A new anti-Mormon DVD is supposed to be distributed tomorrow, and FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research) has a response up already. From the FAIR wiki site:
On 25 March 2007, a ninety-minute video entitled Search for the Truth was distributed to thousands of homes across the United States. The video has excellent production values but, unfortunately, its contents are not of a similar quality.
Though it purports to be an objective Christian evaluation of the teachings, history, and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it contains much that is inaccurate and very little that is balanced. Rather than focus on what they believe, the video’s producers have taken it upon themselves to describe and interpret LDS beliefs and teachings, often in ways that would be objectionable or unrecognizable to Latter-day Saints.
The video contains many of the same anti-Mormon claims that misguided critics have been repeating for years. The issues it raises have been repeatedly addressed by faithful Latter-day Saints, but the video does not address or take those responses into account.
This page provides information that will help you compare the video’s claims with the actual history, teachings, and beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Feel free to pass this info on to others and post it elsewhere. www.JosephSmithDVD.org
A good friend of mine maintains that “I’ve come to realize that the Christian Right not acknowledging Mormonism as christians is actually a positive thing for Mormons” (a quote from his sig).
He uses the statement to make a political point, but I think his statement has some merit.
OTOH – Mormons have produced similar volumes accusing other religions of all sorts of heresies. The Missionary Pal, anyone?
I received this F.A.I.R. message, and was curious. I visited the website, and sampled the page discussing “Joseph Smith and the ‘Occult’.” This page has a number of significant errors and oversimplifications. If it is the desire of F.A.I.R. to “defend the truth” against critics of the LDS church, they would do well to be extremely careful in terms of what claims THEY make.
I should preface by saying that I’ve been working on a book about Freemasonry and early Mormonism for about four years now (my publisher is tearing his hair out, and will soon start on mine), so the topic is one I know well. I’ve spent a lot of time in original documents, etc., rather than reading two or three published works.
Among the errors and oversimplifications, on this page alone:
(1) The page suggests that Joseph Smith did NOT raise to the “highest” degree of Freemasonry, a.k.a. the “sublime degree.” First, the page makes a historical mistake in distinguishing the “York Rite” from the first three degrees of Freemasonry. While these three degrees are typically called “Craft masonry” today, in the 1840s they were still referred to as “Ancient York Masonry.” Now, regardless of how one may assign numbers to the degrees, there is NO degree higher than the third—the “sublime degree of a Master Mason.” All else is essentially an expansion on that degree. It is a matter of historical record that Joseph did, in fact, receive the “sublime degree,” which was indeed “the highest degree in Freemasonry.”
(2) The page suggests that what is now called the “Scottish Rite” and “York Rite” did not exist in Illinois during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. This claim is simply untrue. While neither the York Rite or Scottish Rite formed unique Illinois governing bodies until a few years after Joseph’s death, the York Rite DID exist in Illinois during Joseph’s lifetime. Springfield Chapter #1 of Royal Arch Masons was established in 1839. It included such notaries as Abraham Jonas, the Grand Master who had Joseph raised on sight. While the records of this body from that time are now lost, other evidence indicates that James Adams–one of the original nine men to receive the Endowment, and a father figure to Joseph after Joseph Sr.’s death—was a Royal Arch Mason in Springfield Chapter. Interestingly, Joseph made a number of trips to Springfield, for days at a time, sometimes staying at Adams’ home, and associating with other masons in the area. Lacking the records of Springfield Chapter #1, we cannot be certain whether Joseph was ever given degrees there, but it is entirely possible. There is little doubt that Joseph was familiar with the Royal Arch degrees, in any case.
(3) The page suggests that the Grand Master of Illinois had full authority to make Joseph Smith a Mason “on sight.” This is a matter of some debate. Abraham Jonas had earlier served as Grand Master in Kentucky, where that power was explicitly granted to the Grand Master. This power was not explicitly granted in Illinois, though it was arguably inherent in the office, based on the landmarks of Freemasonry. There was significant debate in Illinois at the time, as to whether Jonas acted with legitimate authority in exercising this prerogative.
(4) The page suggests that certain ordinances were begun in the Kirtland Temple, “many years before Joseph’s involvement with Masonry.” This statement is misleading, at best. While it is true that Joseph was initiated as a Mason in 1842, he already had a lifetime of exposure to the Fraternity and its legends. Several family members were Masons. Joseph was a mere 9 miles from the epicenter of the Morgan scandal, and was exposed to considerable media attention on the subject, not to mention public re-enactments of masonic ceremonies. It may be technically correct to say Joseph was not “involved” in Masonry until his initiation, but to do so is a half-truth at best, which can only mislead the reader.
(5) The page makes much of Dr. Reed Durham “subsequently distancing himself” from remarks made in his 1974 Mormon History Association presidential address. The fact is, Durham was forced to write a re-affirmation of his testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and to assure CES personnel that his remarks were not intended to suggest otherwise. Durham never taught another church history class, due to the fallout from his speech. I would also advise against making this claim about Dr. Durham, because my book will contain further unpublished information on the subject, which will frankly make such statements rather embarassing. Let’s just say that after the initial shock, not everyone in church leadership was quite as upset as is commonly supposed….
(6) The page suggests, or at least implies, that the U.S. dollar bill is decorated with Masonic images. Serious scholarship on this question has demonstrated that while some of the symbols may be interpreted as such, there is no evidence to suggest that they were placed there because of Masonic overtones.
(7) The page suggests that there is “no indication” of any connection between French “Lodges of Adoption” and the Relief Society. This is debateable, but based on my own research, I can guarantee there was a connection between the Relief Society and certain OTHER female “masonic” organizations. I have the evidence, both in direct witness testimony of those involved, as well as in observations by others of activities which precisely mirror certain female rites. (Yes…I know…I need to finish the book….) Further, there is simply no question that Joseph DID use masonic terminology in his instructions to the Relief Society. To pretend otherwise is untruthful.
