Freemasonry and the Church

[Jamie]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Instead of answering my question about what you had said you instead responded to what I was setting aside.  How about answering my question sometime soon.  And then somehow tie that into the topic of Freemasonry and the Church.

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Instead of answering my question about what you had said you instead responded to what I was setting aside.  How about answering my question sometime soon.  And then somehow tie that into the topic of Freemasonry and the Church.

I have no clue what you are asking for.

Please just re-state the question in a complete descriptive sentence instead of "What you said" vs "what I said" etc.

I have said a lot here and so have you

And please remember that I am about the only person left here who is willing to seriously discuss things with you.

Edited May 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

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.

Did you see the actual exchange or just hear of it secondhand?  I may trust you being able to frame the proper context, but if you are depending on another...I think I will be cautious accepting that interpretation. 

[Jamie]

On 5/24/2021 at 12:07 PM, 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.

 

On 5/24/2021 at 12:16 PM, 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?

 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Jamie said:

how exactly is how God transmitted the BOM or BOA irrelevant to the truth of the gospel?

 

Because it us impossible for us to know how God does anything.

All we have is the gospel- love it or leave it.

[the narrator]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did you see the actual exchange or just hear of it secondhand?  I may trust you being able to frame the proper context, but if you are depending on another...I think I will be cautious accepting that interpretation. 

I saw it.

[Jamie]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Because it us impossible for us to know how God does anything.

All we have is the gospel- love it or leave it.

What?  I totally disagree with that statement as it reads.  You seriously think it is impossible for us to know how God does anything?  And what do you mean by saying all we have is the gospel?  What do you call what you say?

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, Jamie said:

What?  I totally disagree with that statement as it reads.  You seriously think it is impossible for us to know how God does anything?  And what do you mean by saying all we have is the gospel?  What do you call what you say?

What do I call what I say?

How about "Fred"?   That seems as good a name as any.

Sorry- I think we are speaking two different languages- or something- here.   No communication.

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, the narrator said:

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.

I don't think it could ever be said that Joseph Smith uniquely taught one thing or another, because the very definition of a "restoration" is to restore something given previously.  But the combined list of things, most of which have support in early Christianity or early Judaism, that is rather unique.  So it depends on what he was saying.

[Jamie]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What do I call what I say?

How about "Fred"?   That seems as good a name as any.

Sorry- I think we are speaking two different languages- or something- here.   No communication.

Nope, both of us are writing rather than speaking and we are both using English.  So I think it's "or something".  Some form of communication but apparently not very clear to you even when using your own words "all we have is the gospel".

[latterdaytemplar]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Sure enough, you are right. I never noticed that phrasing before, so I am glad that you pointed it out. It's located here.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

Sure enough, you are right. I never noticed that phrasing before, so I am glad that you pointed it out. It's located here.

Thanks for that.

Of course I am right!

Section 50:

"10 And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us ^areason together, that ye may understand;

11 Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face.

12 Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may ^aunderstand."

Edited May 26, 2021 by mfbukowski

[2BizE]

On 4/22/2021 at 4:56 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

No.  I was asked by a good friend long ago to join, but I declined.

I’ve heard the Freemasons state several times that they do not ask you to join. You have to ask them to join.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I’ve heard the Freemasons state several times that they do not ask you to join. You have to ask them to join.

Nope.  Exactly the opposite.  By invitation only. 

[2BizE]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  Exactly the opposite.  By invitation only. 

You need to petition them to join.

https://www.masonic-lodge-of-education.com/become-a-free-mason.html

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, 2BizE said:

You need to petition them to join.

https://www.masonic-lodge-of-education.com/become-a-free-mason.html

The webstire you provided says:

Quote

This site is not an official site of any recognized Freemason body in the United States or in the world.

It is for informational purposes only. 

Its contents are those of regular Freemasonry in the United States. 

It does not necessarily, reflect the views or opinions of any regular body of Freemasonry.

