Endowments vs. Masons

[guitarwizard]

I am currently engaged in an ongoing online defense of the church. The attack was based on an RM who left the church due to the endowment ceremony and the masonic remains that are found within the ceremony.

What are you reactions towards this?

Mods, if this is too touchy, feel free to lock.

Edit: Original start of "debate"

WHY IS THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY LITTERED WITH SIGNS AND SYMBOLS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE FREEMASON DEGREES? DO YOU THINK ITS ONLY A COINCIDENCE THAT JOSEPH SMITH INITIATED INTO FREEMASONRY AND THEN WITHIN THE MONTH "REVEALED" THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY, WITH ALL ITS MASONIC ELEMENTS? AND LASTLY, DO YOU FIND IT ODD THAT OVER THE YEARS THE MOST OBVIOUS MASONIC ELEMENTS (THE PENALTIES, THE FIVE POINTS OF FELLOWSHIP, ETC.) HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY?

[goofball]

The Masons are just a apostate version of the temple ceremony. Whenever the Lord has something the adversary always attempts a close copy.

I am not well versed in this because I never worried about it but check out this link

FAIR Topical Guide: Masonic Influence on the FAIRS website. Hope that helps

[guitarwizard]

The Masons are just a apostate version of the temple ceremony. Whenever the Lord has something the adversary always attempts a close copy.

I am not well versed in this because I never worried about it but check out this link

FAIR Topical Guide: Masonic Influence on the FAIRS website. Hope that helps

i defintely pointed him towards some of those articles, but he so kindly bit back with "fairlds.org is not a scholary reference" despite the fact that most of those authors are LDS Freemasons.

[FunkyTown]

Wait... The Mason's are apostate? The Shriner's are apostates? They build children's hospitals and donate time and money to helping people. I know Mason's. My -Grandpa- was a Mason. I was -invited- in to the Masonic order(Though I didn't join.)

[goofball]

Not a scholarly reference. What a load of (fill in the blank). What does your friend consider a scholarly reference? I bet he considers himself a scholar than. SOunds like he is not even interested in hearing your point of view or investigating it himself. His mind is made up and that is that. Sorry to hear about that. I am interested to see how this pans out for you

[guitarwizard]

here is the conversation. I get very heated, i need to work on that.

Chitty Wrote: WHY IS THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY LITTERED WITH SIGNS AND SYMBOLS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE FREEMASON DEGREES? DO YOU THINK ITS ONLY A COINCIDENCE THAT JOSEPH SMITH INITIATED INTO FREEMASONRY AND THEN WITHIN THE MONTH "REVEALED" THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY, WITH ALL ITS MASONIC ELEMENTS? AND LASTLY, DO YOU FIND IT ODD THAT OVER THE YEARS THE MOST OBVIOUS MASONIC ELEMENTS (THE PENALTIES, THE FIVE POINTS OF FELLOWSHIP, ETC.) HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY?

me:I find it very sad that you did not have a strong enough faith to withstand the pitfalls and snares of anti-mormon literature. If you were so shaken by this fact, then you obviously did not have a testimony of the prophet and the restoration of the gospel. While i am far from a perfect saint, i have only been in the church 8 months and have a testimony of the prophet. Remember what predated what: Christian temples or Masonry? And, also remember that there is a difference in the endowment and the endowment ritual, which has been adapted several times to further the understanding of people at the time.

i suggest you peruse through this. and whatever church you belong to now, i hope that you build a stronger faith in it.

How does one explain similarities between Masonic and temple ritual?

that might help you out. And may god bless you.

Chitty wrote: I find it interesting that you attacked my credibility, worth, and integrity as a person instead of answering my questions. In an effort to keep this civil, I won't tear into you at this time.

Have you even been through the temple?

Me:No, i haven't been through the temple, but i know enough about it to answer your questions as i have dealt with this attack before (people will do anything in their power to prevent a baptism). I don't believe i attacked your worth or integrity as a person. I could see where you would say i attacked your crediblity, which was not my intention. I was actually just saddened by your loss of faith, if you had faith to begin with (not an attack, just an assumption).

