Masonry In Temples Ordinances

[wenglund]

Yes. I'm aware of who Pyle is. I was an active LDS apologist between 1998-2005. I remember him from the days of ZLMB, but I haven't seen him around lately. And according to his profile on this forum, he hasn't been back since 2005 (but maybe he has a different profile that he now posts under, I don't know). I'd really be surprised if he's done any new research related to Mormonism and Freemasonry over the past couple of years. Why do you call D Charles Pyle an "expert on the issue" anyway? Expert according to who? I would be surprised if he considers himself an expert on the issue in the light of more recent work done by folks like Nick Literski, Joe Swick, George Miller, Arturo DeHoyos, Michael W. Homer, Don Bradley, myself, and others.

Wow. There was a Hiram Abiff mentioned in the Bible? That's amazing! So who are the "many people" that denied such?

Huh? Did I say that this is something to lose faith over?

Who denied that certain elements didn't come from Christianity?

Um... and your point?

Ok... and?

The exact same way, eh? And what might that be. Documentation please.

Not sure why you think I am unaware of these things.

I don't think anyone here has denied that certain elements found in freemasonry/endowment also existed in antiquity.

What masons say today is irrelevant. Do you know what sort of things Masons (regular or otherwise) were saying between the American Revolution and Civil War? Have you, for example, bothered to research funeral sermons of this time period? Perhaps you should before you claim to know what Masons would "not have said".

Yes you have. In this thread even. But this is very strange to me, since I never claimed the contrary.

You don't say?

Yep, yep, yep. And I own them to boot!

Sigh...

And...?

The wealth of respect, maturity, and edification in this post is awe-inspiring and gives us a welcomed glimpse into the kind of new Masonic scholarship that is destined to engender rightful worship among the like-minded and strike mortal fear in the hearts of others. We are experiencing the dawn of a glorious new day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Antoni]

The key to temple worship is approaching God with a heart open to inspiration and allowing Him to tell us what he wants us to understand- and discussing it in sacrament meeting is about as far away from that goal as I can imagine.

Indeed, so as an outsider can I ask where do Mormons discuss this? Perhaps part of why some saints feel disconnected/confused by Temple is the fact they feel there isn't an avenue to talk about what they feel/think about those rituals.

Masons have all sorts of ways of discussing their rituals, indeed there are Lodges dedicated to just that, but even within their membership there are a great many who are not aware of them or access them.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed, so as an outsider can I ask where do Mormons discuss this? Perhaps part of why some saints feel disconnected/confused by Temple is the fact they feel there isn't an avenue to talk about what they feel/think about those rituals.

Masons have all sorts of ways of discussing their rituals, indeed there are Lodges dedicated to just that, but even within their membership there are a great many who are not aware of them or access them.

It can be discussed within temple walls and it is common for temple workers to do so.

If one can volunteer one night a month to become a set-apart veil worker, one can spend hours discussing these things with others if desired. There are plenty of opportunities for those who want to find them. Last night, I heard two lectures on these and related subjects from a temple president- because I am an ordinance worker. Anyone can become one.

[DBMormon]

Since I started this thread and have been engrossed in another thread would you guys mind clarifying this

How does one reconcile the quotes from early leaders with the view that Masonry has no significant antiquitous historical contribution with early christianity or the temple of Solomon???

This is the crux of this thread's origin

[David T]

Since I started this thread and have been engrossed in another thread would you guys mind clarifying this

How does one reconcile the quotes from early leaders with the view that Masonry has no significant antiquitous historical contribution with early christianity or the temple of Solomon???

This is the crux of this thread's origin

Why does it need to be reconciled? They believed something which may not have been correct. As long as one believes the current Temple Ceremonies serve a legitimate divine purpose, I don't see a problem with having an unclear understanding of exactly how they were transmitted, their connection with Masonry, or who may have known about them.

[mfbukowski]

They believed something which may not have been correct.

