Freemasonry and Mormonism

Freemasonry is not a religion. It is a fraternal organization that arose from obscure origins in the late 16th to early 17th century. For some Masons, however, it substitutes for their religion. A discussion of Freemasonry is pertinent here only because there are some similarities between the LDS temple ceremony and Masonic rites. Some argue that Joseph Smith borrowed from Masonic ritual in creating the LDS temple ceremony. My intention is to provide the reader with a basic, fundamental background and understanding of the Freemasons’ organization. I will then address the issue of ritual or any doctrinal influences Joseph Smith’s experiences with the Masons might have had on him. I will explore, in general terms, the relationships between Masonic ritual and the LDS temple ritual and the significance of and implications of these relationships.

Freemasonry today (January 2011) exists in various forms all over the world, with a membership estimated at around six million. There are about four hundred thousand members in the British Isles and just under two million in the United States. The fraternity is administratively organized into independent Grand Lodges (the Masonic lodges are sometimes referred to as “Orients”), each of which governs its own “jurisdiction,” which consists of subordinate (or “constituent”) Lodges. The various Grand Lodges recognize each other, or not, based upon similar or differing beliefs, policies, and practices. A Grand Lodge will usually deem other Grand Lodges it recognizes as “regular.” Those it does not recognize are “irregular” or “clandestine.”

Freemasonry uses the metaphors of skilled stonemasons’ tools, against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon’s Temple, to convey what has been described by both Masons and critics as “a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols” (Masonic Service Association—Short Talk Bulletin as reprinted on the website of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana). The prefix Free- in the title of the movement seems to refer back to the status of the master stone masons. Their highly specialized abilities left them free to travel over the face of their land and be readily hirable, qualified for work, and even in demand for jobs in many locations.

#History of the Movement

The origins and early development of Freemasonry are a matter of some debate and conjecture. A poem known as the “Regius Manuscript,” dated approximately AD 1390 is the oldest known Masonic text (“The Regius Manuscript.” http://www.masonicsites.org/blue/regius1.htm). There is evidence to suggest that there were Masonic lodges in existence in Scotland as early as the late 16th century.

The first Grand Lodge, the Grand Lodge of England (GLE), was founded on June 24, 1717, when four existing London Lodges met for a joint dinner. This Grand Lodge rapidly expanded into a regulatory body, which most English Lodges joined. However, a few lodges resented some of the modernizations that GLE endorsed, such as the creation of the Third Degree, and formed a rival Grand Lodge on July 17, 1751, which they called the “Antient Grand Lodge of England.” The two competing Grand Lodges vied for supremacy—the “Moderns” (GLE) and the “Antients” (or “Ancients”)—until they united on November 25, 1813, to form the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE).

The Grand Lodge of Ireland and The Grand Lodge of Scotland were formed in 1725 and 1736 respectively. Freemasonry was exported to the British Colonies in North America by the 1730s—with both the “Antients” and the “Moderns” (as well as the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland) chartering offspring, or “daughter,” lodges. After the American Revolution, independent U.S. Grand Lodges formed themselves within each State. Some thought was briefly given to organizing an over-arching “Grand Lodge of the United States,” with George Washington (who was a member of a Virginian lodge) as the first Grand Master, but the idea was short-lived. The various State Grand Lodges did not wish to diminish their own authority by agreeing to such a body.

Although there are no real differences in the Freemasonry practiced by lodges chartered by the Antients or the Moderns, the remnants of this division can still be seen in the names of most Lodges—F. & A. M. being Free and Accepted Masons and A. F. & A. M. being Antient Free and Accepted Masons.

The oldest jurisdiction on the continent of Europe, the Grand Orient de France (GOdF), was founded in 1728. However, most English-speaking jurisdictions cut formal relations with the GOdF around 1877 when the GOdF removed the requirement that its members have a belief in a Deity, thereby accepting atheists. The Grande Loge Nationale Française (GLNF) is currently the only French Grand Lodge that is in regular amity (friendship or harmony) with the UGLE and its many concordant jurisdictions worldwide.

Due to the above history, Freemasonry is often said to consist of two branches not in mutual regular amity:

1. the UGLE and concordant traditional jurisdictions (mostly termed “Grand Lodges”), and

2. the GOdF, European Continental, traditional jurisdictions (often termed “Grand Orients”).

In most Latin countries, the GOdF-style of European Continental Freemasonry predominates, although in most of these Latin countries there are also Grand Lodges that are in regular amity with the UGLE and the worldwide community of Grand Lodges that share regular “fraternal relations” with the UGLE. The rest of the world, accounting for the bulk of Freemasonry, tends to follow more closely to the UGLE style, although minor variations exist.

#Organizational Structure

Grand Lodges and Grand Orients are independent and sovereign bodies that govern Masonry in a given country, state, or geographical area (termed a jurisdiction). There is no single overarching governing body that presides over worldwide Freemasonry. Connections between different jurisdictions depend solely on mutual recognition.

Regularity. Regularity is a constitutional mechanism whereby Grand Lodges or Grand Orients give one another mutual recognition. This recognition allows formal interaction at the Grand Lodge level, and gives individual Freemasons the opportunity to attend Lodge meetings in other recognized jurisdictions. Conversely, regularity proscribes interaction with Lodges that are irregular. A Mason who visits an irregular Lodge may have his membership suspended for a time, or he may be expelled. For this reason, all Grand Lodges maintain lists of other jurisdictions and lodges they consider regular.

Grand Lodges and Grand Orients that afford mutual recognition and allow intervisitation are said to be in amity. As far as the UGLE is concerned, regularity is predicated upon a number of guidelines or standards (referred to as “landmarks” by the Freemasons—see discussion of landmarks below), set down in the UGLE Constitution and the Constitutions of those Grand Lodges with which they are in amity. Even within this definition there are some variations with the quantity and content of the guidelines from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Each of the two major branches of Freemasonry considers the Lodges within its branch to be “regular” and those in the other branch to be “irregular.” As the UGLE branch is significantly larger, however, the various Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in amity with UGLE are commonly referred to as being “regular” (or “Mainstream”) Masonry. Those Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in amity with GOdF are commonly referred to as “liberal” or “irregular” Masonry. The issue is complicated by the fact that the usage of “Lodge” versus “Orient” alone is not an indicator of which branch a body belongs to, and thus not an indication of regularity. The term “irregular” is also universally applied to various self created bodies that call themselves “Masonic” but are not recognized by either of the main branches.

#Masonic Lodge

Freemasons correctly meet as a Lodge, not in a Lodge, the word “Lodge” referring more to the people assembled than the place of assembly. However, in common usage, Masonic premises are often referred to as “Lodges.” Masonic buildings are also sometimes called “Temples” (“of Philosophy and the Arts“). In many countries, Masonic Centre or Hall has replaced Temple to avoid arousing prejudice and suspicion. Several different Lodges, as well as other Masonic or non-Masonic organizations, often use the same premises at different times. Early Lodges often met in a tavern or any other convenient fixed place with a private room.

