Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

Posted
16 hours ago, the narrator said:

We were hoping to have it out later last year and then early this year, but the pandemic threw a wrench in our plans, especially the first few months, as being home with 2 grade-school age kids and having to educate and entertain them made diving into a deep editing project difficult. But, have no fear, it's currently in a final stage of editing, and we should have a galley available to peruse at MHA in a couple months.

Just finished watching your video. A big challenge with contemporary LDS-Masons (or is it Masonic Latter-Day Saints?) commenting on the relationship between Mormonism and Masonry is that both Masonry and Mormonism (and their rites) have gone through significant changes since Joseph Smith. In particular, Masonry went through significant deChristianizing over the last century and a half, and Mormonism has gone through significant deMasonizing during that same period--not just with the temple, but also with architecture, organizational structure, etc. (Along those lines, it was interested to read about the symbolism that has drawn so many toward Masonry while the contemporary Church is stripping so much symbolism away from the endowment as it turns the temple into a ritual assembly line.)

I can understand progress being halted due to the pandemic; our lodge was shut down for most of the year. Thankfully, we were still able to keep in touch with each other via Zoom and whatnot. I can also understand how having young children would impede the progress of such an amazing project. I hope that you didn't feel that I came across as antagonistic towards you or the authors; that was not my intention.

I agree that contemporary Latter-day Saint Masons (that's how I refer to us, anyhow) can somewhat be at a disadvantage. One resource that I have relied upon to understand the changes to temple ceremonies has been Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History edited by Devery Scott Anderson. Although I doubt that it contains references to all ceremonies, I do believe it to be comprehensive. 

Insofar as Masonic ritual is concerned, that it has all so changed across Masonry as a whole is somewhat of a difficult concept for me to wrap my head around. I'm not saying that you're wrong; far from it. It just raises a few issues that I think may be problematic (but that may be addressed in Method Infinite, for all I know; I guess that I'll just have to wait for the book to come out). For example, there is the fact that each grand lodge jurisdiction (of which there are scores, if not hundreds) is sovereign and therefore makes its own changes to the ritual that it has adopted. Did they each somehow dechristianize themselves independently of each other? Or did they hold conferences (similar to the Conference of Grand Masters  of Masons in North America) where they all agreed to implement such or similar measures? Do we have ritual from every grand lodge jurisdiction from Joseph's day to compare against modern ritual in the same jurisdictions?

Again, I'm not arguing that your position is wrong; I'm just trying to understand the historical context surrounding it (and I'm sure that Method Infinite will address these issues—yet another reason why I am so eager to purchase a copy).

Posted
16 hours ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

Brother-brother Cole,

You did a fine job. I think the single best article on the relationship between Masonic ritual and the Temple Endowment is Bradshaw's treatment entitled "Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances."  He brilliantly draws an analogy by comparing this relationship to that of the KJV Bible and the English Book of Mormon text:

 

To this statement I would add that just because some KJV language shows up in the BOM text, it does not follow that the BOM was plagiarized or that there was no actual ancient Book of Mormon text.  Rather, in the process of bringing the ancient BOM text into English the KJV seems to have been utilized to represent what was on the plates.  This was done because the KJV was available and widely read. Likewise, it is my belief that the endowment is authentically ancient and divine, but that Masonic ritual and language were used in portions because it was available and widely known. 

As an example of this, I would suggest that a ritualistic, divine embrace is something that is ancient and authentic that can be seen throughout antiquity. The specific form of divine embrace that was used in the endowment until 1990 was, however, masonic.  The divine embrace continues in the endowment today, but has been simplified. 

I appreciate the compliment. I have just downloaded a copy of Bradshaw's entry to study later. I appreciate you directing me to it. I also appreciate the parallel that you have drawn between The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ and the temple endowment ceremony; definitely some good food for thought.

Posted
12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This seems to be a popular view.  What of statements by Heber C. Kimball and others that state the reverse?

"Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from Priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect."

I don't doubt the influence becoming a mason had on Joseph.  But I reject the notion that the Masonic elements were Joseph's choice to interpret gospel principles.  I prefer to believe his contemporaries.

Joseph Fielding (December 1843): The LDS temple ordinances are “the true origin of Masonry.”

Willard Richards (16 March 1842): “Masonry had its origin in the Priesthood. A hint to the wise is sufficient.” 

