cookslc

It is correct that surfing the net would not be the best way to obtain information about the LDS Church or Freemasonry. As previously noted, Joseph was not a member of any higher degrees. Indeed, if you read the history of the Anson Call prophecy, you garner an understanding of his Masonic position. Just to clarify, the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite are, indeed, regular. They are not part of the Grand Lodge system in Grand Lodges who participate in the Conference of Grand Masters, but they are regular and leaders are introduced at Grand Lodge meetings. Further, the Ancient & Accepted Rite is in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England as well. I just shared the stage with the AAR representative at the Provincial Grand Lodge of Cheshire. The AAR often uses the same Masonic Halls as the lodges and other side orders/appendant bodies.

To be more precise, the Royal Arch was in Illinois. That is not usually considered a "higher degree." Further, the numbered degree rank of 32 applies to Scottish Rite Masonry, not York "Rite" which comprehends Royal Arch, Cryptic and Knight Templar degrees in three non-sequential degree sets in the US. Yes, I should have said I am unaware of any such evidence. I've been waiting for Mr. Literski's book for some years. I look forward to it. I should have noted previously that I am not, to the best of my knowledge, a Luciferian. I am a Latter-day Saint and a Republican, the latter of which may qualify as a Luciferian for some :).

I suspect I am the only Freemason posting on the board. 1. Joseph Smith was a 3rd Degree Mason. The "higher degrees" were not even organized in that part of America. 2. There is no contemporaneous evidence that family members other than Hyrum were Masons. 3. The list of Famous Freemasons has a number of errors (including Newt Gingrich and Oral Roberts) and is likely drawn from an anti-Mason site (usually fellow travellers with anti-Mormons). 4. If you wish a tour of a Utah Masonic building, I am happy to assist.

The Salt Lake City Masonic Temple (and many smaller Masonic lodges throughout the state) will be open for public tours from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on 22 May 2010. 650 East South Temple.

There is a common logical fallacy applied in assuming a common derivation for similar cultural characterstics. For instance, many cultures separately developed hats. A hat is worn in the temple endowment. Therefore, all hats descended from the Lord's original endowment. I think it more realistic and probable to realize that leathern aprons were worn for protection in a variety of trades (carpentry, tanning, masonry) and because modern Freemasonry grew out of the operative masonic lodges, they used the operative symbols, including the apron. My mother used an apron to cook in the kitchen. She wasn't LDS. I don't think her use of the apron descended from the Temple or the BoM. This is the same for ritual. To imply that all cultures have various rituals because they are all descended from Adam's endowment is, I think, a bit of a stretch. I think it teaches more the need for man's use of symbols and ritual to teach. The Pledge of Allegiance in the U.S. is ritual with a sign and set words. We well know when that pledge was written, and there is no connection with ancient ritual in doing so. Rather, we see a sign common across all cultures of placing the hand over the heart as a sign of fidelity. I suggest you look at the DVD of Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons. You will find that at least some LDS scholars do not accept a common derivation either.

I largely agree, but many of us don't drink. I can't remember the last time I played pool. Possibly at another Church member's house <G>.

Some will have heard/seen my statement that for someone like me who is rather concrete in his thinking, the question is whether I accept the First Vision and the Book of Mormon. If so, the rest is a corrollary.

GAC: Indeed, we know that Joseph studied Kaballah, don't we? One of his interpretations of scripture, as I recollect, almost perfectly parallelled ancient Kaballistic interpretation.

GAC: No, I don't necessarily believe the elements of masonry are of ancient origin. While we may always turn to the prophets' words, I do not believe the Journal has been adopted as cannon. In light of this and statements from other church leaders, it seems that if knowledge of these things is necessary for exaltation into the celestial kingdom, then they must be ancient and part of the Gospel. Masonry somehow borrowed these elements of Mormonism from ancient traditions. In --my opinion-- the symbols are only outwards signs of my covenants with the Lord. Surely the symbol of an obligation does not become the obligation. The sum and substance of the endowment (or Masonic ritual) to me are not the signs, but the promises I make. These promises are different in the respective ceremonies. This begs the question of why masonry would copy these things. Nobody probably knows for sure, but I like to believe that after a lot of these mysteries were lost those that knew them went into hiding or joined fraternities, and they incorporated some of these elements into the rituals of the fraternities. Elements of the Kabbalah were probably added because it is so hard to explain a lot of the concepts, that ritual and drama seemed the best way to convey the ideas. It seems like I remember one of the Albert Pike excerpts in the SR ritual monitor that mentioned that the true meaning of many symbols has been lost over time. This true meaning is concealed beneath a mythological allegory. GAC: Well, we've not yet established that Masonry did copy them. Further, note that Masonry in different countries uses different symbols. The symbols I taught as a Master in England are different than the symbols I taught as a Master in the U.S. In light of Albert Pike's view here, this could explain how elements of the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the endowment ended up in masonry. They are buried under a false allegory that is only intended for those that can discern their meaning. Joseph Smith did more than discern their meaning, he place the symbols (that pertain to the endowment anyway) back into their original context. Does it seem like I'm on the right track? GAC: Can an allegory be false? Certainly the principles it covers may be. Remember that the Hiram Abiff legend won over the Noachite legend (though the latter is still practiced in Royal Ark Mariner lodges). There were similar mystery plays in the other guilds (my own guild of the Worshipful company of Scriveners performed one as well). ...

Can I quote you to my teenager?

Well, I can tell that you do have a concern w/ the fraternity, and I was trying to figure out what it is. I note you've again compared it to a religion, this time to Catholicism (which, by the way, formally prohibits its adherents from joining Freemasonry). It is my guess this is the is the area with which you have a concern. Many of us have made obligations (with some of the identical words) as military officers, federal civil servants, judges, attorneys, physicians. Even the pledge of allegiance is an obligation. I would suggest the concern is not whether you make obligations to different entities, but whether the obligations conflict. This is the analysis taken in dual citizenship cases. I do not find my Masonic obligations do conflict with those of a Latter-day Saint. To the contrary, to me they reinforce the pre-eminent obligations of the Temple. Certainly, if you have a concern that being a good LDS member and membership in the fraternity are inconsistent for you, then it is not my place to disuade you from that position. That is an opinion to which you are entitled. .

So, is your point that you can't make obligations to more than one entity? That we shouldn't spend time with those who aren't members of the Church?

For those in the Salt Lake area, should you wish a tour of the Salt Lake City Masonic Temple, let me know. I take LDS groups through, time permitting, on occasion. You can contact me at [email protected]. G.A. Cook

Yes, King Benjamin (and I) would agree as to service, though the point was to whom obligations are made regarding that service. You were only a little argumentative <G>. No worries. I welcome the opportunity to help, in my view, to dispel misconceptions regarding Freemasonry.

I agree, but the point was not why the Church adopted the Scouting program, but comparing Freemasonry to Scouting and not to the Church. Remarkable similarities between Scouting and Freemasonry: unique handshakes, initiation, oaths, ranks, signs, prayer... I also agree the Church brings people of different classes together (though I don't know of any admirals, just generals), so it's not an old boys club either (among other reasons). You added in bold a comment about bringing people together from all over the world. If the point was to indicate that Freemasonry doesn't, well, I've attended Masonic meetings in Africa, Bulgaria, England, Scotland, Canada, and France. Alabama too. But again, the point isn't to compare the relative value of the Church and Freemasonry. Apples and oranges. One is based upon obligations to God, the other obligations to his fellow man. It's like comparing the Church to college football. The latter is a fine activity, and though imprecations to deity are made by many fans, football really isn't a religion. Really. Even in Alabama.