciples and
transmitted in oral traditions which were most often too secret
and sacred to be written down or to be discussed with any who
were not worthy of them. On those occasions when they were
written down, they appear to have been closely held and
committed to writing only in an effort to preserve them for
future generations. Although orthodox Christianity has
emphatically denied that any such esoteric teachings
ever existed, Gnosticism insisted not only that they were an
important part of earliest Christianity, but also that they
were the most important part.
"Quite often this secret teaching included a knowledge of
certain passwords, signs, and seals that made it possible for
the Gnostic to escape from the earth, to pass by angelic
beings who barred the way, and to return to God. This was a
literal return, for the Gnostics believed in the preexistence
of man and even in his coeternality with God. The beautiful
Gnostic "Hymn of the Pearl" portrays man as a spirit child of
his Heavenly Father who lived as a prince in the palace of the
Heavenly King before descending to the earth.
Gnosticism frequently divides mankind into three categories:
pneumatics, who are spiritual; hylics, who are not; and
psychics, who are a little of both. Although psychics can be
saved, usually it is only the pneumatics who can be saved in
the highest degree of glory.
"According to the Gnostic Gospel of Philip, the highest
ordinance of Christianity is eternal marriage. This ordinance
must be performed in this life, and the "bridal chamber" where
it is performed is called the holy of holies. We read from the
Gospel of Philip 117:24-25, 'But the holy of the holy ones is
the bridal chamber', from 118:17-20, 'But the woman is united
to her husband in the bridal chamber. But those who have
united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated',
and from 134:4-8, 'If anyone becomes a son of the bridal
chamber, he will receive the light. If anyone does not receive
it while he is in this world, he will not receive it in the
other place.' There is also mention made of heavenly garments
and names which must never be spoken by those who know
them. Gnosticism knows a married Christ, or at least a Christ
with a sexual nature, as opposed to the asexual Christ of
orthodoxy. The apostles also are married, and in the Second
Book of Jeu the resurrected Jesus has them form a circle
around an altar with their wives at their left in order to
teach them the true mysteries. The Marcionites, a Gnostic
sect, practiced a form of vicarious baptism for the dead,
an ordinance that has since dropped out of orthodoxy although
it is attested in the New Testament.
"In most forms of Gnosticism the secret oral tradition
mentioned above is often associated with accounts of the
creation of the world, the experiences of Adam and Eve in the
Garden, and the fall of man. It is usually in this creation
setting or in a temple or on a mountaintop that Gnosticism
places the revelation of the esoteric mysteries and the
knowledge needed to thwart the archontic powers and return
to God. Gnosticism is primarily concerned with the questions,
Who am I? Where am I from? and What is my destiny? That the
answers to these questions are often associated with the
creation, the Garden, and the fall of man is probably due to
the Gnostic presupposition that the end of all things is
to be found in their beginning. Of those documents which
manifest this concern, the Nag Hammadi Apocalypse of Adam
is perhaps the prime example.
-- Stephen E. Robinson, BYU Studies,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 131-42
Lesse now, we got passwords, signs, seals, passing by angels,
returning to God, pre-existence, garden of Eden, fall of man, eternal
marriage, and holy places on the tops of mountains - all dating back
almost two millenia. It all sounds more LDS to me than anything in the
Masonic rite, even counting the exact matches in Mormon & Masonic
wordings!
| ___Guy Briggs___
| Even where the two rituals share symbolism, the fabric of meanings is
| different.
| -----
|
| For goodness sakes, they were going to use the Square and Compasses
| on exterior of the SL Temple. While it is true that meanings are
| different in SOME of the shared symbols, it is nevertheless true
| that numerous Mormon symbols were initially borrowed from Masonry.
|
Square and compass do not necessarily a Mason make. There are
examples of the S&C on ancient buildings from South America to China.
The Seneca Indians, including Red Jacket, wore brooches of silver that
look just like the Masonic symbol.
Even the "All-seeing Eye" you see in different places, like the back
of the USofA dollar bill and the SLC temple - which would seem to be
incontrovertably Masonic - "was borrowed by the Freemasons from the
nations of antiquity" according to the great Mason historian Mackay.
| ___Guy Briggs___
| In addition to creation and life themes, one similarity is that
| both call for the participants to make covenants. Yet, the Endowment
| alone ties covenants to eternal blessings and to Jesus Christ.
| -----
|
| Well...that depends on how you look at it. Most Masons would say
| that the covenants WERE tied to eternal blessings, although Jesus
| Christ is not specifically mentioned in a Lodge meeting. For an
| example, when the candidate receives his Apron, he also receives
| the following monitorial admonition:
|
| "Let its pure and spotless surface be to you an ever-present
| reminder of 'a purity of life and rectitude of conduct' ... [and
| when you reach the end of life's journey], may the record of your
| life be as pure and spotless as this fair emblem...And when your
| trembling soul shall stand, naked and alone, before the Great
| White Throne, may it be your portion, my brother, to hear from
| Him who sitteth as Judge Supreme, the welcome words: 'Well
| done, thou good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy
| of thy Lord.'"
|
| So... whether this relates to eternal blessings and to Jesus
| Christ depends on what you think of being a good and faithful
| servant, and entering into the joy of the Lord.
|
It would also seem to depend on which Order of Masonry you belong to.
It is my understanding that you don't have to be a Christian to be a
Mason, don't even have to profess the Judeo-Christian concept of God;
you just have to believe in a Supreme Being.