A Lodge (often termed a Private Lodge or Constituent Lodge in Masonic constitutions) is the basic organizational unit of Freemasonry. Every new Lodge must have a Warrant or Charter issued by a Grand Lodge, authorizing it to meet and work. Except for the very few “time immemorial” Lodges pre-dating the formation of a Grand Lodge, masons who meet as a Lodge without displaying this document (for example, in prisoner-of-war camps) are deemed “clandestine” and irregular.

A Lodge must hold regular meetings at a fixed place and on published dates. It will elect, initiate and promote its members and officers. It will build up and manage its property and assets, including its minutes and records. And it may own, occupy, or share its premises. Like any organization, it will conduct formal business to manage its meetings and proceedings including annual general meetings and committees. Business includes charity funds, correspondence and reports, membership and subscriptions, accounts and tax returns, special events and catering, and so forth. The balance of activities is individual to each Lodge, and under their common constitutions and forms of procedure, Lodges evolve very distinctive traditions. According to Masonic tradition, medieval European stonemasons would meet, eat, and shelter outside working hours in a Lodge on the southern side of a building site, where the sun warms the stones during the day. The “Festive Board” or “Social Board” part of the meeting is thus sometimes called the South.

A man can only be initiated, or made a Mason, in a Lodge, of which he may be expected to remain a subscribing member for life. A Master Mason can generally visit any Lodge meeting under any jurisdiction in amity with his own. He may attend the formal meeting, and the Lodge he visits may well offer hospitality. A visitor should first check the regularity of that Lodge, and must be able to satisfy that Lodge of his own regularity. He may be refused admission if adjudged likely to disrupt the harmony of the Lodge. If he wishes to visit the same Lodge repeatedly, he may be expected to join it and pay a subscription.

Types of lodges. The terms “Blue Lodges,” “Craft Lodges,” or “Ancient Craft Lodges” refer to the lodges that utilize the first three Masonic degrees. These terms distinguish them from the “appendant” or extra orders usually assembled and organized for specific functions, perhaps particularly for social interactions. The term “Craft Lodge” is used in Great Britain. The word craft here may be a metaphorical allusion to particular specialty of the ancient stone mason. The “Blue Lodge” is said to refer to the traditional color of regalia in Lodges derived from English or Irish Freemasonry. Although the term was originally frowned upon, it has gained widespread and mainstream usage in America in recent times.

Most Lodges consist of Freemasons’ living or working within a given town or neighborhood. Other Lodges are composed of Masons with a particular shared interest, profession or background. Shared schools, universities, military units, Masonic appointments or degrees, arts, professions and hobbies have all been the qualifications for such Lodges. In some Lodges, the foundation and name may now be only of historic interest, as over time the membership evolves beyond that envisaged by its “founding brethren.” In others, the membership remains exclusive. Examples of these specialty lodges include:

1. Research Lodges. These have the purpose of furthering Masonic scholarship (historical, philosophical, etc.). These may have strictly limited membership. That is, the members need specific educational or other types of backgrounds. It is not unusual for these to only admit Master Masons. Many jurisdictions have well-established Research Lodges, which usually meet less frequently than Blue Lodges and do not confer degrees or initiate new candidates.

2. Lodges of Instruction. In Great Britain, these may be associated with a Lodge, but they are not constituted separately. The Lodge of Instruction provides the officers and those who wish to become officers an opportunity to rehearse ritual under the guidance of an experienced brother. There may also be lectures centering on the ritual and the symbolism of Masonry.

In some jurisdictions in the United States, the Lodge of Instruction serves as a warranted (fully authorized) lodge for candidate instruction in other aspects of Freemasonry besides ritual rehearsal. These may also host speakers on topics both Masonic and non-Masonic.

3. Mother Lodge. In Great Britain, the term Mother Lodge is used to identify the particular Lodge where the individual was first “made a Mason” (i.e. received his Entered Apprentice degree). “Mother Lodge” may also refer to a Grand Lodge which sponsors the creation of a new lodge, the “daughter lodge,” to be warranted or authorized under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge.

#Lodge Officers

Every Masonic Lodge elects certain officers to execute the necessary functions of the lodge’s work. The Worshipful Master (essentially the lodge President) is always an elected officer. Most jurisdictions will also elect the Senior and Junior Wardens (Vice Presidents), the Secretary, and the Treasurer. All lodges will have a Tyler, or Tiler who guards the door to the lodge room while the lodge is in session. This office is sometimes elected and sometimes appointed by the Master. In addition to these elected officers, lodges will have various appointed officers—such as Deacons, Stewards, and a Chaplain (appointed to lead a non-denominational prayer at the convocation of meetings or activities—often, but not necessarily, a clergyman). The specific offices and their functions vary between jurisdictions.

Many offices are replicated at the Grand Lodge levels with the addition of the word “Grand” somewhere in the title. For example, where every lodge has a “Junior

Warden,” Grand Lodges have a “Grand Junior Warden” (or sometimes “Junior Grand Warden”). Additionally, there are a number of offices that exist only at the Grand Lodge level.

#Prince Hall Freemasonry

Prince Hall Freemasonry derives from historical events in the early United States that led to a tradition of separate, predominantly African-American, Freemasonry in North America.

In 1775, an African-American named Prince Hall was initiated into an Irish Constitution military Lodge then in Boston, Massachusetts, along with fourteen other African-Americans, all of whom were free-born. When the military Lodge left North America, those fifteen men were given the authority to meet as a Lodge and do some Masonic functions. They were forbidden, however, to confer degrees. Other Masonic functions were forbidden to them. In 1784, these individuals applied for, and obtained, a Lodge Warrant from the Premier Grand Lodge of England (GLE) and formed African Lodge, Number 459. When the UGLE was formed in 1813, all U.S.-based Lodges were stricken from their rolls—due largely to the War of 1812. Thus, separated from both UGLE and any harmoniously recognized U.S. Grand Lodge, the African Lodge re-titled itself as the African Lodge, Number 1—and became a de facto (actual but not officially approved by usual laws) “Grand Lodge” (this Lodge is not to be confused with the various Grand Lodges on the Continent of Africa). As with the rest of U.S. Freemasonry, Prince Hall Freemasonry soon grew and organized on a Grand Lodge system for each state.

Widespread segregation in 19th- and early 20th-century North America made it difficult for African-Americans to join Lodges outside of Prince Hall jurisdictions—and impossible for inter-jurisdiction recognition between the parallel U.S. Masonic authorities.

Prince Hall Masonry has always been regular in all respects except constitutional separation, and this separation has diminished in recent years. At present, Prince Hall Grand Lodges are recognized by some UGLE-compatible Grand Lodges and not by others, but they appear to be working toward full recognition, with UGLE granting at least some degree of recognition. There is a growing number of both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges that have ethnically diverse membership. Hence, the term “Prince Hall Masonry” has come to refer to lodges that cater to one particular ethnic group.

