Parallels With Antiquities Of Freemasonry And The Question Of Changing Doctrines

Mortal Man · February 23, 2012

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

Yeah, it took 280 years for Constantine to convert, whereas Mitt is about to become president after only 182 years.

William Schryver · February 24, 2012

KC:

By me, in Nauvoo, the LDS were just catching up with the Book of Mormon.

And the Book of Abraham, virtually all of whose text (as I have and will continue to argue) was already recorded, known by, and available to at least a few since 1835.

William Schryver · February 24, 2012

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

I don't find them particularly impressive in the sense you and your fellows seem to.

I find the parallels in AoF more numerous, more exact and more condemning.

Condemning?

:shok:

How so?

Is this new? Did George Miller discover this?

Discover what?

He certainly didn't discover the book itself. I've had a copy for some time. I find it extremely interesting in many respects.

It's no surprise to me that many Masons were attracted to Mormonism and to Joseph Smith.

Mike Reed · February 24, 2012

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.

The exact phrase "five points of fellowship" is not in the Bible. Read it as carefully as you like... meditate upon the sound of one hand clapping, if you think that will help... it is not in there. Neither is the description of the five points ("foot to... etc") in the Bible. Both of these details (and many more) are found in freemasonry.

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?

You are right. It would make no difference at all. So lets just ignore the man with his face in his hat, riding the horse dressed like a tapir behind the curtain. Being able to explain Joseph's "restoration" in a 19th century context would not undermine missionary (retention) efforts in the slightest. You can be assured... The work of the Lord will continue to roll forth, and the Church spread across the four corners of the earth. Just "shrug" the shoulders. Very good. Nothing to worry about.

The point is to understand what you're supposed to learn from the stories.

We are "supposed" to? Who said? If they are just stories to learn from, why not simply turn to Aesops' fables, or Newbrough's Oahspe?

Edited February 24, 2012 by Mike Reed

robuchan · February 24, 2012

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

Read the google doc I link here and then read your treatment of it in your paper. Your paper was addressing an entire book where I presume George Oliver was a small portion, but you have to admit yours was a pretty weak treatment of the Joseph Smith--AoF connection.

<div>

Brooke also maintains that Joseph was somehow influenced by George Oliver's The Antiquities of Freemasonry(pp. 165-66).<a href="http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=2&id=151#note96" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 73, 109); text-decoration: none; font-size: 13px; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">96</a> Yet even a brief skimming of Oliver suggests quite strongly that Joseph had never read this book. For example, Oliver quotes or cites Herodotus (p. 46), Berosus (p. 46), Ammianus Marcellinus (p. 47), Rabbi Gedaliah ben Joseph (p. 47), Jamblichus (p. 92), Palladius (p. 115), and Augustine (p. 111), among many other ancient sources. Where, then, are the influences, or even the mentions, of these sources in early Mormon writings? Brooke also maintains that Joseph fabricated the Book of Abraham (Brooke, 211); if so, and if he had access to Oliver's Antiquities of Freemasonry, why do we find no reference to the Egyptian places, people, or gods cited by Oliver, such as Thoth (p. 46), Orus [Horus] (p. 91), Hermes (p. 92), Amenophis (p. 114), Tanis (p. 115), Thusimares (p. 102), Janias (p. 102), and even Trismegistus himself (p. 115)?

</div>

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

I didn't say the Five Points were found in the Bible, and I specifically noted that Joseph thought that some parts of Masonry were perfect. And you're right, I'm frankly not worried about connections to Masonry, since we're specifically told in the D&C to search out the best books and learn from them and gather all the good and true, because all truth is part of Mormonism.

I was using a general "you", speaking about whoever was going through the ceremony. Sorry if that was unclear. And actually, I do rather like Aesop's fables, and I find Oahspe to be pretty fascinating, even if I don't think Newbrough was on the same level as the Pearl of Great Price. I can disagree with portions of a work or person and yet find kernels of truth it. Heck, I've found passages to like in the Urantia book, of all things, even though I find it to be fundamentally absurd. Though I don't think that the Pearl of Great Price or the Book of Mormon are fiction, even if they were I'd find great value in them.

Same goes for Spiritualists like Allan Kardec or the self-confessedly-fraudulent Fox sisters (whose seances would eventually influence such far-flung religions as the 1926 Vietnamese Cao Dai and Korea's Sun Myung Moon's 1954 Unification Church) or Tenrikyo, which was revealed to Miki Nakayama in Japan, or Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society, or the mesmerist hypnotist Phineas Quimby, who laid the foundations of the New Thought movement, or Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science, or the many psychics such as Edgar Cayce and those who followed his ideas, or the Victorian precursors of the numerous sects of modern scholarship-based syncretistic Neo-Paganism like Anna Kingsford's forays into "automatic writing", which helped to inspire ritual magic secret societies such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn that occult magicians like Aleister Crowley would later popularize, or Jung's works, or Tarot cards, or, or ...

