Mormon connection to Masons explored ahead of 'Da Vinci Code' sequel

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | 1/13/06 | Peggy Fletcher Stack

[Eastbound]

Thank you for your reply, colorcountry. It does seem strange to me that after the 'church' has striven for centuries to maintain the records, the scriptures, and the teachings, a new 'teaching' would come forth through the witness of one person, un-announced and un-related to the main body of Christians who have carried the weight of Christianity during those centuries -- a body whose devotion to their task cost them dearly.

I surmised the truth would be established through two witnesses, and I would trust there would be congregational confirmation on such important changes, moreso if the new 'truth' was contrary to previous teachings.

Maybe I'm just not all that familiar with all the nuances and interpretations, if there are supposed to be any private interpretations.

Not knocking anyone personally for their beliefs -- just questioning the wisdom and the process of altering the course and placing obstacles in a well-trodden path.

[colorcountry]

Your post sums up perfectly what I always try to say in my own inept way.

When Christ came, he referred back to the writings of the Old Testament in support of His divinity and His message. If the Mormons could show evidence Biblically of their prophesied coming, I'd be more inclined to believe them. There is not one thing, not one shred of evidence that the Church would be taken from Earth, then re-established in one young 14 year-old farmboy. There is nothing in the Bible to support their claim.

[bonfire]

Good post, Eastbound.

[Eastbound]

Thanks, bonfire.

[DelphiUser]

>> It does seem strange to me … a new 'teaching' would come forth
>>through the witness of one person un-announced and un-related to
>>the main body of Christians who have carried the weight of
>>Christianity during those centuries -- a body whose devotion to
>>their task cost them dearly.

>> I surmised the truth would be established through two witnesses,

Eastbound, Moses established “New Truth, and he started alone, and then was given Aaron, to be his mouthpiece.

Joseph Smith was only the first there were more witnesses.
The three witnesses: http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/thrwtnss.
The Eight witnesses http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/eghtwtns.
Joseph smith also gave his own testimony: http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/jsphsmth.

Moses a prophet who made massive changes to the Jewish faith, indeed Jesus was a Jew and for most of his life was considered to be in obedience to the Law of Moses (He did some things during his ministry that some would argue about) Moses first encounter with the burning bush was only witnessed by him. He was the only one testifying of it until others believing on his word received a witness (Aaron, for example) I could show more examples, but I believe it is not uncommon for prophets in the Old testament to be “Called” in private, and confirmed in public. Can you show me where it says a Prophet’s calling should come in public?

If you are a true seeker after understanding, I will be glad to have a conversation with you. And will answer any question that I know the answer to. (I do not claim to know everything :-)

“Churches are hospitals for sinners, not sanctuaries for saints” – Unknown.

[Eastbound]

Thank you for your response, DelphiUser.

You asked,

"Can you show me where it says a Prophet’s calling should come in public?"

"Luke 16:16:

"16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (Italics mine.)

I think the scripture speaks for itself. THE kingdom is not of this world, but can be pressed into here and now for Christ is the presense of God, continually.

And He is continually in His temple, which we are. That is Good News!

Wise men still seek Him, for they believe He can be found. Then belief can turn to knowledge, for the knowledge of Jesus Christ and He who sent Him is eternal life.

Greater is He that is within you than that which is in the world.

But first, belief. Acting on that belief with the inward search is the activity of faith -- works. And faith/works is rewarded. It is a personal experience, forsaking all others.

Difficult to do these days, when so much and so many are vieing for our time and attention, as in . . . 'Lo, Christ is here . . . Lo, Christ is there . . .' ;)

Best wishes to you, DelphiUser.

[Little Ray]

Actuall, Dale Brown dodges the question of the empty tomb, but for the most part casts Christ as the pretender to throne of Israel. That is a bit of a rewrite if you ask me.

Not that I really care.

[DelphiUser]

>>Luke 16:16 ...
>>I think the scripture speaks for itself. THE kingdom is
>>not of this world, but can be pressed into here and now
>>for Christ is the presense of God, continually.

Did you read the rest of the chapter? The scriptures when firs written by the Apostles were not divided into verse, but in paragraph form in letters, the Catholic Church centuries later divided them into scriptures, and numbered them. If you read from 1 to 16 you see that Christ was teaching that the law of Moses was fulfilled in him (which is why we Christians do not keep it today).

This reference does not address the calling of a prophet, unless you meant there were to be no other prophets called? Is that your point?

[DelphiUser]

Firs, the plural for fir trees, bears little to no resemblance to first, which is what I meant. Spelling mod, please do not ZOT me too harshly, for I caught my own mistake first.

[Eastbound]

"Is that your point?"

Even John the Baptist had a last-minute doubt as to the function of his office, wondering if they should look to one other than Jesus as the Messiah, as apparently Jesus was not performing to their expectations. Yes, the Baptist was the last prophet who spoke in the third person, by the Spirit.

Since then, God spoke/speaks to man face to face in the first person. Jesus never said, 'thus saith the Lord,' or 'thus sayeth the Spirit. He said, 'I say unto you . . .,' as the one with the authority of the Father.

Since the church has grown by the hundreds of thousands and millions since then, what is the need for prophets of God when we have God Himself? (Whosever will)

I thought the message of the Gospel was clear. Why emulate or imitate the practices of those who were under the law if you have been set free? Why substitute one form for another when the function does not require that form?

Of course, there is a distinction between a prophet and a teacher, as a teacher is also referred to as a prophet, but not in the same sense as the prophets of old who were the spokespersons of God on Earth in their day.

Again, my point is that God speaks for himself in, to, and through mankind. That was the reason for installing the mind of Christ in mankind. The mediator, the step-down transformer, if you will, between man and the Father within you. Immanuel -- God with us and in us!

A statement that will raise a few eyebrows, I'm sure, . . . and cause some to throw rocks at me. :)

Muhammud didn't understand it either, desiring to be the last prophet of God.

[Revererdrv]

I also belong to the Masons. Unless someone belongs, how can they understand what they are talking about? When someone does not understand often assumptions are made.

[DelphiUser]

No man who ever put up his petition to The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jackob did so in vain.

God has always answered prayers.

Peter received some of the most beautiful, and useful revelations for the church after Christ had ascended to heaven.

The church is not only in you (as faith) but a sociopolitical structure upon the face of the earth to preach his word. (As was his command http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/16/18#18 and http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/16/15#15) To say that we need no leaders is to call Christianity anarchy, God Forbid.

There are commandments, there are doctrines, these must be established in a way that those who no not of Christ can learn of them. This is one of the purposes of “The Church”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints nicknamed Mormons has a three-fold mission:
1. Perfect the saints.
2. Preach the gospel.
3. Redeem the dead.

God has always organized his church with a prophet at the lead, God has never said he no longer would organize a church. God does not change. Peter’s leadership, the writing of the inspired work called the Bible, the calling of additional Apostles, proves Luke 16:16 was not meant to be there will be no more prophets, no more church structure.

Again I ask, Can you show me where it says a Prophet’s calling should come in public?

[TFFKAMM]

Brother, I believe a large part of it is because of our secrecy. People don't understand the reason for why we keep our rites and means of identifying each other under wraps, and assume the worst because of it.

The joke is that the literal rituals and signs themselves aren't "secret," inasmuch as they have been virtually in the public domain almost since the beginning of public Masonry in 1717. I always say that it's one thing to merely read our degree work; it's quite another to go through it as an initiate or participant, and learn the ineffable secrets which belong to the Brother in Lodge alone.

[Eastbound]

Does the LDS consider Muhammad as a prophet?

[DelphiUser]

>>Do the LDS consider Muhammad as a prophet?

A: No. He never showed the fruits. (By their fruits ye shall know them http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/7/20#20)

[Revererdrv]

Exactly. The experience of Freemasonry has changed my life for the better. The degree work is more profound than ever expected now almost 25 years ago. Each year I appreciate the significance more; growing older and hopefully wiser.

[AppyPappy]

Redeem the dead.

Strange and unBiblical. Even the Scripture used to justify it does not apply to the current practice. You are practicing proxy baptism, not baptising the dead.

[DelphiUser]

>>Redeem the dead.
>>Strange and unBiblical. Even the Scripture used to justify it does not
>>apply to the current practice. You are practicing proxy baptism, not
>>baptising the dead.

