What Difference Does It Make If Non-Mormons Know The Secrets?

[mfbukowski]

I read through that one. I think they've got a few things wrong. Some are minor tidbits (Hiram Abiff was not the Grand Master, King Solomon was), and the word they give is also wrong.

I think they seriously draw the wrong conclusion about the example of Hiram Abiff's life. ...

I think they're reaching here. A Mason attempts to govern himself according to what everyone feels are just and virtuous principles, namely integrity, honesty, courage, respect, and such, and Hiram Abiff's death exemplified this. The idea is that living a just and upright life will leave you with nothing to hide once you get to Heaven and account yourself before your Maker.

Fair enough.

Nowhere in Blue Lodge (1st three degrees only) Masonry does there exist the idea of repentance, nor the idea of forgiveness for transgression at the feet of Almighty God. There is, however, the metaphor between building a life of a man with right pieces and building a Lodge or King Solomon's Temple with the right foundational stones and supporting columns. The more true and accurate each stone, the more plomb and straight each pillar, the more strong and steadfast the edifice. Likewise, a man who builds his life using the metaphorical stones and pillars of the sublime principles of Freemasonry may become a strong and steadfast man.

I can see how these could have Christian parallels for those who wanted to see them though- "upon this rock I will build my church" and the savior being the "stone cut without hands" etc etc, the idea of the "pillars of the temple" and their names, the idea that the stone which rolls forth destroys the "natural man"- both the carnal man AND the man with feet of clay which represents the kingdoms of this world in Daniel- so you have the millenium and the destruction of the natural man- again, parallels between building a good life, building buildings, and the death and destruction of both in the death of Hiram and

I tend to see several layers of symbolism in a lot of stuff though, so these "parallels" just pop out at me.

But I agree with you, I think the endowment IS in another context- or at least we might say a "highly more developed" Christian context than anything which can remotely be seen in Masonry- again, me not being a Mason.

I agree that I see nothing of redemption or repentance, which are major themes of the endowment, I don't see sacrifice, obedience, or anything like the United Order, and many other things missing in even the most "Christian" interpretation of the masonic ceremonies.

[Mars]

I can see how these could have Christian parallels for those who wanted to see them though- "upon this rock I will build my church" and the savior being the "stone cut without hands" etc etc, the idea of the "pillars of the temple" and their names, the idea that the stone which rolls forth destroys the "natural man"- both the carnal man AND the man with feet of clay which represents the kingdoms of this world in Daniel- so you have the millenium and the destruction of the natural man- again, parallels between building a good life, building buildings, and the death and destruction of both in the death of Hiram and I tend to see several layers of symbolism in a lot of stuff though, so these "parallels" just pop out at me.

No disagreement with the parallels, but I think the part I put in bold is the really what's going on. If coolrok sees enough parallels to call it a religion, then I guess that's fine, but he really should qualify it as his opinion rather than announcing to the world that it is a religion. A subtle but very important difference.

But I agree with you, I think the endowment IS in another context- or at least we might say a "highly more developed" Christian context than anything which can remotely be seen in Masonry- again, me not being a Mason.

I agree that I see nothing of redemption or repentance, which are major themes of the endowment, I don't see sacrifice, obedience, or anything like the United Order, and many other things missing in even the most "Christian" interpretation of the masonic ceremonies.

When I was made an Entered Apprentice, I had braced myself for the torment I thought would surely come after having seen just how much had been ripped off from Masonry and incorporated into the Endowment. I was vaguely aware of pre-1990 changes, though I received my own Endowment in 2000. I was quite surprised at how the similarities swam at the surface between the two ceremonies. But that's my experience, and I'm sure there are others who had quite the opposite experience.

[coolrok7]

(Vance) So, the Boy Scouts of America is a religious system?

"On my honor, I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."

There is the National Council for the organization.

And they have a Handbook (scripture).

Mormon Churches as well as other Church groups sponsor troops as a source for good training of both young and old alike in the sense of duty to "God" and country. The handbook is not Biblical Scripture.