I don't think they're all right. Not even close. I think Cayce was silly. I think Crowley was horrible. But I can still learn from them.

Edited February 24, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

robuchan · February 24, 2012

Yeah, it took 280 years for Constantine to convert, whereas Mitt is about to become president after only 182 years.

And if he doesn't make it, we have another shot with Rubio.

robuchan · February 24, 2012

Condemning?

How so?

Condemning in the sense that the hits are so numerous and specific that it seems unreasonable to say it wasn't used as source material. And that the hits found their way into Mormon scripture (the Book of Abraham specifically, which already has a lot of problems even before you start to recognize possible source material). And that none of these ancient truths came via the Book of Mormon. And that they find their way into LDS doctrines that take a serious veer off of standard Christian doctrine.

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

So, to review:

1. robuchan posts a long list of parallels which are supposed to damn Joseph Smith's "expansive, extra-biblical doctrine found in the Book of Abraham, temple ceremonies, King Follet discourse, etc.," for their supposedly exclusive connection with Masonry, and because with how "numerous and specific" they are, and how "serious[ly they] veer off of standard Christian doctrine" it's unreasonable for Joseph to have found them in any other source.

2. I provide an alternative list in which all but one point (which I specifically mention) can be derived from the Bible, which is a rather more obvious common source.

3. The vast majority of my post is ignored.

4. The conversation drifts to Mitt Romney.

You all understand, of course, that this leads inexorably to the inevitable:

5. I become rather sad and want to eat a cookie. :(

robuchan · February 24, 2012

So, to review:
1. robuchan posts a long list of parallels which are supposed to damn Joseph Smith's "expansive, extra-biblical doctrine found in the Book of Abraham, temple ceremonies, King Follet discourse, etc.," for their supposedly exclusive connection with Masonry, and because with how "numerous and specific" they are, and how "serious[ly they] veer off of standard Christian doctrine" it's unreasonable for Joseph to have found them in any other source.
2. I provide an alternative list in which all but one point (which I specifically mention) can be derived from the Bible, which is a rather more obvious common source.
3. The vast majority of my post is ignored.
4. The conversation drifts to Mitt Romney.
You all understand, of course, that this leads inexorably to the inevitable:
5. I become rather sad and want to eat a cookie. :sad:

I spent an hour and a half today pigging out on Mongolian grill buffet and studying the two articles you posted. Both good reads, but neither addressed the AoF parallels outside of the one paragraph I copy above. So your posting hasn't been in vain. I just barely read your long post addressing the parallels. Good stuff and thank you. I don't dismiss what you have to say, and I'll let it sink in more, but I find the large number, and unique nature of the hits to be so overwhelming that it seems highly likely to be Joseph's source material when he uses them in various outlets: temple ceremony, KFD type doctrine and sermons, Book of Abraham, etc.

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

Cool. Thanks.

My disagreement comes when the "unique nature" of the hits is asserted. As I've shown, nearly all of them are held in common with the Bible, and while they do veer off from what is commonly understood to be "Christian doctrine", this shows nothing except that some people haven't read their Bibles very closely. If anything, I think it's evidence that Masonry and Mormonism are closer to truth in some very important ways than the traditional Post-Augustinian Neo-Platonic Christianity that more people are familiar with. (My point with Nibley's two papers was that there are vast amounts of literature you can find with thematic and linguistic resemblances to Smith's revelations and Masonry. I recommend John Crowley's Aegypt cycle for many more.)

Clearly, Masonry and the Temple are connected. For all I know, Smith did read Antiquities. Wouldn't bother me if he did, and used the language he found there to express true concepts. What matters is if they are true, not where they came from.

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

I think it really depends on where you're coming from. In that recent Mormon Stories featuring meso-americanist Michael Coe, he mentioned that reading Frazier's The Golden Bough is what destroyed his faith in God, completely eviscerating the "proofs" he had learned from Aquinas. On the other hand, C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien were just as aware of all the "primitive" comparative myths, and they found them to be powerful confirmation of their faith.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. As one of the dreaded Nibleyophiles, I think the guy was on the right track, even if you were to read him from a completely non-Mormon perspective (which I did, before I converted). I don't think even most Mormons realize how groundbreaking he was - as a history major (not that that gives me any authority, I just mention it to show how interested I am in this stuff), I think Nibley is right up there with Eliade and the greats. For instance:

What is a Temple?

The Meaning of the Temple

Christian Envy of the Temple

Return to the Temple

Abraham's Temple Drama

... are all amazing. I'm working my way through as many of the primary sources he uses as I can, and I've found him to be scrupulously honest with 'em, even when I disagree with his interpretation.

Edited February 24, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

Bill Hamblin · February 24, 2012

Clearly, Masonry and the Temple are connected. For all I know, Smith did read Antiquities. Wouldn't bother me if he did, and used the language he found there to express true concepts. What matters is if they are true, not where they came from.

I think there is striking and decisive evidence that JS did not read Antiquities. But I'll wait until Reed and "Miller" publish their book to discuss it.