Proxy Work is Biblical, or don't you believe in the atonement. When the Early Christians, and Jews practiced Baptism for the dead, Christ mentioned that practice himself, (http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/15/29#29) If you look at Mathew 8, 9 and 13 (http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/8/8#8) Christ and the centurion understand authority and Proxy work indeed the “Proxy” which is used in stock voting, and “Power of Attorney” are descendants of the Christian understanding of Proxy.

Corinthians exactly, refers to this type of work, as can be proven by the beliefs of the sects at the time Christ made his statement. Do you believe the phrases were digging up dead bodies and baptizing them? God forbid any such unholy and impure practice.

[AppyPappy]

1Co 15:29 Otherwise, what will they do, those being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not at all raised, why indeed are they baptized on behalf of the dead?

It's difficult to determine whether this is simply a logical vehicle based on a Corinthian practice rather than a Christian practice. Oddly, it only appears once in the entire Bible. Anyway, Mormons practice proxy membership, not baptism in the sense of the text. The practice does not symbolically cleanse sin in the same way as Baptism. Mormons use it to seal to the church, much like a Methodist litany for church membership.

Mat 8:8
(8) The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my boy will be healed.

The boy is sick, not dead. I don't get that one. Jesus says he is healed and he is healed.

[DelphiUser]

First, we use the KJV, so our translations are a little different than yours. What version of the Bible are you using?

>>It's difficult to determine whether this is simply a logical vehicle based on a
>>Corinthian practice rather than a Christian practice. Oddly, it only appears
>>once in the entire Bible. Anyway, Mormons practice proxy membership, not
>>baptism in the sense of the text. The practice does not symbolically cleanse
>>sin in the same way as Baptism. Mormons use it to seal to the church, much
>>like a Methodist litany for church membership.

The Corinthian’s being written to were Christians. The Pharisees were practicing baptism for the dead long before, Christ’s ministry started. There is controversy outside the Mormon Church on this issue, a quick Google turned up this site (http://www.bibleman.net/Baptisim_for_dead.htm), which a brief perusal tells me is most useful in explaining what is going on. Here are some quotes from this site, which includes scriptural references.

First of all, we need to ask ourselves, To whom Paul was referring when he wrote “why are THEY then baptized for the dead?” Who are “they”? He couldn’t have been referring to the Corinthians otherwise he would have written "why are YOU being baptized for the dead?" At the same time whoever Paul was referring to was somebody whom the Corinthians were aware of otherwise it would have made no sense for him to mention them. It is just as clear that the people Paul was referring to must have been well respected to be mentioned as an EXAMPLE to his readers. In verse 30 we see that Paul considered himself as one of "THEM." Therefore it is obvious that he included himself in the group he is referring to (see also verses 9, 10, 11, 14 and 19 of the same chapter). This is very important because Paul is not only pointing to these people as an example but also as his TESTIMONY to the people he is writing to concerning the resurrection.

And

It is true that we have just this one reference regarding baptism for the dead but both Peter and Jesus explained that the gospel was preached to the dead. Just before ascending into heaven, Jesus issued the command, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19). Baptism is a consequence of accepting the gospel. If the gospel is being preached to the dead, they it stands to reason that they must also be baptized in order to accept the gospel, otherwise preaching the gospel to them is useless.

>>The boy is sick, not dead. I don't get that one. Jesus says he is healed and he is healed.

You said Proxy baptism was “Strange and UnBiblical” Proxy work is very Biblical, that was the point of the scripture about the centurion’s son.

>>The practice does not symbolically cleanse sin in the same way as
>>Baptism. Mormons use it to seal to the church, much like a
>>Methodist litany for church membership.

As a Mormon, who has attended the Temple, performed Baptisms for my ancestors, and been baptized by Proxy for my ancestors, we are doing it precisely so their sins can be remitted. If the dead accept this proxy baptism in the next world, they can go directly into Christ’s kingdom. They would be dammed unless someone in mortality had performed the ordinance of baptism, with the proper authority, for them (Much the same way Christ had to be mortal to perform the Atonement, or he couldn’t die for our sins). Do they suddenly join our ranks as Mormons? No, they are not here in mortality; they join the Church of Christ on the other side of the veil.

Have I cleared this up, or just muddied it?