 

I acknowledge that Joseph Smith, Heber C. Kimball, and various other early leaders and members of the Church opined that Freemasonry was some degenerated, corrupted form of the temple endowment and/or of Freemasonry. However, opinion is all that I find them to be, as no such view was ever canonized into the doctrine of the Church. I think that, for this position to be sustainable for me personally, the following issues would need to be resolved:

  • Speculative Freemasonry historically only traces back to 1598 Edinburgh, Scotland.
    • There is no evidence to support that it predates or originated outside of medieval Europe.
      • Due to lack of accessibility to the records that we have today, Masons of the early to mid-19th century were not aware of this; it was a popular opinion during their time that Speculative Freemasonry did indeed literally descend from King Solomon's Temple.
        • I believe that this is what Joseph and, consequently, other members of the Church based such opinions upon.
        • Due to modern scholarship, this view of Masonry literally descending from King Solomon's Temple is only held by a minority of Masons today.
    • Evidence would therefore need to be unearthed that Masonry originated before and outside of medieval Europe (particularly around 965 BCE in Jerusalem).
  • There would need to be at least some semblance of shared subject matter; there is none.
    • The only similarities are found in the teaching method, as described in the video.
      • Other examples can be given if needed.
    • Masonry would therefore have to (but does not) have at least a combination of the following:
      • Its own sectarian faith or practice.
      • Its own theology or religious dogma.
      • Its own sacraments.
      • Its own plan of salvation.
  • In D&C 124, Christ commanded the Saints to build a temple in Nauvoo so that they could perform washings, anointings, and vicarious ordinances for the dead therein; then, in verses 40-41, Christ stated that He deigned to reveal ordinances that "had been hid from before the foundation of the world."
    • The only temple ordinances that were revealed in Nauvoo after this revelation was received were the endowment, sealings, and the second anointing.
      • It therefore logically follows that the temple endowment could not have been performed in King Solomon's Temple since the endowment was hid from before the foundation of the world until it was revealed to Joseph Smith.
    • There would therefore need to be a doctrine from the Church either repealing this one (which would not happen) or providing further clarification to show that this meant something along the lines of "hidden from the eyes of those not chosen by God" or some other such qualifier.

Of course, I could very well be wrong in my position and will happily admit as much if I ever come to know it. In addition, there is nothing wrong with the preference of believing Joseph's opinions nor those of his contemporaries. Nobody approaches faith in just one way, and you could very well see/know things that I do not. One of the beautiful things about moral agency is that we can each make different choices that result in us having different perceptions of what is.

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

I was recently interviewed by Saints Unscripted to address doubts that some Latter-day Saints may have regarding Freemasonry and the influence that it has historically had on the Church, as well as a description of what Masonry is. I thought that I would share it here.

Not in the Interview

One reason for joining Freemasonry that was not mentioned in the interview is that I had heard rumors concerning Joseph Smith stealing Masonic ceremonies and passing them off as revelation; with doubts growing, I decided to become a Mason for myself to see if those rumors were true. My doubts on this matter were resolved and my faith strengthened due to the information presented in this interview. In essence, I have come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith adopted the Masonic teaching model (concepts of theatrical presentation, of physical gestures for tokens, of illustrative symbols, etc.) and adapted it to teach the Church's already-existing, unique doctrine and to make covenants with God.

 

 

Good stuff.

Few of us listen well in the temple.

In the very  beginning there is a preface to the endowment.

At the right time they say "we will now begin the "Presentation"of the endowment."

 There is the endowment and then there is the presentation of the endowment. Two different things!

 The endowment is the mass of blessings one receives by taking on the covenants one makes with the Lord.

 The presentation is just that, a presentation.  No magical incantations, just a symbolic way of presenting the material.

 Culturally, most of the new members of the church were masons and would recognize the similar symbols immediately anyway!  There was no attempted "cover up" and no need for one!

Everyone already knew about masonry, and many were masons themselves.

Anything else is anti Mormon propaganda!

Joseph simply used a commonly known cultural "language"

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
12 hours ago, poptart said:

Just tossing this out there, would be real interesting to put the BOM against say, British, German or French Masonry.  The Masonry the states has supposedly isn't the same Masonry they have on the continent, there's such a thing as red and blue lodges.

