Jump to content
Gray

Masonry essay on the church website

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I don't see much connection to the Book of Abraham in that, although there are definitely some other elements

To be clear, I am not claiming to know that Joseph copied from this account, but certainly the passages about Abraham teaching science to the Egyptians (see explanation #6 in facsimile #3) and Egypt being flooded (Abr 1:24) are similar to what is found in the BofA.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Not to mention the 5 points of fellowship.  This was a direct copy.

Or both came from the same source.

In the end either Joseph cobbled together the endowment from numerous disparate sources  both religious and traditional. (Some of which it would be difficult to determine how he came to know).

OR the endowment is an ancient and eternal ordinance dating back to Adam and the patriarchs that has left degenerated pieces scattered down through time throughout most every nation and culture.  And Joseph brought them together whole again .

Or a bit of both I suppose. 😉  It all depends on your starting viewpoint I think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Or both came from the same source.

That source being Freemasonry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Thinking said:

That source being Freemasonry.

The source for freemasonry was freemasonry?

Even the freemasons have no idea where the components of their rites came from.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

To be clear, I am not claiming to know that Joseph copied from this account, but certainly the passages about Abraham teaching science to the Egyptians (see explanation #6 in facsimile #3) and Egypt being flooded (Abr 1:24) are similar to what is found in the BofA.

Ah, OK. I can see the Abraham teaching the Egyptians although within Masonry and the esoteric tradition it was almost always seen as going the other direction. The flooding of the nile I think was fairly well known through tons of sources. If Joseph did any study of Egypt from commentaries he'd have seen that. It's in Clarke's commentary for Exodus 9 for instance and we know Joseph had and was studying that.

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The source for freemasonry was freemasonry?

Even the freemasons have no idea where the components of their rites came from.

The Five Points of Fellowship was a relatively late addition to Masonry. Brent Metcalfe had a paper on it back in the 90's although by then it had been removed from the endowment. We don't know if the 5 Points was in Joseph's endowment or was added by Brigham. Metcalfe's overall argument is pretty problematic since it makes a ton of assumptions about essentialism to the original priesthood. As with so much work critical of Mormon conceptions it tends to only engage with a naive fundamentalism model of the temple origins. But his data on the Five Points is quite good.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The Five Points of Fellowship was a relatively late addition to Masonry.

What is the source for this and what do you mean by "relatively late addition"?

Here's what one Freemason writes regarding the Five Point of Fellowship when asked about it:

Quote

Well, without going into too much depth, I will say that it is one of the oldest aspects of our ritual that we have. It is given almost exactly the same as it is today in the Edinburgh Register House manuscript from 1696, but there really isn't anything in that early version regarding the symbolism. So, we are left to wonder if the symbolism is also that early and simply not given in the catechisms or if it was simply added later to explain it.

 

I'd like to know more about this (the origins, etc.) and I would like to see your sources.  I'll take a look at the Brent Metcalfe paper too.

Share this post


Link to post

The five points of fellowship in the Edinburgh Registry is different from the form Joseph was exposed to and that ended up in the early Utah endowment. I’d read Metcalfe paper. While there are lots of problematic aspects to how he engages the Mormon side of things the Masonic side is good.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The five points of fellowship in the Edinburgh Registry is different from the form Joseph was exposed to and that ended up in the early Utah endowment. I’d read Metcalfe paper. While there are lots of problematic aspects to how he engages the Mormon side of things the Masonic side is good.

Here's this too (questions and answers from a Freemason page):

Quote

Q. - What is the history of the Five Points of Fellowship? A. - Like so many of the other Masonic symbols, the origin of the five points of fellowship is shrouded in antiquity. It is thought that originally they were part of the ancient Fellowcraft degree, but were later included in the Master Mason degree when that degree was developed in the early 18th century.

I'm not convinced they were a "relatively late addition" to freemasonry.  But I'll look further....thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The source for freemasonry was freemasonry?

Even the freemasons have no idea where the components of their rites came from.

Quote

There are no records that identify this development. No written statement that on this day "James A. Brown" joined the guild and became the first Freemason. Why would there be? It was not important at that time and still has very little significance today.

