Scale Of Apostasy

[canard78]

Specific to your claim that more Mormon men are visiting prostitutes and are increasingly being 'let off' by Bishops and given recommends, which is turn is as a result of less spiritual Stake Presidents (instead of Bishops being called by GAs).

It is becoming more common, unfortunately, than we would hope. This was considerably less common when Bishops were called directly by General Authorities instead of through intervention of the various Stake Presidents. If you have a spiritual Stake President, this situation works. When you don't, that is when trouble erupts because he is most likely to choose his friends than others. I have seen that one too many times and it always ended badly for the Ward. There are some things I wish I had never seen or experienced. Let's just leave it at that.

Umm... what? Do you have any evidence for this beyond your own perceptions? How could you possibly know that within the global church there is a growing trend for the Bishops that were called by Stake Presidents to let off men who visit prostitutes?

[Stone holm]

I know of nothing in the Church that would bar or discourage a Mormon from joining the Masons. The Utah Masonic Grand Lodge used to have a rule which excluded Mormons, but that rule violated Masonic law and was just due to local gentile prejudice against Mormon and has since been rescinded. There was, however, considerable ill will between the Masons and the Mormons at the conclusion of the Nauvoo era because of the fact that the two Blue Lodge charters that were dominated by Mormons and had huge memberships were yanked and it was believed by some Church leaders at the time that Masons were in the mob that slew Joseph and Hyrum, and that the local Lodges helped hide their identities. But that ill will has long since evaporated.

[Stone holm]

There is no rule against becoming a Mason in the Church. You won't lose your temple recommend, or denied a calling because you have become a Mason. But there is a conflict of interest between the two. Masonry is not just the esoteric stuff, which fascinates a lot of people. It is also a fraternity, and there is a social aspect to it too. In their social functions they consume alcohol, and there may be a peer pressure (for some) to conform to their standards. And since their rites are similar to ours, there is a potential danger that those who are weak in faith may be drawn away from the Church to those kinds of ideals. It also varies from country to country. It is not the same as it was in the days of Joseph Smith. There is nothing in the Church Handbook of Instructions about it as far as I can tell; but stake presidents may have been advised privately not to encourage it. Next time I see my stake president I will ask him what his advice is about that.

Masonry is not entirely neutral vis-à-vis the Church. In some ways is fulfils the role of a religion. I know it doesn't claim to be, but to some degree it may fulfil that role for some people. And having two religions at the same time is not a good idea.

Masonry is no more a religion than AA.

[mathonihah]

Masonry is no more a religion than AA.

No idea what AA is; but if Confucianism can be a religion (it is for the Chinese), then so can Masonry be for some people.

Edited April 3, 2013 by mathonihah

[Stone holm]

No idea what AA is; but if Confucianism can be a religion (it is for the Chinese), then so can Masonry be for some people.

Yes some people treat Alcholics Annonymous (AA) as a religion, but that does not make it one. Some people also treat Christianity as merely an ethical system (Thomas Jefferson), but that does not make it one either. Although it is curious that the AA when it realized that it needed a spiritual component turned to the same philosopher/psychologist that the SCOTUS turned to when they sought a definition of religion for 1st Amendment purposes.

[DBMormon]

8

50% are completely inactive

of the 50% who are less active or better - only half of them or less pay tithing.

Of the 25% left over - half of them have a current recommend

and of the 12.5% left over Elder Jensen indicates some of them are leaving in what might be the biggest, He called it, Apostasy since kirtland.

Based on Commandment and covenant keeping, that leaves about 10% of the church moving forward in creating Zion.... So I think an 8 is actually pretty kind of me

..... sarcasm in answer was at no charge

Edited April 3, 2013 by DBMormon

[MormonMason]

Specific to your claim that more Mormon men are visiting prostitutes and are increasingly being 'let off' by Bishops and given recommends, which is turn is as a result of less spiritual Stake Presidents (instead of Bishops being called by GAs).

Umm... what? Do you have any evidence for this beyond your own perceptions? How could you possibly know that within the global church there is a growing trend for the Bishops that were called by Stake Presidents to let off men who visit prostitutes?

I have seen a lot. I am away from home a lot. I am in a number of Wards all over. I have been in a number of Wards in various places around the country. I know what I saw. I know what I had to deal with.

But, to give actual evidence, I would have to name names, name the Wards and Stakes, and bring unnecessary risk to myself in the process. Would you really like me to embarrass all those people and take away their ability to repent on their own initiative without doing so by being compelled out of embarrassment? Would you prefer I compromise the safety of myself and members of my family? Get real...not happening.

[Stone holm]

8

50% are completely inactive

of the 50% who are less active or better - only half of them or less pay tithing.

Of the 25% left over - half of them have a current recommend

and of the 12.5% left over Elder Jensen indicates some of them are leaving in what might be the biggest, He called it, Apostasy since kirtland.

Based on Commandment and covenant keeping, that leaves about 10% of the church moving forward in creating Zion.... So I think an 8 is actually pretty kind of me

..... sarcasm in answer was at no charge

Actually you forgot the percentage of members on the record who have been dead like for a couple years or so, etc.

[MormonMason]

There is no rule against becoming a Mason in the Church. You won't lose your temple recommend, or denied a calling because you have become a Mason.

True. Well, so long as Bishops and Stake Presidents adhere to Church policy I would not be denied a calling or temple recommend on the basis of my membership in the Fraternity.

But there is a conflict of interest between the two. Masonry is not just the esoteric stuff, which fascinates a lot of people. It is also a fraternity, and there is a social aspect to it too. In their social functions they consume alcohol, and there may be a peer pressure (for some) to conform to their standards. And since their rites are similar to ours, there is a potential danger that those who are weak in faith may be drawn away from the Church to those kinds of ideals. It also varies from country to country. It is not the same as it was in the days of Joseph Smith. There is nothing in the Church Handbook of Instructions about it as far as I can tell; but stake presidents may have been advised privately not to encourage it. Next time I see my stake president I will ask him what his advice is about that.

I see no conflict of interest and I have been both a Mason and a Latter-day Saint for many years. It is true that there is a social aspect to it, which is why it can be enjoyable on that aspect alone. I enjoy both the social aspect and the esoteric aspects. As to the alcohol element of it, there are allowances made for those who do not use alcohol, in both social gatherings and in the rituals themselves. I never was forced to participate in the use of alcohol, even during rituals that make use of the substances. Grape juice was substituted in some cases and in other cases one only needed to touch the glass to the lips and pretend to drink in others. Many Lodges actually ban the use of alcoholic beverages in social gatherings involving the Lodges.

And, it is true that things are different from country to country, but this has always been the case. And, what do you mean by not the same as in the days of Joseph Smith? The rituals? That is a given. They weren't the same from his time to prior to his time and each State pretty much has its own variants on the rituals and always have had such differences. That is precisely why I laugh at those who quote from monitors and ritual exposures written by Masons from New York when the rituals of Illinois differed in a number of places from those of New York in the time of Joseph Smith as well as now.

As to claimed similarities between the rites of Freemasonry and the ceremonies of the LDS temple, they are fewer than most claim. Some are actually only more similar if they are done wrong. As to the rest, the differences are vast. But only those who have actively participated in the rituals and in the temple actively and frequently would be aware of where it is even remotely similar and where there are substantial differences. Wording and incomplete pictures in books do not communicate the information accurately. It only appears as such to an outsider or to one who is less active in one or the other of the two, or among those who actively look for and claim parallels wherever they may be found, no matter how contrived they are when examined in depth.

Masonry is not entirely neutral vis-à-vis the Church. In some ways is fulfils the role of a religion. I know it doesn't claim to be, but to some degree it may fulfil that role for some people. And having two religions at the same time is not a good idea.

You are right about having two religions being a bad idea. Albert Pike agrees. But, Masonry is no more a religion than is the Boy Scouts of America. "Masonry is not a religion. He who makes of it a religious belief, falsifies and denaturalizes it" (Pike, Morals and Dogma, 161; De Hoyos, Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma: Annotated Edition, 230).

So, if people try to make Freemasonry their religion, that is their choice but it is a bad one. Even Albert Pike, as I said before, would agree with this sentiment. The Fraternity does not set itself up as such. Nor does it encourage people to think that way about it. So far as religion goes, Freemasonry, with the exception of illegitimate bodies that style themselves Masonry, is religion neutral. If it were otherwise, I would not have been a part of it for so long.