https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...12438%2C00.html
A mason, and not a carpenter? Possibly ...
This article, in the Deseret Morning News, starts out as an announcement that Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code is supposedly writing a new thriller, using the connection between freemasonry and Mormonism as a foundation for the book.
However, it then leads into something much more interesting.
QUOTE |
When I read about Brown's new book, however, my mind flashed on something else - something I came across in one of those magazines that explain the Bible. According to more and more scholars, the trusty King James Version got it wrong - again. When Jesus goes back to Nazareth and the people say, "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary," the text should really read, "Is this not the stonemason, the son of Mary." Jesus, scholars say, was a mason. He worked in stone, not wood. Instead of saws and nails he handled squares and compasses, chisels and hammers. And he would have been built, himself, like a block of granite. For now, I'm waiting for more evidence to roll in. But it's interesting how that one little adjustment - from seeing Jesus as a carpenter to seeing him as a mason - sends a ripple through all the gospels. When Jesus said he would tear the temple down and build it up in three days, of course they would have thought he meant Herod's temple. The man was a stone mason. When he tells the haughty Jews that God could raise children of Abraham from the stones, did he mean "hew children of Abraham" from those stones? When he says to give our hungry sons bread - not stones. When he talks of millstones around a neck and buildings where one stone will not be left upon another; when he describes himself as a stone the builders rejected who will become the cornerstone. When he gives Simon the nickname Peter - a word that comes from "petrify" - a nickname that means solid, hard, resilient. A nickname that means "stone." When Jesus did all of that, was he drawing from his childhood and his own personal experience? When he worked his square and compass on rock did he see eternal truths at work? When he chipped and chiseled blocks of marble did the fashioning of worlds come to his mind? Modern scholars say there's a good chance of that. They say there's a chance Jesus was, indeed, a mason. |
I would have to take that with a grain of salt. I am not saying that it could not be true, but making suggestions based on verses that mention 'stone' or something relating to rock / stones is just speculation to me. Also, were it true then there would be a lot of Prophets and lessons that will need to be revised.
I think it's an intriguing idea. It also might explain the longevity of the Masons... I would definitely be interested in reading more about the possibility of Jesus as a stonemason ~ not from Dan Brown, but from actual reputable sources ~ to see if it adds up.
That is my point of view as well. It would change only the background of all Jesus' references to stones and masonry types of things, not the meanings of His teachings. I would definitely like to see more about the scholarly information regarding this.
Keep in mind this is the 'Focus on Christ' Board which means references here are based on Church Doctrine, and I can find nothing to back-up the stone mason theory. Maybe you should start something in the Bible Revealed Board about this and then you will find many theories available.
I don't think it matters at all. It was his temporal profession, one not even comparable to Jesus as a teacher or our savior. Carpenter or Mason, the message is still the same. (Though, on another note, I never could picture him as a carpenter...I don't know why. I wouldn't rule it out that he could've been a stonemason.)
What the thought of this topic does for me is to put a different perspective on some of His teachings. It makes no difference concerning His message, only how it was delivered.
Of course, it might point some thought towards the idea that Freemasonry actually DID carry certain things through time for the Mormons to learn and implement.
Good point, Nighthawk. It would make sense because of the examples given in his teachings, and let us know where he was coming from. It also would show that he functioned as a man, just as we do. Maybe he saw meaning behind his profession, and was inspired to know how it all could be used to teach others. It wouldn't be just him relaying the message from God to mankind, but rather him translating it by means of what he knew to give it a perspective that any man could understand.