---

Just because we do not have a written record of an event does not mean it did not happen. It only means we do not have documentation that it did. Sometimes it requires deductive reasining and thoughtfull conclusions.

History of Freemasonry | The Origins

One definite possibility is that the signs, tokens, and penalties were created by the original Freemasons.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do you have a reference, I'd love to read about this.

The native traditions are maintain almost exclusively orally so little is available as documentation. A few native families here have joined the church and were eventually endowed . Discussions were held when an endowed member passed away as to whether to bury them in the temple robes or the " special white leathers ".

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Thinking said:

One definite possibility is that the signs, tokens, and penalties were created by the original Freemasons.

Sure, as long as we're speculating that is a possibility.  They don't even know.

But did they literally create them ex nihilo, or did they draw on an origin source?

Because one of the biggest supports for the endowment as ancient in origin is the extremely far spread references through many cultures and time periods.  Nibley's approach may not provide historical proof of ancient administration of the endowment but he sure did a good job locating temple elements in disparate cultures. 

Early Christianity, Asia, Egypt, Judaism, Ancient Americas, Zoroastrian practice, on, and on. Even the Tanner's found the signs/tokens in a martial arts magazine.  Native American usage has also been referenced here.

If the endowment was a work of creative writing by Joseph he sure gathered elements from far and wide to do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2019 at 1:35 PM, Tacenda said:

I was asked to make covenants without knowing what the covenants were but told before the session started that I could leave if I felt like I couldn't make those covenants. 

Obviously this attitude indicates the absence of a testimony of the temple and the church, so it would indeed be wise to stand up and leave.  Not sure how someone would have gotten a temple recommend.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Obviously this attitude indicates the absence of a testimony of the temple and the church, so it would indeed be wise to stand up and leave.  Not sure how someone would have gotten a temple recommend.

Well, I'm now looking back and thinking this. At the time I didn't think anything bad about it. So in retrospect I feel this way.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, ALarson said:

I'm not convinced they were a "relatively late addition" to freemasonry.  But I'll look further....thanks!

Just to be clear when I say "relatively late addition" I mean the form of the five points that Joseph borrowed. When Joseph borrowed it the five points had changed dramatically in both form and meaning. 

Originally the five points are five of twelve points. So in the Register House catachism they are "foot to foot, knee to knee, heart to heart, hand to hand, and ear to ear." These represent mnemonic devices to represent key ideas. Together the five points are the sign of fellowship. By the 1720's ear to ear becomes mouth to ear, knee to knee becomes hand to back. Also by the 1720 there's two legends that become attached to Masonry. The first is the idea of Noah's sons taking his body to find a secret tied to rebuilding the. They find one of Noah's bones with marrow in it, giving the name used. The corpse was raised foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, cheek to cheek, hand to back but they couldn't discover the secret. The second legend which came to dominate was Hiram who was murdered by three masons during the construction of Solomon's Temple to find the secret. As with the Noah narrative they attempt necromancy to gain the secret of the Masonic Word by raising Hiram's corpse hand to hand, foot to foot, cheek to cheek, knee to knee and hand to back, with the skin coming off his hand when they attempt to raise him.

So initially the five points are different and as they become the five points that were available in the 19th century they are tied to necromancy and not resurrection. Further the issue isn't getting the Masonic Word at this time, but legends of non-Masons attempting to get the Masonic word but who get a substitute instead based upon the first thing found in the grave. The name of that item found in the grave then becomes a substitute or sign of the actual thing sought. In these early 18th century forms the words are either the names of the two pillars of Solomon's Temple or two pillars with secret knowledge from Noah to prevent an other flood. 

Now elements of this clearly are ancient. The elements of Solomon's temple are just from the Old Testament and are  even referred to. The legend of Noah's pillars go back to the Ptolemaic period as well apparently. (Stevenson doesn't give a reference) They were also known in the medieval period. They also embrace ideas out of hermeticism where they are secrets in the pillars of man. However these elements aren't in the Old Charges but arise in the early 18th century.