Mormonism as well as others appeals to their view of "God" as a moral basis of which all morality comes from.

I would advance that the Biblical God is not the Mormon god that was once a man and is now God according to Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow.

So in Mormon troops the reference would be to the Mormon g(G)od as that is their belief. In others it would be to the Biblical God.

[mfbukowski]

No disagreement with the parallels, but I think the part I put in bold is the really what's going on. If coolrok sees enough parallels to call it a religion, then I guess that's fine, but he really should qualify it as his opinion rather than announcing to the world that it is a religion. A subtle but very important difference.

Absolutely! There is no "nature of God" or any theology at all- no redemption, none of the other things I listed earlier either. No salvation, heaven, hell, creation myth, no eschatology, commandments. There is a lot of ritual and that is about it, as far as I can tell. I am open to correction, of course, because I really don't know.

When I was made an Entered Apprentice, I had braced myself for the torment I thought would surely come after having seen just how much had been ripped off from Masonry and incorporated into the Endowment. I was vaguely aware of pre-1990 changes, though I received my own Endowment in 2000. I was quite surprised at how the similarities swam at the surface between the two ceremonies. But that's my experience, and I'm sure there are others who had quite the opposite experience.

I think some of the changes deleted parallels, unquestionably. But everything I know about Masonry, as a non-Mason, confirms what you are saying.

[mfbukowski]

... the Mormon g(G)od ...

Which is it?

Are you trying to be as offensive as possible- you will get no converts that way- or are you just incredibly incapable of empathy?

Either way, you are a terrible missionary.

Whatever you think you are selling, I never would want any part of it. Board rules prohibit preaching.

[Vance]

This is coolrok7 totally missing the point.

Mormon Churches as well as other Church groups sponsor troops as a source for good training of both young and old alike in the sense of duty to "God" and country. The handbook is not Biblical Scripture.

There aren't "Mormon churches" there is only "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".

The Handbook is "scripture" to scouts. Nobody said any thing about it being "Biblical" scripture.

Mormonism as well as others appeals to their view of "God" as a moral basis of which all morality comes from.

"others" includes all Christian churches.

I would advance that the Biblical God is not the Mormon god that was once a man and is now God according to Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow.

So, you reject that Jesus was ever a man?

The Bible disagrees with you.

So in Mormon troops the reference would be to the Mormon g(G)od as that is their belief. In others it would be to the Biblical God.

We have already shown that it is you that rejects the Biblical God.

[David T]

~squirms about being put on the spot~

From what I've understood of the ritual up to this point, I don't think that's the point or context of Masonry. If it is, I haven't picked up on that and it certainly isn't/hasn't been taught to me that way. Nor do you find the death of Hiram Abiff allowing others to live, in the way that the Lord's death broke the bonds of death and brought about a resurrection. The candidate certainly 'dies,' and is then 'raised,' but that's where the similarities go out of sync. There is no sacrificial or salvation oriented purpose to Hiram Abiff's death. It's also contrary to the principles of Masonry, specifically the attempt to be a non-religious fraternity. I can think of many Masons I've met in Utah who would agree with me.

Where did Masonry originate? No one really knows. The earliest traceable and concrete records we have of justly constituted Masonic authority originate in England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Grand Lodges of those three countries represent the Masonic authority even above state Grand Lodges for America. If at any time some justly constituted Masonic authority felt that the Hiram Abiff story was a parallel or type of Christ, I haven't picked up on it.

As a final note, I would mention that the first half a dozen or so links that pertained to Hiram Abiff as Jesus Christ were overly-hyped parallels made by websites who feel that Masonry attempts to substitute the Savior's role for that of Hiram Abiff's.

By the way, concerning historic views of the Masonic ritual as being essentially interconnected with Christianity, check out this 1823 Book, called Antiquities of Freemasonry. Mormons in particular would find it of interest and strangely familiar, and see perhaps what may have been some interesting influences.