And i did answer your question:

remember that there is a difference in the endowment and the endowment ritual, which has been adapted several times to further the understanding of people at the time.

i suggest you peruse through this. and whatever church you belong to now, i hope that you build a stronger faith in it.

How does one explain similarities between Masonic and temple ritual?

and referred you to a scholarly site in which you could learn more on the subject.

Chitty wrote:"www.fairlds.org" is about the furthest thing possible away from being a scholarly site. I studied the temple ceremony inside and out (have you?) as a believing mormon and missionary. I spent years studying Freemasons and their rites (have you?) - not from your reviled "anti-mormon literature" but rather from their own source materials. I came to this conclusion on my own after years of study, not some apologist or anti website. And trust me, my decision didn't come about because I was offended or had sinned or whatever mormons usually blame it on. It was actual free thought! Imagine that!

I know you're only 8 months into this, so naturally you're going to be defensive about your newfound beliefs. Your new mormonism-filter and the fact that I was there and now look at it from an outsider's perspective is going to make this nearly impossible to debate. I mean, your entire new way of life is on the line here!

The thing that makes me absolutely sick (other than the usual condescending tone of mormons towards "non"-mormons) to my stomach though is hearing you use the same tone and defenses that I taught people to use as a missionary, back when I believed. I dumbed down and blinded people for 2 years, and hearing you is just reminding me of that. The thought that I taught people to believe that they are free under the guise of "agency" is something I don't think I can forgive myself for.

me:

While you hardly find it scholarly, that article may prove to be a good source - Greg Kearney is not only a temple going member of the church (who has no doubt experienced the endowment ceremony numerous times) he is also a life member of Franklin Lodge #123 A.F. & A.M. as well as several lodges of research. He gives Masonic education lectures at lodges on the history and relationship of Freemasonry to the development of the Latter-day Saint temples.

While i may have only been a member of the church 8 months, i have been an investigator for well over 3 years. Nothing compared to your life of service (year wise), but i know that i have faced more doctrinal discussions and debates than (i'd say) the majority of members in my ward. Many of the formative years of my life were spent in deep study of the church. So yes, believe it or not, i have looked into Masons and their rites and studied the temple ceremony. And, our differences in opinions may be in the different ways we studied. Having a testimony of the prophet, i knew that the temple ceremony was inspired. There is something you taught as a missionary: if the Book of Mormon is true, then it also must be true that JS was a prophet. I wholeheartedly believe in the BoM, so i also believe that JS was a prophet. So, i believe his revelations were inspired, including that of the temple ceremony. Do i find it odd that masonic traces were in the endowment? Not at all. Christ's parables taught men in ways that they understand, so does the temple ceremony. And, in the beginning of the restoration of the church, masonry was widely practiced. Few people were members, and a lot were masons, so naturally they would be able to understand the endowment through those teachings. Today there are 13-14 million members (though hardly that many are temple worthy) and i suspect that a small percentage of those are masons, they would not understand things like the penalties and five points of fellowship. And, just for reference, the missionaries didn't teach me anything that hadn't already found out for myself through prayer and study. So don't tear yourself up about my "tone and defense," they are all mine. Studying the history of the people in the 1830s, the area, the culture: i found a belief system that there was no answer to but baptism. That is why i joined the church. It just seemed common sense after all that time.

Chitty: Yeah, I'm familiar with him and read a bit of his stuff a while back.

I will give you this: most people who write "anti-mormon" stuff are idiots and don't know what they're talking about. But I also happen to think their opposite, most believing mormons, are also.

I am happy to hear that you spent years worth of time preparing yourself for it. I will give you that. Most mormons are naive when it comes to the issues people take with the church, so at least you put forth an effort to think it through.

That looks like it may be the end of it. It seems he realized that i am not as naive as he thought and decided to retreat?

[goofball]

That is laughable on his part,thanks for posting. You did a great job as far as I am concerned on answering his questions. I wonder if he is a mason. I cannot help but to think that he is not. Which makes it a bit harder to study and understand them. By the same logic he uses I could study medicine and that would automatically make me a doctor (or by his logic a "scholar" and how I use that term loosely for him)

Once again I commend you on what you wrote and appreciate you adding in the difference between the two of you on how you approached studying the matter out.

