USA Today on Mormons, Mitt, and Racism

[jay santos]

I'm telling yall, there is no way in Hell that the church does anything of this sort. The primary reason is that if they do then church members will figure that it's ok to talk about the temple outside of the temple and that

there is a huge difference between how the masonic ceremonies and the mormon ceremonies are perceived by their respective participants. The masons don't really believe that it's sacred, or that it has anything to do with eternal life. It's a vehicle for communicating knowledge and information. Unfortunately the way it has evolved in LDS circles is that it is divinely inspired, essential for salvation, and that the penalty for speaking about any aspect of it outside of the temple could be the loss of salvation.

It would be great PR for the church to take the lead and discuss the ceremony before it gets dragged through the mud by the press (it will happen) but I don't think the Q15 have the cajones to do something that bold, for fear it will alienate their own base. It's easier and much more self righteous to just ignore it.

What exactly is the church trying to ignore and how are they being self righteous about it? I don't understand the point. Do you really think the church is trying to suppress the Mason-temple connection by keeping things quiet? I thought it was pretty common knowledge.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What exactly is the church trying to ignore and how are they being self righteous about it? I don't understand the point. Do you really think the church is trying to suppress the Mason-temple connection by keeping things quiet? I thought it was pretty common knowledge.

Common knowledge in the church? I don't think so.

I am always amazed how members are so reluctant to talk about anything related to the temple ceremony in your typical SS, priesthood, RS setting.

[pellegrino]

What exactly is the church trying to ignore and how are they being self righteous about it? I don't understand the point. Do you really think the church is trying to suppress the Mason-temple connection by keeping things quiet? I thought it was pretty common knowledge.

the church maintains a certain type high ground when it refuses to acknowledge or respond to an exposè on any aspect of its history. I find that to be somewhat self righteous and smug because it truncates any sort of discussion about the issue and in this case further cements the mystique of the temple among the general membership.

No, I don't think the church is trying to suppress anything, at least it doesn't appear so. I think it's just easier to turn their back on it and say that it won't trifle with such sacred matters. That also speaks positively to a powerful segment of Mormon society that feels the same way.

[jay santos]

Common knowledge in the church? I don't think so.

I am always amazed how members are so reluctant to talk about anything related to the temple ceremony in your typical SS, priesthood, RS setting.

The Mason-temple connection is not common knowledge? Hmm, that was one I thought was pretty wide spread. Agree on the talking about temple ceremony. I've heard leader types (GA's, stake presidents, mission presidents) discuss the temple ceremony in pretty specific detail (obviously not the symbols and the specific language of the covenants), but the lay people seem to be scared to death. I referred to the "law of the gospel" in a meeting once, and someone told me we shouldn't talk about that stuff outside of temple.

[pellegrino]

Common knowledge in the church? I don't think so.

I am always amazed how members are so reluctant to talk about anything related to the temple ceremony in your typical SS, priesthood, RS setting.

It's because they've been instructed not to. I can remember several times being told by priesthood leaders that if it happens in the temple it stays in the temple. I think I remember hearing some of that be through letters from the 1st pres.

[pellegrino]

The Mason-temple connection is not common knowledge? Hmm, that was one I thought was pretty wide spread. Agree on the talking about temple ceremony. I've heard leader types (GA's, stake presidents, mission presidents) discuss the temple ceremony in pretty specific detail (obviously not the symbols and the specific language of the covenants), but the lay people seem to be scared to death. I referred to the "law of the gospel" in a meeting once, and someone told me we shouldn't talk about that stuff outside of temple.

no, it's not. especially for the neophytes.

[Northwestcoug]

I wonder how the First Presidency of 1949 explained Elijah Abel. So was the commandment from the Lord received sometime after Elijah Abel received the priesthood? Or was the whole "direct commandment from the Lord" a lie?

It probably wasn't a bald faced lie. They probably took BY's comments on it as definitive and seeing as how Joseph Smith never really said much on the matter, Elijah Abel could apparently be explained away. In short, their cultural experience confirmed what information they had from the 19th century so they thought nothing of it.