Copyright 2007-2021, Masonic Lodge of Education.com

In most U.S. jurisdictions, a man wishing to become a Free Mason must of his own free will, ask to become a Free Mason.  In other jurisdictions, (a few U.S. states and in England), a man wishing to become a Free Mason may be invited to join by a current member who feels that he would be an asset to the Fraternity. 

Freemasonry has long been by invitation only, and many parts of Freemasonry remain so:  https://masonicfind.com/affiliate-bodies-to-freemasonry-invitation-only

Another website notes that, from the beginning, Masonry rejected women, slaves, and atheists as members, and it remains largely segregated.  Moreover, the Vatican has always condemned it:

Quote

 

The Catholic Church first condemned Freemasonry in 1738, prompted by concern over Masonic temples and the secret rituals performed within them. In the 19th century, the Vatican even called the Masons "the Synagogue of Satan."

The Church went even further in 1983, declaring: “Their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."   https://www.history.com/news/freemasons-facts-symbols-handshake-meaning

 

The Grand Lodge of Utah banned Mormon membership until 1984, and homosexuals have historically been banned -- until recently in some jurisdictions.

[latterdaytemplar]

On 5/26/2021 at 1:07 PM, 2BizE said:

I’ve heard the Freemasons state several times that they do not ask you to join. You have to ask them to join.

This is actually a jurisdictional matter (meaning that it varies from grand lodge to grand lodge). Most grand lodges do not allow it. Mine, however, does.

The wording with which most grand lodges take issue in their constitutions, by-laws, etc. is that nobody should join due to "improper solicitation of friends." If a grand lodge changes its legislation to provide a certain definition for "improper," then Masons under that grand lodge jurisdiction can invite others to join so long as those invitations do not go against that definition.

That stated, I would agree that most grand lodge jurisdictions do not allow their members to invite others to join. I would also agree that, even in grand lodge jurisdictions that allow it, Masons themselves who are accustomed to the previous tradition simply do not extend such invitations, perhaps out of comfort of not changing (I might fall in this category).

[latterdaytemplar]

On 5/26/2021 at 1:11 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Nope.  Exactly the opposite.  By invitation only. 

I am not aware of any grand lodge jurisdiction that gains membership by invitation only. It is traditional that one must ask to join. The grand lodges that allow Masons to invite others to join seem to be in the minority (and this is a relatively recent phenomenon).

[latterdaytemplar]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The webstire you provided says:

Freemasonry has long been by invitation only, and many parts of Freemasonry remain so:  https://masonicfind.com/affiliate-bodies-to-freemasonry-invitation-only

Another website notes that, from the beginning, Masonry rejected women, slaves, and atheists as members, and it remains largely segregated.  Moreover, the Vatican has always condemned it:

The Grand Lodge of Utah banned Mormon membership until 1984, and homosexuals have historically been banned -- until recently in some jurisdictions.

As the author who contributed that article to MasonicFind, I can tell you that you are confusing Freemasonry with those appendant/concordant and affiliate bodies (which are separate) mentioned therein.

I personally had to petition to become a Mason. As the former chairman of my lodge's investigation committee, I have gone over the petitions of scores of people who wanted to join the lodge.

I also contributed an article to MasonicFind on how to join Freemasonry, which includes the step of petitioning.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, latterdaytemplar said:

As the author who contributed that article to MasonicFind, I can tell you that you are confusing Freemasonry with those appendant/concordant and affiliate bodies (which are separate) mentioned therein.

I personally had to petition to become a Mason. As the former chairman of my lodge's investigation committee, I have gone over the petitions of scores of people who wanted to join the lodge.

I also contributed an article to MasonicFind on how to join Freemasonry, which includes the step of petitioning.

I stand corrected, templar.  However, has that always been the case?