#The Constitutions of the Modern Masons

The “Constitution” of the Freemasons is intended to standardize the rituals, standards, regulations, and practices of Freemasons. A Constitution of the Antient (an old spelling for “ancient”) Grand Lodge of England or the Grand Lodge of the Antients existed before the 18 century. The current constitution generally adopted by most all Masons was written by James Anderson for the Grand Lodge in England in 1723. It included material from the ancient constitution. Anderson re-wrote the Constitution in 1738. Relatively minor changes were made in an update in 1754 written by John Entick.

#Degrees of Masonry

The three degrees of Craft or Blue Lodge Freemasonry are:

1. Entered Apprentice—the degree of an Initiate, which makes one a Freemason. 2. Fellow Craft—an intermediate degree, involved with learning.

3. Master Mason—the “third degree”—a necessity for participation in most aspects of Masonry.

A candidate progresses through degrees gaining knowledge and understanding of himself, his relationship with others and his relationship with the Supreme Being (per his own interpretation). The degrees represent stages of personal development. While the philosophical aspects of Freemasonry tend to be discussed in Lodges of Instruction or Research, and sometimes informal groups, Freemasons, and others, frequently publish, with varying degrees of competence, studies that are available to the public. Any Mason may speculate on the symbols and allegories used commonly in Freemasonry. All Masons are required to some extent to speculate on Masonic meaning as a condition of advancing through the degrees. There is no one accepted meaning, and no one person “speaks” for the whole of Freemasonry. While each candidate is expected to interpret them for himself, his interpretation must be in line with the Constitution.

There is no degree of Craft Freemasonry higher than that of Master Mason—the Third Degree. Although some Masonic bodies and orders have additional degrees with higher numbers, these degrees may be considered to be supplements to the Master Mason degree rather than promotions from it. An example is the Scottish Rite, conferring degrees numbered from 4 up to 33. It is essential to be a Master Mason in order to qualify for these additional degrees.

In some jurisdictions, especially those in continental Europe, Freemasons working through the degrees may be asked to prepare papers on related philosophical topics and present these papers in a meeting of his Lodge. There is an enormous bibliography of Masonic papers ranging from fanciful abstractions to serious historical and philosophical papers entitled to academic respect.

#Other Orders and Bodies

There are a number of organizations of Masons that require being a Master Mason as a prerequisite for membership. These orders and bodies have no authority over the Blue or Craft Lodges. They are administered separately from the Craft Lodges.

These orders may bestow degrees and honors of their own. These may be described as additional or “appendant,” and often provide further perspectives and insights into some of the allegorical, moral and philosophical content of Freemasonry. Some of these organizations have additional requirements, such as religious adherence (e.g., requiring members to profess Trinitarian Christian beliefs) or membership of other bodies. Their jurisdictions often vary from those of the Craft Lodges.

Quite apart from these, there are organizations that are often thought of as being related to Freemasonry, but which actually have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry. These include such organizations as the Orange Order, which originated in Ireland, the Knights of Pythias, or the Independent Order of Odd Fellows.

#Principles and Activities

While Freemasonry has often been called a “secret society,” Freemasons themselves argue it is more correct to say that it is an esoteric society, in that certain aspects are private. The most common phrasing is that Freemasonry has, in the 21st century, become less a secret society and more of a “society with secrets.” The private aspects of modern Freemasonry are the modes of recognition amongst members and particular elements within the ritual.

Despite the organization’s great diversity, Freemasonry’s central preoccupations remain charitable work within a local or wider community, moral uprightness (in most cases requiring a belief in a supreme being) as well as the development and maintenance of fraternal friendship, as James Anderson’s Constitutions originally urged amongst brethren.

#Ritual, Symbolism, and Morality

Masons conduct their meetings using a ritualized format. There is no single Masonic ritual, and each jurisdiction is free to set (or not set) its own ritual. However, there are similarities that exist among jurisdictions. For example, all Masonic ritual makes use of the architectural symbolism of the tools of the medieval skilled stonemason. Freemasons, as figurative masons (meaning philosophical building rather than actual building), use this symbolism to teach moral and ethical lessons of the principles of “Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth,” or, as related in France, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.”

Two of the principal symbolic tools always found in a Lodge are the square and the compass. Some Lodges and rituals explain these tools as lessons in conduct: for example, that Masons should “square their actions by the square of virtue” and to learn to “circumscribe their desires and keep their passions within due bounds toward all mankind.” However, as Freemasonry is non-dogmatic, there is no general interpretation for these tools (or any Masonic emblem) that is used by Freemasonry as a whole.

Some lodges make use of tracing boards. These are painted or printed illustrations depicting the various symbolic emblems of Freemasonry. They can be used as teaching aids during the lectures when an experienced member explains the various concepts of Freemasonry to new members. They can also be used by experienced members as self-reminders of the concepts they learned as they went through their initiations.

#The Supreme Being and the Volume of Sacred Law

Candidates for regular Freemasonry are required to declare a belief in a Supreme Being. However, the candidate is not asked to expand on, or explain, his interpretation of Supreme Being. The discussion of politics and religion is forbidden within a Masonic Lodge, in part so a Mason will not be placed in the situation of having to justify his personal interpretation. Thus, reference to the Supreme Being will mean the Christian Trinity to an orthodox Christian Mason, Allah to a Muslim Mason, Para Brahman to a Hindu Mason, etc. While most Freemasons would take the view that the term Supreme Being equates to God, others may hold a more complex or philosophical interpretation of the term. In the ritual, the Supreme Being is referred to as the Great Architect of the Universe, which alludes to the use of architectural symbolism within Freemasonry.

A Volume of the Sacred Law is always displayed in an open Lodge in those jurisdictions which require a belief in the Supreme Being. In English-speaking countries, this is frequently the King James Version of the Bible or another standard translation. There is no such thing as an exclusive “Masonic Bible.”

Every candidate for entered apprentice must enter into a horizontal oath or covenant with his brother Masons to live up to standards that he may set for himself. This covenant is referred to by Masons as the “obligation.” See more discussion of obligations below.

Furthermore, each candidate is given his choice of religious text for his obligation, according to his beliefs—his own Volume of Sacred Law. In Lodges with a membership of mixed religions it is common to find more than one sacred text displayed. In lodges that follow the Continental tradition other texts may be used, including texts that are non-religious in nature.

#Signs, Grips and Words

Freemasons use signs (gestures), grips or tokens (handshakes) and words to gain admission to meetings and identify legitimate visitors. From the early 18th century onwards, many exposés have been written claiming to reveal these signs, grips and passwords to the uninitiated. A classic response was deliberately to transpose certain words in the ritual, so as to catch out anyone relying on the exposé. However, since each Grand Lodge is free to create its own rituals, the signs, grips and passwords can and do differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Furthermore, Grand Lodges can and do change their rituals periodically, updating the language used, adding or omitting sections. Therefore, any exposé can only be valid for a particular jurisdiction at a particular time, and is always difficult for an outsider to verify. Today, an unknown visitor may be required to produce a certificate, dues card or other documentation of membership in addition to demonstrating knowledge of the signs, grips and passwords.