Also note that nothing you said above ties the covenants made by
Masons to the reward - just an admonition that the record of one's life
be as spotless as the apron.
| ___Guy Briggs___
| The Masonic ceremony does not emphasize priesthood or the need to be
| commissioned by God to represent him.
| -----
|
| Rather, as Carl Claudy noted, Masonry teaches:
|
| So many men before they Altars kneel
| Unthinkingly, to promise brotherhood;
| So few remain, humbly to kiss thy rood
| With ears undeafened to thy mute appeal;
| So many find thy symbols less than real,
| Thy teachings mystic, hard to understand;
| So few there are, in all thy far-flung band
| To hold thy banner high and draw thy steel.
| And yet...immortal and most mighty, thou!
| What hath thy lore of life to let it live?
| What is the vital spark, hid in thy vow?
| Thy millions learned, as thy dear paths they trod,
| The secret of the strength thou hast to give:
| "I AM THE WAY OF COMMON MEN TO GOD."
|
Nice poem, but it shows the need to have the authority of the
priesthood in what way?
| ___Guy Briggs___
| The active participation of God in the world and in men's lives is a
| distinctly LDS temple motif.
| -----
|
| Masonic ritual depicts this truth in other more subtle ways, but
| it is hardly absent from the ritual, and is CERTAINLY not absent
| from the associated LEGENDA.
|
| ___Guy Briggs___
| While Masons believe in an undefined, impersonal God, everything
| in the LDS Endowment emanates from, or is directed to, God who is
| a personage and man's eternal Father.
| -----
|
| This is absolutely untrue. Masons do NOT believe in an
| "undefined, impersonal God." I AM A FREEMASON, and I have no
| such beliefs. Neither do the majority of Masons I know.
|
Of course not. You're a Mormon too! Most of the Masons you know are
fellow Utahns, unless I miss my guess (though this does not make them
Mormons - Utah!=Mormon). But are you representative of Masons of your
Order in General, and are you representative of Masons of *all* orders?
Again, AFAIK you don't even have to believe in the Judeo-Christian God
to be a Mason.
OTOH, Mormons *do* believe that God is a "personage and man's eternal
Father" so at least half of the above statement *is* true. I'll meet you
half way on this one and agree with you that no Mason who is also a
Mormon believes in an undefined, personal God. Anybody else, and I gotta
stand pat with the above statement. Of course IMHO mainstream
Christianity in general believes in an undefined, impersonal God, so
don't take it personally.
| ___Guy Briggs___
| Freemasonry is a fraternal society, and in its ritual all promises,
| oaths, and agreements are made between members. In the temple
| Endowment all covenants are between the individual and God.
| -----
|
| Out of all the comments that have been made, this is absolutely
| the most inaccurate. One of the reasons a Mason is required to
| believe in the existence of God, is because men who kneel at
| Masonic altars make their covenants with Him. That is the thrust
| of the meaning of the bit of the Apron Lecture I quoted a moment
| ago...that we are accountable to God first.
|
Sorry, but at least half of it is ture - the LDS part. On the Masonic
side, I've already said you're the expert here.
| ___Guy Briggs___
| In Freemasonry, testing, grading, penalizing, or sentencing accords
| with the rules of the fraternity or membership votes. In
| the Endowment, God alone is the judge.
| -----
|
| This is untrue. We SAY that "God alone is the judge," but practically
| speaking, if you violate your covenants --say, the Law of Chastity--
| you are penalized not only by God but by the CHURCH. In a very real
| sense, in both Masonry and the Church, men are accountable foremost
| and primarily to God; but this does not preclude penalty for those
| who with impunity ignore the rule of the Lodge...or the rule of the
| Church.
|
You're forgetting that we're the church that believes in modern-day
revelation. Before any church action is taken WRT membership, God is
consulted. (I know that statement will bring me tons of e-mail from the
antis about people wrongly excommunicated, but that's the way it's
supposed to - and in my limited experience *does* - work!) Can Masons
say the same?
| ___Guy Briggs___
| Within Freemasonry, rank and promotions are of great importance,
| while in the LDS temple rites there are no distinctions: all
| participants stand equal before God.
| -----
|
| What a terrible mischaracterization. Let me show you why. The
| Masonic Apron is that piece of clothing without which NO Brother
| may enter the Lodge --- no matter how finely dressed or how highly
| positioned. Every man who is regularly made a Mason receives this
| Apron, and is told:
|
| "It is an emblem of innocence, and the badge of a Mason...more
| honorable...than ...any...order that may be conferred upon you at
| this or any future time by king, prince, potentate or any other
| person....It may be that in the coming years upon your head shall
| rest the laurel leaves of victory; and from your breast may hang
| jewels fit to grace the diadem of an Eastern potentate...your
| ambitious feet may tread ... the ladder that leads to fame within
| [our Fraternity]... But never again from mortal hands...shall any
| honor so distinguished, and emblamatical of all purity and
| perfection, be bestowed upon you."
|
| It is true that rank and promotions have their place in Masonry,
| as they do in the world. In the Temple, you have officiators and
| patrons; you have men, angels, gods and devils. But do not mistake
| the offices in the Lodge for a renunciation of the belief that all
| Lodge members, from the highest to the lowest...stand equal before
| God. There is NO MASONIC HONOR GREATER than the privilege of wearing
| the Apron...and that is bestowed as A GIFT.
|
| All Masons are required to be "good Men and true, or Men of Honour
| and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be
| distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and
| the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must
| [otherwise] have remain'd at a perpetual distance" (Charges of a
| Freemason, 1723). Further, Masons recognize that all men --from
| the greatest to the least-- stand equally before God, from Whom
| all receive their wages in due season, and to Whom all rise to
| give due obesience.
|
All well and good, yet still I see, in every Order, different degrees
spoken of. Three degrees in one order, thirteen in another. Thirty-two
in yet another. In the banking business, practically everyone is a
vice-president, but that doesn't mean there isn't a chain of command.
Masons may stand equally before the Supreme Being, but after that
there's more degrees than a thermometer.
| ___Guy Briggs___
| The clash between good and evil, including Satan's role, is
| essential to, and vividly depicted in, the Endowment, but is
| largely absent from Masonic rites.
| -----
|
| Masonic ritual depicts man's mortal journey; which he enters
| blinded, slipshod and awry...standing between two opposing poles
| and relying upon the mercy of those who lead and guide him. It
| depicts his walk in darkness, that by degrees he may come to
| find the Light which beckons everyman from the sun slowly rising
| in the East. This path towards the Light is rugged, and fraught
| with danger...even death. But it is the path that many have walked
| before us, and which many will walk after. It is the hero's journey.
|
Lovely, but this alone is a major difference. The TC starts before
the creation of the world and culminates at the end of the world.
The pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal journey. Masonry, by your own
admission, only focuses on one of the three.
| ___Guy Briggs___
| Temple ceremonies emphasize salvation for the dead through
| vicarious ordinance work, such as baptism for the dead;
| nothing in Masonic ritual allows for proxies acting on behalf
| of the dead.
| -----
|
| This is true.
|
(:
| ___Guy Briggs___
| Women participate in all aspects of LDS temple rites; though
| Freemasonry has women's auxiliaries, Masonic ritual excludes them.
| -----
|
| Unless they join Grand Lodges which allow women to receive the
| degrees. For more information, see ...
|
As noted above, was this the way it was in Joseph's time when the TC
was supposedly purloined from the Masons?
|
| ___Guy Briggs___
| The Endowment's inclusion of females underscores perhaps the most
| fundamental difference between the two rites: LDS temple rites
| unite husbands and wives and their children, in eternal families.
| Latter-day Saint sealings would be completely out of place in the
| context of Masonic ceremonies.
| -----
|
| This is true.
|
So in spite of the 507 lines you spent showing us all how similar the
two rites are, when we get right down to the bottom line, right down to
where the rubber meets the road, we both agree that the two ceremonies
are fundamentally different! The TC unites husbands and wives and
families. The TC takes us from pre-earth life to post-earth life and
answers all of life's most basic questions.
In the Masonic scheme of things, we end up at the last day "trembling
and naked before the Great White Throne" (not even a white apron then, I
guess!) In the Mormon scheme of things we march right past the angels
and sentinals and claim out rightful place as kings and priests to the
Most High (see NT:Rev 1:5-6). Hence my claim that the Mormon TC, more
than anything else, resembles a coronation ceremony.
Peter Walsh
Guy R. Briggs (net...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: jsw...@cris.com (Rocky Raccoon) wrote:
: So in spite of the 507 lines you spent showing us all how similar the
: where the rubber meets the road, we both agree that the two ceremonies
: are fundamentally different! The TC unites husbands and wives and
: families. The TC takes us from pre-earth life to post-earth life and
: answers all of life's most basic questions.
: Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs ----------- net...@mindspring.com
Its true they are fundamentally different in theme, but that doesn't
mean that Joseph Smith didn't borrow the significant portions that
definitely are the same. Admittedly the LDS temple ceremony is extremely
well adapted to a christian theme, and has a lofter/nobler purpose than
the Masonic ceremonies. Joseph Smith did an extremely good job of
merging the benifits (not necessarly the most positive of the Masonic
portions) of both. He saw the strong loyalty and dedication inspired by
the oaths and symbolism of Free Masonry and wanted that same dedication
for members of the Church.
Its been argued that Joseph Smith, as a prophet, saw in the Masonic
ceremony of the early 19th century the remnants of a God given
ordinace. If this is the case, then why do nearly all the changes
in the LDS endowment appear to be back-peddling from their Masonic
connections?
Is this something the LDS Church would like everyone to think is just
a coincidence?
What's the next thing to be quietly swept away from the LDS endowment?
Maybe the compass and square?
Pete
a-j...@microsoft.com
___GRB___ It has always been my understanding that the only belief needed
to be a Mason was a belief in a Supreme Being. Not Christian, not even
Judeo-Christian. But I suppose it depends on which Order you belong to.
Masonry does not require a specific belief about God to join. However,
that is an altogether different thing than saying that Masons believe in
some abstract concept of Deity. On the contrary, individual Masons have
very specific ideas about what God is like. And if you are a York Rite
Mason, you take an oath to defend Christianity, which has its own rather
particular views on the nature of the Deity.
__GRB__ You're right. No known historical connection between Masonry and
the Temple of Solomon. Mostly tradition. But sometimes traditions have a
basis in fact, even when you can't prove the connection. -----
I think that connections to Christian Gnostic traditions are more likely,
but that's another thing you can't prove. The origins of Masonry are
obscured by time, and that is not likely to change. Currently, the John
Robinson's Templar theory is rather popular, but it has its problems just
like every other view.
___Guy Briggs___
What we're mostly tlking about is acknowledging the supreme sacrifice
in order to overcome the spiritual death. Cyril emphasizes that we don't
even suffer *pain* much less death.
-----
But it is an imitation of death in a TOKEN; this particular concept of
TOKENS without question entered Mormonism through Freemasonry.
__Guy R. Briggs___
And then overcame death, once and for all! Where do you see Abiff
overcoming death? He is *resuscitated* (a pretty neat trick, considering
that he has been decapitated) but still mortal.
-----
I wish to leave room for other Mason's interpretation of the story of
Hiram Abiff, but you must remember that Masonry was in its earliest
recorded forms a purely Christian institution. As any informed Mason
will tell you, in one popular Masonic view, Hiram Abiff is the
archtypical dying and rising god, and is therefore directly related to
Jesus Christ. Both of them were Widow's Sons. This is an IMPORTANT issue.
If you want to understand more of this, I highly recommend Seiach's
paper on Mormonism and Masonry. As for the decapitation of Hiram
Abiff...recheck your notes. Didn't happen.
___GRB___ Hiram Abiff (if he really existed), Lazarus, daughter of
Jairus - all came back to life, all died again later. -----
Yes, well. As BHR points out, Adam was "immortal" and HE died again, as
well. The real theological issue is power over life and death. According
to the scriptures, Jesus had it, and the daughter of Jairus didn't.
As for Hiram Abiff, I recommend JSM Ward's book, _Who Was Hiram Abiff?_
I can tell that this would be interesting reading for you, Guy.
___GRB___
Exactly - but Abiff wasn't resurrected.
-----
Again, I would remind you, Guy, that you are arguing for a specific
interpretation of the legend. Many Masons ... especially modern
interpreters such as Morris, Coil, Roberts and the like... would agree
with you. I personally disagree, as does Mackey, Pike, Ward, Wilmhurst,
and scores of others. Remember that this "raising" is based upon the two
biblical stories of the WIDOW whose SON has died, and is raised by
Elisha, and a similar event with Elijah (if I am recalling this correctly
in memory). In other stories from the Middle Ages, it is not Elisha or
Elijah, but Christ himself who raises up the individual, and the
implication is that they live forever. As for Hiram Abiff and
resurrection...read Wilmshurst, especially on Hiram Abiff, and then on
the Holy Royal Arch. In a very real sense, these events may be viewed as
an imitation of certain events in the life of Christ.
___GBH___
Morgan's wrong....the fingers form a "V" (like the Vulcan "live long
and prosper" sign on star trek).