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, latterdaytemplar said:

I am not aware of any grand lodge jurisdiction that gains membership by invitation only. It is traditional that one must ask to join. The grand lodges that allow Masons to invite others to join seem to be in the minority (and this is a relatively recent phenomenon).

Again, I stand corrected.  I thought that any recent policy of allowing anyone to petition was unusual.  When I was invited over thirty years ago, I thought that was the norm.

[latterdaytemplar]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, I stand corrected.  I thought that any recent policy of allowing anyone to petition was unusual.  When I was invited over thirty years ago, I thought that was the norm.

For having happened around 30 years ago, your experience would have been quite out of the norm.

In fact, I have come across various Masons from other grand lodge juridictions who jump to the conclusion that, if someone received an invitation, it must have come from a member of a fake Masonic lodge; some are often quite surprised when they find that my own jurisdiction (which theirs recognizes as legitimate) is now allowing for us to invite others to join.

I'm not saying that the person who invited you was (or was not) a fake Mason, mind you; that's simply the conclusion that many come to due to the longstanding Masonic requirements to petition for membership.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

For having happened around 30 years ago, your experience would have been quite out of the norm.

In fact, I have come across various Masons from other grand lodge juridictions who jump to the conclusion that, if someone received an invitation, it must have come from a member of a fake Masonic lodge; some are often quite surprised when they find that my own jurisdiction (which theirs recognizes as legitimate) is now allowing for us to invite others to join.

I'm not saying that the person who invited you was (or was not) a fake Mason, mind you; that's simply the conclusion that many come to due to the longstanding Masonic requirements to petition for membership.

So, in the time of Masons such as Ben Franklin and George Washington, membership was solely and only by request of someone to an extant Lodge or Mason.  And thus, Hyrum Smith would have requested membership in that same way.

[latterdaytemplar]

On 5/28/2021 at 12:06 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

So, in the time of Masons such as Ben Franklin and George Washington, membership was solely and only by request of someone to an extant Lodge or Mason.  And thus, Hyrum Smith would have requested membership in that same way.

Correct. Same with Joseph Smith,, Jr, George Washington, Paul Revere, Joseph Warren, Porter Rockwell, Joseph Smith, Sr, and just about anyone else. In fact, it was required by the by-laws of Nauvoo Lodge (just as by any other lodge's by-laws; written under the entry for 30 December, 1841) that petitions be submitted by those who wished to join:

Quote

Sec. 10. Every person desirous of being initiated in this lodge, must [prefer?] a petition in writing, sta-ting his age, profession, trade, or occupation, and place of residence, which must contain a deposite of five dollars, as a fee for initiation and be recommended by two master masons, one of whom must be a member of this lodge.

Sec. 11. If the petition be received it shall be referred to the standing committee of investigation, to report thereon at the next stated meeting.

Sec. 12. If the applicant be rejected, the member who handed in his petition shall return him his deposite with delicacy and politeness, and no member shall make known the fact of such rejection to any person other than the rejected, or the members of this lodge, or other masons, unless the person rejected should himself first make it public.

 

[poptart]

I'd add more to this but geez the other masons here did a better job with this than I could.  Sorry guys, school and clinicals suck.

For the Brother scholars here, I know there's a lot of back and forth over the endowment ceremony and blue lodge degrees.  Something I'm wondering, is it just US Freemasonry they go off of?  For one the Freemasonry they had then isn't the same now.  Even then the masonry we had back then was probably different from the UK variety and even more so from the continent.  Not all Freemasonry is identical, to say one group had the original degreework is folly I think considering just how much the craft has changed over the years.  Look at the Rosicrucians, we have them to thank for the Rose Croix degree of the Scottish Rite plus a lot of our own mysticism that sadly a lot of blue lodges either no longer have or claim they do to get new blood in then after being raised that's it.  Irony for me is there's a Rosicrucian branch of masonry in Utah that I think still does zoom meetings.  Utah really is saving everything lol.

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by poptart