So I'm not saying there aren't ancient items in all this. Even with the later systemization of Masonry at the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century the new elements focusing in on resurrection motifs and a platonic unio mystica with God, those new added elements have ancient precursors. It's just that they're late additions to Masonry and there's compelling evidence they weren't part of Masonry in the 17th century. So my this later period the Mason's Word is the secret name of God. When Solomon sends people to find Hirum Abiff they, not the ruffians, attempt to raise Hiram using signs and grips given in the first and second degrees. The sign and grip of the third degree and five point of fellowship allow them to raise Hiram. In this form of the ceremony the initiate experiences death and raising to become a new man. This all tends to be seen from a platonic sense of new illumination and understanding.

While some of these elements get added in the 1720's as I mentioned, the big changes to the Five Points come from a conflict in the mid 18th century between self-identified "Ancients" and "Moderns" which was also wrapped up in conflict between the English and Irish lodges. Both tend to add and modify things a fair bit, although the Ancients claim they were just restoring old forms that the Moderns (English) had changed. These Ancients also add a new degree of the Royal Arch that then becomes significant for early Mormonism. It's this where the legend of Enoch's ascent and Enoch writing the name of God on a gold plate buried in vaults. (That's the legend some claim was behind the Book of Mormon although I find that dubious) The origins of this sometimes are seen in Ireland, sometimes France or other arguments. It's not entirely clear the origins. But the key part is that they are fairly late. After this you then get even more things added such as all the Knights Templar stuff that came out of France.

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Early Christianity, Asia, Egypt, Judaism, Ancient Americas, Zoroastrian practice, on, and on. Even the Tanner's found the signs/tokens in a martial arts magazine.  Native American usage has also been referenced here.

Just as an aside the martial arts magazine was plagiarizing the temple via anti-Mormon materials. There was a paper on this some years back although I can't seem to find an online version. They were presented as secret ways of projecting chi but was all nonsense.

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But did they literally create them ex nihilo, or did they draw on an origin source?

As I mentioned earlier there are only so many possible grips for a simple handshake. We knew that grips were used by both the German Steinmetzen in the mid 16th century and there appears evidence they were used by the French compagnonnages - both journeymen practical masons. (Here using practical mason to mean an actual stone worker rather than just a member of a fraternal organization) There's no evidence in Britain but it seems quite reasonable to assume these were identification handshakes that go back to the medieval building boom at least.

You can find evidence for grips in the Renaissance era in Italy and the symbolism of handshakes (called dexiosis by scholars studying the ancient era) goes back much farther to the point of ubiquitousness. In Greek art it was a common funerary motif. Apologists have of course demonstrated a lot of art with Mormon/masonic like grips but it really is worth noting just how common this was particularly among the Greeks. While Alexander's conquests spread this all over the ancient near east, there is also evidence it was common before Alexander outside of Greece. In the late Renaissance up through a popularity boom in the 19th century the Orphic mysteries offered a lot here as well and almost certainly shaped Masonry. Particularly if one follows the early neoplatonic scholars on it such as Taylor rather than M. O. Lobeck's rejection of the platonic conception that revolutionized the study in 1829. (Interestingly it's the discovery of gold plates that really revolutionizes Orphic studies - although that's in the late 19th century so far too late to be an influence on Joseph Smith)

We know for sure that the gnostics used similar grips for identification although we don't have an explicit description of the exact form of the grips used in gnosticism and presumably associated movements such as hermeticism or religious platonic paganism.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Here are Matthew Grow's (director of publications at Church History dept.) statements from the Trevor Haugen interview.  Grow: 

Quote

"Sometimes the rhetoric in the church has been or can be taken to be that we are the only true church and we are the only one with truth.  If we look throughout church history, there are very clear  prophetic statements.  Truth is everywhere,  there is truth in Islam.  There is truth in Buddhism,  Confucius was a great spiritual teacher.  One way to even look at Joseph Smith or think about him is that he was willing to get truth from wherever he could find it.  
One issue that trips up people sometimes is masonry.  Joseph Smith saw some truth in masonry, takes it and incorporates it in as truth.  We should do the same.  He's looking for truth everywhere he goes.  We should be doing the same.  There is truth in all the world's great religions. 

