Secret Combinations

[cookslc]

"Remarkable similarities between Scouting and Freemasonry: secret handshakes, initiation, oaths, ranks, signs, prayer..."

Yes, and the Church adopted "Scouting".

"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, . . ."

No, I did not mean that Freemasonary doesn't.

My point was that The Church does.

"One is based upon obligations to God, . . ."

I believe for most LDS that I know, one of the ways to be of service to God is to be of service to man.

Just a thought.

Not trying to be argumentative:p

Bro. Rudick

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.

Edited January 8, 2010 by cookslc

[cookslc]

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

[JohnnyRudick]

"The point was to whom obligations are made."

Exactly;)

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will

hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the

one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Hebrews 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be

moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably

with reverence and godly fear:

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Hebrews 13:1 Let brotherly love continue.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for

thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Hebrews 13:3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with

them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also

in the body. . .

Bro. Rudick

[cookslc]

"The point was to whom obligations are made."

Exactly;)

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will

hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the

one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Hebrews 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be

moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably

with reverence and godly fear:

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Hebrews 13:1 Let brotherly love continue.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for

thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Hebrews 13:3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with

them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also

in the body. . .

Bro. Rudick

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?

Edited January 8, 2010 by cookslc

[JohnnyRudick]

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?

Two Questions you ask.

Yes and No.

There is a big difference between Meals on Wheels

and the Freemasons.

I had a friend in Seattle who thought he could be a good LDS member and a Roman Catholic.

I had the same problems with it.

Sorry, [i have] just a personal problem I am sure.

Bro. Rudick

Edited January 8, 2010 by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought

[cookslc]

Two Questions you ask.

Yes and No.

There is a big difference between Meals on Wheels

and the Freemasons.

I had a friend in Seattle who thought he could be a good LDS member and a Roman Catholic.

I had the same problems with it.

Sorry, [i have] just a personal problem I am sure.

Bro. Rudick

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.

.

Edited January 8, 2010 by cookslc

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

.

I thank you for your understanding and graciousness.

This is not a crusade with me.

I just saw the topic and put ion my 3 cents worth. (whatever that is:confused:)

Bro. Rudick

Edited January 9, 2010 by JohnnyRudick

[cookslc]

I thank you for your understanding and graciousness.

...

Bro. Rudick

Can I quote you to my teenager?

[JohnnyRudick]

Can I quote you to my teenager?

[JudoMinja]

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?

I know I'm answering for another person here, but I hope said person agrees with me-

The scripture reference given speaks specifically on the difference between serving GOD and SATAN (Mammon, man, the world). While we will have many obligations in our lives- to work, family, school, clubs, and other groups, as long as those obligations do not pull us away from our worship of the Lord they are not wrong.

There is nothing wrong with spending time with those who aren't members of the church- quite the contrary. How could we ever spread the gospel if we did not? What kind of Christ-like example would we be setting if we said "You aren't from my church so I can't spend time with you?"

What we must watch out for is where we are putting our priorities. If our bowling club wants to meet on Sundays, do we put them before keeping the Sabbath holy? If we are working for the sole purpose of getting rich and earning as much money as we can to spend on unnecessary material possessions, are we putting the kingdom of God before riches?

We cannot serve two masters- we must choose between God and Satan. If we want to call ourselves followers of Christ, then we must DO so. It is a choice, it is a concsious decision and it takes effort. We must always take the time to determine whether or not what we are doing is in service to the Lord. And remember, "When ye are in the service of your fellow men, ye are only in the service of your God".

[Moksha]

Further, Church callings and family duties take clear precedence, just as they do over over golf, TV and internet discussion groups.

What about someone like Palerider who has been called to the internet or Moksha who should be called to bed at this late hour?

[bjw]

a. I think it more accurate to say Freemasonry adopted ancient symbols, rather than is a literal descendant from the ancient mystery schools or other rituals. Clearly this was the case with Pike's AASR ritual. See The Scottish Rite Ritual Monitor and Guide by Arturo de Hoyos.

b. For me (and many other LDS Masons), we do not have to believe in an ancient origin of Freemasonry to believe in the LDS Church. I think this is best described in Matthew Brown's companion DVD to Exploring the Relationship between Mormons and Masons (I get no residuals from sales).

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!

[bjw]

"The point was to whom obligations are made."

Exactly;)

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will

hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the

one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Hebrews 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be

moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably

with reverence and godly fear:

Hebrews 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Hebrews 13:1 Let brotherly love continue.

Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for

thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Hebrews 13:3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with

them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also

in the body. . .

Bro. Rudick

I believe that the obligations in masonry are made to God and are promises to bind you to your fellow masons.

I know some think that Mormons shouldn't be Masons, but I know that masonry has helped me be a better Mormon. It has encouraged me and helped me keep the commandments, given me an opportunity to serve my community, and has helped me understand the temple better.

[bjw]

I was kinda looking forward to discussing this more, its ashame to let this thread drop off. Is Brother Cook or anyone else interested in responding?

Does anyone else on here agree with me that you would almost have to believe in the ancient origin of the concepts of masonry (not necessarily freemasonry itself) for Mormonism to be true? I'm honestly confused about how anyone else could believe any different, especially after the Brigham Young quote I gave in my response to Brother Cook.

[Moksha]

Does anyone else on here agree with me that you would almost have to believe in the ancient origin of the concepts of masonry (not necessarily freemasonry itself) for Mormonism to be true?

Which ancient masonry concept? Stone upon stone or if you build it they will come?

[bjw]

Which ancient masonry concept? Stone upon stone or if you build it they will come?

The Brigham Young quote that I posted two posts ago mentions some elements borrowed from masonry that are necessary for gaining exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. If one believes that these elements were not invented until the early 1700s (which is the majority view), then they could not possibly be part of the restoration of the Gospel, or a restoration of the ancient Christian temple ceremony. Thus, Mormonism would be false.

However, if what I was saying earlier is the case, that these elements were borrowed by the masons from defunct mystery religions/fraternities that had kept these traditions alive by incorporating them into their own rituals, then it makes perfect sense that our temple ceremony is putting these elements back into their true context. To me it seems like it can be the only feasibile view in light of what is taught by our church leaders. Any thoughts?

[Justice]

Mormon was careful to point out that Gadianton and Kishkumen didn't learn the art of secret combination from the records of the Nephites, but that they learned it from the same being that had a pact with Cain.

We also know that the temple rites and symbols weren't learned from a book, but by revelation.

So, in my opinion, it really makes no difference when Masons learned or started their practices. Obviously, they learned from a different source. Joseph Smith may have been intrigued or interested by what he saw, but the temple symbols were a result of revelation. So, that the Masonic Lodge was practicing something handed down for many, many centuries, perhaps ageless, doesn't either prove or disprove Mormonism.

It's kind of like saying whether or not the Mormon Church is true is based on where the Baptist Church learned to baptize.

[cookslc]

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.

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).

...

[bjw]

Thanks for the interesting replies Justice and Brother Cook. I agree with both of you, that the Mormon ceremony was given by revelation, and that the main point is the covenants we make.

However, David Littlefield at mormonmysticism.com and an anonomous poster he was corresponding with gave a good discussion on how Brigham Young's idea of passing "angels that stand as sentinels" goes back to Egyptian mythology, Kabbalah, and Enochian Magick traditions. You can find the blog entry here: MormonMysticism.com: Angels Who Stand As Sentinels

I'm not sure how much of this relates to masonry, but I think it shows that Mormonism's elements at least have an ancient origin.

[Pianoman216]

How do we know that many of the ancient traditions and ceremonies of the world did not actually branch off of the original ceremonies of an ancient endowment? Perhaps the same symbols we use in the temple were given to Adam. Could it be that at some point someone took these things and began their own, similar, apostate endowment? Maybe all, or most of the rites, rituals and ceremonies that presently exist in the world, directly or indirectly, spawned from this original endowment given to Adam.

[Justice]

Exactly, pianoman, and whether they did or did not doesn't prove or disprove that Mormonism is true.

Mormonism hinges on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true.

Perhaps it's an interesting topic and study, though. And, perhaps if those rites and symbols can be shown in antiquity it would provide some evidence of their truthfulness.

But, they could have been "made up" long ago instead of recently. I guess it all depends on how they were used and who used them anciently. In some people's minds, it discovering such a thing may only result in proving them to be made up.

Perhaps.

[cookslc]

Thanks for the interesting replies Justice and Brother Cook. I agree with both of you, that the Mormon ceremony was given by revelation, and that the main point is the covenants we make.

However, David Littlefield at mormonmysticism.com and an anonomous poster he was corresponding with gave a good discussion on how Brigham Young's idea of passing "angels that stand as sentinels" goes back to Egyptian mythology, Kabbalah, and Enochian Magick traditions. You can find the blog entry here: MormonMysticism.com: Angels Who Stand As Sentinels

I'm not sure how much of this relates to masonry, but I think it shows that Mormonism's elements at least have an ancient origin.

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.

[cookslc]

Exactly, pianoman, and whether they did or did not doesn't prove or disprove that Mormonism is true.

Mormonism hinges on whether or not the Book of Mormon is true.

Perhaps it's an interesting topic and study, though. And, perhaps if those rites and symbols can be shown in antiquity it would provide some evidence of their truthfulness.

But, they could have been "made up" long ago instead of recently. I guess it all depends on how they were used and who used them anciently. In some people's minds, it discovering such a thing may only result in proving them to be made up.

Perhaps.

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.

[NeuroTypical]

In relation to the drug matters- I have heard many times how people involved with drugs, whether they are dealing or using, just KNOW another person in the trade when they see them. They can walk up to a total stranger and ask for the drugs and feel perfectly confident that the stranger has them. There is something there that they can see/sense that others don't recognize. This is a definite sign of secret combinations.

My wife tells me that is true. It's not really anything supernatural or spooky, it's more of picking up on body language, eye movement, location. Just being a certain place at a certain time, sends a message to people in the drug/gang scene. It's just a matter of learning the signs/words/locations/body language. As I mentioned, my wife was astounded that 600 miles away and 13 years later, she was able to just plunk right down into the middle of it again with very little effort.

For the life of me, I can't tell. I don't pick up on any of it, even though she shows me. I guess I'm just a sheltered mormon boy.

There are also a certain amount of "ground rules" that just get followed. Most of the shootings/beatings you'll read about in your local paper or police blotter, are as a result of various gangs/factions engaging in their version of 'honorable combat', or everybody and their dog going after the one guy who broke the rules. There is "honor among theives" - and some of what these people do would indicate a sense of honor to us. For example, if gang A hurts or kills the sister or kid or girlfriend of someone in gang B, then gang C can go wipe out two or three people in gang A, in order to gain favor with gang B.

And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant.

Masons go volunteer at hospitals and drink beer and play pool. They really don't belong in this thread.

LM

[cookslc]

...

Masons go volunteer at hospitals and drink beer and play pool. They really don't belong in this thread.

LM

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>.