- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
MWallace, I thought you would like to know that Walker Lewis is a black Mormon AND priesthood holder AND freemason from the early days of the church. I did a post on it at
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/03/09/early-black-mormons/ Here’s what I wrote about him:
Quote:Walker Lewis– joined the LDS church in the summer of 1843. He was probably baptized by Parley P Pratt in the fall of 1843. He was ordained an Elder by William Smith, Joseph’s younger brother. Lewis has a very interesting history. He was the son of slaves, and sued for his own freedom. His case is cited as the case which liberated slaves in 1783 in Massachusetts. Winning the court case resulted is his family being able to purchase property. He voted, was educated, and became upper class of black Massachusetts society. In 1820 he became a barber. In 1826 he helped found Massachusetts General Colored Association which was the first civil rights abolitionist group in the world. In 1823, he because a freemason, and master mason. In 1829 he signed the form declaring independence from the mother lodge in London, making his lodge Black Lodge #1. He was well acquainted with 6 of the 12 apostles who had served missions in Massachusetts, including Wilford Woodruff, Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt , Parley Pratt, and William Smith. Woodruff wrote in his journal that “He was an example for his more whiter brethren to follow.” Lowell Branch where he lived was saved because of his service. It is known that he traveled to Salt Lake City in Oct 1851.
Listening to the opinion of some Lds grand mason in utah certainly does not make me feel better about the work of masonry in regard to Mormonism. Masonry works like a pyramid I have known people who are regular run of the mill masons that believe it is all good. The Lds master mason quoted although relatively high up will have no idea about the inner workings at the very top of Masonry. Its like asking the cleaner of the white house whether the president of America is honest, How would she ever know? It is this side of masonry that scares me and also that puts me off ever going back to the temple. Once again JS puts me in a position where I an struggling to trust motives! Also I think it was mwallace that discussed the problem of masons having 2 masters, Don’t you think that sometimes TBM’s get a little close to worshipping prophets the way that the Masons worship their grand masters?
Quote:Don’t you think that sometimes TBM’s get a little close to worshipping prophets the way that the Masons worship their grand masters?
No; I think that’s a gross over-generalization, honestly – at least with regard to the implication of the wording.
Is there a problem with many members putting apostles and prophets on a pedestal on which they shouldn’t be put? Absolutely. Is that exact same problem a natural reaction of people in every organization that has existed in the history of the world? Absolutely. Are Mormon any more prone to that than others. Nope. If you doubt that, pay close attention to that exact issue during the next election – or the next Board Meeting of a successful company – or the next post-game celebration after a winning football game.
1topen wrote:
Also I think it was mwallace that discussed the problem of masons having 2 masters, Don’t you think that sometimes TBM’s get a little close to worshipping prophets the way that the Masons worship their grand masters?“Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah… kings shall extoll him and nations revere…”
But I certainly agree with Ray – this isn’t a problem solely in the church. It happens everywhere. I am concerned that the organization provides certain environmental factors which would foster that kind of attitude, however. One example is the song above.
I once attended a testimony meeting in President Hinckley’s ward in Salt Lake… Every single person who bore their testimony gushed about their gratitude for the living prophet. I can only imagine how he felt. Yes, unfortunately man-worship is alive and well in the church.
I wonder if there are some things we can do as a church to reduce this practice?
MapleLeaf wrote:1topen wrote:
Also I think it was mwallace that discussed the problem of masons having 2 masters, Don’t you think that sometimes TBM’s get a little close to worshipping prophets the way that the Masons worship their grand masters?“Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah… kings shall extoll him and nations revere…”
But I certainly agree with Ray – this isn’t a problem solely in the church. It happens everywhere. I am concerned that the organization provides certain environmental factors which would foster that kind of attitude, however. One example is the song above.
I once attended a testimony meeting in President Hinckley’s ward in Salt Lake… Every single person who bore their testimony gushed about their gratitude for the living prophet. I can only imagine how he felt. Yes, unfortunately man-worship is alive and well in the church.
I wonder if there are some things we can do as a church to reduce this practice?
Discontinue the pratice of using titles. Everyone should be “brother” or “sister” so-and-so. That might be a start. Stop serving sacrament to the men presiding first before anyone else can have it.
Yes, there are some things we could do.
I do believe man worship is a huge problem for the LDS Church, and was a huge stumbling block for me, especially over Joseph Smith, for many years. Some Catholics go overboard with the “Virgin,” but many Mormons go overboard with the “Prophet.” Nevertheless, the FLDS are really messed-up with the principle. They aren’t allowed to have a picture of the Savior on their walls, because according to their theology, “no one knows what he looks like.” (Even though Joseph Smith saw Him, right?) At the same time, if you followed the news a year or so ago, every FLDS home had pictures of Warren Jeffs front and center. Personally, I would much rather have the Savior in my home rather than pictures of ANY mortal. That’s not to say I don’t respect my leaders, but they don’t have the same footing as Christ himself. Yes, it bothers me that JS tried to restore Masonry based on the assumption that it was similar to Solomon’s Temple. Yes, it bothers me that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Many historians believe that the concubines were women of non-Israelite descent who had been captured and taken prisoner of war. Their husbands had been slaughtered in battle and they were brought to the palace to live out their lives, but were unable to marry Israelite men. Many lived in a state of servitude and captivity . . . . . Christ is the Great Liberator of ALL women, both bond and free.
I don’t want to worship King Solomon, I want to worship Jesus Christ. I only learn of the history of King Solomon so that I can better understand how to truly liberate women – women who are living in servitude, women who are living in captivity, women who are “kept” and unable to honorably marry, women who live in “captivity” of loneliness.
