This week: Lesson 29, “Building the Kingdom of God in Nauvoo, Illinois” (D&C 124:1–21, 87–90, 97–110; 126).
Subjects covered: Gathering to and building up Nauvoo, missionary efforts in Great Britain, the Relief Society organized.
Potential issues:
- Nauvoo city charter
- John C. Bennett
- Saints excused from building a temple in Missouri (D&C 124:49–53)
- Temple endowment and Freemasonry
- Queens to pay respect to Relief Society within ten years
If you can think of any other issues from this week’s lesson, please comment below so we can add more links.
PLEASE NOTE: This information is a preparatory resource for gospel doctrine teachers to help them formulate answers to questions that might arise during their class. It is not in any way a substitution for the Gospel Doctrine manual, nor should instructors make these topics the focus of class instruction. This information is provided with the understanding that it is an additional resource only.
Mike, I just read the article on Queens and the Relief Society.
Isn’t there a better way for FAIR to defend the Prophet’s honor than by saying that the women of the church were impure and unrighteous? This really rankles.
Ardis beat me to it. Stay classy, FAIR.
Ardis,
I think the point of the article was that some prophecies are conditional, and when a conditional prophecy isn’t fulfilled, it isn’t necessarily because it was a false prophecy.
I think you make a good point about questioning the virtue of the Relief Society sisters. I didn’t write that article, and I wasn’t happy with it when I linked it. But you’ve spurred me to do something about it. I’ll bring it up with the wiki group and see if we can change it.
I’m curious; perhaps either Ardis or Christopher could elaborate…
Why does it rankle anyone to point out that a prophecy about the Relief Society was conditional, and that if the prophecy did not come to pass then one possible reason is that the conditions inherent in that prophecy were not met?
If we only accept conditional prophecies when men are the “carriers of the condition,” then isn’t that being rather sexist?
-Allen
I think Ardis is right. The Nauvoo Relief Society deserves nothing but praise for the work it did. Emma’s disagreements with Joseph over plural marriage have nothing to do with the response the individual sisters gave to the call to serve. The wiki article unfairly blames them.
Yeesh, I hadn’t even seen that response on the wiki. So many articles so little time! It needs marked improvement. Considering that the RS was basically suspended after the martyrdom it would be difficult for queens to visit so soon.
This could be chalked up to “Joseph missed this one.” The Deuteronomy clause about a prophet speaking presumptuously. Perhaps JS expected such to occur had he not been martyred and the Saints driven from Nauvoo.
Christopher, any suggestions?
Allen, your recasting of my remark is not accurate. I do NOT object to noting that failure to keep a condition may cause a failure of a conditional promise.
This particular entry rankles because even though the above is true, it is not necessarily exclusively true — it does not follow that the impurity of the church’s women is the sole reason for the prophecy’s failure, or even that the women were impure at all — there could be other reasons, ones that don’t involve implying that Mormon women were skanks, for the prophecy’s failure. I’m asking that you consider that possibility, rather than jumping to the easy, unproven answer.
You do more harm to the cause with this implication, in my opinion, than any good you do by defending the Prophet.
Allen, the wiki basically blames the victims in that situation. The RS certainly didn’t deserve to trek across the plains due to their unrighteousness or something. They certainly didn’t ask to be somewhat disbanded for a time period.
Besides, JS didn’t totally miss this one, the RS has done some remarkable things. Just not within his projected timeframe.
I wasn’t trying to pick a fight here, and wouldn’t have taken Allen’s bait if I had seen Mike’s answer first. Thanks, Mike. No more from me.
Ardis,
I wasn’t “baiting” anyone; I’m sorry if you took it that way. I asked a question because I didn’t understand why you would be rankled by the article. I don’t read the article the same way that others apparently do; for instance, I don’t see that it implies “that Mormon women were skanks.”
That others have problems with it will, no doubt, lead to it being rewritten.
My best.
-Allen
I *do* see that it implies “that Mormon women were skanks.” Or at least that they were somehow the cause of the virtual temporary extinction of the RS which made JS’s timeline incorrect.
Allen, do you believe the Relief Society’s lack of righteousness caused the prophecy to remain unfulfilled? It’s a straightforward question. The wiki says “yes.”
“Purity” and “virtue” in relation to women always means chastity first and foremost, with “impurity” immediately suggesting otherwise. Witness the new YW Value on “virtue” which, while including hints of a few other good things, focuses overwhelmingly on chastity. If you are unaware of that, I’m sure some of your colleagues can explain it in terms you would accept.
If we only accept conditional prophecies when men are the “carriers of the condition,” then isn’t that being rather sexist?