What the church says is unique is the authority piece with the priesthood on top of that."

My question is if we don't believe in an endowment ordinance process produced through creation ex-nihilo then why with each successive revision do more of the masonry elements get discarded?  Are we getting closer to the pure truth with each successive revision?  

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2019 at 12:35 PM, Tacenda said:

I was asked to make covenants without knowing what the covenants were but told before the session started that I could leave if I felt like I couldn't make those covenants. So how was I to know if it wasn't something I'd like to do? Terrible way to go about something, even in a contract you sign you go in knowing the details, something wrong with this picture. I wonder if the church will change the temple so much that one day they'll give members the information before they have to make those unseen covenants.

When you hear something you don't like, you stand up and walk out.

Instant paralysis through lightning strike does not occur.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2019 at 5:30 PM, 10THAmendment said:

 

I have tried but I just can't accept the "catalyst" explanation. It is plagiarism.

I think I'm going to try this explanation in my next university course.  "It wasn't plagiarism.  I just used the source as a catalyst for my own inspiration.  Don't be distracted by the magnitude of the similarities"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/4/2019 at 1:31 PM, sjdawg said:

I think I'm going to try this explanation in my next university course.  "It wasn't plagiarism.  I just used the source as a catalyst for my own inspiration.  Don't be distracted by the magnitude of the similarities"

This is what is known as a category error.

On 2/4/2019 at 1:08 PM, blueglass said:

My question is if we don't believe in an endowment ordinance process produced through creation ex-nihilo then why with each successive revision do more of the masonry elements get discarded?  Are we getting closer to the pure truth with each successive revision?  

I'd say two things. First, the endowment is a ritual and not a creed or doctrinal exposition. So looking at it purely in terms of truth is to fundamentally misunderstand what is going on. It's like asking if baptism is true in the sense of propositions. Rituals function with people. That means they have to meet the changing needs of people. We don't do baptism in Hebrew for instance because no one would understand. We do it in English here and French in France. As people's situations change, the ritual to a degree (pun intended) have to change with it. What would work for a 1st century Jew might not work in the same way for a 21st century woman. While I really love some of the (to my eyes) ancient aspects in the pre-1990 ceremony it seems undeniable they were being misinterpreted by people unable to put themselves in that ancient mindset. So the ritual changes. As long as the changes are done with the permission of God and by proper authority there's no problem.

So change may reflect errors that have been corrected, but it may also simply reflect the audience the ritual is for. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

On 2/4/2019 at 10:13 AM, jpv said:

One of the sources cited above was Todd Compton, not exactly an apologist: 

Why don't you think Compton is an apologist? He's not done as much of late, but I believe In Sacred Loneliness was originally done as apologetics. As I recall he even tried initially to have FARMS publish it. His theory of dynastic marriages, which as proved quite persuasive in the historic community was I believe initially intended as an apologetic argument. I've not kept up with what he's been doing of late. I don't think he's as much engaged in apologetics. But he certainly was in the past even editing one of Nibley's books and publishing with FARMS.

Edited by clarkgoble
Left out a not

Share this post


Link to post

Was hoping to add a comment here earlier this week but have been down with the flu. Wanted to respond to two items:

1. Plagiarism. It's not plagiarism because the source material was clear to everyone. Joseph and his colleagues weren't pretending that the endowment came from nothing. They knew fully well and did not hide the fact that it was being built on top of Masonry. It's not plagiarism just as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is not plagiarism.

2. Catalyst. This theory implies that Masonry was simply an inspiration and starting point for something else. Again, this isn't how Joseph and his colleagues understood the endowment. For them, the endowment was the completion of Masonry, restoring key elements that had been lost. I may have mentioned this before in another comment, but the endowment being the completion of Masonry is one reason why Mormon men in Nauvoo were required to become Masons before being endowed:

On Nauvoo saints becoming Masons first:

Joseph Fielding:

Quote

Many have joined the Masonic institution. This seems to have been a stepping stone or preparation for something else, the true origin of Masonry.