Concerning Adam's Fall:

. On this unhappy dereliction from purity are founded some of those characteristic insignia of Masonry, which convey a lasting remembrance of our degenerate state, as well as the glorious promise of'redemption. These TOKENS were unnecessary when man was' in a state of perfection; but after the Fall they were practiced by Adam, and are considered as the immovable landmarlcs of the order unto this day.

Abel's sacrifice was more acceptable than that of Cain, because it was an animal sacrifice, and offered conformably to the divine appointment; while that of Cain, being unbloody, was an abomination, 'because it did not contain any reference to the atonement of Christ, without which all sacrifices and offerings were unacceptable to God.

In this book, the Hiram Abiff story is significantly and notably skipped, with the notice to the end that those familiar with the sublime degree need no further details.

Now, I don't personally think the book is historically accurate, but I do think it accurately presents what many favorably connect with Masonry in the 1820s-1830s did think and believe

[mfbukowski]

Now, I don't personally think the book is historically accurate, but I do think it accurately presents what many favorably connect with Masonry in the 1820s-1830s did think and believe

I am not sure why we LDS feel threatened by parallels with Masonry. I suppose what is threatening is that someone will believe that "Joseph got it all from the Masons" and therefore he was not a prophet. Yet if one thinks it through, this should not be threatening at all.

How could anyone think that Joseph, if a fraud, no one would never discover the connections? Especially when all the early church leaders were Masons?

Are we expected to think that they did not see the similarities between the endowment and Masonry, and that somehow the parallels bothered them?

If they knew all this and they kept their testimonies with first hand knowledge of what was going on- why should we find the parallels threatening?

I can't understand it!

Clearly the early leaders saw the ceremonies for what they were- revelations with similarities to Masonry.

[David T]

Clearly the early leaders saw the ceremonies for what they were- revelations with similarities to Masonry.

Or possibly additions to it. Joseph had made sure most of his inner circle were initiated as Masons before they received the Nauvoo Endowment.

[mfbukowski]

Or possibly additions to it. Joseph had made sure most of his inner circle were initiated as Masons before they received the Nauvoo Endowment.

Exactly; so I am not sure why we regard the similarities with Masonry a "bad" thing.

We have allowed our critics to define us too long, I think, we need to stop being defensive.

[Mike Reed]

I think, we need to stop being defensive.

Amen! "Agree with thine adversary quickly," dang it! (Matthew 5:25)

[changed]

A lot of the Mormon secrets- Temple secrets in particular- are out there. On the interwebs. People can know them if they care to.

I don't really know how much I know compared to someone who's actually a Mormon, but I know more than I'm supposed to. Without getting too specific, what difference does it make?

Thanks.

imo the biggest secrets of the temple are not posted on the internet, because the biggest secrets are the individual problems/pains of those who go for guidance.

as for the other "secrets", I view it as a test. It's not about keeping the info from getting out, it's about learning how to hold some things sacred. If we individually are willing to hold some basic things sacred, then perhaps we individually can be entrusted with additional information to also hold sacred.

[Jeff K.]

I am always wondering about the motivation of people who delight in attacking the church, and ask why those around them are defensive.

[David T]

Exactly; so I am not sure why we regard the similarities with Masonry a "bad" thing.

We have allowed our critics to define us too long, I think, we need to stop being defensive.

I'm not part of any "we" that regards the dependence as a bad thing. I do think, however, that an understanding of the Masonry that was presented in Joseph's Nauvoo could assist in understanding the original intent of aspects/symbols that aren't spelled out in our current Endowment, but would have been understood by those who initially participated in them to the experience/lectures associated with the parallel aspects in the Three Degrees of Blue Lodge Masonry.

While certainly not perfect, a perusal of Antiquities of Freemasonry combined with something like Duncan's Monitor I think can be quite useful to understand the association early masonic saints would have had with certain symbols that we have absolutely no general association with.