On the other hand, it might have been correct after all. The elements are there anciently and, as usual, nothing can be proven either way.

But at least for me, it doesn't matter much either way.

[cdowis]

How does one reconcile the quotes from early leaders with the view that Masonry has no significant antiquitous historical contribution with early christianity or the temple of Solomon???

The same way we reconcile BOM geography with the statements of "early leaders". It is not a matter of doctrine, but subject to factual investigation. Anyone is free to submit their opinion.

Edited April 20, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Since I started this thread and have been engrossed in another thread would you guys mind clarifying this

How does one reconcile the quotes from early leaders with the view that Masonry has no significant antiquitous historical contribution with early christianity or the temple of Solomon???

This is the crux of this thread's origin

In my opinion, living with ambiguity is a sign of intellectual maturity. Certainty about absolutely anything is a very very ephemeral quest.

[LDSToronto]

Since I started this thread and have been engrossed in another thread would you guys mind clarifying this

How does one reconcile the quotes from early leaders with the view that Masonry has no significant antiquitous historical contribution with early christianity or the temple of Solomon???

This is the crux of this thread's origin

Which quotes are you talking about?

H.

[DBMormon]

Which quotes are you talking about?

H.

Thus, in a letter to Parley P. Pratt, written three months after Joseph became a Master Mason, Heber C. Kimball observed that:

There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from the Priesthood, but has degenerated. But many things are perfect.

Later, he explained that:

The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.

Benjamin F. Johnson, another of Joseph's intimate friends, recalled the similar opinion of the Prophet that:

Freemasonry was the apostate endowment, as sectarian religion was the apostate religion.

Edited April 21, 2012 by reelmormon

[Antoni]

It can be discussed within temple walls and it is common for temple workers to do so.

If one can volunteer one night a month to become a set-apart veil worker, one can spend hours discussing these things with others if desired. There are plenty of opportunities for those who want to find them. Last night, I heard two lectures on these and related subjects from a temple president- because I am an ordinance worker. Anyone can become one.

Thanks for this, I look forward to those discussions one day.

[LDSToronto]

Thus, in a letter to Parley P. Pratt, written three months after Joseph became a Master Mason, Heber C. Kimball observed that:

There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from the Priesthood, but has degenerated. But many things are perfect.

Later, he explained that:

The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.

Benjamin F. Johnson, another of Joseph's intimate friends, recalled the similar opinion of the Prophet that:

Freemasonry was the apostate endowment, as sectarian religion was the apostate religion.

Well, OK... It's fine and good that these early leaders said that, but that doesn't make what they said correct. They could have been misinformed, speculating, or just plain wrong.

H.

[selek1]

Thus, in a letter to Parley P. Pratt, written three months after Joseph became a Master Mason, Heber C. Kimball observed that:

There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from the Priesthood, but has degenerated. But many things are perfect.

Later, he explained that:

The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.

Benjamin F. Johnson, another of Joseph's intimate friends, recalled the similar opinion of the Prophet that:

Freemasonry was the apostate endowment, as sectarian religion was the apostate religion.

Reelmormon,

I'm sorry- but I just don't see the contradiction in these statements. To my mind, they are complementary, rather than contradictory.

The Masonic endowment is a corrupted remnant of that originally given in ancient times. They have preserved some things correctly, while others are corrupted.

The correct endowment has been restored in to its proper intent and (general) form in LDS temples.

To my mind, this is no different than the LDS understanding of Christian theology as a whole.

Could you elaborate a bit about the contradictions you perceive?

[DBMormon]

Could you elaborate a bit about the contradictions you perceive?

There is no contradiction if one stands on the side of believing Masonry's methods and rites have on some level origin dating back to early authentic Christian rites or better yet back to Solomon's time.

