Masonic Rites = Temple Signs

[cinepro]

.

Sorry, I can't help people who have trouble reading.

Helorum, it's really tacky to assert that section 124 "says" something, then refuse to provide any explanation. If you make the assertion that the scriptures say something, then you need to back up your claim. It's not our job to read 145 verses and try to divine what you're thinking.

I'll even do the first step for you. Here is the link:

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/124

Here is your claim:

In D&C 124 God says that they are from Him AND He says they are ancient.

QUOTE

Aquilifer: â??I favor the view that JS incorporated symbolism from his environment into the temple.â?

Then why does God say right in D&C 124 that He is going to supply those very things FOR Joseph Smith?

If I am not mistaken, you are claiming that section 124 supports a literal view of the "ancient" origin of the Masonic and Temple rites. Please cut-and-paste the verses that you feel support this claim (or any other claim you are making), and explain how these verses support your claim.

[John Williams]

Helorum, it's really tacky to assert that section 124 "says" something, then refuse to provide any explanation. If you make the assertion that the scriptures say something, then you need to back up your claim. It's not our job to read 145 verses and try to divine what you're thinking.

I'll even do the first step for you. Here is the link:

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/124

Here is your claim:

If I am not mistaken, you are claiming that section 124 supports a literal view of the "ancient" origin of the Masonic and Temple rites. Please cut-and-paste the verses that you feel support this claim (or any other claim you are making), and explain how these verses support your claim.

Well, that's what I was asking for. It's a pretty simple request. Looks like we're both still waiting.

[livy111us]

Quoting Matthew Brown, which if you read his book, would answer your questions, he says:

5 years before Joseph Smith was introduced to masonry, two essentials of the Mormon

endowment were practiced at Kirtland: the ceremonial washing (not just feet) â??from head to foot

in soap and water...next in perfumed spirits,â? and the anointing with consecrated oil. This and the

more complete LDS temple ceremony of baptism, washing, anointing, endowment (including

symbolic remembrances of Christs sacrament), and sealing in marriage, bear striking

resemblanceâ??s to the format of salvation ordinances described in the gospel of Philip which was

discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945, written around the time of Christ,: â??for this one is

no longer a Christian but a Christ. The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism

(anointing with consecrated oil) and a eucharist (sacrament) and a redemption and a bride

chamber.â? Also the book of Abraham which came into Joseph Smiths hands in 1835 has

reference to key-words of the priesthood, and many other sayings â??only to be had in the temple

of Godâ? in facsimile no. 2. This is seven years before he was a mason. Also 1 year before Joseph

Smith was a mason, on may 5 1841, William Appleby paid Joseph a visit, who read to him the

revelation on temple ordinances, now identified as Doctrine and Covenants 124, that was

received 19 January 1841, which speaks about:

-baptisms for the dead (D/C 124:39)

Washings (D/C 124:39)

-anointings (D/C 124:39)

-the keys of the holy priesthood (D/C 124:34, 95, 97) (Orson Pratt provided a footnoting system

for the Doctrine and Covenants that was included with the book up through 1918. In the

footnotes of D/C 124 he indicated that â??keysâ? referred to in verses 95 and 97 were â??the order of

God for receiving revelationsâ? and â??the order, ordained of Godâ? 'the Doctrine and Covenants of

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1918, pg. 441'. In his Nauvoo era journal, George

Laub referred to the endowmentâ??s ritual elements as â??keys whereby to approach our heavenly

Father, signs and tokens,â? thus clarifying the context of D/C 124:95 and 97; â??George Laubs Nauvoo journalâ?? Eugene England, BYU Studies 18/2 (1978): pg. 164)

-memorials of levitical sacrifices (D/C 124:39)

-solemn assemblies (D/C 124:39)

-oracles, conversations, statutes, and judgments (D/C 124:39)

-ordinances that have been kept hidden (D/C 124:40-41)

-the fullness of the priesthood (D/C 124:28)

After the two men discussed baptism for the dead, the Prophet got out his collection of

Egyptian papyrus scrolls and, while exhibiting facsimile 2, explained to Appleby that part of the

drawing was related to â??the Lord revealing the grand key words of the holy priesthood, to Adam

in the garden of Eden, as also Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the

priesthood was revealedâ? (William I. Appleby journal, 5 May 1841, ms 1401 1, LDS church

archives, Salt Lake City, Utah. Joseph Smithâ??s knowledge of key words can be traced at least as

far back as 9 March 1841 when he told the Nauvoo Lyceum that the â??great God has a name by

which he will be called which is Ahman, also in asking have reference to person like Adam, for

God made Adam just in His own image. Now this is a key for you to know how to ask and

obtain.)

