Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by Kishkumen »

dan vogel wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:34 am
Well, how could that be since the first three degrees deal with Hiram Abiff, the Master Mason who worked on Solomon's temple? The key words also come from the temple. Salem Town explained how some Masonic authors could speculate about Adam and the patriarchs.
If the topic is what Oliver believed, and what Smith might have learned from reading Oliver, then this is a non-sequitur. No one here is arguing that Oliver was right!
[/color] (Salem Town, A System of Speculative Masonry (Salem, NY. Printed by Dodd and Stevenson, 1818), 55-56)
Again, if the topic under discussion is George Oliver’s thought, why is this pertinent in this discussion? Are you saying that Salem Town is George Oliver? Go back and read what I quoted from Oliver about Adam. Salem Town’s comments/speculations in 1818 don’t determine Oliver’s meaning in 1823.
Still, it doesn't matter because the concept of pure and spurious Masonry is not found in the Book of Mormon. There is only one origin of the secret signs, words, and oaths--Satan. The Book of Mormon reflects anti-Masonic rhetoric, not the views of Oliver.
(I would appreciate you showing me which anti-Masonic critics of Masonry in England that Oliver was responding to when he made Adam Masonry’s originator and Cain an apostate from Freemasonry. You know the literature better than I do. I have not been able to locate those sources yet. Indeed, I have only been able to find claims that Masonry was founded by Tubal-Cain. We are lucky to have in our midst one of the finest and most knowledgeable researchers around.)

Yeah, and I am not surprised, since the Book of Mormon was published right smack in the middle of the heyday of anti-Masonry. So, it would be very unlikely to have the Book of Mormon promulgate explicitly positive messages about aspects of Freemasonry that were under attack. Clearly the Book of Mormon slams the very aspects of Freemasonry that were under attack at the time. Whether that meant that Smith viewed the Gadiantons to be, literally speaking, ancient Masons or not is unclear. On the other hand, I think that, in the balance, there is sufficient evidence to argue that the anti-Masonic rhetoric/language in the Book of Mormon does not indicate that Joseph Smith was consistently anti-Masonic in his views before, during, and shortly after the translation of the Book of Mormon. What the Book of Mormon shows is that Smith knew which direction the breeze was blowing.

I would liken the view that Joseph Smith was an uncomplicated and decided anti-Mason in the late 1820s to the kind of view that would insist that he was anti-treasure digging based on language about slippery treasures in the Book of Mormon. Where are all of the positive statements about treasure buried in the earth in the Book of Mormon? Is Smith’s decision not to put positive but instead largely negative messages about treasure in the Book of Mormon evidence that he was against treasure digging? When he went to Salem to find treasure, what was he doing? I just don’t think these things are so simple. Masonry was still a powerful cultural force, despite the flare up of anti-Masonry. Joseph Smith could practically not avoid engaging with Freemasonry just as he could not avoid engaging with the topic of treasure digging. It requires a lot more nuance to grapple successfully with the problem of the precise significance of his Book of Mormon statements about these things.
User avatar
dan vogel
CTR A
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by dan vogel »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:46 am
dan vogel wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:34 am
It seems someone has taken issue with what I wrote about George Oliver.



Well, how could that be since the first three degrees deal with Hiram Abiff, the Master Mason who worked on Solomon's temple? The key words also come from the temple. Salem Town explained how some Masonic authors could speculate about Adam and the patriarchs.



Still, it doesn't matter because the concept of pure and spurious Masonry is not found in the Book of Mormon. There is only one origin of the secret signs, words, and oaths--Satan. The Book of Mormon reflects anti-Masonic rhetoric, not the views of Oliver.
Hi Dan. Gentle reminder to please use an emphasis color other than red. Otherwise you'll be involuntarily drafted into the moderator corps and, trust me, you don't want that. :lol: Thanks and carry on.
Got it. Sorry. I missed that rule.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by Res Ipsa »

dan vogel wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:49 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:46 am


Hi Dan. Gentle reminder to please use an emphasis color other than red. Otherwise you'll be involuntarily drafted into the moderator corps and, trust me, you don't want that. :lol: Thanks and carry on.
Got it. Sorry. I missed that rule.
No problem. :D
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7153
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:49 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:46 am


Hi Dan. Gentle reminder to please use an emphasis color other than red. Otherwise you'll be involuntarily drafted into the moderator corps and, trust me, you don't want that. :lol: Thanks and carry on.
Got it. Sorry. I missed that rule.

I feel somewhat guilty for breaking the rule multiple times up in the Celestial forum for a few words here and there and even a few whole sentences are red but not the exact same red hue that Shade's uses. I really try not to use any red ink in any of my writings or presentations but I've used a little red to contrast with the blue because it helps clarify and makes the point stand out.

In the future, I will resist using any red and try to stick with the blue only or maybe orange but it tends to look too much like a pumpkin. Rules are rules but then there is the spirit of the law too so that has to count for something, I think.

sigh
User avatar
dan vogel
CTR A
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by dan vogel »

Kishkumen
If the topic is what Oliver believed, and what Smith might have learned from reading Oliver, then this is a non-sequitur. No one here is arguing that Oliver was right!
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.
Again, if the topic under discussion is George Oliver’s thought, why is this pertinent in this discussion? Are you saying that Salem Town is George Oliver? Go back and read what I quoted from Oliver about Adam. Salem Town’s comments/speculations in 1818 don’t determine Oliver’s meaning in 1823.
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.
“...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)
(I would appreciate you showing me which anti-Masonic critics of Masonry in England that Oliver was responding to when he made Adam Masonry’s originator and Cain an apostate from Freemasonry. You know the literature better than I do. I have not been able to locate those sources yet. Indeed, I have only been able to find claims that Masonry was founded by Tubal-Cain. We are lucky to have in our midst one of the finest and most knowledgeable researchers around.)
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:
“This volume is laid before the Public, ... in which the Science [of Masonry], or its substitute, will be investigated, in all the various forms which it assumed, in every nation and amongst every people of the ancient world.” (p. [iii])
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)
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.

To my statement that the Book of Mormon contains no hint of pure vs. spurious Masonry/secret combinations, you state:
Yeah, and I am not surprised, since the Book of Mormon was published right smack in the middle of the heyday of anti-Masonry. So, it would be very unlikely to have the Book of Mormon promulgate explicitly positive messages about aspects of Freemasonry that were under attack. Clearly the Book of Mormon slams the very aspects of Freemasonry that were under attack at the time. Whether that meant that Smith viewed the Gadiantons to be, literally speaking, ancient Masons or not is unclear. On the other hand, I think that, in the balance, there is sufficient evidence to argue that the anti-Masonic rhetoric/language in the Book of Mormon does not indicate that Joseph Smith was consistently anti-Masonic in his views before, during, and shortly after the translation of the Book of Mormon. What the Book of Mormon shows is that Smith knew which direction the breeze was blowing.
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).
I would liken the view that Joseph Smith was an uncomplicated and decided anti-Mason in the late 1820s to the kind of view that would insist that he was anti-treasure digging based on language about slippery treasures in the Book of Mormon. Where are all of the positive statements about treasure buried in the earth in the Book of Mormon? Is Smith’s decision not to put positive but instead largely negative messages about treasure in the Book of Mormon evidence that he was against treasure digging?
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.
When he went to Salem to find treasure, what was he doing?
There is no evidence that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in 1836. Knowledge of the treasure’s existence was conveyed to Joseph Smith by a recent convert who heard rumors.
I just don’t think these things are so simple. Masonry was still a powerful cultural force, despite the flare up of anti-Masonry. Joseph Smith could practically not avoid engaging with Freemasonry just as he could not avoid engaging with the topic of treasure digging.
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.
It requires a lot more nuance to grapple successfully with the problem of the precise significance of his Book of Mormon statements about these things.
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.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by Kishkumen »

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.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7153
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:47 pm
It's difficult to know what Joseph Smith had in mind, but the Book of Mormon links the latter-day secret combinations with the ancient ones and describes them as unitary.

Dan, baby, I couldn't agree more! You're spot on and this connection is as solid as metal. I'm tempted to do my own little presentation on this subject, maybe. Getting into Joseph's mind is key to unlocking the mystery, yeah baby! Shulem rocks!! 8-)

dan vogel wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:47 pm
The secrets were revealed to Cain by Satan and transmission came by the records or revelation. The Book of Mormon's Gaddiantons were described as ebbing and flowing depending on the wickedness or righteousness of the Nephites. Thus the Book of Mormon warns Jacksonian America not to let the secret combination get above them or it could prove the overthrow of the free government. So it's more than just rhetoric.

I totally agree. You've made a correct connection and hit the nail on the head. Yeah baby!

Dan, I have ideas on this whole subject that will blow your mind. What Joseph thought of freemasonry in 1828 is all that really matters! Smith's new religion was a wide open field and he had no idea where it would take him. He played everything by ear. Let me just say that Joseph Smith in 1828 had absolutely no idea, not even in his wildest dreams that 15 years later he would established a restored Masonry in the Nauvoo temple.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7153
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Smith was anything but consistent

Post by Shulem »

He reversed himself on key issues:
  • Hell and duration of punishment
  • Trinitarian Godhead
  • Anti-Masonry
So, in a manner of speaking, Smith was consistent at being inconsistent.

:lol:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7153
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by Shulem »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:06 pm
That's the crucial question!

And the crucial answer is that Joseph Smith stole everything and anything he ever got! That's how he operated. He was a liar and a thief. He borrowed ideas from all manner of sources and historical stories and references. But the bottom line, he was a thief. And he would turn on a dime when things didn't go right and learned to reverse his position when it suited him to do so.

Yep, Dirty-Joe stole the Masons and put them in his Book of Mormon. You can be sure of that. He did the same damn thing with Delmarva. It's all in there. Yep. All you have to do is recognize it for what it is. Or not. Ur choice.

:P
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 7909
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: Vogel's new video response on Book of Mormon and Masonry

Post by Kishkumen »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Dec 03, 2022 3:46 pm
And the crucial answer is that Joseph Smith stole everything and anything he ever got! That's how he operated. He was a liar and a thief. He borrowed ideas from all manner of sources and historical stories and references. But the bottom line, he was a thief. And he would turn on a dime when things didn't go right and learned to reverse his position when it suited him to do so.

Yep, Dirty-Joe stole the Masons and put them in his Book of Mormon. You can be sure of that. He did the same damn thing with Delmarva. It's all in there. Yep. All you have to do is recognize it for what it is. Or not. Ur choice.

:P
The choice to be reductive or not is probably a personality-driven preference.
Post Reply