An anon on the Texas Blog asked someone to post it. I went, found it interesting - and so I'm posting.
My honest opinion.
1. It was too long
2. It was well written
3. It made some great points
4. It made polygamists victims - I don't agree
I guess the hoopla about freedom, autonomy, and etc etc that he spouts - you'd think at least he'd respect the freedom of the press to photograph or hire helicopters etc etc.
It seemed rather whiney and pathetic at that point - hey, you wanna see someone haggled by the press - go visit a celeb. I can see photos of them practically consumating their vows it's so intrusive. I rarely see the prairie dress clad set garning the cover of any magazine - much less the dozens that line the checkout at my local grocery now dissecting Brittany's new friendship with Paris.
Anyhoo, he name dropped enough that we know he has more experience than most us monogomists with the polygamist crowd, and he made logical interesting arguments.
I honestly couldn't read the whole thing today, perhaps again tomorrow. It was so long it really needed chapters. I think I agree with a few of his conclusions, and disagree with others.
http://oneutah.org/2006/06/03/polygamy-monogamy-and-monotheism-the-one-and-the-many/
96 comments:
Atar
I have to agree with your points on this article. Especially the too long. I couldn't read it entirely either but he is basically saying that the law cannot prosecute for polygamy. This is interesting in face of the fact that the law officials have repeatedly stated that it is not polygamy they are after. It is the underage marriages and other crimes that are being prosecuted. I think I know what you meant by your difference of opinion with the victim claim and I agree with what you. However, I think these people are victims. Only thing is they are also the perpetrators. They are only victims of thier own actions.
Yes, salient point taken. I was more speaking to the 'wah wah' about how heartless the media is.
Not that I'm disagreeing - but honestly, it's nothing new or special that they are specifically doing to the FLDS. It's their motus operandi when they sniff a story.
The story doesn't have widespread appeal, hasn't even reached, or come close to it's tipping point. If it does, I'll send Ed some cheese.
Of course the big difference between the media pursuing the "polygs" vs pursuing the celebs is that the celebrities have actively chosen to live in the spotlight and the polygs want to live in the dark.
I'll give you that in some circumstances - but I highly doubt Kirsti Alley wanted photos of her in her moo moo without makeup wolfing down McDonalds. In the end she made it work, but she must have been horrified at one time.
And, I won't give you 'they want to live in the dark'. I will give you 'they want to live in the dark AGES'.
Hey - if they wanted to fly under the radar, they needed to only do what they've been doing for the past 4 decades.
You've got to realize that when you steal from the public school system, the welfare system, your own ex followers, have sex with your teens, or throw them out, or molest them, or have a police force that doesn't enforce the laws they swore to, or have a rare genetic disorder in record proportions, or a leader on the top 10 most wanted, build temples in the middle of the desert, dress in prairie dresses, accost any citizen with a camera on a public street, follow unknown cars through town, marry your cousin....etc etc etc
You wanna be in that group - you gotta fly with the press that follows.
There are polygs everywhere and no one is giving them air time because they aren't doing most of the above.
If you wanna fly under the radar - don't put a spotlight and 'look at me' sign on the side of your stealth.
Great Post Atar_i
PRESS
Most insightful! A great summary of just what the real argument here has been since the beginning.
thanks Atar_i
Why in the HELL can't I post ?
Because you can't do it without swearing
You just posted silly.
3:12 p.m.
There you go lumping all of them into one lump. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're rather harsh.
It's a little bit more complicated than 3:12 makes it out to be IMHO.
3:12
Posts like that turn on the FLDS "fight or flight" hormones.
LOL furnace!
Hey - have you seen this? I read it - fascinating - this poor girl!!!!!
http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/
Do we have people in here with a high enough I.Q. to read, comprehend, and have some opinion on this article? Or does it not hurt the Holy Crusades cause to have a highly educated person talking about what the issue?
3:12 is a prime example of what Ed Firmage is referring to--horizontally classifying people. And he mentions a case where criminals have the right to protect their private parts.
Atar_i--What did I say funny? I have taken Muggsey to task on this issue also. You attack a group, and they will get defensive--that was my point; it's like putting out a fire with gasoline. I won't call my father, mother, brothers, or sisters names, and I don't like to see others do it. I have not violently attacked their religion to their face--that would only make matters worse.
Anonymous 12/6 11:46 AM
Do we have people (on this blog) (with an I.Q. high enough), to read, comprehend, and (give) an opinion (related to) of this (which?) article? Or does it (what?) not hurt the Holy Crusades (current or completed prior to the Reformation?) cause to have a highly educated person talking (writing?) about (whatever) the issue (has been determined to be?)
Several of us might be more inclined to discuss your question, were it put into a more understandable format.
nuf sed
So...........blame Joseph Smith. He is the one who originally started this hogwash. Sometimes people think. That is my only goal.
..oh, ol' joey smith
you mean this guy?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=515aTVDbyvU
keep sweet eldorado
stg
Furnace - I just loved the way you put it - it was witty and smart.
As for the poster 11:46 whose blast post makes me NOT want to re read the article again - as it (his/her post) smacks of an intellectual arrogance which has not been proven (ahem, I haven't heard YOUR thoughts on the article).
Today at work the talk was about a woman who left her husband for another woman. Everyone squirmed, and I said 'yuk'. Why? Not because I hate homosexuals, or any religious conviction (although I do believe it a sin), the sexual act between women just grosses me out. Last I knew it was ok for me to feel however I want. I'm not throwing paint on people, or calling names, not even trying to legislate something about their love - I just simply find it distasteful - and I said 'yuk'.
I had to listen to 'well maybe they like it, maybe they think it's ok' - 'why do you care, why does that upset you'.
I imagine if we were speaking of hunting, this same girl would not only tell me that hunters were evil, hunting was bad, but that she was trying to make sure not only that hunting was illegal, but that we shouldn't have guns.
But she was completely intollerant of my feelings on a subject. She didn't want me to even own MY OWN FEELINGS.
So, the way I see it. We all are entitled to feel or think whatever we want. We can even say whatever we want.
1. We need to be respectful no matter how much we disagree
2. We need to realize that just because we feel it, doesn't make it right/wrong - the only real thing for certain - is that we feel it.
3. There is always another side to every story and we might not always know/see that other side - and therefore have feelings on what we know, and not necessarily the whole truth of a situation.
So in answer to the poster who wants to have an intellectual discussion -
YOU START IT. There was a whole lot of meat packed into that intelligent rambling diatribe. Choose one of the parts and ask the question - or pose a dilemna, or clarify a point. Don't try and bully us by accusing us of having low IQ's because you wanna have a discussion but don't have the cajones to start it.
C'mon - can you live up to your OWN POST?
Atar_i, Wasn't necessarily trying to accuse anyone of having a low IQ. I just found the article interesting and no one wants to post regarding it. It was worded how it was worded. If you feel bullied then I apologize. I'm just a dumb polygamist and I don't know how to post a thread. I don't see where it will let me. Carry on.
/flame on
I just wrote the longest post almost a line by line response and then LOST IT!
I won't do it again - but bottom line.
The guy starts out with an intellectually compelling argument, separating himself from the LDS church as a free thinker. He makes some points, name drops, throws things out and drops them. So far, a well thought out argument with information as to how he came to his conclusions.
I found some of his arguments not compelling, but I don't want to redo my post.
But then the post turns, his intellecutal argument becomes a personal attack on Krakauer, it starts with small cutting comments and then full out turns Krakauer into a demon and someone whose efforts are akin to racist dehumanizing efforts of holocaust proportions.
All efforts to remain intellectual are cut short once Ed reaches this place. I think he sabatoges his effort to remain a free thinker and exposes his 'party line' LDS feelings towards Krakauer.
If you really read this thing, once it gets to that point you'll be astonished at how much destruction he places at the feet of Jon - it's apocolyptic.
Funny thing - doesn't seem to acknowledge that Jon is ONE OF THE PEOPLE who thinks that legalizing polygamy is necessary - which makes his attack even more political.
Bottom line - this isn't anything we haven't heard before. I'ts really not that earth shattering which is why I find all the other stuff so much more interesting in his article.
Ed - want some cheese for that wine?
