Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Masons, Mormons & Knights Templars


zelder

Recommended Posts

The results of the survey place the two negative reviews mentioned in this thread into a broader context (since both reviewers are actually represented in the results, as commenters in the public forum).

On both of the scales below "1" is designated as most negative and "5" is designated as most postive. Each dash represents an individual rating.

GoodReads.com

February 8, 2011

5 -----

4 ---------------

3 -------------------------

2 ------------

1 ------

Amazon.com

February 8, 2011

5 ---

4

3

2 -

1 -

We should keep in mind that not all reviews are created equal.

A reader who was relatively uninformed about the subject isn't in a position to judge the accuracy of the book or the weight of the arguments presented in the book. They can only judge the book based on the clarity of the writing and how the topic is presented.

So if we are to judge whether or not the arguments and information in the book are valid and well researched, we should give most or all of the weight to those who are most knowledgeable about both Mormonism and Masonry.

Obviously, reviews can be slanted as well by the biases people may bring to either of the subjects. So a negative or positive review by an anti-Mormon or an anti-Mason should also be kept in perspective.

That being said, as far as I can tell the harshest reviews are from those who are most familiar with Mormonism and Masonry and are active participants in both groups. The more someone knows about Mormonism and Masonry, the more they seem to dislike this book.

Link to comment

Since the inverted star from Nauvoo is being discussed, an update on the issue might be of interest.

The claim of Joseph Smith 'borrowing' the emblem from Freemasonry during the Nauvoo period can now be discounted since the inverted star design exists in the Joseph Smith Papers collection bearing the date 1837. The image was definitely known in Kirtland, Ohio in public circumstances, was in the personal possession of Joseph Smith, and was displayed in a non-Masonic context.

There are still issues that could link the use of the inverted star in Kirtland to Freemasonry. Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball were all Freemasons prior to the Church's organization. The fact that Joseph Smith didn't join a Lodge until 1842 doesn't mean he didn't have a passing acquaintance with Freemasonry already, especially from close associates such as those listed above. We have distinctly masonic characters (among several others) featured on the KEP, not to mention the parallels between the School of the Prophets' oath, prayer, sign, and covenant.

The fact that the JSP features the inverted star in a non-masonic context does not mean that its use was not adapted from Freemasonry to fit a new context. While Joseph Smith's associations with other Masons doesn't exactly constitute a "smoking gun" linking Joseph's use of the inverted star to Freemasonry, it shouldn't be dismissed or overlooked. In my observation, a much more careful examination may be warranted in the future.

Like many Latter-day Saints, I was initially thrilled by the publication of Matt's book. There were, for me at least, some useful references attempting somewhat persuasively to put the LDS endowment in a biblical perspective (e.g. passages like Isaiah 22:22-23). However, downplaying or ignoring key historical elements in Freemasonry while trumping a historical context for the LDS endowment is simply sloppy scholarship. My problems rely mostly in what the book fails to say, and what the average reader would probably be too naive or uninformed to notice.

We do a disservice to LDS (and non-LDS) readers by failing to be thorough or clear enough. It is precisely because of this that I have reservations about Matt's material. The same problem plagued Will Schryver's KEP presentation at the 2010 FAIR Conference. In light of this, I would rather someone read Matt's book about Freemasonry and Mormonism than nothing at all. Inquiring minds will pursue the subject in earnest and find that there is much better information available. My issue isn't with Matt personally. I've never met him in my life and probably won't anytime soon (my wife and I have a baby due during the 2011 FAIR Conference).

It was Darrick Evenson's book The Gainsayers that led me to better resources and several years of research into Mormon history and the ancient world. Looking back on it, Evenson's book still has a few gems, but for the most part I disagree with its approach and content. In my opinion, being able to discern good work from sloppy work is a sign of scholastic (and gospel) maturity. No single academic work is immune to problems. Matt's work on Symbols in Stone is probably better researched in this regard.

While I count it unfortunate that Matt's work on Freemasonry and Mormonism is sometimes perceived as the final word on the subject, I have hope that at least some readers will take the time to research the issue themselves and draw the most informed conclusions.

