Endowments vs. Masons

[guitarwizard]

Originally Posted by Vort

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.

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by guitarwizard

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.

Originally Posted by guitarwizard

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]

Originally Posted by guitarwizard

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by OtterPop

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]

Originally Posted by HiJolly

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.