dan vogel wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:33 pm
Smith read Oliver before dictating the Book of Mormon? Later, perhaps. There is no evidence for this. Trying to identify specific books Joseph Smith may have read is a problem with many of my fellow critics. So it is inappropriate for me to assume Joseph Smith read Oliver, and then try to disprove it. Besides, this isn’t about Joseph Smith, but about what Oliver and others were teaching. I’m questioning the use of these authors by some modern interpreters, particularly on the pure vs. spurious Masonry and its application to the Book of Mormon.
I am not trying to get you to assume that Smith read Oliver in order to disprove it. Rather, it seems to me that there is evidence enough to suppose that Joseph Smith's familiarity with Freemasonry was sufficient by the time he wrote the Book of Mormon that he was able to engage with Masonic themes in both a positive and negative way. Oliver is representative of a branch or stream of Freemasonic thought that is congenial to Smith's point of view, one in which the legends are read through a more Christian theological lens than they would be among, say, Masonic Deists.
I’m not limiting my discussion to Oliver. The authors of Method Infinite do not restrict their analysis to Oliver. I quote Town, but Oliver certainly had the same understanding though not as clearly expressed.
OK, but I was talking about Oliver, and the anonymous person you quoted was focusing on Oliver. So, I thought the topic of that part of the discussion was Oliver, not Town. I am not one of the authors of
Method Infinite, and I made the mistake of ordering my copy from Amazon, so it never arrived and I finally just canceled my order. I still have not read the book.
“...it is generally believed that Masonry took its rise at the building of King Solomon's Temple. To shew that Masonry existed in its most perfect form before that event, is a sufficient refutation of the opinion. It is true the building and history of that most celebrated edifice furnish matter for illustrations of great interest amongst us, which spring from various causes, and particularly as the two grand divisions of Masonry, which had been long separated, became re-united at that period, and the art was consequently revived, and shone in its full lustre. A new arrangement of the system was at this time rendered necessary by the occurrence of a most melancholy event; which arrangement Masonry retains to this day.” (Oliver, 1823, xiii)
It would really help me if you could provide some explanation beyond highlighting things of why you think a certain passage is illuminating. I thought you were quoting Town to show that Masons in the early 19th century did not think the Masonry really existed before Solomon and Abiff. That was baffling to me because Oliver says so much that would lead one to the opposite conclusion. For example:
George Oliver wrote:Seth, the son of Adam, was educated by his father in the strictest principles of piety and devotion; and when he arrived at years of maturity was admitted to a participation in the mysteries of Masonry, to which study he applied himself with the most diligent assiduity. The progress he made in this science is fully demonstrated by his purity of life. Associating with himself the most virtuous men of his age, they formed lodges, and discussed the great principles of Masonry with FREEDOM, FERVENCY, and ZEAL. These Masons, in a few centuries, made such progress in the science, that they received from their contemporaries the appellation of SONS OF LIGHT, or SONS OF GOD (emphasis of capitalization in the original)
dan vogel wrote:Why would you seek a statement from an anti-Mason that caused Oliver to begin with Cain? He is simply giving a complete history of Masonry and its apostates. In the Preface, he states his purpose:
Oh, I don't know, maybe because:
dan vogel wrote:To an anti-Mason, Cain was the originator of Masonry, at least, in their rhetoric. In the Book of Mormon the secret signs, words, and oaths are the identifying feature of secret combinations.
I am interested in knowing why Smith makes Cain responsible for secret combinations while Oliver calls him an apostate from Masonry. Is that just a serendipitous coincidence, or was one author influenced by the other, or were both authors influenced by the beliefs of other Masons and/or anti-Masons? That seems to me to be a reasonable question.
He also states what motivated him to write:
“To stem the torrent which is opposed to us,” to provide “an exposition of the pure principles of the science, as it actually existed in the primitive age of the world, that a correct idea of its beneficial tendency can be conveyed to the mind of those who look upon Masonry as another name for licentiousness and excess.” (p. v)
Of course, you are leaving a fair amount of the material out, as well as some important historical context. Some of his greatest opponents were actually Deist Masons. I read this as him making a case to his fellow Christians that the Craft is inherently Christian and that for this reason they should make common cause against those who want to turn Masonry into something that would be given over to "licentiousness and excess."
This does not mean that he was the first or only person to see Freemasonry through a Christian lens. He was, however, very zealous on insisting on his very Christianized version of Freemasonry, and in that way he is prescient of developments later in Mormonism, perhaps the most successful example of a Christian and Masonic synthesis.
He seems to allude to critics in the following passage:
“THE mysteries practised by idolatrous nations were nothing else but the secret solemnities of divine worship, and were invented to cast a solemn veil over their rites, which might sanction and recommend the worship of false gods to those who, without some splendid and imposing stimulus, might be disinclined to renounce the true God, and embrace the worship of idols. These mysteries, avowedly established on the same basis as Masonry, were secretly intended to produce an effect quite the reverse; for they were instituted with the express design of making our science subservient to the very worst and most degrading practices of idolatry. Hence the two institutions have been frequently confounded together; and Masonry becomes stigmatized with infidelity, if not atheism, and charged with renouncing every scriptural doctrine contained in the genuine fountain of revealed truth. A comparison between the mysteries of idolatry, and genuine Masonry will show how far the latter was practised in these institutions, and will distinctly mark the line of separation which distinguishes the one from the other.” (pp. 98-99)
This discussion seems designed to counter anti-Masonic claims that Masonry came out of the mystery cults—which is what the forged Leland Manuscript seemed to document.
OK, but that does not mean that he was the first person to backdate things Masonic to antediluvian times. The whole point of the Enoch legend, it would seem to me, is to show how the spirit and symbolism of Freemasonry is to be found in an age that far predates Solomon. I am not sure that the legend of Enoch and the Temple Mount is merely a reaction to anti-Masonic criticism.
To my statement that the Book of Mormon contains no hint of pure vs. spurious Masonry/secret combinations, you state:
All we know is what is written and it doesn’t leave any room for a pure Masonry. Masonry was seen as trying to overthrow the freedoms of all lands and were identified by its secret signs, words, and oaths. The only motivation to resist that interpretation is apologetic (denying the Book of Mormon is influenced by 19th century culture) or trying to harmonize Joseph Smith’s early teachings with later teachings (which seems primarily motivated by a need to balance devotion to both institutions).
We know that secret combinations are trying to overthrow freedoms in the Book of Mormon. Moreover, I would note that these are secret combinations plural, and that it is their oaths (plural), etc., that mark them, not their identification with a particular organizational name. At the root of this problem is the decision to say secret combinations of the Book of Mormon=Freemasonry. I don't assume that this is the case. The text nowhere says "Freemasonry." We can say that whatever Smith calls secret combinations appear to be commentary on Masonry as seen through the lens of the anti-Masonic movement of his times. Sure. But we cannot look at the text and simply say "secret combinations" are Masonry.
But anti-Masonry is itself a complicated phenomenon. Not every person who opposed Freemasonry as it was organized thought that Masonic phenomena
in toto were irredeemable. You use a piece of evidence in which Joseph Smith in the early 1830s, I think it was, warned someone about the Freemasons, as evidence that Joseph Smith was anti-Masonic. That is a kind of leap I would not be willing to make. In a particular set of circumstances he warns an addressee to watch out for the Freemasons. OK. So? I could warn my kids to watch out for the police. That does not mean I decry the entire institution of law enforcement.
The statement about cursed and slippery treasures in the Book of Mormon verify his previous practice and explain why he was unsuccessful. On treasures buried and sealed up unto the Lord can be retrieved.
That's your assumption! I think it isn't a bad one, pretty reasonable. But, really, you draw the inference and now that's it? No. That is not my point. My point is that treasure digging, like Masonry, had a dodgy reputation in Joseph Smith's time. Yet we KNOW he participated in treasure digging, thanks in no small part to you. So here is something Joseph Smith participated in, negative aspects of it are referred to in the Book of Mormon, and yet it would be silly to say that Joseph Smith was "anti-treasure digging."
Your point about not using a seer stone in Salem is an odd non-sequitur. The question is about treasure digging, not about which particular methods he may have used in one instance or another. All I am saying is that he does not seem to have utterly rejected treasure digging in principle, long after he was made to stand trial as a glass looker.
In any case, if we only had the Book of Mormon to go on, we might conclude that Joseph Smith had a negative attitude toward buried treasures. It is because we have evidence outside the Book of Mormon that we can confidently say that he was up to his neck in treasure digging, and that his interest in this kind of thing did not suddenly end in the 1820s.
Similarly, some scholars are looking outside the Book of Mormon in order to get a more accurate view of Joseph Smith's understanding of Freemasonry ca. 1820s. I don't see the problem with that methodology, anymore than I see a problem with admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact, thanks to evidence outside of the Book of Mormon, a treasure seer. Indeed, we cannot really understand the Book of Mormon without understanding that Joseph Smith was a treasure seer. Only then do his references to treasure in the Book of Mormon make clearest sense.
If there is evidence of Joseph Smith's knowledge of Freemasonry or access to such knowledge BEFORE the Book of Mormon, then that changes our interpretive possibilities when he appears to
allude to Masonic practices IN the Book of Mormon. I think there are a couple of pieces of evidence, at least, that are very strong indicators of his knowledge of Freemasonry.
The reason for fleeing New York was because of war and secret combinations. The Nephites and Jaredites were destroyed because of secret combinations and America was about to experience the same. This is why I tie the Book of Mormon’s warning to the Jacksonians.
Fair enough. But I would still not say secret combinations are/= Freemasonry. Ergo, all Freemasonry is necessarily bad in Joseph's view. Joseph Smith may have been ham handed in some ways, but I will extend him the credit of saying perhaps he was not going to simply make Gadiantons Freemasonry and have done with it. He doesn't appear to have done so anyway.
The nuance should at least make sense and have some kind of foundation that is less contrived than what I have been reading and reviewing.
Yeah, I know. I think you have a different sensibility about the issue of evidence than some of those with whom you disagree. It is unfortunate that this has erupted in bad feelings and accusations. I can say that I highly admire your many wonderful contributions and deeply respect your knowledge and abilities. I do not always agree with your methodology and views about evidence. I don't think so highly of myself as to suppose that this would or should make a difference to you.