[HiJolly]

I am currently engaged in an ongoing online defense of the church. The attack was based on an RM who left the church due to the endowment ceremony and the masonic remains that are found within the ceremony.

Oh, joy. He's got ammo, then, and you need to know a lot to be able to address the issues. I HIGHLY recommend to take your inquiries to the MA&DB board ( Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board ), where there are several exceptionally knowledgable LDS and Masonic members. I myself am a member of the Scottish Rite Research Society, though I am not a Blue lodge Freemason myself.

Edit: Original start of "debate"

WHY IS THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY LITTERED WITH SIGNS AND SYMBOLS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE FREEMASON DEGREES?

"taken directly" is a bit of a stretch, IMO. They are similar, yes, but as a whole there are many, many differences, INCLUDING WHAT THEY REPRESENT. I will conclude these remarks with a synapsis of my views on Mormonism and Masonry.

DO YOU THINK ITS ONLY A COINCIDENCE THAT JOSEPH SMITH INITIATED INTO FREEMASONRY AND THEN WITHIN THE MONTH "REVEALED" THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY, WITH ALL ITS MASONIC ELEMENTS?

Absolutely NOT a coincidence. However, it is helpful to understand that Joseph and HIS FAMILY were well acquainted with Freemasonry for many generations. It was NOT NEW to him, what with his paternal grandfather and his own beloved brother Alvin being members of Freemasonry. And there are more connections, but that'll do for now.

AND LASTLY, DO YOU FIND IT ODD THAT OVER THE YEARS THE MOST OBVIOUS MASONIC ELEMENTS (THE PENALTIES, THE FIVE POINTS OF FELLOWSHIP, ETC.) HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY?

It is not "odd". It is deliberate, yes. And these things are not the only changes -- yet the changes were all to one point, so they are of interest in this case. That is, the endowment changes, as always, have been made to update the delivery mechanism so as to not seem too strange (or, outdated) for the membership of the Church.

Thus, we can expect many more changes in the future, over time.

IOW, the format (or, superficial appearance) of the presentation must not distract too much from the content and meaning, or the meaning is lost. At the same time, the symbolism and types therein must exist, or the Heavens cannot be pierced, which is the entire point of the endowment.

Here's my synopsis:

It was revealed to Joseph, and thus he taught (read in the D&C), that the keys to the mysteries of heaven would be found in the temple, specifically in the temple endowment. This was before Nauvoo, where he and most other brethren joined the Freemasons. THINK ABOUT THAT. Doctrine and Covenants 84

Joseph knew by revelation that the Saints needed the endowment, for a very long time. He knew that this instruction must fit within the social structure and expectations of society, at least to a degree, or the membership would not be able to put forth sufficient faith to draw down the powers of heaven in an actual esoteric fullfillment to the rite or ceremony (exoteric) of the endowment. THINK ABOUT THAT.

None of that makes sense to the natural man, guaranteed. But God works through the mind and spirit of man, and Joseph understood this.

So when he saw the framework of the Freemason's rite, he saw an opportunity to couch the message of God's endowment in the same sociological framework, while including the divine, revealed elements that Heavenly Father had required him to teach and provide to the Saints. Serendipity, if you will.

Links of interest: http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/141/141-32-41.pdf

Why Did Joseph Smith Become a Mason?

HiJolly

Edited August 6, 2008 by HiJolly

[bytor2112]

"I know, as do we all, that the things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit....."- Elder Bruce R McConkie.

The debates are endless, but this statement is so true. Obviously this RM forgot this or didn't know it to begin with. Whenever I come across things about the Temple that make me scratch my head, I always remember the Spirit that I have felt and I realize that when it is time for me to understand I will. But for now the Spirit let's me know that it is ok. Any concerns about the endowment that I have had, were always answered by the Holy Spirit immediately upon entering the Celestial room. The things of God are glorious indeed.

[Vort]

Blunt truth:

The discussion with this guy is a waste of time. (At best.) Yes, you could prove him wrong point by point and show that he is either deceived or lying. Hurray! You win!