[John Williams]

Quoting Matthew Brown, which if you read his book, would answer your questions, he says:

5 years before Joseph Smith was introduced to masonry, two essentials of the Mormon

endowment were practiced at Kirtland: the ceremonial washing (not just feet) â??from head to foot

in soap and water...next in perfumed spirits,â? and the anointing with consecrated oil. This and the

more complete LDS temple ceremony of baptism, washing, anointing, endowment (including

symbolic remembrances of Christs sacrament), and sealing in marriage, bear striking

resemblanceâ??s to the format of salvation ordinances described in the gospel of Philip which was

discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945, written around the time of Christ,: â??for this one is

no longer a Christian but a Christ. The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism

(anointing with consecrated oil) and a eucharist (sacrament) and a redemption and a bride

chamber.â? Also the book of Abraham which came into Joseph Smiths hands in 1835 has

reference to key-words of the priesthood, and many other sayings â??only to be had in the temple

of Godâ? in facsimile no. 2. This is seven years before he was a mason. Also 1 year before Joseph

Smith was a mason, on may 5 1841, William Appleby paid Joseph a visit, who read to him the

revelation on temple ordinances, now identified as Doctrine and Covenants 124, that was

received 19 January 1841, which speaks about:

-baptisms for the dead (D/C 124:39)

Washings (D/C 124:39)

-anointings (D/C 124:39)

-the keys of the holy priesthood (D/C 124:34, 95, 97) (Orson Pratt provided a footnoting system

for the Doctrine and Covenants that was included with the book up through 1918. In the

footnotes of D/C 124 he indicated that â??keysâ? referred to in verses 95 and 97 were â??the order of

God for receiving revelationsâ? and â??the order, ordained of Godâ? 'the Doctrine and Covenants of

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1918, pg. 441'. In his Nauvoo era journal, George

Laub referred to the endowmentâ??s ritual elements as â??keys whereby to approach our heavenly

Father, signs and tokens,â? thus clarifying the context of D/C 124:95 and 97; â??George Laubs Nauvoo journalâ?? Eugene England, BYU Studies 18/2 (1978): pg. 164)

-memorials of levitical sacrifices (D/C 124:39)

-solemn assemblies (D/C 124:39)

-oracles, conversations, statutes, and judgments (D/C 124:39)

-ordinances that have been kept hidden (D/C 124:40-41)

-the fullness of the priesthood (D/C 124:28)

After the two men discussed baptism for the dead, the Prophet got out his collection of

Egyptian papyrus scrolls and, while exhibiting facsimile 2, explained to Appleby that part of the

drawing was related to â??the Lord revealing the grand key words of the holy priesthood, to Adam

in the garden of Eden, as also Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the

priesthood was revealedâ? (William I. Appleby journal, 5 May 1841, ms 1401 1, LDS church

archives, Salt Lake City, Utah. Joseph Smithâ??s knowledge of key words can be traced at least as

far back as 9 March 1841 when he told the Nauvoo Lyceum that the â??great God has a name by

which he will be called which is Ahman, also in asking have reference to person like Adam, for

God made Adam just in His own image. Now this is a key for you to know how to ask and

obtain.)

I don't think anyone's disputing this. It's the Masonic elements we're talking about, and none of what you've quoted is specifically Masonic. Granted, the Masonic elements are not as prevalent or recognizable as they were when I went through the temple the first time, but I'm not going to get into specifics.

[livy111us]

The Temple ceremony began to be revealed long before JS was a mason. I believe the ceremony was a restoration of ancient practices, not a borrowing from masons.

You asked about D/C 124, so I posted it for you.

[John Williams]

The Temple ceremony began to be revealed long before JS was a mason. I believe the ceremony was a restoration of ancient practices, not a borrowing from masons.

You asked about D/C 124, so I posted it for you.

I'm not suggesting that the temple ceremony is borrowed from the Masons, though certain elements are clearly crossovers. As I said, borrowing some of the symbols from the Masons does not preclude a revealed and inspired temple ceremony.

[livy111us]

Great! We almost agree on it then.

[John Williams]

Great! We almost agree on it then.

Then what are we arguing about, friend?

