bjw

a. From what I've read of the SR Ritual Monitor (I'm only on Quiz 3 of the first Master Craftsman class) it seems that Freemasonry goes back no further than the 1600s, but it adopted a lot from the Kabbalah and other ancient traditions. So, I agree with what you're saying here. I guess a comparison could be made with tarot cards, how the different drawings on the cards are an artistic expression of different elements of the Kabbalah. In the same way, the masonic rituals are a way to express the different elements of the kabbalah through ritual and drama. b. Right, but you must believe the elements of masonry are of ancient origin. A Brigham Young quote on P. 416 of Discources of Brigham Young says "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." I believe this is an official church publication. 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. 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. 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? Anyway, sorry for the lengthy post. It's an honor to get to exchange some ideas with you Brother Cook. I've only been a mason for about a year now. I was raised to 3rd degree this past July and joined the Scottish Rite in October, and immediately signed up for the Master Craftsman class. I really like studying this stuff!

While there is no evidence that the ritual itself goes back that far, I believe there are many remnants in the rituals of ancient origin. There have been square and compass designs found in ancient archaeology dating back thousands of years, such as the Asana Astuary. Also, many of the rituals have similaities with the ancient mysteries, Egyptian, Christianity, etc. Even in degrees 4-32 of the Scottish Rite I noticed a lot of similarities to Mormonism, and the early Mormons never even went through these degrees. So, I believe that, even though Freemasonry may not have existed before the 1700s, the rituals themselves have an origin that dates back to ancient times. Some of these ancient mysteries no longer exist, but are kept alive in masonry. Besides, to believe Mormonism to be true, it seems you would almost have to believe in some element of ancient origin of masonry.

Bohemian Grove does a ritual called "Cremation of Care" in front of a giant owl statue in the form of the idol Molech. So, I think this would be a good example of a secret combination that uses rituals to worship false gods.

I'm a Freemason and my lodge library has a book called "History of Freemasonry" by Albert G. Mackey, a top masonic scholar from the 19th century. In the book he mentions something called "Spurious Freemasonry" that some early masons believed existed during Old Testament times, where a secret group of people had signs, tokens, passwords, rituals, etc. just like the regular masons but had turned to idol worship instead of worshiping the true God. This was mostly believed by those that believe modern masonry has ancient roots. Since Mormonism believes that masonry contains ancient elements I would say our scholars more than likely fall into this camp. I think the Gadianton Robbers would be a good example of the "Spurious" masons mentioned in this book. Maybe Satan has brought his same secret combination out in every culture and society, even today as well as the BoM times. Satan probably takes the same ritual format but corrupts it into a similar secret society as what modern-day Mormons and Masons practice, but uses it for worship of false gods or Satan. This is similar to how the Church of Satan uses a corruption of the Catholic Mass (for the Black Mass) and the Shriners ritual (in their "Satanic Rituals" book.) I think more and more of this goes on in secret, we just don't hear about it.

My two cents... I work as a substitute teacher practicing to be a full-time teacher. During my job I incur expenses like having to purchase a teaching credential and various licenses once per year. I also have to pay to take tests for my credential. I always deduct those because they are a business expense and do not count as an increase. I think ultimately you should pray about it because I think it is different for everybody. Back when I used to be an accountant if I had to drive two hours to go to a client's office I would not tithe on the gas money because it was an expense. I think that the 10% only applies to your increase. I think praying about it is the best way. Some wealther people can afford to give more so they can tithe on the ultimate gross of whatever they make. Some barely scrape by, even with getting groceries from the storehouse every month, and can barely afford tithing. Maybe some can even give over 10%, I think if we pray about it the Spirit will direct us in the right way for us.

Its_Chet: Thanks for the great advice. That was a very good post and was just what I needed to hear right now. The past few nights I've been trying to make it a point to pray and read my scriptures, it helps me feel better. I hope what you're saying is right and that God has a way to use these experiences to better prepare me to help others, and have better experiences in the church.

