Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Skepticism is good, Bill. Bias, not so much.Bias is a strange thing. Something that always seems to afflict only those with whom we disagree, but never ourselves.
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Whoops, sorry. The lodges were involved. Which means precisely nothing about the influence of Masonry on Mormonism.It means quite a bit in regards to the sort of materials that were circulated (and therefore widely available) in the area. You do know about the anti-Masonic backlash, don't you? Don't you?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I'm quite familiar with this in sports.........but is this the intellectual equivalant of talking smack?? Yup, this is trash talk before the game begins.
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Oh, I can see where this is going. You made the statement and now you are denying it.Show me how you were misquoted in any way.You're kidding me...
Senator Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Yup, this is trash talk before the game begins.Heh, heh,See, we're all alike!
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 It means quite a bit in regards to the sort of materials that were circulated (and therefore widely available) in the area. You do know about the anti-Masonic backlash, don't you? Don't you?Yes. And that anti-Masonic backlash, assuming they read it at all, would have presumably caused Joseph's family to be, well, anti-Masonic. Right?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 There seems to be a bit of manipulating going on here. It is fascinating to see.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Skepticism is good, Bill. Bias, not so much.H.So says the guy that is ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Oh, I can see where this is going. You made the statement and now you are denying it.Show me how you were misquoted in any way.When altersteve said "CFR that "all" early Church leaders believed that Freemasonry was from God." I became worried because I didn't remember saying that "all early church leaders believed that Freemasonry was from God." In fact it was something I would not have said, since I know that W.W. Phelps definitely did not hold this view. When I went back I did not say "all", but in fact the "all" was likely altersteve's conflating my statement with mfbukowski's (your) statement that "ALL the early leaders of the church were themselves Masons."I am in no way denying that I said "Yes but almost to a man these men ALSO believed that Freemasonry was from God" but I did not say "all early Church leaders believed that Freemasonry was from God". Edited October 10, 2011 by George Miller
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Yes. And that anti-Masonic backlash, assuming they read it at all, would have presumably caused Joseph's family to be, well, anti-Masonic. Right?Please demonstrate how such a conclusion follows, Dr Hamblin. While you are at it, feel free to demonstrate how pro-Masons did not utilize anti-Masonic exposes.
Senator Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 So says the guy that is ashamed of the gospel of Christ.Not necessary
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 In fact it was something I would not have said...We also have early members of other Mormon denomoniations who did not "pass on" the Nauvoo endowment to future generations.
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I think that Joseph "translated" masonry just as he "translated" the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon. In other words, just as the papyri served as a tool to assist the translation, just as the seer stone served as a similar tool, masonry itself served as a tool to assist him in being inspired.Frankly, I would not care if Joseph imported it all from masonry. He gave it a new context. I have done a lot of study in this area as well, and am familiar with Swedenborgian Masonry.Incidentally, though we cannot discuss temple rites we certainly can discuss masonic rites. If there are so many similarities in this "Christianized Masonry" why describe exactly what the similarities are, by describing the other rites and letting us decide how similar they are?
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 You're kidding me...That is not an answer.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Please demonstrate how such a conclusion follows, Dr Hamblin. While you are at it, feel free to demonstrate how pro-Masons did not utilize anti-Masonic exposes.So you mean to tell me that nobody who read those anti-Masonic publications in the 1820s was influenced by anti-Masonic thought? So they didn't actually close down most of the Masonic lodges in the US during the late 1820s and 1830s? Somebody was clearlyinfluenced negatively by those publications.At any rate, what needs to be demonstrated first is that the Smith family and JS in particular had anything to say at all about Masonry in the 1820s and early 1830s. It would be interesting to see the actual documentation of the early statements by JS and the Smiths that actually explicitly even mention Masonry.
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Please demonstrate how such a conclusion follows, Dr Hamblin. While you are at it, feel free to demonstrate how pro-Masons did not utilize anti-Masonic exposes.In fact Masons regularly purchased anti-Masonic exposes for use in memorizing their Masonic ritual. I am a Mason and I own either in print or digitally a large number of exposes. Masonic scholars have also noted that Bernard's Light on Masonry was the main source for renewing of Masonic ritual proficiency in post-Morgan Affair America.
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) I think that Joseph "translated" masonry just as he "translated" the Book of Abraham, and the Book of Mormon. In other words, just as the papyri served as a tool to assist the translation, just as the seer stone served as a similar tool, masonry itself served as a tool to assist him in being inspired.Frankly, I would not care if Joseph imported it all from masonry. He gave it a new context. I have done a lot of study in this area as well, and am familiar with Swedenborgian Masonry.Incidentally, though we cannot discuss temple rites we certainly can discuss masonic rites. If there are so many similarities in this "Christianized Masonry" why describe exactly what the similarities are, by describing the other rites and letting us decide how similar they are?I have been trying to get ahold of Swedenborgian Masonic rites. Any chance you might be able to help me out? Edited October 10, 2011 by George Miller
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 In fact Masons regularly purchased anti-Masonic exposes for use in memorizing their Masonic ritual. I am a Mason and I own either in print or digitally a large number of exposes. Masonic scholars have also noted that Bernard's Light on Masonry was the main source for renewing of Masonic ritual proficiency in post-Morgan Affair America.Of course that's true. So? The main impact of the Morgan Affair was rampant anti-Masonic sentiment in the US and the closure of most of the lodges in the US, right? The overwhelming influence of anti-Masonic literature was to create widespread anti-Masonic sentiment. Or have I missed something? The burden of proof rests on those who want to claim JS was influenced in a positive way by reading anti-Masonic literature. I'm open to such seeing evidence--like JS explicitly mentioning Masonry in a positive way in the 1820s or early 1830s. That would seem to be a minimum requirement to make your claims. I haven't seen any yet. So I await the peer-reviewed publication of your papers and or books, where hopefully that evidence will be forthcoming.