[The_Monk]

I don't think anyone's disputing this. It's the Masonic elements we're talking about, and none of what you've quoted is specifically Masonic. Granted, the Masonic elements are not as prevalent or recognizable as they were when I went through the temple the first time, but I'm not going to get into specifics.

If one equates "keys of the priesthood" with signs and tokens as Joseph and other early LDS did, then we are talking, to some extent, about a subset of Masonic elements. Kind of.

At least some of those elements no longer present today have clear ancient and Biblical analogues (which I doubt Joseph was aware of, for various reasons.) Other elements, I think, may have less specific analogues, but the form they took in the Nauvoo rite was indeed Masonic.

If I can return to my recipe analogy and twist it a bit.

Joseph Smith: "Hmmm. This recipe calls for chocolate of some kind. Where can I find chocolate? The Masons have some. I'll use theirs." Although the Masons' particular chocolate, say semi-sweet, is no longer there, nevertheless some form of chocolate, as called for in the recipe, remains. I have a particular element in mind here, but am bound from specifying. I'd reword my analogy for other elements, but this is representative.

(Nota bene, I'm not saying this was ever conscious or unconscious, nor that we have historical statements to this effect on this topic. I'm simply trying to explain my own position.)

I should make explicit that while I do believe God revealed the temple ordinances to Joseph Smith, I don't believe he was, for example, handed a script and explicit instructions. As with other things, I think he was given something in the most basic form and left to wrestle with it.

I believe he received bits and pieces of the temple over time [this can be supported historically, for example, in Andrew Ehat's MA and Matt Brown's timeline], and perhaps didn't quite know what he had. Perhaps he did, but needed some kind of revelational catalyst to put it all together. I believe Joseph had input (whether conscious or unconscious) into the final form the recipe took, but I do not expect that this can be clearly proven from statements of his.

[HiJolly]

The Monk is wording this much better than I did. You can deny Masonic influence all you want, but that denial will earn you very strange looks indeed from the many LDS men who have, after being endowed in the LDS temple, then been admitted into a Lodge of Freemasonry. As they go through their 3 degrees, all sorts of realizations, epiphanies and "ah HA!" moments are experienced, as told to me by a couple of Mason friends of mine.

While I'm not saying this is the same, per se, nevertheless it reminds me of the first time I went through the Salt Lake temple and saw the endowment with live actors, instead of the canned film. This was 15 years after my first endowment. I had those amazinge epiphanies and "ah HA!" moments myself, and here it was the same endowment I had known all those years. But seeing it unfold in person, yes, it was amazing. And I think I would not have realized some things had I not experienced it.

HiJolly

[Baurak Ale]

QUOTE(Baurak Ale @ Sep 25 2007, 09:34 AM) *

<snip> Brigham Young was not an initiated Royal Arch Freemason, however he was in possession of Royal Arch secret cipher code and perfectly understood how to use it and did so.

LoL. Yes, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall when the Fraters in Quincy opened and read that one! diablo2.gif

I don't get it why the laughing Hi Jolly?

[HiJolly]

I don't get it why the laughing Hi Jolly?

Because 'the brethren' were not authorized to be using the cipher. It was rather an arrogant gesture to write the request to start the York rite in Nauvoo using a cipher that only York rite initiates are supposed to know. I am told the only man in Nauvoo that had been initiated in the York rite at that time was Bennett. Kinda 'in your face', if you will. That's my take on it, anyway.

HiJolly

[California]

As I have mentioned before, I usually participate in an spanish speaking message board. Unfortunately for the spanish speaking or any other people who don't speak English ... we don't have the apologetic information that becomes a great tool to set the record straight in many doctrinal issues in our own language and it has become an incovenience when a lot of anti-mormon propaganda has come in our way.

There's a certain individual claiming to be an ex-mormon. She is an individual who has brought to our attention many doctrinal issues. In this certain case... she has posted some pictures showing temple signs and comparing them to masonic signs. I don't know if I should post them here or not. But I need help with this kind of information.

I would like to ignore every comment or the so-called information she brings forth but, there are many new converts that come in to the message board and they usually ask what is going on?

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...reemasonry.html

I found this very useful. It's called "The Message and the Messenger" which is the gyst of it. The signs etc. are the same, but the covenants and the meanings are revelation. It's actually quite simple.

[Platypus Man]

I think that the principles taught through symbolism are ancient, but I'm somewhat on John W's side of the fence in that I favor the view that JS incorporated symbolism from his environment into the temple. While I'm not sure that the symbols themselves are inherently sacred or that they required restoration, what the symbols represent is sacred. For me, it's a minor distinction though, and I am open to counter arguements.

