Temple Talk Guidelines

[Mike Reed]

If he was so "fascinated" by it, and if his brother(s) and father joined the Masons in the 1820~30s, why did he not follow their lead?

Lehi

Yeah... why is that? Do some research on the environment Freemasonry was in, in New York between 1827-1830s, and you will have answers to silly questions like this. What years did the Masonic controversy cover? Arturo De Hoyos marks it from "1826 to 1842". Hmmm.... When did Joseph Smith become 21? December 1826. When did he become a Mason? 1842. Also worthy of consideration is that Joseph Smith was quite busy in his early to mid 20s writing/translating the Book of Mormon, and that lodges were folding. Some lodges allowed exceptions to join under the father at 18 years, but that would have required Joseph Sr. to be up on his dues, and for Joseph Jr to have a good reputation. But we know that Joseph Jr didn't have a good reputation, and the Smith family was broke--Alvin died a month before Joseph Jr's 18th birthday.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

So, his brother and father were members, BUT it was "dangerous" for him to join?

Yup. And if you knew about the Masonic controversy, its timing, etc., you would have the answer to this question. See my previous post.

[LeSellers]

Yeah... why is that [Joseph did not follow his brother's and father's lead in becoming a Mason]? Do some research on the environment Freemasonry was in, in New York between 1827-1830s, and you will have answers to silly questions like this. What years did the Masonic controversy cover? Arturo De Hoyos marks it from "1826 to 1842". Hmmm.... When did Joseph Smith become 21? December 1826. When did he become a Mason? 1842.

This paints Joseph as a coward, something no one has pulled off. He was many things, afraid was not one of them.

Lehi

[wenglund]

Yeah... why is that? Do some research on the environment Freemasonry was in, in New York between 1827-1830s, and you will have answers to silly questions like this. What years did the Masonic controversy cover? Arturo De Hoyos marks it from "1826 to 1842". Hmmm.... When did Joseph Smith become 21? December 1826. When did he become a Mason? 1842. Also worthy of consideration is that Joseph Smith was quite busy in his early to mid 20s writing/translating the Book of Mormon.

Did Joseph Sr. and Hyrum withdraw their freemason membership during that time?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 12, 2011 by wenglund

[Mike Reed]

I keep coming back into this thread, dang it. Message boards can be such distractions. I need to get back to my school work.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I keep coming back into this thread, dang it. Message boards can be such distractions. I need to get back to my school work.

Let me pull a Senator. And yet you came back to post this last message.

Good luck in your studies Mike.

[mfbukowski]

I hate stating the obvious: Perhaps he thought it was *dangerous* to join. Morgan Affair, anti-Masonic backlash that followed, lodges shut down... yeah... I am sure joining would have been on the top of his list. No... it was better to hunker down and weather the storm, or practice underground/clandestinely.

So NOT joining is an indication of interest in masonry? An interesting position.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

This is a very strange argument. You are assuming JS had to have telestial and celestial rooms. You are assuming he had to have handclasps associated with encountering God rather than recognizing a Mason. You assume he had to have a celestial beginning and end of the ritual. You are assuming he had to have angelic guides. Since you are assuming JS made it all up with borrowings from Masonry, none of these assumptions are true. JS could have invented anything he wanted. The fact is that he came up with a classic ascent ritual.

In translating Masonic ritual to Mormon theology, there are relatively few options. The way he configured it is quite straightforward and not a bit surprising. Of course, he was free to create as he pleased, but anything else would have been inferior in my estimation and below JS’s abilities. His only mistake was in making it too Masonic. Once the decision was made to make the ritual part of the temple ceremony, which would involve the priesthood and the holy of holies, ascension was unavoidable. In other words, the adaptation produced ascension without a conscious decision to do so necessarily having been made.

We can debate what that means. But we cannot debate the fact itself.

Nor can we debate the obvious fact that the first three degrees of Masonry are not explicitly a classic ascent ritual.

Facts and meaning are not necessarily different things, and the difference between implicit and explicit doesn’t necessarily make your point more valid.

PS Neither Solomon, nor his temple are mentioned in the LDS Endowment.

Are you arguing that JS had to mention Solomon’s temple if he borrowed from Masonry? I would think the explicit parallels would be good enough to overturn such an argument from silence.

You don't understand what my position is.

You haven’t articulated a position as such, but rather you have attempted to make ascension a distinguishing feature of the LDS endowment. By this you apparently wish to argue that parallels to Masonic ritual do not adequately explain the origin of the LDS ceremony and that ancient ascension texts explain its origin better. Feel free to correct me as I would hate to misunderstand or misrepresent your position.

