Parallels With Antiquities Of Freemasonry And The Question Of Changing Doctrines

[robuchan]

This is a topic that's been making a lot of noise since George Miller's podcast on Mormon Expression.

There are a number of parallels between George Oliver's Antiquities of Freemasonry. Here's a link with a summary of some of the parallels.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WqNMqwDGas9RR_8G11WWaucWIq74I7rrdcKBVIAg0lU/edit?pli=1

I think this is enlightening because Joseph Smith's doctrine seemed to change abruptly moving from the basic Campbellite Christianity of the Book of Mormon and what was taught in the first missionary tracts to the expansive, extra-biblical doctrine found in the Book of Abraham, temple ceremonies, King Follet discourse, etc. You can follow Joseph's thought process by studying Antiquities of Freemasonry and some of the other possible source material for the later revelations (Swedenborg, Milton, ****, etc)

I can understand some borrowing of temple symbols--no big deal. I don't understand the borrowing of concepts that radically change Mormon doctrine and understanding of God.

What's the apologist take on this?

Why weren't any of these doctrines taught by Book of Mormon (or Bible) prophets?

Why would God restore his true church and then radically change the doctrines over and over, from 1830 to 1835 to 1843 to 1870 to 2010 (the doctrines taught in each period seem to completely change)?

[Buzzard]

Line upon line, precept on precept. It's really pretty simple. How would the new religion have been recieved if Baptism for the Dead was the first thing revealed instead of the Book of Mormon?

[Kevin Christensen]

For Temple Ceremonies in the Book of Mormon, for instance, see Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple, and the Sermon on the Mount.

http://maxwellinstit...kid=113&chapid=

and me, in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem here:

http://maxwellinstit...kid=2&chapid=35

By me, in Nauvoo, the LDS were just catching up with the Book of Mormon. What puzzles me is why those who see the Nauvoo teachings as a departure from the Book of Mormon so consistently ignore the overwhelming centrality of the Temple in the Book of Mormon. The key studies insights by Welch and others should be taken for granted, rather than ignored.

For Campbellite Christianity of the Book of Mormon, see Campbell's own take on the Book of Mormon, and notice how the things he most ranted on as being obviously wrong (especially pre-Christian knowledge) fit so nicely with Barker's work.

Call me when there is a radical change to: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentence of sins, baptism by immersion, receiving the Holy Spirit, and enduring to the end.

Given that certain plain and precious things were removed from the Bible, the notion that the restoration should go beyond the Bible seems pretty straightforward.

See http://www.margaretb...tAndContext.pdf and compare with 1 Nephi 13. Not exactly a Campbellian view.

Also see Barker on "The Secret Tradition."

http://www.margaretb...etTradition.pdf

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited February 22, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[robuchan]

Line upon line, precept on precept. It's really pretty simple. How would the new religion have been recieved if Baptism for the Dead was the first thing revealed instead of the Book of Mormon?

I've heard this logic quite a bit. The idea that God had to bring his church up slowly, or it would never work. Balogna sauce. God's not that inept. If he wants his church to grow, he'll make a way for it to grow. And if growth of the church was God's end game, why does the church 200 years later have a fraction of one percent as its membership with snail's pace growth?

[Bill Hamblin]

I've heard this logic quite a bit. The idea that God had to bring his church up slowly, or it would never work. Balogna sauce. God's not that inept. If he wants his church to grow, he'll make a way for it to grow. And if growth of the church was God's end game, why does the church 200 years later have a fraction of one percent as its membership with snail's pace growth?

You mean, like the growth of early Christianity in its first two centuries?

[altersteve]

God's not that inept.

But we are.

When you teach someone how to read, do you give them War and Peace and tell them to figure it out on their own? No, of course not. You start them off with something simple, and help them build their way up. If anyone knows how this works, God does.

Edited February 22, 2012 by altersteve

[robuchan]

You mean, like the growth of early Christianity in its first two centuries?

1. Don't make the mistake of making Mormon apologetics a Mormon vs Christian thing. It's a Mormonism vs logic thing.

2. We can discuss what the lack of growth right now may or may not mean another time. My point is that looking back with hindsight at the growth of the church and the various things Mormons believe God has revealed and the power God has and what he could do if he wanted to, we can safely toss out the argument "God didn't introduce this at a certain time because of the implications on church growth".

[cinepro]

Why would God restore his true church and then radically change the doctrines over and over, from 1830 to 1835 to 1843 to 1870 to 2010 (the doctrines taught in each period seem to completely change)?