#Obligations

Obligations are those elements of ritual in which a candidate swears to abide by the rules of the fraternity, to keep the “secrets of Freemasonry” (which are the various signs, tokens and words associated with recognition in each degree), and to act towards others in accordance with Masonic tradition and law. In regular jurisdictions these obligations are sworn on the aforementioned Volume of the Sacred Law and in the witness of the Supreme Being and often with assurance that it is of the candidate’s own free will.

Details of the obligations vary. Some versions are published while others are privately printed in books of coded text. Still other jurisdictions rely on oral transmission of ritual, and thus have no ritual books at all.

While no single obligation is representative of Freemasonry as a whole, a number of common themes appear in most all of them. These include: the candidate promises to act in a manner befitting a member of civilized society, promises to obey the law of his Supreme Being, promises to obey the law of his sovereign state, promises to attend his Lodge if he is able, promises not to wrong, cheat nor defraud the Lodge or the brethren, and promises aid or charity to a member of the human family, including brethren and their families in times of need if it can be done without causing financial harm to himself or his dependents.

The obligations are well-known to critics of Freemasonry. The critics are likely to refer to them as the Masons’ “bloody penalties”—an allusion to the apparent metaphorical physical penalties associated with each degree. This leads to some descriptions of the obligations as “Oaths.” A description of the penalties does not appear in authoritative, endorsed sources. The reason is that a decision was made and a policy observed “that all references to physical penalties be omitted from the obligations taken by Candidates in the three Degrees and by a Master Elect at his Installation but retained elsewhere in the respective ceremonies.” The penalties are interpreted by the Freemasons symbolically, and, of course, are not applied in actuality by a Lodge or by any other body of Masonry. The descriptive nature of the penalties alludes to how the candidate should feel about himself should he knowingly violate his obligation. Modern actual penalties may include suspension, expulsion, or reprimand.

#Landmarks

The “landmarks” of Masonry are defined as ancient and unchangeable principles—standards by which the regularity of Lodges and Grand Lodges are judged. As previously mentioned, each Grand Lodge is self-governing and no single authority exists over the whole of Freemasonry. The interpretation of these principles therefore can and does vary, leading to controversies of recognition.

The concept of Masonic landmarks appears in Masonic regulations as early as 1723, and seems to be adopted from the regulations of operative Masonic guilds. In 1858, Albert G. Mackey attempted to set down 25 landmarks. In 1863, George Oliver published a Freemason’s Treasury in which he listed forty landmarks. A number of American Grand Lodges have attempted the task of enumerating the landmarks. Numbers of landmarks differ from West Virginia (7) and New Jersey (10) to Nevada (39) and Kentucky (54).

#Charitable Efforts

The fraternity is widely involved in charity and community service activities. In contemporary times, money is collected only from the membership, and is to be devoted to charitable purposes. Freemasonry worldwide disburses substantial charitable amounts to non-Masonic charities, locally, nationally and internationally. In earlier centuries, however, there were elaborate regulations to determine a petitioner’s eligibility for consideration for charity, according to strictly Masonic criteria.

Some examples of Masonic charities include:

• Homes that provide sheltered housing or nursing care.

Education with both educational grants or schools such as the Royal Masonic •

School (UK) which are open to all and not limited to the families of Freemasons.

• Medical assistance.

Masonic Child Identification Programs (CHIP).

•

In addition to these, there are thousands of philanthropic organizations around the world created by Freemasons. The Masonic Service Association, the Masonic Medical Research Laboratory, and the Shriners Hospitals for Children are especially notable charitable endeavors that Masons have founded and continue to support both intellectually and monetarily.

#Membership Requirements

Contrary to common misconception, joining Freemasonry is not by invitation only. In fact, in many jurisdictions, the brothers of the lodge are not allowed to ask potential candidates to join (in these jurisdictions, the brethren must wait for the potential candidate to inquire). Other jurisdictions allow for varying degrees of solicitation.

However the initial introduction is made, the official process of becoming a Mason begins when a candidate for Freemasonry formally petitions a lodge. The brethren will then investigate the candidate, to assure themselves of his good character, and hold a secret ballot election (often using an old fashioned ballot box). The number of adverse votes needed to reject a candidate varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (in some, one “black ball” is enough to reject, in others up to three are required).

General requirements. Generally, to be accepted for initiation as a regular Freemason, a candidate must:

• Be a man who comes of his own free will.

• Believe in a Supreme Being (the form of which is left to open interpretation by the candidate).

• Be at least the minimum age (from 18–25 years old depending on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the son of a Mason, known as a “Lewis,” may join at an earlier age than others).

• Be of good morals, and of good reputation.

• Be of sound mind and body (Lodges had in the past denied membership to a man because of a physical disability. However, now, if a potential candidate says a disability will not cause problems, it will not be held against him).

• Be free-born (or “born free,” i.e., not born a slave or bondsman). As with the previous, this is entirely an historical holdover, and can be interpreted in the same manner as it is in the context of being entitled to write a will. Some jurisdictions have removed this requirement.

Be capable of furnishing character references, as well as one or two references •

from current Masons, depending on jurisdiction.

Some Grand Lodges in the United States have an additional residence requirement, candidates being expected to have lived within the jurisdiction for a certain period of time, typically six months.

#Membership and Religion

Freemasonry explicitly and openly states that it is neither a religion nor a substitute for one. “There is no separate Masonic God,” nor a separate proper name for a deity in any branch of Freemasonry.

Regular Freemasonry requires that its candidates believe in a Supreme Being, but the interpretation of this term is subject to the conscience of the candidate. Consequently, Freemasonry accepts men from a range of faiths, including (but not limited to) Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism. As a result, Freemasonry uses Volume of the Sacred Law (VSL) as a generic term for a religious book. As UGLE-based Freemasonry also requires that a VSL be present on the Altar, many Lodges have multiple VSLs available, and a candidate can be obligated on his book of choice.

Since the early 19th century, in the irregular Continental European tradition (meaning irregular to those Grand Lodges in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England), a very broad interpretation has been given to a non-dogmatic Supreme

Being. In some jurisdictions even Western atheistic idealism or agnosticism is sufficient. Even though Freemasonry is not, strictly speaking a “church,” for some the organization functions as a de facto religion. Indeed, we may observe that Freemasonry is the ultimate ecumenical “religious” order.

The form of Freemasonry most common in Scandinavia, known as the Swedish Rite, on the other hand, accepts only Christians.

#Freemasonry and Women

Since the adoption of Anderson’s constitution in 1723, it has been accepted as fact by regular Masons that only men can be made Masons. Most Grand Lodges do not admit women because they believe it would violate the ancient landmarks. While a few women, such as Elizabeth Aldworth, were initiated into British speculative lodges prior to 1723, officially regular Freemasonry remains exclusive to men.