Yes, Allen, we’re the sexist ones. You nailed it.
Blair,
If I say to you “if John does X then I will make sure Y happens,” and Y doesn’t happen, it is reasonable to question whether John did X or whether I lived up to what I said I would do if John did X.
Now, if God says to you “if John does X then I will make sure Y happens,” and Y doesn’t happen, it is reasonable to assume that John didn’t do X because we know that God always keeps his end of the bargain.
You can, of course, draw your own conclusions from the quoted prophecy. The most likely reason, if we trust what God says, is that the conditions upon which the prophecy were predicated were not met.
When it is John not meeting those conditions, we have no problem saying “well, John just fell a little short, so God was not bound.” When it is Jane not meeting those conditions, we apparently do have a problem saying “well, Jane just fell a little short, so God was not bound.” And if we do say it, we are guilty of calling Jane a skank.
Very interesting.
Again, we apparently read the article very differently from one another. Feel free to change the article, however, so that it reflects your understanding. That is what wikis are for–collaboration.
-Allen
Allen, you said “if we trust what God says,” but we are talking about a relatively peripheral prophecy by Joseph Smith that clearly didn’t come about due to a huge number of variables. It strains credulity to believe that the RS could have simply been more “virtuous,” and thus averted all the disasters that befell the *entire church* including and after the martyrdom.
You are assuming every time a prophet prophesies he will give all the necessary conditions that will bring it to pass. You assume the record got everything done correctly. You are assuming prophetic infallibility. It’s simply not a very good apologetic response. Show me how the lack of virtue amongst the Relief Society led to all the disasters in order to sustain your argument, because “Joseph said so” isn’t a good response in this instance when we have so much historical information to evaluate to see if it adds up.
Parenthetically, Christopher, you tease Allen, but you basically do what you think he’s doing; that is, lame dismissal and baiting. I would sincerely appreciate advice from you on how to fix the wiki rather than one-liner snark that just fuel the argument without resolving it. 🙂
By the way, I don’t ever remember blaming a male for a failed prophecy (or a group of males) in any event analogous to the one under consideration, Allen, so it seems your point there isn’t addressing me. The failure to get Zion established in Missouri is a different situation. We have information to demonstrate problems there that lent into the expulsion. We have canonized revelation. We aren’t blaming “John” and excusing “Jane.”
So does FAIR always feel the need to justify Joseph Smith’s hyperbole? Or is it just a case by case basis?
I take it you missed the ensuing discussion, Emerson? I’m a FAIR volunteer, for instance.
I wrote the below on the FAIR backlist in response to Mike’s first comment above. Mike asked me to post it publicly, so here it is:
I agree with both Ardis’ criticism and your comments on the blog in response to her. It’s fine to make the conditional prophecy point, but if we just leave it at that we appear to be blaming the early sisters of the Chuch for this failing, which seems very unfair.
My mistake, BH. My comment should have been directed to Allen and the author of the Wiki page.
Blair,
You state that I am assuming three things:
* …every time a prophet prophesies he will give all the necessary conditions that will bring it to pass
* …the record got everything done correctly
* …prophetic infallibility
I do assume the first two, but not the third. (If you knew me well you would never assert that I was assuming such a thing.) The record is what it is, and unless you can show that the record is incorrect (which I will be glad to study), then I have no reason to assume the record is incorrect. Perhaps you, unlike me, are starting from an assumption the record is incorrect?
You challenge me to show “how the lack of virtue amongst the Relief Society led to all the disasters in order to sustain your argument,” yet my argument is simple–prophecies can be conditional.
This is a prophecy that is clearly conditional. There is evidence that the conditions of the prophecy were not met; I know you have seen that evidence. What evidence do you have that the conditions were met and that the prophecy’s lack of fulfillment was due to some other cause? Without such evidence aren’t you in the same unsupported position in which you say I find myself?
This is, of course, all beside the point anyway. As I said earlier, you have the power to collaborate on this. You have an account on the wiki (I believe), so you can edit it. If you find it incomplete, objectionable, or outright wrong, then feel free to change it. Complaining about the state of affairs when you have the power to change things yourself seems a bit odd to me.
-Allen
In the referenced article Temple endowment and Freemasonry Heber C Kimball is quoted as writing:
There is evidence to support this in the historical research of Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, as reported in their book “The Hiram Key” (1996 Century Books, Random House). In their research they trace the origin of the Masons back to the Knights Templar, in their Scotland sanctuary in the 1300’s. They provide evidence that the Knights Templar, in their excavations of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, uncovered scrolls depicting the Temple ceremony, from which the present Mason rituals were adapted. It is reasonable that the ceremonies would have been recorded on scrolls in the Temple, handed down from the Temple of Solomon (after going to Babylon and back). These rites would undoubtedly have been corrupted or “degenerated” between the time of Solomon, and the third temple, and the beginning of the Masons.