I noticed something interesting tonight when I was going through my Patriarchal Blessing. One thing caught my attention and just suddenly hit me that I hadn't thought much about, and I'd like to share it with you guys to see what you think. There is one sentence that is kinda random and doesn't pertain to much of what is around it. It says "You will have an understanding of the various parts of the church, the diversity of operations." This comes oddly right after a sentence about believing in Jesus Christ and the Atonement. I hadn't really given this much thought until now, but I'm wondering if this may have something to do with the situation I'm going through now, since this pertains a lot to my concern about how our church is operated. I wonder if this patriarch has said this to others or if this is common in patriarchal blessings. Either way, I think its pretty interesting. I suddenly had a strange feeling when I got to this sentence while reading the PB tonight. Any thoughts?

I have a little update on my situation... I had my meeting with the head high councilman this morning. We talked for about an hour about my concerns and it did help me to feel better about this situation, but I am going to have to find a way to reconcile with the other local leaders. I let you know a few of the things I brought up to him and what he told me: The Ira Fulton situation: He said he is flying to SLC this week for a business trip and he would check on it while he was there. He said he believed there must be more to the story because he couldn't imagine the church being that careless, since he used to work in the church's finance department. Joseph Smith: He said JS wasn't perfect and that he believes some accounts of his life are exagerrated by people trying to make him look bad. About the Kirtland bank failure he said many other banks failed this period, but JS took a lot more heat than other bankers because so many believed he was a prophet, and that all his investments must make money. He said the people just put too much faith in JS as a man and didn't realize he was human like everyone else and made mistakes. He said he realizes the church is going to try to show its leaders in the best light possible so you have to try to find a balance on your own. Emma Smith: The church tries to focus on the positives she did instead of the negatives, being more optimistic about her. He did confirm that Emma apostacized from the church later in life and didn't go west with the saints. Book of Mormon plagiarism accusations: He said he believed that Satan has set up a lot of these things to appear similar to the BoM, and that there's only so much language you can use about the resurrection as in Alma 40 (which some claim quotes the Westminster Confession). He said he believed this about the Spaulding novel as well. Also, that the covenants taken by the Gadianton Robbers were an example of Satan attempting to counterfeit the temple covenants. Endowment/Freemasonry, Initiatory/Wicca Connection: He said that many other traditions still have the temple rituals somewhat intact from ancient times, but since they were not lead by prophets and didn't have the priesthood they were left to start their own societies with these traditions. These traditions were passed on from ancient times, and since they are hinted at in ancient texts and archaology people know the ordinances should be done, so they do them but don't have the proper authority that we have in the church. I thought this made sense since masonry and wicca both claim their ceremonies origination has been lost "in the mists of time." Cain/Satan taking blood oath in the Book of Moses: I asked if he thought this was not plagiarized from masonry but was instead Satan's early attempt to counter a type of a temple covenant, and he said I was on the right track. That Satan always tries to counterfeit the things of God. Polyandry in the early church: He said this occured so the women could be sealed into the covenant because sometimes they were in a time only marriage. Both the ex-bishop and this high councilman seem to think that many of these were not consummated like the other polygamous marriages. He also said that no seduction was involved with young girls like the antimormons try to claim. All in all I was satisfied with his answers to my questions and I felt it was a very meaninful discussion. I showed up at his house pretty much thinking I was on my way out of the church and I left with a much better understanding. I could tell that he had the Spirit and I felt satisified with the answers he gave. I think it just goes to show that we shouldn't expect perfection from the church. The fact that he was so knowledgable also makes me glad, because it kinda dispels the idea that the church is trying very hard to hide the truth from everyone. After talking to him I've decided I would like to try to go back after I take some time to contemplate a little more. I also need to smooth things over with the rest of the church leadership that I feel are still angry at me. I think this is definitely a step in the right direction. Thanks everyone on here for continuing to support me.