While women cannot join regular lodges, there are (mainly within the borders of the United States) many female orders associated with regular Freemasonry and its appendant bodies, such as the Order of the Eastern Star, the Order of the Amaranth, the White Shrine of Jerusalem, the Social Order of Beauceant, the Daughters of the Nile, and Job’s Daughters. These have their own rituals and traditions, but are founded on the Masonic model. Some require filial relationships with master Masons. In the French context, women in the 18th and 19th centuries had been admitted into what were known as “adoption lodges” in which they could participate in ritual life. However, men clearly saw this type of adoption Freemasonry as distinct from their exclusively male variety. From the late 19th century onward, mixed gender lodges have met in France.

In addition, there are many non-mainstream Masonic bodies that do admit both men and women or are exclusively for women. Co-Freemasonry admits both men and women, but it is held to be irregular because it admits women. The systematic admission of women into International Co-Freemasonry began in France in 1882. In more recent times, women have created and maintained separate Lodges, working the same rituals as the all male regular lodges. These Female Masons have founded lodges around the world, and these Lodges continue to gain membership.

#Opposition to and Criticism of Freemasonry

Anti-Masonry (alternatively called Anti-Freemasonry) has been defined as “opposition to Freemasonry.” However, there is no homogeneous anti-Masonic movement. Anti-Masonry consists of widely differing criticisms from diverse (and often incompatible) groups who are hostile to Freemasonry in some form. Critics have included religious groups, political groups, and conspiracy theorists.

There have been many disclosures and exposés dating as far back as the 18 century. These often lack context, may be outdated for various reasons, or could be outright hoaxes on the part of the author.

These hoaxes and exposés have often become the basis for criticism of Masonry, often religious or political in nature (usually by totalitarian dictatorial regimes, but also arising in the historical Anti-Masonic Party in the United States), or are based on suspicion of corrupt conspiracy of some form.

The Morgan affair. In 1826, an episode occurred, now referred to as the “Morgan affair.” Prior to this affair, Freemasonry was flourishing. William Morgan was born in 1774 in Virginia. He was probably a Mason. He worked as a brick layer and a laborer in a brewery. After a fire destroyed the brewery, he fell on economic hard times. He became a heavy drinker and was described by people who knew him as envious, malicious, vindictive, and neglectful of family. He was also in debt to several persons. In moving from Rochester to Batavia, New York, he applied for admission to a lodge in Batavia and was rejected in consequence of his intemperate and unworthy habits. This rejection infuriated Morgan. He set about to destroy Freemasonry and cash in by writing a sensational book that would reveal all of Masonry’s secrets. A local newspaperman David Miller agreed to print the book. The proposed publication of this book excited much furor among the Freemasons in Batavia. Morgan was jailed for stealing some clothing. On being released from jail, he was seized forcibly, thrust into a carriage and taken to Fort Niagara on Canadian border by a group of Masons. His presence in Fort Niagara was documented, but he was never seen again. Rumors arose that the Masons had killed Morgan by drowning him in the falls. That Morgan was killed has never been proven. However, an anti-Masonry movement, fueled by rumors, caught fire and spread literally to every state in the nation. The number of Masons dropped from 100,000 to 40,000 in ten years. Some grand lodges ceased to meet. It was only after the Civil War that Freemasonry made a significant comeback. The “Morgan Affair“ gave rise to the term “Anti-Masonry,” which is still in use today, both by Masons in referring to their critics and as a self-descriptor by the critics themselves.

#Religious Opposition

Freemasonry has attracted criticism from theocratic states and organized religions for supposed competition with religion, or supposed heterodoxy within the Fraternity itself, and has long been the target of conspiracy theories, which see it as an occult and evil power.

#Christianity and Freemasonry

Although members of various faiths cite objections, certain Christian denominations have had high profile negative attitudes to Masonry, banning or discouraging their members from being Freemasons.

The denomination with the longest history of objection to Freemasonry is the Roman Catholic Church. The objections raised by the Catholics are based on the allegation that Masonry teaches a naturalistic deistic religion which is in conflict with Church doctrine. A number of Papal pronouncements have been issued against Freemasonry. The first was Pope Clement XII’s In Eminenti, 28 April 1738; the most recent was Pope Leo XIII’s Ab Apostolici, 15 October 1890. The 1917 Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication. The 1917 Code of Canon Law also forbade books friendly to Freemasonry.

In 1983, the Roman Catholic Church issued a new Code of Canon Law. Unlike its predecessor, it did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies it condemns. It states in part: “A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.” This omission of Freemasons from this statement caused both Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted, especially after the perceived liberalization of Vatican II. However, the matter was clarified when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued Quaesitum est, which states: “The Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.” Thus, from a Catholic perspective, there is still a ban on Catholics joining Masonic Lodges. For its part, Freemasonry has never objected to Catholics joining their fraternity. Those Grand Lodges in amity with UGLE deny the Catholic Church’s claims and state that they explicitly adhere to the principle that “Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion.”

In contrast to Catholic allegations of rationalism and naturalism, Protestant objections are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism, occultism, and even Satanism.

Free Methodist Church founder B.T. Roberts was a vocal opponent of Freemasonry in the mid 18th century. Roberts opposed the society on moral grounds and stated, “The god of the lodge is not the God of the Bible.” Roberts believed Freemasonry was a “mystery“ or “alternate” religion and encouraged his church not to support ministers who were Freemasons. Freedom from secret societies is one of the “frees” the Free Methodist Church was founded upon.

Since the founding of Freemasonry, many Bishops of the Church of England have been Freemasons, such as Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher. In the past, few members of the Church of England would have seen any incongruity in concurrently adhering to Anglican Christianity and practicing Freemasonry. In recent decades, however, reservations about Freemasonry have increased within Anglicanism, perhaps due to the increasing prominence of the evangelical wing of the church. The current Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, appears to harbor some reservations about Masonic ritual, whilst being anxious to avoid causing offence to Freemasons inside and outside the Church of England. In 2003 he felt it necessary to apologize to British Freemasons after he said that their beliefs were incompatible with Christianity and that he had barred the appointment of Freemasons to senior posts in his diocese when he was Bishop of Monmouth.

In 1933, the Orthodox Church of Greece officially declared that being a Freemason constitutes an act of apostasy and thus, until he repents, the person involved with Freemasonry cannot partake of the Eucharist. This has been generally affirmed throughout the whole Orthodox Church. The Orthodox critique of Freemasonry agrees with both the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions: “Freemasonry cannot be at all compatible with Christianity as far as it is a secret organization, acting and teaching in mystery and secret and deifying rationalism.”

Regular Freemasonry has traditionally not responded to these claims, beyond the often repeated statement that those Grand Lodges in amity with UGLE explicitly adhere to the principle that “Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion. There is no separate ‘Masonic deity,’ and there is no separate proper name for a deity in Freemasonry.” In recent years, however, this has begun to change. Many Masonic websites and publications address these criticisms specifically.