-----
Again, there are historical variations of some of these things that have
obtained during different times and in different regions. The same may
also be said of certain similar parts of the Temple rituals.
___GBH___
Morgan's wrong again. Abiff wasn't resurrected. He was resuscitated.
Christ was the "first fruits of them that slept." The one that overcame
death, the only one who ever could.
-----
Man, you are in some deep denial, Guy. You might wish to keep in mind
that Morgan's views were typical of Masons in Upstate New York in the
1820s.
Warmest Regards,
Joe Steve Swick III
Story Lodge #4 F&AM Utah
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
a-j...@microsoft.com
___GRB___
> Well, you certainly seem to know more about it than I do, being a
> Mason and all.
Yes, Guy, I do. Having discussed this with numerous individuals, I would
also venture to say that I know more about it than some apologists I have
encountered at BYU.
___GRB___ Perhaps you'd like to help us understand where all of the
following are found in the LDS TC (list courtesy of Arden Eby). -----
Perhaps Arden would be so kind as to publicly post the mail I sent him
regarding this. The upshot of it is: 1) his list is not entirely
accurate; 2) the existence of differences does not in any way indicate
that the Endowment and Masonry are not alike in the ways I have
indicated. You cannot apply the "unparallel" technique in this case with
the kind of success it was used with by FARMS re: View of the Hebrews.
One disclaimer before I move on to specifics: I am writing this mail from
Japan, and you will understand that I did not lug my Masonic library to
Japan with me. Everything I say here is from memory. If you would like
documentation, then you can get it from Arden (I have provided much more
extensive coverage in my rather nasty epistle to him), or I would be
happy to send it along when I return home in September.
Also, I have rearranged these slightly for my convenience in discussion.
You will understand that there is a difference between PHYSICAL OBJECTS
or TOOLS used in Masonry, and the RITUAL.
___GRB___
* Blindfolded candidates
----
The concept of bringing a candidate from darkness to light by degrees is
found in both the Endowment and Masonry. The blindfold is a device, the
significance of which is explained in Masonry. In the TC, not only is
the ordinance begun in darkness during a recitation of creation events
(which it shares with one of the Masonic degrees), but he is even asked
to close his eyes and consider himself as if asleep. As I joked with
Arden: what he first beholds when he opens his eyes is definately a
revelation of loveliness! On a more serious note, it has a significant
spiritual meaning that I am sure simple reflection will open to you.
___GRB___
* The use of nooses and ropes
-----
No, there is nothing like this in the Endowment.
___GRB___
* The use of gavels
-----
No. However, the knocker at the veil (at the end of the Endowment
session) is found at the ENTRANCE to every Lodge, which candidates gain
entrance to by what is known in Masonry as the "Three Distinct Knocks."
Gavels and sets of three are important in Masonry.
___GRB___
* The use of set "dance steps"
-----
No Lodge Brothers ever wanted to dance with ME! But I know what you are
talking about. I find it slightly dishonest, since the "dance steps" what
Masons know as the PPOE. I won't elaborate, except to say that there are
FOUR of them, and the Endowment uses THREE of the FOUR. The final one is
PEDAL, that is having to do with the FEET. Since the Endowment
definately DOES use the OTHER THREE PPOE, I think it patently
disingenuous to argue against the ONE that didn't become a part of LDS
ritual.
I would remind you however, that the rite of discalceation (removal of
the shoes) DID make it into the Endowment.
___GRB___
The mock funeral for Hiram Abiff, the widows son
-----
Right. Instead, the Endowment is concerned with Jesus, the Widow's Son.
___GRB___ Trowels, anchor and ark, * The use of Euclid's 47th problem,
winged hour-glass, Scythe, coffin, spade, triple tau cross, use of
bricks, use of globes
-----
I never said that every Masonic SYMBOL associated with the Blue Lodge. As
you are not a Mason, it is perhaps difficult for you to gain a balanced
perspective on the relative significance of these symbols in Masonry, or
correctly understand their relationship to the ritual (point: some of
these are quite peripheral, even in Masonry). This question is somewhat
akin to asking why don't Mormons wear square and compasses tie tacks if
the Endowment is drawn from Masonry.
___GRB___
"Three time Three" (Three points of fellowship)
-----
I simply say that on this point, Arden has no clue what he is talking
about. If I am understanding what he is mentioning here (three times
three has a few significations in Masonry), then I must say that this
particular part of Masonic ritual is found in the Endowment. It is
specificallly found related to the concept of prayer, as is another
famous Masonic 3x3.
___GRB___ Also, if you would be so kind, explain where you find these in
the Masonic rite:
* Garden of Eden story
-----
As I explained to Arden, the Garden of Eden story was used to cast the
first degree in esoteric Masonry nearly 100 years before the First
Vision. In a ritual called "Perfect Mason" which is a special working of
the EA degree, the Lodge room was made over as the Garden of Eden.
Candidates were told that their aprons represented those given to our
First Parents in the Garden. They are also told that Adam received
special instruction in GEOMETRY (one of those Masonic codewords) which he
WROTE IN A BOOK AND PASSED ON TO HIS POSTERITY. It gives a genealogy for
this that sounds remarkably like a Priesthood line...because it is. You
might ask Arden to post this up for you, since I forwarded a lengthy
quote to him. Others who knew me on other forums may also have copies
(perhaps Clark Goble).
As for more on garments, aprons, etc.... James has been kind enough to
post up a small quote from the Reverend George Oliver which I located.
You might go to his page and read it, and keep in mind that Oliver was a
contemporary of the Prophet, and his opinions were very influential in
Masonry. Don't think I'm being comprehensive or anything. These are just
the examples which come to mind first.
___GRB___
* Biblical figures as characters in the dramas
* References to priesthood
-----
Arden is WAY OFF with these two. Masonry in both its rituals and legenda
makes constant references to biblical figures. One of the most
interesting is the legend of Enoch, as has been mentioned in this forum.
___GRB___ * Women. I know, I know, there is something out there called
"CoMasonry," in which women *are* allowed, but I certainly don't think
that this organization was around in Joseph's time -----
Indeed it was around in Joseph's time. In fact, I have the earliest
co-masonic ritual, which predates the Prophet. Its degrees are
predictably based upon the Garden of Eden story.
___GRB___
And I'd *love* to know what you think is Masonic about the R.S.!
