Search for the Truth DVD - FairWiki.org

Naturally, the posting of this message from F.A.I.R. made me 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 write the following, NOT in
order to attack anyone, but rather as a caution against half-informed
efforts to explain things away. Sometimes it’s better to say “I don’t
know,” than to give the wrong answer.

Among the errors and oversimplifications, on the “Joseph Smith and the
Occult” 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–Deputy Grand Master of Illinois, 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 friends, 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.

Wow.
That was certainly a gross misunderstanding of what I wrote.
I will never assume some people have half a brain again.