Masons and mormons - did the early mormons know the difference?

[formermormon]

OK, so maybe some of you have done far more research on church history than me, so help me out here. I know that the temple ceremony is strikingly similar to masonic lodge rituals, and that JS was a mason, etc. But I stumbled upon this strange quote that made me wonder if the early mormons thought that there was a problem with that - they realized that it was the case. Here's the quote, from Zina D.H. Jacobs Smith Young (one of JS's AND BY's wives).

" At a mass meeting of ladies held in Salt Lake City, Nov. 16, 1878, Sister Zina delivered a very eloquent impromptu address. Sister Augusta J. Crocheron, one of the reporters on that occasion, noting the increasing earnestness in her voice and words, writes: "I raised my eyes to her standing just before the table we were using. Suddenly, as though her words struck home like an electric shock, several gentlemen sitting at my right hand, clutching the arms of the chairs, started as though they would rise to their feet; their faces burning with the truths they heard, their eyes fixed upon her fearless face and uplifted hands. I can never forget that moment. It was more than eloquence, it was inspiration. Following is a portion of her address: 'The principle of our religion that is assailed is one that lies deep in my heart. Could I ask the heavens to listen; could I beseech the earth to be still, and the brave men who possess the spirit of a Washington to hear what I am about to say. I am the daughter of a master mason! I am the widow of a master mason, who, when leaping from the window of Carthage jail pierced with bullets, made the masonic sign of distress; but, gentlemen (addressing the representatives of the press that were present), those signs were not heeded except by the God of heaven. That man, the Prophet of the Almighty, was massacred without mercy! Sisters, this is the first time in my life that I have dared to give utterance to this fact, but I thought I could trust my soul to say it on this occasion; and I say it now in the fear of Israel's God, and I say it in the presence of these gentlemen, and I wish my voice could be heard by the whole brotherhood of masons throughout our proud land. That institution I honor. If its principles were practiced and strictly adhered to, would there be a trespass upon virtues? No, indeed. Would the honorable wife or daughter be intruded upon with impunity? Nay, verily. Would that the ladies of America, with the honorable Mrs. Hayes at their head; would that the Congress of the United States, the law makers of our nation, could produce a balm for the many evils which exist in our land through the abuse of virtue, or could so legislate that virtue could be protected and cherished as the life which the heaven has given us. We, in common with many women throughout our broad land, would hail with joy the approach of such deliverance, for such is the deliverance that woman needs. The principle of plural marriage is honorable. It is a principle of the Gods, it is heaven born. God revealed it to us as a saving principle; we have accepted it as such, and we know it is of him, for the fruits of it are holy. Even the Savior, himself, traces his [p.699] lineage back to polygamic parents. We are proud of the principle, because we know its true worth, and we want our children to practice it, that through us a race of men and women may grow up possessing sound minds in sound bodies, who shall live to the age of a tree."

Oh, by the way, she also identifies herself as a "widow" of JS, which plenty of church history has tried to scrub. WTF?

Does anybody else know more about how mormons at that time explained the mason/mormon connection? I'm mystified.

[silverfox]

Interesting stuff. I am curious now, too.

[peter_mary]

Does anybody else know more about how mormons at that time explained the mason/mormon connection? I'm mystified.

There are several books that deal with Masonry and Mormonism, and a good one is "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship" by David Buerger.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1560851767/ref=cm_aya_asin.title/104-8290067-9452705?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

As I recall, Quinn addresses Masonry in his Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, also.

In a nutshell, there are some curious issues at play. Most BOM scholars consider the "secret combinations" of the Gadianton Robbers to refer specifically to the anti-Masonry sentiment that was common in the early 1800's. However, many of the men of Joseph's family were Masons, as were many of the early apostles, and Joseph was clearly influenced by their thinking. When at last he was initiated into the Masonic Lodge, he was elevated in a day (as I recall) to the station of Master Mason.

Shortly thereafter, having become himself familiar with the rituals of the Masonic temple, it is commonly believed that Joseph recognized the unifying power of such ritual, and determined to adopt it for his own purposes. Prior to this point, the temple was really a glorified meeting house, and the things that went on in there were more reminiscent of the ecstatic revival meetings that spawned Mormonism, and in no way resembled ANYTHING of the modern temple ceremony.

