Death to those who reveal inner chaple LDS practices.

[ben_dy]

As I understand it (from about 15-20 hours spent with two fine young men who were LDS missionaries two years ago) you actually have to reach a certain ‘level’ to enter into a LDS ‘Temple’ (or at least certain parts of the Temple) after it has been consecrated. Something about having respect for the sacred - that there are parts of the Temple (perhaps the whole?) and practices that were secret because they were sacred. I seem to recall that it was not enough, even, to be baptised according to the LDS rite to gain admittance to a Temple or other sacraments: further indoctrination and something which was called a “Temple Recommendation” (which was a sort of identification card) was needed to enter a LDS Temple.

I suppose that it’s rather pointless to foment any interest in LDS liturgy as it would all be secret. Makes me wonder if the Catholic to LDS ‘conversion’ rate is high, considering that ‘secret societies’ have been denounced by the Church for so long - I would think that any Catholic with even the smallest amount of knowledge of his or her faith would look with great suspicion on sacraments that were of a ‘secret’ and not a public nature.

Ben

 

[ben_dy]

BJRumph:

To which I absolutely disagree as an endowed and sealed (and now ex-) member of the LDS church.

Can you give a brief explanation - for we who are not LDS nor ex-LDS - what is meant by “endowed and sealed”? Are these sacraments of the LDS church? In the discussions here, and I suppose it is to avoid offense to active LDS, there is much allusion to that which can only be understood by current or former LDS members, yet surely some of the meanings of the terms used can surely be revealed without revealing the ‘secrets’ involved in the actual rites?

Ben

 

[ben_dy]

Casen:

You’ve said several things wrong here which leads me to conclude that you didn’t understand the endowment. Regarding the interpretation of signs and symbols there is a very good reason the interpretation for all of them is not given during the ceremony. They must be revealed by the Holy Spirit to the initiate and they are only revealed to those that have proved themselves worthy and can keep a secret!

I’m beginning - after reading this LDS section for over 12 hours now - to suspect that there must be little of Christianity in the Mormon belief system: how in the world can the Gospel of Christ be proclaimed by worthiness that is salvific only if it is available to those who can keep secret that Gospel?

Greatly confused and increasingly disturbed,

Ben

 

[majick275]

I think that many people would be surprised at just how uneventful and “plain” the current Temple ceremony is.

Frankly it’s just not that mysterious nor is it really that secret. Most LDS members that attend the Temples consider it an opportunity for spiritual growth much the same way that many catholics view stations of the cross. (i.e. a ritual that focuses thought on certain specific aspects of the Divine)

While I am sure that the average catholic would not in any way find Mormon Temple Ceremonies to be of God if they were able to view them…I would compare it to the confusion experienced by Mormons viewing a High Mass for the first time. Many of the questions would be similar but in the end it is a very spiritual experience for those that believe in it and seems rather silly to those that don’t.

 

[BJRumph]

Hi Ben_dy

Sorry to take so long to respond, but I get burned out of these discussions rather easily these days as I am trying to maintain a proper spirit as I learn about the RCC in preparation for my coming into communion with the Church.

Anyway;

The “Endowment” is the most basic portion of the Temple ceremony, and is the one wherein you are taught the tokens and signs, and the basic theological allegory of the temple doctrine. Those missionaries you talked with were “endowed” in the Temple before setting out into the mission feild, but it is a status that is expected of all members, not just missionaries. It is called the endowment, because it is the ceremony that “endows” upon the faithful power from on High in the form of those things needed for the transition from this world, into the next (depending upon how literally you take these things). It is also during the initiatory phase of the endowment that you are blessed, and given your Garments, which are worn to remind you of temple obligations/covenants, and for many (due to specific promises made during the anointing and blessing regarding them), are a protective sheild; not unlike the various beliefs surrounding the Catholic scapulars. It is here that you are given your “new” name, which serves as one of the pass-words when passing the veil.