(8) The page repeats the relatively new argument regarding Joseph’s “masonic jewel,” which argument was NEVER ONCE made until after Michael Quinn pointed out that it was nearly identical to the “Jupiter Talisman” in *The Magus*. Emma was many things, but she was NOT stupid. When she said it was a “masonic jewel,” she was right, as the iconography on this item is actually quite fitting, not only as a masonic item, but also as an item to be found on Joseph’s corpse. The “big new argument” attempts to shrug off the talisman by implying that Charlie Bidamon, Emma’s stepson, LIED about its origin in order to make a fast buck. Now, the best part of the new argument, truly, is the question of how Charlie got it, rather than having it passed to Joseph Smith III. That’s a legitimate question. The fact is, as I was examining early records (dirty and shoved into a file folder with zero organization to them!!), I found unquestionable documentary evidence that Lewis Bidamon had joined Reformation Lodge—the masonic lodge formed by non-Mormons in Nauvoo after the Mormons left. Suddenly, it makes sense—-Emma no doubt gave it to Lewis Bidamon, after he became a mason, and Charlie, as Lewis’ son, ended up with it THAT way. This is far more likely, and far kinder than trying to assasinate the character of a dead man who can’t defend himself anymore.
Now, there are eight points, just from ONE of this new website’s pages. This is why I cringe at LDS polemics/apologetics. Quick, dismissive answers are given by people who manage to develop an aura of trust. For some LDS, these answers are enough to satisfy them, and they never, ever actually investigate the topics. (A cynical person could conclude that such is the actual purpose of such polemics.) Other LDS, however, will dig into these topics, and find that they’ve been misinformed. When people are misinformed, they often conclude that they’ve been intentionally lied to. Then you have created exactly the problem you hoped to avoid.
Some vehicle just came around and delivered one of these DVDs to every house in our neighborhood. It is packaged to look like it came from the church. I speculate we lose a couple members to it.
That sort of thing makes my blood boil. I’ve heard former members of the church totally misrepresent us. My sister used to give speeches at born again churches against Mormonism after she burned her garments and scriptures.
I don’t see how any Christian can justify that kind of vitriol.
Wow…you’ve already watched it, annegb? What sort of misrepresentations did you see in it?
No, I didn’t watch it, I took Tracy’s word for it. I just knew what my sister did. She was The Godmakers’ token former Mormon.
They’re probably not distributing them in Utah, :). I have to figure out my speakers so I can watch it.
Nick;
Greg Kearney here, I’m the primary author of the pages at FAIR to which you refer. On point one both you and I would agree that the Master Mason degree is the highest degree in Masonry.
The film clearly shows a chart with the York and Scottish Rite body with the implication that Joseph Was a member of those bodies which he was not.
While I explained that the degree is referred to as the sublime degree of a Master Mason there is no such thing as the “Sublime Degree” as the DVD refers to it. That would be the Master Mason degree. This mixing of terminology and visuals is a deliberate attempt to suggest an association that does not exist.
There is no indication that Joseph sought York Rite degrees other than that of Master Mason. In any event he would have had only two years to do so 1842-1844. There was no Scottish Rite in the state at the time.
Grand Master Johns did have the authority as outlined in Landmark Six which the Grand Lodge accepted as governing the affairs of Freemasonry. The debate only started after his actions. You are not suggesting that the Grand Lodge did not recognize the Landmarks are you?
While it is true that Joseph grew up surrounded by Masons and masonry there is little to indicate that the Kirtland rites drew much influence of Masonry as compared to the later Nauvoo rites. Rather the Kirtland rites, known today as the washing and anointing seem to stem from Old Testament accounts.
I did not write the portion of the page dealing with Dr. Durhams retraction of his remarks and rather wish it had not been added.
It is true that Joseph used masonic language in creating the Relief Society and what his plans were for the future of that organization will remain unknown but I find it highly doubtfully that Lodges of Adoption were front and center in his mind as Dr. Durham seems to suggest on this point Dr. Durham and I disagree.
As for the talisman the most important point is that it was not in the jail inventory and the story of Joseph having with him at his death only occurs nearly 90 after his death. Even if he did have it at the time of his death we don’t know what if any significants he may have attached to it. I carry a Masonic Shekel myself but I don’t attach magical powers to it.
Greg Kearney
The literature distributed with the DVD says someone donated all the DVD’s to ministries inside of Utah. That’s a ton of dough, what millionaire has that much of a beef with us?
Greg,
First, if I seemed to imply that the Scottish Rite existed in Illinois during Joseph Smith’s time, I was unclear. Such was not even attempted until 1846, and was not successful until 1856, in Chicago. It’s predecessor, the so-called “Rite of Perfection” could have sporadically been taught in Illinois, but if it was, it was most likely the illegitimate Cernau version. Not having seen the dvd, I can’t evaluate the presentation of this issue as you have, but I’m sure you’ll keep in mind that many people (especially anti-masons) are rather confused when it comes to the structure of Freemasonry and its appendant bodies. It could have been deliberate, as you suggest. Could have been pure ignorance, as well?
Four factors make me hesitant to join the chorus of those who insist that Joseph Smith never received additional degrees after becomming a Master Mason. (1) James Adams was a Royal Arch Mason, most likely a member of Springfield Chapter #1. He was, of course, quite close to Joseph. (2) Joseph made a number of trips to Springfield. While NONE of Joseph’s trips fell on the monthly meeting of Springfield Chapter #1, you and I both understand that degree work could have taken place on any given evening. Given that Joseph was closely associated with several Royal Arch Masons, including James Adams and Newel K. Whitney for example, it would not be a great reach for him to be interested in that set of degrees. (3) Joseph clearly had a solid familiarity with the legenda of the Royal Arch degrees. Either he took the degrees, or he spent plenty of time with an expose. (4) Nauvoo Lodge was both blessed and cursed, to have the individual attention of a true “shining star” of American Freemasonry at the time. Jonathan Nye, Past Grand Master of Vermont (who, incidentally, would have been acquainted with Smith relatives who were Masons in Vermont) had also served as the Grand High Priest of the Grand Chapter of the United States. By the time he came to Nauvoo, he was highly regarded as a ritualist, and was known to teach the York Rite degrees for pay. I have material from a non-Mason witness in Nauvoo, which quite strongly suggests that even the Cryptic Rite (for those who aren’t Masons, the Cryptic Rite *follows* the Royal Arch) was in fact being taught in Nauvoo for a time.
As for the authority of Grand Master Abraham Jonas, you and I agree that he had the authority to make masons on sight. What you probably do not know, however, is that Illinois has never (no, not even today) accepted the Ancient Landmarks as truly binding. I personally stood in Grand Lodge, arguing that a proposal blatantly violated the Ancient Landmarks, and was promptly attacked by proponents of the measure, who pointed this odd fact out. While it is entirely likely that the members of Bodley Lodge #1 raised the issue chiefly because of WHO had been raised on sight, they didn’t invent the issue out of whole cloth.