What's the point? As you strive with this guy, does the Spirit strive with you? If not, there is no point in the conversation. He will believe what he chooses to believe. Even if you do "prove him wrong", do you suppose that's going to stop him? Or do you think maybe you'll help reconvert him to the truth he has left? Neither option is likely.

Luke 23:9 "Then [Herod] questioned with [Jesus] in many words; but he answered him nothing."

1 Nephi 8:33 "[T]hey did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not."

Sometimes refusing to engage in conversation is the best answer.

[guitarwizard]

What's the point?

my point is to try and make one less site on the internet, one that i frequent on that note, that has malicious lies about the church. This started as an attack on a guy about to leave on his mission. Those questions were posed to the soon-to-be missionary. It was partially in defense to him as well. What if those questions made that guy start questioning only weeks before his mission? I just don't want even 1 person to be led away from the truth of the church because i didn't take time to defend it.

new response: I find it interesting that just last week Elder Oaks gave a speech where he cautioned members of the church about reading about their history from anywhere other than the church's official accounts. If the church is true, why are the leaders of it always so concerned about people doing research on their own without the guided hand of the church? They seem to know on a subconscious level what has become apparent to me over the years: the further you dig into the church's history and doctrines, the more doubt you get.

Edited August 6, 2008 by guitarwizard

[HiJolly]

my point is to try and make one less site on the internet, one that i frequent on that note, that has malicious lies about the church. This started as an attack on a guy about to leave on his mission. Those questions were posed to the soon-to-be missionary. It was partially in defense to him as well. What if those questions made that guy start questioning only weeks before his mission? I just don't want even 1 person to be led away from the truth of the church because i didn't take time to defend it.

You did the right thing, GW. Way to go, Elder Ballard would be proud of you.

new response: I find it interesting that just last week Elder Oaks gave a speech where he cautioned members of the church about reading about their history from anywhere other than the church's official accounts. If the church is true, why are the leaders of it always so concerned about people doing research on their own without the guided hand of the church? They seem to know on a subconscious level what has become apparent to me over the years: the further you dig into the church's history and doctrines, the more doubt you get.

I've gotta look that one up (Elder Oaks). As to doubt, you are right. BUT (insert a BIG butt here) ---- If you can, by the spirit and grace of God, work through that doubt, then you can actually be ready for God to teach you the mysteries. It's a great place to be, but it doesn't come easily, nor cheaply.

Again about doubt -- it is a two-edged sword:

The downside:

Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might

win by fearing to attempt.

-- William Shakespeare,

Measure for Measure, Act 1

The upside:

"To refuse to doubt, think about or question what you are told

is to miss an opportunity to talk to God"

-- Father Leo Booth

The annoying truth:

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and

the intelligent are full of doubt."

-- Bertrand Russell

The uplifting truth:

"Living with ambiguity is a form of intellectual honesty, of

humility. It is only when we admit that we don't know that we

are receptive to what lessons may be taught. In some strange

way, it also brings an inner peace since we are no longer

fighting reality to maintain our inner fantasies on how things

should be. While I am characterizing it as an intellectual

process, it also has spiritual implications, since only an open

mind is capable of hearing God."

-- Andy Piereder (on Eyring-L)

HiJolly

[OtterPop]

my point is to try and make one less site on the internet, one that i frequent on that note, that has malicious lies about the church.

Perhaps you're talking about other things posted on that site, but I didn't see any "malicious lies" in the quotes you posted here.

I understand that you don't like his tone, but I didn't see any actual untruths that he wrote.

[candyprpl]

"I know, as do we all, that the things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit....."- Elder Bruce R McConkie.

The debates are endless, but this statement is so true. Obviously this RM forgot this or didn't know it to begin with. Whenever I come across things about the Temple that make me scratch my head, I always remember the Spirit that I have felt and I realize that when it is time for me to understand I will. But for now the Spirit let's me know that it is ok. Any concerns about the endowment that I have had, were always answered by the Holy Spirit immediately upon entering the Celestial room. The things of God are glorious indeed.