To be “sealed” is to have participated in the Temple marriage ceremony, the one that binds you to your spouse (and your future children) to you for “time and eternity”, meaning both temporally and spiritually (no “until death do you part” stuff). It is also during this ceremony that the husband is given the temple name of his wife, in order to pass her through the veil (both ceremonially, and allegorically for future use during transition into the next world; again, depending upon how literally one takes it.) Typically, this is the "highest’ level ceremony experienced by your typical lds; however rumours persist of the continuation of even higher ceremonies that take place, such as the “second anointing” which grants one (according to some) the status of having ones’ “calling and election made sure”, the LDS version of salvific certainty.

This, however, is more probably just a “folk” belief that springs from the passed down rememberances of older versions of the temple ceremony, where there was a different washing and anointing carried out by spouses that is no longer used.

My usage of these terms in the post quoted was merely a measure to negate the attempts of some LDS parties from suggesting that I had no experience, or that my knowledge was based solely on “anti” material, or that I was never a faithful member of the church; as all three of these attacks have been used at one point or another against me in these forums by lds.

Yes, there is far more that can be discussed about the temple ceremonies, but due to the lack of formal instruction regarding it, most mormons have no idea where to draw the line. As a Mason, I can recognize where that line is to be found, should I bother looking for it from a mormon context. For many, if not most, even the at the empty level of detail that I have described in this post is revealing too much (despite being fairly innocuous and easily obtained information). Where I to blindly take the Masonic route, then nothing about the ceremony is an obligatory secret, save only the tokens and signs; but I do know that the line is intended to be drawn far wider by the lds than that. And, as there is the whole “its Sacred, not Secret” argument, no mormon would be willing to reveal much of anything about a series of ceremonies that are to be considered the most sacred rites they could ever experience from start to finish. Some are offended if you even mention the Temple, in any context, if it is done in anything less than a positive and edifying manner.

Yes, you are correct, it is more about adding a little mystery into the religion to draw, and cement, credulous members, than in actually revealing anything of doctrinal value. And yes, I say this even knowing what it says about myself as a once-faithful mormon. I make no secret about it being through Grace that I was brought out of the mormon church, and not through my own devices.

I hope that clarifies it sufficiently.

Inter arma Caritas

 

[ben_dy]

Dear BJ,

Wonderful explanation - I ‘Googled’ quite a bit after reading some of the messages here and found websites that seemed to disclose all ‘secrets’, the analogies with masonic rites, the changes in the “endowment” ritual, etc., but I didn’t quite understand the “sealed” practice until I read (and I’ve no idea if this is true or not - the ‘informative’ websites were, from the tone, decidedly ‘ant-mormon’ and some written by what seem to be extremely bitter ex-mormons) that the majority of temple visits are for sacraments (baptism and marriage?) by proxy for one’s ancestors. I do recall the missionaries telling me that, were one to convert, there would be a baptism (which would not be (as I recall) in a temple) and that after one year, and with a recommendation by a bishop, one could visit a temple (and, I suppose, then receive “endowment” (?) and begin (in my case) begin the process of a sort of re-sacramental baptism and marriage, by proxy(?) with my deceased wife, re-baptism by proxy for my deceased son, and parents, etc. “The boys”, as I came to call them, were quite impressed that I had genealogical data and records going back to the 12th century on both my paternal and maternal side and there was some speculation that a convert like myself, with such meticulous records, would be spending quite a bit of time in a temple (presuming, as I now understand it, having all my ancestors “sealed” by proxy?

Certainly would have given me more to do in these golden years - I just could not shake the faith of those same fathers!

And, from what I’ve read, your description of the ‘temple garments’ and the wearing of the Scapular is a quite good analogy. As one who, in my youth, went through scapulars like most boys go through socks, in my old age I find that I can get a good years wear from one but I always keep a spare on hand for the time when wear and tear takes its toll.