-----
I don't know...why don't you ask the Prophet, who told the sisters that
they should be "good Masons" and learn how to keep a secret, etc.etc. I
have several quotes by early RS sisters in which they discuss the Masonic
nature of the Society. In fact, if you wish to do a bit of research, why
don't you find a copy of the first minute book of the RS and look at the
very first page. Tell me where you think the prayer adopted as the RS
"charge" comes from. Hint: it includes the idea of protecting widows and
orphans, and ends with a resounding AMEN, SO MOTE IT BE. I kid you not.
This kind of prayer is found in only one place, Guy, and its not in
Sunday School. Lots lots more, but again, this is what came to mind.
Other forum members could supply you with direct relevant quotes.
___GRB___ There *is* a masonic influence in the TC, no question about it.
Question is, who's influencing whom? -----
No, there is NO question about "who's influencing whom." Clearly, Joseph
Smith was influenced by Freemasonry. As I said, this doesn't preclude
the idea of inspired borrowing. But it WAS borrowing.
___GRB___
> IMHO, this is a forest/trees issue - CsOTMC in general and James in
> particular (and now you, a member) are claiming that since we've got
> some pine trees, Masons have some pine trees, we must have come
> from the same forest.
-----
Like hell you say. I said that Mormonism and Masonry share an undeniable
genetic link, established by Joseph Smith and expanded upon by BY and
HCK. The borrowing isn't vague and general, but very specific and clearly
identifiable. For example, it is not coincidental that in the SLC
endowment, the fellow who plays Lucifer DRESSES LIKE THE MASTER OF A
LODGE. He wears a BLUE apron with certain MASONIC symbols on them,
including the TWO COLUMNS and the Masonic pavement. I saw this numerous
times myself, Guy, and unless they have recently changed this, you can
probably STILL go and see Lucifer as the Master of the Lodge. This isn't
just a matter of forest and trees, Guy. As for being a member and
holding these views... I don't recall ever promising when I was baptized
to believe bad history or accept any ole apology. My faith must engage
the facts in a way that is both meaningful and honest, or I am wasting my
time as a Mormon. I refuse to compromise my integrity by accepting what
is disproven by any dispassionate view of the available evidence. I
accept that Joseph Smith was a Prophet. I accept that one may find
meaning in comparing the Endowment with ancient rituals here there and
underwear. However, these ancient correspondences do not gainsay the
FACT of Masonic borrowing by the Prophet, which borrowing he admitted,
and was known by others, some of whom accepted his prophetic claims
notwithstanding (such as Heber C. Kimball), and others of whom
criticised him as an impostor for the borrowing (such as John Bennett).
___GRB___ But when you step back and look at the both forests you can
see that they're different. If you're astute, you'll see that ancient
Israelites, Buddhists, Egyptians, Fijians Indians and Africans have got
some "pine trees" in their forests as well! -----
Yes, but they don't call their pine trees "Celestial Masonry." Until you
have read more than apology, your arguments will continue to be
unpersuasive to those familiar with both rituals. It isn't just a few
pine trees, Guy, it is a substantial amount of the FOREST, including they
exact paths and lay of the land.
___GRB___
[Snip of fine Robinson quote on early Gnosticism] Lesse now, we got
passwords, signs, seals, passing by angels, returning to God,
pre-existence, garden of Eden, fall of man, eternal marriage, and holy
places on the tops of mountains - all dating back almost two millenia.
It all sounds more LDS to me than anything in the Masonic rite, even
counting the exact matches in Mormon & Masonic wordings! -----
Yes, isn't it interesting. Why don't you ask Lance Owens what he thinks
about the origins of Freemasonry and Gnosticism.
>
> | ___Guy Briggs___
> | Even where the two rituals share symbolism, the fabric of meanings is
> | different.
> | -----
> |
> | For goodness sakes, they were going to use the Square and Compasses
> | on exterior of the SL Temple. While it is true that meanings are
> | different in SOME of the shared symbols, it is nevertheless true
> | that numerous Mormon symbols were initially borrowed from Masonry.
> |
> Square and compass do not necessarily a Mason make. There are
> examples of the S&C on ancient buildings from South America to China.
> The Seneca Indians, including Red Jacket, wore brooches of silver that
> look just like the Masonic symbol.
-----
Yes, but the Endowment isn't called Celestial Seneca Fraternalism; it is
called Celestial Masonry. Mormons, including the Prophet didn't travel
to ancient China; they joined the Lodge. There is a DEMONSTRABLE, CAUSUAL
link between Masonry and Mormonism. As they share a certain window in
time and space, any reasonable person is going to look there first for
answers.
I find South American connections interesting in light of the Endowment
because I believe Joseph Smith was inspired. It would be of interest to
me as a Mason even if Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
___GRB___ Even the "All-seeing Eye" you see in different places ...
which would seem to be incontrovertably Masonic - "was borrowed by the
Freemasons from the nations of antiquity" according to the great Mason
historian Mackay. -----
Again, the question is not where MASONS got their symbols from, but where
JOSEPH SMITH got them from. These were current in the United States in
Joseph's day ONLY BECAUSE OF MASONRY. You can't jump over Masonry in your
rush to look at the more ancient past.
___Guy R. Briggs___
It would also seem to depend on which Order of Masonry you belong to.
> It is my understanding that you don't have to be a Christian to be a
> Mason, don't even have to profess the Judeo-Christian concept of God;
> you just have to believe in a Supreme Being.
-----
It doesn't depend on the "order of Masonry" you belong to. Every Mason
starts in the same place, and every Mason hears words similar to those I
quoted (no I didn't violate any oath in sharing them with you. The words
are "monitorial," meaning published and available outside the Lodge
room.) . What you make of those words depends upon your personal beliefs.
But Masonry need not apologize for the fact that there was a time it was
exclusively Christian.
___GRB___
Also note that nothing you said above ties the covenants made by
Masons to the reward - just an admonition that the record of one's life
be as spotless as the apron.
-----
I picked the first example that came to my mind, Guy. I guess I could
have looked it up in some book and given you the Word of Pike or
something. Anyway, considering the anathemas heaped upon those who
violate their covenants, and that the "spotless lambskin" has some
religious significance, I think you don't have to go very far with me on
this one to see my point.