Link to comment

There are still issues that could link the use of the inverted star in Kirtland to Freemasonry. Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball were all Freemasons prior to the Church's organization. The fact that Joseph Smith didn't join a Lodge until 1842 doesn't mean he didn't have a passing acquaintance with Freemasonry already, especially from close associates such as those listed above. We have distinctly masonic characters (among several others) featured on the KEP, not to mention the parallels between the School of the Prophets' oath, prayer, sign, and covenant.

I share the same criticism of Helorum's logic here; and this same problem occurs throughout Matthew Brown's book. In addition to the Freemasons listed above, I would include in all likely hood Oliver Cowdery and definitely his extended family. Contrary to popular apologetic thought, it was perfectly acceptable for Freemasons to talk about the mythical history, philosophy, and even content of Masonic rituals as long as they refrained from revealing the means of recognition whereby a duly made Freemason could be identified. Additionally, anti-Masonic exposes and ritual reenactments were common in Joseph Smith's environment and Masonic information could have been easily provided to Joseph Smith by numerous men including W. W. Phelps who was on the Masonic a committee to assemble and publish Masonic rituals.

Link to comment

You're only claim here is that you think Matt is a liar. That's not an argument.

No. My claim is that, contrary to what Matthew assumed in his paper, Masons used the symbol long before the Order of the Eastern Star. I proved his assumption wrong. And yes, with an argument.

At worst he is guilty of poorly framing his sentence.

No. At BEST he is guilty of poorly framing his sentence. At worst, he was flat out wrong and now refuses to admit it. The latter seems much more likely to me.

But it's obviously impossible for you to understand the issue and be civil.

Impossible for ME to understand and be civil? The irony!!

So we're done.

You forgot your marbles. :P

Link to comment

No. My claim is that, contrary to what Matthew assumed in his paper, Masons used the symbol long before the Order of the Eastern Star. I proved his assumption wrong. And yes, with an argument.

No. At BEST he is guilty of poorly framing his sentense. At worst, he was flat out wrong and refuses to admit it. The latter seems much more likely to me.

Impossible for ME to understand and be civil? The irony!!

You forgot your marbles. :P

I'm wondering why you dwell so much on this one minor point, and treat it as if it is significant. To me, general issues are of much more importance rather than things obviously in the periphery.

Link to comment
Joseph Smith Sr. . . . [was one of the] Freemasons prior to the Church's organization

A disputed claim (in print, no less), so it should not be stated as if it were a fact.

Helorum- Yes this has been disputed in print, most notably by Dan Vogel. What do you think of his reasoning on this matter? Having personally researched the matter I think the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Joseph Smith who joined Ontario Lodge No. 23 of Canandaigua being Joseph Smith Sr. the father of the prophet Joseph Smith.

Link to comment

Who came first the Mason or LDS??

I also seen simularites and the same rituals in the Islam doctrines and tradition as the pagans ritual and practice in Mecca.

They say it is not a copy also so what up?

one love

:P

Link to comment
I'm wondering why you dwell so much on this one minor point, and treat it as if it is significant.

That is a fair question. As you may remember... when I first brought the controversy up, I said, "If [Matthew Brown] can't admit this single error, then I think it unlikely that he will admit the other countless errors he's made when writing on the topic of Mormonism and Masonry." This was just a side comment, intended only to illustrate Helorum's (aka Matthew Brown, evidently) closed mindedness. I didn't plan on further elaborating until Bill Hamblin took issue with my remark, turning it around on me, accusing me of being unwilling to admit error. Things then sort of snowballed from there.

As I see it... If one is attempting to ascertain--or inform readers of this forum--the value of Matthew Brown's book, then yes... I agree that dwelling on this issue is unprofitable and irrelevant. However, if one

Link to comment

I'm wondering why you dwell so much on this one minor point, and treat it as if it is significant. To me, general issues are of much more importance rather than things obviously in the periphery.

Yup. Strain at a gnat, swallow ...

Link to comment

Who came first the Mason or LDS??

I also seen simularites and the same rituals in the Islam doctrines and tradition as the pagans ritual and practice in Mecca.

They say it is not a copy also so what up?

one love

I'm going to preface this by saying that given my observations of your behavior on this board generally, I highly doubt that you have sufficiently studied Islam to draw that conclusion.