This is something that I haven't thought much about through all of this but it brings up a good point. I feel like my anger toward the bishop, SP, EQ Pres, and clerks makes it easier for me to just stay home Sundays and not have to face these people. I think that if I do decide to go back I will have to learn to forget about this anger and go for the message and not these people. Besides, the church rotates these leaders every so often anyway. I'm glad you brought this up because this is something I would like to get straightened out before I decide if I am going to go back.

Pam and Willow the Wisp: I suppose on the flipside that sometimes it may be good for someone to not have all the answers at once. I know there were some doctrines of the restored gospel that I would not have accepted had I known them prior to my baptism. However, later on I did not have as much of a problem with them. If church history could be detrimental to a testimony, maybe its better that people not know a lot of it until their testimony is strong, then it won't matter to them. However, I am still of the philosophy that it is better to disclose everything so people can make an informed decision. Even when longtime members learn things I think it would be better that they heard it from the church first rather than antimormon sources, that way it won't be as much of a shock later on.

Since I already had a strong faith in Jesus Christ before joining this church, I do not believe the truthfulness of Jesus Christ depends on the truthfulness of the church. Rather, since OD-1 says that a prophet can never lead us astray, the truthfulness of the church hinges on the truthfulness of the prophet and those that the church believes have been appointed to run it by the Lord. Therefore, if it can be shown that even one of these prophets are not what they claim to be, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. I base my testimony in Jesus Christ on the Holy Ghost. However, when it comes to the church, I have to make sure I don't rely too much on feelings alone that these men are telling the truth. I've had warm-fuzzy feelings about some movies I've gone to see, and even with some music I've listened to. Your feelings can be fooled. Therefore, we have to test the spirits like it says in the Bible. We know if prophets are not up to the biblical standard of prophets, then they are false. Even prophets have faults, but there are standards that all must uphold.

Which is why we have to ask ourselves the question about the restored Gospel. Is it possible that God could still restore his church with the cast of characters we see in the restoration? In the past I've reconciled this by saying that it would take a person like Joseph Smith for God to really get through to, someone that already believed in the supernatural, seer stones, freemasonry/masonic legends, etc. These things were commonplace in the "burnt over" district and Joseph Smith's environment. I like to think that these were the only type of people that would have believed in the elements of the restoration and that God knew what he was doing when he chose them. Joseph Smith and others had a free-will and so disobeyed God on many occasions, but God still knew they were the type of people who would take the restoration seriously and set the church up as he wanted.One thing my friend that used to be a bishop said was that many in the church did not truly understand the doctrine of polygamy, and so some marriages were done that shouldn't have happened. Could this be part of God's wisdom? God knew that a righteous posterity would have to be raised up, and this could have been the reason, but was abused by many in the church. That may be the case with everything else, God gives commandments, man messes things up with his sins, and then it has to be changed. This could be, and its one reason I'm struggling a lot, because the church could still be true, even with some "untrue" elements. It's definitely something to think about.

It matters a great deal if they are paying themselves the high price and pocketing the money.The church is definitely not meeting my spiritual needs if it is giving money to people like Ira Fulton or not being perfectly honest about its history. $72 million would solve all the hunger problems in most of the third world countries, not to mention feed a lot of people here in the states.

This is exactly my point. Most members are unaware of the bad things he did during his life. I think everyone should read the official History of the Church before joining. This is not anti-mormon material, and it has much of the problematic things in it.For instance, we had one person in a Gospel Doctrine class that was againt any kind of war, and said that nobody should go fight in a war no matter what. He then brought up Joseph Smith and said that Joseph Smith would not even fight back when he faced mob persecution. Thankfully, the teacher knew the true history and mentioned that Joseph Smith killed two of the people in the mob with a gun right before he was shot at Carthage Jail. Anyway, my testimony is in Jesus Christ, not in any prophet. I wonder if maybe the Holy Ghost isn't showing me these things because he wants me to leave this church. Most of the things I have learned about Joseph Smith are not lies, and can be substantiated by first-hand sources, some of which are pro-Mormon. There are a lot of good Christians out there that will have nothing to do with this church because of its questionable history. If I would have known what I know now before I was baptized I would have not joined the church. I can still believe in Jesus Christ and be a good Christian, but reject any organization that does things that are against God's will. It's what God wants that I want to do, not because something makes me feel good, but because I know that I am obeying God and not supporting something that is sinful.

