Was Joseph Smith A Mason?

[Damien the Leper]

Is there concrete evidence of what Christ actually did in the Temple, or in fact much of anything when it comes to Christ?

 

Do you not trust scripture? Do you not trust that the apostles and their disciples passed on what happened? As Vatican II stated, ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ. If the scriptures are not the source of your faith in the Resurrected Christ, or that you doubt the Resurrection then Unitarianism or the United Church of Christ would love to have you. Either you believe Christ died and was resurrected or you don't. This is the biggest area where I have become theologically conservative. I don't have time for people who are like Marcus Borg and are resurrection-deniers or doubters. Also, criticism of the Holy Bible to cast doubt on Christian tradition in favor for Restorationism is worthless.

[pogi]

Do you not trust scripture? Do you not trust that the apostles and their disciples passed on what happened? 

 

Yes, we just don't believe that the apostles passed on everything that happened.  I especially would not expect to find sacred masonic/temple rituals in public writings such as the scriptures. 

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, we just don't believe that the apostles passed on everything that happened.  I especially would not expect to find sacred masonic/temple rituals in public writings such as the scriptures. 

 

That is a good way to undermine the apostles. The writers of scripture may not have known that they were writing our Canon but what is in the Canon and doctrine and theology presented by the apostles is intact.

 

You probably wouldn't find any evidence of Masonry in first century Christianity because they didn't practice it. It's really rather simple.

[pogi]

That is a good way to undermine the apostles. The writers of scripture may not have known that they were writing our Canon but what is in the Canon and doctrine and theology presented by the apostles is intact.

 

You probably wouldn't find any evidence of Masonry in first century Christianity because they didn't practice it. It's really rather simple.

 

Do you really think they passed on everything?  If so, do you really believe that we have everything they passed on?  Wouldn't you expect to see more from Peter than is included?  Surely, Peter had other writings.  The theology presented by the apostles may have been intact, but what is presented to us today is by no means untouched or exhaustive.  No doubt, many important writings have been lost in time and others excluded. 

 

I personally don't believe that Masonry or modern temple rituals were practiced, but you never know.

Edited December 4, 2013 by pogi

[Stone holm]

That is a good way to undermine the apostles. The writers of scripture may not have known that they were writing our Canon but what is in the Canon and doctrine and theology presented by the apostles is intact.

 

You probably wouldn't find any evidence of Masonry in first century Christianity because they didn't practice it. It's really rather simple.

Interesting, all intact? Yet not even the orthodox and theRoman Catholics can agree, let alone the Protestants.

[halconero]

That is a good way to undermine the apostles. The writers of scripture may not have known that they were writing our Canon but what is in the Canon and doctrine and theology presented by the apostles is intact.

 

You probably wouldn't find any evidence of Masonry in first century Christianity because they didn't practice it. It's really rather simple.

 

Hi, Valentinus! Before I say anything, I just want to know what you mean when you say that New Testament canon is intact.

 

Do you mean complete, inerrant, whole, or unchanged?

 

Are you referring to the ancient manuscripts we have, or the current translations in vogue?

Edited December 4, 2013 by halconero

[Damien the Leper]

What I mean is that it is complete and inerrant as it is. As Timothy says, "all scripture is breathed by God." Undermining this is heretical. I am beginning to believe that sola scriptural is also heretical. The Magisterium is also authoritative. This is an area where I can empathise with the LDS in the sense that prophetic teaching can be considered authoritative alongside their scriptures. The Muratorian Canon is our best guide. The Gnostic writings are heretical. That is one area where Orthodoxy failed...and that is wiping the Gnostics out.

[Damien the Leper]

Do you really think they passed on everything?  If so, do you really believe that we have everything they passed on?  Wouldn't you expect to see more from Peter than is included?  Surely, Peter had other writings.  The theology presented by the apostles may have been intact, but what is presented to us today is by no means untouched or exhaustive.  No doubt, many important writings have been lost in time and others excluded. 

 

I personally don't believe that Masonry or modern temple rituals were practiced, but you never know.

Of course I believe they probably wrote more. I think the Apocalypse of Peter should have been included rather than The Revelation. However, the Canon as it exists is authoritative. Playing the "what if" game about scripture and what was passed on does absolutely no good. Such speculation is not conducive to proclaiming Christ, Christian theology, and the mission of the Church.

[Damien the Leper]

Interesting, all intact? Yet not even the orthodox and the Roman Catholics can agree, let alone the Protestants.

CFR. Please provide an authoritative response. That would be best.

[halconero]

CFR. Please provide an authoritative response. That would be best.

Perhaps referring to the fact that Oriental Christianity, especially the Ethiopian churches have up to 9 additional books (8 NT, 1 OT).

The Protestants (for the most part) exclude the apocrypha, while the Catholic Church includes it.

[halconero]

What I mean is that it is complete and inerrant as it is. As Timothy says, "all scripture is breathed by God." Undermining this is heretical. I am beginning to believe that sola scriptural is also heretical. The Magisterium is also authoritative. This is an area where I can empathise with the LDS in the sense that prophetic teaching can be considered authoritative alongside their scriptures. The Muratorian Canon is our best guide. The Gnostic writings are heretical. That is one area where Orthodoxy failed...and that is wiping the Gnostics out.

I think this is one area where us in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get mixed up. We can agree with the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and the like, so long as it's been transmitted correctly.

I think that biblical criticism, done in the light of discovering the original meaning and writing (rather than looking to disprove the scriptures), establishes, rather than undermines the Bible.

We can catch later additions such as 1 John 5:7-8 (a fairly recent addition to the scriptures, and the product of a faked manuscript given to Erasmus), along with other errors in translation and transmission. If I've mischaracterized you on this point, please correct me.

Furthermore, speculation on additional writings, or sayings by the Apostle can drive further discovery. The New Testament mentions books not included in the commonly accepted canon, but which seem to be considered authoritative by the writers. A drive to find, or even reconstruct these from the theology and historical context of the New Testament canon can help us understand the early church and its teachings.

[pogi]

However, the Canon as it exists is authoritative. 

 

Authoritative but incomplete, with that we agree.  Who knows what else is was written to help clarify what we already have to bring unity in doctrine. 

 

Playing the "what if" game about scripture and what was passed on does absolutely no good. Such speculation is not conducive to proclaiming Christ, Christian theology, and the mission of the Church.

 

I don't think there is any "what if" about it.  We simply don't have all of their writings.  I thought there were 12 apostles, we know almost nothing about the majority of them.  Were the others not authoritative?

 

To acknowledge the incompleteness of the Bible, is conducive to proclaiming Christ, Christian theology and the mission of the church.  I want to proclaim the whole Christ, His whole theology, and His whole mission for the church, not the partial theology which nobody can agree on.  To acknowledge that it is limited, acknowledges further revelation and scripture which reveals the whole Christ.  

[Damien the Leper]

I think this is one area where us in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get mixed up. We can agree with the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and the like, so long as it's been transmitted correctly.

I think that biblical criticism, done in the light of discovering the original meaning and writing (rather than looking to disprove the scriptures), establishes, rather than undermines the Bible.

We can catch later additions such as 1 John 5:7-8 (a fairly recent addition to the scriptures, and the product of a faked manuscript given to Erasmus), along with other errors in translation and transmission. If I've mischaracterized you on this point, please correct me.

Furthermore, speculation on additional writings, or sayings by the Apostle can drive further discovery. The New Testament mentions books not included in the commonly accepted canon, but which seem to be considered authoritative by the writers. A drive to find, or even reconstruct these from the theology and historical context of the New Testament canon can help us understand the early church and its teachings.

I'm not familiar with the Ethiopic or Oriental Canons.

The Pericope Adulterae is also a later addition to John's Gospel.

I'm a fan of literary, historical and redaction criticisms. Textual criticism, while useful, I have mixed feelings for.

If the apostles wrote more then I would love to read their works. Until these works are found, I'm not going to stress over "missing" scripture or doctrine.

[Damien the Leper]

Authoritative but incomplete, with that we agree.  Who knows what else is was written to help clarify what we already have to bring unity in doctrine. 

 

 

I don't think there is any "what if" about it.  We simply don't have all of their writings.  I thought there were 12 apostles, we know almost nothing about the majority of them.  Were the others not authoritative?

 

To acknowledge the incompleteness of the Bible, is conducive to proclaiming Christ, Christian theology and the mission of the church.  I want to proclaim the whole Christ, His whole theology, and His whole mission for the church, not the partial theology which nobody can agree on.  To acknowledge that it is limited, acknowledges further revelation and scripture which reveals the whole Christ.

Again, I'm not going to stress over what we don't have. That is a waste of time. Until there is evidence of other writings I will simply continue to value what we have and go forward.

[halconero]

I'm not familiar with the Ethiopic or Oriental Canons.

The Pericope Adulterae is also a later addition to John's Gospel.

I'm a fan of literary, historical and redaction criticisms. Textual criticism, while useful, I have mixed feelings for.

If the apostles wrote more then I would love to read their works. Until these works are found, I'm not going to stress over "missing" scripture or doctrine.

Gotcha, so if I understand your position, and how it relates to this whole Masonic Jesus thing, you think it's not only useless, but undermining to speculate that Masonry is contained in some hidden or secret writing that probably doesn't exist. I can get that.

Also, for your pleasure:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_Biblical_canon

They're technically still part of the Coptic church in Alexandria, but they were granted their own patriarch about 60 years ago, gaining their own autonomy.

[Tacenda]

I think this is one area where us in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints get mixed up. We can agree with the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and the like, so long as it's been transmitted correctly.

I think that biblical criticism, done in the light of discovering the original meaning and writing (rather than looking to disprove the scriptures), establishes, rather than undermines the Bible.

We can catch later additions such as 1 John 5:7-8 (a fairly recent addition to the scriptures, and the product of a faked manuscript given to Erasmus), along with other errors in translation and transmission. If I've mischaracterized you on this point, please correct me.

Furthermore, speculation on additional writings, or sayings by the Apostle can drive further discovery. The New Testament mentions books not included in the commonly accepted canon, but which seem to be considered authoritative by the writers. A drive to find, or even reconstruct these from the theology and historical context of the New Testament canon can help us understand the early church and its teachings.

I heard something today I like.  That God works through people to establish His word.  And people leave evidence.  There is plenty evidence in the bible that we can see & touch.  Is there any of the same evidence from the BoM, say at the LDS Church History Museum or BYU Exhibit, for me to see or touch?  I just want to put the Bible back to being correct, without the connotation "as far as it is translated correctly".  

[Stone holm]

CFR. Please provide an authoritative response. That would be best.

 

Referring to the fact that they are not one Church and have different views as to how the Priesthood descended, and many other things?  Do you question that?

[halconero]

I heard something today I like. That God works through people to establish His word. And people leave evidence. There is plenty evidence in the bible that we can see & touch. Is there any of the same evidence from the BoM, say at the LDS Church History Museum or BYU Exhibit, for me to see or touch? I just want to put the Bible back to being correct, without the connotation "as far as it is translated correctly".

"As far as it is translated correctly" adds authority, weight and reverence to the Bible, rather than undermine it. It is a phrase that every Bible loving Christian should be able to get behind.

It essentially means that we believe that parts of the Bible that actually come from the Bible. It says "we believe in these books, and reject attempts to alter it."

We undermine the bible when we ignore that changes, additions and removals have altered the writings. We establish it by seeking for the original manuscripts and searching for the original meanings. "As far as it is translated correctly" is a way of saying "We believe in the original writings and sayings of the Apostles." I know of no other creed or statement of faith that supports such a fidelity and faith to the original Bible as it came from the Early Christians.

Believing that the Bible in its current form is more faithful to the original intent than the originals itself undermines, rather than establishes its importance.

[volgadon]

I heard something today I like.  That God works through people to establish His word.  And people leave evidence.  There is plenty evidence in the bible that we can see & touch.  Is there any of the same evidence from the BoM, say at the LDS Church History Museum or BYU Exhibit, for me to see or touch?  I just want to put the Bible back to being correct, without the connotation "as far as it is translated correctly".  

 

Sometimes the only evidence for an author is a text transmitted in their name.

[Damien the Leper]

Referring to the fact that they are not one Church and have different views as to how the Priesthood descended, and many other things?  Do you question that?

I'm not concerned with the Protestants. The Orthodox Churches and Rome agree on a great deal. Please answer the CFR or retract your claim. Responding with questions is not appropriate.

[volgadon]

I'm not concerned with the Protestants.

 

Well, to be fair, you did mention Moravians, too.

Edited December 5, 2013 by volgadon

[Damien the Leper]

Well, to be fair, you did mention Moravians, too.

They are recognised by the Church of England. There is a difference.

[volgadon]

They are recognised by the Church of England. There is a difference.

 

They were also highly influential in developing masonic ideas, but I'm honestly not seeing much more than a highly subjective aproach on your part.

[volgadon]

I'm trying to find where I misplaced the book I bought in a Russian Orthodox Church bookstore on how post-schismatic Catholics are wrong, wrong, wrong, but in the meantime here is a Q&A from a Russian priest, Archimandrate Tikhon (Shevkunov). http://www.pravoslavie.ru/answers/6768.htm In it he states that you will find all of the pre-1054 doctrine of Catholicism in Orthodoxy, and that Catholic theological developments after that are false. While he applauds the social activism and missionary outlook of the RCC, he also explicitly terms things like Vaticvan II a modernist mistake.

[Coreyb]

Valentinus, on 04 Dec 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

 

What I mean is that it is complete and inerrant as it is. As Timothy says, "all scripture is breathed by God." Undermining this is heretical. I am beginning to believe that sola scriptural is also heretical. The Magisterium is also authoritative. This is an area where I can empathise with the LDS in the sense that prophetic teaching can be considered authoritative alongside their scriptures. The Muratorian Canon is our best guide. The Gnostic writings are heretical. That is one area where Orthodoxy failed...and that is wiping the Gnostics out.

 

Labeling a document heretical doesn't mean anything more than saying, I don't believe in it.