Joesph Smith and the Masonic Mormans

Go ahead and quit , I don't mind, it's your image that is afected after all not mine, I think I provided you with clear evidence, you can call me wako or what ever you might make up, but you are also welcome to look at the statement posted in my earlyer post, the one that you failed to answer the second time in a row.
Cheers.





[edit on 8-12-2007 by pepsi78]

I refuse to take part in anymore of these "hit and run" posts - where anti-masons throw up utter nonsense, which is soundly defeated by logic and reason. The same anti-masons then completely ignore the logic and reason which just destroyed their arguments, and move on to the next utter non-sense theory. Rinse and repeat.

Your Albert Pike statement is yet another example of the typical anti-mason hit and run method. It has been proven on this board - several times (try searching for once) that

(1) No one cares what Pike says. Pike does not speak for all of masonry. People have posted numerous other quotes that directly contradict what Pike says, but you are only cherry picking what fits your ideology.

(2) Pike's statement was from a time when he believed masonry came from the Templars. He later found out he was wrong and retracted his statement. You choose to ignore this - again - because it doesn't fit your crackpot ideology. Masonry is fairly old, and it's wisdom has evolved over time. I can concurrently show you many books of science that tell us the world is flat - does that prove all of science is wrong, even now when science no longer says this? Same train of thought.

You lose. Again. Now, continue with your hit and run posting, and I will continue to find much comedy in it.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
I refuse to take part in anymore of these "hit and run" posts - where anti-masons throw up utter nonsense, which is soundly defeated by logic and reason. The same anti-masons then completely ignore the logic and reason which just destroyed their arguments, and move on to the next utter non-sense theory. Rinse and repeat.

Your Albert Pike statement is yet another example of the typical anti-mason hit and run method. It has been proven on this board - several times (try searching for once) that

(1) No one cares what Pike says. Pike does not speak for all of masonry. People have posted numerous other quotes that directly contradict what Pike says, but you are only cherry picking what fits your ideology.


(2) Pike's statement was from a time when he believed masonry came from the Templars. He later found out he was wrong and retracted his statement. You choose to ignore this - again - because it doesn't fit your crackpot ideology

No one knows where masonry came from, there are just theories, you are really mixing things up betwen number 1 and number 2.
Were talking about why masonry imported the simbols it did, not where masonry sprang in to life.
There is a big difrence from not knowing where something took birth compared to kowing the origins of the symbols and the location where they took birth.

The comparasion is:
1 Pike knew where the simbols came from and what they ment.
2 Pike did not know where masonry took birth so he made a theory like everyone.
You are mixing this 2 up, maybe intentionaly, I don't know.

The issue is that pike was speaking of something that he knew about, because he knew the location where the objects came from and the meaning and he is corect on describing the symbols and their original meaning, what he stated is that their meaning is atributed to masonry and that is no enigma to be solved either.

In your argument you are talking about something that was a puzzle, a real enigma, because it's a puzzle where masonry took birth, the problem is that the simbols are not.

The location of where the simbols came from is not an enigma, he was right about it.
The meaning of the objects are not an enigma, in fact he described them just like in the enciclopedia.
I see no confusion here, he got nothing wrong over this issue.

What he added was that the meanings of the objects are atributed to masonry , and this is no enigma either.
I find nothing strange about it, now where masonry sprang in to life may be a puzzle but where masonry got their simbols and what they mean is not.

You know this guy Albert Pike was smart, he wanted to open it all up, and show it, while he beilived what he beilived he was not afraid to come open about it, he was also very knolegable, I think he is someone worthy of respect form any angle you look at it if you are an adversary or on the same side.

. Masonry is fairly old, and it's wisdom has evolved over time.

How old is it, do you know the exact date and place where it came in to life, then I sugest you stop blaming one man for making a theory.

I can concurrently show you many books of science that tell us the world is flat - does that prove all of science is wrong, even now when science no longer says this? Same train of thought.

Yes, except that you got the part with the simbols wrong, pike was right, take any history book and look at the meaning and location of the simbols, and you will see pike's view is identical.

You lose. Again. Now, continue with your hit and run posting, and I will continue to find much comedy in it.

You wish


[edit on 8-12-2007 by pepsi78]

reply to post by pepsi78


Observe the typical "hit and run" anti-mason in action. Clear evidence is provided that his theory is wrong, and all of the evidence could be found by searching this forum for "Albert Pike." Instead of addressing the evidence or reasons for him being incorrect, he COMPLETELY ignores the points brought up to him and moves on to even more irrational and incohrerent anti-mason theories which have all before (in this case) been proven to be wrong. I could reply again to each point and show him where hes wrong - but he would then again completely ignore me and move on to the next rabid theory.

Classical hit and run post.

Observe also what his reply will be - instead of analyzing his own actions he will simply say I'm wrong and that he has somehow "won." On behalf of masons everywhere, I thank you pepsi78 for proving just how wrong you are. We win without even having to try.

as far as masonic origins- many abound
my favorite so far and very good history and research is Robinson's account Born in Blood real good read and this one support the Templar link to Free Masons or Frère Mason- or Brother Mason...
good read and Mormons have nothing to do with masonry- although a Mormon can be a mason- Masons are not Mormons

I used to have a lot of info regarding this subject. My friend who was a member of my marching band did not like me being a Freemason and he was getting pamphlets sent from the states.

These were evangelical books highlighting the supposed evils in masonry and their was a part in it dedicated to the mormons showing their signs and ceremony.

It was ironic that my friend was so anti-masonry when his grandfather was a Past master in the craft

If i still have this info i will post it. If none of the mormons object after all it is a religious ceremony and you have to respect other peoples beliefs.

David

reply to post by orangeman dave


I'm a Mormon, and we consider those to be sacred, so we would be opposed to having them on public display. We can't stop you from doing it, but we don't want you to. There's places on the internet you can already find them, but I'm not going to help you :p