Guest

Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?

Recommended Posts

Guest
Quote

Does freemasonry have roots

Yes, but don't worry, it has an appointment with its hair lady to get a touch-up on Tuesday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Zarahemla, it seems you're getting information from biased sources again. I've gotten that temple=masons=satanism schtick along with the "Isn't that SHOCKING to you? Isn't that upsetting?" from my neighbor who I know takes "classes" at her church all about how bad and dumb Mormons are. 

Stop going to those sources. Consider their objectives. Why would you get information from someone whose goal is to tear the church down? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 12/3/2016 at 11:12 PM, Zarahemla said:

I have some problems with the Masonry in the endowment because I know some Masons and it always made me somewhat worried in the back of my mind.

"I know some Masons".  What does that mean?

While no demographic has all good upstanding people, I'd place Masons alongside Mormons as a group of fine upstanding individuals who have a dedication to do good in the world.  If it turns out there actually is a connection between the ceremonies (which I don't believe there is) I'd be happy to have Mormons put in the same pot as Masons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Vort said:

Why do mission rules require sanding them down?

Knowing where you served Vort, I'm guessing that the reason is because you needed to somehow distinguish yourself from the local "competition"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have studied Masonry, there is no connection with Satanism. Because of their secrecy in their rites some have claimed a connection.  While Joseph may have used a few parts of the Masonic rite to develop the endowment, the ties are rather insignificant.  Masonic rites go through several levels that discuss/teach moral concepts, based upon a history where King Solomon, Hyrum of Tyre and Hiram Abiff the temple builder, all held portions of a great secret. The portions were combined to create the original temple ceremony, according to Masonic lore.  The first levels are tied to the murder of Hiram Abiff, and the importance of being a Mason in building the temple.

This is very different from the LDS endowment, the purpose being to prepare us to enter into the presence of God. We do not go through several levels of moral teaching as in Masonry. Our endowment is for both men and women, and is geared towards preparing us to enter the Celestial Kingdom, God's presence, and unite with eternal family.

Fearing any small connection with Masonry as a reason to stay away from the temple is being short sighted and placing fear in the way of what can create great faith. Masonry is not Satanic. I know several Mormons who have been Masons, and I have read some of the rites, and there is nothing Satanic about it.  In fact, Joseph Smith had no problem with it, telling his friend B. F. Johnson that it was the "apostate endowment", or an endowment that had lost much of the truth (like much of Christianity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rameumptom said:

For those who have studied Masonry, there is no connection with Satanism. Because of their secrecy in their rites some have claimed a connection. 

Exactly. We fear what we do not know and we are quick to assume the worst.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2016 at 7:22 PM, askandanswer said:

Knowing where you served Vort, I'm guessing that the reason is because you needed to somehow distinguish yourself from the local "competition"

LOL.

(For the record, though Italians typically claimed to hate and despise their priests and think them corrupt, the few priests I knew seemed like deeply decent people dedicated to serving God as best they knew how.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
13 hours ago, rameumptom said:

Masonic rites go through several levels that discuss/teach moral concepts, based upon a history where King Solomon, Hyrum of Tyre and Hiram Abiff the temple builder, all held portions of a great secret. The portions were combined to create the original temple ceremony, according to Masonic lore.  The first levels are tied to the murder of Hiram Abiff, and the importance of being a Mason in building the temple.

It is important to note that the "story" of the Masonic rite is Lore.  The history does not support it.

http://www.masonicworld.com/education/articles/THE-IMPORTANCE-OF-THE-LEGEND-OF-HIRAM-ABIFF.htm

13 hours ago, rameumptom said:

In fact, Joseph Smith had no problem with it, telling his friend B. F. Johnson that it was the "apostate endowment", or an endowment that had lost much of the truth (like much of Christianity).

I question whether he actually said it.  The source is third hand.  Nibley quotes Johnson who quotes Joseph.  No one else quoted Johnson.  And the original quote by Johnson is not found anywhere but in Nibley's works.  While I have great respect for Nibley's scholarship, where is the source?

Whatever similarities there are or if there truly is a connection through historical preservation over centuries/millennia, the bottom line is that the temple ordinances were had through the Lord.  Masonry came through man.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I question whether he actually said it.  The source is third hand.  Nibley quotes Johnson who quotes Joseph.  No one else quoted Johnson.  And the original quote by Johnson is not found anywhere but in Nibley's works.  While I have great respect for Nibley's scholarship, where is the source?

I expect Joseph accepted the common wisdom, which was that the Masonic ceremonies had been passed down since Solomon's time. I doubt he was intending to make a revelatory pronouncement on the origins of the Masonic ceremonies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2016 at 10:12 PM, Zarahemla said:

I won't be specific for obvious board reasons, but the LDS temple have some form of freemasonry in it's ordinances, but I always heard that Freemasonry had it's roots in Satanism, so how is this not more troubling to people? My brother, who I've always looked up to in the church, gets uncomfortable during the endowment session because of the Masonry aspects and clothing. I was shocked when I found out he'd only been to the temple once in the past 4 years because he always gives the most inspired Christlike priesthood blessings. I admit, I have some problems with the Masonry in the endowment because I know some Masons and it always made me somewhat worried in the back of my mind. I still go to the temple often though because I know I'm doing important work for those that have passed on. It's just the ceremony can be a little uncomfortable.

this is very complicated in detail, but the concept is fairly simple- once you consider the nature of Satan and Christ/God, that goes back to first dealings of God and Man.

Every time God has gifted man with something, Satan attempts to pervert it. almost always by coming up with an almost identical imitation that gets more twisted over time until it is something completely different. while it is an imitation, there is some value in studying them because sometimes the imitation survives on recorded in history when the original is stamped out. An example of this would be the earliest of egyptian practices and symbols in relation to the actual priesthood at that time.

Masonry adopted aspects and rites from christianity and judaism when it was formed, and it became very private for about the same reasons most religions tend to be private- public persecution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carborendum,

Actually, Benjamin Franklin Johnson quotes Joseph in his journal. It isn't a third hand Nibley quote. So the Masonic rite is an apostate endowment.

 

As Vort mentioned, Joseph likely took the story oh Masonry at face value.

b f Johnson my life's review autobiography

Edited by rameumptom
add link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, Freemasonry has it'd origins in the 1400's. It's association with Solomon's Temple is purely allegorical. The freemasonry rituals were not the "original endowment." 

 

Joseph Smith co-opted the Freemasonry rituals and infused them with elements of Moses, Abraham, and Genesis because he recognized it as an effective vehicle for conveying eternal principles (insert obligatory discussion of revelation and inspiration here). 

Freemasonry has long been a networking organization. So much so that prior to the Civil War, many government officials were getting their jobs through connections with other Freemasons. This led to the rise of the anti-Masonic party--the original anti corruption political party--that successfully demonized the Masons to a point that no one wanted to be publicly affiliated. This likely has more to do with the rumored Satanism ties than anything else.

For the most part, Freemasonry has been radically non denominational throughout its history. It was originally a trade guild that only expected a belief in a supreme being. Many lodges have backed off that requirement in the last century. Discussion of politics and religion are forbidden in lodges specifically to prevent weakening of the brotherhood. Satanist roots are hard to justify in an organization that avoids the topic of religion while encouraging it's practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Joseph Smith co-opted the Freemasonry rituals and infused them with elements of Moses, Abraham, and Genesis because he recognized it as an effective vehicle for conveying eternal principles (insert obligatory discussion of revelation and inspiration here). 

Do you have a reference for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Do you have a reference for that?

I know Wikipedia is a lame source, but at least it's summary is well referenced. That Smith became a Mason prior to establishing the endowment ritual is pretty well established.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry

Co-opting local practice isn't exactly a new thing. Paul co-opted the Greek idea of heaven to teach early Christians about he concept of returning to live with God.

For the Hebrews, Adam and Eve had lived eastward in Eden, and been expelled further east. God, for them, would have lived westward in Eden. Positioning the Tabernacle of the congregation with the door facing east and the Holy of Holies on the western wall meant traveling from east to west to return to God's presence. This symbolism was lost on the Greeks.

So Paul co-opted the terrestial-celestial analogy. Becoming a celestial body meant living among Zeus and the other gods, so to speak. It was an analogy they understood.

Smith, in my reasoning, did a similar thing with the Masonic rituals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I know Wikipedia is a lame source, but at least it's summary is well referenced. That Smith became a Mason prior to establishing the endowment ritual is pretty well established.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry

That source is pretty much the same as what I've already read.  But where does it say that "Joseph co-opted the extant Masonic rites into the first temple ceremony of this dispensation"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masonic rituals existed in the 1400s

Smith became a Mason in the 1800s

Smith later revealed the Endowment in the general form we've come to know it.

The statement that the Masonic rituals were co-opted proceeds from logical reasoning. Religious scholars I've spoken to and read have a similar viewpoint.

Co-opting the rituals doesn't make them any less sacred. We find meaning and enrichment in all sorts of things around us. Co-opting to Masonic rituals just means God used a method of teaching that was relatable to the target audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
22 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Masonic rituals existed in the 1400s

Smith became a Mason in the 1800s

Smith later revealed the Endowment in the general form we've come to know it.

That's it?  No, it doesn't simply follow.

Elements of the ritual were present in the D&C and the BoM prior to him becoming a Mason.  And the few weeks between his rise to Master Mason (16 March) to the date of the first endowment (4 May) were filled with highly demanding work for Joseph -- every single day is accounted for with highly demanding business.  He was simply too busy to have put together the entire ceremony with the specified differences within such a time frame.  That is simply illogical.

Not only that, but he had already declared the amount of space he needed for the endowment was not satisfied by the upper room of the store. But it was they best they could do for now.  This was before he became a Master Mason. He knew beforehand.

What I could be persuaded to believe is that the Masons did somehow access legacy elements of the ancient endowment that somehow happened to survive.  And such items were somewhat similar to the true endowment that was received from heaven.  But based on the information contained in your link alone, I believe you have the path of information mixed up.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's it?  No, it doesn't simply follow.

Elements of the ritual were present in the D&C and the BoM prior to him becoming a Mason.  And the few weeks between his rise to Master Mason (16 March) to the date of the first endowment (4 May) were filled with highly demanding work for Joseph -- every single day is accounted for with highly demanding business.  He was simply too busy to have put together the entire ceremony with the specified differences within such a time frame.  That is simply illogical.

Not only that, but he had already declared the amount of space he needed for the endowment was not satisfied by the upper room of the store. But it was they best they could do for now.  This was before he became a Master Mason. He knew beforehand.

What I could be persuaded to believe is that the Masons did somehow access legacy elements of the ancient endowment that somehow happened to survive.  And such items were somewhat similar to the true endowment that was received from heaven.  But based on the information contained in your link alone, I believe you have the path of information mixed up.

Hyrum was a Mason in Palmyra.  Joseph most certainly could have known a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if you must have statements from others than myself:

Quote

 

Just seven weeks after rising to the level of Master Mason and in the very same space that the Masonic rites had been performed, Joseph introduced the endowment to nine men on May 4, 1842. The endowment presented teachings, ordinances, and covenants to participants in a format that closely resembled a few parts of the ceremony used in Freemasonry.

Over the years, critics have suggested that Joseph Smith plagiarized Masonry. The similarities are undeniable, so the charges are not surprising. Many of the symbols found on the exterior of our temples are also used in Masonry. And the Masonic ceremony contains elements similar to that in the temple endowment: signs, oaths, and special words, along with covenant making.

http://ldsmag.com/freemasonry-and-the-latter-day-saint-temple-endowment/

 

 

Quote

It is clear that Freemasonry and its traditions played a role in the development of the endowment ritual but not the degree that Mr. Norton would like to suggest. 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/ask-the-apologist-similarities-between-masonic-and-mormon-temple-ritual

The idea the Smith borrowed concepts of the Endowment from Freemasonry really isn't that controversial in academia. For the most part, nobody in academia cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

The idea the Smith borrowed concepts of the Endowment from Freemasonry really isn't that controversial in academia. 

I don't think it's controversial in the LDS world either. It might be one of those issues where no one cares aside from people saying it's a big issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has been clearly explained.  I'll just add that my nephew is a returned missionary and a recent Mason.  He doesn't have a problem with the two coexisting.  I was at one time interested in looking into Mason membership.  I seem to remember that our church leadership said there was nothing wrong with becoming a Mason but their opinion was that one expectation of keeping things secret was enough.

 

Oh, and when you get as old as me, they are no longer considered horns, but two shofars. -_-

Edited by Old Cowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
14 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

But, if you must have statements from others than myself:

 

The idea the Smith borrowed concepts of the Endowment from Freemasonry really isn't that controversial in academia. For the most part, nobody in academia cares.

It's not that I'm looking for statements from others than yourself. I'm asking for better evidence and more substance.  Nothing in those quotes contradicts anything I've said in this thread.  And as I've read the entirety of both links, I don't see any argument that I haven't addressed already in this thread.

Please understand that I'm not saying it's a big deal either way.  It's not a deal breaker for me.  But from my point of view, the arguments and evidence presented to say "Joseph co-opted Masonry into the Endowment" is a house of cards.  Sure, I'll acknowledge the logical path based on sketchy evidence, but there is no substance to it. 

I'm also NOT saying that there is no connection at all.  I'm NOT saying that Joseph DIDN'T co-opt it.  I'm saying there is insufficient evidence to say there is anything more than circumstantial evidence to support the claims.  Show me some more evidence -- better evidence and I'll buy it.  But again, these links are more speculation at the prospect with no more substance.

As far as sources: unless it is a prophet or apostle making a definitive statement on the matter, I don't care who says it.  I'm looking for hard evidence and solid logic -- not a house of cards.

And I'd appreciate it if you addressed any of my points.  It seems like all you're getting out of my points is that I disagree with you, while not even considering the arguments I've made.  Do you see any flaw in my logic?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now