Since I'm only familiar with the way things actually happened, can you explain what you mean by sketching out a timeline that would make more sense to you? Assuming a fixed date of Church organization in 1830, and Joseph Smith dying in 1844, what would make more sense to you?

There's also the issue of logistics for things like the Book of Abraham. In order for that scripture to be brought forth, God had to get the mummies from Egypt to Kirtland, Ohio, and it had to be done at a time when the Church would have the resources to purchase them. So all the doctrines relating to the Book of Abraham would have to be tied to that timeline. And so on.

[robuchan]

Since I'm only familiar with the way things actually happened, can you explain what you mean by sketching out a timeline that would make more sense to you? Assuming a fixed date of Church organization in 1830, and Joseph Smith dying in 1844, what would make more sense to you?

There's also the issue of logistics for things like the Book of Abraham. In order for that scripture to be brought forth, God had to get the mummies from Egypt to Kirtland, Ohio, and it had to be done at a time when the Church would have the resources to purchase them. So all the doctrines relating to the Book of Abraham would have to be tied to that timeline. And so on.

As far as a timeline, what would make sense to me is that we would have Book of Mormon prophets writing about the full doctrine of God, not just the things we have in common with trinitarian Christians.

As for the logistics for revealing the material found in Antiquities of Freemasonry, do you really believe that the only (or even best) way for God to reveal this information to Joseph was for him to purchase mummies with papyri containing the Book of Breathings which enabled Joseph to tap into his revelatory powers and receive the inspiration for Abraham's writings, which for some reason George Oliver and Thomas **** had already revealed?

[altersteve]

As far as a timeline, what would make sense to me is that we would have Book of Mormon prophets writing about the full doctrine of God, not just the things we have in common with trinitarian Christians.

The Book of Mormon was not meant to give us "the full doctrine of God." It was meant to help restore the gospel of Jesus Christ, which it teaches in its fullness; that is, that through Christ we can be saved. I disagree that there is anything "trinitarian" in the Book of Mormon.

As for the logistics for revealing the material found in Antiquities of Freemasonry, do you really believe that the only (or even best) way for God to reveal this information to Joseph was for him to purchase mummies with papyri containing the Book of Breathings which enabled Joseph to tap into his revelatory powers and receive the inspiration for Abraham's writings, which for some reason George Oliver and Thomas **** had already revealed?

CFR that George Oliver "had already revealed" Abraham's writings. As for Thomas D|ck, please see the following (replace the asterisks with Thomas' last name):

http://en.fairmormon...ons/Thomas_****

BTW, the phrase "tap into his revelatory powers" is completely ridiculous. Joseph never claimed to have any such "powers."

[cdowis]

I've heard this logic quite a bit. The idea that God had to bring his church up slowly, or it would never work. Balogna sauce. God's not that inept. If he wants his church to grow, he'll make a way for it to grow. And if growth of the church was God's end game, why does the church 200 years later have a fraction of one percent as its membership with snail's pace growth?

OK, and Christ could have appeared to Pilate, the Sanhedran, to Caesar himself, and that would have made the church grow quickly,"if growth of the church" was His endgame.

[robuchan]

OK, and Christ could have appeared to Pilate, the Sanhedran, to Caesar himself, and that would have made the church grow quickly,"if growth of the church" was His endgame.

Correct. That's my point. God could do a lot of things to slow down or speed up church growth if he wants to. Let's not blame certain church history facts on God not being competent enough to have his church grow if they had or hadn't happened.

[robuchan]

CFR that George Oliver "had already revealed" Abraham's writings.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WqNMqwDGas9RR_8G11WWaucWIq74I7rrdcKBVIAg0lU/edit?pli=1

[Gervin]

I've heard this logic quite a bit. The idea that God had to bring his church up slowly, or it would never work. Balogna sauce. God's not that inept. If he wants his church to grow, he'll make a way for it to grow. And if growth of the church was God's end game, why does the church 200 years later have a fraction of one percent as its membership with snail's pace growth?

You mean, like the growth of early Christianity in its first two centuries?