I wish the Church could completely and fully embrace it, and set up slightly altered retro Nauvoo-style lodges for our youth/converts so that we could send Young Men and Young Women through as a preparatory experience, and to form associations with the signs and symbols in one context, and make the associated covenants/obligations before granting it something further in the Restoration Temples. As I don't think Joseph viewed them as being competing, more as two complimentary experiences, one preparatory and temporal, one exclusively spiritual and cosmic..

Deacons/Beehive would go through Entered Apprentice, Teachers/MIA Maids through Fellow Craft, and Laurels/Priests through Master. Now that would be some awesome Temple Prep. We already embrace and alter Scouts - why not go the whole way, and claim Masonry as well? I love it when I see cars parked at the Temple with the square and compass on the bumper.

Plus I think some Hiram Abiff lore as part of the saints' tradition could make for some cool Sacrament Meeting Talks.

[LeSellers]

Joseph had made sure most of his inner circle were initiated as Masons before they received the Nauvoo Endowment.

"Joseph had made sure"? How did he"make sure" they were? Are you sure he made sure?

Because I've never heard that being a Mason was a requisite for being endowed in Nauvoo. (It wasn't among the women, fer shure.) It happened that many, or even most, of the early Church leaders (Hyrum and the Phelps borthers, etc.) were, but I am not convinced all of them were. I don't recall ever seeing that, for instance, Brigham Young was.

Lehi

[David T]

I've never heard that being a Mason was a requisite for being endowed in Nauvoo. (It wasn't among the women, fer shure.) It happened that many, or even most, of the early Church leaders (Hyrum and the Phelps borthers, etc.) were, but I am not convinced all of them were. I don't recall ever seeing that, for instance, Brigham Young was.

Lehi

Brigham Young was a Mason before he even met with the Mormons. In Nauvoo, the records show an unprescedented amount of "Mass Balloting" that led to a huge percentage of the residents being initiated, with most of them also being quickly raised through the degrees as well. The Nauvoo Lodge was a Big Deal, and was a key social center of the town. With the circumstances, the men who had not been initiated as Masons before receiving the Nauvoo Endowment would be the exception that proved the rule.

Joseph especially wanted his inner circle inducted as Masons for the purposes of the oaths of fidelity and nondisclosure that would be made. He would be surrounded by many who had sworn before witnesses not to betray him in any way. Unfortunately, John C. Bennett was among them.

[LeSellers]

Brigham Young was a Mason before he even met with the Mormons [sic].

Okeh, now I know. (Actually, I vaguely remember hearing/reading this decades ago, now that you've noted it.)

In Nauvoo, the records show an unprescedented amount of "Mass Balloting" that led to a huge percentage of the residents being initiated, with most of them also being quickly raised through the degrees as well. The Nauvoo Lodge was a Big Deal, and was a key social center of the town. With the circumstances, the men who had not been initiated as Masons before receiving the Nauvoo Endowment would be the exception that proved the rule.

"The exception that proves the rule" is an old cliché that says, in more modern English, the exception means the rule is wrong.

But, you did not say that the Brethren in Nauvoo were Masons before they received their endowments, you said that Joseph made sure they were. Whether they were or not is not the same thing as his insisting that they were. What you described here is that they were by happenstance. The two are different concepts.

Lehi

[Mars]

@nackhadlow, @mfbukowski, @Mike Reed

The connection between 1800s New England Masonry and Christianity is all new stuff to me. My source of consternation and defensiveness is that as a Mason I should know a little more about the history of my fraternity. I don't like being schooled by cowans and eavesdroppers.

I'm not being defensive, you're being defensive. Why is it so hot in here?

[David T]

Okeh, now I know. (Actually, I vaguely remember hearing/reading this decades ago, now that you've noted it.)

"The exception that proves the rule" is an old cliché that says, in more modern English, the exception means the rule is wrong.

But, you did not say that the Brethren in Nauvoo were Masons before they received their endowments, you said that Joseph made sure they were. Whether they were or not is not the same thing as his insisting that they were. What you described here is that they were by happenstance. The two are different concepts.