I did not argue that the Kirtland ordinances were masonic in nature. As I’m sure you know, however, the argument over whether Freemasonry influenced LDS ordinances is almost trivial. Masonic influence in Mormonism goes far beyond ordinances. We can save the big argument over that, of course, until you have my book to respond to.
If you think that I supported the idea of so-called “Lodges of Adoption” influencing the Relief Society, you misread. I think Durham was entirely grasping at straws on that idea. I explicitly stated that I don’t believe such to be the case. There were other female “masonic” rites at the time, however, which were indeed being practiced in Nauvoo. Aside from the question of what was or was not being practiced in Nauvoo, however, there can be little serious question that the organization and practice of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo (as opposed to later incarnations of the Relief Society) was heavily modeled after Freemasonry.
I’m not sure why you feel the jail inventory was “the most important point.” Again, we should recognize that no scholars questioned the provenance of the “masonic jewel” until Quinn identified it as a Jupiter Talisman, and made spurious conclusions therefrom. Latter-day Saints shouldn’t shake in their shoes over Quinn’s treatment of the subject, especially to the point of making strained arguments and groundlessly attacking the character of dead men. I don’t recall whether you are a Royal Arch Mason or a Cryptic Mason, but the legenda associated with these degrees is rather well expressed in the language and iconography of this item. I don’t think for a moment that there is any evidence that Joseph attributed magical powers to the talisman, but I *do* believe he considered it an appropriate masonic symbol. The number and nature of correspondences between Joseph Smith’s life and the legend(s) of Hiram Abiff are so remarkable, Greg, that it becomes entirely appropriate for Joseph to have had this “masonic jewel” on his person at the time of his death.
BTW, Greg, I’ve been waiting since October 2005 for you to identify your source, wherein you say Abraham Jonas argued that Joseph Smith was a “lewis.” You said you’d get back to me on that. 😉
Ours was delivered to our house today (Pleasant Grove, UT–Wow…it feels like Christmas!)
I find it highly ironic that other Christian churches maintain to the death that Mormons are not Christians…yet very deliberately packaged the DVD using Christian images and words (“He Is Risen!”) that only a true Christian would be interested in watching in the first place, in order to ‘entice’ Mormons to open it without knowing what’s inside. That’s some darkly funny hypocrisy, if you think about it…
The whole Joseph Smith – Masonry thing is a big ho-hum for me. Honestly, I couldn’t care less if Joseph lifted temple imagery from freemasonry. I don’t care if he lifted it from witchdoctors in the Congo! Joseph’s prejudices as a man, don’t make him less of a true prophet to me.
And if mainline Christians want to go about sniggering about Masonic origins of Mormon ordinances, shall we turn a little historical light of day on THEIR own ordinances and religious holidays? Hmmm?
We’ve got the Masons, they’ve got Christ mingled with Zeus, Apollo, and who knows what other polytheistic gods of the time. The countercultists’ attacks on Mormonism as “kooky religion” is ultimately going to come back to bite them. Every attack, every misrepresentation, every ounce of ridicule they heap upon Mormons can just as easily be heaped upon them. The only real difference is that they tend to be less gracious than Mormons.
I generally agree with #11. The whole Joseph Smith was a Mason thing is a big yawn. There is nothing that Nick or any other person trying to tear down faith in the Church could tell me that would really matter. My faith comes directly from the Father by means of the Holy Ghost. Nick, we’ve given you space to promote your theories here. Are you going to come clean on why you are so interested in this? You are, of course, still a faithful Church member, right? Please re-read our comments policy before answering. Thanks.
Let me just say that the internet is filled with people who see it as their job to tear down the faith of others. So, now it appears that some of these people are trying to do it through passing out free DVDs. I fear they may lead astray a few people. I hope these people will continue to rely on the testimonies they have received or visit pages like FAIR to improve their testimonies. Prayer, listening to conference talks and reading the scriptures and Ensign are always ways of getting your compass back to true north.
As for those who use deceptions, falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies to lead people from the Lord’s Church, well, I feel sorry for them because the guilt they will feel later on will be horrific.
I was driving to the family history center the other day and passed the Masonic Temple and I thought, “hmmm….we should put a secret camera in there and see what they really do.” I was a Rainbow girl in high school (teenage female mason stuff), I never saw anything (that I recall) that remotely resembled Mormonism.
Geoff,
Exactly what did I write above, that would in any way “tear down faith?” I have re-read the comments policy, as you requested, and I don’t think I’ve violated it in any way. I think you’ve quite unfairly rushed to judgment, simply on the basis that I pointed out problems with F.A.I.R.’s handling of a single topic.
You ask me to “come clean on why I’m so interested in this.” Geoff, I’ve been under contract for over four years now, working on a book. The book is a history of the influence of Freemasonry on early Mormonism. I have literally travelled the length and breadth of the United States, researching original sources that have been overlooked, ignored, and/or misquoted by other writers on the subject. Because I have a background in both Mormonism and Freemasonry, I have been able to identify information that was generally missed by individuals who were unfamiliar with one group or the other. I have been able to find a lot of fascinating information, and NONE of it is destructive of faith in the spiritual claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To the contrary, the material I found actually further enhanced my respect for Joseph Smith. Are there “blips” where either the Mormons or the Masons behaved in unfortunate ways? Yes. For the most part, however, my research has reflected well on both groups.
It may surprise you, Geoff, to know that I have pubilshed a review of another book on this topic (a perfectly dreadful anti-LDS screed, frankly) for the FARMS Review of Books, and have been recognized therein by Louis Midgely as “an expert on Freemasonry.” It may also surprise you, Geoff, to know that after I posted the above information, I was contacted by a friend at F.A.I.R., who requested my assistance in critiquing the information they presented on the topic. Does that sound like the lurking evil you imply?
Geoff, when someone spends so much time on a topic, they will notice when someone publishes incomplete or inaccurate information. Just because someone is well-intentioned, doesn’t mean they are accurate. I could silently ignore such things, but it’s frankly not my nature. Personally, I think it’s a huge mistake to use inaccurate or incomplete information to pacify people who have doubts. I think it’s much better to arm people with accurate information. In almost all cases where critics of the LDS church try to use history, an accurate understanding of the history (with its context, I might add) pretty much eliminates the criticism. If a person is temporarily pacified with incorrect information, however, they may react quite negatively when presented with “the rest of the story.”