That's the view that I have as well. Interestingly enough, the borrowing of religious symbols, traditions, stories and icons from your surrounding culture (even if that culture is pagan) to teach a religious principle runs very deep in the history of Judaism and Christianity.

If God didn't have a problem with it then, then why would He have a problem with it now? If prophets of the past were able, even inspired to do it, then why couldn't a modern day prophet be as well?

[The_Monk]

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...reemasonry.html

I found this very useful. It's called "The Message and the Messenger" which is the gyst of it. The signs etc. are the same, but the covenants and the meanings are revelation. It's actually quite simple.

The author Greg Kearney, posted a page or two back. I don't think it's quite as simple as he makes out, but Masonry is his specialty, not the ancient Biblical world.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

As I have mentioned before, I usually participate in an spanish speaking message board. Unfortunately for the spanish speaking or any other people who don't speak English ... we don't have the apologetic information that becomes a great tool to set the record straight in many doctrinal issues in our own language and it has become an incovenience when a lot of anti-mormon propaganda has come in our way.

There's a certain individual claiming to be an ex-mormon. She is an individual who has brought to our attention many doctrinal issues. In this certain case... she has posted some pictures showing temple signs and comparing them to masonic signs. I don't know if I should post them here or not. But I need help with this kind of information.

I would like to ignore every comment or the so-called information she brings forth but, there are many new converts that come in to the message board and they usually ask what is going on?

Tambien hablo espanol y un poquito de Tzeltal Maya. Donde esta su amiga para que podia explicarle las cosas que creemos?

(I too speak Spanish and a little Tzeltal Maya. Where is your friend that I may explain to her the things that we believe. Where is the forum?

[Helorum]

John W said: "according to [John A.] Widtsoe, Joseph Smith was familiar with Masons and their rites before section 124 was revealed."

Your statement is partly false. Joseph Smith did indeed know people who were Masons, but Widtsoe does not say anywhere that the Prophet was familiar with Masonic rites before 19 January 1841 â??-- when D&C 124 was revealed.

John A. Widtsoe cites no source whatever for his UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM that Joseph Smith acquieced to the advice of Mormon Masons that a Masonic Lodge be established in Nauvoo. This is not history -- it is SPECULATION.

John W Said: "[Joseph Smith's] brother and most of his closest friends and advis[o]rs were Masons."

Would you care to provide an authoritative list of the Prophet's "closest friends and advis[o]rs" so we can verify your claim? 'Some' of them were indeed, but certainly not 'most' of them. Since Hyrum Smith and Sidney Rigdon were, in actuality, Joseph Smith's "closest . . . advisors" at the time it can be said with absolute accuracy that only 50% of them were Masons --- which does not qualify as "most" of them.

John W said: "I don't see anything specifically Masonic in section 124. Do you?"

Why should there be? God tells Joseph Smith in that section that He is going to restore temple ordinances to Joseph Smith and He lists many of the elements which will be restored (including the core elements). Hint -- you must look at the ENTIRE section to identify ALL of the elements and read the footnotes that were provided in the D&C by Orson Pratt in earlier years, if you need a clue.

John W said: "borrowing some of the symbols from the Masons does not preclude a revealed and inspired temple ceremony."

How in the world does something 'borrowed' from an earthly source become magically converted into something 'revealed' from a heavenly source? Alchemy??? Seriously . . . . . if I am an authentic prophet of God and I borrow the rites of, say, the ancient guild of carpenters and then announce that practicing these ancient rites will bring any individual exaltation in the kingdom of God is the Lord really going to see this as being eternally binding and valid and thereby grant exaltation to such practitioners (especially if He did not establish these rites)? It is no different with the rites of ancient stonecutters and architects. The Masons were the ones who â??borrowedâ?? ancient rites that came down through the Apostasy - Joseph Smith stated that plainly - and God restored to Joseph Smith the original pattern of those degenerated but once-valid rites that He had revealed to His covenant people in the Tabernacle built by Moses and the Temple built by Solomon.

California said:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...reemasonry.html

I found this very useful. It's called "The Message and the Messenger" which is the gyst of it. The signs etc. are the same, but the covenants and the meanings are revelation. It's actually quite simple.â?

No, it's not that simple at all.

Kearny's theory directly contradicts the information provided to every LDS temple patron at the opening of every endowment session, wherein the endowment itself is explicitly and clearly defined. Kearny claims something that the Church contradicts in the most direct manner possible -- through an official statement in an official setting. Therefore, Kearny's theory cannot be valid.

And, by the way, "The signs etc. are [NOT] the same."â?

cinepro said: “Helorum, it's really tacky to assert that section 124 ‘says’ something, then refuse to provide any explanation. If you make the assertion that the scriptures say something, then you need to back up your claim.”

Cinepro, it’s really lame for critics to claim that they are just objective seekers after truth, but flatly refuse to do any individual research to obtain knowledge. Besides, I proved conclusively (and on purpose) by that exercise that some critics can’t see what’s right in front of them. I laughed my keister off for hours afterward – and then got rather depressed about the implications of it all!

cinepro said: “It's not our job to read 145 verses and try to divine what you're thinking.”

I don’t recall talking to anyone but a single individual, who at least had the backbone to crack open the scriptures and make some kind of attempt at understanding (though failing miserably).

cinepro said: “If I am not mistaken, you are claiming that section 124 supports a literal view of the "ancient" origin of the Masonic . . . rites.”

You are indeed mistaken. D&C 124 says absolutely nothing about Masonry.

Baurak Ale said: “I think its very well within the boundaries of possibility that Joseph Smith could [have] known the [M]asonic rituals before he was initiated.”

And it’s also “very well within the boundaries of possibility” that since Brigham Young lived in the state that produces the ‘Greatest Snow on Earth’ he was the person who really invented downhill skiing. The only problem (with both propositions) is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE to support the theory.

Baurak Ale said: “when it comes to dvulging . . . the contents of secret rituals to Joseph Smith I think the majority of people wouldn't [have] thought twice if asked by him.”

Wow . . . what a huge, UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSUMPTION. Where is some reliable evidence to back it up? And you are forgetting one very important point that invalidates this view. If a Freemason were to reveal ANY of the secrets of Masonic ritual to Joseph Smith before he became initiated into that fraternity they would have been disciplined and could even be expelled for doing so (see the Nauvoo Lodge by-laws). There is NO EVIDENCE that anyone was ever disciplined for doing any such thing and, hence, there is no evidence of any such action taking place. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Joseph Smith was in possession of any Masonic literature or exposures before he was initiated as a Mason and thus learned Masonic secrets through that means.

HiJolly said: “I suppose the book you reference hereafter (and long before this post, of course) is the proof you speak of?”

That book is only a portion of the available evidence for the ancient nature of LDS endowment elements. I picked up more from the Maxwell Institute just recently.

HiJolly said: “all this is merely my anecdotally informed opinion. In every case, and without apology. But yes, that is my opinion. Have you evidence to the contrary? I am nothing if not willing to receive additional truths.”

I agree that your view only qualifies as an “opinion” since there is plenty of documentary evidence to the contrary.

HiJolly said: “So you're in the camp that believe the Freemasonry tradition/teaching has nothing to do with ascension?”

I am in the camp that believes (based on documentary evidence) that the three Masonic ceremonies Joseph Smith was initiated into in March 1842 (Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, Master Mason) did NOT teach him how to ascend into heaven and achieve exaltation in God's kingdom -- neither did they have the power or ability to do so.

HiJolly said: “in one of the ancillary Masonic organizations, the progression is from Prophet >> Priest >> King.”

Was such a “progression” taught to Joseph Smith during his Masonic initiation as an Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, or Master Mason? Or did God call him a prophet in 1830 (D&C 21:1) and teach him about becoming a priest and king in 1832 (D&C 76:56) --- many years before he became a Freemason?

And where did the Masons get the idea of becoming a prophet, priest, and king? How about the Bible?

[John Williams]

Your statement is partly false. Joseph Smith did indeed know people who were Masons, but Widtsoe does not say anywhere that the Prophet was familiar with Masonic rites before 19 January 1841 â?? when D&C 124 was revealed.

True, but given that no one is claiming that there's anything Masonic in section 124, I'm not sure what your point is.

John A. Widtsoe cites no source whatever for his UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM that Joseph Smith acquieced to the advice of Mormon Masons that a Masonic Lodge be established in Nauvoo. This is not history -- it is SPECULATION.

Heh. I think this is first time I have ever heard a member slam an apostle for unsubstantiated speculation. I thought I'd seen everything.

Would you care to provide an authoritative list of the Prophetâ??s â??closest friends and advis[o]rsâ? so we can verify your claim? â??Someâ?? of them were indeed, but certainly not â??mostâ?? of them. Since Hyrum Smith and Sidney Rigdon were, in actuality, Joseph Smithâ??s â??closest . . . advisorsâ? at the time it can be said with absolute accuracy that only 50% of them were Masons --- which does not qualify as â??mostâ? of them.

I misspoke. I should have stuck with Widtsoe's statement that many of his closest advisers (Webster's has "advisor" as the secondary spelling) were Masons.

Why should there be? God tells Joseph Smith in that section that He is going to restore temple ordinances to Joseph Smith and He lists many of the elements which will be restored (including the core elements). Hint â?? you must look at the ENTIRE section to identify ALL of the elements â?? and read the footnotes that were provided in the D&C by Orson Pratt in earlier years, if you need a clue.

I'm not the one claiming a connection between section 124 and Masons. If you're saying that the elements listed are not related to Masonic rites, then we're in agreement.

How in the world does something â??borrowedâ? from an earthly source become magically converted into something â??revealedâ? from a heavenly source? Alchemy??? Seriously . . . . . if I am an authentic prophet of God and I borrow the rites of, say, the ancient guild of carpenters and then announce that practicing these ancient rites will bring any individual exaltation in the kingdom of God is the Lord really going to see this as being eternally binding and valid and thereby grant exaltation to such practitioners (especially if He did not establish these rites)? It is no different with the rites of ancient stonecutters and architects. The Masons were the ones who â??borrowedâ?? ancient rites that came down through the Apostasy â?? Joseph Smith stated that plainly â?? and God restored to Joseph Smith the original pattern of those degenerated but once-valid rites that He had revealed to His covenant people in the Tabernacle built by Moses and the Temple built by Solomon.

Again, no one is insisting that he borrowed the rites, but clearly some elements of Masonic rites. Is it just me, or are you really angry?

[Helorum]

John W said: "no one is insisting that [Joseph Smith] borrowed [Masonic] rites, but clearly some elements of Masonic rites"

Whether the accusation is about 'rites' or 'elements of rites' it is still an accusation that Joseph Smith was a thief and, of necessity, a liar -- since he claimed that God told him that God would restore the temple ordinances to him.

[John Williams]

Whether the accusation is about 'rites' or 'elements of rites' it is still an accusation that Joseph Smith was a thief and, of necessity, a liar -- since he claimed that God told him that God would restore the temple ordinances to him.

Thief and a liar? Are you kidding?

[HiJolly]

Whether the accusation is about 'rites' or 'elements of rites' it is still an accusation that Joseph Smith was a thief and, of necessity, a liar -- since he claimed that God told him that God would restore the temple ordinances to him.

That's just rediculous. And disgusting.

HiJolly

[John Williams]

That's just rediculous. And disgusting.

HiJolly

Nah, just silly hyperbole. I guess I'm wondering how I missed this hyperliteralist strain in the church. 40 years an active member, and I never saw so much of this as I have in the last few days.

[Helorum]

"That's just rdiculous. And disgusting."

Yes, the anti-Mormon charges against the Prophet are indeed ridiculous and disgusting. God said that he would supply the temple ordinances to Joseph Smith and the Prophet stated that this is, indeed, what took place.

Like Hugh Nibley said with regard to this very issue, 'Why would Joseph Smith need to ransack a magpie's nest when he was stocking a King's treasury?'

[John Williams]

Yes, the anti-Mormon charges against the Prophet are indeed ridiculous and disgusting. God said that he would supply the temple ordinances to Joseph Smith and the Prophet stated that this is what indeed took place.

It's funny that my view of the relationship between the Masons and the endowment hasn't changed since long before I left the church. And apparently, my view is shared by many here who are active members. What about my position is a ridiculous and disgusting anti-Mormon charge?

Like Hugh Nibley said in regard to this very issue, why would Joseph Smith need to ransack a magpie's nest when he was stocking a King's treasury?

That's a rather insulting reference to Masons, don't you think? As I said before, Joseph Smith said that he took truth wherever he found it. If he found truth in Masonic symbols, I have no quarrel with that.

[Helorum]

Joseph Smith said that he took truth wherever he found it. If he found truth in Masonic symbols, I have no quarrel with that.

But you have yet to conclusively, or even remotely, demonstrate that your model of reality is what really took place -- and in the face of Joseph Smith denying your viewpoint, no less.