Lehi

Check out this review of Brown's recent book on Mormons and Masons, by Clinton Bartholomew, a Mormon Mason:

excerpt:

In chapter six, Brown writes of the May 1842 introduction of the endowment, giving brief but useful biographical sketches of the nine men who first received the ceremony from Joseph Smith. Like LDS apologists before him, Brown points out that all nine men were Freemasons, yet none of them publicly accused Joseph Smith of plagiarizing Masonic rites. Curiously, Brown mentions the dates on which each man became a Master Mason, yet does not address the fact that several were rushed through the degrees in Nauvoo Lodge very shortly before receiving the endowment, suggesting that this may have been a “required” preparation.

[Mars]

I should also note that at most of your Zion's Bank (A bank local to Utah and possibly the surrounding areas), there will be a large portrait of Brigham Young. He's wearing a Masonic pin on his kerchief thingy.

[Mars]

You can Google 'Brigham Young Masonic Pin' to see the image I'm talking about. My first link came back from Utah Light Ministry. Thanks, UTLM.

[LeSellers]

Check out this review of Brown's recent book on Mormons and Masons, by Clinton Bartholomew, a Mormon Mason:

It still does not say that Joseph made sure (insisted) that they be Masons before they were endowed, does it? If so, I can't find it.

I'm far from denying they were Masons. I find their failure to hoot'n'holler extremely valuable evidence against Joseph’s “plagiarizing” the endowment from the Masons. That’s been my position since at least 1973. I’m not challenging any of that.

I am only questioning your assertion that Joseph “made sure” they were Masons.

That’s all.

Lehi

[HeatherAnn]

... it's all about context. A practicing Mason can give you the context in Masonry. A practicing Mormon understands it in the context of Mormon beliefs. All words do not mean the same thing to all people. For instance when I say the word fire does it mean a warm cozy campfire, a raging inferno or that somebody lost their job?

Good point about context - meaning is given in context.

Maybe it's like a serious & sacred inside joke, that many, including members, don't get.

Personally, my first experience in the temple, I freaked out - I was really upset.

My entire life, I sang "I love to see the temple." We lived far away from temples, so when we'd spend all day driving as we'd get closer, my mom would give a quarter to whoever spotted the temple first. It was such a treat to go visit the temple grounds & I dreamed of the day when I could go inside this heavenly place! I imagined it would be so spiritual - so Christ-focused. Then when I received my endowments, I was so disappointed. It seemed to be focused on getting the clothes & words right, not spirituality. I definitely didn't have a good feeling.

I wish the temple secrets weren't so secret. I wish I would have known more, then the symbolism would mean more.

There are some things that could be discussed... like

...how Moses was commanded to remove his shoes, standing on holy ground, with God.

...or how as Jesus taught us that a master is not greater than a servant & about serving & loving by washing his disciples feet, & he had a cloth tied around his waste.

[Mars]

Lehi,

It's uncharacteristically quick to be initiated, passed, and raised (administered the 3 degrees of Masonry) within a matter of days or even weeks. There is memorization work to be done and there is the question of whether or not the candidate is ready to be moved on that needs to be answered. While not an emphatic requirement on the part of Joseph Smith that the first to receive their Endowment be made Masons, it's not too far a step to say that because they were all Masons before hand, and the ones who weren't already Masons were made Masons quickly, that it was desired on the part of the Prophet that they be Masons first.

At least, the conclusion makes logical sense to me.

Then again, I'm looking at it from the time frames that are usually associated with candidates today. Maybe someone else can illustrate/has illustrated the generally accepted time frame for Masons in the mid 1800s?

[LeSellers]

Personally, my first experience in the temple, I freaked out - I was really upset.

My first Temple experience (aside from baptisms) was neither scary nor weird. I went without an escort, and I had absolutely no idea what was going on until it happened. But it was exciting and fulfilling.

When I hear people say they were "freaked out", it simply does not make any sense at all to me.

Lehi