Atar-i, you go girl.
for A pretty good vindication of Krakauer,go to the "UEP meeting" thered and link to the "mormon blood atonment fact or fantasy" article, scroll all the way to the bottom,then link to "the life and confessions of John D Lee".its a rather long read, but it illustrates life
under the preisthood when in full control, note the primevil instinct to elimenate all male compatition for females,a direct symtom of a polygamist society. in my opinion.
uncaduff
Atar_i thanks for your comments. I felt the same way, however, Jon isn't interested in anything but his bottom line. I think your the only one that read the article and had something to say about the actual article. Thanks.
What is Jon's bottom line?
I've no idea - I only read the book and saw small snips of him with Elizabeth Smarts Dad at the Lost Boys rally.
Anonymous said...
Atar_i thanks for your comments. I felt the same way, however, Jon isn't interested in anything but his bottom line. I think your the only one that read the article and had something to say about the actual article. Thanks.
12/07/2006 1:13 PM
Mr. Ed Firmage had to mention Mr. Krakauer to get his trashy article noticed.
Firmage attack on Jon Krakauer is founded on untruths (lies).
And poster 1:13 p.m. how many lost boys have you or Mr. Firmage adopted lately and given a home and education too?
Jon 1
Firmage 0
1:13 p.m. 0
Thank you Uncle Duffy for pointing out John D. Lee link.
And let's thanks Brother Brigham Young for the blood atonement doctrine.
Uncle Rulon thought enough of it also,and Warren continues the love and message of blood atonement.
Old Warren will love himself and blood atone everyone else. After all, Warren is just like his father Satan, absolutely perfect and beautiful. He wants to possess it all! He's smart too. That's why he's in jail.
I've been reading this blog on and off for awhile now and I 've never posted before but I just couldn't resist today. Atar-i, you're my hero--your fist post on this thread I found particularly well-put. Kudos.
Thanks anon - that was really nice of you to say!
Atar_i 12/05 10.04
It's interesting that the words of the FLDS marriage covenant (http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/ entry of November 28th) appear to have been partly lifted from the LDS temple ceremony. (Obviously, I don't want to go into detail about the temple ceremony) FLDS are no more admitted into LDS temples than any other non-LDS, so I find myself wondering whether this was taken at the time they split away a century ago.
If so, it rather defines them as an apostate group, since temple ordinances are never to be performed outside a temple. And the FLDS founders, before they split away, would have taken sacred vows in the temple never to do so.
uncaduff 12/07/2006 8:50 AM
Remember that John Doyle Lee, by the time he wrote his confession, was disillusioned and very bitter. If you read between the lines, it becomes clear that his primary motive in writing was not to bare his soul, but to abuse the church and Brigham Young. It's a fascinating read, but you need to do it with a healthy dose of scepticism.
I was astonished when I visited the BYU bookstore in October (for the first time since I was a student there ten years ago), and found John D. Lee's confession was sold there!
TBM--does that stand for "True Believing Mormon?"
TBM
I guess you think JS, BY and JT are all apostates as well since they had the same marriage ceremony performed outside a temple?
Anon 6.44 TBM--does that stand for "True Believing Mormon?"
Sure does!
Anon 9.13 I guess you think JS, BY and JT are all apostates as well since they had the same marriage ceremony performed outside a temple?
I'm not talking about marriages. I'm talking about wording lifted from the temple ceremony. Words that Mormons vow never to repeat outside the temple walls, and certainly not in a Nevada motel room.
tbm,do you have any historical information (aside from Brooks' mountian medow massacre )to illustrate lees' dissolusionment with the church ? I have learned to have a salt shaker handy, but I also like to taste everythang on my plate, so I can use the salt selectively.
uncaduff
TBM
Are you trying to tell me JS married his many plural wives without that very wording to the ceremony? Are you telling me BY married many couples in celestial marriage outside the temple without the proper wording for the ceremony? It just doesn't make sense. It appears you are ready to swallow any story that will support your views. Of course the present LDS leadership wants you to think what you are saying it true. They have the same mentallity in some degree that FLDS are pushing on their children... just believe what I tell you, don't ask questions.
TBM - gotta little conundrum for you.
What if the words for the LDS temple cerimony have been lifted from say another cerimony?
My grandfather was a grand puh bah of the masonic temple - seems JS borrowed some of their stuff for his temple ceremony. Gotta wonder how 'sacred'it really is.
But if I did believe it was sacred, it would probably upset me the same way it does you.
'Secret Ceremonies' probably already revealed alot of the liturgy already.
atar_i: people always say that. I don't think I've ever heard anyone give details. But then again, since I'm not a mason, and I guess no mason is going to reveal himself, it's kinda hard to check!
uncaduff: Just the nature of his confession, slapping on the dirt as thick and heavy as he can, dragging as many down with him as far as he can, is the biggest indicator. But I'll see what I can look up for you.
anon 11.10: Are you trying to tell me JS married his many plural wives without that very wording to the ceremony?
Umm, no. I'm not sure what part of "I'm not talking about marriages" you didn't understand, but my post above said nothing of the sort.
My original point was that the FLDS founders, having made a sacred vow to God (and not to the LDS church) like all other Mormons, not to repeat wording used in temple ceremonies outside the temple, then broke their vow to extract a section of a temple ceremony to incorporate into their break-away marriage ceremony. Unless they argued that their break-away god was different to the LDS god, their vow remained binding. And both the Bible and the Latter-Day scriptures are very clear in their condemnation of covenant breakers.
As for Brigham Young conducting temple marriages outside an "official" temple, the sacredness is in the location, not the building covering it. Thus, in the episode of the burning bush, the Lord told Moses: " And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." And that sacredness comes and goes with the Lord's presence. Leaving aside for the moment any argument about Brigham Young's true status, a prophet can dedicate any place as a temple.
Assuming that Wilford Woodruff (the LDS president who issued the manifesto suspending polygamy) was an apostate, the question remains whether or not the FLDS founders took up his mantle. Were they his replacement prophets, and by what authority? Joseph Smith, who they claimed to so revere, made it clear that one could not simply appoint oneself as a prophet. Did they lay any claim to any form of divine visitation? any physical, bodily bestowing of the "keys" as Joseph Smith taught must happen?
If they did, then I guess the FLDS could justify themselves in dedicating a Nevada motel room as a temple. But I don't think they do, do they?
Just for the record, the FLDS marriage covenant quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune blog bears no resemblance to the LDS temple-marriage ceremony. The words I was referring to appear to have been extracted from the endowment ceremony, which has nothing to do with marriage. I have no idea what words Joseph Smith and Brigham Young used to enact polygamous marriages, and whether they resembled what is said in temple marriages today. That's not the point.
That much said, do you have a record of the wording Joseph Smith and Brigham Young used to conduct polygamous marriages? If so, I'd very much like to know your source.
They have the same mentallity in some degree that FLDS are pushing on their children... just believe what I tell you, don't ask questions
Nonsense.
TBM
I guess I totally misunderstood your post. I thought you were talking about a MARRIAGE ceremony that the FLDS were using. How can that have nothing to do with marriage? How can a marriage ceremony have 'lifted' wording that has nothing to do with marriage when it is in fact a marriage ceremony and nothing else? I thought your entire point was referring to the MARRIAGE ceremony of the FLDS. To my view you are talking in circles and so I cannot answer you. If your purpose of the last post was to end the discussion you have been successful as circular logic is not my forte.
Anon, what on earth are you talking about? I'm talking about the claims of Warren Jeffs and the FLDS. You keep wibbling on about marriages! I could care less about the minutiae of who married what, when, how and where. If you want to terminate the marriage "discussion", please do! Let's get back to the subject.
TBM,
Don't you find it at all interesting that Joseph dabbled in masonry prior to starting up his new religion? Even if the LDS line states thats utter nonsense....
That the garments, symbols, handshakes, and even wording is similar on so many occassions as to make it unlikely that it is just an anomoly.
And, if it's not an anomoly, and the masonic rites are definately first, than what say you?