My eyes became wet with tears when I read your post. I hate the position of defending my faith! I know by the power of the Holy Spirit that I have been led here to this church. And I also know, when doubts appear, take a step back and ask for comfirmation -- I always receive it. It may be age (LOL) that has gotten me to the point of not needing to know all things now, but my faith does tell me that I will know all things in due time.

Another thought -- even though I hate defending my faith, it has made my testimony stronger -- and that's a good thing.

[HiJolly]

Perhaps you're talking about other things posted on that site, but I didn't see any "malicious lies" in the quotes you posted here.

I understand that you don't like his tone, but I didn't see any actual untruths that he wrote.

The second sentence is not a lie, per se, but it is a question that implies an answer that is not justified by the evidence. Pretty darn close to a lie, in that it tends to make a (unspoken, assumed) lie look reasonable.

There's quite an art to this kind of unspoken accusation.

HiJolly

[bytor2112]

new response: I find it interesting that just last week Elder Oaks gave a speech where he cautioned members of the church about reading about their history from anywhere other than the church's official accounts. If the church is true, why are the leaders of it always so concerned about people doing research on their own without the guided hand of the church? They seem to know on a subconscious level what has become apparent to me over the years: the further you dig into the church's history and doctrines, the more doubt you get.

Is this your comment Guitarwizard or someone else's? History is usually written with a bias based on the core beliefs of the author. People who are not members of our faith see our history in a much less favorable light than we do. I think it is wise counsel from Elder Oaks, we should be careful where we dig for information.

I personally believe that if those who leave the church had spent as much time reading the scriptures and praying as they did reading the "alleged" truths about the Church History they wouldn't have left. Church history is great...but peering at 19th century history through 21st century lenses can be very confusing and in no way leads to Eternal Life. Beware the mists of darkness.....

[Heather]

Interesting thing about Anti's--they will go on and on about similarities, yet completely ignore all the differences.

Most important point - The endowment is one thing and the ritual is another. The ritual has changed, will continue to change, as it is adapted to fit the needs of the children of God. What is important is the endowment itself.

Joseph Smith was a Third Degree Master Mason; in fact, he was raised at sight. His father and brother were masons too. Free Masonry is not a religion. It's the worlds oldest fraternity. Their rituals are not an "apostate version of the temple ceremony" either. Free Masonry was around before the Church was restored. The first reference found to Freemasonry is in 975 in York, England. But Masonry as we know it today really takes root in the Enlightenment of the early 18th century.

[guitarwizard]

bytor2112: no that was the comment of another, and i said the same thing. It seemed like he was trying to start the "the church is hiding information" argument. I simply brought up that the church supplies reliable information: the endowment is available online, or you can read about it through the church in the Library of Congress.

I considered Elder Ballard's counsel to continue the conversation and judged by the spirit, and after about 5 more responses decided to end the conversation in a public eye. I have told him if he has questions he can contact me, but my defense has gotten to the point that he started to make sporadic accusations instead of focusing on one central idea (which started as the endowment).

But, i do find this very interesting, in a faith promoting way. Is there an official consensus of what Masonry is? Do they believe the temple rites to be that of Solomon's temple?

[Heather]

Chitty Wrote: WHY IS THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY LITTERED WITH SIGNS AND SYMBOLS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE FREEMASON DEGREES? DO YOU THINK ITS ONLY A COINCIDENCE THAT JOSEPH SMITH INITIATED INTO FREEMASONRY AND THEN WITHIN THE MONTH "REVEALED" THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY, WITH ALL ITS MASONIC ELEMENTS? AND LASTLY, DO YOU FIND IT ODD THAT OVER THE YEARS THE MOST OBVIOUS MASONIC ELEMENTS (THE PENALTIES, THE FIVE POINTS OF FELLOWSHIP, ETC.) HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY?

"So we have the endowment and then we have the messenger: the ritual. How the endowment is taught and this is where I believe Masonry played a part. Joseph Smith sat in Lodge, he watched as humble farmers--most of whom he knew probably couldn't read and write well--learned complicated, difficult ritual and he said in his mind, 'Ah! This is how I'll do it. This is how I'll teach the endowment to the Saints.' Why? Because they already knew the ritual. They wouldn't pay attention to the ritual; they'd pay attention to the message because they already knew the ritual. And so, there is that kind of genesis, that ritualistic form, that asking of questions back and forth that we get. All of that comes as Joseph Smith tries to communicate these truths.