No, really nothing like the growth of early Christianity

Helmut Koester: John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School:

Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

Paul's conversion as an apostle to the gentiles may date as early as three years after Jesus' death. No later than the year 35, but probably already 32 or 33.... He was in Damascus when he was called, according to his own witness. So we have, already, within two years or three or five years, of Jesus' death probably Greek speaking communities outside of Palestine, very early in Antioch, but we have also the founding of communities in Samaria.... We have apparently more isolated Christian communities founded very early in Galilee. Paul's mission carried Christianity all the way over Asia Minor, present Turkey into Macedonia, into Greece, within 20 years. And at the end of that period, Paul already knows that there's a Christian community in Rome which he has not founded.

With this explosive spread of Christian churches, not a very slow moderate growth, getting a few new members every few years, but an explosive spread of this movement, it cannot be expected that everywhere, everybody was doing and believing the same thing, singing the same hymns and reading the same scriptures and telling the same story. So we have a beginning with great diversity, and the slow process, particularly in the second century, to establish a greater unity among the very diverse churches.

Edited February 23, 2012 by Gervin

[Daniel Peterson]

Don't make the mistake of making Mormon apologetics a Mormon vs Christian thing. It's a Mormonism vs logic thing.

You seem, quite plainly, to have completely misconstrued Professor Hamblin's point.

No, really nothing like the growth of early Christianity

Really, remarkably like the growth of early Christianity.

[Damien the Leper]

Perhaps someone could address the citation of Helmut Koester. I would like to see a response to the Harvard scholar because I honestly believe that some LDS here on the board can provide an appropriate response.

[robuchan]

You seem, quite plainly, to have completely misconstrued Professor Hamblin's point.

Maybe I did. I assumed he was comparing LDS growth rate to early Christianity growth rate, in order to explain or defend the growth rate of the LDS church.

[robuchan]

I'm disappointed there are no good responses in this thread to these parallels found in Antiquities of Freemasonry.

Fairwiki doesn't have any references to George Oliver or AoF. But it does have responses to Swedenborg, Thomas ****, and other similar source material possibilities for Joseph's revelations.

I find the parallels in AoF more numerous, more exact and more condemning. Why no responses? Is this new? Did George Miller discover this?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Nope. Certainly not new.

Mormon in the Fiery Furnace, by Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin, and George L. Mitton.

One Eternal Round: The Hermetic Vision, by Hugh Nibley.

The underlying issue here is that we can look throughout history and find "parallels" to this or that piece of doctrine or vocabulary, but the parallel itself does not prove or disprove much. I have no problem with Joseph Smith's vocabulary being influenced by Freemasonry; the actual concepts are far older.

Edit: I'd also heartily recommend Christensen's links, if they haven't been looked at yet. We can find Premortal existence, the Embodied Deity, etc. in the Book of Mormon - the rather commonly-held assumption that "Nauvoo" theology was some sort of philosophical break is frankly, in my opinion, untenable.

Edited February 23, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[robuchan]

Nope. Certainly not new.

Mormon in the Fiery Furnace, by Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin, and George L. Mitton.

One Eternal Round: The Hermetic Vision, by Hugh Nibley.

The underlying issue here is that we can look throughout history and find "parallels" to this or that piece of doctrine or vocabulary, but the parallel itself does not prove or disprove much. I have no problem with Joseph Smith's vocabulary being influenced by Freemasonry; the actual concepts are far older.

Edit: I'd also heartily recommend Christensen's links, if they haven't been looked at yet. We can find Premortal existence, the Embodied Deity, etc. in the Book of Mormon - the rather commonly-held assumption that "Nauvoo" theology was some sort of philosophical break is frankly, in my opinion, untenable.

Thanks, I'll review that material.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Cool. Another useful little short essay is Nibley's The Grab Bag which deals with the question of influences, and the game of hot-potato that is rather too-often played.

[robuchan]

Edit: I'd also heartily recommend Christensen's links, if they haven't been looked at yet. We can find Premortal existence, the Embodied Deity, etc. in the Book of Mormon - the rather commonly-held assumption that "Nauvoo" theology was some sort of philosophical break is frankly, in my opinion, untenable.

I'm familiar with Christensen's take. I've seen him link these articles over and over. I just don't see it. I think how loosely he looks at the Book of Mormon is like taking a Rohrschach test. I think if you want to see the temple endowment in something and look hard enough you can find it.

[Mike Reed]

Nope. Certainly not new.

Mormon in the Fiery Furnace, by Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin, and George L. Mitton.

No... the patch-quilt maker didn't use your pair of Jeans. Remember... YOUR jeans had a zipper, button, pockets, and a grass stain on the knee. You won't see any of those things on the quilt. Besides... look at the shape of the quilt. It is completely different than your jeans. You also say the quilt maker used a pattern drawn on a folded piece of paper in your jeans pocket. Prove it. Show me where a single piece of paper is sewn onto the quilt. You won't find it. Case closed.