___Guy Briggs___ Nice poem, but it shows the need to have the authority
of the priesthood in what way? -----
It doesn't. I'm avoiding the issue because I don't want to discuss it.
Read Homer's piece, aptly titled "A Similarity in Preasthood," for an
introduction to this topic.
___JSW___ Masons do NOT believe in an | "undefined, impersonal God." I
AM A FREEMASON, and I have no | such beliefs. Neither do the majority of
Masons I know.
___GRB___ Of course not. You're a Mormon too! <snip> AFAIK you don't even
have to believe in the Judeo-Christian God to be a Mason. -----
No, but neither do Masons advance a teaching of an "undefined, impersonal
God." As it is not a religion, it advances NO doctrine of Deity
WAHTSOEVER. It is absolutely wrong to say that Masons believe in an
"undefined, impersonal God," since Masons as a body believe quite a
variety of things about God.
___GRB___ I'll meet you half way on this one and agree with you that no
Mason who is also a Mormon believes in an undefined, personal God.
Anybody else, and I gotta stand pat with the above statement. -----
To say this proves my point. Masons do NOT believe in an "undefined,
impersonal God." Perhaps SOME Masons do, but that's their PERSONAL
business, and has nothing to do with their beliefs AS MASONS.
> | ___Guy Briggs___
> | In Freemasonry, testing, grading, penalizing, or sentencing accords
> | with the rules of the fraternity or membership votes. In
> | the Endowment, God alone is the judge.
> | -----
___JSW___
> | This is untrue. We SAY that "God alone is the judge," but practically
> | speaking, if you violate your covenants --say, the Law of Chastity--
> | you are penalized not only by God but by the CHURCH. In a very real
> | sense, in both Masonry and the Church, men are accountable foremost
> | and primarily to God; but this does not preclude penalty for those
> | who with impunity ignore the rule of the Lodge...or the rule of the
> | Church.
___GRB___
> You're forgetting that we're the church that believes in modern-day
> revelation. Before any church action is taken WRT membership, God is
> consulted.
-----
"Consulting God" is not the issue. The issue is who is acting as earthly
judge. That the Bishop is ostensibly REPRESENTING God as judge does not
change the real earthly dynamics here. FWIW, Masons are instructed to
never enter any major undertaking without prayer, so I imagine that there
is some "consulting with God" before they decide to give some fellow the
boot."
___GRB___
All well and good, yet still I see, in every Order, different degrees
spoken of. Three degrees in one order, thirteen in another. Thirty-two
in yet another.
-----
Yes, just as the early Endowment was spoken of as being given in several
degrees. FYI, Masonically speaking the Endowment consists of four
degrees, and there was discussion in the days of John Taylor to divide it
up accordingly, to encourage FAITHFULNESS before entrusting candidates
with more. This same thinking applies to Masonry.
It appears that you do not understand the use of the word "degree" in
Masonry. You are not alone. FYI, a man who is a 32 degree Mason is no
more a Mason than any other man raised a Master.
___GRB___
> Masons may stand equally before the Supreme Being, but after that
> there's more degrees than a thermometer.
-----
Yep, and in Mormonism, it extends into HEAVEN. That's why there are
THREE DEGREES OF GLORY, and the Celestial Kingdom itself is divided into
THREE MORE. And when we get out to the Great Telestial Blowout, there are
as many degrees as there are reprobates.
> | ___Guy Briggs___
> | The clash between good and evil, including Satan's role, is
> | essential to, and vividly depicted in, the Endowment, but is
> | largely absent from Masonic rites.
___JSW___
> | Masonic ritual depicts man's mortal journey; which he enters
> | blinded, slipshod and awry...standing between two opposing poles
> | and relying upon the mercy of those who lead and guide him. It
> | depicts his walk in darkness, that by degrees he may come to
> | find the Light which beckons everyman from the sun slowly rising
> | in the East. This path towards the Light is rugged, and fraught
> | with danger...even death. But it is the path that many have walked
> | before us, and which many will walk after. It is the hero's journey.
___GRB___
> Lovely, but this alone is a major difference. The TC starts before
> the creation of the world and culminates at the end of the world.
> The pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal journey. Masonry, by your own
> admission, only focuses on one of the three.
-----
Here you have flip-flopped, rather than admitting I made my point. I was
not being asked to answer what light Masonry may have to shed on the
issues you raised in response: only to answer what Masonry said about the
clash between good and evil, purity and danger. That was the question I
meant to answer, and the comments you made following are a construing on
a subject I was not addressing.
>
> | ___Guy Briggs___
> | Women participate in all aspects of LDS temple rites; though
> | Freemasonry has women's auxiliaries, Masonic ritual excludes them.
___JSW___
> |
> | Unless they join Grand Lodges which allow women to receive the
> | degrees. For more information, see ...
___GRB___
> As noted above, was this the way it was in Joseph's time when the TC
> was supposedly purloined from the Masons?
-----
Yes indeederoony.
> | ___Guy Briggs___
> So in spite of the 507 lines you spent showing us all how similar the
> two rites are, when we get right down to the bottom line, right down to
> where the rubber meets the road, we both agree that the two ceremonies
> are fundamentally different! The TC unites husbands and wives and
> families. The TC takes us from pre-earth life to post-earth life and
> answers all of life's most basic questions.
-----
No, we agree that there are some fundamental differences between the two.
If there weren't I'd be wasting my time as a member of the Church. If you
were asking ME to summarize the fundamental difference between the
Endowment and Masonic ritual, I would say that it is this: Masonic ritual
IS NOT AND DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE SALVIFIC. Not for the dead, not for the
living, and not for husbands and wives. Salvation is a concern of
religion; consequently, Masonry encourages men to meet their religious
obligations. A man who does so is faithful to his pledge as a man and
Mason.
However, that the Temple has an additional ceremony in which men and
women are joined together in matrimony in no way argues against the idea
that the Endowment was drawn from Masonry. It is an entirely separate
issue. That Masonry does not claim to be salvific and Mormonism DOES,
does not change one jot of evidence that Masonry supplied the conceptual
framework of the Endowment. The question is not one of what the Endowment
IS, but rather whence it originated. It is not a question of differences,
but of origins. It is not a question of ancient parallels, but of
contemporaneous rituals.