It is obvious that Freemasonry predates Mormonism. No Mormon is claiming otherwise. However, Mormonism is a restorationist faith, in that we believe there are key elements of our faith that existed in the Church primitively, which have been restored through modern day revelation.

There are varying views among believers as to how much the LDS temple liturgy represents an actual restoration of rites practiced by early Christians and/or Jews anciently, and this forum, as open as it may be, is probably not the best place to discuss the LDS endowment in detail.

From an orthodox perspective, an interesting website to consider is Temple Study. This website features hundreds of insights on the temple from LDS scholars compiled by LDS blogger, Bryce Haymond.

Due to several other time constraints and obligations as an undergrad, husband, and father-to-be, I cannot say I am aware of any extensive work done by believing Latter-day Saints that counters the first perspective, though you might find something along those lines here.

The temple endowment is secret, not because Mormons have anything to hide, but because of the sacredness of what happens there. All I ask of you is to approach the issue with sensitivity and respect academically, even if you find it theologically repulsive.

Link to comment

I'm going to preface this by saying that given my observations of your behavior on this board generally, I highly doubt that you have sufficiently studied Islam to draw that conclusion.

It is obvious that Freemasonry predates Mormonism. No Mormon is claiming otherwise. However, Mormonism is a restorationist faith, in that we believe there are key elements of our faith that existed in the Church primitively, which have been restored through modern day revelation.

There are varying views among believers as to how much the LDS temple liturgy represents an actual restoration of rites practiced by early Christians and/or Jews anciently, and this forum, as open as it may be, is probably not the best place to discuss the LDS endowment in detail.

From an orthodox perspective, an interesting website to consider is Temple Study. This website features hundreds of insights on the temple from LDS scholars compiled by LDS blogger, Bryce Haymond.

Due to several other time constraints and obligations as an undergrad, husband, and father-to-be, I cannot say I am aware of any extensive work done by believing Latter-day Saints that counters the first perspective, though you might find something along those lines here.

The temple endowment is secret, not because Mormons have anything to hide, but because of the sacredness of what happens there. All I ask of you is to approach the issue with sensitivity and respect academically, even if you find it theologically repulsive.

For me, it is not that it needs to be identical in appearance or content to what the ancient Christians had. The biggest issue for me is that it is functional as an esoteric rite by which we make critical covenants. But from the evidences throughout the Bible and so forth, I would say that there are ancient restorations as well as new additions from Masonry. there is nothing wrong with this in my view, because again, functionality is the key issue, not whether it has been restored word for word and posture by posture. And the second key issue is, is it AUTHORIZED by God, and SANCTIFIED by the holy spirit of Promise for its purpose. I say the answer is a resounding yes.

Ed Goble

Link to comment

For me, it is not that it needs to be identical in appearance or content to what the ancient Christians had. The biggest issue for me is that it is functional as an esoteric rite by which we make critical covenants. But from the evidences throughout the Bible and so forth, I would say that there are ancient restorations as well as new additions from Masonry. There is nothing wrong with this in my view, because again, functionality is the key issue, not whether it has been restored word for word and posture by posture.

Amen- As a self avowed pragmatist I largely agree with you. For me the endowment ritual is fascinating, intellectually stimulating, and enlightening making it a "good" thing. Perhaps I am a bit more liberal than you as I really don't care whether or not there ever was an ancient endowment anything like the present endowment.

Link to comment

Amen- As a self avowed pragmatist I largely agree with you. For me the endowment ritual is fascinating, intellectually stimulating, and enlightening making it a "good" thing. Perhaps I am a bit more liberal than you as I really don't care whether or not there ever was an ancient endowment anything like the present endowment.

I believe in pragmatic and agile theology, not dogmatic theology, so it looks like I've finally found another like minded person in that respect.

Its just a shame now that I never became a Mason, but I felt that wasn't my calling in life, because I didn't have a good enough reason in my mind to become one, other than to be a delver in the Masonic mysteries. I felt the Lord had called me in a different direction.

I believe there are enough evidences from ancient Christianity to substantiate the idea that they had *something* to some degree of similarity as an esoteric rite to the endowment.

Ed

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...