Mike Reed Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I'm aware of quite a large amount of research and writing (some published, some not) that has already done the job.You ARE?? News to me. Please provide a few links then.
George Miller Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 When this thread started I had thought to add a comment, but due to time constraints I decided not to post. Watching the progression of this thread I have decided to go ahead and post my own two cents. I am an active member of the LDS faith who has served as a temple worker in three temples. I am also an active Freemason who was raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason in Tennessee while at graduate school. Currently I reside in Ann Arbor where I actively attend a lodge in which I am presently serving as Senior Warden. I am also a thirty-second degree Scottish Rite Mason in the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction. I am an avid historian of Freemasonry and I belong to two lodges of research and I have received special access from the Grand Lodge of New York to records for a paper I am preparing on the Morgan Affair. I am also interested in the connections between Mormon and Masons and I will be speaking at the next MHA on one small aspect of my research.Nibley did indeed believe that there was a connection between the Knights Templar and the Freemason as is evidenced in his writing. I have heard from three independent sources that when Nibley was asked about the connection, that he suggested they read the book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. It is likely that Nibley's views on the connection revolved around the evidence presented in this book. As many historians both Masonic and academic have noted, the book is just bad pseudo-historical nonsense. While I respect Nibley's agile mind and prodiguous publications record, I think that the evidence clearly indicates that Hugh Nibley was just incorrect in this case.Let me also put in my own opinion on the Matthew Brown's book Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons. I was excited to read Matthew Brown's treatment of the subject and I ordered the book in the first week after its publication. As a both a Mormon and Mason I have to agree 100% with Nick Literski's review of the book. While there are things to be applauded in the book's tact on the subject, in the end I found myself largely dissatisfied with book and I found many places where the book was misleading. I know that Matthew is a poster on this forum, and I mean him no disrespect; and I hope that he will just accept my comment here as simply a difference of opinion.
Helorum Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I have to agree 100% with Nick Literski's review of the book.Are you claiming that this review is 100% factually accurate; that it contains no errors?
George Miller Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Almost no written publication is 100% accurate as you, as a scholar, are well aware. I do find his critique to be articulate, fair, and compelling. My own research on the subject has confirmed Literski's criticisms and raised even more issues with your conclusions.
George Miller Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I would love to hear if and where you might think that Literski's criticisms are invalid or incorrect.
cinepro Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Are you claiming that this review is 100% factually accurate; that it contains no errors?I don't know about "100% factually accurate" (is anything?), but for those who haven't read the review, here are some excerpts:While Brown cites a reluctance to inappropriately discuss details of Masonic ritual, he overcomes this feeling enough to demonstrate his lack of understanding on the subject. Unfazed by the hundreds of historians who have long since admitted that the origins of Masonic ritual are lost in the mists of time, Brown confidently assures his readers that Freemasonry is the product of Catholic and primitive Christian ceremonies. Brown
Helorum Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Almost no written publication is 100% accurateBut you gave it a "100%" endorsement, so it seems you agree with "100%" of its content. If it is not "100%" accurate in its content then the question becomes, 'What % of the statements within it are accurate - or even undisputed'?
Helorum Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I do find his critique to be . . . fairAnd yet, the Association of Mormon Letters had such a problem with it that they took the rare step of obtaining a second review.
George Miller Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Helorum - I would ask you to please refrain viewing my comments on the subject in such black and white terms. If you have specific disagreements with Nick's review that you wish rebut then I ask you to bring them up.
Helorum Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 please refrain viewing my comments on the subject in such black and white termsSorry, I thought "100%" meant "100%."