After Joseph became acquainted with the Masonic ritual, and realized that he could adapt it for his own purposes, he declared that the rituals of the Masons were authentic in origin, but like the gospel, had been corrupted over the centuries. His job was to restore it to it's original state, and implement it in the new temples. (The Masons claim that their rituals were handed down secretly from the Stone Masons who knew the intricacies and ceremonies of Soloman's Temple.) It's important here to realize that this kind of endeavor was exactly Joseph's strength. He was brilliant in taking something (an Egyptian papyrus, the Kinderhook plates, he KJ Bible, A View of the Hebrews, etc,) and use them as a spring-board to creating something new, woven with something old. He could have been a writer of Jewish midrash...

Anyway, the general view that he perpetuated among his people at the time was that he had restored the masonic ritual to it's original form as conducted in Soloman's temple, and it could now take it's place in the restoration of "all things" in the temple. That's why the early Masons like Brigham Young and Heber Kimball were not in any way distressed by the blatant similarities (and in some cases, outright plagerism) between the two rituals.

The problem for the modern Church now comes in the fact that they've felt the need to "tidy up" the various ceromonies. The endowment has undergone several changes, some VERY significant, and of course we've recently discussed the changes in the initiatory ceremony. The Church is faced with a dilemma. Joseph claimed he restored the ritual to it's perfect, original state. It was believed to be the exact same ritual conducted in the Temple of Soloman. But it was "icky" to modern sensitivies, and very politically incorrect in other areas, and in order to keep from offending it's own members (especially protestant converts...ahem...) and potential members, they made some serious changes. I guess we have to on occassion be in the business of telling God what's in the best of interest of His Church, 'cause apparently He's not smart enough to see it himself...

Subsequently, the Church has really attempted to distance itself from the Masonic origins, probably because the Masonic ritual really has NOTHING to do with Christianity to speak of, and the relationship between the two is actually too weird to account for in any way other than I just described above. Couple that with the fact that they have "changed what Joseph said he restored" and they are forced to claim that it is not a relic of the primitive Church, but rather a function of modern revelation...to which they can add and subtract. In other words, they recognized long ago that they had to convince people that the temple was an original bit of modern revelation, subject to FURTHER modern revelation, and not an old ceremony that has been "tweaked" to bring it back into accordance with Divine will. So you'll hear the appologists claim that there is nothing but occassional superficial similarity that is likely nothing more than serendipitously encountering similar archetypes.

Well, that's just crap, actually. If you've ever had a chance to read some of the Masonic ritual, you realize IMMEDIATELY that it's more than coincidence that Mormon temple ritual looks like Masonry. Right down to the silly aprons they wear...

I found a site a while ago called Masonwatch or something like that in which they describe some of the Masonic ritual (and for which the author has had his life threatened on numerous occassions). When you read it, you'll see more than "superficial similarities." The site has nothing to do with Mormonism at all, which makes it all the more interesting. I'll see if I can find it again, and if I can, I'll post the link.

Peter_Mary

[peter_mary]

I found a site a while ago called Masonwatch or something like that in which they describe some of the Masonic ritual (and for which the author has had his life threatened on numerous occassions). When you read it, you'll see more than "superficial similarities." The site has nothing to do with Mormonism at all, which makes it all the more interesting. I'll see if I can find it again, and if I can, I'll post the link.

Peter_Mary

Okay, the site is called freemasonrywatch.org, and it has WAY more information on Masonry than most healthy people would ever care to peruse. However, this particular page--

http://freemasonrywatch.org/secrets.html

--is especially enlightening for anyone who EVER wondered if there is more than a passing similarity between the temple and the masons. The ceremony at the end of the page is especially enlightening...don't give up before you get to it!

The signs, the tokens, the penalties, the secret names, some of the costumery, the interaction between the temple worker and the patron...all of it finds its roots in the Masonic ritual. Oh, and you'll also see where Utah get's it's beehive symbol...