Just as an example, some LDS authors have popularized the idea that Joseph Smith only ever attended three masonic meetings in his lifetime. I can’t say those authors “lied,” but they did have access to records that showed otherwise, including the published *History of the Church*. They made this claim in order to suggest that Joseph Smith knew little of Freemasonry, and (in their reasoning) therefore couldn’t have “stolen” it to create the Endowment. Not only is their factual information clearly wrong, but it has absolutely no bearing on the question! Joseph could have attended a masonic meeting every day of his life, and that would prove NOTHING about the origins of the Endowment. Wouldn’t it be better to acknowledge the true level of involvement Joseph had in Freemasonry, but then challenge the critics to show how that supposedly proves their claim? They wouldn’t be able to do it, and you know that.
You also ask if I am “still a faithful church member.” If I understand the context of your question properly, you are suggesting that the information I provide can only be correct, or reliable, if I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Your question also seems to imply that if I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, my motivation in providing historical information must be diabolical. I don’t think you are asking just out of pure curiousity, because you’ve seen me comment on other topics, and I think you are quite well aware that I am no longer a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As I think you already know, I had my name removed from the records of the church. I think you also know that I did that because of certain life decisions, which would spin us off on an entirely different topic if I listed here. I get the impression that you are trying to “protect” someone from me by asking my membership status. I have no problem stating that I am no longer a member of your church. I have no problem stating that I disagree with certain policies of the church in modern times. At the same time, I still have many LDS friends, and I still have a fascination with Mormon history. Frankly, it is still my opinion that Mormonism is the only version of christianity that could be true and correct.
My whole point in posting the above information was to say that when people take it upon themselves to defend the church against its critics, as F.A.I.R. has, they need to be careful that they are actually giving accurate answers! Greg Kearny raised some questions and clarifications, and I answered them.
I think, Geoff, that you have very unfairly characterized me in your comments as a “person trying to tear down faith in the Church.” Unfortunately, you leave me in one of those weird positions, where when I protest your accusation, you can say “Yes! That’s exactly what we would EXPECT a faith-destroyer to answer!” It seems that either way, I’m damned by you for daring to question something published by F.A.I.R., and well, that’s just not “fair.”
Nick, thanks for answering this completely. I wish you all the best on your book.
Nick- I can only speak for myself when I say that your membership status reflects (if only indirectly) on the credibility of your motive. I have personally never met a former member who didn’t harbor some kind of animosity toward the church or some block of its membership, and I would never expect complete objectivity from a former member in matters of scholarship involving the church. That’s not so say you don’t know your masonry or that the historic facts don’t bear themselves out. That’s just to say I’d have to know your individual situation before giving you credibility as the conveyor of those facts.
“Former member” sends up some red flags, my friend. You have to understand that. And though you may indeed by an exception to the rule, you have to understand why active members might greet your thoughts with caution.
So then, what is the difference when LDS give out DVDs produced by the LDS church to their non mormon neighbors and then encourage them to visit with the meissionaries?
The First Vision story tears down all religions, does it not?
Max, the answer is, “it does not.” If you would like to debate foundational aspects of the Church, please visit the many, many sites where such discussions would be welcome. This site is not one of them. Thank you.
Seth R and others who are bored by the whole Joseph Smith and masonry stuff, it looks like we may have to pay more attention. There is reason to believe Dan Brown’s new book will delve into the subject:
http://www.ldsmag.com/books/070326masons.html
Oy vey!
Tossman,
Yes, I know that there are some LDS who will question my credibility purely on the basis that I am a “former member” of the LDS church. For the majority of the time working on this book, I was an active member. In fact, several friends immediately had the same concern you express, though they understand why I did what I felt I had to at the time. I promptly contacted my publisher to inform him of the turn of events (as crass as it sounds, sales could suffer, and he had a right to know), and would have willingly ended our contract, but he did not wish to do so.
I won’t pretend that I don’t have my own biases. Indeed, every history writer has his or her biases. True objectivity simply isn’t possible for humans. All we can do is try to be aware of our biases, and do our best to lay them aside when we look at the evidence. From the time I started my research, I tried to follow the evidence where it led, rather than imposing my own pre-determined “answers” on it. I think that was part of the reason that I found so much material, really. I have had good cooperation from church archives, as well as from many masons around the country who held important records. The resulting story is fascinating. I just need to get my proverbial nose to the grindstone, and finish the manuscript!
Geoff in #20,
Yes, it does indeed appear that Dan Brown will write about Mormonism and Freemasonry. I am on record (Salt Lake Tribune interview) as saying that no matter how strange a story he concocts, the REAL story is far more interesting. I only wish I’d moved faster, so my book would already be on shelves when his comes out.
I just don’t think the LDS church has anything at all to fear from the true (though largely forgotten) historical facts on this topic.
Nick- You sound pretty sensible and I’m sure your book will be great. I personally like to be familiar with the biases of my information sources. I read FARMS articles with the understanding that it is apologetic material where the research may in some ways be framed around bias. When I read the New York Times, I know to take anything political with a grain of salt, being aware of their leftist bias. I know better than to watch al Jazeera for a fair look at the Israel-Palestine conflict.
I realize that everybody has a bias. I’m just more ok with the material if I have a grasp of the source’s biases. I defintately appreciate your honesty. And I will say that I would rather read a book written by a well-meaning and honest former member than one written by a secretly inactive member who’s just faking it.
NIck, sorry for coming to the discussion late. I’ve been rather busy.
A question for you. Why do you find the adoption rites as problematic to a RS connection? And I wonder if, beyond the possible RS connections, you deal with the far more interesting endowment parallels. It seems to me that there are far more parallels to LDS temple thought in the adoption rites I’ve studies than in the three main degrees. (Beyond the signs, that is) I confess that even if I am in the minority, I suspect a connection between Nauvoo theology/ritual and the adoption rites.
I’ve only studied a couple of non-adoptive female rites. Which rites do you think are more relevant? Or is that something you wish to hold onto until your book comes out. (It’s interesting Kofford is waiting on you – usually it’s the other way around! grin)
The other issue you didn’t touch upon is the role of Bennett in possibly promoting French rites as some have suggested. I’ve simply not seen documentary evidence on this one way or the other from folks debating the issue and hope you’re book will address this.
The issue of exposure to Joseph of Masonry while in New York is an interesting one. Those arguing against it (often apologists) primarily go from an argument from silence. However, like you, I tend to think that the evidence is overwhelming he’d have been exposed. Of course the most interesting bit is Joseph’s marrying Morgan’s widow. (For those not up on the history, Morgan wrote a famous expose of Masonry and ended up dead leading to all sorts of scandals and conspiracy theories)
As to Dan Brown. My worry is less that he’s writing about Mormonism than that he’ll do a hatchet job on us and play up the Romney issue in the media. Will there be Danites in his book corresponding to the murderous conspiracy theory of the Opus Dei characters from his last book? I’ll wager yes and that this will be a return to the kind of novel popular at the end of the 19th century.