Heber C. Kimball:

Quote

We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice. I cannot give them to you on paper, for they are not to be written. So you must come and get them for yourself. We have organized a lodge here of Masons since we obtained a charter. That was in March. Since that [time] there have been nearly two hundred made Masons. Br. Joseph and Sidney [Rigdon] were the first that were received into the Lodge. All of the twelve apostles have become members except Orson Pratt. He hangs back. He will wake up soon. There is a similarity of priesthood [ordinances] in Masonry. Bro. Joseph says Masonry was taken from priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect.

On the endowment restoring a lost degree:

Franklin D. Richards (the last remaining Nauvoo Mason in the Qof12 in 1899):

Quote

At 10 a.m. met with Council of Apostles in the Temple where I listened to an address from each of its members. I also addressed them a.m. and p.m. Afternoon I spoke of the Masonic Organization in Nauvoo & some of the circumstances which led up to the Prophet Joseph asking of the Lord & obtaining promise to restore that which was lost indeed to restore all things which enraged the high officials of the Mystic order so that the National Grand conclave expelled or cut off all the Mormon Masonic Order from their fellowship. The brethren appreciated my explanation highly and I felt relived [sic] in my Spirit for having accomplished it as it had pressed upon my mind for some time past.

Of the same meeting, Elder Rudger Clawson recorded:

Quote

Pres. [Franklin D.] Richards…said he desired to say a few words about Freemasonry. A Masonic Lodge, he said, was established in Nauvoo and Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Willard Richards, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Orson Hyde, F. D. Richards, and about 1000 others in all became Masons. Joseph, the Prophet, was aware that there were some things about Masonry which had come down from the beginning and he desired to know what they were, hence the lodge. The Masons admitted some keys of knowledge appertaining to Masonry were lost. Joseph enquired of the Lord concerning the matter and He revealed to the Prophet true Masonry, as we have it in our temples. Owing to the superior knowledge Joseph had received, the Masons became jealous and cut off the Mormon Lodge

An interesting point in this last quote is that Richards says that the reason the Nauvoo Lodge was formed in the first place was to get access to the rites.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/4/2019 at 8:30 PM, clarkgoble said:

This is what is known as a category error.

I'd say two things. First, the endowment is a ritual and a creed or doctrinal exposition. So looking at it purely in terms of truth is to fundamentally misunderstand what is going on. It's like asking if baptism is true in the sense of propositions. Rituals function with people. That means they have to meet the changing needs of people. We don't do baptism in Hebrew for instance because no one would understand. We do it in English here and French in France. As people's situations change, the ritual to a degree (pun intended) have to change with it. What would work for a 1st century Jew might not work in the same way for a 21st century woman. While I really love some of the (to my eyes) ancient aspects in the pre-1990 ceremony it seems undeniable they were being misinterpreted by people unable to put themselves in that ancient mindset. So the ritual changes. As long as the changes are done with the permission of God and by proper authority there's no problem.

So change may reflect errors that have been corrected, but it may also simply reflect the audience the ritual is for. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

Why don't you think Compton is an apologist? He's not done as much of late, but I believe In Sacred Loneliness was originally done as apologetics. As I recall he even tried initially to have FARMS publish it. His theory of dynastic marriages, which as proved quite persuasive in the historic community was I believe initially intended as an apologetic argument. I've not kept up with what he's been doing of late. I don't think he's as much engaged in apologetics. But he certainly was in the past even editing one of Nibley's books and publishing with FARMS.

I do, just as much as Brian Hales.  However, my thinking is that my experience with Tac or others in the postmo community would be more likely to consider a Brian Hales as an apologist, but Compton, Quinn etc. as not apologists, even though they have strengthened my faith through historical truth through their historical apologetics.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, the narrator said:

An interesting point in this last quote is that Richards says that the reason the Nauvoo Lodge was formed in the first place was to get access to the rites.