Now the temple endowment did not spring forth one day in Nauvoo fully functioning. The temple endowment came over a long period of time and in Kirtland we got what we call the washings and anointings. They have no equivalent in Freemasonry. Freemasonry does not do washings and anointings or anything even remotely like them. This is the other part that critics of the Church never bring up, they never bring up the differences, they always bring up the similarities because the differences don't serve their purposes.

So we've got whole sections of the endowment that have no Masonic origins or similarities and that was the early ritual as found in Kirtland. "

Chitty wrote:"www.fairlds.org" is about the furthest thing possible away from being a scholarly site.

Be that as it may, I'm thinking the scholars at fairlds.org have more education, prestige, and credibility than this guy does. Years studying? Hardly. He's only quoting the fat of anti-Mormon propaganda to you. He heard a few things and let his own thoughts run him into the ground without any true study of Masons or Mormons. FairLDS scholars could walk all over him.

[OtterPop]

The second sentence is not a lie, per se, but it is a question that implies an answer that is not justified by the evidence. Pretty darn close to a lie, in that it tends to make a (unspoken, assumed) lie look reasonable.

I assume you're talking about this sentence: DO YOU THINK ITS ONLY A COINCIDENCE THAT JOSEPH SMITH INITIATED INTO FREEMASONRY AND THEN WITHIN THE MONTH "REVEALED" THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY, WITH ALL ITS MASONIC ELEMENTS?

The author here clearly believes that Joseph Smith took the endowment from the Freemasons. I don't think that's a hidden assumption -- I think it's very in-your-face. He makes no bones about where he is coming from, and the timeline he describes is correct, I believe.

Once again, I get that you don't like the tone, but to call this a lie is, well, not exactly the truth.

[Heather]

But, i do find this very interesting, in a faith promoting way. Is there an official consensus of what Masonry is? Do they believe the temple rites to be that of Solomon's temple?

It's a fraternity, not a religion. There is no historical evidence to support a continuous functioning line from Solomon's Temple to the present. Even if there were, there is going to be some changes to fit the needs of the children of God today. We're not going to be preforming ritualistic slaughter of animals as was done in Solomon's Temple.

[HiJolly]

"So we have the endowment and then we have the messenger: the ritual. How the endowment is taught and this is where I believe Masonry played a part. Joseph Smith sat in Lodge, he watched as humble farmers--most of whom he knew probably couldn't read and write well--learned complicated, difficult ritual and he said in his mind, 'Ah! This is how I'll do it. This is how I'll teach the endowment to the Saints.' Why? Because they already knew the ritual. They wouldn't pay attention to the ritual; they'd pay attention to the message because they already knew the ritual. And so, there is that kind of genesis, that ritualistic form, that asking of questions back and forth that we get. All of that comes as Joseph Smith tries to communicate these truths.

Now the temple endowment did not spring forth one day in Nauvoo fully functioning. The temple endowment came over a long period of time and in Kirtland we got what we call the washings and anointings. They have no equivalent in Freemasonry. Freemasonry does not do washings and anointings or anything even remotely like them. This is the other part that critics of the Church never bring up, they never bring up the differences, they always bring up the similarities because the differences don't serve their purposes.

So we've got whole sections of the endowment that have no Masonic origins or similarities and that was the early ritual as found in Kirtland. "

I'm interested from whence cometh that quote, Heather.

Another difference (and there are many others):

The Masonic rite is the story of Hiram Abiff, a man. No woman is included in their rites. Joseph included the sisters in the rite of Mormonism, and changed the proponent from Hiram to Adam and Eve. The entire backdrop story changed.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

It's a fraternity, not a religion. There is no historical evidence to support a continuous functioning line from Solomon's Temple to the present. Even if there were, there is going to be some changes to fit the needs of the children of God today. We're not going to be preforming ritualistic slaughter of animals as was done in Solomon's Temple.