Clark,
The biggest connection claimed in regard to the French Adoptive Rite is the legendary setting in the Garden of Eden. Yes, there are some interesting parallels there with the Endowment, but I don’t think there’s much to work with there in terms of the development of the Relief Society. In any case, as you’ve noted, the idea of the French Adoptive Rite being brought in seems to be invariably connected by scholars to John C. Bennett. I’ve chased that line, and I simply cannot find *any* evidence, whatsoever, to demonstrate that Bennett ever had anything beside the three Craft degrees. I can’t even find Bennett using language that would “tip off” such language. If there was a time for him to do so, it would be when he invented Strang’s “Illuminati” ritual, and it’s just not there. Some take the fact that Bennett wrote the letter asking for a dispensation for Nauvoo Lodge as evidence that he was the driving force of Freemasonry in Nauvoo, but he was secretary of the group–it was his job to write the letter. Now, given Bennett’s tendencies, he probably wanted to be the Master of the lodge, but nothing pegs him as pushing the project in the first place.
I have a witness statement from one of the wives of one of the prominent brethren, as well as very uninformed witness testimony by a non-Mason in Nauvoo, who just described certain things he saw in town, that corroborate one another to suggest a particular female “masonic” rite. BTW, the very existance of this particular female rite in Nauvoo gives evidence of certain “advanced” degrees being worked among the men, since the female rite was only given to wives of men who were initiated in a particular degree. Interesting stuff, and yes, I’m going to be a jerk and withhold the info until my book comes out.
There is another figure who influenced Nauvoo Freemasonry, a true expert ritualist in a variety of degree systems. He is likely the origin of anything beyond the Craft degrees taking place in Nauvoo. I also have evidence of a representative of certain spurious, “illegitimate” degree systems making his appearance in Nauvoo Lodge.
I have essentially finished the portion of my book dealing with the Vermong and New York periods. You’re right, the juxtaposition of the Morgan affair, complete with Joseph eventually marrying Lucinda Pendleton Morgan (Harris), is certainly interesting. I can’t prove it, but there is some very interesting evidence that Joseph Smith Sr. (and by extension, the Smith family) was acquainted with William Morgan. Morgan’s disapperance set the Smith family against Freemasonry **as an organization** for years. It’s probably not just a coincidence that Joseph Jr. was never initiated until a year and a half after his father passed away.
You ask if I’m going to deal with parallels between Freemasonry and the Endowment. It would be almost unforgiveable to write this book without addressing that topic. On the other hand, I consider it a matter of simple honor to refrain from divulging certain aspects of either set of ceremonies. I continue to keep my word with regard to divulging certain teachings within the Endowment, despite the fact that I’ve had my name removed from the records of the LDS church, effectively anulling my ordinances and covenants therein. I also keep my masonic obligations. I will be trying to deal with the subject respectfully, and in a manner which doesn’t violate my own integrity. That said, I believe the influence of Freemasonry is so broad in early Mormonism, that Endowment parallels are almost trivial in the whole picture.
Oh…and we need some good Danite novels, especially if they keep Mitt Romney out of the White House. 😉
Nick,
I’d like to respond to one of the issues you raised in your post #2, above.
Question: What evidence do you have that “Emma no doubt gave it to Lewis Bidamon”? You appear to be conjecturing here. Is it not just as likely as Lewis himself obtained it and gave it to his son, Charles?
The issue here is that no one claimed it belonged to Joseph until Charles. No one claimed it was on Joseph’s person when he died, until Charles. So there is no evidence to the claim it (a) was on Joseph’s person and (b) Joseph believed it had mystical powers. That is what the apologetic response is getting at.
As far as this response only appearing recently, that’s because the charge itself has only appeared recently. When critics of Joseph Smith started making an occult connection with talisman, then faithful Latter-day Saints did the research to come up with an answer. That’s the way research is typically done — someone makes a claim, and those with opposing views go after it. You yourself have done this in your posts on this very web page. I don’t see what your problem with this is.
And I certainly don’t think there’s any character assassination going on against Charles Bidamon here. Perhaps he truly believed it was on Joseph’s person when Joseph died. But whatever he believed, he was the first person to claim that it was, and it’s rather curious that that claim first appeared when he tried to sell the item. I see that as a red flag.
Please explain.
Mike,
You are not necessarily correct in saying that “nobody” said the piece was Joseph’s until 90 years later. According to Charles Bidamon, EMMA said that it was Joseph’s. The fact that Emma didn’t write a notarized statement, addressed to Brigham Young, doesn’t mean that she didn’t say it. Now, it’s true that we don’t have a contemporaneous record of her statement, but there is simply no valid reason to call Charlie Bidamon a liar—which is what the new theory requires. Keep in mind that Wilford Wood bought quite a few items from Charlie Bidamon, purported to have belonged to Joseph, and this is the ONLY one of those items that any LDS scholar has attempted to discredit. If we are to believe the others were genuine, it becomes rather problematic to single this one out as a fraud, just when some critic happens to point to it with uneducated glee.
I understand your point about research being question-driven, Mike, but in this case, the original question was problematic, and caused an over-reaction. Remember when “faithful members of the church” (the only people you believe can be trusted?) were trying to explain the Salamander Letter? They went to considerable lengths to try to put down a historical document that turned out to be an entire forgery. In this case, I would liken Mike Quinn’s conclusions on Joseph’s “masonic jewel” to the Salamander Letter–Quinn created a “fraud” of sorts, which LDS scholars panicked over, and tried to explain away. Quinn even took another item–a silver masonic Junior Deacon’s emblem that is still believed to have been in Joseph’s possession before he gifted it to another—and twisted it into some bizarre sexual charm to attract women. I think it’s quite unfortunate that some LDS scholars promptly abandoned what had long been believed to be true about the artifact, and suddenly bent over backwards to convince others that Joseph never really owned it in the first place.
True, we don’t have record of Charlie Bidamon talking about this piece at all, until Wilford Wood asked him what additional relics he might have that had been in Joseph’s possession (and Wood wanted to buy such things). You say that raises “red flags,” and indeed it may. By the same logic, however, one could argue that despite the known existence of the jail inventory, etc., NOBODY argued that Joseph didn’t really own this item, until Mike Quinn’s half-baked explanation gave someone the heebie-jeebies. Then, suddenly LDS writers started insisting that the piece really had nothing at all to do with Joseph. Personally, I think it’s a shame they felt they had to leap so far, when by the one known account, Emma said Joseph considered it a “masonic jewel.” Scholars would have been better off, in my opinion, to consult masonic sources and/or experts, which could give a very good explanation of why Joseph might see the piece as FULL of masonic symbolism.
When my book comes out, I will talk about this symbolism in detail. Given the totality of the circumstances, I believe it is very likely that the artifact belonged to Joseph. I will also show why it frankly made perfect sense for Joseph to be carrying this item (WITHOUT the so-called “occult” nonsense that critics would like to raise), at a time when he said, “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter.”
Nick,
I appreciate your patient and well-argued reply. I’m afraid I have to disagree with your reasoning, however, and here’s why:
Sources of historical claims have to be evaluated on several levels, including:
When we examine Charles Bidamon’s statements about the talisman, he doesn’t measure up very well:
So there are serious, serious scholarly reasons to doubt that the talisman was Joseph Smith’s.
A serious scholar should be skeptical of bad sources. It’s a shame that Mike Quinn wasn’t more skeptical (but it’s not surprising, considering the methodology in his written corpus since the mid-80s). I would hope that you would be more skeptical in your forthcoming book.
The temptation in scholarship is to make the facts fit one’s preconceived notions. If one want Joseph to have a talisman on his person in Carthage, then Charles Bidamon’s unlikely claims become all the evidence one needs. But the best scholars weigh the evidence even when it doesn’t support their theses.
Mike,
Let’s apply your method of examination to the existing statements to the effect that the artifact was not Joseph’s.
1. The sources are first hand, since nobody, in nearly 200 years, ever said before that this artifact wasn’t Joseph’s.
2. These apologists are speaking 160 years after Joseph’s death. Historical records, diaries, etc., get lost. Memories get more then foggy—Potential witnesses against the thoery conveniently die off.
3. None of these apologists’ grandparents were even born at the time of the events, so how reliable is their entirely unsupported guesswork?
4. These apologists were confronted with one writer’s publicized interpretation of an artifact, which to their imaginations reflected badly upon their employer. They could obtain the gratitude of their employer, as well as their “customers,” by coming up with a story that separated Joseph Smith from what a bunch of uneducated, superstitious religionists thought was essentially witchcraft.
5. The only corroborating witnesses are other employees of the church, and individuals who have decided that the new story sounds better than anti-LDS publicity of Mike Quinn’s dubious interpretation.
So there are serious, serious scholarly reasons to doubt that this story has any foundation whatsoever. At the very least, this story is certainly no more credible than the account originally given by Charlie Bidamon.
The temptation in apologetics is to make the interpretation of facts best reflect upon the institution or person being protected. If one wants Joseph not to have this artifact on his person in Carthage, then the unlikely claims of certain LDS apologists become all the evidence one needs to entirely toss Charlie Bidamon’s account. But the best scholars weigh the evidence even when it doesn’t support their thesis.
Mike, I realize that I sound like I’m mocking you, and that’s not my intention. Rather, I’m just trying to illustrate that the new “it wasn’t Joseph’s” theory actually has less support than does Charlie Bidamon’s account. The theory was not arrived at after a careful evaluation of the evidence. Rather, the theory was invented out of whole cloth, only AFTER certain members of the church felt threatened or confused by Quinn’s writing on the subject. The concoction of this theory had at least as much motivation as Charles Bidamon ever did.
I think it is sometimes tempting to buy into the statements of certain individuals, primarily because they are employed by the church, and we have had good experiences with them. Unfortunately, that’s simply not historical evidence to back their claims. These are generally good men, but sometimes their zeal to protect the church gets in the way of their integrity–a condition which I’m sure you agree shouldn’t have to exist.
Nick, I’ve been eagerly awaiting your book for years and am prepared to wait a little longer. (Besides which I’m so busy at present that’s I’d not have time to do the research to even begin to evaluate it if you published it now – so I’m in no hurry) I’m looking forward to a more rigorous analysis of these issues because I think they are interesting and important ones. The closest we’ve come is Quinn and to a much lesser extent Brooke. But neither got into the details in a sufficient way. Quinn’s book in particular is amazingly frustrating because he does the Nibley “scattergun” approach so often. Yet I agree that the reaction to Quinn was often overreaction. Yet Quinn set a lot of it up due to the fashion of his argument.
So I’ll hope you keep that in mind. But even if I end up disagreeing with you in places having solid documentary arguments rather than all too often broad parallels will at a minimum open up the discussions that need to take place.
Regarding the endowment, I think one can say a lot without saying too much. It’s actually amazing how much GAs have said in writing not to mention Nibley. In particular McConkie wrote a surprising amount. The old “he who has ears, let him hear” can be useful. Although being non-explicit on both the masonic and Mormon sides will make it more difficult.
While Eden is a big deal in the French adoptive rite, I was thinking of some other elements. Although I’d have to break out my copies to recall the details. But that’s neither here nor there.
Regarding Bennett, I do hope you at least mention explicity the non-evidence in your book. It’s amazingly how many latch on to him. Sadly while I think there is a lot to be written in all this (and as you said the most interesting connections are often not in the temple or RS but more mundane matters) most has been very poorly argued.
Thanks for the encouragement, Clark. I fully expect that when my book comes out, there will be scholarly debate. I fully expect more evidence to surface, and in some cases, I’ll have gotten things wrong. That’s the nature of breaking ground in areas which haven’t been well treated.
I agree with you that Bennett needs to be adequately addressed, simply because so many HAVE tagged him as the driving force. There was (and in some circles still is) a level of suspicion and distrust toward Freemasonry in society. In the 1970s, the church reacted to this attitude by re-naming the partially-restored Nauvoo Masonic Hall the “Cultural Hall.” Stanley Kimball left record of his frustration over that one. A funny thing happens in such cases, though. As you know, I lived in Nauvoo for several years. I made a point of referring to the building properly as “the Masonic Hall.” When I did so, you’d be amazed how many people, and ESPECIALLY the senior missionaries, loudly insisted that it was ALWAYS called the “Cultural Hall.” I could have even more properly said “Masonic Temple,” but that would be downright inflammatory. 😉
This just goes to illustrate how easily history can be “adjusted” to suit a purpose.