You, a scholarly man, don't you WANT to know? Or is it something you'd rather not know?
atar_i: Now, I did once see a Mason in his robes (it's a long story!), and I can honestly say that I didn't see a great deal of resemblance between the Masonic robes and the LDS temple robes -- certainly nothing that couldn't have been explained as simple coincidence. I hope you can understand that I don't want to go into any greater detail than that. As for the symbols, handshakes and wording, how do you know? The Masons don't go around publishing their rituals any more than the Mormons do, and there's plenty of people distorting and misrepresenting the Masons, same as they do to us. In fact, I've noticed that anti-Masonic websites tend to be quite similar to anti-Mormon ones. Do you think anti-Mormon websites could be copied from the the anti-Masonic ones?
I don't think anyone denies that Joseph Smith was a Mason, not even the LDS church. It's well established that there were several Masonic lodges in Nauvoo. I don't think he was involved with Masonry before founding the church. He dabbled a little in white magic and psychic stuff -- show me the teenager who hasn't -- but he gave it up as he grew older. One incident resulted in his being arrested and charged, and I imagine that probably shook him a bit!
I know very little about the Masons, but I've heard they claim to have originated from the stone carvers that worked on the temple of Solomon (hence the name "Masons"). If there is a significant similarity between their rituals and the Mormons', that could explain it to an extent -- given that the LDS church claims its temple ceremonies are recreations of the ones conducted in Solomon's temple.
But ultimately, atar_i, I have my testimony. I don't lie awake at night racked with doubt. My life is not an endless spiritual self-analysis. I don't imagine I know everything, or understand it perfectly, but I'm basically content with where I am. Sure, I'd like to know, but mostly for curiosity's sake.
And if I was surprised by any reliable information about the Masons, my first question would be, "Is somebody distorting the evidence?" I am aware that a lot of malignant people lie a great deal about us, and, thank goodness, I am not one of those whose faith collapses at the first hurdle. As C.S. Lewis wrote in The Screwtape Letters, "Faith so easily destroyed can hardly have been worth destroying"!
Careful Atar, Anon you'll scare TBM away again. If I remember correctly it was the questions that scared him away for the while he was gone.
I'm just feeling plucky today I suppose.
I guess I find it interesting that both rituals are so secretive. The membership is so exclusive. The secret handshakes, movements, ceremonies, the secret robes, even the same symbols.
But you're right. It's probably a challenge to find someone who is LDS willing to spill the beans with documentation, and a mason willing to do the same thing - and then compare notes.
A challenge - but it has been done.
I am definately not suggesting that the underlying beliefs are similiar, just simply that the commonalities are too common as to be accidental.
Lets just hope the avian flu doesn't have the coincidental luck that mormons and masons do.
atar_i: A challenge - but it has been done.
Has it? I know they've got someone who claimed to know all about it -- but how am I to know to what extent he was lying? That he's willing to violate all his oaths suggests he's got an ax to grind, and is less interested in the truth than in scoring points and making himself a pain.
And fttc, you remember incorrectly. It was the dumb insolence of a lot of the posters.
do a Google search. Ancient Free and Accepted Masons
TBM - you got it hit on the head.
Anyone who would do such a thing, if they were mormon, would not be allowed to call themselves mormon much longer. So, I think crediblity would be stripped no matter the validity.
The masons have much less to lose (just exposure of the secret ceremonies) - which is less, but incredibly important to them.
I read a freemasons article that appeared fairly objective but refused to give details. I'll have to keep my ears open for an objective source that can give details.
Google Masonic Lodge Rituals and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Temple Rituals. There are a number of articles under each topic.
Anon, I refer you to my post above.
tbm
I sympathize with your scepticism regarding articles offered freely as truth. However, I do believe that there are, and have been individuals who know the inside of secret ceremonies, who later become disenchanted with the organization of which they were once a faithful member and do reveal secrets, not so much as a rebuke but as a revelation that something which they once thought of as being just and right has caused them to begin to think otherwise. Thus, they may be sharing information with other persons who, if they knew the facts, would either embrace or denounce the possability of personal association with the organization in question. In revealing "secrets" that are indeed true, more damage can be done than making up lies in an effort to sabotage hallowed rituals.
If you doubt one source, check several. You are bright enough to glean the truth from the chaf and form your own opinion as to what is true and what is false.
Ok. I took the bit. I so wish I hadn't. My testimony is in tatters! I believe nothing any more! It's all false, wicked, evil and wrong!
Not.
Having googled Masonic lodge rituals, and labored (and believe me, it was a labor -- one worthy of Hercules, no less) through a dozen sites, my testimony is un-rocked. Based on what I've read, I can see no significant resemblance whatever between Masonic and LDS temple ceremonies.
The most descriptive sites I found were these:
http://www.macgregorministries.org/cult_groups/rite_or_wrong.html
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/Masonic%20Wedding.htm
http://www.pfo.org/masonldg.htm
Now, I'm not going to broadcast details of the LDS ceremonies, but let me assure you all that LDS temple ceremonies are nothing like these at all. A couple sites I found attempted to find similarities between the Masons and the Mormons. But they were following that old, old hokum logic that "If one thing resembles an older thing, it must be a copy."
Like for example, the aprons. Mormons wear an apron in the temple, and so do Masons. Therefore, the Mormon apron idea must be copied from the Masons, right? The fact that Mormon aprons have a totally different design to Masonic ones, of course, isn't mentioned. And Jews, who follow a much older religion than the Masons, also wear aprons in their ceremonies. But if they did, everyone would realize how foolish and pea-brained their arguments are!
Hey, every housewife, chef and shoe-repair man in America wears an apron, and nobody thinks that's significant!
I found one site that showed photographs of Masonic aprons. Anyone who knows what a Mormon apron looks like will be able to assure you that these are nothing like Mormon aprons -- except that they're square. You're going to need a heck of a lot more than that to convince me they're copied! http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/masonic_aprons_table_of_contents.htm
For the generic symbols, any similarity is explained by this other site that I came across.: http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Similarities_between_Masonic_and_Mormon_Temple_Ritual.html
I'm glad I did this, tedious though the exercise was. It has convinced me, yet again, that all anti-Mormons are full of crap. Can you all do me a favor? Next time somebody tells you that LDS temple ceremonies are similar to Masonic ones, tell them to go get a life!
tbm
It was interesting that you took the trouble to post all the "masonic" web-sites you investigated but did not give any corresponding references to LDS sites. Is this an oversight or a willful intention to circumvent the real issue here? You looked at some of masonrys rituals and the meanings of some of the items they use in their rituals but, where does mormon get the all seeing eye and the hand-clasp depicted on many of your buildings etc. Incidently, the masonic apron is not square, nor is it rectangular. You need to do a little further investigation, and to be fair, give as many references for mormon ritual as you do for masonic ritual.
I noted that you want us to believe your take on the comparison or mormons and masons as being truth. Why should your word be the final say? I don't think your deductions would be considered by any observant person as being un-biased.
Some interesting items from one of the web-sites re. CJCLDS
1st. 5 presidents of LDS were all Master Masons: Joseph Smith; Brigham Young; John Taylor; Wilford Woodruff; Loranzo Snow. Also, Joseph Smith, Sr. and Hyrum Smith were also Master Masons.
On July 24, 1847 A group of Brigham Young's closest associates, all master masons, led their followers into the Salt Lake Valley. As of that date the Mormon heiarchy was largly comprised of masons.
The use of the Rule, Square, Compass, Secret Ritualistic handclasps, all adopted from masonic ritual, were adopted by the mormon leadership with little or no alteration.
No more than 10% of the members of the LDS qualify for temple recommends.
Rituals include Baptism for the Dead; Washing and Annointing for the Living and the Dead and Wedding Ceremonies are performed in the temple.
The temple is not intended for common worship, but only for the performance of ritualistic ceremonies, passing on of secret oaths and performing secret ceremonies.
Weddings are also performed in the temple a part of which is re-creation of the fall-of-man. The participants wear fig-leaf aprons.
From what I can comprehend from the Masonic rituals, posted on similar web-sites, there seems to be a definate reason to compare morman ritual to that of masonry. The similarities are too striking to believe that one is not borrowed from the other. Modern freemasonry sprang from the building of the gigantic cathedreals in Europe during the middle ages up to the reformation. The LDS can be traced to Joseph Smith in 1830. You can determine which pre-dates the other.
It was interesting that you took the trouble to post all the "masonic" web-sites you investigated but did not give any corresponding references to LDS sites. Is this an oversight or a willful intention to circumvent the real issue
I've been endowed, been married in the temple, and I've performed ordinances for the dead probably hundreds of times during the last fifteen years. Do you honestly think those sites have anything to tell me? Is that what you think? How much do you think I don't know about LDS temple ordinances, having performed them for fifteen years?
5 presidents of LDS were all Master Masons ... the Mormon heiarchy was largly comprised of masons
How do you know? Because the author of your website told you so? He's full of crap. Read on, and I will show you why ...
The use of the Rule, Square, Compass, Secret Ritualistic handclasps, all adopted from masonic ritual, were adopted by the mormon leadership with little or no alteration.
The Rule doesn't feature in LDS temple ceremonies, so that's your author's first inaccuracy. The Square and Compass carry different symbolism among the LDS than among the Masons.
Joseph Smith organized a huge amount of construction in his time, and squares and compasses are fundamental tools to building. Even if he is convinced that Joseph Smith was a fraud, your author still cannot legitimately say that he got the idea from the Masons. Just because two things are similar doesn't mean they're copied! The inspiration may have been simply drawn from the activities of the construction teams that surrounded Joseph Smith constantly for fourteen years.
No more than 10% of the members of the LDS qualify for temple recommends.
I can't imagine where your author got that figure from. I'm an Elders' Quorum President, and I don't know what percentage of the church's membership holds temple recommends!
To qualify for a temple recommend, all one needs to do is answer a handful of questions. Those are all along the lines of "Do you live the Word of Wisdom?" "Do you strive to attend all your church meetings?" "Do you believe in Christ?" "Do you sustain and uphold your church leaders?" And the applicant is trusted to speak honestly. If he wishes to lie, that's his problem. So if really only 10% of Mormons hold temple recommends, it's probably got more to do with their eagerness to be completely honest. It's certainly not because they're being kept out!
passing on of secret oaths and performing secret ceremonies
They're not secret, they're sacred. You know "sacred"? It's what nothing is to an anti-Mormon. Temple ordinances are so holy, it is blasphemy to describe them outside the temple walls. Which is why I won't do it here. My wife and I don't even discuss them between ourselves outside the temple. They are certainly not to be minutely discussed with the general public: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6
Weddings are also performed in the temple a part of which is re-creation of the fall-of-man.
No, it isn't. The Fall of Man has nothing whatever to do with temple weddings. I promise. I was married in the temple. And the author of your website clearly wasn't.
Like I said above, all anti-Mormons are full of crap. But hey, we all enjoy a bit of fiction. My favorite author is John Grisham. Have you tried any of his fiction?
TBM= True Blue Mormon?
or is TBM= Truly Bummed Mason?
Just a fictional question from a full of crap anti-mormon.
tbm
Are you a mason? I thought you stated that you were not. I only ask because you went to lengths above to show how one that is not a mormon cannot know what is in the temple ordinances and one that left the mormons would probably not give an accurate statement of the ordinances anyway. You must give the same for the masons. Then you proceed to use the same type of site on the internet to argue your points about the differences between mormon temple ceremonies and the masonic signs and symbols that you previously said could not be valid. What gives? You stated you have your testimony and if that is all you have to stand on, why don't you stand on it and not grasp at all these straws to support it. At least be consistent in your supporting arguement. There are details that you are using to describe masonry that are as wrong as the details that others are using to describe mormonism. I don't completely disagree with the content of your arguement but inconsistency does not help our cause.
Who was it who said "methinks thou protesteth too much?"
I don't see Masons coming apart at the seams to denounce that Joseph Smith et. al. named were masons. The distaste can run both directions TBM.
It appears that you got caught with your mammary gland caught in a wringer, or, maybe caught with your pants down in a place you were not supposed to be!
p.s.
Fiction is fiction, truth is truth. I suspect that there is a bit of truth in fiction. And from reading the history of the mormons, from as many as a dozen sources, who all tend to agree upon the basics, I am thoroughly convinced that there is a tremendous amount of fiction in mormanism which you have adopted and proclaim as truth.
I posted this in the wrong forum:
question
Didn't the prophet Joseph Smith state 'Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed'
Now to my question. If 'the lords ordinances' are 'eternal' and are NEVER to be changed - then why have they changed?
For instance - no naked touching through the side slits in the garments anymore - probably a great relief, but more to the point - A CHANGE.
And, the 'penalties' no throat slashing and disembowelment. Another toss of a morbid ritual which is probably a relief, but definately A CHANGE.
I'm certain one could argue that they were small changes, and didn't change the content of the cerimony at all.
I'll beg to differ - the naked touching through the exposed side slits is HUGE. If you didn't need to touch the naked body - why was it ever done in the first place?
And the threats of death via disembowelment and throat slashing don't seem trivial in the least.
There are others, and originally this post was longer - but I began to stray from my original question...which is -
Joseph stated no changes, yet, changes to the age old rituals are being changed.
What say you?
being made (not being changed)
If 'the lords ordinances' are 'eternal' and are NEVER to be changed - then why have they changed?
I'll quote fairlds.org, since they explain it probably more clearly than I can: "What Mr. Norton refers to are the penalties (hand actions representing penalties) that were removed from the endowment ritual in 1990. Mr. Norton seems unaware that the endowment ritual has undergone many changes over the years. The ritual is changed to meet the needs of members and to better communicate the endowment to them. Remember, there is a difference between the endowment ritual and the endowment itself. The ritual is not the endowment, but how the endowment is taught--in much the same way that the Catholic Mass is not Holy Communion but how Holy Communion is given to the congregation"
Who was it who said "methinks thou protesteth too much?"
Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much". But who's protesting? I'm just pointing out the weaknesses, falsehoods and non-sequiturs of your contentions.
you proceed to use the same type of site on the internet to argue your points about the differences between mormon temple ceremonies and the masonic signs and symbols that you previously said could not be valid. What gives? You stated you have your testimony and if that is all you have to stand on, why don't you stand on it and not grasp at all these straws to support it.
I'm responding to the questions of others. They quote those sorts of sites; therefore, I refer to them in my answer. And my testimony is what makes me stick with this incresingly ridiculous argument. But what would be the point of my saying, over and over, "I know the church is true"? If I'm not going to operate on common ground, I might as well do this in a foreign language.
As for clutching at straws, howcome the best response yet to any of my answers has been "I'M NOT LISTENING! I'M NOT LISTENING! NANANANANANANANANANANANNANANANANANANANA"
Who was it who said "methinks thou protesteth too much?"
I just realized who you are! You're the one that was asking why I didn't look at any anti-Mormon websites, implying that I must be scared of what I'll find out, right? It's kind of difficult to keep track when everyone posts anonymously.
Anyway, here's the answer:
a) I've seen plenty of anti-Mormon stuff in the past
b) I'm quite capable of seeing similarities just by looking at an anti-masonic website
c) I don't find them thrilling. In fact, I'd sooner do the laundry.
d) Anytime I want to listen to whining and snivelling about how horrible and unfair we all are, I can always send the kids to bed early.
TBM - you didn't address the naked touching - that IS part of the ritual.
Sorry Atar, I don't think there's any way I can answer that without revealing details about the temple ceremonies. Sorry.
I can help you out, I have some pretty intricate details (I can spill if you need me to) but I'll just talk about the basics of the cerimony. The one that I'm speaking of is the marriage cerimony. Where a female touches the ladies breasts, and other areas from the other side of the curtain through the side slits in the brides white gown, while making certain statements.
That is PART of the cerimony - can you address this change?
Sorry atar. I'm not breaking my vows however much you lead me on :) But, being a man, I have nothing to do with the womens' ceremonies, and I don't know enough about them to be able to answer that one anyway. I don't think my wife ever had a problem with any aspect of the temple ordinances. Generally, temple ordinances are a lot less dramatic than the ax-grinding covenant breakers make them out to be.
I well tell you nothing that is not common knowledge relating Endowment ceremonies and Masonic ceremonies.
All of the tokens (handshakes), NOTE: I said ALL are the same. The pass words are different. The penalties were the same in both orders in the 1984 practices but were removed in later revisions.
The dramatization of the 'Creation' and 'the fall of man' is a hoax, unsupported by Hebrew tradition or the earliest written works of Moses, the Pentatuch. Moses' law was in common practice among Hebrews, and Christians thousands of years before Joseph Smith found his first seer stone. Jesus said, "I came not to do away with the law but to fulfill it." Jesus intent was for mankind to accept Jesus truth, experience a change of heart and therefore no longer be under the curse of the law, but under grace, as were all individuals from Adam until Moses.
Jesus restored grace by the sacrifice of himself, all GOD, all man. Only HE could be the acceptable sacrifice for mankind's sin. Sin separates man from GOD. This separation is man's choice, not GOD's. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ made GOD's Grace available to all who believe. What must they believe? 1. That they are a sinner, 2. Jesus died for their sin, 3. ask forgivness for their sin, 4. ask Jesus to be your Savior, Lord and King, 5. believe that only HE can save you.
The introduction of Lucifer and the use of the Sectarian Minister amounts to a subtle attempt to lead anyone who doesn't follow along with LDS beliefs to put all Christian people outside LDS and permanently brand them as diciples of Lucifer, (Satan-The Devil).
A denomination that uses the name of Jesus Christ as a part of it's name and then denies the saving atonement of Christ's death on the cross is a denomination of demonic liars and their unsuspecting victims.
Adding the Name of "Jesus Christ" to 'Latter Day Saints' was an attempt to legitamize Smith, Cowdry, Young, Kimbell, etc's" man made, man accountable, system of mental and emotional slavery.
A Masonic Diciple of Jesus Christ
Wow, ALL the rituals are the same - coincidence? (I suppose if you still believe in the tooth fairy it's conceivable).
Anon 4:27
Have you then been through the rituals in both the Masonic order and the LDS ceremony?
"Common knowledge"!!!!! What the heck is that supposed to mean??? It's common knowledge that George W. Bush is the president. Are you suggesting that there's huge numbers of people all over the world with well-founded understanding of the Masonic and LDS temple ceremonies? That's incredible! I've seen some pretty amazing crap written on this board, but that is nothing short of stellar!
Or is it just "common knowledge" among the kind of websites that claim Mormonism "denies the saving atonement of Christ's death on the cross," which you clearly have been reading rather a lot of. (I don't know where that one comes from, but I guess it indicates that anti-Mormon websites are *ahem* copied from each other. It certainly doesn't come from original research!)
All of the tokens (handshakes), NOTE: I said ALL are the same.
Is that "the same" like the Book of Mormon is "the same" as the Spalding Manuscript? If so, I'm not worried. In fact, my general experience of those kinds of claims is that they're so contrived, overblown and sensationalized, that I'd be happy to bet money, quite a lot of money, that you're dead wrong. And I'd call it an investment.
The dramatization of the 'Creation' and 'the fall of man' is a hoax, unsupported by Hebrew tradition or the earliest written works of Moses
Nobody ever suggested they were so supported. If it were contained in scripture, there wouldn't have been any need for the Lord to reveal it to a prophet like Joseph Smith. Duh!
Jesus said, "I came not to do away with the law but to fulfill it."
As a Mormon, I agree with you 100%.
The introduction of Lucifer and the use of the Sectarian Minister amounts to a subtle attempt to lead anyone who doesn't follow along with LDS beliefs ...
How is that possible when "anyone who doesn't follow along with LDS beliefs" isn't admitted into the temple, and thus would never see it?
Smith, Cowdry, Young, Kimbell,
A word of advice; if you're going to bash the Mormons, make sure you get their most famous names right. Otherwise, you look ignorant.
Read the reported last words of Joseph Smith, just before he fell to his death in Carthage, Mo. Become familiar with those words before you proceed with the reading of this answer to tbm's critique of the post of A Masonic Diciple of Jesus Christ.
1. Masons become Masons, one at a time, not in a mass class of candidates for endowments.
2. Masons are not inducted into Masonry via watching film or video tape.
3. Masons are not represented at the altar by a "witness (couple or anything else) but as themself, singularly, in person"
4. The tokens are in sequence, in the same order, and use the exact same grips in both ceremonies. Requests for obtaining the token form the candidate are very similar.
5. Masons do not use a 'New Name', given to them individually in the preceeding ceremony, that is all names being the same for any entrant during that particular day.
(for instance, it the candidates in that particular group, on that particular day, the same name is given to every single candidate.) Tomorrow, the name will be changed, but the name is still the same for everyone going throuugh the rituals on that particular day. If on the first day the name is John, every participant is named John. If on the second day the name is Isaac then all are Isaac on the second day.
6. Obligations and oaths are not taken collectivly by Masons.
7. Pleas are repeated thrice by both mormons and Masons.
8. Second name given is generally the given name of the candidate, i.e. George, Hyrum, Kathleen etc. Not the same in Masonry.
9. Again, obligations and oaths are not taken or received collectivly, but individually.
10. Adorning of clothing for particular events are similar in mormanism and Masonry.
11. The first two obligations, oaths and tokens related to the Aaronic Priesthood and correspond, in many similarities to the Entered Apprentace, and Fellowcraft degrees in Masonry.
12. Tokens of Melchizedek, or (WORD = Sign of the Nail), is similar to those of the Master Mason, which I shall not reveal, confirm nor deny if challenged.
13. Token of the Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail, and the five points of fellowship can have no other origin than that of the Master Mason. I will not make further comment upon this. This word, only uttered upon the Five Points of Fellowship is given only through the Veil. "Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews, power in the Priesthood be upon me, and upon my posterity through all generations of time, and throughout all eternity."
This is followed by three taps of the gavel and a request to enter the presence of the Lord.
Anyone knowing the work of the masonic lodge who reads the text of the temple ritual of Endowmnet, observes, or who is aware of the signs, symbols and tokens can see the great and not circumstantial evidence of the fact that these temple ceremonies are repetative of and plagerized from Masonic rites. The similarities are not coincidental. Not unlike the LDS, Masonic lodges keep records of membership.
14. Finally, Compare the signs and utterance of Joseph Smith, at the time of his death in Carthage, Ill. I believe that this particular part of the mormon ceremony, with the exception of the words of the cry, are indicative that Pay Lay Ale was not added to the ritual until AFTER the death of Smith. If this presumption is not true, why did not Smith use the phrase Pay Lay Ale, Pay Lay Ale, Pay Lay Ale after he had killed two of those who were coming through the doorway, and wounding the third, who then was shot as he stood in the window of an unguarded second floor jail cell. Prior to his fatality he uttered a Masonic cry.
A Masonic Diciple of Christ
For the most part, your post seems like a lot of effort spent in the achievement of nothing much. Up to point 10, I was wondering what your point was. What is "Pleas are repeated thrice by both mormons and Masons" supposed to prove, exactly?
Anyway, on to Joseph Smith's final utterance. Which version are you refering to? "Oh Lord, my God"? I don't see anything especially significant about that. My work colleagues say stuff like that several times a day, but they're neither Mormons nor Masons, so far as I know. In fact, I might well say the exact same thing if somebody shot me.
Or is it, "Is there no help for a widow's son"? Well, let's think about this one, shall we? Let's say you were in the middle of a gunfight. You're in a tiny cramped room, outnumbered about 200 - 4. You have, between the four of you, a single shot pistol and a six-shooter. Against you are a couple of hundred muskets and rifles, all firing simultaneously, deafeningly, plus a variety of handguns, swords, clubs and various other weapons. The room is full of thick, choking smoke. You are deaf, can see nothing, barely breathe, but you have just seen your brother blown away, and one of your closest associates shot to pieces. Bullets are flying around you. You know you have seconds to live. You have just been shot three times in the back and once in the chest, and are in the process of falling out of a second-floor window. Onto the fixed bayonets of an entire militia, who are also firing at you.
What would you say? Would it be "Is there no help for a widow's son"? Or would it be "AAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHH"?
I believe that this particular part of the mormon ceremony, with the exception of the words of the cry, are indicative that Pay Lay Ale was not added to the ritual until AFTER the death of Smith
What are you talking about? Joseph Smith's death has no part of the LDS temple ceremony. And given that he was in the middle of a gunfight, I really doubt he was taking the time to conduct ceremonies of any kind.
For that matter, I also doubt anyone present was taking much notice. Somehow, I just can't picture people involved in gunfights taking time out to analyze the behavior of their opponents.
If this presumption is not true, why did not Smith use the phrase Pay Lay Ale, Pay Lay Ale, Pay Lay Ale after he had killed two of those who were coming through the doorway
Umm, why would he? How do you get the idea that, while defending himself and his companions from a lynch mob, he was busy conducting some sort of temple ceremony?
What do you think a gunfight would be like? A ballet? Or a frenzied, terrifying slaughter that lasts a few seconds?
Joseph Smith, just before he fell to his death in Carthage, Mo
By the way, Carthage is in Illinois.
They don't teach geography to A Masonic Diciple of Jesus Christ? Tragic, I'd say.
PB
in #14. I reported the site of Joseph Smith's death as Carthage, Ill. the Mo. was a typo. You didn't comment that #14 said Ill. Did you read the post?
Put the two halves together and your answer will appear.
Why was Joseph Smith armed? He was, after all in jail? Looks like a set up to me! Maybe Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdry, Sidney Rigdon etc. etc. etc. made sure that those in jail were armed to ensure that they would all meet immediate death before they could could be hung and/or reveal the real truth about the golden plates Taylor made it out with only a wound. Maybe the set-up was his idea. Who among the saints had most to gain from Smith's death?
Maybe some of the faithful found out Smith was a liar of note, or was fooling around with his wife or daughter and decided to put an end to Smith's career for just cause. Normal folks, who respect their friends, don't go around diddling with wives and children.
You know more about Pay Lay Ale than I. It might be Pay Day Ale, or Frito-Lay Ale, or Pepsi Ale for all I care. The point here is that Smith did not use "Pay Lay Ale", instead he used the Masonic question. No one but a Master Mason would know the reason for his exclamation nor under what circumstance it would be used. Therefore, I conclude that the term Pay Lay Ale was not concocted until after Smith's death.
If Joseph Smith did not have a part in conjuring up the mormon temple ceremonies, why was a temple built in Nauvoo? Wasn't Smith the grand Poo-Bah, all seeing eye, giver of gifts, wizard of wizards, great seer and prophet of LDS at the time of his death?
Your Salth Masonic Irritant aka AMDC
"Why was Joseph Smith armed? He was, after all in jail?"
Since this was the old West, it might be more relevant to ask why they were so lightly armed! The single-shot pistol was a tiny, Derringer-type pepperbox pistol carried by John Taylor, and which seems to have been missed by the jailor during his initial search. The six-shooter was given to Joseph Smith by a visitor, Cyrus Wheelock, who visited them in the jail. That the Smiths were in deadly danger was clear to just about everybody except Thomas Ford, the state governor. But so far as I'm aware, Cyrus Wheelock had no significant connection with Brigham Young, who was still a relatively minor figure in the church, and in any case, was in Vermont at the time.
Sidney Rigdon was in Pennsylvania.
Oliver Cowdery (please note the correct spelling for future reference) had been excommunicated six years earlier, and was living in Ohio.
Regarding the charges the Smiths were held on, these were unconstitutional, as Thomas Ford (who had been a judge on the Illinois supreme court before running for governor) was well aware. The Smiths and a number of others had been arrested on charges of riot (although the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor was hardly that) by the Carthage constable, but released by the judge. Most of the Mormons returned to Nauvoo immediately, but the Smiths stayed on to conference with Thomas Ford. While they were talking, the constable showed up again to detain the Smiths for treason. This he had no right to do, since the court hearing had not even mentioned the word.
But ... this was the Western frontier, where the law rarely amounted to much more than a convenient excuse for thuggery. Thomas Ford could have intervened and used his gubernatorial power to release the Smiths. But there was a strong possibility that a mini civil war might erupt, as had happened in Missouri six years earlier, and he hoped that the populace would remain calm as long as the Smiths were in custody.
Regarding the actual accusation of treason, Thomas Ford later wrote in his memoirs, "if those opponents merely intended to use the process of the law, the militia of the state, and the posse comitatus as cat's-paws to compass the possession of their persons for the purpose of murdering them afterward, as the sequel demonstrated the fact to be, it might well be doubted whether they were guilty of treason" (Italics added for emphasis).
"Maybe some of the faithful found out Smith was a liar of note, or was fooling around with his wife or daughter and decided to put an end to Smith's career"
For once, you're half-right. The murder occured as an indirect result of the Nauvoo city council's suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper founded by people opposed to Joseph Smith's doctrines on polygamy. But I think the greatest testament to Joseph Smith's character, and one which is surprisingly little referred to, is the feelings of his individual followers.
Most people can figure out a fraud with time. Liars rarely get away with it for long. But tens of thousands of people, for years on end, would do anything Joseph Smith asked, would fight to protect him, almost worshipped the ground he walked on, and really loved him! When his body was returned to Nauvoo, almost the entire city's population lined the route from several miles outside the city limits right up to his front door, and howled as his casket passed. Almost the entire city attended his lying in state and his funeral. That's not how people react to a liar. That's the behavior of people who are completely, totally convinced, beyond any doubt.
"Taylor made it out with only a wound. Maybe the set-up was his idea."
He was shot in the thigh, the knee and the wrist. A bullet would have struck his chest, but was stopped by his pocket watch. Finally, another round bounced through his thigh, ripping off a slab of meat and splattering it across the floor and walls of the room. His injuries were so severe that he could not be moved and remained in Carthage for several weeks after the murder.
So, sorry, but I don't think your theory of a set-up holds water. You'd be better off claiming it was all down to Willard Richards, who was unharmed (I think he was probably hiding behind the door).
The idea that somebody can arrange to have himself shot to deflect suspicion, popular though it might be in Hollywood, really is not practical. If you did, there's a very strong likelihood that you would end up dead anyway. The reason that guns are such a popular killing tool is because they do it very well!
You seem to have rather a romantic concept of gunfights and guns in general. Do you know what a bullet does when it enters your body? Especially low-velocity bullets such as were used in the early nineteenth century? Once in the body, bones and the packed meat mass slows the bullet down and causes it to diverge from its course. Thus the bullet does not drill a straight hole through your body, but bounces around inside you, pulping your vital organs and severing your major blood vessels. If a bullet enters a supposedly harmless part of your body, like your arm, for instance, that's no guarantee that it won't finish up in your liver!
The scene from all the John Wayne movies, where a saw-bones sticks a pair of tweezers into the wound, and pulls a bullet out from just under the skin, is a total crock. It doesn't happen that way.
"If Joseph Smith did not have a part in conjuring up the mormon temple ceremonies, why was a temple built in Nauvoo? Wasn't Smith the grand Poo-Bah, all seeing eye, giver of gifts, wizard of wizards, great seer and prophet of LDS at the time of his death? "
Yes he was. What's your point? My last post said that Joseph Smith would hardly be conducting a temple ceremony at the time he was being lynched and brutally murdered!!!!
You really are convinced that this question is irrefutable proof, aren't you? But there's a couple of things you haven't considered:
1) The endowment cermony is not the endowment. Any more than a marriage ceremony is the marriage itself, or (in the Roman Catholic church) the mass is the Holy Communion. It is the means whereby the endowment is conveyed. And yes, the temple ceremonies, and even the whole purpose of temples, have been changed, to communicate better with changing cultural values, a number of times since the 1830's. Nobody denies that, whatever the anti-Mormon websites like to pretend.
2) Joseph Smith was in a jail at the time of his murder, not a temple!
3) Temple ceremonies have no relevance or bearing of any kind whatever upon Joseph Smith's murder, and I cannot comprehend where on earth you ever got the idea that they do.
I've noticed from your posts that, in common with most conspiracy theorists, you conduct your arguments largely by leaving unanswered questions hanging. An implication, however heavy, is not proof. Why don't you try investigating, looking at the evidence on both sides (there's a wealth of websites, some of them very good, to start you off), comparing and contrasting it, and reaching some informed conclusions?
fooling around with his wife or daughter and decided to put an end to Smith's career for just cause
Hey, Diciple! You think it's okay to lynch a man and kill him for screwing your daughter? Where are you from? Mississippi?
TBM
Your eforts to give credit to the super dooper pooper scooper's being armed, while being held in the Carthage, Ill. jail have not been justified.
Whether Cowdrey had been ex-communicated or not is not the issue here. Cowdrey was one of the first of those to jump on Smith's bandwagon. It was he who put up the money thus enabling Smith to publish the first edition of the Book of Mormon, with all it's, 'and it came to pass', etc. bloopers. Smith owed his success largly to Cowdrey's money.
As to the question of Smith being held for inducing a riot, there is sufficient evidence in various historical records of the time that place the blame of inciting to riot squarly upon Smith's shoulders. The Smiths, Taylor etc. were being held for a "show cause" hearing." They would have been arrested, placed in jail awaiting a magistrate to come, determine if the arresting officer believed that there was reasonable evidence available that would determine that a crime had been committed, and to set bond. If this is the case the incaration is perfectly legal. In the second place, they were, in all probability, Smith & co. were being held in Protective Custody, at the order of the governor. Fron historical sources I understand that the citizens were livid that Smith was able to flagerently disregard the first amendment of the Constitution and thus destroy freedom of the press at his own will. If "Protective Custody" is the reason for Smith being in jail, this is perfectly legal also. Thirdly, if the governor, or a judge determined that Smith's actions were presumptious enough to result in Civil unrest, the precaution to avoid a Civil War by protecting Smith was also justified.
The question still is: Why were there not adequate armed guards surrounding the jail to prevent mob action, why was the door to the jail cell unlocked, and why and how did Smith obtain firearms? Why was he armed?
The possibility of Treason would also warrant Smith being held until a magistrate could set bail. Treason, destruction of private property, flagerant thumbing one's nose at a first amendment right and murder are all considered to be felonies, not mis-demeanor acts.
Mass actions of any people is largly related to leadership. Had Adolph Hitler died during the period of 1933-1940, he would have been honored with a state funeral so grand and pompous that Smith's passing would have been considered as a non event, by comparison.
As far as wounds inflicted by muskets and large caliber rifles; I attempt to be a student of 19th century warfare and it's aftermath, so I am fully aware of the damage that may be caused by one single bullet.
My being a conspiracy theorist!!! I just enjoy the extreme flack and steam that arises from you folks as you attempt to put me in my place and refute anything I have to say concerning mormanism and it's obvious weaknesses. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! You laugh at me, I laugh right back at you!
In any case, it is obvious that many citizens from the Nauvoo area were more than fed up with Smith's antics. His high-handed destruction of the Newspaper at Nauvoo, "The Expositor" was just the last straw. Enough was more than enough. Political powers could not, or would not hear THEIR grievances so, they decided to handle the matter locally. To them Smith's death amounted to disposal of a tyrant.
Now, lets really get to the heart of your opposition to my exposure. You have an Achilles heel. He happened to be one of the Smith Bros., not associated with a brand of cough drops. I believe him to have been a fraud from before the time of his supposed finding of the plates. His history leading up to that time is comparible to any petty crook. His demeanor never changed. He, firmly believing himself to be bigger than life, thus brought upon himself his own destruction. It's just so sad that so many gullible people have continued to follow his warped illogical, mythological and errant teaching.
Do you now agree that a big part of mormon ritual is based upon Masonry?
Your salty Masonic irritant aka AMDC
"Cowdrey ... put up the money thus enabling Smith to publish the first edition of the Book of Mormon"
Martin Harris funded the Book of Mormon's publication. You might want to check your sources' accuracy.
"The Smiths, Taylor etc. were being held for a "show cause" hearing"
No, they weren't. And Taylor was not under arrest for anything. He volunteered to stay in the jail with his prophet.
"They would have been arrested, placed in jail awaiting a magistrate to come"
The magistrate had been and gone. Their preliminary hearing had been held 25th June, 1844. The Justice of the Peace, Robert Smith (no relation to the prophet) had ordered them to appear before the next term of the circuit court and released them on a $500 bail.
Thus the Smiths were free to go home, and the constable had no business detaining them after a judge had just set them free. But he did anyway, and a second hearing was held June 26th, for treason, at which Judge Robert Smith declared that treason was a non-bailable offense and ordered them to remain in custody until a further hearing to be held June 29th. But ... Judge Smith had already ordered them released! For a judge to conduct a second hearing, on the same warrant, after he'd just freed the defendant, is unconstitutional, especially when it's for a different crime to that for which the warrant was issued.
Joseph Smith was murdered June 27th.
"In the second place, they were, in all probability, Smith & co. were being held in Protective Custody, at the order of the governor"
Why do you insist on speculating so much? You know, the Smiths' murders have been thoroughly researched and investigated. The answers are out there, if you bother to look them up. The Smiths were being held neither in protective custody, nor at the governor's order. In any case, the Smiths would have been far safer in Nauvoo than in Carthage.
"From historical sources I understand that the citizens were livid that Smith was able to flagerently disregard the first amendment of the Constitution and thus destroy freedom of the press at his own will"
What "historical" sources are those? Press burning happened constantly on the frontier. Down by the Mason-Dixon Line, abolitionist presses went up in flames on a weekly basis. In Illinois, a dozen presses had been burned during the previous decade, and none of these had raised the ire of the people. The Rule of Law was extremely tenuous in western Illinois at the time, and most people didn't give two bits for people's Constitutional rights. Even the owners of the Expositor based their complaints on destruction of private property, not suppression of their freedom of expression. The whole "civil rights" argument wasn't even mentioned until some years after the Smiths' murder. Read http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/artindex.htm. This is an impartial historical resource, publishing newspaper articles concerning Joseph Smith during his lifetime. Have a look at the articles from June 1844 and see how many of them mention Constitutional rights.
"if the governor, or a judge determined that Smith's actions were presumptious enough to result in Civil unrest, the precaution to avoid a Civil War by protecting Smith was also justified"
Throughout the entire process, this was never mentioned as a reason to imprison the Smiths.
"The question still is: Why were there not adequate armed guards surrounding the jail to prevent mob action, why was the door to the jail cell unlocked"
Based on your earlier comments, I assume you think this is evidence of a Mormon conspiracy to have the Smiths eliminated? The Mormons had no control of the Carthage jail. So, why don't you have a read around, and figure out an answer for yourself? There was, in fact, a very large armed guard placed on the Carthage jail. Who were they, and why do you think they might not have protected the Smiths from the mob?
"why and how did Smith obtain firearms?"
I already answered that one in my previous post.
"It's just so sad that so many gullible people have continued to follow his warped illogical, mythological and errant teaching"
Gullible? Orrin Hatch, Utah senator? Mitt Romney, governor of Massachussets, former chairman of the 2002 Olympic Committee, and probable presidential candidate? Harry Reid, US Senate Majority Leader? Mike Leavitt, President Bush's Secretary of Health, Senators of Utah, Nevada, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Florida, Oregon, and Chihuahua? numerous congressmen from most of the states? Terry Rooney, member of the British Parliament? Grant Hill, member of the Canadian Parliament? the presidents or CEO's of Black & Decker, Central Pacific Bank, SkyWest Airlines, Fisher-Price, La Quinta, Franklin Covey, American Express, JetBlue Airways, Novell, Deloitte & Touche, Dell Computer Corporation, Allied Mills, Lufthansa (state airline of Germany), Eastman Kodak, Huntsman Chemical, Sutter Health, Albertson's, NuSkin, House of Fabrics, Marriot International? And the list goes on, and very much on, but I think I made my point.
Oh, by the way, I'm a computer consultant, and my wife has a master's degree in psychotherapy. I don't think we qualify as gullible either.
"Do you now agree that a big part of mormon ritual is based upon Masonry?"
No. I don't see what that has to do with any of your post. Perhaps if you stopped speculating and posing hanging questions, but instead just said what you're trying to say, things would be clearer. But then you'd actually have to justify your arguments with a shred of evidence, wouldn't you?
None are so blind as those who will not see. Repeated documented references reputing the authenticity of mormon tradition, ritual and even concept have been the result of continous research and publication. Yet, your posts don't find error in my preumptions they simply attempt to refute them as false based upon your own habitual defense of mormon teaching. Volumes of information have been offered and yet, if your understanding is presumed to the the final authority, all research finding Smith to be a charaltan, liar, not a Mason, did not cheat on his wife, was not a philanderer, drunk, or a palagerist to infinity is false. Who is wrong? I will not recall anything I have offered and obviously you are so indoctrinated by the lies of mormonism that you wouldn't admit to the truth were it to slap you in the face.
That jews set forth in a boat from the gulf of Aquba, or Suez, sailed across the Indian, South Pacific and equatorial Pacific ocean without benefit of a sail, any other form of power, no rudder nor compass, no keel but holes in the top and bottom of the vessel to allow the passage of air, no water, no food, no map, yet settled on the western coast of the Americas, by design, established a civilization evidence of which no one, except Mormon archiological explorers can find a trace. When evidence is provided or Mormon finds are presented to noted scientific researchers it is and has been found to be false. No thought was given to hydrostatic pressure that would cause sea water to enter the boat through the two holes, to displace air until the entire supposed vessel sank and the inhabitants drowned. Or, perhaps your esteemed intellectual collegues have come up with a way to cause the gravity of sea water to take a different, undocumented twist against the laws of force and resistance to allow those dignitaries aboard to survive the trip without food or water. Perhaps Joseph Smith's purloined seer stone gave them the required information to be able to survive.
These so called Lamanites, or whatever, were supposed to have built great cities, enjoyed advanced lifestyle and yet, if indeed those individuals did live the middle east at the time of the Babylonian age, which was in the middle-iron-age, no evidence of iron age tools or implements have been found on the American Continants to support such claims. There is absolutely no genetic link between peoples of the middle east and inhabitants of these western continents.
You call yourselves the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, but nowhere in any of your churches, or in any of your literature is the sign of the cross or the saving redemption of Christ's Blood claimed as that for which it was intended, redemption of sin. You claim that you gradually work yourselves from era to era, planet, to planet, life to life proclaiming that YOU are as GOD once was, yet outside of your dogma you have no proof.
If a doctrine is found to be flimsy, your great president, the disciples, the seventy all, at their own will, change that which has been previously proclaimed by your cult as the word of god is falsehood. Changes in god's law are not only flaunted by encouraged. Your God is not god. He is of your own creation, in the mind of your faulted founder and coharts. You claim that god is of flesh and bone, as you yourselves are. This makes you co-equal with your god therefore you are only responsible to those to whom you favor with power, men like yourself. Lick the bootstrap, gain favor with your stake or ward chief, gain recommendation to the temple, go through the empty ceremonies celebrated therein. If I don't like the rules, tomorrow, I'll be in a position to change them to fit my own ideas.
My whole purpose for coming on to this blog was to reveal that mormon temple ritual gained it's roots in masonry. Proof has been provided. Those who know mormonism ritual recognize the similarities, those who are Masons certainly do. Scholars knowing both admit to similarities, beyond just circumstance. One or two similarities perhaps, by chance there is no connection but, when the similarities compound time and time again there is no reason to disclaim. The proof is obvious.
Shall I make a list of the thousands upon thousands of Theological, Philosophical, Scientific, Archiological, Genetic Study Experts who, like me and millions of others fully and firmly believe that mormonism is a pack of lies, the great harlot saying to an unknowing world, "Come, and get drunk with me upon the blood of innocents."
You've confused the stories of the Nephites and the Jaredites, both of which are no more improbable than Noah. Beware of mocking scripture. There is no evidence outside the Bible that Moses, or for that matter Jesus, ever existed.
I'm tired of this argument. What you've proved is how very little you know of Mormonism. I have tried to enlighten you, but it's clear you're not even reading my responses to your posts, so there's no point my writing them -- even for the benefit of other readers, since I'm quite certain they all got bored and quit the thread some time ago. Continuing is simply going to provoke contention, something Mormons are commanded to avoid. You will, of course, cast this is proof that I have no response to the devasting brilliance of your arguments. But when you start being willfully offensive, calling us "great harlot" and so on, I really am inclined to leave you to it.
Do masonic rituals have "and it will come to pass..." in them?
tbm, I get the impression from what Ive read that the Kirtland temple and the activities associated with it were veary different from the navoo temple and those that came later. if Im not mistaken, wasent it in far west that the brethern entered into freemasonery? please enlighten me.
uncaduff
tbm
By the same token, you've proven that you are totally closed to believing information provided unto you by individuals who have read your temple rituals available on the internet for anyone to read. A Mason can read and compare and know beyond doubt that the ceremony is laced with Masonic reference and actions.
Don't mock scripture!!!!!! The whole book of mormon, D&C, pearl, Abraham & Moses are a figments of one man's imagination and the epitome of mockery. At least the Bible was recorded by many HOLY men over many years who, having learned of the living GOD spoke with and of HIM with reverence and awe. Not a one, met GOD face to face. Abraham spoke to God, Moses only saw him from the back side. To look upon GOD in mortal flesh is instant death because GOD can not look upon SIN without destroying it. That is exactly why JESUS asked, while upon the cross, My GOD, My GOD, why have you forsaken me? Had GOD continued to look favorably upon JESUS, he, JESUS could not have born the sin of the world. GOD had to turn his back upon JESUS so the reality of his human side could suffer death upon the cross and in doing so bear all the sins of all minkind forever.
Joseph Smith claimed to have met both GOD & JESUS face to face. Smith was a known scoundrel. There are repeated stories of his fraud, lies and adultry. You know them as well as I so I don't need to repeat them here.
Do you for one minute believe that a HOLY GOD would meet a mere mortal face to face and that the mortal could live throgh the experience. Get a life. You need one!
AMDC
Nothing annoys you more than people who disagree with you, does it? I notice you've stepped up your rant and are now abusing not just the church, but me personally. Like I said, continuing this argument will achieve nothing beyond provoking contention, and this debate is over.
Uncaduff -- so nice to finally answer a courteous post! :-)
The Kirtland temple was used largely as a great meetinghouse. Its whole interior design is completely different from temples built since, and probably wouldn't be practical for most temple ceremonies. The ceremonies were developed later in Nauvoo. As the scriptures say, the Lord reveals His truth "line upon line, precept upon precept."
I've never heard of any Masonic lodges in Far West, but Joseph Smith spent such little time there, he hardly had the chance to get anything started. Certainly, Masonry was operating shortly after he arrived in Nauvoo. But I've heard that one has to be invited to join the Freemasons? In that case, my guess would be that he was introduced by John Cook Bennett, who was largely responsible for getting the Illinois legislature to grant Nauvoo a city charter with special and very advantageous privileges. As a result, Joseph Smith had a lot of goodwill toward him for a time -- and John Cook Bennett was certainly a Freemason.
2be1ask1
tbm
I poke fun at that which is ridiculous, far beyond that which an individual of normal intelligence would have any reason to place belief. I am sorry but it is you who has the thin skin and can't stand the heat of the kitchen. When your belief system is challenged, your prophets questioned, your dogma rebuked you have no answer except to retreat to something one of your 'thinkers' has stated as an answer???? to a valid argument. (Go to tab 9905 for a ready answer to the preceding question or challenge) Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? Oh, that's right, you're a computer whiz kid, you don't have to think for yourself, it is all prescribed as to what you are to think, when you are to think it, and how much time you are to devote to the issue. Bah! Humbug! The drain water is just as cloudy following the third rinse as it was during the first rinse. You have no substance, only a flimsy set of works, of which you are so proud. Nothing you possess can remove the stain of sin. You possess only filthy rags that will never come clean because your detergent is incapable of removing sin.
Sin removal is sole and exclusive capability of the shed blood of Jesus Christ, God Almighty. God's name in the New Testement. You and all the baptismal acts for all time, for all people, past, present and future, cannot remove your sin nor anyone elses, never, ever, forever! Only belief in the shed blood of Jesus as the redemption price paid for your sin, nothing more and certainly nothing less. Jesus Paid It ALL. It is the GIFT of GOD!
3:29
While you're at it, let attack your belief in the Savior, or else leave TBM alone. People don't like their family, religion, country, or ideals challenged, and I see no point in doing it. TBM is not out to hurt me, so why should I attack him?
"He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me [saith the Lord], but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." 3 Nephi 11:29–30
If you could at least admit the possibility that I may know something about my own religion, we could continue to have a fruitful conversation. However, if you continue to insist that anyone who disagrees with you could not possibly be a rational human being, then I can't see that any good for either of us could come from further discussion. God bless.
That's a two way street tbm. Remove the beam out of thine own eye before you attempt to remove the mote from thy brother's eye. How can imperfection judge anything?
AMDC
Post a Comment