#Islam and Freemasonry

Many Islamic anti-Masonic arguments are closely tied to both Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, though other criticisms are made such as linking Freemasonry to Dajjal. Dajjal is a hypothetical one-eyed devil or anti-Christ alive only in Islamic myth. Some Muslim anti-Masons argue that Freemasonry promotes the interests of the Jews around the world and that one of its aims is to rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem after destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Some countries with a significant Muslim population do not allow Masonic establishments within their jurisdictions. However, other predominantly Muslim countries do allow the establishment of Grand Lodges. Masonic lodges existed in Iraq as early as 1919, when the first lodge under the UGLE was opened in Basra, and later on when the country was under British Mandate just after the First World War. However the position changed in July 1958 following the Revolution, with the abolition of the Monarchy and Iraq being declared a republic, under General Qasim. The licenses permitting lodges to meet were rescinded and later laws were introduced banning any further meetings. This position was later reinforced under Saddam Hussein, the death penalty was “prescribed” for those who “promote or acclaim Zionist principles, including Freemasonry, or who associate [themselves] with Zionist organizations.” With the fall of the Hussein government in 2003, a number of Lodges have begun to meet on military bases within Iraq. These lodges primarily cater to British and American military units, but a few have initiated Iraqis. Several Grand Lodges have expressed a desire to charter Lodges with completely Iraqi membership in the near future.

#Political Opposition

Regular Freemasonry has in its core ritual a formal obligation to be quiet and peaceable citizens, true to the lawful government of the country in which they live, and not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion. A Freemason makes a further pledge, before being made Master of his Lodge, to pay a proper respect to the civil magistrates. The words may be varied across Grand Lodges, but the sense in the obligation taken is always there. Nevertheless, much of the political opposition to Freemasonry is based upon the idea that Masonry will foment (or sometimes prevent) rebellion.

In 1799 English Freemasonry almost came to a halt due to Parliamentary proclamation. In the wake of the French Revolution, the Unlawful Societies Act, 1799 banned any meetings of groups that required their members to take an oath or obligation. The Grand Masters of both the Moderns and the Antients Grand Lodges called on the Prime Minister William Pitt (who was not a Freemason) and explained to him that Freemasonry was a supporter of the law and lawfully constituted authority and was much involved in charitable work. As a result Freemasonry was specifically exempted from the terms of the Act, provided that each Private Lodge’s Secretary placed with the local “Clerk of the Peace” a list of the members of his Lodge once a year. This continued until 1967 when the obligation of the provision was rescinded by Parliament.

Freemasonry in the United States faced political pressure following the disappearance of William Morgan in 1826. Reports of the “Morgan Affair,” together with opposition to Jacksonian democracy (Andrew Jackson was a prominent Mason) helped fuel an Anti-Masonic movement, culminating in the formation of a short lived Anti- Masonic Party which fielded candidates for the Presidential elections of 1828 and 1832.

Conspiracy theorists have long associated Freemasonry with the New World Order and the Illuminati, and state that Freemasonry as an organization is either bent on world domination or already secretly in control of world politics. Historically, Freemasonry has attracted criticism—and suppression—from both the politically extreme right (e.g. Nazi Germany) and the extreme left (e.g. the former Communist states in Eastern Europe). Masonry has encountered both applause for supposedly founding, and opposition for supposedly thwarting, liberal democracy (such as the United States of America).

Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is sometimes viewed with distrust. In the UK, Masons working in the justice system, such as judges and police officers, were from 1999 to 2009 required to disclose their membership. While a parliamentary inquiry found that there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, it was felt that any potential loyalties Masons might have, based on their vows to support fellow Masons, should be transparent to the public. The policy of requiring a declaration of Masonic membership of applicants for judicial office (judges and magistrates) was ended in 2009 by Justice Secretary Jack Straw, (who had initiated the requirement in the 1990s). Straw stated that the rule was considered disproportionate, since no impropriety or malpractice had been shown as a result of judges being Freemasons. The rescinding of the rule did not change the disclosure requirements for Police officers.

Freemasonry is both successful and controversial in France. Membership is rising, but reporting in the popular media is often negative.

#The Holocaust

The preserved records of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (the Reich Security Main Office) confirm the persecution of Freemasons during World War II. While the number is not accurately known, it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were killed under the Nazi regime. Masonic concentration camp inmates were graded as political prisoners and wore an inverted red triangle.

#Forget-Me-Not

The small blue forget-me-not flower was first used by the Grand Lodge Zur Sonne, in 1926, as a Masonic emblem at the annual convention in Bremen, Germany. In 1938 the forget-me-not badge—made by the same factory as the Masonic badge— was chosen for the annual Nazi Party Winterhilfswerk, a Nazi charitable organization which collected money so that other state funds could be freed up and used for rearmament. This coincidence enabled Freemasons to wear the forget-me-not badge as a secret sign of membership.

After World War II, the forget-me-not flower was again used as a Masonic emblem at the first Annual Convention of the United Grand Lodges of Germany in 1948. The badge is now worn in the coat lapel by Freemasons around the world to remember all those that have suffered in the name of Freemasonry, especially those during the Nazi era.

#Joseph Smith’s Experience with Freemasonry in Nauvoo

Let us now consider Joseph Smith’s exposure to Freemasonry in Nauvoo. Regular Masonic procedure at the time called for an existing lodge to sponsor each new proposed lodge. Nauvoo’s lodge was established without the normal sponsorship. In the summer of 1841, several Latter-day Saints who were Masons, including Lucius N. Scovil, a key figure in Nauvoo Freemasonry, requested Bodley Lodge No. 1, in Quincy, Illinois, to sponsor a lodge in Nauvoo and appoint several named residents of Nauvoo as officers of that Lodge. The Bodley Lodge No. 1 indicated that the persons named were unknown in Quincy as Masons. The Quincy lodge, therefore, returned Scovil’s letter of request with instructions for further action. Though they were not an officially recognized lodge, Mormon Masons began holding lodge meetings in Nauvoo as early as October 1841. It was not until after they became an official lodge, however, that they were permitted to add new members.

On March 15, 1842, Illinois Grand Master Abraham Jonas visited Nauvoo and installed the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge. Joseph Smith and other residents of Nauvoo were initiated. Grand Master Jonas apparently waived the rule of sponsorship and granted Nauvoo a “special dispensation” to organize. He also made Joseph Smith and Joseph’s counselor, Sydney Rigdon, “Master Masons on sight.” Some believe that Jonas was willing to follow this course because he envisioned the growing Mormon vote as a potential support to his own political ambitions. Although the action may have endeared Jonas to some Latter-day Saints, it antagonized other Masons. Joseph Smith had expected that the saints might benefit from the network of friendship and support normally associated with the fraternal organization, but instead, the Nauvoo Lodge only produced friction with members of other lodges, particularly since the lodge seemed to receive privileged treatment at its inception.