So - am I to understand, then, that you are a catechumen? I will withhold my joy until you let me know that this is, indeed, the case; but I will, without that certain knowledge, pray that you are indeed making you’re way into the Church founded by Christ!

Ben

 

[ben_dy]

BJ,

One more (and I can’t promise that it won’t be the last): when “the boys” were explaining the ‘priesthood’ with me and I mentioned the Catholic doctrine of authority from Apostolic succession, they became quite excited and showed my cards that they carried to show the chronology of their Apostolic succession.

The card, naturally, did not read as some Bishops’ will, but I never asked if the succession was meant to actually claim Apostolic succession from the time of Christ or from the lineage of Joseph Smith.

Could you clarify this for me?

Ben

 

[majick275]

I’ll jump in here with your permission…
Those cards with priesthood lineage have become somewhat popular with LDS men and they trace their succession to Joseph Smith and thus (according to their beliefs) the Apostles Peter, James and John who they believe appeared as angels to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to “restore” the Melchizadec or “higher” priesthood to the Earth. (Said Apostles having received their Authority directly from Jesus Christ)

Interesting that thay choose those 3 apostles as “holding the keys” to the priesthood (thus implying that they were the last on Earth to hold it) When, according to LDs doctrine, John the beloved and the “3 nephites” never left the earth. Why wouldn’t they have come and performed this?

BTW the (LDS) teach that joseph and Oliver first received teh Aaronic or “lesser” priesthood from John the Baptist (appearing as an angel). Once again you have to wonder why him as all of these others mentioned here would by virtue of the “higher” priesthood automatically hold the “keys” to the lesser.

Very confusing if you ask me.

 

[BJRumph]

I think Majik answered the cards question sufficiently; they will have recorded their Priesthood lineage to Joseph Smith, and hense, if you believe the stories of the miraculous restoration, then to the original apostles; Peter, James, and John.

Yes, with a geneology that goes back that far, the Temple would certainly keep you busy if you did it all yourself! You are correct, your baptism into the membership of the lds church would not take place in the Temple, but rather at the local ward or stake center (where they have the usual sunday meetings). The baptisms performed in the Temple are only the ones performed for the dead. After a year’s waiting period, you would be eligible to attempt to get a recommend, and therefore attend the temple and receive the endowment. Someone more familliar with the actual rules would have to confirm if youd be able to be sealed to your deceased wife (I, personally, had very different questions regarding my parents, so I don’t actually know one way or another regarding it; I’d guess that you could). I have done vicarious baptisms and endowments, but I have not done any vicarious sealings (as I left the church before getting my recently deceased mother’s work done). Really, the only time the ceremonies are for “you”, are when you are going through them for the first time; every time else that you “go through” the temple, you are doing vicarious work for either an ancestor of yours, or a name from the database. No sitting on the sidelines and watching like in a masonic lodge.

As to your other question, I, actually, am a candidate as I have a valid baptism from prior to becoming a mormon (was baptised into a protestant church when I was 11; I did not join the lds until I was 21). My wife, however, is a catecumen, as she was a born-under-the-coveneant Mormon (the lds analog to “cradle catholic”, though has a more technical and official standing, so the analog is a little deficient). Fortunately, our eldest child is only seven, so they all get to go through the normal catholic processes for their own sacraments (lds don’t baptize until 8). So, barring act-of-God or death, we will be an official Catholic Family by Easter '06.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma Caritas

 

[BJRumph]

Interesting that thay choose those 3 apostles as “holding the keys” to the priesthood (thus implying that they were the last on Earth to hold it) When, according to LDs doctrine, John the beloved and the “3 nephites” never left the earth. Why wouldn’t they have come and performed this?

Because, according to everyone else (ie Potential Converts), John was dead, and no one is going to care about the claims of three complete unknowns, who could not possibly have held such keys. Only after you already come to believe in the church, can you then make the “stronger” case that they would have been the carriers of those keys (and thereby negating any chance of the Great Apostacy having actually occurred, thereby striking down the next domino, and the next…).

If you look hard enough, you prolly will be able to find, somewhere, a mormon who will tell you that PJ&J of Smith’s experience in actuality were the 3 nephites, merely fulfilling the Apostolic Seats first represented by the historical, palestinian, PJ&J, just like God is only holding a seat/title, that has been shared with many other beings that makes Him our god. No, not official, but strangely consistent with what is official. I’d claim credit for inventing a new mormon doctrine/apologetic, except I know it is as the Bible says; there is nothing new under the sun. Therefore, I hypothesize that there exists, somewhere, at least one TBM mormon who would make such an assertion.

No, they were chosen simply because they were apostles and sources of those keys that non-mormon Christians would recognize as being authoritative. Just like you can’t have a real, “restored”, baptismal rite that wasn’t initiated by the Baptist himself.

 

[majick275]

All I can say is that I have a much greater sense of spiritual fulfillment when I take the eucharist than I ever experienced in “the Temple”.

 

[PaulDupre]

majick275:

All I can say is that I have a much greater sense of spiritual fulfillment when I take the eucharist than I ever experienced in “the Temple”.

AMEN!

 

[Tmaque]

majick275:

All I can say is that I have a much greater sense of spiritual fulfillment when I take the eucharist than I ever experienced in “the Temple”.

I agree with this statement although I must admit that during my temple experiences I was obviously “not getting” something others obviously felt. That said, I did notice the more I went to the temple the more spiritual weight the experience seemed to have for me. I now chalk that up to my desire to experience the spiritual rather than the actual spirit of God being profoundly present.

I say this because my experience with the Eucharist was opposite my experience with LDS temple endowments. The Eucharist had(and still has) profound effects on me which were totally unexpected in the beginning. So, on the one hand, while I expected a great spritual experience in the temple, it only started to materialize after frequent visits, while, on the other hand, with no expectation of any profound spiritual experiences with Eucharist, I did experience them. And, as I said before they were unexpected and surprising. All the more so because when I was LDS I had a testimony and was no skeptic. But, before I became Catholic I spent many years as an agnostic, and I still have to fight internal doubt every day.

For the LDS out there I do understand that my experience is totally subjective and ultimately means nothing to anyone but me. I also know that Christ promises that where two or more are gathered in his name he is also there so I’m not saying that everything the LDS feel in their temples is only in their heads. I’m of the opinion that LDS do believe in Jesus Christ despite what others may say.

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

I suspect most LDS do not know that Joseph Smith was ever a Mason. And, most would not believe it even if confronted by the evidence.

I agree with you that it isn’t common knowledge, and you are probably right that confronting mormons with the evidence will sometimes raise defensiveness.

Still it is fairly well documented that the grand master of Illnois, Abraham Jonas, helped set up a masonic lodge in the Nauvoo era and made Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon master masons “on sight”. That means that Smith didn’t go through all the initiation rituals, which was an irregularity that Jonas caught a lot of flack for (from other masonic lodges).

Jonas set up the lodge as a way of being friendly with the mormons and the mormons saw joining the fraternity as a good way to try and get along with their new neighbors. Jonas was also a Whig trying curry some votes for himself. Later he turned on the mormons and secretly financed the Nauvoo Expositor, which was used by some mormon dissenters to slander Joseph Smith. The press was destroyed which led to Joseph Smith going to jail and getting shot.

When Joseph Smith jumped out the window of the Carthage Jail he started giving a masonic distress call, which obligated the masons in the lynch mob to come to his aid. They failed to do so. Some of the mob even joined the masons later so that they could influence the outcome while being tried for the Smiths’ murder.

Brigham Young and probably many others suspected that Smith’s murder was a masonic conspiracy and so mormons would have no part of masonry for a long time after that. However, I new book *Junius and Joseph *paints it more as a Whig conspiracy. Joseph Smith’s presidential campaign was making Henry Clay and his operatives nervous.

 

[majick275]

mormon fool:

I agree with you that it isn’t common knowledge, and you are probably right that confronting mormons with the evidence will sometimes raise defensiveness.

True

Still it is fairly well documented that the grand master of Illnois, Abraham Jonas, helped set up a masonic lodge in the Nauvoo era and made Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon master masons “on sight”. That means that Smith didn’t go through all the initiation rituals, which was an irregularity that Jonas caught a lot of flack for (from other masonic lodges).

True

Jonas set up the lodge as a way of being friendly with the mormons and the mormons saw joining the fraternity as a good way to try and get along with their new neighbors. Jonas was also a Whig trying curry some votes for himself. Later he turned on the mormons and secretly financed the Nauvoo Expositor, which was used by some mormon dissenters to slander Joseph Smith. The press was destroyed which led to Joseph Smith going to jail and getting shot.

Now you are stating your opinion as if it were fact… I think it would appear quite differently to many here if the details of the Nauvoo expositor situation were known. I realize that you believe that it was libeling Joseph Smith. Many who have read the historical accounts of this think that they were revealing true facts about Joseph that would have caused him problems. Joseph was at this time in a position of civil authority and some beleive that he abused this in ordering the press destroyed. (it is said that the expositor was going to reveal Joseph’s womanizing and some of his questionable financial dealings)

When Joseph Smith jumped out the window of the Carthage Jail he started giving a masonic distress call, which obligated the masons in the lynch mob to come to his aid. They failed to do so. Some of the mob even joined the masons later so that they could influence the outcome while being tried for the Smiths’ murder.

Mostly true. The verdict of not guilty for Joseph’s murderers was never in doubt as it was heard by a very biased jury and a bigoted judge.

Brigham Young and probably many others suspected that Smith’s murder was a masonic conspiracy and so mormons would have no part of masonry for a long time after that. However, I new book *Junius and Joseph *paints it more as a Whig conspiracy. Joseph Smith’s presidential campaign was making Henry Clay and his operatives nervous.

Partly true…To this day Mormons are “discouraged” from joining freemasonry. NO ONE was the LEAST bit nervous (if they were even aware) of Joseph Smiths presidential candidacy. The true “conspiracy” for was for the leadership and direction of the LDS church. (Sidney Rigdons doctrine, Joseph Smiths charisma, Brigham Youngs organizational skills and a LOT of idealists and opportunists all vying for control of the group)

I apologize for my presumptous tone here. I do not imply that I am the arbiter of truth, it was just faster/easier to state my position in this format where I challenged some of the details of this post. I humbly beg Mormon Fool to forgive my terse wording in the interest of furthering our discussion.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

Partly true…

No doubt my few paragraphs can’t do justice to the big picture and hence are disserving of “Partly” or “Mostly” true arbitrations. My point was to more or less show what Joseph Smith’s ties to masonry were and why relationship between mormonism and masonism went downhill fast. Mainly the perception of mormons that masons failed to prevent the murder and sheltered conspirators.

You make it sound like the conspiracy to kill Joseph Smith was an inside job. I agree that some mormon dissenters, especially the publishers of the Nauvoo Expositor would fit this bill. They wanted mormonism to take a different direction. The only issue of their newspaper shows they were upset over religous doctrines and the amount of political clout Joseph Smith had.

Joseph Smith wasn’t really a threat to win the election, but opponents estimated he could get 15% of the vote, Enough to swing the election away from the Whigs. Clay, the Whig candidate, lost New York by 5000 out of over 200,000 votes. NY was the HQ for Smith’s campaign. The campaign endorsed Polk over Clay after Joseph Smith was moved from the picture. A case can be made that the mormons did indeed determine the outcome that year. My point would be that, yes, people were very nervous about Smith’s candidacy. Another aspect is that Smith wrote a scathing letter to Clay that made Clay look bad and it got a lot circulation in the national press.

The local scene was even more concerned because the mormon block vote frequently determined the outcome of elections. The whigs were most concerned the mormons had gone democrat the last few elections. The whigs entered in plots to increase tension between the mormons and the democratic governor, Ford. Except for Ford and Thomas Sharp, most of the the identified conspirators are whigs (Jonas, triggerman J. Elliot, defense lawyer O.H. Browning, newspaper man G.M.T. Davis).But I’ll leave the development of this idea to the book I mentioned. I prefer to think of Smith’s death as a religous martrydom rather than a political assination.

As for the trial, you are right it was mostly a sham. Still it was feared that testimony might leak out and reveal the conspiracy. Chances were the court of public opinion would turn against them, even if everyone got off. Some of the small fries would have been a little worried about being made scapegoats so it behooved them to get in good with the masons.

Thanks for you points and keeping me on my toes,
fool

 

[majick275]

I am still skeptical that even with Brigham Young handling the campaign in New York that anyone thought Mormons had a significant voting block in that state.

Published letters from Joseph Smith were met with the same doubts as his Book of Mormon, although I grant you that they were still circulated by one party whenever they made the other look bad.

you are certainly correct about the perceived clout at the local level though…Nauvoo had become one of the largest cities in Illinois and did tend to vote asa block. Economically it was also prosperous and very “clannish” about who they dealt with. These things certainly contributed to the anger and jealousies many felt towards Mormons.

I challenge the political assassination theory though. Quite simply there isn’t much cause. There is reason to believe that the governor could have prevented it but chose not to as it removed a source of trouble for him.

From a historical perspective (careful, Boyd K. Packer might be watching) it appears that Joseph had angered many with his “anti-Banking company” in Ohio, had through revelation caused many to transfer properties/money,etc. to his control and had established a reputation for getting “sealed” to every woman who caught his fancy (married or not, regardless of age).

These factors had estranged him somewhat from folks like Sidney Rigdon (former cambellite preacher who is reputed to developed most of the early LDS doctrine) , Bishop Partridge and Newell Whitney, Oliver Cowdery…Many early church leaders, This caused some of the flock (which was rapidly diversifying from immigration) to thik that he had veered from the true path and needed to be called to repentance. (kind of the RLDS view) Others (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, etc.) saw this time as a great opportunity (TBMs see it as chance to serve God, Non-LDS see it as chance to gain wealth, women and power) and embraced Joseph’s newly revealed doctrines, political aspirations and set about forging a tight group of hard core followers who could be taken out west and turned into a nation. (Brigham Young almost acomplished that with his state of Deseret)

Ironic how those who seemingly had the most to gain from Smiths death (Rigdon, Whitmer, Cowdery, etc.) faded away and those who were (seemingly at least) the most loyal ended up propering.

I think you can see though from all of this a definite evolution of doctrine as we go from Joseph/Oliver/Emma to Sidney Rigdon influence to Brigham Young.

I find it evidence of this being a manmade religion with malleable doctrine but I know many Mormons who believe BECAUSE of that very evolution.

In any case, I will agree that Joseph was murdered. ( I challenge that it was religious martyrdom) and that the constitution was trampled more than once in an effort to “teach the Mormons a lesson”.

Getting back on topic… I certainly see evidence of Masonic origin (signs, tokens, keywords, clothing) in the Temple ceremony along with Sidney Rigdon’s influence (doctrine behind much of the ordinances) I find Emma Smith’s later rejection of the Temple ordinances of interest, especially in light of D&C 132 threatening her with destruction.

One other thing…(and yes this strays a bit from topic) I was always uncomfortable with that hymn “praise to the man” (the concept of praising a man during a worship service disturbs me) especially the line …“mingling with Gods he can plan for his brethren…” That reaffirms my conclusion that exaltation as taught in the LDS Temple is neither Biblical nor logical nor is it of God.

 

[mormon_fool]

majick275:

I am still skeptical that even with Brigham Young handling the campaign in New York that anyone thought Mormons had a significant voting block in that state.

I agree there weren’t many mormons in NY. My point is that many non-mormon voters were attracted to Smith’s platform. A dropped out candidate can still swing voters to another candidate by giving an endorsement (and we are only talking about 2% of the NY vote).

Published letters from Joseph Smith were met with the same doubts as his Book of Mormon, although I grant you that they were still circulated by one party whenever they made the other look bad.

I included this info because Clay probably felt personally insulted. It may have motivated him to resort to dirty tricks.

you are certainly correct about the perceived clout at the local level though

Thanks for agreeing with me here.

I challenge the political assassination theory though. Quite simply there isn’t much cause.

OK. But due to who the identifiable players in the murder are I see it as at least a factor. I left *Junius and Joseph *home so I won’t be able to jot write up the key evidences in their thesis, though.

There is reason to believe that the governor could have prevented it but chose not to as it removed a source of trouble for him.

From what I have seen, I would not view Ford as a passive participant but one of the active schemers.

From a historical perspective (careful, Boyd K. Packer might be watching) it appears that Joseph had angered many with his “anti-Banking company” in Ohio,

I doubt the bank failure played much of a role in the prophet’s death. The people that lost faith in his calling over that had long since been left behind. I am guessing Elder Packer agrees with me here.

to his control and had established a reputation for getting “sealed” to every woman who caught his fancy (married or not, regardless of age). These factors had estranged him somewhat from folks like Sidney Rigdon (former cambellite preacher who is reputed to developed most of the early LDS doctrine) , Bishop Partridge and Newell Whitney, Oliver Cowdery…

I will agree with you about Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon were estranged, but Whitney was solidly in Joseph’s corner and Partridge was already dead. Rigdon was influencial and a good orator, but I don’t really think he had much to do with establishing doctrine. The Book of Mormon establishes most of the doctrine behind the ordinances. Neither he nor Oliver ever became murderously angry at Joseph Smith. Both were way out of town. Most of the big wigs were out campaigning.

I find it evidence of this being a manmade religion with malleable doctrine but I know many Mormons who believe BECAUSE of that very evolution.

Count me in

Later,
fool

PS: I don’t mean to be overcritical of your historical interpretion. It is fun to compare notes and perspectives.

 

[BJRumph]

Minor notes for clarification:

Observation: Most mormons that I have experienced are quite aware of Smith’s involvement with Freemasonry, albiet in a very limited, and rather distorted fasion.

Observation: I was discouraged by the local leadership in joining the Masons, utilizing the “Attend to your church duties first, then if you have time afterwards…” tact. Still, the church cannot really say “no” simply because so many of the nauvoo period church leaders were, and more importantly- known to be, masons.

Fact: Smith did not become a mason until after the formation of the church.

Fact: Smith had become a Master Mason (that is, a third degree mason; no more, no less) a very short time before drafting the Temple ceremonies.

Fact: being made a Mason “at sight” is simply the power of a Grand Master (and no other) to dispense with the background investigations and petitioning process that is normally utilized in bringing in petitioners (which is normally a lengthy process, and given the mindset of Smiths non-mormon neighbors, he would not have likely passed through this phase had the GM not interviened, as each petitioner is voted on by the Lodge membership, with a single vote against being all that is necessary to block admittance). Smith did participate in all three “Blue Lodge” or Craft Masonry initiatory rituals (being the EA, FC, and MM degrees). He was not advanced through them, or otherwise was allowed to “skip” them, as is often erroneously repeated.

 

[jack_johns]

some of the things i’ve just read are simply ridiculous and don’t make any sense. mormon or not mormon. it’s actually embarassing to know that some people talk like this. ya death to them. good one guys.