Let's get something clear here. I didn't try to frame or control the discussion. Mike interjected a comment about my supposed position on celestial ascent in Masonry (which was, in fact, precisely the opposite of my actual position) and called it ridiculous. I discussed the explicit distinction trying to explain to Mike why he was wrong about my position. He has tacitly admitted now that he was wrong, though it is like pulling teeth to get him to make a clear statement on the matter.

I think we all understand your position better—even you.

At any rate, I am seeking clarity of thought. That's all. Mike and George are making the argument that JS was highly influenced by Masonry from the mid-1820s through the Endowment, in just about everything in Mormonism. So far, they claim they have "demonstrated" all sorts of things, when in fact they have not published a single peer-reviewed article on the subject. Nor have they actually provided a single piece of evidence or a single argument here. I even asked for some. They refused to give me any. It's really quite astonishing. They've simply made a litany of assertions. My initial objection was solely that their claims to have "demonstrated" their case are premature. I think this is obviously the case.

Well, I have to agree with you here. I think these parallels can be pushed too far. Forsburg’s book is an example.

I have a general rule against discussing details of the Endowment with apostates and anti-Mormons on message boards. I'm just funny that way.

I’m trying to be delicate and respectful here.

I will say this. The form of handclasps may be similar--after all, they're handclasps. The meaning of the handclasps are dramatically different. I assume you'll agree? So, while the outward form may be similar, the ritual context, name and symbolic significance are completely different. Symbols don't have universal meanings any more than sounds do. Symbols have meaning within an interpretative context and community. The same symbols can have completely different meanings to different communities and in different ritual contexts. So, each person can decide for themselves. Is the meaning of the LDS handclasp closer to a Masonic handclasp to indicate the rate of pay, or to recognize another Mason, or to the ancient handclasp of Antiochus' deification and his acceptance by the gods after his ascent into heaven

All I’ll say is that there are too many specific similarities to the Masonic ritual that aren’t reflected in any ancient text or sculpture that you have referenced so far. Generalized references to handclasps and embraces aren’t going to cut it.

To believe that the LDS Endowment is a revealed restoration of ancient covenant and ascent rituals does not mean that there are no parallels to or borrowings from JS's environment. After all, almost every single word in the Endowment can be found in the English dictionary.

It’s the other way round my good professor, and we are not talking about random words in a dictionary. We are talking about parallels to the Masonic ritual that are verbatim and explicit; and just because JS borrowed from Masonry it doesn’t mean you won’t be able to find generalized parallels to similar themes in the ancient world.

I am not claiming JS directly borrowed from any known ancient ritual or text. I have never made that claim and do not believe it. The broader question is: are there ancient rituals of initiation and celestial ascent? How widespread are they? What ritual and substance do they contain? The evidence and methods necessary to answer these questions are quite different from the evidence and methods necessary to answer the questions of Mike and George. This is historiography 101.

As you frame it here, your point is even less relevant to the discussion than I thought. Thanks for clarifying that.

As to your second point, it is not at all obvious. JS did not "change Masonry to suit his purpose." He borrowed, redefined, and recontextualized and reconceptualized some Masonic symbols in the Endowment.

This admission is significant, especially in light of your criticisms of Miller’s theory.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[mfbukowski]

I've looked at the detail of the hands. Perhaps I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Which one in particular gives a clear indication?

I feel that would be violating temple covenants to answer.

I feel it is very clear.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So NOT joining is an indication of interest in masonry? An interesting position.

Yeah, sometimes I wonder how people draw the conclusions they do.

[Senator]

I feel that would be violating temple covenants to answer.

I feel it is very clear.

I certainly wouldn't want you to do that.

But if its "very clear" then you probably shouldn't have directed attention to the details of the hands in the pictures in the first place.

Just sayin.....

[Senator]

Yeah, sometimes I wonder how people draw the conclusions they do.

Eh.....it's not that hard to conceive. I had known an individual that was very interested in the church, even believed it to be true, but didn't join for quite some time. He obviously had his reasons.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Eh.....it's not that hard to conceive. I had known an individual that was very interested in the church, even believed it to be true, but didn't join for quite some time. He obviously had his reasons.

Do I even want to bother with this? I have become so weary of posting on boards anymore. I will give it a shot.

We are talking about JS not joining the Masons because it was not the cool thing to do. The picture painted is that JS was afraid to join them but he was really interested in Masonic rituals, but did not join them due to anti-masonic rhetoric in the 20's. Remember that JS seemed to not be afraid of anything. There is plenty of evidence to support that as Lehi pointed out.

Furthermore, making a life changing decision is a hard thing to do. But merely looking at some historical data and then making a "weird" conclusion is a totally different thing. I respect Mike, but I have a hard time with some of his assertions. To each their own.

[Mike Reed]

So NOT joining is an indication of interest in masonry? An interesting position.

Sigh...

No. The evidence George and I have gathered (and, very likely, will continue to gather) indicates his interest. And no we aren't going to share that information with you here. The post you respond to is an "explanation." Do I need to define this word for you too? It is an "explanation" of why Joseph wouldn't have joined, despite his interest in the craft. Comprende?

[Dan Vogel]

I feel that would be violating temple covenants to answer.

I feel it is very clear.

No one wants you to do that. But you are seeing too much in the vagueness of the picture. Nothing that amounts to meaningful evidence.

[Mike Reed]

but did not join them due to anti-masonic rhetoric in the 20's.

Nobody said "rhetoric." Anti-Masonry went far far beyond rhetoric. And you would know this if you were halfway informed on the subject.

Remember that JS seemed to not be afraid of anything.

This is what your primary teacher taught you, right? <chuckle>

[mfbukowski]

I certainly wouldn't want you to do that.

But if its "very clear" then you probably shouldn't have directed attention to the details of the hands in the pictures in the first place.

Just sayin.....

That's absurd. Specifying one would be tantamount to saying "This is temple content". It is entirely different to allow the viewer to recognize what she may recognize, and since you don't recognize anything, clearly I have revealed nothing.

[mfbukowski]

No one wants you to do that. But you are seeing too much in the vagueness of the picture. Nothing that amounts to meaningful evidence.

It could not be more clear. It is not vague at all.

I will not defend it further. You either see what is plainly there or you don't. In my opinion, you are showing your ignorance.

Edited October 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Zakuska]

I would agree with you when we're speaking of internet communications. However, even among those who "recognize they are treading on holy ground", and speaking face to face, seem to be overly skittish. Even in the temple I have had individuals look around and ask, "can we say this?"

I know alot of times people get skittish about the Massonic influence out of the fear of the unknown. (I know I was) They don't know a lot about it nor its influence and because of the Fundamentalist Evangelical types running rampant and claiming 'Massonry = Devil Worship' it makes the subject even more uncertian.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mike Reed]

Picture removed

Edited October 13, 2011 by Minos

[Zakuska]

Bill,

Ascent narratives are supposed to be more significant than parallels to Masonic ritual? Do these ascent texts speak of signs and tokens? Is there anything in these texts that JS needed to know before Mormonizing the Masonic ritual? It seems ascent was unavoidable once Masonic ritual became temple ritual.

I had a thread a while ago with a text which spoke of Christs. Decent through the heavens and then his ascent back up to God glorified and how he had to have passwords to get between the last 4 levels.

Heres the link:

http://www.mormondia...__fromsearch__1

Edited October 13, 2011 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

This is what your primary teacher taught you, right? <chuckle>

Cheap shot, pure and simple.

[Senator]

That's absurd. Specifying one would be tantamount to saying "This is temple content". It is entirely different to allow the viewer to recognize what she may recognize, and since you don't recognize anything, clearly I have revealed nothing.

What's the difference between one picture or three? You essentially said, "here are three steles that contain temple content, especially one". I took a look at them and recognized possibilities but nothing that I could point to and say was "very clear". So I asked for a little further hint to maybe help me see what you were seeing. But if that is going to far then fine. No need to persue it any further.

[Bill Hamblin]

I know that some people think "all dogs go to heaven"... but this is going too far!

.

Disclaimer: The point of this pic is not to mock the endowment in the slightest. Obviously, this is just an image of a dog "shaking." Yes. The tradition of shaking hands has an ancient history. This is not news. But to assert that the pics Hamblin linked to somehow validates the "restoration" of the temple endowment... that's just silly.

It is quite apparent that you are utterly incapable of understanding or accurately representing my position.

[Senator]

We are talking about JS not joining the Masons because it was not the cool thing to do.

I don't know if anyone is making a charge of cowardice. Even if they were, cowardice need not be the motivation behind JS actions. He simply may have been careful. They are not the same. Remember the old proverb, "there is a time and a place for all things"?