Heh. FWIW, I like you, Heather.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I assume you're talking about this sentence: DO YOU THINK ITS ONLY A COINCIDENCE THAT JOSEPH SMITH INITIATED INTO FREEMASONRY AND THEN WITHIN THE MONTH "REVEALED" THE MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONY, WITH ALL ITS MASONIC ELEMENTS?

The author here clearly believes that Joseph Smith took the endowment from the Freemasons. I don't think that's a hidden assumption -- I think it's very in-your-face. He makes no bones about where he is coming from, and the timeline he describes is correct, I believe.

Once again, I get that you don't like the tone, but to call this a lie is, well, not exactly the truth.

First -- I did not call it a lie, that must've been someone else. Second -- The 'answer' to the question is not spelled out. It was leading into an answer that would not be correct. That was my point. The timeline is NOT correct, if you read my previous post (the one quoting D&C 84), you'd realize that (I would hope).

HiJolly

[guitarwizard]

By guitarwizard (Power User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:13 AM (59 minutes ago)

knowing the close bonds Joseph had to both his father and Hyrum, i am sure that he had learned many of the mason rituals prior to his initiation.

By Chitty (User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:53 AM (19 minutes ago)

That's quite the assumption. The plain as day reality is that he was initiated as a Mason in Nauvoo, and within weeks "revealed" the early version of the Endowment. I encourage you to get a transcript of the 3 Main Degrees of Masonry, and then an earlier version of the Endowment (pre-1930 preferably so you can see more of the Masonic influences). Lay them side-by-side and then we'll talk. They have since taken out the blatantly masonic elements (the Penalties which were word-for-word lifted from the masons, and also an entire portion of the Endowment known as The Five Points of Fellowship, which is also a direct lift from the masonic ceremony). Don't complicate this with your talking points - it's quite obvious.

By guitarwizard (Power User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:05 PM (7 minutes ago)

I never disagreed with you! I know that the endowment ceremony contained masonic influences! and i also know that Joseph was a mason! i believe i said that in my first reply to you (first or second). I also know that Joseph was a prophet. The majority of the early church were humble farmers. Joseph obviously had sat in with many of them at the masonic lodge and saw them contemplated the rites when they could hardly read and write themselves. He sees them understanding this complex ritual and realizes that by using elements from the rites, they could understand the endowment better, and realize through that ceremony what they were being endowed with. Remember: there is the endowment and then there is what carries the message of the endowment. What carried the message in the temples at nauvoo and until 1930 included those masonic influences. It probably took so long to change as well because the church has a whole needed to realize this. But as we went from the understanding farmers who had experienced parts of this in the lodge to the baffled people twentieth century, the prophets knew it was time for the ceremony to be changed to for better understanding.

Also, don't just focus on the similarities. When you do that, when you are exclusive to one part of an argument, that is the anti-game. Focus on the differences as well. What about washings and anointing that were the part of the endowment, do not forget the importance of this. It was also part of the endowment. Part that is present nowhere in the mason practices. Also, this was prior to Joseph being a mason! This rules out the idea of "they have a ceremony, let's have a ceremony." The endowment was already being recieved "line upon line."

So there are parts of the endowment, even from Nauvoo, that have no equivalency in Freemasonry. We also have parts of the endowment that spring back from Kirtland. And you insinuate that the endowment is stolen from masonry? Maybe you also need to lay them out side-by-side. I have done my research.

Your move.

By Chitty (User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:08 PM (4 minutes ago)

Dude, the only part of the Endowment that was "revealed" in Kirtland were the washings and annointings.

God, you're a f------ idiot. Enjoy your jesus-jammies and 90% pay for the rest of your pathetic, mindless, life.

By guitarwizard (Power User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:13 PM (Just now)

i am an idiot? How am i idiotic? Because i see past the anti bull and can understand where this plays a role? Because i can actually comprehend that something can be taken from somewhere else and used to convey a message? Because i can see Christ doing the same thing in the New Testament? Or have you lost faith in that too?

I just really want to know, even if it is your last message to me: Why does that make me idiotic?