The underlying issue here is that we can look throughout history and find "parallels" to this or that piece of doctrine or vocabulary, but the parallel itself does not prove or disprove much. I have no problem with Joseph Smith's vocabulary being influenced by Freemasonry; the actual concepts are far older.

The question, however, is "What was the conduit through which these 'older' ideas passed?"

Edited February 23, 2012 by Mike Reed

[Bill Hamblin]

No... the patch-quilt maker didn't use your pair of Jeans. Remember... YOUR jeans had a zipper, button, pockets, and a grass stain on the knee. You won't see any of those things on the quilt. And look at the shape of the quilt. It is completely different than your jeans. Case closed.

Now that is the most insightful and scintillating response to my paper I've ever seen!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Personally, I find Christensen's views on Josiah's reforms and the loss of Wisdom from the Temple (leading to Lehi's journey) to be quite helpful - doubly so, in fact, because I came to very similar conclusions independent of both him and Margaret Barker.

As far as the parallels go:

Chaldea is prominently mentioned as a sinful place by Ezekiel and Jeremiah, two rather famous Prophets; if Joseph was making the story of Abraham up, he could easily have gotten it from there. Abraham was persecuted in the Genesis account, so it's not like that's a hard concept to find. It's common in the Bible for families to be called to repentance for idol worship, so add that in. The attempted sacrifice of Abraham could easily just be a reversal of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac - just add some flames. Again, he visited Egypt in Genesis. Seeing the day of Christ is hardly a new interpretation of the Good Book for Christians.

As far as astronomy goes, Genesis 15:5 says "And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Not exactly a stretch to think of Abraham receiving teachings about astronomy.

The degrees of the sun, the moon, and the stars is obviously from 1 Corinthians 15:41: "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory." If Masonry was revealed to Adam and transmitted from one person to another through the ages, so was the Book of the Generations. If Smith is postulating that the eternal Priesthood was from God from the beginning, Adam is the logical place to start. "Circumscribed” is mere vocabulary held in common between Masons and everyone else.

"Ritual mysteries that were sacredly withheld from all who were not initiated” is just as present in the Tabernacle in the Wilderness as they are in Masonry. This type of Patternism is certainly not unique. That an Apostasy occurred when the "pure" doctrine was perverted might be true of Masonry, but it was just as true of Israel going astray throughout the Bible - "apostasy" being, again, an issue of vocabulary. Inspired Prophets bringing about dispensations by restoring pure doctrine through “revealed truth” is found everywhere in the Bible.

The Premortal existence of Masonry/Priesthood, etc., could just as easily be an extrapolation from Exodus 40:15 "where their anointing shall surely be an everlasting Priesthood throughout their generations" combined with Job 38:4 & 7 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" and Isaiah 40:21 "Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?"

Many "worlds" created for the “residence of intelligent beings” could just as easily be from Hebrews 1:2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" or Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Combine that with John 14:2 "In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." Presto, intelligent beings over "many mansions" across "the worlds [which] were framed by the word of God."

Holy scripture to be written after the “apostasy of man” is a pretty obvious concept, given the prominence of Revelation, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc., all of which speak of periods of unrighteousness and Prophets which are told "Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book." (Jeremiah 30:2)

“There existed also another order of beings before the world was created ... expelled from the society of heaven for disobedience.” contrasted with "angels who kept their first estate" is an obvious conclusion from Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." and Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

“Plants and trees sprung up, in all their beauty and all their variety” is an obvious reformulation of the Creation account from Genesis. You can find it everywhere; Song of Solomon 4:13 says "Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard." Etc.

“Two great luminaries to rule ... the sun and moon” -- the concept of sun and moon as personified and able to give worship or be worshipped is everywhere in the Bible, such as Psalms 148:3 "Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light." or Genesis 37:9 "And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me." If they are capable of making obeisance, they are personified and just as capable of being rulers themselves.

“Beasts of every kind” is in, for instance, Genesis 7:14 "They, and every beast after his kind." Etc.

