Mormons and Masons

[consiglieri]

Just read through the above referenced book by Gilbert Scharffs in the "Setting the Record Straight" series, and can't tell you how disappointed I was.

Nice cover but not much of substance inside.

The book is short enough to begin with, but most of it is given over to things that have nothing to do with the title.

One thing that caught my eye was the bold statement in which the author quoted some unnamed source, allegedly a long-time temple Mormon and Mason, to the following effect:

There are no signs or tokens in the temple endowment that are used in Masonry.

Though not a Mason, my understanding is that statement is flat-out nonsense.

(Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

And this was one of the few things in the book that actually addressed the subject.

I am concerned things like this are put forth in a book that is supposed to be "setting the record straight."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mike Reed]

Just read through the above referenced book by Gilbert Scharffs in the "Setting the Record Straight" series, and can't tell you how disappointed I was.

Nice cover but not much of substance inside.

The book is short enough to begin with, but most of it is given over to things that have nothing to do with the title.

One thing that caught my eye was the bold statement in which the author quoted some unnamed source, allegedly a long-time temple Mormon and Mason, to the following effect:

There are no signs or tokens in the temple endowment that are used in Masonry.

Though not a Mason, my understanding is that statement is flat-out nonsense.

(Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

And this was one of the few things in the book that actually addressed the subject.

I am concerned things like this are put forth in a book that is supposed to be "setting the record straight."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I am in agreement with you. It is non-sense, and perhaps even dishonest.

[consiglieri]

I am in agreement with you. It is non-sense, and perhaps even dishonest.

It sure seems somebody is being dishonest here; either Dr. Scharffs or the anonymous Mormon/Mason he quotes.

This kind of publication makes me grateful for FARMS.

And FAIR.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Notquitewetyet]

Can't Masons change the tokens and signs as needed? So that different lodges might have different signs, and that these would have evolved over time? Thus, there may have been great similarity in 1842 but not so in 2009?

[consiglieri]

Me no thinkee so.

[Notquitewetyet]

Me no thinkee so.

Someone once loaned one of the books on polygamy, and I wasn't really impressed with it. Although I have nothing against misleading people when they need to be misled, I just have a hard time thinking that an outright statement such as this could have a basis and get printed.

[mfbukowski]

There are no signs or tokens in the temple endowment that are used in Masonry.

I think the statement is referring to the fact that the motions of the signs and tokens are in a different context and not called the same things, don't mean the same things, and are therefore not the "same".

There was quite a discussion recently here about the importance of context radically changing the meaning of the signs and tokens. All meaning relies on context.

It is like the inverted 5 pointed stars in the windows of the Nauvoo temple. Are those satanic symbols? But aren't they the "same"as those used by satanists by somebody's definition?

Edit: clarification

[jadams_4242]

Just read through the above referenced book by Gilbert Scharffs in the "Setting the Record Straight" series, and can't tell you how disappointed I was.

Nice cover but not much of substance inside.

The book is short enough to begin with, but most of it is given over to things that have nothing to do with the title.

One thing that caught my eye was the bold statement in which the author quoted some unnamed source, allegedly a long-time temple Mormon and Mason, to the following effect:

There are no signs or tokens in the temple endowment that are used in Masonry.

Though not a Mason, my understanding is that statement is flat-out nonsense.

(Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

And this was one of the few things in the book that actually addressed the subject.

I am concerned things like this are put forth in a book that is supposed to be "setting the record straight."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

i think we need to keep in mind ancient parallels and not just masonry; when we think in these terms it makes the argument a whole lot more plausable for non masonry.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Just read through the above referenced book by Gilbert Scharffs in the "Setting the Record Straight" series, and can't tell you how disappointed I was.

Nice cover but not much of substance inside.

The book is short enough to begin with, but most of it is given over to things that have nothing to do with the title.

One thing that caught my eye was the bold statement in which the author quoted some unnamed source, allegedly a long-time temple Mormon and Mason, to the following effect:

There are no signs or tokens in the temple endowment that are used in Masonry.

Though not a Mason, my understanding is that statement is flat-out nonsense.

(Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

And this was one of the few things in the book that actually addressed the subject.

I am concerned things like this are put forth in a book that is supposed to be "setting the record straight."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Technically, Consiglieri, it's correct. Each of them have very subtle differences.

[consiglieri]

Technically, Consiglieri, it's correct. Each of them have very subtle differences.

I am going to go home and try to remember to bring the book with me tomorrow so I can get the actual quote.

Thanks, all!

--Consiglieri

[Lamanite]

By reading Cpt Morgans expose and Duncan's ritual you will find that certain grips, signs and penal signs are near identical to the "presentation" of the Endowment and beyond refutation IMO. One may make an argument that these things are of antiquity but I've never seen in any Egyptian, Judaic, or Pagan ritual where the initiate is "requested to pass his thumb from the first joint to the space betweeen the first and second joints, which is the pass grip..." Duncan pg 67

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Sargon]

I own the entire "Setting the Record Straight" series. My mother-in-law struggles to find Christmas presents for a LDS geek like me, and she bought me the entire series last Christmas.

I've read the one about homosexuality, and I thought it was pretty good. I've also read the one about blacks and the priesthood, and I didn't think it was so great. I loaned out the masonry one to a friend, and I haven't read any of it yet.

My brief perusal of the books in the series lead me to believe that they fall short of their title's description.

[John Larsen]

Technically, Consiglieri, it's correct. Each of them have very subtle differences.

I could post some Masonic signs and tokens that would get me banned from this board.

[Nemesis]

Be carefule where you all go with this. I have already seen a post that is getting very near the line of getting the thread shut down. Discuss temple content in very general terms and descriptions.

[kamenraider]

I could post some Masonic signs and tokens that would get me banned from this board.

Why would it get you banned? They're not temple content. As DispensatorMysteriorum said, they each have at least very subtle differences. I'd post them, but I'm a Mason.

[Tarski]

Just read through the above referenced book by Gilbert Scharffs in the "Setting the Record Straight" series, and can't tell you how disappointed I was.

Nice cover but not much of substance inside.

The book is short enough to begin with, but most of it is given over to things that have nothing to do with the title.

One thing that caught my eye was the bold statement in which the author quoted some unnamed source, allegedly a long-time temple Mormon and Mason, to the following effect:

There are no signs or tokens in the temple endowment that are used in Masonry.

I know the answer to this question but I won't risk saying. Let's just say, I see why you feel disappointed.

[Mike Reed]

I have nothing against misleading people when they need to be misled....

?

[Manny]

Why would it get you banned? They're not temple content. As DispensatorMysteriorum said, they each have at least very subtle differences. I'd post them, but I'm a Mason.

Out of mutual respect for the Masons, I'd hope that he refrains.

[Mike Reed]

Why would it get you banned? They're not temple content. As DispensatorMysteriorum said, they each have at least very subtle differences. I'd post them, but I'm a Mason.

John's comments may have something to do with the wave of conservative moderation that (understandably) followed the recent Big Love controversy. I get the feeling that this has blown over by now. I hope. Because if not... some of us may have a target on our @$$e$ very soon by participating in this thread.

Here is one quote from David Bernard's "Light On Masonry" (1829):

"the token, alias, the pass-grip, is given, as before described, by taking each other by the right hand, as if shaking hands, and placing the thumb between the fore finger and the second finger, at the third joint, or where they joined the hand, and pressing it hard enough to attract attention." (49)

I've posted this quote on this forum before, so hopefully it is still acceptable.

[e=mc2]

I am going to go home and try to remember to bring the book with me tomorrow so I can get the actual quote.

Thanks, all!

--Consiglieri

Just join the Masons so you can actually *know* for yourself.......

[Manny]

Just join the Masons so you can actually *know* for yourself.......

Don't do it! Most Masons I know are a little off....and every Mormon/Mason I know is borderline sociopathic. A google search will probably give you all the info youneed.

[Mike Reed]

Don't do it! Most Masons I know are a little off....and every Mormon/Mason I know is borderline sociopathic. A google search will probably give you all the info youneed.

Oh brother...

[e=mc2]

Don't do it! Most Masons I know are a little off....and every Mormon/Mason I know is borderline sociopathic. A google search will probably give you all the info youneed.

LOL! Yer funny......totally wrong, but also funny. I know very several stellar and noble Mason/Mormons.........

[Eldwynn]

LOL! Yer funny......totally wrong, but also funny. I know very several stellar and noble Mason/Mormons.........

Yah! Like Joseph Smith!

[Mike Reed]

For what its worth, Gilbert Scharff's book is poorly rated at Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Masons-Setti...t/dp/1932597379

Here is one review that I found interesting:

Dr. Scharffs should be commended for his effort, but his book fall short of "setting the record straight."

The book's language betrays an unfamiliarity with Masonry, and several passages sound odd to the Freemason's ear. This is a minor point, but it's as annoying as hearing a foreigner say: "I played the baseball."

There are many misstatements and inaccuracies, such as claiming that Scottish Rite Masonry was not practiced in the United States in 1842. To the contrary, the Scottish Rite was founded in Charleston, South Carolina, 1801, although it wasn't officially in Illinois until after the martyrdom. It was, however, in New York during Joseph Smith's residence there in the 1820s and1830s.

Dr. Scharffs asserts that the mechanics of Masonic ritual had "great merit" to Joseph, but "Masonic meanings" had none (p.23). Yet we later read that Heber C. Kimball admired Masonry's "high moral teachings" (p.30). Wouldn't Joseph have admired these too?

In attempting to contrast Mormonism and Masonry, Dr. Scharffs writes, "In the LDS temple everyone is equal before God; rank in Masonry is very important." Could one argue that distinctions are made between the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods? In Masonry all Brethren "meet upon the level." Our "ranks" are simply offices or describe which "degrees" (levels of membership) we hold.

In his attempts to distance the Mormon temple Endowment ritual from Masonic ritual, the book generalizes too much and Dr. Scharffs appears unaware that there are many rites and orders of Masonry. Thus, when he says that "Masonic ritual refers only to an impersonal God" (p.35), he ignores types of Masonry which require a belief in Jesus Christ (such as the Order of Knights Templar, and the Swedish Rite).

He also seems unaware of "Adoptive Masonry" which included a portrayal of the Garden of Eden, and of the fall of man, and the fact that "Father Adam" is the principal character in the Scottish Rite's "Knight of the Sun" Degree. He's unaware that members of the Swedish Rite consider themselves members of a "covenant" in which relations continue after death.

Dr. Scharffs writes "in Masonry there is only minor reference to authority and no mention of Aaron or Melchizedek" (pp.35-36). Contrary to this assertion, both Aaron and Melchizedek are mentioned in Masonic rituals. For example, the High Priests of Royal Arch Masonry are set apart to the "Order of the High Priesthood," which refers to Melchizedek, and also includes a laying on of hands. And again, contrary to Dr. Scharffs' misstatements (p. 36), Freemasonry does include ceremonial anointing with oil, as well as washings (symbolic lustrations or purifications).

Dr. Scharffs denies that Joseph attempted to give Masonic signs of distress at Carthage jail (pp. 55-56). However, we read in Times and Seasons vol. 5 (July 15, 1844), No. 13, p. 585 that "with uplifted hands they gave such signs of distress.... They were both Masons in good standing...." Joseph's friend, John D. Lee, wrote that the Prophet completed his Masonic cry of distress (Mormonism Unveiled, p. 153).

Regrettably, space doesn't permit further examples or errors, but this book has too may to be reliable.

Arturo de Hoyos, 33