Jonas published an account of the March 15 installation of the Nauvoo Lodge in his newspaper, Columbia Advocate: “Never in my life did I witness a better dressed or more orderly and well-behaved assemblage,” he wrote (HC, 4:565-66). During the installation ceremonies, held in the grove near the temple site, Joseph Smith officiated as Grand Chaplain. That evening, with the Masons assembled in his office, the Prophet received the rank of Master Mason. Nauvoo Masons then commenced weekly early morning meetings.

In August 1842, Bodley Lodge No. 1 protested the granting of a dispensation to the Nauvoo Lodge. This resulted in a temporary suspension of activities in Nauvoo. A formal investigation found that approximately three hundred Latter-day Saints had become Masons during the brief existence of the lodge, but there were no irregularities warranting dissolution. The Grand Lodge not only authorized reinstatement of the Nauvoo Lodge but subsequently granted dispensations for other lodges nearby made up principally of Latter-day Saints. Eventually nearly 1,500 LDS men became associated with Illinois Freemasonry, including many members of the Church’s governing priesthood bodies—this at a time when the total number of non-LDS Masons in Illinois lodges barely reached 150.

The towns around Nauvoo had been rivals of the city for political and economic ascendancy in the state. Hence, neighboring Masons feared and resisted Mormon domination of Freemasonry. Charging the Nauvoo Lodge with balloting for more than one applicant at a time, receiving questionably-qualified applicants into the fraternity on the basis that they reform in the future, and making Joseph Smith a Master Mason on sight, enemies forced another investigation in October 1843. The Grand Lodge in

Illinois summoned Nauvoo Freemasonry officials to Jacksonville. Armed with pertinent books and papers, Lucius Scovil and Henry G. Sherwood answered the allegations. Though the examining committee reported that everything appeared to be in order, it expressed fear that there might be something wrong, and recommended a year’s suspension. At this point, Grand Master Jonas, in an impassioned speech, declared that the books of the Nauvoo Lodge were the best-kept he had seen and stated his conviction that but for the fact that the Nauvoo Lodge was composed of Mormons, it would stand as the highest lodge in the state. A committee was appointed to make a thorough investigation in Nauvoo. Though the committee reported no wrongdoing, the Nauvoo Lodge was again suspended. The injunction was later removed, but the Nauvoo Lodge continued to lack the support of its fellow Masons.

In April 1844, the Nauvoo Lodge dedicated a new Masonic hall. By this time, the lodge had been severed from the Grand Lodge and one Illinois Mason had been expelled from his lodge for attending the dedication. The Nauvoo Lodge continued its activities in the newly built hall until April 10, 1845, when Brigham Young advised Lucius Scovil to suspend the work of the Masons in Nauvoo. Only a few additional meetings were held prior to the Latter-day Saints’ departure for the Great Basin in 1846.

Joseph Smith participated minimally in Freemasonry and, as far as is known, attended the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge on only three occasions (Kenneth W. Godfrey, “Freemasonry in Nauvoo,” The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 527-28). Nonetheless, LDS Masons commented on his mastery of its orders, tenets, and principles and of his understanding of the allegorical symbolism of its instructions.

Most scholars who have looked carefully at the history of the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge agree that it was more victim than villain. All agree that widespread anti-Mormon feelings and the extensive hatred of Latter-day Saints by local rivals, and not irregularities or misconduct, caused the controversy with regard to the Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo.

Students of both Mormonism and Freemasonry have documented clear relationships between the ritual of the LDS temple ceremony and that of the ritual of Freemasonry.. My intention is to consider generally these similarities. Before doing that, however, I want to report an experience of a friend that is most pertinent here.

The Lord’s Preparation of the Environment of Western New York for the Restoration of the Gospel

Brother Reed C. Durham tells a most interesting and instructive story that occurred during his graduate education. He was preparing himself to become a seminary instructor with hopes of eventually teaching in a university institute. He decided to include, in his education, a year in an orthodox Christian divinity school. He was accordingly admitted to the University of Southern California Graduate School of Theology.

During that year he signed up for a class titled “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament” from Professor Gerald LaRue. It was a seminar-format class that met twice weekly in two-hour sessions. The professor and the rest of the class became aware, of course, that Reed was LDS. Near the end of the semester Professor LaRue announced that the last class session would be spent considering “the Mormons.” The instructor said to Brother Durham, “Reed, I will take the first hour, and why don’t you plan to take the second hour.” Reed, of course, was excited for the opportunity to explain something about his religion and the restoration of the gospel to this class, and he prepared himself accordingly.

The day arrived, and Dr. LaRue arose to speak. His subject was a complete surprise to Reed. He delivered a compelling, scholarly address on the environment of Joseph Smith at the time of the restoration. He was most persuasive. He explained that several things the prophet Joseph included in the “restored” gospel were already to be found in Joseph’s immediate environment in western New York. These included such things as (1) a pamphlet of the American Temperance Society containing some verbiage resembling what Joseph wrote into section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants; (2) revisions of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible; (3) the concept of Old World origin of the American Indians; (4) rituals in organizations such as the Freemasons that contained features similar to those Joseph wrote into the script of the temple endowment. The Professor’s implication and intention was unmistakable. He was trying to demonstrate that the Lord did not really “restore” the Church and gospel. Rather, Joseph looked around him and “pilfered” it from those influences he found.

Brother Durham recalls being “devastated.” He had planned to deliver an exciting missionary-like discussion of the restoration of the gospel. He recalls painfully and awkwardly stumbling through the next hour. This was a watershed moment in Brother Durham’s life and education. He resolved that never again would he be caught in such an embarrassing and uncomfortable situation. He vowed to be thereafter more completely informed and prepared.

Notwithstanding the painful memories, Brother Durham carried from that session two important messages: (1) The first was that the process of revelation Joseph so heavily depended on during those years was not one of simply sitting comfortably and being taught by the Lord “in a shaft of blue light” (Brother Durham’s words). Rather, the Lord expected Joseph to search, study, consider, contemplate, and only then inquire in prayer. If the Lord was satisfied with Joseph’s efforts, he would then provide the needed confirmatory revelation. (2) Further, Reed concluded that the Lord had indeed taken pains to prepare Joseph’s western New York environment for the gospel’s restoration. The Lord intended that Joseph would be prompted by his environment to discover things pertinent to the restored gospel. Joseph would then petition the Lord in prayer, and the Lord would confirm or refute them as concepts to be included in the restored Church and gospel.

#Freemasonry and the Temple

As one might expect, though the Freemasons’ rituals are secret, it is possible to learn some of them on the internet. A review of these indicates that a few features of Freemasonry ritual are or were contained in the LDS Temple ritual. It is highly likely that Joseph was first exposed to these in the Masonry ritual in Nauvoo and then included them in the temple endowment ritual. We can only conclude he borrowed elements of Freemasonry in developing the temple ceremony.

