Is anyone else as disturbed as I am that neither Joseph or Brigham got the temple finished but had the time and resources to complete a Masonic temple and be active in it but did not get the temple of God completed?
Maybe it is because they could not progress within the Masonic lodge as fast, and obtain more insider knowledge of their rituals to incorporate them into the temple ceremony. If they moved with building the temple first, they would have a building ready but not the rituals. This is just speculation of course.
@@icecreamladydriver1606 , well, I personally do not see masonry as that big of a problem. I can see why Joseph thought it was some corrupted priesthood ritual. I have studied the origins of masonry. It was highly influenced by Rosicrucian secret order which in its turn was based on ancient hermetic orders (spiritual alchemy). The purpose of such orders was spiritual transmutation through self-knowledge and self- regulation. It is actually very similar to gnostic movement in early Christianity. The secret teachings of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament are gnostic teachings. If you read those apocrypha texts you will see that Jesus taught his disciples to obtain self-knowledge (gnosis). They believed that through self-awareness they can know God and receive eternal life by becoming one with Christ and the Father in spirit (coming into the presence of the Father). We do not have a description of some of their rituals that gnostic practiced , a bridal chamber for example. However, any ritual was viewed as a tool to obtain this knowledge and self-awareness. The power (what we call priesthood) in gnosticism comes from within and in unity with God. It is not bestowed on one through external means or rituals. So we can see that the purpose of these ancient orders was to help people obtain the knowledge of God and find that power within themselves. Over time of course due to corrupt human nature these secret orders turned into instruments of manipulation and political influence. And that's what happened to masonry. I believe Joseph was right to see beyond the corruption of masonry, but I am not sure that he really understood what it was because of what we know about endowment. The endowment today really doesn't fulfill the purposes of what was lost during the early days of Christianity - teaching self awareness and finding that power within. I don't know what the endowment looked like in the beginning when it was introduced but all the later developments after Joseph's death and even modern day endowment unfortunately do not serve a purpose of truly bringing people into the presence of the Lord as Christ intended.
I never said that. I simply said focusing on a single subject and interpreting everything through that lens was not a good approach. Of course, if you don't agree with any of this material I would love to have your opinion instead which you are always welcome to give. I also admit that I could be wrong about anything. I never set anything in stone. However I am trying to do the best that I can and I know that God will guide me as I seek him. We should never be the same person tomorrow as we are today.
@uncorrelatedmormonism I don't trust anything penned by HCK. He could have made that up, especially considering it in the light of a conspiracy against Joseph perpetuated by the secret chamber. The Book of Mormon condemns oaths and secrecy and the threat of bloodshed to conceal them. Why would God have him initiate or reinstate something that goes contrary to scripture? It would create confusion. Because Joseph was flawed, maybe? I don't buy that either.
@uncorrelatedmormonism we have no firsthand accounts of Joseph talking about any of this. A second-hand account penned by HCK means little to me. I suspect he was a part of the secret chamber Joseph was warned about. Why would the Bible and Book of Mormon warn us against secrecy and making oaths and using the threat of bloodshed to conceal either? Why would God create such confusion?
Yes. However he would have known much more than a general member would. At the time Cutler started it Brigham had not even started his Endowment yet. Yes you could be correct, however I seriously doubt it.
I really don’t agree that the different accounts of the King Follett discourse agree with one another. I see specifically two of them very much in contradiction to the other two.
Yes they don't 100% align. There are also some oddities in certain versions like the one that says there will be children God's with children sized thrones. I believe however that they all agree on those 5 major points. Do you have examples where they do not? The best version I have seen is the 1978 amalgamation by Stan Larson. It combines all the versions together and notes sizeable distinctions.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The version originally recorded in Woodruff’s journal is much more aligned with the Lectures on Faith and Mosiah 15 in my opinion. When I read William Clayton’s account, though, I can’t help but see something similar to the Adam-God doctrine.
@@Dont-Be-Abi-Yussif Clayton's is much more likely to be the original. Clayton and Bullock very likely wrote theirs during the meeting, while Woodruff most likely wrote his after the fact. Bullock also used a shorthand so he was able to transcribe much more quickly. This is from the 1978 amalgamation paper: Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal a more nearly complete account, but only after a formal introduction in which he described the sermon in terms that could only be known after it was finished. Though Woodruff claimed in 1877 to have recorded the King Follett Discourse “on the crown of his hat, standing in the congregation,”3 he must have meant no longer extant notes which he later transferred to, and expanded in, his journal since his neatly-printed journal account has no abbreviated words, no gaps in the recording, and no unclearly written words. This transfer could have occurred that same day, or as much as a week or two later. Often the Woodruff account has synonyms and a slightly different word or phrase order when compared to the other accounts, but it is compatible to the other three versions in terms of the basic sense of the message. These considerations seem to indicate the need for a slightly different use of the Woodruff account.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I’m leaning toward both being copies (though maybe not copied from the same original source) considering how neatly and fully written both are in comparison to Bullock’s. I actually think his version is rather ambiguous but that’s expected since so many words aren’t fully written out. The first amalgamation was published in the Times and Seasons in August 15, 1844. Since JS was no longer alive by this time, he couldn’t affirm or deny it the teachings or any subsequent amalgamations. I suppose this is one of many things we can’t be fully certain about, but I do enjoy learning more and appreciate hearing different perspectives.
Re: the mid-nineties version, I see truth in it and I see error in it which demonstrates to me that some of it may have come through Joseph and that some of it was added later by the Brighamites.
Notice in verse 31 of section 124 that God grants them sufficient time to build the Nauvoo temple and will accept baptisms for the dead in an open water situation as they had been doing. Then notice in verse 32 He says that if the temple isn't finished by that time that the church along with their dead will be rejected. To me this indicates that there is no Church of "Jesus Christ" of Latter Day Saints because they did not get the temple completed within that allowed time since it never did get completely completed so even though we aren't told what that sufficient time period was, they failed. 31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me. 32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God. 33 For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me;
Yes, I am not sure how to interpret that otherwise. Lyman Wight certainly interpreted it as you did. "If we did not build within this time we were to be rejected as a church, we and our dead together. Both the temple and baptizing went very leisurely till the temple was somewhere in building the second story, when Brother Joseph from the stand announced the alarming declaration that baptism for our dead was no longer acceptable in the river. As much to say the time for building the temple had passed by and both we and our dead were rejected together. The church now stands rejected together with their dead. The church being rejected now stands alienated from her God in every sense of the word." - November 1851
@uncorrelatedmormonism agreed! There aren't many things, if any, more important than truth!! (Although perhaps some people could use their time wisely to learn how to spell correctly^^) 😉kimolsen4879