Anyway, probably a lot more than you were asking for... :o

Peter_Mary

[nate]

In a nutshell, there are some curious issues at play. Most BOM scholars consider the "secret combinations" of the Gadianton Robbers to refer specifically to the anti-Masonry sentiment that was common in the early 1800's. However, many of the men of Joseph's family were Masons, as were many of the early apostles, and Joseph was clearly influenced by their thinking. When at last he was initiated into the Masonic Lodge, he was elevated in a day (as I recall) to the station of Master Mason.

Shortly thereafter, having become himself familiar with the rituals of the Masonic temple, it is commonly believed that Joseph recognized the unifying power of such ritual, and determined to adopt it for his own purposes. Prior to this point, the temple was really a glorified meeting house, and the things that went on in there were more reminiscent of the ecstatic revival meetings that spawned Mormonism, and in no way resembled ANYTHING of the modern temple ceremony.

After Joseph became acquainted with the Masonic ritual, and realized that he could adapt it for his own purposes, he declared that the rituals of the Masons were authentic in origin, but like the gospel, had been corrupted over the centuries. His job was to restore it to it's original state, and implement it in the new temples. (The Masons claim that their rituals were handed down secretly from the Stone Masons who knew the intricacies and ceremonies of Soloman's Temple.) It's important here to realize that this kind of endeavor was exactly Joseph's strength. He was brilliant in taking something (an Egyptian papyrus, the Kinderhook plates, he KJ Bible, A View of the Hebrews, etc,) and use them as a spring-board to creating something new, woven with something old. He could have been a writer of Jewish midrash...

Anyway, the general view that he perpetuated among his people at the time was that he had restored the masonic ritual to it's original form as conducted in Soloman's temple, and it could now take it's place in the restoration of "all things" in the temple. That's why the early Masons like Brigham Young and Heber Kimball were not in any way distressed by the blatant similarities (and in some cases, outright plagerism) between the two rituals.

The problem for the modern Church now comes in the fact that they've felt the need to "tidy up" the various ceromonies. The endowment has undergone several changes, some VERY significant, and of course we've recently discussed the changes in the initiatory ceremony. The Church is faced with a dilemma. Joseph claimed he restored the ritual to it's perfect, original state. It was believed to be the exact same ritual conducted in the Temple of Soloman. But it was "icky" to modern sensitivies, and very politically incorrect in other areas, and in order to keep from offending it's own members (especially protestant converts...ahem...) and potential members, they made some serious changes. I guess we have to on occassion be in the business of telling God what's in the best of interest of His Church, 'cause apparently He's not smart enough to see it himself...

Subsequently, the Church has really attempted to distance itself from the Masonic origins, probably because the Masonic ritual really has NOTHING to do with Christianity to speak of, and the relationship between the two is actually too weird to account for in any way other than I just described above. Couple that with the fact that they have "changed what Joseph said he restored" and they are forced to claim that it is not a relic of the primitive Church, but rather a function of modern revelation...to which they can add and subtract. In other words, they recognized long ago that they had to convince people that the temple was an original bit of modern revelation, subject to FURTHER modern revelation, and not an old ceremony that has been "tweaked" to bring it back into accordance with Divine will. So you'll hear the appologists claim that there is nothing but occassional superficial similarity that is likely nothing more than serendipitously encountering similar archetypes.


I've done quite a bit of reading on this subject, and from what I remember, JS and a few others became Masons in Nauvoo. The thing is, usually, a mason must go through all the different degrees before becoming a master mason, taking years, sometimes decades. Well, Grand Master Abraham Jonas, apparently raised JS to master mason status "at sight", supposedly because he felt this would help his own political ambitions in the area, having JS and followers behind him. After this, JS started the Nauvoo Lodge and began initiating his followers into Masonry, although doing so in a way not in line with standard mason practices, i.e. one at a time.

This pissed off most of the local Masons and a neighboring lodge sent complaints to the Grand Lodge, which in turn suspended the Nauvoo Lodge. Then Grand Master Jonas stepped in defending JS and the got the Nauvoo lodge reinstated. This happened a few times, each time, angering the local Masons more and more and more. This ended up being one of the driving forces behind the local "mobs" hating the mormons.

Just as our President likes to dumb down the facts and say that terrorists attacked us because they simply "hate our freedom", the church has dumbed down the facts and told us that town after town, the local mobs attacked the Mormons simply because they "hated God's people." This is not the whole story. Most of the people that made up these mobs, from town to town, were masons that did not appreciate JS moving in and disregarding masonic traditions that had been handed down generation to generation for centuries. It's no coincidence that, as Sister Zina said, JS shouted the Masonic distress call "God, is there no help for a widow's son" out the window of the Carthage Jail, when only the angry mob was outside to hear him.

[formermormon]

Peter_Mary and Nate - thank you - that is exactly the sort of information I was wondering about. It's funny how the church has scrubbed its history to the point where they are actually making it more fragile. I mean, if you believed that the temple ceremony was the "restored" version of the one at solomon's temple, then knowing the similarities would be no problem, (quotes from church history would be fine too), but instead, they've created what almost amounts to straw men (it's almost like they WANT to get caught in the lies at this point.) A current day TBM who stumbled upon the masonic symbols and so forth would have their world rocked - but only because the church has tried to hide it.

I guess it's true that the coverup is generally worse than the crime.

[formermormon]

OK, so there is other interesting content in the Zina quote too.

1. It seems that she is saying that if all men were masons, rape wouldn't happen? Or maybe just extra-marital sex or something? And then she conflates masonry with polygamy. Is there some connection?

2. She uses the term "'Gods" -- plural. It makes sense with mormon theology that one would use the plural, but yet, mos don't. Did early church members do this though?

3. Could Zina have seriously believed this crap? I mean, she was intimately involved with Joe and Brig, so you'd think she had probably seen behind the curtain. How does that work, psychologically? Does she honestly believe that Joe was a "prophet of God"? I wonder this about Bush administration officials too - how do they continue to lie with a straight face? I mean, come on, Bush honors the pope? The same guy who charictarized the Iraq invasion as essentially a crime against humanity? Please. How do they say this BS in public without losing it?

[free thinker]

I enjoyed reading the above. This is the stuff about mormonism that is so obviously fraudulent and plaigerized, and yet the members seem to have no interest in finding out more about it. I remember making these connections and just assuming that it was the true temple ceremony from solomons temple. Now I realize it was just a bunch of borrowed masonic ritual. I will say though that the masons are still practicing their craft actively. I am sure they view the mormons as nothing but common thieves of their ceremony.

The Brathwaite book " Oddessy" has some very interesting information about the contrast between the Kirtland temple ceremony, and Nauvoo. Apparently there is almost no resemblance.( By the way, the temple ceremony is laid out in great detail in the book. I like to see that. I think if the majority of the population knew how weird the ceremony is, they might be more cautious of moving into mormonism.) The book notes that in the Kirtland temple they did some ritualistic washing with whiskey etc. More JS contrivance I am sure.

When I was in the mission field we actually met in a masonic hall in one small town where the church had just opened a branch. We would go upstairs and check out the hall before our meetings. We were surprised at how similar it looked to parts of modern mormon temples.

What blows me away is how many temples the church built in the last few years. It is just strange to me that no one catches on to this stuff. :Crazy:

Free Thinker

[noodle]

Okay, the site is called freemasonrywatch.org, and it has WAY more information on Masonry than most healthy people would ever care to peruse. However, this particular page--

http://freemasonrywatch.org/secrets.html

--is especially enlightening for anyone who EVER wondered if there is more than a passing similarity between the temple and the masons. The ceremony at the end of the page is especially enlightening...don't give up before you get to it!

The signs, the tokens, the penalties, the secret names, some of the costumery, the interaction between the temple worker and the patron...all of it finds its roots in the Masonic ritual. Oh, and you'll also see where Utah get's it's beehive symbol...

Anyway, probably a lot more than you were asking for... :o

Peter_Mary

Way interesting. I've always heard of the connection, but didn't realize how "connected" it was. Wow, I wonder how many people still join the Masons? How do you become a Mason? Do you have to be invited? What is their purpose?

mamajama

[nate]

Way interesting. I've always heard of the connection, but didn't realize how "connected" it was. Wow, I wonder how many people still join the Masons? How do you become a Mason? Do you have to be invited? What is their purpose?

mamajama

Just about anyone can join the Masons. It's almost like a religion, but more like a fraternity, because the only requirement is that you have a belief in God, the supreme being. I don't believe that you have to be invited. You can just lookup your local lodge and call and inquire and it will move along from there. There purpose is much like most religions, to provide a place for worship (sort of) and to encourage their members to be wholesome, productive members of society. If you do a google search on Free Masonry, you can find sites of different lodges and read more about them.

I know some Masons do harbor ill feelings towards the mormon church still, but official policy is that even mormons can become masons. Here is an interesting link, where a Mormon Master Mason writes about his views on the Mormon-Mason connection:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/masonry.shtml

Nate

[miss taken]

Way interesting. I've always heard of the connection, but didn't realize how "connected" it was. Wow, I wonder how many people still join the Masons? How do you become a Mason? Do you have to be invited? What is their purpose?

mamajama

Masonry is quite strong here in the UK. My father was invited (but declined) to become one, so I think you have to always be referred. Some close family members are masons, and I know of quite a few LDS members who are also Masons.

To put it in perspective, though it may get a bit 'icky' at the top? I don't know!! But for most people, masonry is a way of helping others (here in the UK they have a very wide charitable base), and each other.

At a practical level, from what I have gathered it is quite innocent, and is a fraternity of 'do-gooders'. My hubbie and I were invited to a dance last year, but couldn't go.

The symbolism is interesting as is the history of the development of the ceremonies.

As I remember in the UK, there was some ripples over certain policemen being masons, because there was a worry as to where their loyalty would lay. But all I can say is that the masons I have known over here, have been the most upright models of the community that I have known.

Don't know if that helps???
Mary

[silverfox]

Masonry is quite strong here in the UK. My father was invited (but declined) to become one, so I think you have to always be referred. Some close family members are masons, and I know of quite a few LDS members who are also Masons.

To put it in perspective, though it may get a bit 'icky' at the top? I don't know!! But for most people, masonry is a way of helping others (here in the UK they have a very wide charitable base), and each other.

At a practical level, from what I have gathered it is quite innocent, and is a fraternity of 'do-gooders'. My hubbie and I were invited to a dance last year, but couldn't go.

The symbolism is interesting as is the history of the development of the ceremonies.

As I remember in the UK, there was some ripples over certain policemen being masons, because there was a worry as to where their loyalty would lay. But all I can say is that the masons I have known over here, have been the most upright models of the community that I have known.

Don't know if that helps???
Mary

I don't know how strong the Masons were in Detroit but when I was little I remember the huge Masonic Temple just a few blocks from our home. It was across from a park and church that we frequented. They allowed our school (Cass Tech - it was a HUGE vocational school) to use it for graduations. It had a HUGE auditorium.

http://detroitmta.lodges.gl-mi.org/

But that's as close as my experience has come to Masons. We do have a very small little Mason building here in my tiny town. Not sure what goes on there.

[formermormon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that "anyone" cannot join at all. That you have to be male, right? That leaves out 52% of the population right off the bat (or the compass or whatever).

I mean, I didn't WANT to be a mason anyway, and if I wanted to go to the lodge, I could just marry a mason, right? I mean, any woman who really WANTS to be a mason is probably just power-hungry. ;)

[silverfox]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that "anyone" cannot join at all. That you have to be male, right? That leaves out 52% of the population right off the bat (or the compass or whatever).

I mean, I didn't WANT to be a mason anyway, and if I wanted to go to the lodge, I could just marry a mason, right? I mean, any woman who really WANTS to be a mason is probably just power-hungry. ;)

I skimmed thru the following link - pretty interesting

http://www.luckymojo.com/comasonry.html

And also this link.....

http://www.gl-mi.org/freemasonry-explained.htm