What you say does make sense, and I have been asking myself this question over and over. I was just telling my former bishop that came over and visited me last night, that despite everything I have learned about the church, I can't bring myself to the next step of actually taking off the garments, sending in my resignation letter, etc. Is that the Spirit or is it just my inner feelings of guilt, I do not know. The good experiences I have had with this church far outweigh the bad, and after all my years of being a Christian I can still say this is by far the best church I have been in. I want the church to be true and don't want these bad things to be true. That is why this has been such a struggle for me. I mean, when I left the Presbyterians I did not look back or even give them a second thought. Leaving this church is much harder because there is so much in it that I love.

A little update... I got an email from the stake president that said that he wanted to meet with me and my bishop. He said he would have his clerk set up the appointment. He said he hadn't been avoiding me, but that he was under the impression for some reason that I had changed my mind about meeting with him. I'm not sure why though. I got a phonecall from the head high councilman and he would like to meet with me in person, so I am going to meet him at his house tomorrow night. My former bishop, who also baptised me into the church, stopped by my house last night and we talked for awhile about this. He said he is going to check on this to find out more about it. He feels if this real estate deal really did happen the church is probably not condoning it, but is probably investigating it. He seemed pretty optimistic about the whole thing and said he would get back to me when he found out more about it. He's currently a clerk for the stake presidency, and he has a lot of relatives in SLC. So, I think maybe he can find out something more about it. We also had a long discussion about some other aspects of the church that I've been having doubts about. I was glad he stopped by and I felt really good about the discussion. I'll let you know when I find out more and how things are going. Thanks everyone for your concern.

You're right, we don't know their accounting records, and that in and of itself creates a red flag right there. Most churches give all members an annual report every year with CPA certified financial statements, I know because I was an executive for the Presbyterian church for several years before becoming a Mormon. High standards for financial accountability are normally followed in a true non-profit organization, with disclosure. The fact that the LDS church keeps its finances a secret from the members is a red flag in and of itself.Also, I have no interest whatsoever in the church's legitimate business activities. How they decide to invest their money is their business. I do, however, have an issue with a greedy executive within the church that pays himself over double what something is worth and keeping it as a kickback. You think the church would purposely overpay a finance committee member for a tax break? If so, then the church has committed fraud too, so if what you suggest is the case then both parties are guilty. No matter how you try to analyze this there is no way to excuse it. I know, when I first found out about this stuff I tried to explain it away in my mind as well, but eventually I realized there is really no way to explain it, things are exactly as they appear.

Moksha:You bring up a good point here. I'm going to try to confirm this part of the story one way or the other. I'm scheduled to meet with my bishop and stake president this week. I'm going to see if there's some way they can verify the elements of this story, such as Ira Fulton sitting on the church finance committee. It should be interesting to see how they respond. I sent the stake presidency and bishopric an e-mail and told them that I felt it was only fair that they get to tell their side of the story before I officially quit. I'm going to tell them my concerns and see what they have to say. I spoke with one of the clerks today and I know the Stake President is pretty angry with me, so I don't know how much good the meeting will do. However, I hope that I can get the answers I need. I really am looking for ways to give the church the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, thanks for the encouraging words.

I actually have no problem whatsoever with the church owning businesses, building a shopping mall in SLC, owning Beneficial, etc. These are legit business enterprises and other churches do things similar to this. Even the Presbyterians and Catholics purchase and operate businesses. What I do take issue with is that a guy on the church's board of directors pays himself double the value of a piece of worthless desert land because he is going bankrupt. If the church would have bought the land for fair market value I would not have a problem with it, but the fact that he paid himself double the value of the land when others would have bought the land from him for half the price is misusing the funds collected in the name of Christ. I agree, if this is actually happening within the church with its blessing, then it is not Jesus Christ's true church. I will never lose faith in Jesus Christ, but I can follow the commandment to test the spirits and see if they are of God. Nobody coming in the name of Jesus would pull a deal like this.

FAIR: Website is fairlds.org and is an independent apologetics organization dedicated to defending the LDS church through scholarly papers and projects.FARMS: also called Neal Maxwell Institute, is the apologetics organization maintained by BYU that is supported by the church and is made up mostly of BYU professors and church-hired scholars. Its website is farms.byu.edu.

Very big difference. What Judas did was not condoned by Christ or His Apostles or the church for that matter. The deal I mentioned was done by the church, and no effort was made to replace or even admonish the person. In fact, buildings at BYU have been named after him. What you say about Joseph Smith being a prophet is true, either he was or he wasn't. When you look at the cold hard facts about what he did, and then compound it to what Thomas Monson and Ira Fulton are doing it all just doesn't add up. OD-1 in the D&C (which wasn't followed) says that a prophet can never lead the church astray. Therefore, if Monson is not a prophet, then we can declare Joseph wasn't. It can't be both ways. Nobody that can do a real estate deal like this can be a prophet. When you compound this with everything else I mentioned, there has to come a point where you realize the church just isn't what its claiming to be.

The article Rico provided is pretty much dead on.Ira Fulton was bankrupt, about to go under. He sits on our church's finance committee, and structured a deal where he would pay himself double what the land was worth out of hard-earned tithing funds. When a church member is bankrupt I can understand giving the person groceries, paying their light bill, maybe even finding them a new apartment, but giving them a $30+ million kickback over the value of a piece of property is completely out of the question. Also, keep in mind this is a deal we know about, what about the ones that occur that we don't know about? I found this a few days ago on a site that wasn't even related to Mormonism, and then I searched for it and found that MADB and Mormon Discussions had discussed it in some threads as well. This is blatant fraud, and no church that is headed by Jesus Christ would pull a shady deal like this. This, compounded with all the other things I mentioned in earlier posts, is making me think more and more that this church is just a manmade institution, designed to make those at the top rich, such as Ira Fulton. Fulton donated $20 million to BYU back when GBH was prophet, and there is no evidence that Monson and others did not side with Fulton on this deal. To top it all off I've been trying to get an appointment with my stake president, whose not only been ignoring me himself, but his counselors, clerks, etc. will not give me an appointment with him. I've been trying to get him ever since the stuff started in the OP. So, I sent out e-mails to all members of the bishopric and stake presidency, including the clerks as well as the stake patriarch. I told them all to please try to get an appointment for me to talk to the stake president. I'm going to tell the stake president everything I've found out about and I'm going to see if I can get some kind of explanation about it, especially the Fulton deal. If they refuse to explain it or can't explain it, and I do feel they owe me an explanation, then I'm sending my resignation letter to Salt Lake. In the mean time, I am not attending any worship services or the temple until they get back to me and I can discuss all of my problems with the stake president. I do appreciate the encouragement you guys have provided though. This has really been a tough time for me.

After much thought and prayer I have decided that it would be best for me to leave the LDS church. I just a few days ago found out about the Ira Fulton deal, and that compounded with everything else I have found out I just can't stay in any longer. I thank all the people I've met over the past few years and the friends I've made, I hope everyone understands.

Thanks for the kind words. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. Our church may not be perfect, but having been in many bad churches in the past, I can say that our church is still the best. I have been in several protestant churches in the past, even being on the executive level in one mainline EV denomination, and I have never seen anything close to what I experienced back then. This church pulled me out of that darkness and I will always be grateful for that. I think when I look at the alternative at where I could be right now if it weren't for the LDS church, it makes me more and more thankful for my testimony and thankful for our church, despite the faults.

The temple president's wife told my grandmother that she could wear her bra underneath the garment.