Okay, you can tell it’s late for me, and I hurt my back today. In my last post, I *intended* to follow up, by saying that the same kind of distrust of Freemasonry made it easy for some writers to attribute the church’s involvement in the Fraternity to the handiest bad guy—who of course was Bennett. That’s the only motivation I can find, because there’s just no evidence that he pushed it.
Nick,
It seems to me that you are attempting to prove Joseph Smith had the artifact by claiming that no one ever said he didn’t.
Well, I believe Jesus was gay and lived in China during his teenage years. And I must be right because he never claimed he wasn’t gay or didn’t live in China. And so people who never knew him, who say he was gay and did go to China, must be telling the truth because Jesus never denied it.
I realize that I sounds like I’m mocking you, and that’s not my intention. Rather, I’m just trying to illustrate that the claim that Jesus was gay and lived in China actually has no reliable support whatsoever. Much like Charles Bidamon’s claim that Joseph Smith died with a Jupiter talisman on his person.
I’m frankly surprised that someone of your reputation would hold to such sloppy scholarly practice.
Mike, the only thing I was trying to “prove” with that exercise was that it didn’t prove anything at all. You applied it as if it provided a conclusive answer that Charles Bidamon’s account was false. It proved no such thing.
Absent the appearance of additional evidence, it is impossible to *prove* whether Joseph owned the artifact or not. I don’t get the impression, however, that you see it this way. It appears to me that you consider it *proven* that Joseph never owned the artifact. I’m disappointed that anyone would let Quinn’s nonsense turn “Joseph never owned a talisman” into the 14th Article of Faith.
Nick;
If I am reading this right the claim is that because no one said Joseph didn’t own the Talisman that is proof he did. That seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
Under this logic I could claim that Joseph Smith at one time owned my Masonic Shekel that I got when I went through the supplemental degrees of the the York Right. After all there is no one claiming he did not own it. Of course such a claim would be foolish in the extreme.
For the record I think he did own the item in question, my point is we don’t know what, if any, significance he attached to it.
Nick #34:
Nick, I don’t consider it proven either way. “Proof” is an exceptionally high standard, and our documentary evidence in this case doesn’t rise to it. There is evidence that he did, but my concern — and my challenge to you — is to weigh that evidence.
Reversing your statement, above, you seem to consider it proven that Joseph did own the artifact. But I believe your conclusion is based not on fair analysis of the evidence, but on your desire that Joseph had it with him at Carthage, because it supports your theory about the importance of Masonry to him. That is bad scholarship, Nick, and I hope that I’m wrong and that you have something else backing your claims.
Based on your comments on this thread (especially your #29), I’m concerned that you don’t understand the basic principles of judging the validity and reliability of evidence and testimony. I’m not even certain that you understand the difference between first hand and third hand accounts, and why one should be favored over the other. I’m hoping that you do.
Greg in #35, please read my #34. I don’t for a moment think that absence of a denial is proof of Joseph possessing this artifact. Rather, I was demonstrating for Mike that those who advocate this quite-recent denial have no more evidence to back up their claims than did Charlie Bidamon.
Mike in #36,
There are a number of personalities involved in this story, and all have their own biases or motivations:
(1) Emma would be the best of the witnesses outside Joseph Smith, if only we had her statement first-hand. She would have no reason to misrepresent the matter, and she was closest to Joseph. She had a motivation to make Joseph look good.
(2) Charlie Bidamon is not third-hand, as you claim, but rather second-hand. He was allegedly reporting Emma’s first-hand statement. Charlie Bidamon had an arguable motivation to misrepresent the past ownership of this artifact, but that alone does not mean that he did so.
(3) Neither of us has discussed Wilford Wood’s credibility, and HE is our actual source for Emma’s alleged statement. While Wood did some important things for the church, he wasn’t always the most credible witness, himself. He claimed some rather questionable, sensational things on other occasions, such as how he allegedly discovered the exact site where the Aaronic Priesthood was restored (he prayed, saw a bird land, and decided that was a sign from deity to answer his question). I have documentation from a lawsuit against him and the church, wherein he was accused of some pretty astounding fraudulent acts. If any of them are true, it doesn’t speak well for his credibility.
(4) Quinn tells us that the artifact is a magical talisman, and that Joseph carried it for magical purposes to make him rich and powerful over his enemies. He had reason to make sensational claims. Some would argue he had reason to discredit Joseph, though he insists he believes Joseph was a prophet.
(5) Finally, we have LDS apologists who have concocted a new theory, purely in response to Quinn’s nonsense. Their motivation was to make Joseph Smith and the church look better in the eyes of critics who bought into Quinn’s wild speculation. They also had a motivation to earn the accolades of church leadership, as many were even employed by the church.
I’m sorry you feel that I am incapable of evaluating the evidence on this topic, Mike. Unfortunately, it appears that you really only trust one of these sources—the current apologists, with their new theory. I realize it sounds cynical to say they might have ulterior motivations of their own, but such is still the case.
You now say in #36 that you doesn’t consider the issue proven either way. On that point we have no argument. I still feel it is important, however, to consider the possibility (even likelihood) that Joseph did own this artifact, and to examine the possible implications thereof. Unlike Quinn, I don’t see those implications as hocus-pocus. Rather, they point to Joseph’s genius.
Nick, but isn’t the issue who has the burden of proof? It seems you are assuming deniers do whereas it seems to me that anyone making a positive claim does. I have to agree with Mike here that while it’s plausible Joseph owned it, we can’t really say one way or an other, as interesting as it might be. I think it might benefit your book, especially given all the claims in the past that had at best weak evidence, to present it as more ambiguous.
Like Greg, I personally think he owned it, but I think the evidence is, at best extremely weak.
It seems to me that while your point about apologists motivation is probably apt, at least to a degree, that it is ultimately irrelevant. The issue isn’t the counter argument but how those making the original claims (decades after the fact) could know. I’m fairly equal opportunity in this. I’m critical of apologist claims who likewise depend upon very late accounts by people with less of a solid connection to the original event. I think all such claims at best are weak evidence.
So say you believe, but at least indicate to the readers that the evidence is at best suggestive. I think most people would appreciate that kind of honesty to the justification of arguments. Especially after how things in this sub-field of Mormon history have been handled. (On both sides)
Nick:
“If only.” Except we don’t have any statement from her. We have Wilford Wood’s statement of what Charles Bidadmon told him that he heard Emma say over 42 years ago about what Joseph kept on his person and what he believed about it. That, Nick, is a classic example of a late, third-hand account. So Emma is not a “personalit[y] involved in this story,” not even close.
