Endowments vs. Masons

[Heather]

Originally Posted by guitarwizard

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?

It's a fraternity, not a religion. There is no historical evidence to support a continuous functioning line from Solomon's Temple to the present. Even if there were, there is going to be some changes to fit the needs of the children of God today. We're not going to be preforming ritualistic slaughter of animals as was done in Solomon's Temple.

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by Heather

"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. "

I'm interested from whence cometh that quote, Heather.

Another difference (and there are many others):

The Masonic rite is the story of Hiram Abiff, a man. No woman is included in their rites. Joseph included the sisters in the rite of Mormonism, and changed the proponent from Hiram to Adam and Eve. The entire backdrop story changed.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by Heather

It's a fraternity, not a religion. There is no historical evidence to support a continuous functioning line from Solomon's Temple to the present. Even if there were, there is going to be some changes to fit the needs of the children of God today. We're not going to be preforming ritualistic slaughter of animals as was done in Solomon's Temple.

Heh. FWIW, I like you, Heather.


HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by OtterPop

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.

First -- I did not call it a lie, that must've been someone else. Second -- The 'answer' to the question is not spelled out. It was leading into an answer that would not be correct. That was my point. The timeline is NOT correct, if you read my previous post (the one quoting D&C 84), you'd realize that (I would hope).


HiJolly

[guitarwizard]

By guitarwizard (Power User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:13 AM (59 minutes ago)
knowing the close bonds Joseph had to both his father and Hyrum, i am sure that he had learned many of the mason rituals prior to his initiation.

By Chitty (User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:53 AM (19 minutes ago)
That's quite the assumption. The plain as day reality is that he was initiated as a Mason in Nauvoo, and within weeks "revealed" the early version of the Endowment. I encourage you to get a transcript of the 3 Main Degrees of Masonry, and then an earlier version of the Endowment (pre-1930 preferably so you can see more of the Masonic influences). Lay them side-by-side and then we'll talk. They have since taken out the blatantly masonic elements (the Penalties which were word-for-word lifted from the masons, and also an entire portion of the Endowment known as The Five Points of Fellowship, which is also a direct lift from the masonic ceremony). Don't complicate this with your talking points - it's quite obvious.

By guitarwizard (Power User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:05 PM (7 minutes ago)
I never disagreed with you! I know that the endowment ceremony contained masonic influences! and i also know that Joseph was a mason! i believe i said that in my first reply to you (first or second). I also know that Joseph was a prophet. The majority of the early church were humble farmers. Joseph obviously had sat in with many of them at the masonic lodge and saw them contemplated the rites when they could hardly read and write themselves. He sees them understanding this complex ritual and realizes that by using elements from the rites, they could understand the endowment better, and realize through that ceremony what they were being endowed with. Remember: there is the endowment and then there is what carries the message of the endowment. What carried the message in the temples at nauvoo and until 1930 included those masonic influences. It probably took so long to change as well because the church has a whole needed to realize this. But as we went from the understanding farmers who had experienced parts of this in the lodge to the baffled people twentieth century, the prophets knew it was time for the ceremony to be changed to for better understanding.

Also, don't just focus on the similarities. When you do that, when you are exclusive to one part of an argument, that is the anti-game. Focus on the differences as well. What about washings and anointing that were the part of the endowment, do not forget the importance of this. It was also part of the endowment. Part that is present nowhere in the mason practices. Also, this was prior to Joseph being a mason! This rules out the idea of "they have a ceremony, let's have a ceremony." The endowment was already being recieved "line upon line."

So there are parts of the endowment, even from Nauvoo, that have no equivalency in Freemasonry. We also have parts of the endowment that spring back from Kirtland. And you insinuate that the endowment is stolen from masonry? Maybe you also need to lay them out side-by-side. I have done my research.

Your move.


By Chitty (User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:08 PM (4 minutes ago)
Dude, the only part of the Endowment that was "revealed" in Kirtland were the washings and annointings.

God, you're a f------ idiot. Enjoy your jesus-jammies and 90% pay for the rest of your pathetic, mindless, life.


By guitarwizard (Power User) on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:13 PM (Just now)
i am an idiot? How am i idiotic? Because i see past the anti bull and can understand where this plays a role? Because i can actually comprehend that something can be taken from somewhere else and used to convey a message? Because i can see Christ doing the same thing in the New Testament? Or have you lost faith in that too?

I just really want to know, even if it is your last message to me: Why does that make me idiotic?

[Vort]

Review

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by goofball

The Masons are just a apostate version of the temple ceremony. Whenever the Lord has something the adversary always attempts a close copy.

This would be an excellent argument, except the Masons came first. Would it not be more fitting to say that much of the form and some of the substance were synthesized into a uniquely Mormon model designed to bring those initiates of its ceremonies closer to God?

By the way, the Shriners have been mentioned. Are they not a truly wonderful organization for providing free health care to many sick children with their many hospitals? They deserve a salute.

[BenRaines]

I read somewhere before not to "cast your pearls before swine". These are endless arguments that will end nowhere.

Defend the soon to go out missionary but do not get in to such a debate with someone so blinded.

Ditto to what Vort said

Ben Raines

[guitarwizard]

Originally Posted by Vort

Review

yeah, but i did my part in getting the fight out of the public and making sure the truth was along side the lies. I knew there was no changing his mind, but at least others don't have to rely on his warped testimony.

[OtterPop]

Originally Posted by HiJolly

First -- I did not call it a lie, that must've been someone else. Second -- The 'answer' to the question is not spelled out. It was leading into an answer that would not be correct. That was my point. The timeline is NOT correct, if you read my previous post (the one quoting D&C 84), you'd realize that (I would hope).

I'm not sure who all said what, and I'll go back and re-read your previous post. My bad. Sorry.