I agree. BY said so much on the subject, and JS so little, it was probably natural just to run with faith that BY had it right. Too bad they ran with it 100+ years, without (apparently) questioning it...

[Northwestcoug]

Common knowledge in the church? I don't think so.

I am always amazed how members are so reluctant to talk about anything related to the temple ceremony in your typical SS, priesthood, RS setting.

My sense is that there is a sizable percentage of members that have heard whispers about Masonic connections. But because of their reticence to discuss/study anything outside of the temple, they don't delve into it. So they may acknowledge there is a connection, but don't know just how similar the two ceremonies are. And a lot of them are probably content not to find out.

I first heard of the connections when I was about 17. I didn't even know much about the Masons, so I asked my Mom about it. She told me there's a connection because the Masons had remnants of the original temple ceremony, and the endowment restored it to its original state. For the next couple of decades, I trotted out that same line whenever someone asked me about it.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not concerned about the media picking up on today's LDS temple ceremony.

I'm concerned about the media picking up on prior iterations of the LDS temple ceremony from our not too distant past.

[scottie]

I'm concerned about the media picking up on prior iterations of the LDS temple ceremony from our not too distant past.

Ya, it won't be good for Romney if the media points out that a potential POTUS at one point in his life covenanted and promised to pray and never cease praying that God would avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation.

[Sleeping in EQ]

My thinking on this--and I do research the media--is not that hard news shows are going to suddenly go tabloid and drag the temple ceremony through the mud. Rather, I expect that some special interest groups will pick up certain parts of the ceremony that will help them push their agenda.

I could see women's rights groups, in particular, taking an interest and trying to push coverage of a story or two. Such stories could have significant political importance, and so they could have airtime on hard news shows.

[jay santos]

As you unpeel the onion that is the sum of LDS historical and doctrinal issues, the Mason-temple issue seems to the be one of the first issues you discover and one of the easiest issues to resolve.

It's a pretty acceptable explanation to say that the teachings in the temple ceremony are revealed from God but the teaching process and ritual was borrowed from another source.

What I think is a bigger problem, and much lesser known about the Masonic influence is the possible impact on actual doctrine.

see this thread

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?t=21893&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

possible ideas/doctrine borrowed from George Oliver's Antiquities of Freemasonry

endowment stuff, obviously
washing and annointing
priesthood
Shem as Melchizedek
"prophets, priests, and kings" and the beginnings of theosis/deification doctrine
source material for Book of Abraham, ie Abraham teaching the cosmos stuff

Fascinating stuff.

[Sullyute]

Ya, it won't be good for Romney if the media points out that a potential POTUS at one point in his life covenanted and promised to pray and never cease praying that God would avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation.

If George Bush can be elected while being a part of the skull and bones society then Romney doesn't have to worry.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ya, it won't be good for Romney if the media points out that a potential POTUS at one point in his life covenanted and promised to pray and never cease praying that God would avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation.

I could be wrong, but I thought that was dropped at about the time of the Reed Smoot hearings.

[Sullyute]

As you unpeel the onion that is the sum of LDS historical and doctrinal issues, the Mason-temple issue seems to the be one of the first issues you discover and one of the easiest issues to resolve.

It's a pretty acceptable explanation to say that the teachings in the temple ceremony are revealed from God but the teaching process and ritual was borrowed from another source.

What I think is a bigger problem, and much lesser known about the Masonic influence is the possible impact on actual doctrine.

see this thread

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?t=21893&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

possible ideas/doctrine borrowed from George Oliver's Antiquities of Freemasonry

endowment stuff, obviously
washing and annointing
priesthood
Shem as Melchizedek
"prophets, priests, and kings" and the beginnings of theosis/deification doctrine
source material for Book of Abraham, ie Abraham teaching the cosmos stuff

Fascinating stuff.

The podcasts with George Miller on Mormon Expression about the connections between joseph smith's theology and masonry is absolutely fascinating and a little scary too.