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I am in no way denying that I said "Yes but almost to a man these men ALSO believed that Freemasonry was from God" but I did not say "all early Church leaders believed that Freemasonry was from God".Thanks for the clarification, but you were not replying to me, but to altersteve, and in that context there is virtually no difference between "all" and "almost to a man".And yet Mike decided to pipe in on this issue? Mike- save your bullets for substantive issues.Whether or not "all" or "almost to a man" they were masons is irrelevant anyway. The entire point is that a substantial majority of early church leaders were in fact Masons and did not object to the context of the endowment.Virtually all masons in the period, including Albert Pike, believed that "masonry was from God" as well.
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Of course that's true. So? The main impact of the Morgan Affair was rampant anti-Masonic sentiment in the US and the closure of most of the lodges in the US, right? The overwhelming influence of anti-Masonic literature was to create widespread anti-Masonic sentiment. Or have I missed something? The burden of proof rests on those who want to claim JS was influenced in a positive way by reading anti-Masonic literature. I'm open to such seeing evidence--like JS explicitly mentioning Masonry in a positive way in the 1820s or early 1830s. That would seem to be a minimum requirement to make your claims. I haven't seen any yet. So I await the peer-reviewed publication of your papers and or books, where hopefully that evidence will be forthcoming.Neither Mike Reed nor I claim that Joseph Smith was influenced positively by anti-Masonic literature during the time period, only that exposes gave ready access to Masonic rituals, including the higher York Rite and Scottish Rite degrees, to Joseph. Please do not misrepresent our arguments. Edited October 10, 2011 by George Miller
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Thanks for the clarification, but you were not replying to me, but to altersteve, and in that context there is virtually no difference between "all" and "almost to a man".And yet Mike decided to pipe in on this issue? Mike- save your bullets for substantive issues.Whether or not "all" or "almost to a man" they were masons is irrelevant anyway. The entire point is that a substantial majority of early church leaders were in fact Masons and did not object to the context of the endowment.Virtually all masons in the period, including Albert Pike, believed that "masonry was from God" as well.Yes, hence you are noting a distinction without a difference. You note that all of the men thought that the endowment came from God. As you admit, Freemasons of the period believed that "masonry was from God." Therefore the Mormon-Masons in Nauvoo would never have objected to Joseph Smith borrowing from Masonry.Now I understand that you don't really care if Joseph Smith borrowed from Freemasonry. That's fine, if only all Mormons were as open minded as you. But, and perhaps you were not trying to make this point, but the failure on the most part of Nauvoo era Masons to object to Joseph Smith's borrowing is not evidence that Joseph Smith did not borrow nor that the Nauvoo era Mormons did not think that Joseph Smith was borrowing. Since they believed that Freemasonry was from God, they would of course not objected. Edited October 10, 2011 by George Miller
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) So you mean to tell me that nobody who read those anti-Masonic publications in the 1820s was influenced by anti-Masonic thought? No. I am saying that some did and some didn't. As such, your logic fails. Your conclusion (insinuated in your question) does not necessarily follow.So they didn't actually close down most of the Masonic lodges in the US during the late 1820s and 1830s? Sure they did. And??? You know about the mixed feelings that many masons had for doing so, right? How about Masons continuing to practice underground? How about Masons who later joined other masonic [lowercase] orders, like the Orange and Oddfellow societies? How about the Clampers in California Gold Rush territory? How about those who simply hunkered down and weathered the storm?Somebody was clearlyinfluenced negatively by those publications.So we can therefore reasonably conclude that the Smith family turned anti-Mason, rejecting not only the institution, but also the craft? Wow, Bill. The historical methodology you demonstrate here is quite impressive.At any rate, what needs to be demonstrated first is that the Smith family and JS in particular had anything to say at all about Masonry in the 1820s and early 1830s.Sorry Dr. Hamblin. You don't get to define the parameters of our study.It would be interesting to see the actual documentation of the early statements by JS and the Smiths that actually explicitly even mention Masonry.I bet it would be very fascinating to you. Why don't you research the topic and write something. Edited October 10, 2011 by Mike Reed
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) nevermind for now- busy! Edited October 10, 2011 by mfbukowski
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 So we can therefore reasonably conclude that the Smith family turned anti-Mason, rejecting not only the institution, but also the craft? Wow, Bill. The historical methodology you demonstrate here is quite impressive.Actually, that is not my claim. My position is that the Smiths didn't care much about Masonry. The reason I think this is that, as far as I am aware, the Smiths didn't actually say anything at all about Masonry through the early 1830s, positive or negative. I bet it would be very fascinating to you. Why don't you research the topic and write something.You and "George" claim to be preparing your "demonstration" on the matter. So surely you've looked at the evidence. As far as I am aware, there is no explicit mention of Masonry, positive or negative, in any of JS's writings through the mid-1830s. Is that correct? If not, could you please point me to the evidence? Thanks.
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 An interesting quote from an RLDS source.While this may be true, it is equally true that Joseph Smith's uncles, his father and his brother also influenced Joseph Smith long before W. W. Phelps, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Newel K. Whitney joined the church. Additionally, Phelps would have been most likely a influence for Joseph towards the anti-Masonic side.
Recommended Posts