Mormons and Masons

[No Touch]

I've never seen in any Egyptian, Judaic, or Pagan ritual where the initiate is "requested to pass his ...

#1 - We have a limited amount of information about practices in any ancient culture.

#2 - If people then treated these things the same way we do now, then you would expect there to be few if any people mentioning it.

#3 - In the pre-Gutenberg world, it was a lot more difficult to disseminate this sort of information if you were one of those few people.

I've seen maybe a few pictures of pieces of ancient artwork that depict things familiar to me from the Temple, but no expos

[Lamanite]

#1 - We have a limited amount of information about practices in any ancient culture.

#2 - If people then treated these things the same way we do now, then you would expect there to be few if any people mentioning it.

#3 - In the pre-Gutenberg world, it was a lot more difficult to disseminate this sort of information if you were one of those few people.

I've seen maybe a few pictures of pieces of ancient artwork that depict things familiar to me from the Temple, but no expos

[Mike Reed]

That being said. Nibley and Matthew Brown have made wonderful parallels between the modern Endowment and ancient rites and ceremonies.

Hey Lamanite. Forgive my frank response.

Sure there are ancient parallels. Masons were fascinated with antiquity and incorporated all sorts of ancient elements into their orders. I think the golden question, however, is... Are there significant elements that Joseph Smith "restored" in the endowment, which he could not have otherwise had access to in his immediate environment? I have yet to find anything significant. So far (admittedly my studies on this topic have only scratched the surface)... the endowment appears to be one huge patch quilt--having material mostly (if not entirely) from "this-worldly" contemporary sources. Sure the patch quilt is beautiful, and Joseph Smith may have had some creative (divine?) inspiration in the way he organized the ritual. But again... the materials themselves do not appear to have been derived from divine revelation.

The key concern that I have is the migration path of Joseph Smith's ideas. Nibley and (and perhaps even more so) Brown, for some unfortunate reason, both seem to have a thing for leapfrogging that path. As such, I think they have done a huge diservice to Mormon scholarship.

[Lamanite]

Hey Lamanite. Forgive my frank response.

Sure there are ancient parallels. Masons were fascinated with antiquity and incorporated all sorts of ancient elements into their orders. I think the golden question, however, is... Are there significant elements that Joseph Smith "restored" in the endowment, which he could not have otherwise had access to in his immediate environment? I have yet to find any. So far (admittedly my studies on this topic have only scratched the surface)... the endowment appears to be one huge patch quilt--having material mostly (if not entirely) from "this-worldly" contemporary sources. Sure the patch quilt is beautiful, and Joseph Smith may have had some creative (divine?) inspiration in the way he organized the ritual. But again... the materials themselves do not appear to have been derived from divine revelation.

The key concern that I have is the migration path of Joseph Smith's ideas. Nibley and (and perhaps even more so) Brown, for some unfortunate reason, both seem to have a thing for leapfrogging that path. As such, I think they have done a huge diservise to Mormon scholarship.

For the most part I agree with you. It's easier and more plausible to tie Joseph to a style of presentation that surrounded him during his lifetime and within his family, than it is to tie him to some Egyptian resurrection motif inside a pyramid. I do think the Endowment itself, apart from the presentation, is Divine in origin and a beautiful reflection of Heaven.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Just a quick post script to slightly disagree with myself. There a not a few instances where items and symbols are found way out of Josephs realm and way out of his immediate access that play significant roles within the ceremony. And I can't explain those except to attach a origin of Divinity.

[Mike Reed]

Lamanite

For the most part I agree with you. It's easier and more plausible to tie Joseph to a style of presentation that surrounded him during his lifetime and within his family, than it is to tie him to some Egyptian resurrection motif inside a pyramid. I do think the Endowment itself, apart from the presentation, is Divine in origin and a beautiful reflection of Heaven.

Well I can't argue with that. Especially since I have never seen heaven.

Just a quick post script to slightly disagree with myself. There a not a few instances where items and symbols are found way out of Josephs realm and way out of his immediate access that play significant roles within the ceremony. And I can't explain those except to attach a origin of Divinity.

Interesting. Are there any vague examples that you would feel comfortable about sharing here in this forum? If not, that is cool. I am just wondering what you may be alluding to.

Thanks,

Mike

[kamenraider]

Most Masons I know are a little off....and every Mormon/Mason I know is borderline sociopathic.

Who, me? Sociopathic?!?

edit: Glad to see DeHoyos and Literski setting the supposedly set-straight record a little straighter also.

[consiglieri]

Page 43-44: Scharffs claims that George Harris (presumably George W. Harris, second husband of Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris Smith), "a Mason who left the LDS church," said that "The signs and tokens taught in the temple were unique to Mormonism." Either Scharffs found some other schmuck named George Harris, or he made up this quote and attributed it to the "real" George Harris.

Yep!

That's the quote I had in mind.

And I brought my book with me to work and everything!

Wouldn't it be better to not publish a book at all than to publish this kind of book?

And I do understand that FARMS was founded, at least in part, to attempt a better and more scholarly form of apologetic.

But I thought this kind of stuff went out with Einar Erickson.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I do think the Endowment itself, apart from the presentation, is Divine in origin and a beautiful reflection of Heaven.

Indeed, I seem to remembering reading in HOC or some other place that Joseph presented a very basic version of the endowment at the Red Brick store, one that had a little scenery, some symbolic clothing, minor story elements, and of course all of the signs and tokens and covenants. Upon giving them the first time to Brigham Young, he (Joseph) supposedly told Brigham that he now has the critical framework and asked him to take it and make it more organized and a better presentation. This is a very rough recollection and I am sure someone here can find the full source that says what was and wasn't revealed at that time.

From this, I have always assumed that most of the motif is from Brigham, who was very steeped in Masonry from personal experience, unlike Joseph who we have to claim "influences" left and right. Most of the Masonic elements, including the beehive and star and such, most likely came from Brigham, which is really no surprise.

That said, it seems there had to have been significant differences between Joseph's endowment versus the Masonic at the time. Again, I am too busy right now with finals so can't look up the source, but when Joseph called the first group together and presented the ceremony to them, initiating those men and their wives, he was carried out of the store and hailed publicly as the return of the true Solomon who held the final keys (an expectation from certain Masonic groups). Thus, the Masons of Nauvoo viewed him as a fulfilled promise from God. Of course, he did reveal it to the women, which not only is something of an irregular, not regular lodge, it is also something he promised not to do in the regular Masonic initiations. Sooo... yeah... a lot of Masons in the area were very unhappy that he broke what they viewed as a sacred oath of secrecy (which may or may not have had a symbolic punishment oath associated with it, never can tell).

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think he means "used in the same way", but did a poor job explaining this.

[consiglieri]

I think he means "used in the same way", but did a poor job explaining this.

I think you are being charitable, Oh My Pa Pa!

The entire crux of the book is about this issue, I think.

There would be no controversy and no need to write such a book except for the points of connection.

In other words, this isn't an ancillary issue, but the key place where the words should be chosen with the greatest care to give the desired impression.

It looks to me like the author did choose his words with great care, and that he did give the desired impression . . . only the desired impression is a falsehood.

As I say, you are very charitable!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Manny]

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

I'm glad you do. As for me, if I find out a person is a Mason and is called to primary, I ensure my children are not in their class. Mason/Mormons are quacks. Case closed (in my subjective experience).

[consiglieri]

I'm glad you do. As for me, if I find out a person is a Mason and is called to primary, I ensure my children are not in their class. Mason/Mormons are quacks. Case closed (in my subjective experience).

Wow!

A Mason/Mormon is not fit to teach Primary?

You must have some experiences to result in so extreme a position, and I, for one, would be interested in hearing about them.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mike Reed]

I'm glad you do. As for me, if I find out a person is a Mason and is called to primary, I ensure my children are not in their class. Mason/Mormons are quacks. Case closed (in my subjective experience).

And of course, your apparent closed-minded bigotry toward Masons isn't "quacky" in the slightest.

[Manny]

Wow!A Mason/Mormon is not fit to teach Primary?You must have some experiences to result in so extreme a position, and I, for one, would be interested in hearing about them. All the Best!--Consiglieri

Well....I really don't think you would. Admittedly, in my family we put up a pretty strong filter at church. For whatever reasons, we've had some of the most vile sins committed against us (siblings, cousins, etc.) from people at church. It just so happens that Mormon/masons (and people with mustaches, btw) don't pass my "safe to leave my kids with" test. It's totally based on the fact that the first three Mormon/Masons I knew (two of which had mustaches, btw) were a little too touchy-feely, awkward for me. I'm sure it is just being uber-reactive on my part, but after what my family has gone through, you really can't be too careful. So, Mormon/Masons, you get the axe.

And of course, your apparent closed-minded bigotry toward Masons isn't "quacky" in the slightest.

Point taken. And disposed of.

[Sevenbak]

So, Mormon/Masons, you get the axe.Point taken. And disposed of.

Would that be this axe?

[Manny]

Would that be this axe?

http://42explore.com/figlang.htm

[Sevenbak]

http://42explore.com/figlang.htm

Just checkin'.

[kamenraider]

... It just so happens that Mormon/masons (and people with mustaches, btw) don't pass my "safe to leave my kids with" test. It's totally based on the fact that the first three Mormon/Masons I knew (two of which had mustaches, btw) were a little too touchy-feely, awkward for me....

Yeah, watch out for guys with mustaches!

[Mike Reed]

It just so happens that Mormon/masons (and people with mustaches, btw) don't pass my "safe to leave my kids with" test.

Boo!

[Manny]

Yeah, watch out for guys with mustaches!

Exactly.

[Lamanite]

Indeed, I seem to remembering reading in HOC or some other place that Joseph presented a very basic version of the endowment at the Red Brick store, one that had a little scenery, some symbolic clothing, minor story elements, and of course all of the signs and tokens and covenants. Upon giving them the first time to Brigham Young, he (Joseph) supposedly told Brigham that he now has the critical framework and asked him to take it and make it more organized and a better presentation. This is a very rough recollection and I am sure someone here can find the full source that says what was and wasn't revealed at that time.

From this, I have always assumed that most of the motif is from Brigham, who was very steeped in Masonry from personal experience, unlike Joseph who we have to claim "influences" left and right. Most of the Masonic elements, including the beehive and star and such, most likely came from Brigham, which is really no surprise.

That said, it seems there had to have been significant differences between Joseph's endowment versus the Masonic at the time. Again, I am too busy right now with finals so can't look up the source, but when Joseph called the first group together and presented the ceremony to them, initiating those men and their wives, he was carried out of the store and hailed publicly as the return of the true Solomon who held the final keys (an expectation from certain Masonic groups). Thus, the Masons of Nauvoo viewed him as a fulfilled promise from God. Of course, he did reveal it to the women, which not only is something of an irregular, not regular lodge, it is also something he promised not to do in the regular Masonic initiations. Sooo... yeah... a lot of Masons in the area were very unhappy that he broke what they viewed as a sacred oath of secrecy (which may or may not have had a symbolic punishment oath associated with it, never can tell).

The quote can be found in Ehats thesis. At least I think this is what you are looking for:

Joseph, after completing the ordinances, apologized for the improvised quarters, saying to Brigham Young,

". . . this is not arranged right, but, we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand . . . organize and systematize all these ceremonies . . . . [We performed the ordinances under Joseph's supervision numerous times] and each time I got something more so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct."

I think BY and Wilford Woodruff pretty much had the framework done by the completion of the St. George Temple.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[why me]

We can all blame the author but it is not really the fault of the author. Rather it is the fault of the editors of the series. If any of you ever published a text or a book know very well that the editors tend to catch things that the author has missed or mis-stated. Not to mention, got wrong.

[Mike Reed]

We can all blame the author but it is not really the fault of the author. Rather it is the fault of the editors of the series. If any of you ever published a text or a book know very well that the editors tend to catch things that the author has missed or mis-stated. Not to mention, got wrong.

The problems in his book are not mere typos. Have you read the reviews I posted? Have you counted the problems listed? We aren't talking about the book the size of Quinn's Mormonism and the Magic World View, Abanes' ONUG, or even Scharffs' Truth about the Godmakers. The book is 92 pages in length, a third of which is filler. And the pages themselves are tiny. A book that bad (for such a small booklet) is inexcusable, in my opinion. Editors should not be held accountable for the content of a book.

[why me]

The problems in his book are not mere typos. Have you read the reviews I posted? Have you counted the problems listed? We aren't talking about the book the size of Quinn's Mormonism and the Magic World View, Abanes' ONUG, or even Scharffs' Truth about the Godmakers. The book is 92 pages in length, a third of which is filler. And the pages themselves are tiny. A book that bad (for such a small booklet) is inexcusable, in my opinion. Editors should not be held accountable for the content of a book.

The editors that I have come across are usually exceptional in their field of expertise. It was my understanding that this book was published as part of a series and as such the series has editors overseeing the topics that the series will include. If this is the case, the editors should have some knowledge and be sure that all is well with content. No one is perfect and mistakes are made unintentionally; thus the reasons for editors.

[Mike Reed]

delete