To Dark Sparks or other interested parties:
Let's presuppose that Joseph borrowed/took/stole elements of the Masonic ritual and used them in the Mormon Endowment.
How and why is that bad?
Big UP!
Lamanite
Friday, November 14, 2008
Mormon Critics, Freemasonry and Mormonism
To Dark Sparks or other interested parties:
Let's presuppose that Joseph borrowed/took/stole elements of the Masonic ritual and used them in the Mormon Endowment.
How and why is that bad?
Big UP!
Lamanite
13 comments:
I have little interest in this anymore. No offense, but to me it is just further evidence that Smith was a 19th century con artist/opportunist.
I strongly disagree with the death oaths that we practiced in the temple. But many will say that this and other things can't be discussed outside of the temple.
And some will deny that it ever was practiced. But I remember it well. The full text of it can easily be found on the internet just as I remember it.
Peace
D.S.
I'm sorry your interest has waned so quickly. I was only attempting to engage you under the impression that you were very passionate about alleged "evidences" that the Church was false. So I naturally assumed you would be interested in defending those positions. If it's the anonymous part that bothers you, I'm up for dinner and a chat anytime.
You said "Smith was a 19th century con artist/ opportunist."
In regards to the Presentation of the Endowment we can see that Joseph intended to "con" no one. Since there was a great interest in the Masonic Fraternity at the time and an extraordinary number of Mormon men were masons in the Illinois lodge in 1842 when the Endowment was first presented, and Capt. Wm. Morgan's expose on Freemasonry had been available to the public since 1827, it is laughable to think Joseph intended to slip one by the Saints.
Any man or women with half a brain would have noticed the similarities. In fact, this may be why Joseph presented the Endowment using this familiar structure. His use of this method of teaching was intentional.
As for opportunist comment, it begs the question: Opportunity for what? Tar and feathering? Beatings? False accusations? Exodus after exodus? Persecutions his entire life? Finally an opportunity to be murdered in cold blood? Again I ask, opportunity for what?
The "death oaths" as you refer to them are actually Masonic Penalty signs. I was endowed after they were removed so I can neither confirm nor deny that they were a part of the ceremony. However, I recently spent time with a Master Mason and he has said as much, so I accept that as fact. I'm not sure if you were placed under covenant not to reveal the penal signs, but I understand your aversion to them. Perhaps when you understand the context of these signs within the Masonic ritual, you may understand the reason for their inclusion in the Endowment. (see Freemasonry Exposed by Capt. WM. Morgan, or Duncan's Ritual of Freemasonry)
The differences between the Endowment and the Masonic Ritual far outnumber any similarities. But it's easy for me to see why Joseph would have taken a familiar method/structure for teaching to deliver and present the Mormon Endowment.
Big UP!
Lamanite
Hello Sione,
I have no intention of defending my position, but I will tell you what I think about Mormonism just from reading its real history.
Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered for propositioning women who were not his wife. He told more than one woman that God commanded him to marry them upon penalty of death by an angel with a flaming sword. What kind of god would need to use that tactic?
I think polygamy was NEVER condoned by God and I think the old testament (and much of the new testament) have become complete fairy tales by being passed verbally through generations of shepherds around campfires.
I think the fossil evidence indicates clearly that we are primates and that we had a common ancestor with our cousins the apes.
Joseph Smith was persecuted for cheating people, like the unauthorized Kirtland bank that printed worthless money. He had to get out of town after that one.
He was eventually killed at Carthage by those disgusted with his underhanded activities, especially after destroying a newspaper that was about to expose his secrets.
I have no fear of conversing about anything that happens in the temple. For example, my secret "temple name" is Joseph (it was a Friday and everyone got that same name on that particular Friday).
But since others do not want to discuss it, I respect their desire to keep it secret/sacred. I believe that Joseph Smith just used the temple ceremonies to keep Emma's (and others) mouth shut about what he was doing with other men's wives and other young ladies as young as 14.
From all I have read about polygamy it was terribly abusive to women from day one.
I now believe in the empowerment of women and in the equal treatment of people regardless of their sexual orientation etc in complete contrast to what I used to believe.
If you want to debate this, I am not the one to do it with. The evidence is easy to obtain on the internet and truth will withstand close scrutiny.
Most of your apologetic arguments have been expressed by others, but I do respect your opinion as I hope you will respect mine.
Peace
I respect your desire not to defend your position, but at the same time I can't let indefensible, emotionally charged statements go unanswered.
Your previous post is what is commonly referred to as the "shotgun approach"; which is to unload a flurry of critical statements or "proofs" and just hope one sticks. It really is intellectually dishonest, unless of course you're willing to address each issue with source notes and explanations. I doubt you are. Which is disappointing because you said you had access to the "real" Mormon history. I would like to read it. Unfortunately you discredited yourself by pointing to the Internet as a your source of information. I'm sure you see the problem with relying on the Internet for your info. I'd be happy to deal with original source material and the many possible interpretations, if you would like.
An honest approach may be turning to two differing views from credible authors to aid in your acquisition of better source material. May I suggest two authors, Dan Vogel and Richard Bushman, might be a good place to start, if beginning with Joseph Smith.
In the end I most definitely respect the right you have to your opinion. I do think most your arguments are flimsy and wide open for debate if it's something your interested in. My only condition is that we deal with each issue one by one in an intellectually honest environment with the appropriate source and reference material being provided when appropriate.
It sounds like this is not something your interested in pursuing. So best of luck. You have a wonderfully beautiful daughter who is bright and intelligent. I can see where she gets it from.
Adieu,
Lamanite
P.S. that post sounded extremely condescending, sorry about that, that was not my intention.
Currently, the internet is largely the source of my information. I have found that most of the information there that has references is accurate.
One of the first books that "put it all together" for my was Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows my History." When reading it, I was amazed to find that it had been published before I was born, but none of that information had been provided to me in seminary or elsewhere.
The Tanners also did some careful research and documented findings that I found interesting, but I rarely look at any of it anymore.
I know of Dan Vogel and Richard Bushman, but have not read their books yet.
In the end, all we have is our own opinions. I am not one who wishes to contend points. Mormonism virtually destroyed my self-esteem.
Wife is calling...and I MUST OBEY....lol.
D.S.
Sione,
Tonight on Nova there will be a program , two hours, about the bible at 7 pm on KUED channel 7. Seven all...easy to remember for an old guy like me.
The paper says that it is "scholarly"
I just thought you might be interested.
D.S.
Woops, it is tomorrow at 7. My mistake. Unfortuantely it comes on at the same time as "House."
Danny
Thanks for the heads up! I actually did a blog post on the Bible. It's just a brief synopsis of the creation and development of the various Bible's.
http://thelamanite.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html
Big UP!
Lamanite
P.S. I know your not into the discussion but, Fawn Brodie and the Tanners are not what one would call "Fair and Balanced". What alternative viewpoints did you counterbalance Brodie with? I didn't think so.
P.S.S. I still read the Utah lighthouse ministry newsletter every month. :-)
I looked at your bible blog before, but after studying the King James version with great sincerity...trying myself to be a scriptorian like I perceived Bruce R. McConkie to be, I can't get into that anymore.
Incidentally, why would Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon in 17th century English? To me it was just to "cloud up" what he really was doing. And I think Sidney Rigdon was in on it too. His thumbprint is all over the Book of Mormon.
As far as Fawn Brodie and the Tanners, I think that they are "Fair and Balanced" enough for me after my some 37 years of only being exposed to the other side of Mormonism. Nibley's "No Ma'm that's Not History" was hardly equal to Brodie's work.
The Tanners almost always show direct references to what they present for those who are skeptics, along with photocopies of the original.
Your statement:
"What alternative viewpoints did you counterbalance Brodie with? I didn't think so."
was rather snide, I thought. I am 59 years old, so you need not write to me like I am a complete fool.
Does not almost 40 years of studying one side provide some kind of counterbalance to what I am reading now? I think I need another 40 years of studying what Mormon critics say in order do get a balanced view of what I studied the first 40 years.
One more thing: Have you read "Studies of the Book of Mormon" by church historian B.H. Roberts (and others)? According to that book, Roberts admitted privately that he thought Joseph Smith was capable of making up the Book of Mormon on his own, though I think personally it was brought about by a conspiracy among a small group from the beginning.
Peace, my friend. I know some of this is emotionally charged because feelings run deep. Feelings, unfortunately do not always indicate truth.
"why would Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon in 17th century English?"
I have basically 3 or 4 plausible reasons for this. None of which you'd be interested in. The problem I run into is whether Joseph "loosely" translated the BoM or had "tight" control over the process. Not much info is given by Joseph or in any extant record. Here is a cool link to Royal Skousen (Cleon's son) recent idea's. http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=167
"I think Sidney Rigdon was in on it too. His thumbprint is all over the Book of Mormon."
Can you elaborate please?
"The Tanners almost always show direct references to what they present for those who are skeptics, along with photocopies of the original."
You're right but they are notorious for omitting original context. I actually like Jerald and Sandra though. I still read them every month. It's funny how we can take the same information and come to such different conclusion. Ah, such is life.
Nibley's book was less than stellar. It had some interesting points but I didn't care for it. Brodie's work though didn't stand up to scrutiny either. I could write a page worth of logical fallacies found in both of these works.
"...was rather snide, I thought. I am 59 years old, so you need not write to me like I am a complete fool."
I'm an idiot. My apologies. I had a rough day yesterday. It wasn't so much the subject matter as me being a grouchy curmudgeon.
"One more thing: Have you read "Studies of the Book of Mormon" by church historian B.H. Roberts (and others)? According to that book, Roberts admitted privately that he thought Joseph Smith was capable of making up the Book of Mormon on his own, though I think personally it was brought about by a conspiracy among a small group from the beginning."
B.H. Roberts is one of my favorite Mormon's of the past. The story behind "Studies of the Book of Mormon" is fascinating. Let me know if you want a good reference. I've got quotes of Roberts' use and affection for the BoM after he wrote "Studies". I don't think he lost his faith, especially after reading "The Truth, the Way, the Life", which I consider his Magnum Opus.
I think you should keep reading Mormon Critics. But I think you should keep reading Mormon Apologists and Scholars as well. If you've abandoned the Spiritual aspect of Mormonism, that's cool. We all have different roads to travel. But, there have been considerable improvements in Mormon Scholarship and the availability of new source material(s). In the end, it beats watching MTV (insert you're own favorite time wasting vice here).
"Feelings, unfortunately do not always indicate truth."
No they do not. In Mormondom we seek out light and truth "by study and also by faith". That counsel makes sense to me. As an aside, have you read "Reflections of a Scientist" or the lesser of the two "Mormon Scientist"? Both books deal with Henry Eyring the Scientist/Chemist. You'll love his exchange with Joseph Fielding Smith. Hilarious.
Nuff Respect!
Sione
PS. I'm not going to proof this post cuz i'm too lzy
S: "The problem I run into is whether Joseph "loosely" translated the BoM or had "tight" control over the process."
D: (I think he just had a rock in a hat to trick gullible people)
"...Sidney Rigdon was in on it too. His thumbprint is all over the Book of Mormon..." Can you elaborate please?
Best summary I've seen on Rigdon's involvement is here:
http://www.mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm#7
"I actually like Jerald and Sandra..."
(Sadly Jerald has passed away some time ago. I have not met either of them, but I was in their book store once and probably saw her without knowing at the time who she was.)
"Brodie's work though didn't stand up to scrutiny either."
(Written back in about 1945 I think it and her other works have stood the test of time rather well.)
"...My apologies. I had a rough day yesterday."
(I hope you had a better one today. We all have those days I think. Daniel Peterson probably has more than others, lol.)
"If you've abandoned the Spiritual aspect of Mormonism, that's cool."
(I am open to the idea that this great cosmos was created by some amazing power, but I no longer believe in a personal god. The idea that God was once a man brings to mind the saying that "...man created god in his own image..." Does that make me a bad person?)
Hey man,
It's been a bumpy road the last week or so. It is often difficult to maintain balance and harmony between family, work, spirituality, and recreation. When an imbalance occurs it's difficult to make it right again.
On another note, I'd like to share a few sentiments about Crystal in case no one has told you or her these things lately. In the very very short time I've known her, she has proved to be one of the most lovely people I've met. She has a very quick wit, and is extremely bright. And if you can somehow make it past a couple of her defense mechanisms, she proves to be light hearted and caring. She has said that you guys (family) are wonderful, I just hope she gets that type of positivity in other aspects of her life. If this was inappropriate for me to comment on please forgive me, my intentions are wholly altruistic.
D-"(I am open to the idea that this great cosmos was created by some amazing power, but I no longer believe in a personal god. The idea that God was once a man brings to mind the saying that "...man created god in his own image..." Does that make me a bad person?)"
You know I was agnostic for a long time. And still today it is sometimes difficult to believe in the personal God, that is preached in many Church's.
I have a small fetish with Physics. I can understand the theoretical applications of both Newtonian Physics and Quantum physics, but lack the Mathematical background to express these theories in Math terms and equations. Anyway, recently I sat on my front porch looking at the Night sky (no light pollution at my house) and I let my mind wander from the infinitely small to the INFINITELY BIG!, and when considering myself in the midst of such complex enormities, I wondered, "Who am I that God should be mindful of me?". Well the answer was immediate and profound. I can't share it here, but I understand the difficulty bridging the gap between, A cosmic power that is greater than ourselves, and a God who exists amongst the Infinite reaches of space where he governs cosmic clocks and materials, who is also interested in a speck of life in Layton, UT. Laughable. And yet I believe.
Much Love and Happy Thanksgiving!
Sione
Post a Comment