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

That would also be fine with me. *grin*

Monster · February 24, 2012

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.

What kind of God is this? He creates the universe and all things therein. He understands everything, he is omnipotent. To say that he is limited by the logistics of mummies to get his word out stretches credibility to an extreme.

Also the whole line upon line thing is a red herring. It is not as if we are learning how quantum physics works. God would only have to show up and say here I am and in about 60 minutes have us more up to speed with the purpose of life than we have been able to figure out in the last 2000 years on our own. Learning at a regulated pace is for things that are complex and take time, not for simple concepts. Besides we have not learned a thing since Joseph left. We just rehash the same concepts and try to put a different spin on them. We are not learning anything new. We are not learning line upon line. We just are not learning.

altersteve · February 24, 2012

Besides we have not learned a thing since Joseph left. We just rehash the same concepts and try to put a different spin on them. We are not learning anything new. We are not learning line upon line. We just are not learning.

Or maybe it's just you who is not learning.

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

Yo. Speak for yourself, dude/dudette. I've been sitting here in the library for the past ten hours trying to learn stuff. (Edit: er, that was to Monster. Sorry, steve. *grin*)

(As for the other stuff, God did show up and say "here I am". More than once, even. The problem is that He has worlds without number to care for, and we Mormons don't think He can be everywhere at once, except insofar as His words and influence can be felt in the people whose lives are touched by the scriptures. I think part of the purpose of the Temple is to form a template through which generations can come to the knowledge of God even if they haven't personally seen him with their natural eyes.)

Edited February 24, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

robuchan · February 24, 2012

Yo. Speak for yourself, dude/dudette. I've been sitting here in the library for the past ten hours trying to learn stuff. (Edit: er, that was to Monster. Sorry, steve. *grin*)
(As for the other stuff, God did show up and say "here I am". More than once, even. The problem is that He has worlds without number to care for, and we Mormons don't think He can be everywhere at once, except insofar as His words and influence can be felt in the people whose lives are touched by the scriptures. I think part of the purpose of the Temple is to form a template through which generations can come to the knowledge of God even if they haven't personally seen him with their natural eyes.)

That's an interesting concept of God. He has so many kids he can't dedicate enough time to any of them? Like the Duggars?

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

If you're joking, then "yeah, pretty much." If you're serious, then "dude, no way."

Calm · February 24, 2012

I don't think they're all right. Not even close. I think Cayce was silly. I think Crowley was horrible. But I can still learn from them.

My mother would love you. She feels the same way.

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

Your mother is clearly in possession of a keen, discerning, praiseworthy intellect. B:)

Calm · February 24, 2012

Definitely, unfortunately she doesn't have a lot of people to talk to about it. She was born too early to be comfortable with the Internet....besides Dad has more or less staked out the computer as his territory. I try to read as much of the stuff as possible, but I tend to get frustrated with unfocused writing so I'm better on the academic stuff, but bad on the more alternative stuff.

JeremyOrbe-Smith · February 24, 2012

Well, most of it really is pretty silly. I don't want to paint myself as too open-minded here. *laugh*

What I learn from Cayce is mostly "don't listen to guys like this." Which is pretty much what a lot of people say about Joseph Smith, so hey, we're even.

Maidservant · February 24, 2012

God would only have to show up and say here I am and in about 60 minutes have us more up to speed with the purpose of life than we have been able to figure out in the last 2000 years on our own. Learning at a regulated pace is for things that are complex and take time, not for simple concepts. Besides we have not learned a thing since Joseph left. We just rehash the same concepts and try to put a different spin on them. We are not learning anything new. We are not learning line upon line. We just are not learning.

The things we need to learn have nothing to do with information nor the exact distance from here to Kolob. I'm sure we already know that before we came here, as well as quantum physics.

What we don't know is charity. That is the learning that needs to take place. The scriptures and the temple are a support in this, not the central thing. The actual endowment, the actual revelation of God is in life, in experience, not inside a white building or on a page.

But neither might we know what we are seeing in life and experience without temple and scriptures.

I have learned a LOT . . . like how to be more patient with my children. We forget that this is the name of the game.

altersteve · February 24, 2012

That's an interesting concept of God. He has so many kids he can't dedicate enough time to any of them? Like the Duggars?

No. Heavenly Father is always there for His children, whenever they need Him.

Sign In

Parallels With Antiquities Of Freemasonry And The Question Of Changing Doctrines

Recommended Posts

Mortal Man

William Schryver

William Schryver

Mike Reed

robuchan

JeremyOrbe-Smith

robuchan

robuchan

JeremyOrbe-Smith

robuchan

JeremyOrbe-Smith

JeremyOrbe-Smith

Bill Hamblin

JeremyOrbe-Smith

Monster

altersteve

JeremyOrbe-Smith

robuchan

JeremyOrbe-Smith

Calm

JeremyOrbe-Smith

Calm

JeremyOrbe-Smith

Maidservant

altersteve

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse