• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Freemasonry

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
well you both wear aprons
mormons have masonic symbols
you both have a temple
you both learn more about the "religion" as you go on....

Joseph Smith: America's Hermetic Prophet compares Joseph Smith to Hermetcism (which is masonary for some)

further:

Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection

Figure 10. The 1650 edition of a thirteenth century alchemical work by Albertus Magnus contains one of the earliest allegorical representations of the key symbols later subsumed by both Masonry and Mormonism: the compass and square. Christ as Adam Kadmon appears within a sphere of light and dark, marked with the ubiquitous sun and moon, suggesting the complexio oppositorum manifest in creation. Within his body are encircled the four primal elements: fire, air, water, and earth. In the four corners of the madala are placed symbols of the divine work: the compass, the square and ruler, the scale of justice, and (perhaps) the vessel of chrism--an anointing oil of mercy balanced against the scale of justice. At the top appear the ten sacred numbers (represented also by the ten Sefiroth of Kabbalah) by which creation was mediated. Albertus Magnus, Philosophia naturalis (Basel, 1650).

JSKABF10.jpg




"While I would not diminish the inventive genius of Joseph Smith, careful reevaluation of historical data suggests there is both a poetic and an unsuspected factual substance to Bloom's thesis. Though yet little understood, from Joseph's adolescent years forward he had repeated, sometime intimate and arguably influential associations with distant legacies of Gnosticism conveyed by Kabbalah and Hermeticism--traditions intertwined in the Renaissance and nurtured through the reformative religious aspirations of three subsequent centuries. Though any sympathy Joseph held for old heresy was perhaps intrinsic to his nature rather than bred by association, the associations didexist. And they hold a rich context of meanings. Of course, the relative import of these interactions in Joseph Smith's history will remain problematic for historians; efforts to revision the Prophet in their light--or to reevaluate our methodology of understanding his history--may evoke a violently response from traditionalists. Nonetheless, these is substantial documentary evidence, material unexplored by Bloom or Mormon historians generally, supporting a much more direct Kabbalistic and Hermetic influences upon Smith and his doctrine of God than has previously been considered possible.
Through his associations with ceremonial magic as a young treasure seer, Smith contacted symbols and lore taken directly from Kabbalah. In his prophetic translation of sacred writ, his hermeneutic method was in nature Kabbalistic. With his initiation into Masonry, he entered a tradition born of the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition. These associations culminated in Nauvoo, the period of his most important doctrinal and ritual innovations. During these last years, he enjoyed friendship with a European Jew well-versed in the standard Kabbalistic works and possibly possessing in Nauvoo an extraordinary collection of Kabbalistic books and manuscripts. By 1844 Smith not only was cognizant of Kabbalah, but enlisted theosophic concepts taken directly from its principal text in his most important doctrinal sermon, the "King Follett Discourse."

Smith's concepts of God's plurality, his vision of God as anthropos, and his possession by the issue of sacred marriage, all might have been cross-fertilized by this intercourse with Kabbalistic theosophy--an occult relationship climaxing in Nauvoo. This is a complex thesis; its understanding requires exploration of an occult religious tradition spanning more that a millennium of Western history, an investigation that begins naturally with Kabbalah. "

By the late seventeenth century, several occult Hermetic brotherhoods, including Masonic and Rosicrucian societies, existed in England. The relationship these fraternities had to the first Grand Masonic Lodge organized at London in 1717 remains unclear. Although noting that "Masonry underwent gradual changes throughout a period of years stretching from well before 1717 to well after that date," modern authorities on Masonic history usually mark the beginnings of "speculative Masonry" to the decade following organization of this first Grand Lodge.66 Not long after this, around 1750, a specifically Rosicrucian order had been incorporated into French Masonry. Within the initiatory structure of the occult lodges, allegorical "mystery plays" were used to convey, through symbolic ritual, the grounding mythos of Masonry--a mythos which appears to have been fundamentally Hermetic-Kabbalistic.67 Though several renditions of Masonic history still emphasize the role of earlier "craft guilds" as a source of Freemasonry, relatively little evidence supports this claim. Even if one grants the existence of some linkage of eighteenth-century Masonry with earlier craft guilds, this does not diminish the molding force Hermeticism, alchemy and Rosicrucianism had on the fraternity's symbolic and philosophic development. (See Figure 10.) Simply put: Eighteenth-century Masonry was forcefully shaped by esoteric Hermetic-Kabbalistic traditions. While emphasizing this, I allow that several Masonic Lodges eventually evolved with less esoteric underpinnings and much simple fraternal intentions.
.....

Whatever one concludes about the varied hints of scattered early associations with Hermeticism, Joseph Smith had well-documented connections with one of the tradition's major legacies, Masonry. The prophet's associations with the Masonic tradition are thoroughly documented and discussed by Michael W. Homer in this issue of Dialogue. It is unlikely that Smith would have so fully involved himself and his church with the Masonic tradition if he had not sensed therein some intrinsic compatibility with his own religion-making vision. As Homer demonstrates, the prophet said that Masonry was "taken from priesthood," and his followers continued quoting that observation for fifty years after.104 It is possible that Joseph's interpretation of Masonry as a legacy of ancient priesthood was based in his own understanding of a history extending back hundreds of years, a history entwined with the Hermetic mythos and with Kabbalah, alchemy, and Rosicrucianism. The alliance of this occult legacy with Masonry was well understood by esoterically-inclined Masons; assertions of such links were bandied about by American anti-Masonic publications in the late 1820s.105 As noted, Joseph's own history several times touched Hermetic-Kabbalistic traditions. One could argue that he even interacted with them in a creative, visionary sense.

............
Thank you, Mr. Cheese, for proving my point. You do an excellent job of cutting and pasting. You clearly know nothing of either Mormonism or Freemasonry aside from what you can find on the web. That doesn't seem to be much of a concern to you, though, so carry on...
 
Last edited:
Katzpur, please don't encourage him. I suspect that as we speak he is getting together with one or two of his "chums" and we are in for another round of fluff and nonsense. People like this, trouble makers, with very little to do other than to cause mayhem and damage, for no good reason, never give up.

Figure 10. The 1650 edition of a thirteenth century alchemical work by Albertus Magnus contains one of the earliest allegorical representations of the key symbols later subsumed by both Masonry and Mormonism: the compass and square.

This is chinese and dates from around 1000 years or more BC:

ChinaSquareandCompasses.jpg


Where does he find all this rubbish? The Square and Compasses is the symbol of the ancient God Kings.

Good grief!
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Katzpur, please don't encourage him. I suspect that as we speak he is getting together with one or two of his "chums" and we are in for another round of fluff and nonsense. People like this, trouble makers, with very little to do other than to cause mayhem and damage, for no good reason, never give up.
Gotcha! It's hard to let it drop, but your advice is right on the money.
 

J Bryson

Well-Known Member
The Mormons and the Freeemasons are joining forces! Oh noez, we will all fall under the thrall of charity-oriented businesspeople and polite young men and women on bicycles!
 

kai

ragamuffin
welcome to RF grandsecretary.

Athelstan agreat King indeed! a myth? perhaps a case of mistaken identity with Arthur?
 
welcome to RF grandsecretary.

Athelstan agreat King indeed! a myth? perhaps a case of mistaken identity with Arthur?

Kai, thank you for your welcome.

You are obviously neither a historian nor an Englishman.

See: British Monarchs: Kings and Queens of England, Scotland and Wales and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/athelstan.shtml

Being the basis of, not a myth, but Arthurian LEGEND does not make you a myth. King Athelstan was the grandson of William the Conqueror, and a very important King to boot.

I recommend this book to you: The Age of Athelstan, Britain's Forgotten History by Paul Hill, ISBN 978-0-7524-2566-5

Religious Education Forum? We are doing our job then.
 
Last edited:

kai

ragamuffin
Kai, thank you for your welcome.

You are obviously neither a historian nor an Englishman.

See: British Monarchs: Kings and Queens of England, Scotland and Wales and BBC - History - Athelstan (c.895 - 939)

Being the basis of, not a myth, but Arthurian LEGEND does not make you a myth. King Athelstan was the grandson of William the Conqueror, and a very important King to boot.

I recommend this book to you: The Age of Athelstan, Britain's Forgotten History by Paul Hill, ISBN 978-0-7524-2566-5

Religious Education Forum? We are doing our job then.

you missunderstand me sir! i am indeed English and questionably a gentleman Lol.

maybe my punctuation led to such an outburst? call me an oaf if you will!, but to be labelled " not an Englishman" in another age it would be pistols at dawn sir!

I said "Athelstan a great king indeed!" i thought maybe Mr Cheese was mistaking Athelstan with Arthur?
 
Last edited:
you missunderstand me sir! i am indeed English and questionably a gentleman Lol.

maybe my punctuation led to such an outburst? call me an oaf if you will!, but to be labelled " not an Englishman" in another age it would be pistols at dawn sir!

I said "Athelstan a great king indeed!" i thought maybe Mr Cheese was mistaking Athelstan with Arthur?

Oh, I do beg your pardon, please forgive me.

Perhaps Mr Cheese is making the mistake for the reason stated. Athelstane was considered by some to be the character basis for the Arthurian Legend. This is what he may have read on a so-called "Masonic" website in America.

I know one which tries very hard to discredit the true and genuine form of Anglo-Saxon Free Masonrie by suggesting that King Athelstan did not exist and therefore could not possibly have issued a Charter to the Congress of Masons at York in AD926.

Being a red blooded educated Englishman you will know that Athelstan, for want of a better word "tamed" the disparate Kingdoms in Britain and chartered a number of organisations at this time. Without these Charters their lives were in danger. For instance, the Crown Coroners of both England and America still operate under the regal (and indeed sacred) powers conferred by their AD 926 Royal Charter.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
Thank you, Mr. Cheese, for proving my point. You do an excellent job of cutting and pasting. You clearly know nothing of either Mormonism or Freemasonry aside from what you can find on the web. That doesn't seem to be much of a concern to you, though, so carry on...

pardon?

so you are saying all this information is garbage?

I do actually know some things about mormonism and free masonary thanks!

my cousin is a mormon and so is a long time friend of mine...

mormons believe for example in: Kolob, God is a title composed of three beings doing a job....

but anyway....

sorry for upsettign you, wasnt my intention
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
Oh, I do beg your pardon, please forgive me.

Perhaps Mr Cheese is making the mistake for the reason stated. Athelstane was considered by some to be the character basis for the Arthurian Legend. This is what he may have read on a so-called "Masonic" website in America..

um...no

more smoke and mirrors

I severly doubt Geoffrey of Monmouth based his Arthur on Atheistane...
I have no idea....

As any decent historian knows, arthur was probably Welsh....

After all the kingdoms of the time were distrubuted and divided far differently.

But there are other theories, such as the one presented in that rather poor Arthur movie with Clive Owen and Kiera Knightly,
which IS actually based on one archaelogical/hisorical perspective aand theory, pity the film l;argely sucks...


but carry on with the smoke and mirrors, if it makes you happy:facepalm:
 
Last edited:

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
out of interest, here's what my friend had to say:

I spent some time looking around the site, but could not locate
these quotes you posted.
Still, I find it curious that they devote a great deal of space
to the issues of Regularity and recognition, insisting over and
over that they ARE Regular, DESPITE what anybody else thinks.
Clearly, they only recently came to be (2007 I think was noted),
and their origination looks like it was some break-away from the
Grand Lodge of England.
My guess is that the founders WERE Regularly made Masons, from
within the G.L.O.E., but for whatever reason(s), decided to
separate, and attempt to establish their own Grand Lodge, and
Rites...in the absense of any charter to do so.

Now, onto your quotes:

You report that they state "Free Masonrie which was and is Exoteric and
definitely not Esoteric".

This alone raises a number of red flags for me.

If they are claiming that "pure" Masonry is just another exotericism, this then
entirely negates any value to Initiation--and if anything
separates Masonry from exotericism, it is the fact that Masonry
transmits its doctrines via Initiation, which always naturally are
an esoteric transmission--this remains valid, even if the transmission
eventually becomes reduced to a "symbolic" or "virtual" transmission, only to be
"effectively" realized at some later point.


If what you are reporting is accurate, then this new "Grand Lodge"
merely sees itself as just another social club, and that is an entirely
"Irregular" view of Masonry! Further, if all they are, or purport to be is a
social circle, they are indeed worthless, from an esoteric perspective, using
the "name" Masonry, but containing none
of the contents. Based on all this, I doubt I'd seek affiliation with
this outfit.



You reported that they wrote <<I know where my Masonic religion comes from
thank you>>.



Masonry is not a "religion", so this guy is very confused, concerning
what separates exotericism from esotericism.
If it is a "religion", or "exotericism", as he stated in the
previous paragraph, it begs the question of where the esotericism is?
Afterall, every legitimiate exotericism has somewhere at its core
an esotericiism, and points to such.



Now, one of the Regular Landmarks/qualifications pretaining to a
Masonic candidate, is that the BELONG to an exotericism.
So, what is this guy saying? That Masonry is a religion looking
for converts from other religions, while simultaneously requiring
then to practice the very religion they are exiting! Insane!



Instead, the truth is that Masonry is an esotericism and Initiation,
that while insiting on an existing exotericism of its candiadtes,
presents its Initiation/esotericism in way that is appplicable to any
exotericism.



Not all Initiations do that, and some require that the
candidates' exotericism agree with the specificity of the tradition
surrounding the given Initiatory form.
 
Yeah, yeah. Forget the cobblers. What answers did your "friends" give to my questions. I will remind you, just in case they slipped your mind:

1) Ask them to provide you with a single record of any one of the so-called "four old lodges" prior to the 24th June 1717.

2) Ask them for a copy of the minutes of the alleged meeting at the Goose and Gridiron Ale-house on the 24th June 1717, or if not a simple list of any initiated freemasons who attended.

3) Ask them who chaired the meeting.

4) Ask them for a copy of their Charter. (NOTE: I am quite happy to publish copies of ours at any time. The earliest manuscript copy is dated c.1390)

5) Ask them to explain this:

"The Earl of Crawford seems to have made the first encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge in the city of York, by constituting two lodges within their district; and by granting, without their consent, three deputations, one for Lancashire, a second for Durham, and a third for Northumberland. This circumstance the Grand Lodge of York highly resented ..." (SOURCE: Illustrations of Masonry by Dr William Preston, 1772)
and this:

"In 1735, the Earl of Crawford, Grand Master of England, constituted two Lodges within the jurisdiction of the York Grand Lodge and granted, without its consent, Deputations for Lancashire, Durham and Northumberland. (SOURCE: Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry Part 1, page 327, by Albert Gallatin Mackey and H.L. Haywood, 1909)
Now that you know what a myth and a legend really are, I can't wait for you to come back to let us know what they said and for the answers to the list of questions that I have given you.

If you don't deal with these issues but insist upon spreading tittle tattle Mr Cheese, then nobody will believe you or take you seriously. Your problem, not mine Mr Cheese. I predicted fluff and nonsense and we have not been disappointed.

The history of The Grand Lodge of All England, the legal status of the Grand Lodge of All England, its Charter, the Acts of Parliament that protect it, its regularity as the Premier Grand Lodge of England, may be may be found on its website The Grand Lodge of All England - Welcome Page, or you can take Mr Cheese on face value.

Does Mr Cheese oppose everything, on principle when a new poster arrives?
 
Last edited:
Due to the recent posting by Mr Cheese may I please make our position quite clear.

The Grand Lodge of All England is not a religion, it is a religious movement that dates back to time immemorial. It is pre-Davidic and therefore pre-Christian. Because it is pre-Davidic, it does not require conversion, because it is the mother of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christian Buddhism.

On the contrary, this is the stated position of the Moderns form of freemasonry:
Freemasonry and Natural Religion - FREEMASONRY TODAY - Spring 2000 - Issue 12

This article is an attempt to discuss how Freemasonry in the English tradition gradually tended away from the Christianity of the operative masons to the &#8216;natural religion&#8217; of the Enlightenment from the 14th century onwards. .......

Looking at English Freemasonry as a whole, it may be said that 1813 [sic] rather than 1723 was really the date on which the final break with an explicitly Christian frame of reference took place. The spirit of Anderson triumphed after the rivalries, as the Antients had to sacrifice their Christianity; religious universality and natural religion were established. Freemasonry became a lowest-common-denominator of religions, a Religion behind religions in which all men agreed, excluding only &#8220;the stupid atheist and irreligious libertine.&#8221;
This shows beyond doubt that the Moderns form of freemasonry is a new "naturalistic religion" that rejects God as the Creator, and Preserver of all things and also rejects the immortality of souls. It is a product of the Rosicrucian Enlightenment, God and Nature as one entity, Deus Sive Natura.

This is why it is in turn rejected by the established Churches and religions including the Roman Catholic Church, which automatically excommunicates its members who become freemasons, World Islam which imprisons, hangs or beheads freemasons, the Methodist Church of England, the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, Assemblies of God, Church of the Nazarene, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Mennonite Church, The Church of Scotland, Grace Brethren, Christian Reformed Church in America, Synod Anglican Church of England, Free Church of Scotland, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Etc., Etc., Etc.
 
Last edited:

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
Due to the recent posting by Mr Cheese may I please make our position quite clear.

The Grand Lodge of All England is not a religion, it is a religious movement that dates back to time immemorial. It is pre-Davidic and therefore pre-Christian. Because it is pre-Davidic, it does not require conversion, because it is the mother of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christian Buddhism.

I was told freemasonry was not religious, just a belief in a higher power whatever that higher power may be?

I would hardly consider the recognition of the universal constant (energy) as the source of our being religious, yet it still qualifies for acceptance as a mason here in Australia.
 

kai

ragamuffin
um...no

more smoke and mirrors

I severly doubt Geoffrey of Monmouth based his Arthur on Atheistane...
I have no idea....

As any decent historian knows, arthur was probably Welsh....

After all the kingdoms of the time were distrubuted and divided far differently.

But there are other theories, such as the one presented in that rather poor Arthur movie with Clive Owen and Kiera Knightly,
which IS actually based on one archaelogical/hisorical perspective aand theory, pity the film l;argely sucks...


but carry on with the smoke and mirrors, if it makes you happy:facepalm:

but you do accept Athelstan is an actual historical king Mr Cheese?
 

kai

ragamuffin
Oh, I do beg your pardon, please forgive me.

Perhaps Mr Cheese is making the mistake for the reason stated. Athelstane was considered by some to be the character basis for the Arthurian Legend. This is what he may have read on a so-called "Masonic" website in America.

I know one which tries very hard to discredit the true and genuine form of Anglo-Saxon Free Masonrie by suggesting that King Athelstan did not exist and therefore could not possibly have issued a Charter to the Congress of Masons at York in AD926.

Being a red blooded educated Englishman you will know that Athelstan, for want of a better word "tamed" the disparate Kingdoms in Britain and chartered a number of organisations at this time. Without these Charters their lives were in danger. For instance, the Crown Coroners of both England and America still operate under the regal (and indeed sacred) powers conferred by their AD 926 Royal Charter.

no problem
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
but you do accept Athelstan is an actual historical king Mr Cheese?

Yep, I apologised and said so...

The masonic origins as regards this king are myth and legend....

This guy is claiming his group are the mother of christianity, Islam, HINDUISM! etc.


:sarcastic This guy clearly has issues...

:sarcasticNow uh, I'm not really a nationalist, but I do like to joke that England invented a lot... but um...:rolleyes:

Oh well the internet is full of questionable people....
 
Top