possibly controversial question.

[questions67]

Sorry if this is controversial, but if i have a question about the mormon church i ask it here instead of some random anti-mormon site.

I was debating with my friend who read the book of mormon, prayed, and said she "received confirmation that it was false" (which to be hoenst, was really hard for me to even fathom that idea that she could read it and think its false, but i digress..). Well during the debate, she hit me with a question i have never been asked/accussed of before and i didnt really know what to say.

She accused the mormon church of copying and having connections with the free masons. After doing some research, im confused becuase Joseph Smith was a free mason.... i dont mean to be controversial, i mean i consider myself mormon, im just asking, what is the correct reply to something like this?

[Connie]

I believe this has been discussed here many times before. Perhaps if you did a search: LDS Mormon Forums - Search Forums

[Guest mysticmorini]

the fairwiki site does a really good job explaining stuff like this. you should give it a look.

[bytor2112]

Wait till she hears that President Monson and the Quorum of the Twelve are all members of.......AARP!!!!!!!!:eek::eek:

[marts1]

Along with George Washington and Benjamin Franklin it dosen't surprise me too much that Joseph Smith might have been affiliated with 'free masons'. One of my uncles was a shriner so I am aware of the many good works they do.

[Snow]

I was debating with my friend who read the book of mormon, prayed, and said she "received confirmation that it was false"

That is so bizarre. I just prayed and received confirmation that your friend is false and smells like mowed lawn.

[prisonchaplain]

I've come to the conclusion that linking LDS rituals etc. to Free Masonry is somewhat akin to those who claim Muslims really worship the moon God...they just don't know it! (go ahead and imagine sinister music in the background). It's a deadend to start with because how could I hold someone responsible for false or inaccurate beliefs that they are supposed to believe in but don't? Another analogy might be the Jehovah's Witness claim that Christmas and Easter are soaked in ancient pagan rituals. Meaningless, in that no Christians I know of honor pagan deities with their Nativity and Ressurection celebrations. If your church is wrong it's primarily because Joseph Smith did not really hear from God, not because he incorporated some Masonic elements he may have found appropriate.

[phantasmagoria]

First off, please excuse my horrid spelling. I am sleepy and can't seem to work my spell check but I really wanted to reply. It is my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, but Freemasonry explicitly and openly states that it is neither a religion nor a substitute for one. I know a requirement to become a freemason is to have a belief in a Supreme Being who is the Great Architect of the Universe but the interpretation of the term is subject to the religious prefrence of the person. So Freemasonry accepts men from a wide range of faiths. And the discussion of politics and religion is forbidden within a lodge. Instead they focus on things like brotherly love, charitable work, and truth. These are the basic cornorstones of any orginzed religion. These are some of the teaching of Christ. So to say that Latter Day Saints “copied” anything of this nature would be a ludachris statement. That would be the equvilent to saying that we stole religion from the Roman Catholics. The difference the gospel brings is a “fullness” of these common truths we all share. It is not here to take away, but to add too. So in light of all this, if some mormons had “connections” with free masons, if Joseph Smith himself was a free mason, what in the world does that have to do with the doctrins of the church being true? Accusitory remarks and the backlash that your friend displayed usually do not stem from a place of openness and willingness. It sounds to me like they did not ask if it was true with genuninly open heart and had probably manifested their answers before even asking. Truth can not be achieved this way. In situations like this, I find for me it is best that I reconfirm my relationship with God as I understand him and ground myself in my own testimony and pray for the resistant party. You know the truth and that is what is important.

[Gwen]

I was debating with my friend who read the book of mormon, prayed, and said she "received confirmation that it was false" (which to be hoenst, was really hard for me to even fathom that idea that she could read it and think its false, but i digress..).

i would like to address this part of your post.

first red flag "i was debating with my friend". debates don't usually carry the spirit.

if she simply read the bom and prayed she would see no connection to the free masons. which tells me she did some "research" either before, during, or after reading the bom. (but i'm guessing she did more reading of the "research" than she did the bom.) that tells me she had her mind made up before she prayed about it's truthfulness. (if she did indeed pray at all.) when we pray for an answer to anything it is supposed to be with a sincere intent. if you are also reading anti sites while reading the bom i'm pretty sure that kills the sincere part of the intent.

my point... don't lose any sleep over this. take her at her word and respect the answer she received. accept this friend isn't ready or open to the gospel and avoid those conversations with her. i would not continue to debate information off anti sites. if your friend is a true friend she will also respect the answer you received and let this topic go.

as for your question i think you have been given some good sources to find your answer.

[Elgama]

I was debating with my friend who read the book of mormon, prayed, and said she "received confirmation that it was false" (which to be hoenst, was really hard for me to even fathom that idea that she could read it and think its false, but i digress..). Well during the debate, she hit me with a question i have never been asked/accussed of before and i didnt really know what to say.

?

she might have recieved a negative, and it maybe because its not the right time for her to know. Ultimately the best way to respond is, you know its true because God has said it is, and how Joseph Smith got the Book of Mormon in that instance is unimportant.

No amount of information or you saying will convert, you know the Holy Ghost is real and a companion in your life, I find baring witness of how God and the Holy Ghost bless my life a better way of counteracting arguements than fighting over our history

[NeuroTypical]

my friend who read the book of mormon, prayed, and said she "received confirmation that it was false"

I'd love to see the biblical support for the Holy Spirit providing a negative. His job is to affirm truth - He nods his head yes, he doesn't shake his head no.

Dark negative feelings of doom and foreboding are not given from the Holy Spirit. They come from other sources (like our own preconceptions and fears).

She accused the mormon church of copying and having connections with the free masons. After doing some research, im confused becuase Joseph Smith was a free mason.... i dont mean to be controversial, i mean i consider myself mormon, im just asking, what is the correct reply to something like this?

I usually find a link for them to go read. It probably won't change their negative opinion, but then, nothing I say to them will either. Some critics are not interested in hearing explanations or corrections - they're interested in proving you wrong. Nothing else will suffice - they'll either succeed or fail with you, but changing their opinion isn't in the mix.

Now, are you troubled by similarities between Masonic tradition and what goes on in the temple? I'd suggest you state why first - then look at what you just stated and see if it holds any water.

So, why are you troubled?

LM

[prisonchaplain]

I'd love to see the biblical support for the Holy Spirit providing a negative. His job is to affirm truth - He nods his head yes, he doesn't shake his head no.

There is the gift of discerning of spirits. There is specific instruction on how to tell is a prophet/prophecy is of God or not. And, I personally have experience what we pentecostal/charismatic types call "a check in my spirit." So, without validating the particular incident in the OP, I'd say it is legitimate to say, in general, that the Holy Spirit told me "No...X is false."

[Just_A_Guy]

I was debating with my friend who read the book of mormon, prayed, and said she "received confirmation that it was false" (which to be hoenst, was really hard for me to even fathom that idea that she could read it and think its false, but i digress..). Well during the debate, she hit me with a question i have never been asked/accussed of before and i didnt really know what to say.

I understand you're preparing to be a missionary. As a missionary, all you can do is to train people to listen to the voice of God in their lives; but you have to give them the space to follow that voice as they believe they've received it. Maybe your friend has been deceived. Maybe the timing's not right. Maybe, for whatever reason, Heavenly Father actually wants her to be outside of the Church at this stage of her life. All you can do is teach the truth, and then let the Spirit do its job.

She accused the mormon church of copying and having connections with the free masons. After doing some research, im confused becuase Joseph Smith was a free mason.... i dont mean to be controversial, i mean i consider myself mormon, im just asking, what is the correct reply to something like this?

There are superficial similarities between Masonic ritual and certain aspects of the endowment. Frankly, until you've received your own endowment you just won't be able to discuss the topic intelligently. FWIW, though, Joseph Smith developed the endowment ceremony some ten years after the Church was started (the Book of Mormon, if anything, takes more of an anti-Masonic flavor). Just like the "Isaiah chapters" of the Book of Mormon, when you compare Masonic ritual and the endowment you need to consider not only how they are alike, but how they are different.

Until then, consider this: the job of a prophet is to find the truth, and then to teach it. If God told Joseph Smith that the Masons had a grain or two of truth, should Joseph Smith have suppressed that truth just because the Masons had "beat him to the punch", as it were?

Edited May 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

Sorry if this is controversial, but if i have a question about the mormon church i ask it here instead of some random anti-mormon site.

I was debating with my friend who read the book of mormon, prayed, and said she "received confirmation that it was false" (which to be hoenst, was really hard for me to even fathom that idea that she could read it and think its false, but i digress..). Well during the debate, she hit me with a question i have never been asked/accussed of before and i didnt really know what to say.

She accused the mormon church of copying and having connections with the free masons. After doing some research, im confused becuase Joseph Smith was a free mason.... i dont mean to be controversial, i mean i consider myself mormon, im just asking, what is the correct reply to something like this?

Dear questions: At this point of the discussion with your frind you should have a clear indication as to where their answers are coming from.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

I personally have experience what we pentecostal/charismatic types call "a check in my spirit."

I've never heard the term before. Got link to more info?

[prisonchaplain]

I did some googling around, and came up with a few examples. A Christian female was dating a fellow and said she had "a check in my spirit about some anger issues he was dealing with." She slowed down, and eventually saw the need to break off the relationship. An evangelist was preparing to leave a booth he was working at (county fair somewhere), and said he felt a check in his spirit not to leave. He rejoiced, because soon several college students came, and he was able to minister to them.

So, basically it's a spiritual premonition, believed to be from the Holy Spirit. We might even simply say it's being led by the Spirit.

[Guest mormonmusic]

My understanding is that both organizations -- Freemasons and the LDS Church have modeled their rituals after those that existed in Solomon's Temple. Therefore, they are similar because they have common roots, not because Joseph Smith was simply copying Freemasonry.

[Elgama]

also does it actually matter if he was copying freemasonry? if the temple teaches what the Lord would have us know using the things Joseph Smith copied? as Latter Day Saints we are told to appreciate anything that is good and lovely of good report whereever we find it

[Mahone]

i would like to address this part of your post.

first red flag "i was debating with my friend". debates don't usually carry the spirit.

I can't understand why this would be so. To debate something simly means to go over the pros and cons of something, usually with someone else. You'd be surprised how much you learn through doing this. No-one likes to be told they might be wrong, especially when it comes to religion or politics. However I think if you don't debate something before going ahead and doing it (especially something as big as joining a religion) you're being very silly. I'd have thought the church would support doing something like this, providing you listen to both sides, not just one. Then make your decision.

if she simply read the bom and prayed she would see no connection to the free masons. which tells me she did some "research" either before, during, or after reading the bom. (but i'm guessing she did more reading of the "research" than she did the bom.) that tells me she had her mind made up before she prayed about it's truthfulness. (if she did indeed pray at all.) when we pray for an answer to anything it is supposed to be with a sincere intent. if you are also reading anti sites while reading the bom i'm pretty sure that kills the sincere part of the intent.

The church supports gaining knowledge and learning. Why would it not support learning about the things in its history which may be less then positive? I can understand the church not wanting people to learn false information about it, but that's why you don't immediately take anything at face value that doesn't provide a valid source.

I cannot understand why the spirit would penalise someone for having decided to look at both sides of the coin, as opposed to one side. Yes, it means they may have serious doubt in their mind, but is this an issue? Many members of the church are perfectly happy for potential converts to make their decision based off church supported literature alone, but get a bit twitchy when they decide to look at literature which isn't supported by the church? Would you have issues with this mentality if it was a business? You probably would, so why is the church any different? Is researching something properly (i.e. both sides of the coin) considered insincere?

I think many people pay too much attention to non-church supported literature -because- many members of the church appear to be so scared of it, and cut off any debates when it is mentioned. This naturally raises questions in their own mind.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Mahone

[Just_A_Guy]

My understanding is that both organizations -- Freemasons and the LDS Church have modeled their rituals after those that existed in Solomon's Temple. Therefore, they are similar because they have common roots, not because Joseph Smith was simply copying Freemasonry.

I've heard this before, too; but it really doesn't make sense from a doctrinal perspective. The LDS temple ordinances are done under the auspices of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The ordinances of Solomon's temple--and Moses' Tabernacle before it--were done under the Aaronic Priesthood.

A version of our modern temple ordinances were had by the Patriarchs, and apparently were had to some degree by the primitive Church. But they are not what were performed in Solomon's temple.

AFAIK, while the Masons claim to have gotten their rites from Solomon himself, there's no historical evidence for their ceremonies being any older than the 13th/14th century AD.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[WillowTheWhisp]

But if the Masons did actually get some of their rites from Solomon then those would most likely be a foreshadowing of our present day Temple ceremonies, plus over the centuries people may well have added to and changed some of the Masonic stuff from Solomon's day which would explain the similarities and the differences.

[the Ogre]

I guess it doesn't matter. Your friend read some anti-stuff and then quit reading . . . a bit of intellectual dishonesty (erm and laziness). Don't worry about it, my guess is that this person is not much of a friend. I could care less about the origins of the Masons or their excuses to get together, talk 'truth', and drink beer. Nor does it matter where they get their info. What does matter is what you are going to do: get over it, stay friends, and do not argue with this person. Long term, what you do is more important rather than the crud found in some lame anti-site.

[cookslc]

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.

[Gwen]

I can't understand why this would be so. To debate something simly means to go over the pros and cons of something, usually with someone else. You'd be surprised how much you learn through doing this. No-one likes to be told they might be wrong, especially when it comes to religion or politics. However I think if you don't debate something before going ahead and doing it (especially something as big as joining a religion) you're being very silly. I'd have thought the church would support doing something like this, providing you listen to both sides, not just one. Then make your decision.

The church supports gaining knowledge and learning. Why would it not support learning about the things in its history which may be less then positive? I can understand the church not wanting people to learn false information about it, but that's why you don't immediately take anything at face value that doesn't provide a valid source.

I cannot understand why the spirit would penalise someone for having decided to look at both sides of the coin, as opposed to one side. Yes, it means they may have serious doubt in their mind, but is this an issue? Many members of the church are perfectly happy for potential converts to make their decision based off church supported literature alone, but get a bit twitchy when they decide to look at literature which isn't supported by the church? Would you have issues with this mentality if it was a business? You probably would, so why is the church any different? Is researching something properly (i.e. both sides of the coin) considered insincere?

I think many people pay too much attention to non-church supported literature -because- many members of the church appear to be so scared of it, and cut off any debates when it is mentioned. This naturally raises questions in their own mind.

debate has a connotation of no intention to ever give credence to the other person. if i have a discussion with someone then there is a chance of coming to some for of win-win situation. debates are usually held to determine which part is "right". win-win's call for respect. being right calls for pride. it's hard to feel the spirit when surrounded by pride and no respect.

i've never encouraged anyone to not research. when someone has researched with sincere intent they don't usually come out the door with the "evidence" frequently used by anti's to cloud things. if one were looking into a business and wanted to look at both sides i would find it insincere if they went to the competition for their "other side of the coin". one should seek information from a neutral source, facts. not the ppl that want to see them destroyed.

i'm not afraid of sincere discussion on the "hard" subjects. i discuss them quit often actually. i avoid debating them at all costs. in such debates there is no sincerity and it's a wast of time and energy.

maybe i just ahead with to many assumptions in my response and i'm totally wrong. i just gave my perspective on the information given.

[rameumptom]

Is it true that Joseph Smith used some Masonic rites in the temple rite? Yes. He saw it as the "apostate" endowment (not a bad thing, just that it had been changed from its pure form). Joseph often used things he came across as a catalyst for greater truth and light.

But many of the key temple endowment teachings are found in the Book of Mormon, written over a decade prior to his becoming a Mason. So, Joseph didn't just see the Masonic rite and decide to use it for something. Instead, he knew he had to develop a temple endowment, and the Masonic rite had many of the correct concepts needed.

Yet they were still miles apart. The Masonic rite did not include baptism for the dead, women were not involved in the rite, there was no eternal marriage. Joseph's temple rite did not have levels (e.g., 32nd level Mason), but only one set series for all worthy members to experience.

Given that much of the symbolism in the early Masonic rite no longer is understood by Americans, much less by LDS members in other parts of the world, the endowment has been updated to reflect a world-wide Church, and has little of the Masonic rite left in it today.