It becomes an issue when one takes the stand to say Masonry's rites and methods have no connection to authentic rites in Christianity's early time period or earlier (solomon's time)

Some here take the stance that masonry has no historical conection in any way shape or form to early Christian or Old testament rites and that makes the quotes difficult to deal with. These folks are telling us they were told by the prophet Joseph Masonry has a degenerated apostate endowment.... if not connected to historical Christianity or earlier .... where did they get it?

Edited April 23, 2012 by reelmormon

[Antoni]

There is no contradiction if one stands on the side of believing Masonry's methods and rites have on some level origin dating back to early authentic Christian rites or better yet back to Solomon's time.

It becomes an issue when one takes the stand to say Masonry's rites and methods have no connection to authentic rites in Christianity's early time period or earlier (solomon's time)

Some here take the stance that masonry has no historical conection in any way shape or form to early Christian or Old testament rites and that makes the quotes difficult to deal with. These folks are telling us they were told by the prophet Joseph Masonry has a degenerated apostate endowment.... if not connected to historical Christianity or earlier .... where did they get it?

There is no proof that the masonic rites go all the way back to Solomon, however there are those within masonry that would argue there is evidence that their rites do go that far back. The formation of the Grand Lodge was 1717, but the rites did exist prior to that, and we can trace it back to at least a couple of hundred years prior to that. I don't think someone woke up one day and just invented the whole thing, so I think something of it dates back in time. The idea of ritual being used as a teaching method / way of imparting spiritual truths / taking of covenants we know is ancient.

[LDSToronto]

Reelmormon - I can't stress this enough - go and listen to every minute of every part of this podcast: http://mormonexpression.com/2011/07/12/145a-mormonism-and-masonry-into-the-restoration-part-1/

You seem ill-prepared to have a discussion on this topic. You are standing on weak ground; the argument, "Joseph said it so it must be true" is fine for the faithful, but you must support your arguments with something more.

H.

[mfbukowski]

Reelmormon - I can't stress this enough - go and listen to every minute of every part of this podcast: http://mormonexpress...oration-part-1/

You seem ill-prepared to have a discussion on this topic. You are standing on weak ground; the argument, "Joseph said it so it must be true" is fine for the faithful, but you must support your arguments with something more.

H.

Why?

[mfbukowski]

"How this worthy Science was first begunne, I shall tell. Before Noah's Flood, there was a man called Lameck as it is written in the 4 Chap. of Gen.: and this Lameck had two Wives. The one was called Adah, and the other Zillah; by the first wife Adah he gott two Sons, the one called Jaball, and the other Juball, and by the other wife Zillah he got a Son and Daughter, and the four children found the beginning of all Crafts in the world. This Jaball was the elder Son, and he found the Craft of Geometric, and he parted flocks, as of Sheep and Lambs in the fields, and first wrought Houses of Stone and Tree, as it is noted in the Chap, aforesaid, and his Brother Juball found the crafte of Musick, of Songs, Organs and Harp. The Third Brother [Tubal-cain] found out Smith's craft to work Iron and steel, and their sister Naamah found out the art of Weaving. These children did know thatt God would take Vengeance for Sinne, either by fire or water, wherefor they wrote these Sciences which they had found in Two Pillars of stone, thatt they might be found after the Flood. The one stone was called Marbell--cannott burn with Fire, and the other was called Laturus [brass?], thatt cannott drown in the Water." The author of this Constitution there upon declares that one of these pillars was later discovered by Hermes, who communicated to mankind the secrets thereon inscribed.

In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes that Adam had forewarned his descendants that sinful humanity would be destroyed by a deluge. In order to preserve their science and philosophy, the children of Seth there fore raised two pillars, one of brick and the other of stone, on which were inscribed the keys to their knowledge. The Patriarch Enoch--whose name means the Initiator--is evidently a personification of the sun, since he lived 365 years. He also constructed an underground temple consisting of nine vaults, one beneath the other, placing in the deepest vault a triangular tablet of gold bearing upon it the absolute and ineffable Name of Deity. According to some accounts, Enoch made two golden deltas. The larger he placed upon the white cubical altar in the lowest vault and the smaller he gave into the keeping of his son, Methuseleh, who did the actual construction work of the brick chambers according to the pattern revealed to his father by the Most High. In the form and arrangement of these vaults Enoch epitomized the nine spheres of the ancient Mysteries and the nine sacred strata of the earth through which the initiate must pass to reach the flaming Spirit dwelling in its central core.