___GRB___
In the Masonic scheme of things, we end up at the last day "trembling
and naked before the Great White Throne" (not even a white apron then, I
guess!)
-----
Wrong guess.
___GRB___
In the Mormon scheme of things we march right past the angels
> and sentinals and claim out rightful place as kings and priests to the
> Most High (see NT:Rev 1:5-6). Hence my claim that the Mormon TC, more
> than anything else, resembles a coronation ceremony.
-----
Ah, a CORONATION ceremony. Interesting. So does the Holy Royal Arch
degree in Masonry. It is also interestingly enough connected to the
notion of heavenly ascent...as Wilmshurst notes. The Holy Royal
Arch....you know, that other degree that was available to Joseph Smith.
However, I still think that you will be "marching right past" doing a
damn lot of fearful trembling. As others on this forum have pointed out,
I don't think that most LDS have a clue as to how they are going to
accomplish such a thing.
Barry R. Bickmore
> Its been argued that Joseph Smith, as a prophet, saw in the Masonic
> ceremony of the early 19th century the remnants of a God given
> ordinace. If this is the case, then why do nearly all the changes
> in the LDS endowment appear to be back-peddling from their Masonic
> connections?
If JS did borrow some symbols from the Masonic rites, he borrowed the
right ones, but it makes sense that such rites would be subtly adapted
to the culture in which they are given. Certain symbols that were
originally in the rites are certainly not in sync with our culture
anymore. However, the general form of the rites JS instituted can be
found in very ancient settings, so that fact gives creedance to JS's
claim that the Masonic rites were "the remnants of a God given
ordinance." I have a couple articles on similar early "orthodox"
Christian and gnostic Christian rites at my "Early Christianity and
Mormonism" site, if anyone wants to see them. The URL is:
http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bbickmor/EC.html
Barry Bickmore
NLMecham
In article <33D61C...@vt.edu>, "Barry R. Bickmore" <bbic...@vt.edu>
writes:
>
>If JS did borrow some symbols from the Masonic rites, he borrowed the
>right ones, but it makes sense that such rites would be subtly adapted
>to the culture in which they are given. Certain symbols that were
>originally in the rites are certainly not in sync with our culture
>anymore. However, the general form of the rites JS instituted can be
>found in very ancient settings, so that fact gives creedance to JS's
>claim that the Masonic rites were "the remnants of a God given
>ordinance." I have a couple articles on similar early "orthodox"
>Christian and gnostic Christian rites at my "Early Christianity and
>Mormonism" site, if anyone wants to see them. The URL is:
>
>
You can't have it both ways. They were appropriate for the alleged
thousands of years, enough so that JS was justified in extracting them
from Masonry, but they're "not in sync with our culture anymore"?
Nolan
Like Magellan, let us find our islands
To die in, far from home, from anywhere
Familiar. Let us risk the wildest places,
Lest we go down in comfort, and despair.
Mary Oliver (excerpted from her poem "Magellan")
Guy R. Briggs
a-j...@microsoft.com (Joe Steve Swick III) wrote:
| net...@mindspring.com (Guy Briggs) write:
|
| Perhaps you'd like to help us understand where all of the
| following are found in the LDS TC (list courtesy of Arden Eby).
|
| him regarding this. The upshot of it is: 1) his list is not entirely
| accurate; 2) the existence of differences does not in any way indicate
| that the Endowment and Masonry are not alike in the ways I have
| indicated. You cannot apply the "unparallel" technique in this case
| with the kind of success it was used with by FARMS re: View of the
| Hebrews.
<snip responses to Arden's list>
Well, it looks like we could keep this up forever - both of us
unZIPping our files to see which one has the bigger ... erm ...
"reference library."
Bottom line is this: as a Mason, you will see the similarities
between the Mormon ceremony and the Masonic rites and believe JS
borrowed them.
As a Mormon, and a "restorationist" I will see the similarities
between the Mormon ceremony and ancient rites from all over the world
and believe that JS restored the most ancient ceremony of them all.
I suppose it all depends on your world view.
|
|> There *is* a masonic influence in the TC, no question about it.
|> Question is, who's influencing whom?
|
| No, there is NO question about "who's influencing whom." Clearly,
| Joseph Smith was influenced by Freemasonry. As I said, this doesn't
| preclude the idea of inspired borrowing. But it WAS borrowing.
|
There you go again, succumbing to your own personal world view again.
You might just as well argue that JS borrowed Mormonism from
Methodism. We share much of the same imagery, use the same scriptures
and worship the same God (I know, I know, some of our Christian brothers
will refute that last one). Who was one of the first people JS shared
his first vision with? That's right, a Methodist minister. So I *could*
say, "Clearly, Joseph Smith was influenced by Methodism. As I said, this
doesn't preclude the idea of inspired borrowing. But it WAS borrowing."
Valid statement? No, because I believe that Joseph *restored* the
ancient church. Joseph believed it as well. Joseph *clearly* understood
the relationship between Mormonism and Masonry. In the diary of Benjamin
F. Johnson, a friend and associate of JS, it is recorded:
"Joseph told me that Freemasonry was the apostate endowment,
as sectarian religion was the apostate religion."
IOW, is we say that Mormonism is a copy of Methodism, we've got it
backwards. Mormonism is the *restoration* of what Methodism tries very
hard to be.
Likewise, the TC is not a copy of the Masonic rite, the TC is the
restoration of what the Masonic rite tries very hard to be.
|
|> IMHO, this is a forest/trees issue - CsOTMC in general and James
|> in particular (and now you, a member) are claiming that since
|> we've got some pine trees, Masons have some pine trees, we must
|> have come from the same forest.
|
| Like hell you say. I said that Mormonism and Masonry share an
| undeniable genetic link, established by Joseph Smith and expanded
| upon by BY and HCK. The borrowing isn't vague and general, but
| very specific and clearly identifiable.
|
Here's what HCK had to say about it:
"We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is received
from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon,
and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct,
but we have the real thing."
You dance all around the issue, hinting that Freemasonry may go
further back than the middle ages. You say things like:
"Why don't you ask Lance Owens what he thinks about the
origins of Freemasonry and Gnosticism."
and ...
"Ah, a CORONATION ceremony. Interesting. So does the Holy
Royal Arch degree in Masonry. It is also interestingly
enough connected to the notion of heavenly ascent...as
Wilmshurst notes."