Most lodges in the USA are blue lodges (I know that you are aware of this, but I'm just writing it for the benefit of everyone else). There are, however, a few red lodges permitted to work under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana; so Louisianan Masonry might be worthy of being added to your list as well.

Posted
8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good stuff.

Few of us listen well in the temple.

In the very  beginning there is a preface to the endowment.

At the right time they say "we will now begin the "Presentation"of the endowment."

 There is the endowment and then there is the presentation of the endowment. Two different things!

 The endowment is the mass of blessings one receives by taking on the covenants one makes with the Lord.

 The presentation is just that, a presentation.  No magical incantations, just a symbolic way of presenting the material.

 Culturally, most of the new members of the church were masons and would recognize the similar symbols immediately anyway!  There was no attempted "cover up" and no need for one!

Everyone already knew about masonry, and many were masons themselves.

Anything else is anti Mormon propaganda!

Joseph simply used a commonly known cultural "language"

I had forgotten about that line and I appreciate you reminding me of it with your insight.

And I personally agree with the rest of your post.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

Did they each somehow dechristianize themselves independently of each other? Or did they hold conferences (similar to the Conference of Grand Masters  of Masons in North America) where they all agreed to implement such or similar measures?

This seems to largely be done independently and over the course of a couple centuries, beginning in the early 18th century and sped up following the Morgan affair, as Lodges and orders attempted to make themselves more inclusive of non-Christians in order to make up for the significant drop of participants.

 

1 hour ago, latterdaytemplar said:

Due to lack of accessibility to the records that we have today, Masons of the early to mid-19th century were not aware of this; it was a popular opinion during their time that Speculative Freemasonry did indeed literally descend from King Solomon's Temple.

  • I believe that this is what Joseph and, consequently, other members of the Church based such opinions upon.

Yes, this is abundantly clear--that Joseph Smith and his colleagues believed the legends associated with Masonry and that it was a corrupted (meaning that parts had been lost) order first given to Adam. However, unlike something to be done away with, it was viewed more akin to the KJV--that it need not be replaced but only completed. This seems to be the reason why Mormons in Nauvoo and in surrounding areas were to become Masons before being endowed, the latter being the completion of the rites that they began with in Masonry. (That ended in Utah, probably because of Brigham Young's belief that Masons were involved in Joseph's death [which was true] and thus not worth keeping around. This would have paralleled Young's own apathy about the Bible during this time as well.)

 

1 hour ago, latterdaytemplar said:

There would need to be at least some semblance of shared subject matter; there is none.

  • The only similarities are found in the teaching method, as described in the video.
    • Other examples can be given if needed.
  • Masonry would therefore have to (but does not) have at least a combination of the following:
    • Its own sectarian faith or practice.
    • Its own theology or religious dogma.
    • Its own sacraments.
    • Its own plan of salvation.

That may be the case with contemporary Masonry and Mormonism, but in the first half of the 19th century, the shared aspects were much stronger and more plentiful, going well beyond the rites. For example, the King Follet discourse was originally supposed to be presented at the dedication of the Nauvoo Masonic Hall, but Joseph was sick and postponed it for a few days. As the authors of Method Infinite show, it is replete with Masonic ideas and language.

Edited by the narrator
Posted
2 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

Most lodges in the USA are blue lodges (I know that you are aware of this, but I'm just writing it for the benefit of everyone else). There are, however, a few red lodges permitted to work under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana; so Louisianan Masonry might be worthy of being added to your list as well.

Noted, thanks!  This is just me adding to what Narrator said, it is interesting to see how the de-Christianizing of Masonry has done.  Something other brethren might struggle with, decades of Christian infighting and bitter politics created this and well, far as I can tell the KT is the last bastion of what's left of Christian Masonry here stateside.  I've known of other people in Commandery who weren't fond of Catholics, Mormons or whomever else wasn't their cup of self approved WASP trinitarian whatever in their ranks, my attitude and  that of a lot of us who went SR was quit griping about the mess you caused.  If you do believe in the Christian God, take it as a hint, he's sending his people to teach you a simple lesson, one that Jesus taught in his earthly ministry, don't be a jerk.  Seriously it's not that hard.  Anyway, yeah that is on my list of things to do someday, attend a red lodge.

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

This seems to largely be done independently and over the course of a couple centuries, beginning in the early 18th century and sped up following the Morgan affair, as Lodges and orders attempted to make themselves more inclusive of non-Christians in order to make up for the significant drop of participants.

 

Yes, this is abundantly clear--that Joseph Smith and his colleagues believed the legends associated with Masonry and that it was a corrupted (meaning that parts had been lost) order first given to Adam. However, unlike something to be done away with, it was viewed more akin to the KJV--that it need not be replaced but only completed. This seems to be the reason why Mormons in Nauvoo and in surrounding areas were to become Masons before being endowed, the latter being the completion of the rites that they began with in Masonry. (That ended in Utah, probably because of Brigham Young's belief that Masons were involved in Joseph's death [which was true] and thus not worth keeping around. This would have paralleled Young's own apathy about the Bible during this time as well.)

 

That may be the case with contemporary Masonry and Mormonism, but in the first half of the 19th century, the shared aspects were much stronger and more plentiful, going well beyond the rites. For example, the King Follet discourse was originally supposed to be presented at the dedication of the Nauvoo Masonic Hall, but Joseph was sick and postponed it for a few days. As the authors of Method Infinite show, it is replete with Masonic ideas and language.

Ok you got my interest, in Nauvoo they had to be Masons before being endowed?  Are we talking entered Apprentice or Master Mason?  It is a huge shame what happened to Joseph Smith, much like now even then they had plenty of cowains and other assorted trash who had no business being in the craft.  Anyway, please go on, also King Folette discorses?  Tell me, how much of the old 1800s Illonois craft did the saints take with them to Utah?  I always had the feeling once the craft started changing things centuries ago a lot of stuff was either whitewashed or just tossed away.

Posted
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Few of us listen well in the temple.

In the very  beginning there is a preface to the endowment.
At the right time they say "we will now begin the "Presentation"of the endowment."

 There is the endowment and then there is the presentation of the endowment. Two different things!
 The endowment is the mass of blessings one receives by taking on the covenants one makes with the Lord.
 The presentation is just that, a presentation.  No magical incantations, just a symbolic way of presenting the material.

I completely disagree.
That is the kind of thinking that allowed baptism by immersion to become baptism by sprinkling.
After all, it's just the symbolic representation of the covenant we make to follow Christ, right?

Posted
8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That is the kind of thinking that allowed baptism by immersion to become baptism by sprinkling.
After all, it's just the symbolic representation of the covenant we make to follow Christ, right?

Perhaps God cares less about the form and more about the covenant, and the problem was more about the latter than the former. Afterall, it seems to make more sense for God to be beholden to a covenant than the material nature of a rite.

Posted
6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I completely disagree.
That is the kind of thinking that allowed baptism by immersion to become baptism by sprinkling.
After all, it's just the symbolic representation of the covenant we make to follow Christ, right?

I think rather, baptism by immersion was most fundamentally allowed to become baptism by sprinkling due to the absence of priesthood keys. The keys have been in place throughout the Restoration and so authorized changes can be legitimately made.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I completely disagree.
That is the kind of thinking that allowed baptism by immersion to become baptism by sprinkling.
After all, it's just the symbolic representation of the covenant we make to follow Christ, right?

I disagree with the comparison. Immersion by water is a token (a physical manifestation of identity and/or authority; like a driver's license or a signature on a contract) of the covenant to take Christ's name upon oneself; whereas the presentation of the endowment is not a token of temple covenants, but rather is the vehicle whereby doctrine is taught, covenants later made, and tokens given/exchanged.

Edited by latterdaytemplar
Posted
2 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

I acknowledge that Joseph Smith, Heber C. Kimball, and various other early leaders and members of the Church opined that Freemasonry was some degenerated, corrupted form of the temple endowment and/or of Freemasonry. However, opinion is all that I find them to be, as no such view was ever canonized into the doctrine of the Church. I think that, for this position to be sustainable for me personally, the following issues would need to be resolved:

  • Speculative Freemasonry historically only traces back to 1598 Edinburgh, Scotland.
    • There is no evidence to support that it predates or originated outside of medieval Europe.
      • Due to lack of accessibility to the records that we have today, Masons of the early to mid-19th century were not aware of this; it was a popular opinion during their time that Speculative Freemasonry did indeed literally descend from King Solomon's Temple.
        • I believe that this is what Joseph and, consequently, other members of the Church based such opinions upon.
        • Due to modern scholarship, this view of Masonry literally descending from King Solomon's Temple is only held by a minority of Masons today.
    • Evidence would therefore need to be unearthed that Masonry originated before and outside of medieval Europe (particularly around 965 BCE in Jerusalem).
  • There would need to be at least some semblance of shared subject matter; there is none.
    • The only similarities are found in the teaching method, as described in the video.
      • Other examples can be given if needed.
    • Masonry would therefore have to (but does not) have at least a combination of the following:
      • Its own sectarian faith or practice.
      • Its own theology or religious dogma.
      • Its own sacraments.
      • Its own plan of salvation.
  • In D&C 124, Christ commanded the Saints to build a temple in Nauvoo so that they could perform washings, anointings, and vicarious ordinances for the dead therein; then, in verses 40-41, Christ stated that He deigned to reveal ordinances that "had been hid from before the foundation of the world."
    • The only temple ordinances that were revealed in Nauvoo after this revelation was received were the endowment, sealings, and the second anointing.
      • It therefore logically follows that the temple endowment could not have been performed in King Solomon's Temple since the endowment was hid from before the foundation of the world until it was revealed to Joseph Smith.
    • There would therefore need to be a doctrine from the Church either repealing this one (which would not happen) or providing further clarification to show that this meant something along the lines of "hidden from the eyes of those not chosen by God" or some other such qualifier.

Of course, I could very well be wrong in my position and will happily admit as much if I ever come to know it. In addition, there is nothing wrong with the preference of believing Joseph's opinions nor those of his contemporaries. Nobody approaches faith in just one way, and you could very well see/know things that I do not. One of the beautiful things about moral agency is that we can each make different choices that result in us having different perceptions of what is.

As I said, your take is becoming the pervading viewpoint.  I don't agree with it.
Because the origin of Masonry is completely irrelevant to the idea of cultural universals (there is a better term but it escapes me right now).
It doesn't matter whether we are seeing elements of the endowment in masonry, medieval catholicism, the egyptian book of the dead, ancient Chinese veils, or wherever you find it.

The endowment is the original, from the time of Adam.  That includes the so-call masonic symbols.  All these elements exist scattered through every culture in every age.  Because they are eternal.
Not some symbol Joseph picked based on his own experience.  Although I'm perfectly willing to admit Joseph's involvement with Masonry was a catalyst for revelation, much as the Egyptian Papyri were for the book of Abraham.

Posted
14 minutes ago, poptart said:

Ok you got my interest, in Nauvoo they had to be Masons before being endowed?

Yes, or at least that's heavily implied by them all becoming Masons before being endowed.

14 minutes ago, poptart said:

Are we talking entered Apprentice or Master Mason?

Master, since you aren't really a Mason until you've done the first three degrees.

16 minutes ago, poptart said:

Anyway, please go on, also King Folette discorses?

For that you'll just have to wait for Chapter 16 of Method Infinite.

Posted
8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Perhaps God cares less about the form and more about the covenant, and the problem was more about the latter than the former. Afterall, it seems to make more sense for God to be beholden to a covenant than the material nature of a rite.

I disagree.
Brigham taught that "“Let me give you the definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.”

If we fail to teach those key words, signs, and tokens (the supposed masonic elements) then we may find ourselves far less capable of entering the presence of the Father and passing his sentinels.

Posted
24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I completely disagree.
That is the kind of thinking that allowed baptism by immersion to become baptism by sprinkling.
After all, it's just the symbolic representation of the covenant we make to follow Christ, right?

 

14 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Perhaps God cares less about the form and more about the covenant, and the problem was more about the latter than the former. Afterall, it seems to make more sense for God to be beholden to a covenant than the material nature of a rite.

Catholics and other High Church Protestants would beg to differ, it's not symbolic it literally washes away original sin.  In the old days, that was one big reason why they emphasized infant baptism, if the child died he/she went to limbo.  Luther was a lot kinder on that but the idea was lets do what Christ and the Church commanded and not push it.  Eventually the Catholic Church let up.  There are still Traditional Catholics out there who follow the old ways with the sacrament of baptism, buddies of mine who went to Catholic school were taught that, this was in the 90s/2000s.  Not arguing over who is right here, just tossing it out there for education, different folks look at baptism differently.  

9 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Yes, or at least that's heavily implied by them all becoming Masons before being endowed.

Master, since you aren't really a Mason until you've done the first three degrees.

For that you'll just have to wait for Chapter 16 of Method Infinite.

More I learn about Smith and hear about Nauvoo, more interested I become and saddened when I think about how it ended.  Checking out Utah Freemasonry is deffinetly on my list now, next time i'm in SLC i'm sitting in lodge someplace.  

Posted
13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree.
Brigham taught that "“Let me give you the definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.”

If we fail to teach those key words, signs, and tokens (the supposed masonic elements) then we may find ourselves far less capable of entering the presence of the Father and passing his sentinels.

Sure, and BYoung taught a whole lot of stuff that you probably reject as well. Perhaps this is just my heretic self speaking, but I like to imagine a God that actually doesn't care so much about the material nature of a rite and more about the growth and behavior the rites are intended to engender. Given that virtually every LDS sacrament has gone through some material change in the last couple centuries, it would probably be good that he care more for the function than the material performance.

Posted
16 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Sure, and BYoung taught a whole lot of stuff that you probably reject as well.

:D  You don't know me very well do you.

Posted
51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

:D  You don't know me very well do you.

That is a truth. FWIW, I'm a big fan of Young's Adam-God doctrine, though that doesn't mean I actually buy into it. However, it is one reason why I was disappointed that these scene was cut from Prometheus:

 

Posted
46 minutes ago, the narrator said:

That is a truth. FWIW, I'm a big fan of Young's Adam-God doctrine, though that doesn't mean I actually buy into it. However, it is one reason why I was disappointed that these scene was cut from Prometheus:

 

It's interesting that you shared this, because in another forum I was just posting about the theory of the Promethean Adam to which I subscribe.

Posted
23 hours ago, the narrator said:

We were hoping to have it out later last year and then early this year, but the pandemic threw a wrench in our plans, especially the first few months, as being home with 2 grade-school age kids and having to educate and entertain them made diving into a deep editing project difficult. But, have no fear, it's currently in a final stage of editing, and we should have a galley available to peruse at MHA in a couple months.

Just finished watching your video. A big challenge with contemporary LDS-Masons (or is it Masonic Latter-Day Saints?) commenting on the relationship between Mormonism and Masonry is that both Masonry and Mormonism (and their rites) have gone through significant changes since Joseph Smith. In particular, Masonry went through significant deChristianizing over the last century and a half, and Mormonism has gone through significant deMasonizing during that same period--not just with the temple, but also with architecture, organizational structure, etc. (Along those lines, it was interested to read about the symbolism that has drawn so many toward Masonry while the contemporary Church is stripping so much symbolism away from the endowment as it turns the temple into a ritual assembly line.)

Wanted to ask, what resources/books would you recommend for the history of Freemasonry's deChristianizing?  I've had questions and either no one knows or does but won't answer due to politics.  One side has Masons going back for generations, they worked with the churches in the area to help people especially during the depression.  Seems like ever since then freemasonry and a lot of Churches here ended up enemies.  The answer i've always heard was power, I've always wondered what the churches side was.  Same thing, few times I had the guts to bring it up to religious people, either politics or no one knew.

Posted
4 minutes ago, poptart said:

Wanted to ask, what resources/books would you recommend for the history of Freemasonry's deChristianizing?  I've had questions and either no one knows or does but won't answer due to politics.  One side has Masons going back for generations, they worked with the churches in the area to help people especially during the depression.  Seems like ever since then freemasonry and a lot of Churches here ended up enemies.  The answer i've always heard was power, I've always wondered what the churches side was.  Same thing, few times I had the guts to bring it up to religious people, either politics or no one knew.

Bruno, Swick, and Literski reference Barker-Cryer, Neville. “The De-Christianizing of the Craft.” Ars Quatuor Coronathrum, 97 (1984): 34–60; and Brodsky, Michael L. “Why was the Craft De-Christianized?” Ars Quatuor Coronaturum, 99 (1986). I don't think either are available online.

Posted
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As I said, your take is becoming the pervading viewpoint.  I don't agree with it.
Because the origin of Masonry is completely irrelevant to the idea of cultural universals (there is a better term but it escapes me right now).
It doesn't matter whether we are seeing elements of the endowment in masonry, medieval catholicism, the egyptian book of the dead, ancient Chinese veils, or wherever you find it.

The endowment is the original, from the time of Adam.  That includes the so-call masonic symbols.  All these elements exist scattered through every culture in every age.  Because they are eternal.
Not some symbol Joseph picked based on his own experience.  Although I'm perfectly willing to admit Joseph's involvement with Masonry was a catalyst for revelation, much as the Egyptian Papyri were for the book of Abraham.

I'd like to go on record supporting this view, though I honestly don't see there being too much difference between you and @latterdaytemplar in practical terms. 

I agree with @latterdaytemplar that the history as we have it supports a 15-1600s origin for Masonry as an institution, but I also think it's extremely likely that elements of Masonry were derived from cultural influences around them, and perhaps influenced by mystic or esoteric elements related to early gnosticism. These would likely be fit conduits for universals or common symbols. 

Posted
On 4/20/2021 at 12:58 PM, the narrator said:

You may be interested in the forthcoming volume, Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration, which will be published later this year. The authors go into great detail on Masonry as it existed in the early 19th century and make a very compelling case that Masonry influenced how Joseph Smith and his contemporaries viewed the prophet and the work of the Restoration far more than has been realized..................

Am looking forward to that book, Loyd.

In unpublished comments and lectures, the late Wesley P. Walters suggested that Joseph Smith conceived of the Kingdom of God as one gigantic Masonic Lodge, in which the Worshipful Master in the East is Jesus, while the Senior Warden in the West is Joseph (with Nauvoo opposite and somehow parallel to Jerusalem).  For the early 19th century content of Freemasonry, see William Morgan, Freemasonry Exposed (1827/1880) – of course, Joseph married Morgan's widow, Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris, ca. 1838 (F. M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 459-460).

Frances Yates, Giordano Bruno (1965/1979) shows the dependence of Masonic mythology on the Renaissance Hermetic tradition.  And Hugh Nibley has given his view:

Quote

   The Masonic rites have a lot in common with ours [LDS temple rites]. . . . they do have the same source, if you trace their's back. But what a different picture you see! They don't give any religious meaning to their's. They think of them as symbolic, as abstract, etc. They don't think of any particular realities behind them. They have nothing to do with salvation, and what they have is broken fragments. . . . They've picked them up from various times and places, and you can trace them back. But actually, they go back to very early times, and then you get the ordinances of the Knights Templar and the Hospitalers – those were the two early secret orders that were imported into Europe in the time of the Crusades. But these were actually based on Solomon's Temple and on work for the dead. If you read St. Bernard – he wrote both the prologue and constitution for the Hospitalers (we have that still) – he shows that it goes back to the time of the Maccabees.  At the time of the Maccabees, many of the Jews went off and worshiped false gods, etc., and when they lost the battle, many of the dead were found with pagan amulets around their necks showing that they had apostatized from the God of Israel. Well, they had died as heroes for the cause, and they wondered, "What can we do to get them saved? Well, we can do their work in the Temple by proxy." So a vast fund of money was provided to have this work done so that these could be saved by having them baptized, etc., in the Temple (II Maccabees 12:34-45). And this is the tradition that is carried on by these Knights Templars and Hospitalers – it was actually work for the dead. But all this is covered up and lost later on.

Nibley, "Apocryphal Writings and Teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls," Questions & Answers at close of taped lecture delivered in late 1967 in Long Beach, Calif.; FARMS Preliminary Report N-APO rev. (1987), 44-45 (formerly in N-TEA, 33-34).  For further on the Knights Templar and Hospitalers, see H. Nibley, "Jerusalem: In Christianity," Encyclopaedia Judaica, IX (1971), columns 1572-1573 (FARMS Reprint N-JER, 4-5), and "Christian Envy of the Temple," Jewish Quarterly Review, 50 (1959):97-123; (1960):229-240 (FARMS Reprint N-CHR), also available in When the Lights Went Out (1970), 55-88.

 

Posted
20 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

I disagree with the comparison. Immersion by water is a token (a physical manifestation of identity and/or authority; like a driver's license or a signature on a contract) of the covenant to take Christ's name upon oneself; whereas the presentation of the endowment is not a token of temple covenants, but rather is the vehicle whereby doctrine is taught, covenants later made, and tokens given/exchanged.

Well said imo!

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...