According to Freemasonic symbolism, Enoch, fearing that all knowledge of the sacred Mysteries would be lost at the time of the Deluge, erected the two columns mentioned in the quotation. Upon the metal column in appropriate allegorical symbols he engraved the secret reaching and upon the marble column placed an inscription stating that a short distance away a priceless treasure would be discovered in a subterranean vault. After having thus faithfully completed his labors, Enoch was translated from the brow Of Mount Moriah. In time the location of the secret vaults was lost, but after the lapse of ages there came another builder--an initiate after the order of Enoch--and he, while laying the foundations for another temple to the Great Architect of the Universe, discovered the long-lost vaults and the secrets contained within.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta43.htm

I love Manly P Hall. If anyone is not acquainted with this book, you really should be!

On the other hand- need I say more?

[TruthSeeker24]

Why?

lol Good response mfbukowski

[LDSToronto]

Reelmormon - I can't stress this enough - go and listen to every minute of every part of this podcast: http://mormonexpress...oration-part-1/

You seem ill-prepared to have a discussion on this topic. You are standing on weak ground; the argument, "Joseph said it so it must be true" is fine for the faithful, but you must support your arguments with something more.

H.

Why?

I don't know why reelmormon is ill-prepared. Maybe he hasn't read enough books?

H.

[DBMormon]

Perhaps not understanding how the quotes mesh with a view that Masonry is a relatively modern creation is exactly why I started the thread. I never stated I was an expert. My opening was an effort to understand both sides of the paradigm. In fact my stupidity is why I posted to begin with, so rather then talk down to me please help me see how a Masonry set of rites having no connection to anything ancient according to some in this forum can mesh with the quotes of those who heard Jospeh claim they were god given though corrupted and needed restored to their proper place and form. This seems to me why LDS who were masons in early church history didn't raise their eyebrows when they saw the similarities.... because joseph taught it was a corrupted form of true worship....

I don't see how one can reconcile them without agreeing that masonry ties into ancient origins. And no, I won't listen to larsen interview as he is too hostile towards the church for me to put up with

Edited April 23, 2012 by reelmormon

[David T]

I don't see how one can reconcile them without agreeing that masonry ties into ancient origins. And no, I won't listen to larsen interview as he is too hostile towards the church for me to put up with

Not all Mormons feel the need to reconcile a speculative interpretation by Joseph. Joseph's assumption was a common one, and when revelation presented to him that there were applicable elements in the ceremony that would be beneficial to present in the context of the Restored Gospel, that would only have serve to reinforce his already held assumption.

I don't have to reconcile Brigham's speculation of Sun or Moon people based on popular news articles of the day with modern understanding. There's no need.

Edited April 23, 2012 by David T

[ERayR]

Reelmormon - I can't stress this enough - go and listen to every minute of every part of this podcast: http://mormonexpress...oration-part-1/

You seem ill-prepared to have a discussion on this topic. You are standing on weak ground; the argument, "Joseph said it so it must be true" is fine for the faithful, but you must support your arguments with something more.

H.

Why?

[LDSToronto]

Why?

Like I said earlier, I have no insight into why reelmormon is ill-prepared. Maybe you ought to ask him.

H.

[mfbukowski]

Like I said earlier, I have no insight into why reelmormon is ill-prepared. Maybe you ought to ask him.

H.

Cha cha cha. No, more a tap dance. The old soft shoe. A one a two, a doodly doodly doo.