Calm Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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?Don't Masons take oaths not to discuss their rituals? If so, we should respect their view in my opinion.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 While we're at it, it is usually assumed that JS Sr. and Hiram became Masons in the early 1820s, I'm wondering what the actual primary evidence is for this. Is it lodge registers? Maybe Mike or "George" could point me to an article which looks at the details of the claims.
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 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.That is incorrect as there are explicit references and MANY implicit references to Masonry during the 1820s and 1830s. You can examine the evidence once it is published in its fullest form.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 That is incorrect as there are explicit references and MANY implicit references to Masonry during the 1820s and 1830s. You can examine the evidence once it is published in its fullest form.I await your publication. However, could you give me one example of explicit reference, as a teaser?
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 While we're at it, it is usually assumed that JS Sr. and Hiram became Masons in the early 1820s, I'm wondering what the actual primary evidence is for this. Is it lodge registers? Maybe Mike or "George" could point me to an article which looks at the details of the claims.Yes it is the original lodge registers of which both Mike and I have copies. Mike took a special trip out to New York to obtain some of the material, and I obtained special permission from the Grand Master of New York obtain additional items.
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Don't Masons take oaths not to discuss their rituals? If so, we should respect their view in my opinion.Don't worry, in this case, this is not a problem. The references that Mike is alluding to were documents printed in newspapers and books for the general public. Edited October 10, 2011 by George Miller
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Yes it is the original lodge registers of which both Mike and I have copies. Mike took a special trip out to New York to obtain some of the material, and I obtained special permission from the Grand Master of New York obtain additional items.Smith is a common name. How do you evaluate if it is the Smiths, or just other Smiths? Are you going to provide the rationale and evaluation for this in your publications as well.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) *shrug* As a lowly Elder's Quorum teacher, I, for one, have no problem [edit: if it turns out that] many aspects of the Temple ritual [were] influenced by Masonry. I think Nibley's argument in Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri was substantially correct - that is, from a diffusionist perspective (which isn't in fashion these days, but which I personally espouse), most esoteric ritual systems in the world are descended from common origins. Joseph takes the preexisting form of the ritual - was it Kimball who quoted Joseph as saying that many things in Masonry are "perfect", even if some things had degenerated? - tweaks it around a bit, and gives it the imprimatur of his Prophetic authority. Voila. No biggie.[Edit: As an aside, I am also dismayed at how few of the people I've run into have read An Egyptian Endowment, both Mormon and Non. Heck, Nibs is such an excellent writer that it's a great book even if you believe it's talking about pure fiction.] Edited October 11, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) 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. Naming their son Hiram was just coincidence, right? It was just the "in vogue" thing to do, never mind that Hyrum (and quite possibly, Joseph Sr. too) later joined the fraternity. Nah... in the 20s (yes, you did include the 20s in a previous post, saying, "Like JS explicitly mentioning Masonry in a positive way in the 1820s or early 1830s."), Hyrum probably didn't care at all about freemasonry... all the memorization required... that was just to pass the time, right? And the dues... a charitable contribution, right?You and "George" claim to be preparing your "demonstration" on the matter. So surely you've looked at the evidence.We surely have. Don't expect us to spoon feed it to you here.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.You will have to wait till the papers (and/or book) are published to weigh the evidence we have against the conclusions we make. Edited October 10, 2011 by Mike Reed
George Miller Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Smith is a common name. How do you evaluate if it is the Smiths, or just other Smiths? Are you going to provide the rationale and evaluation for this in your publications as well.That was last time I checked this is standard procedure for scholarly publications.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 That was last time I checked this is standard procedure for scholarly publications.Great. I look forward to evaluating it. Alas this topic has been one in which there have been lots and lots of assertions and assumptions, with a sad dearth of actual evidence.
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 While we're at it, it is usually assumed that JS Sr. and Hiram became Masons in the early 1820s, I'm wondering what the actual primary evidence is for this. Is it lodge registers? Maybe Mike or "George" could point me to an article which looks at the details of the claims.Or maybe you could go the Masonic archives and see the lodge records yourself. I'm happy to point the direction: <pointing east right now>
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Dr. Hamblin,Isn't now about the time where you say some ridiculous like, "there is no ascension theology in freemasonry"?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Naming their son Hiram was just coincidence, right? It was just the "in vogue" thing to do, never mind that Hyrum (and quite possibly, Joseph Sr. too) later joined the fraternity. Nah... in the 20s (yes, you did include the 20s in a previous post, saying, "Like JS explicitly mentioning Masonry in a positive way in the 1820s or early 1830s."), Hyrum probably didn't care at all about freemasonry... all the memorization required... that was just to pass the time, right? And the dues... a charitable contribution, right?Let's see Hyrum Smith was born in 1800, 18 years before JS Sr. supposedly joined Freemasonry. (I do note that you are waffling on whether JS Sr. was actually a Freemason.) But nonetheless they picked their son's name because of the Hiram Abiff story in Freemasonry, rather than because Hiram is a name in the Bible? Got it. We surely have. Don't expect us to spoon feed it to you here.You will have to wait till the paper is published to weigh the evidence we have against the conclusions we make.CFR. You don't have to give me your whole paper. Just your single best explicit reference by JS to Masonry from the 1820s through the mid-1830s.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Dr. Hamblin,Isn't now about the time where you say some ridiculous like, "there is no ascension theology in freemasonry"? I've never made such a claim. CFR. And I note that you are changing the subject. A pretty obvious ploy, by the way.
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Cfr that I have looked at the evidence? Lol! Wow... I think you need some sleep. No Dr Hamblin, I am not going to write a bibliography of all the material I have looked at. How about I just reference my eyes that have done the looking?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Cfr that I have looked at the evidence? Lol! Wow... I think you need some sleep. No Dr Hamblin, I am not going to write a bibliography of all the material I have looked at. How about I just reference my eyes that have done the looking?I'm asking for a CFR for a single example of JS explicitly mentioning Masonry before the mid-1830s. Do you have one or not?Note that George claimed:That is incorrect as there are explicit references and MANY implicit references to Masonry during the 1820s and 1830s. I'm not asking for your whole paper or all your evidence. I'm asking for ONE explicit reference to Masonry by JS before the mid-1830s. It's a very simple question and can be answered very simply. Edited October 10, 2011 by Bill Hamblin
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I've never made such a claim. CFR. And I note that you are changing the subject. A pretty obvious ploy, by the way.It was a question. Not a statement of fact. I will cite my reference, however: my inquiring mind. Regarding plots, what do you call throwing out continuous frivolous cfr demands?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 It was a question. Not a statement of fact. I will cite my reference, however: my inquiring mind. Regarding plots, what do you call throwing out continuous frivolous cfr demands?You said:Dr. Hamblin,Isn't now about the time where you say some ridiculous like, "there is no ascension theology in freemasonry"? You put that in quotes and appear to be claiming that I've said something like that. Have I? If so, CFR. If not, then what in the world are you talking about? Is this simply mindless blathering?
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 I'm asking for a CFR for a single example of JS explicitly mentioning Masonry before the mid-1830s. Do you have one or not?Note that George claimed:I'm not asking for your whole paper or all your evidence. I'm asking for ONE explicit reference to Masonry by JS before the mid-1830s. It's a very simple question and can be answered very simply.We cite our forthcoming papers.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 It was a question. Not a statement of fact. I will cite my reference, however: my inquiring mind. Regarding plots, what do you call throwing out continuous frivolous cfr demands?It's not a plot. It's a ploy. My CFR, by the way, is not frivolous. It is the key issue--evidence--regarding your claims of Masonic influence in early Mormonism.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 We cite our forthcoming papers.So you don't have any evidence of JS explicitly mentioning Masonry before the mid-1830s. Got it.
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 It's not a plot. It's a ploy. My CFR, by the way, is not frivolous. It is the key issue--evidence--regarding your claims of Masonic influence in early Mormonism.Typo. Posting from my cell. You cfr'd my question. And I gave you a source.
LDSToronto Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) So you don't have any evidence of JS explicitly mentioning Masonry before the mid-1830s. Got it.Bill, I think you're missing the message - you aren't going to be given a head-start for your inevitable Maxwell Institute/FARMS review. You'll just have to wait.H. Edited October 10, 2011 by LDSToronto
Mike Reed Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 So you don't have any evidence of JS explicitly mentioning Masonry before the mid-1830s. Got it.I will neither confirm nor deny. You will have to wait for the paper/book.
Recommended Posts