Parenthetically, Christopher, you tease Allen, but you basically do what you think he’s doing; that is, lame dismissal and baiting. I would sincerely appreciate advice from you on how to fix the wiki rather than one-liner snark that just fuel the argument without resolving it.
Blair, I have absolutely no idea on how to best correct the wiki entry. Kevin’s suggestion makes sense. Allen’s defense of a blatantly sexist apology for a failed prophecy does not. As a historian who is also a believing Latter-day Saint, I’m comfortable with simply noting that the prophecy appears to have failed. I’m not much interested in apologetics, so feel no need to come up with an elaborate answer or justification for such instances.
Because I am not a FAIR volunteer and have a generally bad taste in my mouth for much of what FAIR does, I really do not care whether or not they (you all) change the wiki. I haven’t kept up on the doings of FAIR lately, but if the approach employed by you, Kevin Barney, and Mike Parker as exhibited on this thread (and elsewhere) is a glimpse of the direction the organization is headed, then I will have to re-evaluate my negative opinion of FAIR (and Mormon apologetics more generally).
Her Majesty Queen Sirikit of Thailand visited the Relief Society and Welfare Square in Salt Lake City looking for ways to help her destitute subjects in 1981 and has received many international awards for applying the principles she learned there.
(see http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/12127/spreading-kindness )
There may have been other queens that I am not aware of, but many leaders from around the world have visited the Relief Society and Welfare Square. The timing may have been interrupted by the martyrdom of the Prophet but the prophecy is beginning to be fulfilled. I will make a personal prediction (not a prophecy) that Joseph’s prophecy will be totally fulfilled in the days ahead.
Theodore
Addendum to above:
There are not a lot of queens left in the world but I would think that women who are heads of state, or wives of heads of state would also qualify in fulfillment of the prophecy.
I think it might be interesting to treat whether the prophecy failed and why the Relief Society was disbanded as separate questions. As Ehat notes in his Master’s thesis, Joseph used his meetings with the Relief Society to teach a temple prep course. Following that idea to one possible conclusion, Joseph probably had a different ideas about how to recognize (or how God recognized) who was or wasn’t a Queen. So I would argue that the prophecy was fulfilled before the Saints left Nauvoo, just not in the way an EV critic would expect. So we should be giving some pure and faithful members of the Relief Society their due.
@Christopher:
I hope that you would reevaluate FAIR, and that we would be worthy of that reevaluation.
There is a pugilistic side to apologetics that FAIR has been associated with in the past, one that we’re sincerely trying to move away from.
The article has been rewritten. Comments and further suggestions are welcome.
“As a historian who is also a believing Latter-day Saint, I’m comfortable with simply noting that the prophecy appears to have failed. I’m not much interested in apologetics, so feel no need to come up with an elaborate answer or justification for such instances.”
Apologetics need not come up with an elaborate answer. In fact, your argument that JS might have simply failed in a prophecy (with the implicit assumption that such a thing doesn’t make him a false prophet) could be considered by some to be an adequate apologetic. 🙂 So the best way you would pitch in is just by saying “I think JS just got this one wrong. Consider these historical factors as to why the prophecy didn’t happen.” That’s an able response, if it’s done right.
Like Mike I hope you’ll see some good and useful things from FAIR, and of course, send money! 😉
Theodore said:
These rites would undoubtedly have been corrupted or “degenerated” between the time of Solomon, and the third temple, and the beginning of the Masons.
Yes they have. Remember they originated in Egypt, if not Mesopotamia before that. The Israelites were chastised for worshiping Baal and other gods and becoming apostate. The Masons are told when,they reach a high enough degree, that the name of God is YHWH Baal Osiris. It is the apostate religion of the Israelites/Jews. They venerate Moses and Nimrod. Is that a contradiction or what? Maybe it’s “or what”.
According to the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry: The legend of the Craft in the Old Constitutions refers to Nimrod as one of the founders of Masonry. Thus in the York MS., No. 1, we read: “At ye making of ye toure of Babell there was a Masonrie first much esteemed of, and the King of Babilon yt called Nimrod was a Mason himself and loved well Masons.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod
Mike, that’s certainly a more carefully thought out discussion now. If this question had come up in another context, without my having read the earlier version, Keller’s solution and your elegant phrasing would have completely satisfied me as a Latter-day Saint — it feels right.
A possible rhetorical disconnect: The term “witch hunt” usually implies that there is no reality to the thing being sought — that there were no genuine witches in Salem, or no genuine Communists hauled before that Congressional subcommittee. But if there was iniquity to be purged in the Nauvoo RS, or apostates among them as you assert, there *was* something in reality to root out. Perhaps another term that suggests overzealousness or bad, inquisitional tactics would better convey what you mean.
Christopher said:
Blair, I have absolutely no idea on how to best correct the wiki entry. Kevin’s suggestion makes sense. Allen’s defense of a blatantly sexist apology for a failed prophecy does not.
I think you read too much into my “defense,” Christopher. I’m sorry if I touched a nerve with you. I simply asked for clarification on why the original wiki article rankled anyone. It is obvious that it did rankle, I just didn’t understand why. Without the requested explanation–which those who were rankled never did provide–I questioned whether a double standard was being applied.
I have not once argued against making a change to the wiki and have, instead, urged that it be changed by those who saw problems. I’m sorry if my questioning, which was sincere despite being inaccurately characterized as “baiting,” implied that I was so arguing.
-Allen
Without the requested explanation–which those who were rankled never did provide–
What the heck do you mean, Wyatt? I explained in detail at my 2:55 comment why it rankled, and you even responded to that comment. You may be so inept that you can’t understand the implications of the language used, but the explanation was clear enough to enough others that the fault is obviously yours.
As Mike has noted, the article has been reworked. I’ve left the “Draft” tag on it for the moment. Additional critique and feedback are definitely appreciated and will be incorporated. I am a firm believer that criticism should be listened to and used to help us create a better response. (This is true, by the way, for any and all FAIR Wiki articles)
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Joseph_Smith/Prophecies/Queens_to_pay_respect_to_Relief_Society_within_ten_years
#
Ardis E. Parshall Says:
A possible rhetorical disconnect: The term “witch hunt” usually implies that there is no reality to the thing being sought — that there were no genuine witches in Salem, or no genuine Communists hauled before that Congressional subcommittee. But if there was iniquity to be purged in the Nauvoo RS, or apostates among them as you assert, there *was* something in reality to root out. Perhaps another term that suggests overzealousness or bad, inquisitional tactics would better convey what you mean.
Good point. I’ve changed “witch hunt” to “zeal to expunge.” What do you think?
I think the article is still an insufficient response, and I would like to see the research and writing improved overall.
For instance:
• There isn’t much textual analysis of the prophecy (does “If you will be pure, nothing can hinder” mean “If you will be pure, nothing can hinder this prophecy from being fulfilled“?).
• The account of Joseph Smith’s instruction contains an error in a passage that is referred to later in the article (historical nit-picking to some, but the original word is “tearing” and not “teasing”–not an insiginificant change, a change which will appear in Ehat’s forthcoming new edition of The Words of Joseph Smith).
And the whole discussion about the RS and Brigham Young (who is casually referred to in the first instance as merely “Brigham”) could be improved. And there could be a better discusion of Smith’s teachings to the RS which pertain to the “purity” clause in the prophecy.
I’m not volunteering, by the way. 🙂 Oh, and I’m not complaining or criticizing. Or taking sides. Love you all…
Well, we accept loving criticism as well…
I’ll get you Curtis!
😉
What the heck do you mean, Wyatt? I explained in detail at my 2:55 comment why it rankled, and you even responded to that comment. You may be so inept that you can’t understand the implications of the language used, but the explanation was clear enough to enough others that the fault is obviously yours.
I stand corrected, Ardis. I apologize for any secondary rankling, which appears to be there.
-Allen
With regard to the other discussion that has been taking place here about Freemasonry, I would like to go on record stating that there is no reliable, documented evidence that Freemasonry goes back any further than the 14th century. There have been many works that have tried to substantiate the Masons’ foundation myth, but none of these are of any historical value.
Trying to tie the temple endowment to an ancient rite that evolved into Freemasonry is a bad apologetic that will only end up in lost testimonies. I would therefore recommend against promulgating such.
If you have a source we can cite for this, I will insert the change (I’m reluctant to just alter a published source without a more recent source to explain the change, lest we be accused of tampering with the text.)
Greg
Success for all!
Hey, Ardis, I wouldn’t call you Parshall, what’s with the Wyatt thing?
And hey, onika, tie your shoes for Pete’s sake.
Mike Parker, ain’t it well past your bedtime?
Mike said,
I’m sorry Mike, I didn’t make my position clear. I was not trying to tie the temple endowment back through the Masons. I was trying to demonstrate that there is evidence for a common source between the Masonic rites and the endowment. The Masons from the ruins of the Second Temple, which would have originated by revelation; and the endowment by direct revelation. The Masonic rites are similar enough to some aspects of the endowment that their origin would have to be linked some way to the ancient Temple endowment. Too many similarities to just be a coincidence that someone in the 14th Century dreamed up.
Theodore,
I think you’re missing the point. Claiming that the Masons have their source in “the ruins of the Second Temple, which would have originated by revelation” is an argument without evidence.
There is no evidence for an “ancient Temple endowment” that is similar to the modern LDS temple endowment. Certainly the concept of rites, oaths, and covenants goes back to antiquity, and in that sense the modern endowment fits in with the historical pattern of covenant worship.
But the chain of “ancient endowment, conveyed through Masonry, restored by Joseph Smith”, as asserted by some, is historically challenged. Instead, what we have is a covenant worship that has borrowed some of the trappings of Freemasonry, because that is what Joseph Smith found useful as a framework through which to teach certain concepts.
Mike,
Hmm. OK, what evidence do you have to support the supposition that Joseph “borrowed some of the trappings of Freemasonry?” Rather than the other way around, as Joseph said, that “Masonry was taken from Priesthood but has become degenerated.”
The evidence is that Joseph introduced the modern endowment only weeks after being inducted into Freemasonry. The connection between Masonic rites and the endowment is obvious to anyone who knows about the two.
I’m not saying the endowment is a “knock off” of the endowment — the endowment has a different purpose and message — but the two share a common framework and some details. It appears to me that Joseph found the structure in which he could teach the concepts that had been distilling into his mind since the Kirtland era.
Joseph’s comment about the origins of Freemasonry follows the common Masonic historical lore, which he clearly believed. He wasn’t a historian, so I don’t fault him for that. But herein we get back to our previous disagreement of Joseph being borderline omniscient versus a product of his time and environment, and that’s not a discussion I want to have with you again.
This is a good summary of the issues involved:
Much of that article was written by Greg Kearney, a FAIR volunteer who is a Latter-day Saint and an active Freemason.
Mike, you said:
However the article you referred me to states, twice:
Theodore,
I wrote earlier:
However, there are elements of the modern temple endowment that are clearly borrowed from Freemasonry that do not have an ancient origin. Some of these elements have been toned down by periodic changes in the endowment, so they are less noticeable today.
Mike, you wrote:
That is correct. However, Joseph may just as well at that time have inquired of the Lord about the Freemasonry rites, and in answer received the proper endowment, rather than have copied elements from the Masons.
Theodore,
Yep, that’s one explanation. Considering the obvious borrowing of certain performances from the Masonic rites, I don’t believe it’s a satisfactory explanation, but you’re welcome to it.
BHodges said: And hey, onika, tie your shoes for Pete’s sake.
What’s that supposed to mean? Sorry I’m a little dense. Do you know me or something, since I’m married to a Peter?
Read about the similarities between the ancient Egyptian religion (the Israelites came from Egypt and the Levites are Egyptian) and the freemasons’ on page 299.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SmusEB_O-7MC&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=governor+of+tiberias&source=bl&ots=dqeCez_zzj&sig=1FQso0RYWsSgiUlNzd_ryan1CCM&hl=en&ei=dZFjSub9NYqssgPXooVn&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
” It is also clear from Doctrine and Covenants 124 that Joseph Smith was well aware of the main ritual elements of the Nauvoo endowment ceremony at least as early as 19 January 1841. (See D&C :124.)[11]
The note from Appleby is found in his journal under the date of 5 May 1841, a little less than a year before Joseph’s initiation in the Masonic Lodge at Nauvoo.[12] It should be emphasized that there is a great deal more evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith knew of Nauvoo-era endowment ritual, phraseology, vestments, and theology long before he ever became a Freemason. ”
http://en.fairlatterdaysaints.org/Temple_endowment_and_Freemasonry
Maybe his family members told him.
* Joseph Smith: “The secret of Masonry is to keep a secret.”
* Brigham Young: “The main part of Masonry is to keep a secret.”
Why does the Church always say the endowment is sacred NOT SECRET?
Mike,
The Masons claim that their rites came down from the Temple of Solomon. As there is some evidence to support their claim, I’m inclined to agree that their rites did come down in some form, some way, from the Temple of Solomon. We know that the Prophet received the endowment by revelation. It is more reasonable that the revelation consisted of the corrected version, than the supposition that Joseph copied certain things from the Masons, especially when Joseph stated that “Masonry was taken from Priesthood but has become degenerated.” Again, you are in the undesirable position of having to discount something the prophet said in order to support your position (notwithstanding that I agree with you that the prophet is not infallible).
I think what happened was the prophet observed the masonic rites and through revelation or inspiration learned what the true, original meaning/purpose of those rites is. That’s the only way they could be authentic. I can’t see just making up a Christian interpretation of something that was never intended to be Christian.
BHodges:
When I realized the ages of the patriarchs of Genesis starting with Adam were based on astronomy, I began to read Genesis with a different lens. Out of the clear blue I read about Nimrod being “the mighty hunter before the Lord”. That sounds like a compliment. Why, when he was supposed to be bad? Why was that so important to mention in this long list of names and lifespans? The hunter is the constellation of Orion; Osiris is the god of Orion; Nimrod must be Osiris! Osiris is the craftsman (mason); Nimrod was the builder of great cities (mason). Don’t you see the connection?
onika
Good points from the FAIR article. In fact the conclusion of the article is as follows:
As to your question about being secret or sacred, many things are secret precisely because they are sacred.
Theodore
Allow me to clarify my previous comments:
I am not a naturalist. I accept Joseph as a prophet who was frequently inspired in the actions he took. The incorporation of certain aspects of Masonry seems to me to be an inspired move, in that it gave Joseph the tools in which to teach spiritual concepts to people of varying backgrounds, including the many converts who had come from Europe who had difficulties with English and may not have been highly literate. Joseph did not “steal” Masonic rites, he brought together methods and ideas from many sources, including Masonry, as well as Old Testament covenant ritual.
My original comment (from which I strayed) still stands, though: Masonry is not ancient, and is not derived from New Testament ritual via the Knights Templar. Such stories are part of Masonic lore, but they have no historical basis. Defending their antiquity is a poor apologetic.
Greg, as far as I know it has not been published in corrected form yet. I read the original manuscript, well, a digital scan of the manuscript notes, and it’s there, clearly legible (which makes me wonder how and when the r was changed to an s). You can see the image or microfilm at Church Archives and cite the orginal if you really want to correct it. I just thought knowing that it reads “tearing” might be of interest.
Curtis,
As soon as it appears in publication, we can modify the word and cite it.
Thanks. It’s recorded that way in TPJS, so the misreading goes back at least to Joseph Fielding Smith.
But you’re right, its interesting that Ehat didn’t catch it the first time around…..
Greg
Egyptian traditions in Masonic usage:
The masonic apron, originally worn by the pharaoh and ruling elite at religious ceremonies. It was based on the design of the pyramid (triangular).
Black and white chequered Templar battle flag which denoted victory. Based on Egyptian hieroglyph for the god Amen.
Egyptian Djed pillars were central to the design of temples of Egypt and a prominent feature of the temple of Solomon.
Astrological symbols still used today.
Square and compass symbology.
Armies start with left foot forward as well as statues of pharaohs to denote victory.
Line and stick dancing which depicts the ancient battle between Osiris and Seth. Osiris was the green god of Egypt and has been linked to the cult of the Green Man in England.
The OK symbol is the inverted Eye of Horus and had protective magic.
The term “hermetically sealed” from Hermes (Thoth) referring to closely guarded secrets.
The coronation ceremony from Egypt to Solomon to British coronations entails ritual annointing with oils between shoulder blades and on chest.
Mike Parker,
The organization of Freemasons is not the original ancient Pharaonic order. The ancient Egyptian religion was altered through Moses. One piece of evidence is the “ark of the covenant” found in King Tuthankamun’s tomb. It is almost identical, only the cherubim by the mercy seat are not facing each other and don’t have wings. When the Israelites became apostate, I believe they went back to the old ways in Egypt. When they scattered after their captivity, they set up kingdoms in Europe and the masonic order. That’s why I believe the Masonic order is the apostate version of the religion Moses established. Perhaps the scribes of the OT were in a state of apostasy as well, and that’s why there is so much astrology in it.
onika,
I seriously do not want to get into a protracted discussion about this. All I can say is that history, as you explained it, is based completely on myth and has no basis in fact. It comes from the dubious works of pseudo-historians who have fabricated their chronology to fit a particular religious paradigm.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing is quite popular among a certain segment of Latter-day Saints.
Note the similarities in the “ark of the covenant”:
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi000.htm
The explanation given that temple rituals were developed by Joseph Smith to teach the illiterate is a very poor apologetic in my opinion. It looks like you don’t believe they come from an ancient source so some excuse has to be made for him to “borrow” from the Masons. Joseph Smith was also influenced by Kabbalism which is ancient(from a Jewish friend converted to the Church):
“Historians have noted that most claims for the authority of Kabbalah involve an argument of the antiquity of authority (see, e.g., Joseph Dan’s discussion in his Circle of the Unique Cherub). As a result, virtually all works pseudepigraphically claim, or are ascribed, ancient authorship…
…This tendency toward pseudepigraphy has its roots in Apocalyptic literature, which claims that esoteric knowledge such as magic, divination and astrology was transmitted to humans in the mythic past by the two angels, Aza and Azaz’el (in other places, Azaz’el and Uzaz’el) who ‘fell’ from heaven (see Genesis 6:4)…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
This story is located in the book of Enoch (written 150-200 BC), which was quoted by NT author(s).
onika, perhaps you should look up the word “pseudepigraph.”
djinn:
I don’t need to look it up. So, you admit the NT authors believed in pseudepigraphia?
Here are some examples:
In Jude 6, “the angels which left their own habitation” compares with 1 Enoch 12:4, “the Watchers . . . who have left the high heaven.” Jude 14 directly quotes Enoch, 1:9:
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
The “tree of life” is found in Rev 2:7 and Enoch 25:4-6. Examples of the many other parallels are:
1 John 1:7, “walk in the light” with Enoch 92:4, “walk in eternal light.”
1 John 2:8, “the darkness is past,” with Enoch 58:5, “the darkness is past.”
Rev 3:5, “clothed in white raiment” with Enoch 40:31, “clothed in white.”
Rev 4:6, “round about the throne were four living creatures,” with Enoch “and on the four sides of the Lord of Spirits I saw four presences.” See also The Urantia Papers, page 513.
Rom 8:38, “angels . . .principalities . . . and powers,” with Enoch 61:10, “angels of power . . . angels of principalities.”
Rom 10:13, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved,” with Enoch 48:7, “in his name they are saved.”
Eph 1:9, “according to his good pleasure (KJV),” with Enoch 49:4, “according to his good pleasure.”
I’m the one you have to convince, and I was helping your case by showing how masonic rituals could be ancient. If Joseph just used them to teach the illiterate principles, then why do we need them to enter the Celestial kingdom and why do we still use them in temples? You don’t really believe you will need to use the signs and tokens in the next life?
I wanted to comment on the “Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Queens to pay respect to Relief Society within ten years” page.
As an aside (noting previous commentary), I thought the suggestion that sisters may have failed to meet the conditions of the prophecy is a good one, and probably an inevitable conclusion. That is, given that the Relief Society was put on hiatus due to problems that the society was needlessly causing, that is, due to their “impurity”, as it were, it seems very clear that a failure to meet the conditions directly prevented their attaining the promised blessing.
That aside, I thought the conclusion was just terrible. In the second paragraph where the comparison is made with the commandment to build the temple in Jackson County, it is asserted that “the Lord .. put the blame squarely on their enemies”. However, this is not only contrary to the fact (see: D&C 101), but it also make the comparison almost completely invalid, for in the one case we are talking about failing to obey a commandment (though there is a prophecy connected as well, but it doesn’t make for good comparison), whereas on the other we have possible failure to meet the conditions of a prophecy/blessing. The one thing that is had in common is the conditions, which the people failed to meet. When we go in and neglect to acknowledge the possible failure of the saints in Jackson County, (due to some ridiculous pet theory) we are left with nothing.
What’s the point of making such invalid comparisons? To me, such irrationality damages the credibility of the whole of the reasoning, which is too bad, because the rest of the page was looking pretty good.
Clearly, the conclusion only addresses the “failure to meet the condition” possibility. However, if we aren’t committed to that explanation, perhaps we ought to add to qualifiers in the conclusion as well.
onika said:
Another good point, onika.
There is good reason that these ancient societies all had some of the element of the Temple rites.
Adam taught these things to his children, Noah preserved the Temple ordinances past the flood and from there these things were spread through the world in either real or apostate form. Melchizedek had a Temple on Mount Moriah and his influence was spread through Mesopotamia. Abraham was commanded to teach to the Egyptians the things he was taught through the Urim and Thummim.
FARMS and Deseret Book published a great collection of essays by LDS Scholars on this subject entitled “ Temples of the Ancient World,” which demonstrates very clearly that there are threads and links and elements that are evidence for a common source for all of them. Likewise, many elements of the Masonic rites have too much in common with ancient rites not have a common root. The most reasonable root for the Masons is back to the Temple Mount through the Templars. There is evidence for this even if it does not meet the strictest rules of scholarship (such as total agreement by teams of scholars, carbon dating and DNA tests on any parchments, and three outside independent sources of confirmation for each item, or whatever. 😉 )
Sean,
I’ve modified the conclusion as shown in order to only focus on the similarities:
Does this work better?
It’s better, though I think the last sentence closes the thoughts poorly and the paragraph vacillates from considering things from the “commandment” viewpoint, to the “prophecy” viewpoint, and back in a way that makes the thought being conveyed unclear.
I might suggest something more like:
“This prophecy could in some ways be compared to the Lord’s command that the Saints build up Zion in Jackson County. The Saints were driven out of the county and this command was not fulfilled. In both cases the promised blessings had conditions attached, which the people failed to meet. These conditions were based upon the diligence of the faithful.”
Hey, during this lesson, I happened to google William Law, who was mentioned in the lesson. There was a comment (with no reference) in Wikipedia. I wondered if you have heard of the issue with Joseph Smith propositioning his wife and inviting her to enter into a polyandrous relationship. Found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Law_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29
I looked on your site, but did not find any information on that.
Rereading the comments, I think Emerson has a point. What if Joseph Smith “Queens visiting” statement wasn’t a prophecy at all, but a boiler-plate hyperbolic courtesy–much as our General Authorities have referred to our teen-agers as a “choice generation”–or words to that effect–over the years. While most of those youngsters ARE pretty well-behaved–and make their parents beam with joy, I think they know themselves–and their fellows–well enough to conclude that their behaviour isn’t THAT choice–at least nowhere near as often as know it should be! 😉
Moreover, it is far from true that not all of our youngsters behave in a choice manner as a general rule. Who among us are so sheltered that we are not aware of the proverbial Bishop’s son and Relief Society President’s daughter (or, it may be children of other prominent members!) who conceive a child out of wedlock–or get hooked on drugs, or some other gross sins?
Furthermore, even when we DON’T engage in serious sin, there are moments when we WANT to! I am sure, for example, that, even though Emma Smith’s love for her husband was genuine, there were, no doubt, moments when she’d liked to have kicked his teeth in–and in many of those moments, Joseph Smith may have deserved it! 😉
Given all this, taking those boiler-plate statements too literally–or too much at face value–could lead some people to conclude that the leaders of the Church were hopelessly out of touch!
But, from my contact with local and not-so-local leaders of the Church, I can testify that they know–all too well–all about those exceptions–but still pay the boiler-plate compliments to spur people to live up to them.
And many times, they do! 😉
Why should Joseph Smith have been any different?
Am I making sense?
Joelle asked:
This idea gets its origins from a D&C 132 verse:
Some have seen this as Emma saying she’ll take another husband. Others have seen it as Emma threatened divorce, and Joseph saying, “Fine, then.”
The idea that it involved a proposed “wife swap” has been bolstered by William Clayton’s observation in some interpretations:
(Note, though, that this is well AFTER D&C 132–seems strange to try to link the ideas that far after, when the offer (whatever it was) has been repudiated by D&C 132 already.)
The first explicit mention that I’m aware of is in a anti-Mormon source:
The source is dubious. Jackson claimed he’d gotten into Joseph’s confidence by pretending to be a faithful member. He claimed Joseph revealed all, including his plan to
However (Mormon Enigma makes these points as well):
* Jackson’s name appears on no Church membership records.
* Joseph Smith’s first reaction to Jackson was to claim that he was “rotten hearted.”
* D&C 132 was revealed a year prior to Jackson’s claims.
* Its meaning [the verse in D&C 132] remains a mystery.”
William Law rebuts the idea, which would be strange if true, because it is the sort of things that would be good “first person evidence” of Joseph’s evil-ness:
My take? I think the involvement of the Laws is mere fiction by Jackson. They would be the last ones that Joseph would suggest it to.
I suspect the D&C 132 verse refers to something discussed by Joseph and Emma—perhaps said by Emma in the heat of the moment–and Joseph responded. D&C 132 disclaims it as a viable option, but I bet it was divorce/separation.
After all, Clayton’s diary later on shows that this was the sort of threat that Emma could make when angry.
—-
The issue is complicated further by a Neibaur diary entry:
That there may be something to this is suggested by:
The evidence conflicts, however:
* Hyrum mentioned Law’s adultery later.
* At Law’s excommunication trial, Jack John Scott testified that Joseph had sealed the Laws to improve relations.
* No mention of adultery at Church trial (though this could have been to avoid giving Law the perfect chance to bring up the plural marriage issue in a tu quoque form at least.
Cook suggests a combined time-line:
1) Joseph tells William no sealing.
2) Joseph declines to seal self to Jane (1843)
3) Joseph relents and seals them (late 1843/early 1844)
4) Law disillusioned
5) Joseph later seals Jane to self in effort to keep her in the Church and not follow William out.
And that’s all I have to say about that. 🙂
Greg
Joelle,
I recommend checking out Lyndon Cook’s “William Law, Nauvoo dissenter” in BYU Studies 22/1 (1982) especially p. 67
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=865&REC=1