Masons / Mormons

[FSON]

A flash just came to me,
Is the Mormon tradition based on and founded by Masons?

[Casper]

There is speculation that this was an early influence on Smith's theology, or at least his method.

[Casper]

http://www.masonicmoroni.com/

eh, a good jumping off point at least.

[FSON]

Side note after preliminary reading:
Why would the Masons have their own jurisprudence.

[Casper]

The same reason French Catholic Parishes had a similar system in Lousiana?

And ironically, similar to special jurisprudence allotted the Mormons in the 20th century?

[flashstang04]

Well, if you want to get technical, it was founded by Satan...but same same....

[Muffrazr]

Well, if you want to get technical, it was founded by Satan...but same same....


Are you saying this because of all the mention of Lucifer? Where is the basis of Satan being the founder?

[Casper]

I think its because anything contrary to accepted dogma, when backed up with a modicum of scripture, is looked upon as subversive.

[FSON]

Standardizers

[Fox466]

Just thought I would pop in with my gratuitous "Masons are evil" post.

Carry on... :cool:

[FSON]

Just thought I would pop in with my gratuitous "Masons are evil" post.

Carry on... :cool:
I think they are if they hinder one's way.

Is "evil" in the Masons vocabulary?

[White trash wagon]

The Masonic Lodge is not a religious organization. A person of any religious faith can join, the Masons only require you beleive in a higher power. They do have odd ceremonies & titles, but are not religious in nature. I'm told that half of the signers of the Declaration of Independance were masons. I live next to a Masonic lodge member who happens to be the Worshipful Master (leads the local Lodge).

I've gone to a couple of Masonic events, it's a bunch of guys over 60 trying to raise money for charity, help other Lodge members, and the local poor.

[FSON]

The Masonic Lodge is not a religious organization. A person of any religious faith can join, the Masons only require you beleive in a higher power. They do have odd ceremonies & titles, but are not religious in nature. I'm told that half of the signers of the Declaration of Independance were masons. I live next to a Masonic lodge member who happens to be the Worshipful Master (leads the local Lodge).

I've gone to a couple of Msonic events, it's a bunch of guys over 60 trying to raise money for charity, help other Lodge members, and the local poor.

For the edification of all viewers, how is it the Masons require a prospective member to "believe" in a higher power yet the Masons are not a "religious" organization.

[White trash wagon]

For the edification of all viewers, how is it the Masons require a prospective member to "believe" in a higher power yet the Masons are not a "religious" organization.

I didn't join, so I don't know that answer. But does the fact that our money says
"in God we trust" & we swear in on a bible make our government a religious organization? I hope not...........

[Casper]

For the edification of all viewers, how is it the Masons require a prospective member to "believe" in a higher power yet the Masons are not a "religious" organization.

I would call it a theist organization. Which for all intents and purposes was the political reason behind the currency changes as well. It is alright to discriminate against non-theists (and by extension polytheists) just so you don't discriminate against anglophone monotheists who recognize the word "god" as conforming to the preconceived notions of the representatives of the republic who voted for it.

It is high time to take that off of there. In fact wouldn't an otherworldly god be insulted by being used to endorse a worldly secular currency?

[flashstang04]

I would call it a theist organization. Which for all intents and purposes was the political reason behind the currency changes as well. It is alright to discriminate against non-theists (and by extension polytheists) just so you don't discriminate against anglophone monotheists who recognize the word "god" as conforming to the preconceived notions of the representatives of the republic who voted for it.

It is high time to take that off of there. In fact wouldn't an otherworldly god be insulted by being used to endorse a worldly secular currency?


Being that the phrase on the money is referring to the Christian God, I think we can conclude reasonably that since He decided to insert Himself into our world that He would be honored by being on the thing that is most dear to the USA when it is used in the appropriate fashion....currency. Can it be corrupted..of course! He is far from otherworldly. Your conclusion would also lead me to believe that you think God would be offended by being asked to bless a meal...since it is meant for human consumption.

[FSON]

I would call it a theist organization. Which for all intents and purposes was the political reason behind the currency changes as well. It is alright to discriminate against non-theists (and by extension polytheists) just so you don't discriminate against anglophone monotheists who recognize the word "god" as conforming to the preconceived notions of the representatives of the republic who voted for it.