SkepticTheist Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 And yet, the Association of Mormon Letters had such a problem with it that they took the rare step of obtaining a second review.Matt, I get my feelings hurt all the time by people who don't like my stuff, and I'm trying to overcome that. I can relate as to why you would feel attacked, and I can definitely relate to the emotions involved. Because I constantly put myself in the position of being against the establishment, because I disagree very strongly with quite a number of establishment paradigms, that are at the core of people's apologetic defense of the Church, on both the front of Book of Mormon Geography, as well as Book of Abraham studies. And I find myself a loner most of the time. I think that 90% of the time, people think that I'm up in the night on quite a number of things.If I have offended you, since you have attacked me with logical fallacies about what I have said previously, it was not my intent to attack you personally. I have issues with your scholarship in your book. Please don't take that personally, as I have hitherto found that you seem to be a great guy. Ed Goble
evangelist Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Who came first the Mason or LDS??I also seen simularites and the same rituals in the Islam doctrines and tradition as the pagans ritual and practice in Mecca.They say it is not a copy also so what up?one love
Mike Reed Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Matthew/Helorum rarely admits it when he is wrong. For example, I debunked his following claim several years ago:
Bill Hamblin Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 As far as I know... Matthew Brown/Helorum still has yet to admit his error on this point. Rather, he has insisted (in past MADb threads) that he was merely speaking in regards to those who claim that Joseph Smith stole the symbol from the Order of the Eastern Star specifically. Right. If he can't admit this single error, then I think it unlikely that he will admit the other countless errors he's made when writing on the topic of Mormonism and Masonry.There's someone else I know who has trouble admitting when he's wrong.
Mike Reed Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 There's someone else I know who has trouble admitting when he's wrong.Professor William Hamblin.Thank you for sparing us the details. It would be a shame to boggle readers down by actually substantiating your accusations.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Professor William Hamblin.Thank you for sparing us the details. It would be a shame to boggle readers down by actually substantiating your accusations.The wicked flee when no man pursueth.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Matthew/Helorum rarely admits it when he is wrong. For example, I debunked his following claim several years ago:
Helorum Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Since the inverted star from Nauvoo is being discussed, an update on the issue might be of interest. The claim of Joseph Smith 'borrowing' the emblem from Freemasonry during the Nauvoo period can now be discounted since the inverted star design exists in the Joseph Smith Papers collection bearing the date 1837. The image was definitely known in Kirtland, Ohio in public circumstances, was in the personal possession of Joseph Smith, and was displayed in a non-Masonic context.
Mike Reed Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Pretty sad that a BYU professor is so blinded by his apologetic posturing that he can't read basic english. Matt Brown said:
Bill Hamblin Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Pretty sad that a BYU professor is so blinded by his apologetic posturing that he can't read basic english. Matt Brown said:
Bill Hamblin Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Pretty sad that a BYU professor is so blinded by his apologetic posturing that he can't read basic english. What's really sad is that I'm stupid enough to try to reason with people like you on Internet Boards. But that's an easy problem to correct.
Helorum Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Since two particularly negative reviews of the 'Mormons and Masons' book have been showcased on this thread (and elsewhere) I thought it would be interesting to survey the opinions of the general public with regard to the volume, as represented in two well-known public forums where graduated ratings can be given by the reviewer.The results of the survey place the two negative reviews mentioned in this thread into a broader context (since both reviewers are actually represented in the results, as commenters in the public forum). On both of the scales below "1" is designated as most negative and "5" is designated as most postive. Each dash represents an individual rating. GoodReads.comFebruary 8, 20115 -----4 ---------------3 -------------------------2 ------------1 ------Amazon.comFebruary 8, 20115 ---4 3 2 -1 -We should keep in mind that not all reviews are created equal.And neither are Message Board commentators. A reader who was relatively uninformed about the subject isn't in a position to judge the accuracy of the book or the weight of the arguments presented in the book.And nobody is in a position to judge accurately where most, or even all, of the reviewers who participated in the exercise are situated on the spectrum. Anyone
George Miller Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 The claim of Joseph Smith 'borrowing' the emblem from Freemasonry during the Nauvoo period can now be discounted since the inverted star design exists in the Joseph Smith Papers collection bearing the date 1837. The image was definitely known in Kirtland, Ohio in public circumstances, was in the personal possession of Joseph Smith, and was displayed in a non-Masonic context.That is indeed an interesting find my friend. Would you be willing to give us some more information on this find?
Mike Reed Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Do you agree that Joseph could not have taken the star from the Order of the Eastern Star?This wasn't Matt' argument. Again, he said,
Bill Hamblin Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 This wasn't Matt' argument. Again, he said,
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.