Dubious given that there were plenty of Master Masons around not to mention exposes. (Indeed Joseph was secretly married to the wife of Morgan, killed by some individual masons for publishing the rites) 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/9/2019 at 11:56 AM, clarkgoble said:

Dubious given that there were plenty of Master Masons around not to mention exposes. (Indeed Joseph was secretly married to the wife of Morgan, killed by some individual masons for publishing the rites) 

I agree. There is plenty of reasons to see Joseph being influenced by Masonry long before Nauvoo even. What Clawson's paraphrasing of Richards shows is that the latter seemed to believe, like the others who were endowed in Nauvoo, that Masonry was indeed a relic of ancient religion.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, the narrator said:

I agree. There is plenty of reasons to see Joseph being influenced by Masonry long before Nauvoo even. What Clawson's paraphrasing of Richards shows is that the latter seemed to believe, like the others who were endowed in Nauvoo, that Masonry was indeed a relic of ancient religion.

Without saying anything inappropriate, what's interesting in Masonry that Richards talks about are the lost keys. This goes back to the origins of the Five Points where Hiram or Noah is murdered, necromancy is used to try and find the key. Within Masonry you end up with a key that symbolizes or points to the real name. I'd argue something similar happens in what Joseph restores. Suggesting strongly that these are initiation ceremonies but that they prepare one to receive what is promised rather than give it. We know that the anointing/washing preparatory to the endowment is itself preparatory to a second one given by the Prophet himself. 

As I said, Masonry, which is picking these things up from hermeticism, rosicrucianism, gnosticism and kabbalah, is missing the core elements. (Much like the Christians saw gnosticism as a counterfeit) So there definitely are core elements missing. It's also interesting that the gnostic documents that have come out since Nauvoo - the Nag Hammadi papyri, the Bruce Codex, and more - give us a much better knowledge of what was going on that was available in the 19th century.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, SMD1976 said:

Why is everybody trying to make this so complicated?  Albert Pike's book, Morals and Dogma, which many view as a "Bible" for freemasons, states very clearly in multiple places that Freemasons worship LUCIFER!!!  They are the biggest secret society in the world, (funny mormons are against secret societies, yet there's mirrors the biggest secret society?  explain that?)  I argue his book speaks volumes for true Freemasons; not only was he their leader in he mid 1800's, he is the only mason to have a Museum dedicated just to him, at the Freemason headquarters in Washington DC.  He also has a statue of him out front, they really revere him.   

But maybe the LDS "god" didn't realize Freemasons worshiped Lucifer/Satan? maybe God was fooled too? that the only way I can make sense of God letting his "prophets" join the freemasons, meaning as our leaders, we can join too!??!!  "God" was OK with the first 5 prophets being high level Freemasons and deceiving us?    Maybe that's why you are allowed to be a Mormon and a Freemason still to this day, and won't be excommunicated for it.  so if you believe the mormon prophets are "inspired" and can't deceive or mislead you, then please explain how they served two masters, God and Lucifer?  Brigham Young might as well told me personally, that I can worship Lucifer; and God is completely OK with that?  that's really the question to ask...

I'm not even worried that the temple ceremony seems to be a carbon copy of the Freemason rituals, oaths and other secret ceremonies;  ever notice the SLC temple has all the Masonic symbols on the front of it?  but no Christian symbols can be found?  I'm a 7th generation member, so this is something I take very very seriously, countless years of study, sleepless nights, thousands of hours of prayer, crying my eyes out for the truth.   I worry that I am committing an extreme version of blasphemy?  do I offend God when I do temple ceremonies that mirror a Luciferian organization?  the Bible says that God will not be mocked... I have to get out of the church right? we were commanded not to worship false gods or false prophets, and this seems to fit the definition?

- Albert Pike (extract from Morals and Dogma) "That which we must say to a crowd is—We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30thdegrees—The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay whose deeds prove his cruelty, perdify and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, andunfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil.vi"

I hear and feel you on this one. It was a huge stumbling block for me as well. I went to Fairmormon about 8 or so years ago and corresponded with Greg Smith, an LDS apologist, I saved his emails even. But what he said didn't quit relieve my struggle. Have you tried asking Fairmormon? Maybe they could be of some help. I know that if your journey has been like mine it is a ride like no other and difficult to get off. Bless you and hope you get some answers. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...