To me, that is the true purpose of the Temple.
I am a life long active LDS Temple endowed Mormon and also an active Free Mason. I fail to see why people make such a big deal out of the tie between Masons and Mormons. Personally, I think the tie is a positive thing. It’s frustrating to see people blow either organization into something that it’s not! acarlton wrote:I am a life long active LDS Temple endowed Mormon and also an active Free Mason. I fail to see why people make such a big deal out of the tie between Masons and Mormons. Personally, I think the tie is a positive thing….!
I would be interested in hearing why you think so?
Firat of all I don’t see a lot wrong with masonry and its stated goals. Lots of early saints were masons and much was borrowed from a lot of other things besides masonry in mormon worship. Guess I’m a bit insensitive here, but who cares? If the temple is just mumbo jumbo masonry why worry about it? If its not than maybe masonry is something all can learn from. If masonry is selective then what’s the big deal about JS opening to men and women to help enlighten them. I just don’t get a lot of these beefs like the mormon/mason thing. There are millions of good mason that do many great things so what is the big deal? Masonry is not a religion but it does require one to belive in something so again, what’s the big deal? To me this issue is kind of dead. If you want to stay lds but don’t like the temple then don’t go. If its a bunch of bunk then why put a lot of stock in it? I know history has its problems but to continue to dwell on some makes me ask why?
I don’t mean to discount concerns totally but there are so many other fish to fry this one just is a closed issue to me. I don’t pretend to speak for the church but i’d venture to guess that the temple will be something entirely different in the future sooner than one migh think.
The issue is the claim that the endowment is a restored ordinance. If it is based on freemasonry, then my understanding is that historians are dating the origins of those masonic rites to the middle ages, not to Christ’s time or earlier. It goes to the whole origins of the ordinance, and whether they are true or not. Did Joseph obtain them through revelation or did he just expand something he learned as a Mason. The temple rites as we know them are not mentioned as any part of Christianity in the New Testament and, other than some rough similarities to Old Testament Priesthood clothing mentioned there. Because the temple ordinances are central to the ‘restoration’ and key to exaltation, it is not something that is easily picked up or left alone in Mormonism.
This is not a criticism of the ideals and principles of the temple ordinances NOR Freemasonry per se.
I think the number of members who think that the endowment is “a restored ordinance” is far lower than most people assume. I certainly don’t think so – and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest that it isn’t. As I’ve said about another ordinance, if the physical sign of membership in God’s kingdom can go from cutting my body in a specific way to getting dunked in water, I can handle changes in temple ceremonies and viewing it all as symbolic ways to represent special things.
Old-Timer wrote:I think the number of members who think that the endowment is “a restored ordinance” is far lower than most people assume.
I don’t know about that Ray. I guess I would have been one those who absolutely believed the endowment was a restored ordinance while practicing stage 3 mormonism, and I guess I would also be one of those people who is “wrong” when they “assume” that 85% of the church membership believes it as well. I never have asked a member that question per se – but come on – of course the majority of active members believe that it came directly from God through JS. Don’t they?
Once again Ray, you astound me just how different your planet is than mine.
cwald, I would LOVE to have you in my ward! 
I never said it wasn’t a majority. I just don’t think it’s nearly as high as most people assume.
I would say a great many members are ignorant of the whole ceremony first of all and on the grand scheme of things relatively few members actually go to the temple in light of how many are on the books. Second I think the whole experience to most is frankly unpleasant and kind of see the whole thing as a kind of “what the blank was that?” moment. By the time you’ve crossed that bridge you have few paths to go from there none of which are a small life-step.
Okay so let’s suppose if you are astute enough to recognize the similarity between Masonic and Temple ritual that’s going to lead you in the direction of: a) This is everything JS claimed it to be. b) This is a crazy arse ritual and I’m not doing it anymore, in or out of the church. c) This is JS’s way of teaching a primative Mormon culture in an understandable way because they were farmilliar with Masonry. or d) I know about the fact and I’m not going.
Basically whether it is devine, man-made, symbolic, or a synthesis of all three it really comes down to do it or not.
Unless the church makes a decision on the matter to change or remove the ordinance, you leave the church, or simply don’t participate I don’t see why it matters if it is an ordinance from God or not.
It is secularly pretty much proven and excepted that the origin of the ceremony is clearly not from the days of Solomon.
As far as Solomon goes I see no reason as a believer or not to have a modern day condemnation of the man. You must suppose as a believer he will be judged by God as such. As a non believer who cares if he even existed? If you are a believer and you still think Solomon is a jerk: a) God will judge him. b) God is a jerk who likes jerks like Solomon so you’re screwed for second guessing God. c) This is a bunch of BS even if Solomon was real he’s long dead and so are his concubines so again who cares? d) The bible is full of paradoxical teaching that we must navigate the best we can.
I don’t mean to sound so cynical so please forgive me. The mysteries of God are what they are to the believer. I think however you can reduce these subject to a series of conclusions easily. The difficult problem is how does one incorporate them into our lives and beliefs? If you believe but are somehow angry at God over Solomon’s life and actions, I really don’t see how it makes a difference. We are not God. We Don’t understand why he does what he does. What are you going to do though? Organize a protest against God? Become a Satanist in Protest?
I understand being angry at God and religion if you believe, but frankly God’s the boss and someone you are bound to loose the argument with. If you don’t believe than why does it matter? Solomon is long dead and gone it makes no sense to me to beat up on long dead historical/mythical figures nor the horse they rode on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.