See above.
Alone, no. But when combined with other problems with his claim, the evidence against its authenticity is pretty compelling.
You’re making my case for me.
I agree with your assessment of Quinn. His handling of sources is pretty shoddy overall. He has good access to them, he just makes them say things they really didn’t say.
I think you’re reading far too much into this, and poisoning the well by referring to “apologists” who “concocted” a theory based on “motivations” to earn “accolades of church leadership.” This is pure ad hominem, and really below the standards I would expect from a scholar who is purporting to write the best book on the Masonry/Mormonism connection to date.
And now you go after me for “trust[ing]…apologists,” when I have only argued evidence with you, and never appealed to authority. The evidence, sir, I’m interested in the evidence. Not in what an authority believes.
I’ve never said otherwise. There is a difference between proof and evidence (as I hope you’re aware). The evidence, I believe, is against the talisman belonging to Joseph. There is no proof, however, as all we have is third-hand reports nearly a century after the events, reports that conflict with actual inventories of the items on Joseph’s person when he died.
“Possibility”? Perhaps. “Likelihood”? No way.
I’m glad you disagree with Quinn, but it seems to me that you want the talisman to be Joseph’s because it, in your view, “point[s] to [his] genius.” If so, you’re making a case that isn’t there.
I think I’ve written enough on this issue. I sincerely hope that in your book you treat the evidence with more care that I’ve seen here. Years ago, you were my first exposure to the idea that Joseph incorporated elements of Freemasonry into the endowment as a teaching method, and I still respect you for introducing me to that concept.
I’ll let you have the last word, if you wish it.
Mike, you say that I’m merely making an ad hominem attack on those who have tried to distance the artifact from Joseph. Your point is taken, so far as expressing myself more neutrally. Still, it doesn’t seem that you wish to consider these writers’ possible motivations.
Still, I appreciate your challenge to critically evaluate the evidence. On doing so, I honestly think Wilford Wood’s credibility is the weakest point, even though it’s one that the later writers never address (at least not that I recollect). Charlie’s testimony has the weaknesses and potential motivations you point out. What he doesn’t have, is a track record of fanciful and/or fraudulent claims. Wood, sad to say, has the latter.
The biggest challenge in writing my book is the fact that it necessarily relies on a good deal of circumstantial evidence, and I realize I have to be quite careful with that. This is not a subject where the “paper trail” is fully intact. I have reason to believe that Masons in some cases intentionally destroyed documentary evidence (suspicious fires, etc.). I also have reason to believe that evidence on the LDS side has “disappeared” where it might be less than flattering. The best that I can do, in some cases, will be to lay out the circumstantial evidence, and then make the argument as to why it should (or should not) be interpreted in a particular way. I believe that the book, taken as a whole, will present a strong argument.
In the case of this artifact, I will readily acknowledge that there are legitimate questions as to its provenance. At the same time, however, the artifact appears in a context where the evidence shows Joseph was doing a great number of things which were specifically patterned after masonic legend. Any one of those acts, by itself, is unimpressive. Placed together in context, however, they create a remarkable whole. The idea that Joseph would intentionally have an artifact of this nature on his person, at a time when he expected to be killed, happens to fit well into that whole. This doesn’t prove the item’s provenance, but I think the circumstances require such an examination.
Here is a Deseret News article on this video:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660206841,00.html
Thanks for all the discussion, it’s great to have people that have done more research on topics and to be able to glean from them. realizing our perceptions are all a litle different, based on beleifs, study, experience etc. Just think if there wasn’t so much disregard for what is and the ability to accept certain truths even if it goes against are present moment beleif. and accept certain falses as well. Weakness as we all are concerned is all right it is how we grow. If we all put everything under the microscope and took it for what it was at that moment. with the emotion we had at that moment. What would any of us beleive in. Yet we do it to each other to try to prove a point and what is that point? and is it working for all of us? A large portion of all history is False to a great degree. Stories told and changed and not enough data, hear says etc. and some storie told differently so people will believe it. Our Country, religion etc. Man just likes to mess things up. and we are all part of this Insanity at different degrees and we won’t accept it. We support a lot of different things directly and indirectly. here is a glimpse of the microscope. I pay taxes that money is spent for alot of things I don’t know specificly. people are killed, supported etc. say what you want to say I am a part of that. I buy gasoline from probably the same people we are fighting so I support the enemy. i buy alot of stuff at the store i support a lot of unhealthy companies. (again this is the microscope just so you remember. i let Cities zone my property so I let others tell me what I can build on my property. we forget because we want to tell someone else what they can do we give them the power to tell us what to do and is policed by government which we vote for. Mostly conditional love in the world. Love God my way or there is going to be a problem instead of lets all listen, God is talking to all of Us but we are not allowing the space for him to enter. We are still repeating alot of History, time to break the cycle. Big Words- I Forgive You and thanks [for giving] me this experience. How do we all want to Be in relation to what is going on, We all Choose and create the situations in our Lives. Question Did Peter and all the apostles have probems in their lives I would think so. after they were ordained I think so. Did Abraham ? Did Noah ? Adam? I guess it is nice we Don’t have copies of the newspapers of the day our pedestal would be knocked down. We all have so much yet we Judge each other so harshly. Judgement on original information and original emotion. We set it in stone and fight to the blood for it. For some reason if i admitted parts of my understanding was wrong I just couldn’t face that is that what we think? We have that much pride! We limit ourselves that much to be right in our perception ! Just talking out loud I enjoy the freindship and candor expressed in previous comments. They used the word Liar in the Dvd meaning they have all their understanding right. The use of so much words we get caught up in the words instead of realizing words are signposts the meanings are behind them. Hope we all can be friends in the journey and we are all brothers and sisters, i am you and you are me in my perception and may we all see each other through Gods eyes. Continue
all for now
The Jewish Anti-Defamation League has condemned the distribution of this DVD:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/5013_31.htm
The Jewish ADL is absolutely right when they comment on this DVD: “Hate directed at any of us is hate directed at all of us.”
Oddly, the DVD did not receive wide distribution here in West Hollywood : ) so I decided to watch it on their web site. It’s really just The Godmakers redux, albeit with great production values. Who funded it? How ironic that a group of creationist, biblical literalists are the ones to attack another faith’s historical claims. People in glass scriptures…..
42 gotta ask — are you BYU Football’s Dan Coats? If so, thx for the service I kept reading your wife and you gave to the team, school, and community off the field!