“Advancing to celestial perfection.” Well, Isaiah 28:10 says to advance "precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." 1 Corinthians 15:40 says "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." Matthew 5:48 says "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." There you go: advance precept upon precept to a celestial body so ye are therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

“Eternal life and ever-increasing happiness ... and man would assuredly become equally powerful with God himself.” Eternal life and happiness is of course obvious, and Revelation 3:21 says "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne," and sitting on the same throne as the King sounds pretty darn equal to me. Again, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

"Signs and tokens” is common language in scripture: Deuteronomy 6:8 says "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes." Psalms 135:9 says "Who sent tokens and wonders into the midst of thee, O Egypt, upon Pharaoh, and upon all his servants." Genesis 9:12 says "And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations." Etc.

“Sacred assemblies” are found everywhere in the Bible; Psalms 107:32 says "Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders." Ecclesiastes 12:11 says "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd."

“King, priest and prophet” is an obvious formulation, considering all the verses like Jeremiah 2:26 "As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets."

“Keep their passion within compass” is more simple vocabulary; Psalms 32:10 says "Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about."

“The power of the priesthood” is simply obvious from any reading of the Bible. Hosea 4:1 says to "Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land." Therefore we are charged to "arrive at a perfect knowledge of the truth" by listening to the Lord.

“Celestial and terrestrial bodies” is again from 1 Corinthians 15:40 "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another."

The teaching that "the gods they worshipped had been mere mortals like themselves" is obvious from, um, Christ Himself, who laid down His "mere" mortal body, doing nothing but what He had seen His Father do; as John 5:19 says, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

A “state of happiness or misery, to be determined by the deeds done in this probationary state" is an obvious conclusion from the Bible, unless we're really quibbling that "probationary" is a vocabulary word not found in the Old or New Testament - in which case, neither is "adieu", and we don't need Masonry for that.

“The union of Judah and Israel by joining together two sticks" is obviously from Ezekiel 37:16 "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions. And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand."

“Square and compass point out the sacred source of his faith and the rectitude of his practice.” is obvious from the sacred structures in Ezekiel, for instance 43:16 "And the altar shall be twelve cubits long, twelve broad, square in the four squares thereof." or 2 Chronicles 4:3 "And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about." Compass and square imagery is prevalent in the Bible.

“Joseph gave them the right hand of fellowship" is obviously from Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

Jethro gave Moses his “education for the priesthood" is an obvious conclusion from Exodus - Jethro was the Priest, as it says in 18:1, when "Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father in law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt" and Moses was taught by him in Exodus 18:17: "And Moses’ father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do."

That God gave Moses a “new sign and token” is another obvious linguistic formulation.

Referring to the true name of God: “He is called Elohim” - Joseph himself studied Hebrew.

“The darkness was so thick and palpable that artificial lights could not penetrate it ... for the space of three days.” Obviously you can get this from Exodus 10:22 "And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days." Or Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly [ie, in the darkness]; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth [ie, in the darkness]." Or John 2:19, when "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Or ...

“The Five Points of Fellowship" is one place where Joseph said Masonry was still perfect. Even then, it's not like fellowship itself was unusual: 1 John 1:7 says "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." as well as, again, the "right hands of fellowship" offered to Barnabus in Galatians 2:9.

“Fine twined linen” is from places such as Exodus 28:6 "And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work."

“The two grand luminaries the sun and the moon, for as the former rules the day and that latter the night...” is obviously from Psalms 136:7 "To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever: The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever: The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever."

That "the tabernacle was said to be an emblem of the three worlds, the terrestrial, the celestial and the angelic” can be seen from Exodus, etc.

“The Urim and Thummim signify perfect lights and hence the information derived from their use was not of the ambiguous cast of heathen oracles , but of that clear and perfect nature which could not be misunderstood.” Well, cool -- Exodus 28:30 says "And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron’s heart, when he goeth in before the Lord: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the Lord continually."

...

So what have we proved? Joseph Smith could have made it up just using Biblical sources. Did he? There's no way that merely looking at parallels will tell you, since both Masonry and a hoax would be drawing from the same sources, which is obvious to everyone who has read the Bible carefully. If those commonalities in the Bible, Josephus, Masonry, and all the other sources are true, then obviously they should look alike. *shrug*

Maybe Joseph read Antiquities and God gave him a revelation that said "this stuff you're reading right now is true, and if you keep it in the Temple ceremony I'm giving to you, it'll function as a Restoration of needed material." Maybe the stuff in Antiquities and Josephus, etc., is simply true and yet Joseph didn't see it, in which case, we obviously still have parallel accounts. Either way, what difference does it make? The point is to understand what you're supposed to learn from the stories.

Edited February 23, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith