The Endowment and Freemasonry

[_Dcharle]

FAIR claims that Joseph had the endowment ceremony reveiled to him long before he was initiated as a Mason, therefor he had no need to plagiarize from the masons. In my opinion, their strongest proof for this argument is Joseph's use of a few key phrases used while translating the Book of Abraham, which was completed before the temple ceremony was reveled. Here are the phrases he used to describe some of the figures found In Facsimile 2, these phrases are similar to those used in the temple endowment ceremony:

"the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood"
"the sign of the Holy Ghost"
His statement that the Egyptian drawing contained "writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God."

We know that Hyrum and (possibly) his father along with several of his uncles were Masons before the Church was organized in April 1830. Despite the strict code of secrecy in freemasonry several expose's had been written about masonry that Joseph had access to. Could Joseph have learned a few of these and other phrases from relatives, acquaintances and published materials before his own initiation into freemasonry? Are the claims of FAIR strong enough to make the case that Joseph was a prophetic revelator, or was he just a pious fraud?

[_PrickKicker]

I heard about the links between Mormons and Masons as a youth and again after receiving my own endowment,
I began to rent books read about free masonry, I also found transcripts and videos or the full masonic rights online.
and sure enough there are SOME very similar parts, but no real link to redeeming the dead, which is where Joseph made it his own.

I recently read Bushmans Ruff Stone Rolling, which also brushed over the topic of Josephs family ties to Masonry.

Without the theatrical element there's not a lot to it, I used to love the temple ceremony, I had the feeling that I had achieved the ultimate human achievement
to learn the signs and tokens that will enable me to return to the presence of my heavenly father.

I personally was looking for deeper meaning where there is none.
I began to ask my parents and other workers the significance of each individual sign and token,
much to my annoyance most of the comebacks were not the detailed answers, I was looking for, but more the memorized scripts they had learnt of by heart.
They are to help you pass the angels that stand as sentinels blah,blah,blah.
Yes, I heard the video, but what is the significance? obviously there are some that resemble touching the saviours wounds, but what of the others?
what is the significance of the apron and the cap and little string, the robe being on the left and on the right, well the apron is to hide their nakedness, yes but they had no need to hide their nakedness if they were trying to hide the fact that they had disobeyed God they would have tried to 'keep calm and carry on' rather than making it blatantly obvious! either they lacked intelligence or the devil had done a bad job of coaching them about the art of deception.

My issues with it all arise from when I heard that the ceremony had been changed, back in the 70's, Back in the 70's there were penalties that patrons had to symbolize along with the tokens as a deterrent for divulging the sign or token, like cutting your throat and disembowelment. even as a child I had been taught the ordinances of God should not be changed,
that is why we baptize by immersion and not sprinkling, and then for them to be changed AGAIN!!! recently.
was the last straw, why does God try so hard to introduce something just to discard it later.
Like polygamy which I'll comment on once I find it.

[_Fence Sitter]

I suggest listening to this podcast regarding Mormonism and Masonry on Mormon Stories with George Miller. It is a great listen.

http://mormonexpression.com/2011/07/05/144b-mormonism-and-masonry-the-background-part-2/

[_Tobin]

It is my view that the Freemasonry is not important to the Endowment. It is just the clothes that Joseph Smith (and subsequent leaders of the Mormon Church) have chosen to dress it up in. You can really separate what is going on from the Freemasonry bits. In fact, the Church has been slowly and inexorably doing that which clearly means the two are not tied at all. Since Freemasonry is so alien to the rest of the Mormon experience and represents such a huge shock to those going through the endowment for their first time (it certainly was for me), I would love to see it completely divorced from the endowment and discarded.

[_Quasimodo]

It is my view that the Freemasonry is not important to the Endowment. It is just the clothes that Joseph Smith (and subsequent leaders of the Mormon Church) have chosen to dress it up in. You can really separate what is going on from the Freemasonry bits. In fact, the Church has been slowly and inexorably doing that which clearly means the two are not tied at all. Since Freemasonry is so alien to the rest of the Mormon experience and represents such a huge shock to those going through the endowment for their first time (it certainly was for me), I would love to see it completely divorced from the endowment and discarded.

Wow! God makes another mistake. I had always heard that God was infallible. First the the polygamy thing, now the Mason thing. What can we depend on if God can screw up?

[_Tobin]

It is my view that the Freemasonry is not important to the Endowment. It is just the clothes that Joseph Smith (and subsequent leaders of the Mormon Church) have chosen to dress it up in. You can really separate what is going on from the Freemasonry bits. In fact, the Church has been slowly and inexorably doing that which clearly means the two are not tied at all. Since Freemasonry is so alien to the rest of the Mormon experience and represents such a huge shock to those going through the endowment for their first time (it certainly was for me), I would love to see it completely divorced from the endowment and discarded.

Wow! God makes another mistake. I had always heard that God was infallible. First the the polygamy thing, now the Mason thing. What can we depend on if God can screw up?

This has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with the failures and vagaries of men. I very much doubt Freemasonry had anything in common with the endowment Peter, James and John received on the Mount of Transfiguration, so seeing it go away as soon as possible (faster than what the Mormon Church is currently doing I might add) would be a very good thing.

Also, Mormons should get out of the underwear business. Give people decals to wear under their clothes. Garments are awful and stupid looking.

[_Quasimodo]

This has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with the failures and vagaries of men. I very much doubt Freemasonry had anything in common with the endowment Peter, James and John received on the Mount of Transfiguration, so seeing it go away as soon as possible (faster than what the Mormon Church is currently doing I might add) would be a very good thing.

Also, Mormons should get out of the underwear business. Give people decals to wear under their clothes. Garments are awful and stupid looking.

That's the big problem, Tobin. If a fallible man creates a religion and is only a prophet when it's convenient, why believe any of it? If he lies sometimes, there is a very good chance that he is lying all the time. I suspect he is.

The rest of it is just silly window dressing.

[_Albion]

Biblical support please for any evidence that Peter, James and John were anything but spectators on the Mount of Transfiguration. Jesus's admonition to them afterwards was not to tell anyone what they had "seen"....no mention of anything they did such as exchanging handshake tokens. The orthodox interpretation of the event is that it had to do with the fulfilling of 'the Law and the Prophets" in Christ...Moses representing The Law, Elijah representing the Prophets.

[Guest]

This has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with the failures and vagaries of men. I very much doubt Freemasonry had anything in common with the endowment Peter, James and John received on the Mount of Transfiguration, so seeing it go away as soon as possible (faster than what the Mormon Church is currently doing I might add) would be a very good thing.

Also, Mormons should get out of the underwear business. Give people decals to wear under their clothes. Garments are awful and stupid looking.

That's the big problem, Tobin. If a fallible man creates a religion and is only a prophet when it's convenient, why believe any of it? If he lies sometimes, there is a very good chance that he is lying all the time. I suspect he is.

The rest of it is just silly window dressing.

In my view, there is no reason to believe in any religion Quasi without some kind of evidence it is true. I certainly wouldn't take any person's word for it at the very least. If there is a God, God should be fully capable of speaking with us and answering our questions. This may require that we do as God asks and show faith in God, but if that is what you decide to do and you feel it is right and true - I have no problem with it. Barring that, I would just live a good honest life and pursue the truth.

In this case, I don't think there is anything compelling about Freemasonry and divorce it from the endowment. The endowment is about seeking enlightenment. I don't see how mysticism gets you there. I do see how a pursuit of the truth and an understanding of how the universe is really arranged will.

[_Albion]

I believe there is evidence that Smith knew William Morgan (a man who threatened exposure of Masonry and was almost certainly killed by masons because of it) in and around his home in upper New York State. If Joseph Smith was not a mason himself (something I believe unlikely) he probably new plenty about it through other members of his family who were masons. The Morgan story and his subsequent murder was certainly big news in the area in which Smith lived and I think it no accident that one of Smith's subsequent polygamous wives was Lucinda Pendleton (Morgan) William Morgan's widow. Circumstantial evidence perhaps but there is some validity there to assume Smith new plenty about masonry long before he concocted the temple ceremonies.