Mormon connection to Masons explored ahead of 'Da Vinci Code' sequel

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | 1/13/06 | Peggy Fletcher Stack

[AppyPappy]

The "They" is not in the Greek. It was inferred by the interpreter. It's "epi tis poieo baptizo huper ho/he/to nekros"(bad Greek lettering). literally "Otherwise who do baptise for the sake of the dead". It almost sounds like "who does baptise for the dead if the dead do not awaken? Why is it done?"

The Corinthians were heavily influence by the Greeks and did not preach the resurrection of the body. They believed only the spirit went to heaven therefore you could do anything you want with the body (ie fornication). Paul preaches the resurrection of the body which must therefore be kept holy.

http://www.e-sword.net will get you Bible software that has the original Greek. I'm using Modern King James. I find the King James sometimes guesses at meaning.

Here is an interesting commentary. Paul seems to be mocking the practice because they don't believe in the bodily resurrection. Why do you baptise the body for someone if they don't take the body to Heaven?

ALFORD thinks there is an allusion to a practice at Corinth of baptizing a living person in behalf of a friend who died unbaptized; thus Paul, without giving the least sanction to the practice, uses an ad hominem argument from it against its practicers, some of whom, though using it, denied the resurrection: "What account can they give of their practice; why are they at the trouble of it, if the dead rise not?" [So Jesus used an ad hominem argument, Mat_12:27]. But if so, it is strange there is no direct censure of it. Some Marcionites adopted the practice at a later period, probably from taking this passage, as ALFORD does; but, generally, it was unknown in the Church. BENGEL translates, "over (immediately upon) the dead," that is, who will be gathered to the dead immediately after baptism. Compare Job_17:1, "the graves are ready for me." The price they get for their trouble is, that they should be gathered to the dead for ever (1Co_15:13, 1Co_15:16). Many in the ancient Church put off baptism till near death. This seems the better view; though there may have been some rites of symbolical baptism at Corinth, now unknown, perhaps grounded on Jesus' words (Mat_20:22-23), which Paul here alludes to. The best punctuation is, "If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for them" (so the oldest manuscripts read the last words, instead of "for the dead")?

[AppyPappy]

As a Mormon, who has attended the Temple, performed Baptisms for my ancestors, and been baptized by Proxy for my ancestors, we are doing it precisely so their sins can be remitted. If the dead accept this proxy baptism in the next world, they can go directly into Christ’s kingdom. They would be dammed unless someone in mortality had performed the ordinance of baptism, with the proper authority, for them (Much the same way Christ had to be mortal to perform the Atonement, or he couldn’t die for our sins). Do they suddenly join our ranks as Mormons? No, they are not here in mortality; they join the Church of Christ on the other side of the veil.

Wow. I didn't know that. That seems to fly in the face of the immediate need for Salvation. The whole point of the message is that we should be Saved before we die because there is a point of no return. How is that concept different from Purgatory? Also, forgetting the fact that I don't think Mormons believe in Salvation outside the Mormon Church. Otherwise, how would you know if your ancestors were Saved?

The Elders come by every year. I should ask them this stuff.

[DelphiUser]

First, I don’t speak Greek, pick one set of scriptures, preferably English from which to quote.

>> I'm using Modern King James. I find the King James sometimes guesses at meaning.

I know what you mean…

>> It almost sounds like "who does baptise for the dead if the dead do not awaken?
>>Why is it done?"

The Pharisee’s were baptizing for the dead by proxy for a long time before Christ’s ministry, their doctrine is clearly recorded. Christ directly referenced the Pharisees in Mathew 22: 31..33

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

This is not open to some complicated interpretation of what he might have meant. His meaning is plain when you look at whom he was speaking to, and it was a masterstroke of communication.

You are right, some early Christians also baptized for the dead, just as Paul mentions in Corinthians.

>> So Jesus used an ad homonym argument, Mat_12:27

What does Matthew 12:27 “And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.” Have to do with baptisem for the dead?

The need is simple, your test is through, you must have the ordinances performed for you, in order to obtain any rest in the kingdom of god (In my father’s house are many mansions…) Mormons believe that there are many degrees of Glory, and that men will be judged according to their understanding of god’s laws. (Unto whom much is given, much is required)

Please ask the elders, they can help far more in person than I can from a distance, not to mention, I travel a lot so my ability to respond on FR is spotty

[Cvengr]

Why do you assert John's Revelations was scribed before the Gospel of John?

[DelphiUser]

The Catholic Church States that revelations was written on the isle of Patmos right before John DIED I read this on their On line catholic encyclopedia). They have no documentary evidence of either john’s death, nor the timing of the writings, but hearsay evidence adopted 300 years later (about the time of the council at Nicea where the Nicene creed was established). Most scholars who have looked into dating the books, date Revelations before the Gospel of St. John (Dated pretty reliably at 95-96 AD).

Here is a good site, very logical presentation of both early and late theories for Revelations (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

Some highlights:
Revelations 1:4 John was writing revelations to the seven churches of Asia. There was only a five year period before the Roman / Jewish war that there were seven churches. This puts the book in the early to mid 60AD’s

Revelation 11:1-2 Why prophesies about something that had happened? If he was writing the book after AD 95 the temple had already fallen, so why prophesy about it, not talk about it as something that had already happened. (My answer, because when he wrote it the temple was still standing.)

The Greek (Which I do not speak or read) is said to be less mature in Revelations that John)

Simply put, I say that Revelations was written before John, because all the evidence from the books tells me that was the order of writing. And the Catholic Church as some contemporary writers record placed it at the end of the Bible, because they didn’t know what to do with it. (I have not been able to find where I first read this, and that has taken me over a day of looking, so sorry for the delayed response.)

[Cvengr]

It appears the timing has been somewhat debated over the years.

The argument you mention regarding the Apocalypse being written before 70AD is consistent with later debate amongst interpretters of Bible Prophecy as to the meanings of the Prophecy. So I would also agree to a pre 70 AD date of writing.

Commentators appear to agree that the gospel of John was the later of the gospels when it was written. I've seen arguments placing the writing from 60 to 95 AD, but also arguments for Revelation written by John between 62/3 and 95AD.

The Qumran texts had some parchment favoring John's gospel so the earlier than 70AD version of John's gospel is consistent.

[DelphiUser]

It’s funny that most people seem to think that the apostles sat down, and wrote the Bible, organized it and it hasn’t changed since. The reality is there was fierce debate over the books that would be included, their order, and the very structure of the cannon of scripture. “The Bible” is in essence “The Collection”, Biblia means a collection of books. The bible was compiled from separate books written at different times by many authors, we don’t even know for sure who wrote some of the books in the New Testament. The Bible wasn’t compiled until about 300 AD. (300 AD. Is a very interesting time for Christians to study)

Here is a request for the freepers out there, know any good electronic sources for books from the apocrypha? They make for very interesting reading, and although not accepted by most as “Scripture” they do give insight into what the early saints had available.

(Just a hint, never try to win a debate by brining up a book from the apocrypha into it, you become an easy target, tried it once…)

I’ll start (http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/home.html) On line version of the book of Jasher (HTML)

[DelphiUser]

AppyPappy,

You seem to know a lot of resources; do you know any good electronic sources for books from the apocrypha? English, downloadable, preferably HTML, or PDF, if you please. (Maybe I presume too much, but you never know until you ask.)

Thanks in advance, and do ask the Missionaries, they would be thrilled to answer the “tough questions”, I know I was when I was a missionary.

[AppyPappy]

Do a search on 'Gospel of Thomas'. That's how I usually find them.

My next door neighbor is a Mormon so I am easy on them.

[Lunatic Fringe]

We Illuminati take umbrage at not being given credit for our part in the Da Vinci Code conspiracy.

Who needs the Illuminati? We got the G8 openly ruling the world. That's scary enough.

[Disturbin]

“My Grandfather and his father were both FM. My question is, why I was never introduced to this society as a youth? Yes, I was interested.”

My grandfather was a Mason too. I believe you have to ask to join .....

[wolfcreek]

My Grandfather probably thought I was too headstrong for any group involvement. (we worked together 6 days a week) My Dad was out of the picture most of my childhood after divorcing my Mom at 18 yrs. old. (knocked her up at 15)

[Frank Fantasia]

Bretheren and peoples,

I would just like to say that I am both a proud LDS and a Freemason hailing from the Southern Australian Masonic Jurisdictions, various valleys and chapters etc. I was first a LDS then I became a Freemason. As a Master Mason it gives you the ability to see the solid connection and bridge to Freemasonry it is undeniable that the two are one by every description of every definition they are in fact one in the same, let me put it this way if you have puzzle pieces in two boxes of the same puzzle and then put one together does that make the other any less the same puzzle? the answer is of coarse not.

Now I know that the above text in it self is a hard pill to swallow and many of my LDS brothers at my various wards I’ve come across in the past use to really be disdain with the very idea, well let me put my comments into better context, Just because Freemasonry has a place in the Mormon faith does not mean God did not use Freemasonry in a divine way to help restore the Priesthood, these things are not for us to know the details of rather let us have faith that The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is in fact the one true faith to him who holds it in that regard, I would contend for religious tolerance and pray that the Mormon as well as all good faiths for that matter have a chance to pray at the same alter, then and only then would we see a day when nation shall not raise sword against nation and they will not know war anymore.

My Masonic knowledge and light is for me to know as I’m under oath to never reveal but conceal it’s sacred secrets and as for those secrets, even they differ from Mason to Mason I am not speaking for all my brothers rather from my own light that The Great Architect of The Universe has so graciously extended me.

Furthermore I strongly predict the re-unification of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with the Craft of Freemasonry, since the Split of Nauvoo this time was destine to come, thus what was once a sunder and made un-done behold again the two make one.

So Mote it Be.

I would highly recommend to any LDS brethren to consider the Craft of Freemasonry and joining us and to consider the path that Joseph Smith had taken and the fact he was used greatly by our celestial father, Join us.

Sincerely & Fraternally