But you won't quite go all the way because you know there is no known
historical link further back than the middle ages. It seems to me that
you believe it even though you can't prove it. Then you turn around and
claim:
"There is a DEMONSTRABLE, CAUSUAL link between Masonry and
Mormonism. As they share a certain window in time and space,
any reasonable person is going to look there first for
answers."
There is a demonstrable, causal link between Mormonism and Methodism
as well, but that doesn't mean one is a copy of the other.
<more snippage>
|
| Again, the question is not where MASONS got their symbols from, but
| where JOSEPH SMITH got them from. These were current in the United
| States in Joseph's day ONLY BECAUSE OF MASONRY. You can't jump over
| Masonry in your rush to look at the more ancient past.
|
To quote McGavin, "We frankly admit that there are a few similarities
in the ritual of the Mormons and the Masons, but the evidence demands
that we look higher than Masonry for the inspiration that called into
being the inspiring ceremony that is administered in Mormon Temples."
engineer_my_dna
(Message sent to Gene and to a.r.m.)
Gene Humbert wrote:
> Do you understand the concept of a mnemonic? It is something used to
> key in on a concept, not necessarily part of that concept, but a means
> of remembering it.
Interesting... the mnemonic rebuttal comes up again. I have heard
a very similar argument when it comes to the Book of Abraham. The
Book of Abraham facsimiles/papyri have clearly nothing to do with
Abraham,
yet Joseph Smith thought they did. Nevertheless, LDS apologists
(John Tvedtness and Richley Crapo) use the "mnemonic" theory in
response to the critics. For more information on the critics
perspective of the Book of Abraham visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
> Now, this is MY take on things, and it may be incorrect, but Joseph
> Smith commissioned Brigham Young to write the Temple ceremony.
Do you have any historical evidence for your speculation?
For instance, if Brigham Young was commissioned to write the Temple
ceremony then why would Joseph Smith need to become a Mason?
If Brigham Young was commissioned to write the Temple ceremony why
did the Kirtland Temple ceremony not contain the many Masonic
similarities?
To view a brief description of the Kirtland Endowment:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/priorend.htm
> It
> mattered not the content, as long as it led people to correct and true
> principals. If Free Masonry was "copied", it was because it was a
> convenient way to impress the holy concepts on the conciousness of the
> Saints.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. We all have them....
However, would you feel that it would be appropriate for non-Mormons
to take/borrow from the LDS ceremony and make it known to non-Mormons?
Do you object to parts of the Mormon Temple ceremony becoming part
of the public domain?
If yes, then do you apply the same standard to Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young when they borrowed/stole/copied from the Masonic
ritual?
Think about it....
> If it has changed since, it merely means that another way has
> been found to impress those concepts. The medium doesn't matter, the
> message does.
If the medium doesn't matter then why does the LDS Church attempt
to keep the LDS Temple rituals secret?
What motivated the changes in the LDS Temple ritual in 1990?
Could it have been that Utah Mormons were just allowed to enter into
Masonry just a couple of years prior? By 1990, Mormons
that would have joined Masonry would have realized the Masonic
similarities. Solution: Revise the LDS Endowment, and Mormons would
not become aware of the similarities.
That's my opinion.....
Sincerely,
James
********************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
********************************************************************
For a detailed description of the Masonic similarities to the LDS
endowment visit:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/masendow.htm
********************************************************************
Gene Humbert
On 16 Jul 1997 18:24:00 GMT, p...@col.hp.com (Peter Walsh) wrote:
>
>Its true they are fundamentally different in theme, but that doesn't
>mean that Joseph Smith didn't borrow the significant portions that
>definitely are the same. Admittedly the LDS temple ceremony is extremely
>well adapted to a christian theme, and has a lofter/nobler purpose than
>the Masonic ceremonies. Joseph Smith did an extremely good job of
>merging the benifits (not necessarly the most positive of the Masonic
>portions) of both. He saw the strong loyalty and dedication inspired by
>the oaths and symbolism of Free Masonry and wanted that same dedication
>for members of the Church.
>
>Its been argued that Joseph Smith, as a prophet, saw in the Masonic
>ceremony of the early 19th century the remnants of a God given
>ordinace. If this is the case, then why do nearly all the changes
>in the LDS endowment appear to be back-peddling from their Masonic
>connections?
>
>Is this something the LDS Church would like everyone to think is just
>a coincidence?
>
>What's the next thing to be quietly swept away from the LDS endowment?
>Maybe the compass and square?
>
>Pete
Do you understand the concept of a mnemonic? It is something used to
key in on a concept, not necessarily part of that concept, but a means
of remembering it.
Now, this is MY take on things, and it may be incorrect, but Joseph
Smith commissioned Brigham Young to write the Temple ceremony. It
mattered not the content, as long as it led people to correct and true
principals. If Free Masonry was "copied", it was because it was a
convenient way to impress the holy concepts on the conciousness of the
Saints. If it has changed since, it merely means that another way has
been found to impress those concepts. The medium doesn't matter, the
message does.
Gene...
Barry R. Bickmore
> You can't have it both ways. They were appropriate for the alleged
> thousands of years, enough so that JS was justified in extracting them
> from Masonry, but they're "not in sync with our culture anymore"?
Why not? From what I can ascertain, Masonry was much more popular back
in the early 1800's.
The fact is that ceremonies with the same BASIC FORMAT, and much of the
same symbolism, as the Temple ceremony can be found in both early
"orthodox" Christianity and Gnostic Christianity, as well as in other
cultures. I happen to think that the "basic format" of the ceremony is
the important thing, rather than any specific symbolism. If our
prophets have decided that certain concepts would be better presented
with updated symbolism suitable to our particular time and place, then I
don't see the problem.
If Joseph Smith claimed to "restore" these rites, then it isn't enough
to just look at contemporary sources for parallels. If similar rites
can be found in the ancient Church, then it lends weight to his claim.
If no ancient parallels can be found, it lends weight to the theory that
he drew them exclusively from contemporary sources. However, there ARE
very close ancient parallels, so you have to explain that. You might
say JS got lucky, and I might say he restored the ancient rites. In the
end the decision is subjective, but it isn't wise to just brush away
half the evidence. If you decide you want to look at some of the "other
half", my URL is, again: