Freemasonry and the Church

[Jamie]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If Joseph was inspired by masonry it is irrelevant to his conclusions.

He thought in a different "language" than we do now, but what us important was WHAT he thought, not his sources.

Eh, that's debatable. I think I benefit by knowing who his sources were.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/21/2021 at 3:40 PM, Jamie said:

I've lived long enough to know the Church is true even though even though a lot of other people don't know it, or they deny it. I'm still not sure why some people deny it, though.  Is it because they don't know it or because they don't want to admit it?

It is totally obvious that the Church is true.  It just is.  Because it is what it is.

Imo, exactly right!  Even Oprah cannot argue that that is not "living your truth"

Contemporary postmodernist thought is the greatest missionary tool we have, but no one apparently sees that.

For me personally, those who accept, in the church, that God could have used evolution, should see that how he transmitted th BOM or BOA is just as irrelevant to the truth of the gospel as is evolution.

But they don't.

We don't know where "Zarahemla" was either, but it doesn't matter

 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Eh, that's debatable. I think I benefit by knowing who his sources were.

Yes I know 

[Jamie]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For me personally, those who accept, in the church, that God could have used evolution, should see that how he transmitted th BOM or BOA is just as irrelevant to the truth of the gospel as is evolution.

But they don't.

Setting aside the fact that I see evolution in opposition to the fall because I don't see going from being immortal to mortal as progress or a step up, how exactly is how God transmitted the BOM or BOA irrelevant to the truth of the gospel?

[the narrator]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Seriously, why is this relevant to you?

Do you care about, say, the sources other leaders use to generate their ideologies or religious views, and accept their theories based on who their sources were, rather than the content of the theory?

Many today accept Marxist theories without even knowing they come from Marx.

Does it matter? 

Let's not make it political, of course.

Do we accept the value of a composer's music on those who influenced them?

Yes a Prophets word supposedly come from God, but who is the judge of whether or not it WAS "from God?"

How does one find that out using reason?

If there are no rational ways, we must make our own decisions based on our own hearts.

It's like selecting a political party- we go with what seems right in our "gut", or what the "spirit" tells us.

If Joseph was inspired by masonry it is irrelevant to his conclusions.

He thought in a different "language" than we do now, but what us important was WHAT he thought, not his sources.

Not speaking for anyone, including myself, here, but I think the problem for many is not necessarily what this says about Joseph Smith, but what it says of the contemporary Church that, while giving subtle nods on the periphery of JS being influenced by his surroundings, heavily promotes the notion that JS's revelations were entirely unfiltered and directly from God and almost always distinct from, if not contrary to, theological and even temporal views of his time. Yes, publications like the Gospel Topics and Saints volumes make attempts to mitigate the view Joseph receiving revelation in a vacuum, but even those (which, to be honest, will not be read by the majority of saints) take a back seat to GC talks and statements by general authorities--especially seventies--who promote the opposite. Hence, the recent Hank Smith debacle on Twitter.

Apologies from my unnecessarily long sentences. 

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Seriously, why is this relevant to you?

Do you care about, say, the sources other leaders use to generate their ideologies or religious views, and accept their theories based on who their sources were, rather than the content of the theory?

Many today accept Marxist theories without even knowing they come from Marx.

Does it matter? 

Let's not make it political, of course.

Do we accept the value of a composer's music on those who influenced them?

Yes a Prophets word supposedly come from God, but who is the judge of whether or not it WAS "from God?"

How does one find that out using reason?

If there are no rational ways, we must make our own decisions based on our own hearts.

It's like selecting a political party- we go with what seems right in our "gut", or what the "spirit" tells us.

If Joseph was inspired by masonry it is irrelevant to his conclusions.

He thought in a different "language" than we do now, but what us important was WHAT he thought, not his sources.

Because everything I thought I knew is being challenged. So I'm having to start back over again?

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Seriously, why is this relevant to you?

Do you care about, say, the sources other leaders use to generate their ideologies or religious views, and accept their theories based on who their sources were, rather than the content of the theory?

Many today accept Marxist theories without even knowing they come from Marx.

Does it matter? 

Let's not make it political, of course.

Do we accept the value of a composer's music on those who influenced them?

Yes a Prophets word supposedly come from God, but who is the judge of whether or not it WAS "from God?"

How does one find that out using reason?

If there are no rational ways, we must make our own decisions based on our own hearts.

It's like selecting a political party- we go with what seems right in our "gut", or what the "spirit" tells us.

If Joseph was inspired by masonry it is irrelevant to his conclusions.

He thought in a different "language" than we do now, but what us important was WHAT he thought, not his sources.

Totally on board with most not all of what you say here, had to reread your post, I know I already responded. I know w/o a doubt the gut feeling I have about the church is that for the most part it's a good place to be as far as how it evolves and flows into a righteous river/stream hopefully. That's why I probably will always stick around. 

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The Book of Mormon certainly doesn't reflect a familiarity with ancient Mesoamerica.

Have you read Brandt Gardner's writings on the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica?  He would certainly disagree.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Have you read Brandt Gardner's writings on the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica?  He would certainly disagree.

Yes, he would. 

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

If Joseph Smith used masonry as a vehicle for the temple,

Some elements may have been borrowed from masonry, or maybe not.  Some of them apparently go way back.   Here's a link to a post I made at the end of 2019, quoted again below:

Quote

I’d like to know how some of you view the findings below, particularly with regard to the claim that Joseph Smith got the temple ceremony from Masonry.

This comes from a 1993 BYU Studies article:  Evidences of a Christian Population in the Egyptian Fayum and Genetic and Textile Studies of the Akhmim Noble Mummies, by C. Wilfred Griggs, Marvin C. Kuchar, Scott R. Woodward, Mark J. Rowe, R. Paul Evans, Naguib Kanawati, and Nasry Iskander,  in BYU Studies, Volume 33, Number 2 (1993), p. 214-243, found here:   https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-332-1993

The article is about the study of textiles found on bodies excavated in a “cemetery which was used for burials from about 200 BC to about AD 800”, and the evidence of Christian influence that shows up during the Christian era in the cemetery. 

Here’s the intro to the article:

Quote

 

Since 1981 a team from Brigham Young University has been excavating in the Fayum in Egypt at both an Old Kingdom Pyramid (the Seila Pyramid) and a Greco -Roman cemetery.  The team has uncovered hundreds of unplundered burials in the cemetery, including two extremely significant pre-Christian burials, and the team’s work has yielded new information about the lives of early Christians and ancient pharaohs in Egypt.  Although the initial genetic and

textile results were limited to a few significant conclusions about family relationships and material circumstances of those Christian burials, the cutting edge research methods developed and employed proved to be very illuminating .

Because of the expertise the team developed in that effort it was invited in 1992 by the Egyptian Antiquities Organization to do textile and genetic studies on the noble mummies from Akhmim and the Egyptian Royal Mummies.  This article describes the major findings of the team’s research to date. (p. 215)

 

 

Some of the bodies during the Christian era were clothed in textiles that were previously unused, indicating a specific burial dress.  This is probably not unusual in and of itself.  But here is where it gets interesting:

 

Quote

 

Ten of the robes on this burial are plain linen garments but the many strands of linen ribbon wrapped around the upper half of the body are gathered together into a complex knot.  This knot is found on the left shoulder on two of the robes, and on the right shoulder of the remaining eight robes (see p. 272).  The symbol of the sacred knot or bow is common in Egypt and elsewhere and may indicate sacerdotal or priestly authority.

The piece of clothing closest to the body is not usually well preserved, due to the destructive influence of fluids and chemicals remaining in the body.  In this burial, as well as a few others, however, the woolen garment next to the skin is sufficiently well preserved for us to observe that small rosettes have been woven into the material in particular locations.  There is one rosette over each breast and one on the right leg near the knee, but there is no corresponding rosette on the left leg.  Across the lower abdomen, the material also has a hemmed slit about six inches long.

Considered all together, the various items of clothing, all previously unused and many containing symbols and designs, argue strongly for belief not only in an afterlife, but also for appropriate attire, most likely accompanied by or representative of a multifaceted and complex ritual process which would assure safe and successful passage into the realm of the divine.  (p. 225-227)

 

 

Here's one of the images and captions from page 227:

 

[Jamie]

 

 

Ooooh, wool garments.  Talk about itchy.  Was cotton not invented until the 14th century?  Temple garments before there were any Freemasons?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

Not speaking for anyone, including myself, here, but I think the problem for many is not necessarily what this says about Joseph Smith, but what it says of the contemporary Church that, while giving subtle nods on the periphery of JS being influenced by his surroundings, heavily promotes the notion that JS's revelations were entirely unfiltered and directly from God and almost always distinct from, if not contrary to, theological and even temporal views of his time. Yes, publications like the Gospel Topics and Saints volumes make attempts to mitigate the view Joseph receiving revelation in a vacuum, but even those (which, to be honest, will not be read by the majority of saints) take a back seat to GC talks and statements by general authorities--especially seventies--who promote the opposite. Hence, the recent Hank Smith debacle on Twitter.

Apologies from my unnecessarily long sentences. 

Agree.  (Not on the sentence length---  ! )

We as a people have two choices- grow up or die as infants, a footnote in future religious histories of cults that never fully devolped.

I know those are strong words, but on the other hand I think the church has no bigger fan of the possible paradigms that can grow out of the groundwork Joseph laid.  I feel I have to speak a different language in church than what lies in my head, but that's the only difference between my language and that of my brothers and sisters.  It's all right there waiting to be translated into contemporary, postmodern thought. 

To a large extent our pool of potential converts has given up on us already, we might as well still be speaking Latin.  

All of that was true also....... once.

What a world this could be if everyone truly believed that in some sense we can barely understand- God is still a human being infinitely magnified in intelligence!

Consider what that would do for humanism, religion, social justice, the value of this planet and the nature of creativity/creation itself!

[Calm]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

Hence, the recent Hank Smith debacle on Twitter.

What outside of him labeling another as a Korihor was obviously wrong or particularly humiliating?  My understanding was he challenged critics for refusing to see Joseph as a prophet while accepting the doctrinal ideas they liked as inspired (but that is secondhand and I may have missed something).  While one can accept what they want from teachings, I am not seeing his position as horribly embarrassing.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Because everything I thought I knew is being challenged. So I'm having to start back over again?

No, go with your heart and relax.

Religion is not about "facts" which are observable, it is "HOPE for things UNSEEN" !

By definition, IT CANNOT BE SEEN OR PROVEN OR DISPROVED that way!

The moment you want to see, you are out of the "hope for things unseen" mode!   You are automatically off track.

Religion is about what you HOPE for and it becomes FAITH when you act on that hope!

Do you feel calm and peaceful about what you HOPE for and are willing to ACT upon?

That's all you need and all there IS!!   No one can take away what you hope for!   I  always love your willingness and openess to listen, you are quite a unique person I think.

 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Jamie said:

Setting aside the fact that I see evolution in opposition to the fall because I don't see going from being immortal to mortal as progress or a step up, how exactly is how God transmitted the BOM or BOA irrelevant to the truth of the gospel?

Is there a difference between what you see before your nose, and what you HOPE for??

Scriptures present text which gives us hope for things unseen.  And do you think being a free agent is a step "up" from being a programmed robot without choice?

It maybe odd but I think it is a giant step forward to be a thinking and acting agent which is mortal than being an immortal robot.

It seems to me that being the latter would be among the worst punishments I can imagine- an eternity of never being able to make a choice about anything.  You would always automatically do the perfect thing, without the ability to chose anything else.

Nope, not for me

The active postulate is that we could not understand HOW he does what he does without being Him.   We don't have the capacity to understand it

Imagine teaching a young monkey calculus.  It would be a thousand times worse than that.

Edited May 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Jamie said:

 

 

Ooooh, wool garments.  Talk about itchy.  Was cotton not invented until the 14th century?  Temple garments before there were any Freemasons?

A source would help

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

A source would help

I take it you missed incognitus’ post?  Or didn’t make the connection for some reason.  Click the link to the article in the original post.  On second thought, those kinds of links are out of date...try this one:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2848&context=byusq

Edited May 25, 2021 by Calm

[the narrator]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

What outside of him labeling another as a Korihor was obviously wrong or particularly humiliating?  My understanding was he challenged critics for refusing to see Joseph as a prophet while accepting the doctrinal ideas they liked as inspired (but that is secondhand and I may have missed something).  While one can accept what they want from teachings, I am not seeing his position as horribly embarrassing.

IIRC, much of it centered around Hank Smith claiming that Joseph Smith uniquely taught a list of things, none of which were the case, and that if it wasn't for him nobody would believe in those things.

[latterdaytemplar]

On 5/21/2021 at 1:00 PM, jkwilliams said:

The important question is whether the syncretism was divinely inspired.

It is my own personal and subjective speculation that, after God had revealed to Joseph the pertinent doctrine and covenants for the endowment, it was left up to Joseph how to convey those doctrine and covenants to the membership.

[latterdaytemplar]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

If Joseph Smith used masonry as a vehicle for the temple, could he have used the View of the Hebrews for the BoM? According to statements by BH Roberts he may have. 

I personally doubt it, but I could be wrong. The same channel that interviewed me about Masonry published a video on this very topic:

 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, latterdaytemplar said:

It is my own personal and subjective speculation that, after God had revealed to Joseph the pertinent doctrine and covenants for the endowment, it was left up to Joseph how to convey those doctrine and covenants to the membership.

That is an entirely reasonable conclusion for a faithful member. 

[longview]

42 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That is an entirely reasonable conclusion for a faithful member. 

Far from "entirely" reasonable.  This is mere hyperventilation on the part of nay-sayers.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, longview said:

Far from "entirely" reasonable.  This is mere hyperventilation on the part of nay-sayers.

What exactly about latterdaytemplar's statement do you find to be "hyperventilation"? What a strange post.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

It is my own personal and subjective speculation that, after God had revealed to Joseph the pertinent doctrine and covenants for the endowment, it was left up to Joseph how to convey those doctrine and covenants to the membership.

No time to look it up, but a few sections before this quote, it speaks of God "reasoning together " face to face as one may with a friend, with Joseph.

For me that is the definitive scripture, and I want to do a thread on that when I have time

I am sure it is a challenge for Jehovah to explain what he knows to our little embryo brains, and was even while he was with us on earth, and it may be useful for him to have these human intermediaries explain it on our level

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, go with your heart and relax.

Religion is not about "facts" which are observable, it is "HOPE for things UNSEEN" !

By definition, IT CANNOT BE SEEN OR PROVEN OR DISPROVED that way!

The moment you want to see, you are out of the "hope for things unseen" mode!   You are automatically off track.

Religion is about what you HOPE for and it becomes FAITH when you act on that hope!

Do you feel calm and peaceful about what you HOPE for and are willing to ACT upon?

That's all you need and all there IS!!   No one can take away what you hope for!   I  always love your willingness and openess to listen, you are quite a unique person I think.

 

It's the bold that I'm struggling to do.  Thanks for the other bold!