It is high time to take that off of there. In fact wouldn't an otherworldly god be insulted by being used to endorse a worldly secular currency?

The Masons descriminate against the a-theists?
Maybe there is an A-Masonic Order for those people.
Can otherworldy G#ds be insulted by actions in this world?

[Casper]

Being that the phrase on the money is referring to the Christian God, I think we can conclude reasonably that since He decided to insert Himself into our world that He would be honored by being on the thing that is most dear to the USA when it is used in the appropriate fashion....currency. Can it be corrupted..of course! He is far from otherworldly. Your conclusion would also lead me to believe that you think God would be offended by being asked to bless a meal...since it is meant for human consumption.

Well, assuming the "mind" of God is really not something I think you want to do lightly. I'll accept your analogy is valid for your philosophy though.

Back on subject, if the phrase only referred to the christian concept of God (which for some I'm sure it does), then it is an anachranism as hideous and discriminatory as a previously constitutional protection, which is the right to hold another person in bondage for life.

Is it coincidence that this motto was added to US coinage the same year a war broke out fueld partly by sentiment concerning slavery? I wonder how many of those fine upstanding politicians voted for the legislation in addition to upholding the institution of slavery?

In the words of Theodore Roosevelt:

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

I would add that it cheapens the institution backing the currency as well.

[flashstang04]

Well, assuming the "mind" of God is really not something I think you want to do lightly. I'll accept your analogy is valid for your philosophy though.

Back on subject, if the phrase only referred to the christian concept of God (which for some I'm sure it does), then it is an anachranism as hideous and discriminatory as a previously constitutional protection, which is the right to hold another person in bondage for life.

Is it coincidence that this motto was added to US coinage the same year a war broke out fueld partly by sentiment concerning slavery? I wonder how many of those fine upstanding politicians voted for the legislation in addition to upholding the institution of slavery?

In the words of Theodore Roosevelt:

"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."

I would add that it cheapens the institution backing the currency as well.

While I understand your stance on wanting the motto off of currency, you have side-tracked in your explanation to that debate and away from whether or not God would want it to be on currency or not. I , as many Christians can attest, DO know the "character" of God in such a way to know if something is God honoring or not. As far as the slavery is concerned, well, what can anyone say? Man is flawed and extends it to cover a multitude of sins. While the bible speaks of slaves being obedient (as should we all. We are all slaves to something regardless if we acknowledge it), it never condones it. That has always been taken out of context.


Your reply may be "Did these men not also know the character of God?" To which I would say....no.. they were sheep following someone in power, and when people gather, they would rather self worth themselves into believing something they know is wrong, rather than be the voice in the wilderness that says, "what you have been doing all along is wrong!" Just like Christ did.

[Casper]

I'm sorry, I felt like that was the sidetrack.

I think you know it would be impossible for me to answer that question without a clear concept of what/who God is, which I won't ever really have.

I guess that doesn't answer the question, but it isn't purposely hedging. I'll just have to hold that I think affixing a theological point of view to a secular product like currency seems to me to be cheapening the theological concept (as if such an endorsement represents theological rather than worldly views), and likewise cheapens the currency (as if currency needs a holy endorsement to somehow make it more robust).

[BrianC]

A flash just came to me,
Is the Mormon tradition based on and founded by Masons?

Quick answer is yes. 12 years after Smith started the Mormon church, he became a Master Mason and then somehow got thrown out and he said, "I am going to restore TRUE Masonry to the Masons," just like he said, "I'm going to restore TRUE Christianity to the world." LOL That's where most of the weird beliefs come from...

You'll love this book: The God Makers It explains everything and backs it up really well. Puts it all together and Mormonism makes a lot of sense after that. Not the correct kind of sense, though. LOL The screwed up kind.

[Fox466]

I think they are if they hinder one's way.

Is "evil" in the Masons vocabulary?

Dude, do we really have to rehash this?

My posts on the Masons are tongue in cheek. I don't really think that the order as a whole is evil. I believe that "Good men are Masons, but not all Masons are good men".

[FSON]

Dude, do we really have to rehash this?

My posts on the Masons are tongue in cheek. I don't really think that the order as a whole is evil. I believe that "Good men are Masons, but not all Masons are good men".
They balance each other, or the universe would fly apart?