Critics of the Church, as also might be expected, conclude and teach that there is nothing divine in the LDS Temple endowment. Temple ritual is simply a product of Joseph Smith’s fertile mind. He obviously wanted to include ritual worship into “his” new church. And to do that he, at least to some extent, borrowed from the Freemasons. So, how might we best explain this seemingly “awkward” congruence?

First, it should be pointed out that similarities between the two rituals are limited to a small proportion of actions and words. The rest of the endowment is more congruous with the story of creation and the plan of salvation as we understand it from the modern-day scriptures including the book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. Even where the two rituals share symbolism, the fabric of meanings is quite different. One similarity is that both call for the participants to make covenants. But the endowment alone ties the covenants to eternal blessings and to Jesus Christ. The Masonic ceremony does not emphasize priesthood or the need to be commissioned by God to represent him. The active participation of God in the world and in men’s lives is a distinctly LDS temple motif. While Masons mostly insist that their brotherhood consist only of men with a belief in a supreme being, there is no insistence on God’s being a tangible personage and man’s literal Eternal Father. The endowment looks to the eternities and to eternal lives, but Freemasonry is largely earthbound, pervaded by human tradition and hope for something practically better here on earth. Masonic ceremonies are allegorical, depicting life’s states—youth, manhood, and old age—each with its associated burdens and challenges, followed by death and hoped-for immortality. Again, quoting Kenneth W. Godfrey:

Freemasonry is a fraternal society, and in its ritual all promises, oaths, and agreements are made between members. In the temple Endowment all covenants are between the individual and God. In Freemasonry, testing, grading, penalizing, or sentencing accords with the rules of the fraternity or membership votes. In the Endowment, God alone is the judge. Within Freemasonry, rank and promotions are of great importance, while in the LDS temple rites there are no distinctions: all participants stand equal before God. The clash between good and evil, including Satan’s role, is essential to, and vividly depicted in, the Endowment, but is largely absent from Masonic rites. Temple ceremonies emphasize salvation for the dead through vicarious ordinance work, such as baptism for the dead; nothing in Masonic ritual allows for proxies acting on behalf of the dead. Women participate in all aspects of LDS temple rites; though Freemasonry has women’s auxiliaries, Masonic ritual excludes them. The Endowment’s inclusion of females underscores perhaps the most fundamental difference between the two rites: LDS temple rites unite husbands and wives, and their children, in eternal families (see Eternal Lives; Marriage). Latter-day Saint sealings would be completely out of place in the context of Masonic ceremonies. Thus, Latter-day Saints see their temple ordinances as fundamentally different from Masonic and other rituals and think of similarities as remnants from an ancient original (“Freemasonry and the Temple,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 volumes, 529).

In the temple endowment, all covenants are between the individual and God. Among the Freemasons, all promises, oaths, and agreements are made between members.

There is a conflict of timing that renders it unlikely that Joseph looked to the Masonic ritual in receiving the inspiration to write the endowment ritual. On January 19, 1841, well before his initiation into Freemasonry, Joseph Smith recorded a revelation that speaks clearly of the need for a temple in Nauvoo and of some of the ordinances to be carried out there (see D&C 124:27-42). Quite obviously, Joseph Smith’s understanding of the priesthood temple endowment began long before his initiation into Freemasonry. It is true that a number of early LDS leaders had been Freemasons long before Joseph Smith was initiated in 1842, thus he could have known about the inner Masonic workings before the Nauvoo period. This seems unlikely, however, because the Freemasons would have been sworn to secrecy with regard to their inner workings.

Having said all this, the details of any specific relationship which Masonic ritual may have with the LDS endowment are difficult to evaluate, since few persons are intimately familiar with both ceremonies or have the qualifications (including freedom from obligations of confidentiality) to publish an objective comparison. The following statement by an LDS scholar who has been a Freemason for fifty years is pertinent: “No Mason—or anyone else—acquainted with the rituals of the Order can honestly claim there is the slightest resemblance of those ordinances or procedures [of the LDS endowment ceremony] to anything presented in a Symbolic Lodge of Freemasonry” (Mervin B. Hogan, “The Historicity of the Alleged Masonic Influence on Mormonism,” 17, 30-31 [January 15, 1984])

I will propose two general explanations for the few similarities that do exist between Temple endowment ritual and Freemason ritual:

1. Though we acknowledge our inability to directly trace our ritual directly all the way back to ancient temple times, it is possible it is a revealed restoration of ancient temple ceremony. It is also possible that fragments of this ancient ceremony persisted over the ages and found their way into the ritual of Freemasonry. Perhaps the two are both of the same ancient origin.

The Prophet Joseph Smith suggested that the endowment and Freemasonry in part emanated from the same ancient spring. Thus, some Nauvoo Masons thought of the endowment as a restoration of a ritual only imperfectly preserved in Freemasonry and viewed Joseph Smith as a master of the underlying principles and allegorical symbolism (Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt, June 17, 1842, Church Archives).

It is not inconceivable that the Prophet, sensing something about the ancient roots of Masonry, inquired of the Lord about it. In that sense it may have been one of the influences that prepared the way for the revelations that restored the ceremonies of the temple. If the Prophet was merely copying Masonry, he certainly chose the wrong time, the wrong place, and the wrong people among whom to do it. Many of the leaders of the Church were involved in the Masonic lodge in Nauvoo, among them those with whom he worked most closely and who were destined to be his successors in leading the Church. If they had sensed that the LDS temple endowment was merely a pirated copy of Masonry, they would have been disillusioned. These were men who would yet prove their willingness to sacrifice their all to build temples and see that every faithful Latter-day Saint had the privilege of participating in the ordinances of the temple.

Neither organization discourages research regarding the ancient origins of their two ceremonies. Though in this dispensation the LDS endowment dates from Kirtland and Nauvoo, many Latter-day Saints believe that temple ordinances are as old as man and that the essentials of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including its necessary ritual and teachings, were first revealed to Adam. These saving principles and ordinances were subsequently revealed to Seth; Noah; Melchizedek; Abraham, and each prophet to whom the priesthood was given, including Peter. Many Latter-day Saints believe that the ordinances performed in LDS temples today replicate rituals that were part of God’s teachings from the beginning.

Again, quoting Brother Kenneth Godfey:

Many sacred ceremonies existed in the ancient world. Modified over centuries, these rituals existed in some form among ancient Egyptians, Coptic Christians, Israelites, and Masons, and in the Catholic and Protestant liturgies. Common elements include the wearing of special clothing, ritualistic speech, the dramatization of archetypal themes, instruction, and the use of symbolic gestures. One theme common to many—found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Egyptian pyramid texts, and Coptic prayer circles, for example—is man’s journey through life and his quest, following death, to successfully pass the sentinels guarding the entrance to eternal bliss with the gods. Though these ceremonies vary greatly, significant common points raise the possibility of a common remote source.

The Egyptian pyramid texts, for example, feature six main themes: (1) emphasis on a primordial written document behind the rites; (2) purification (including anointing, lustration [purification by an offering or other ceremony], and clothing); (3) the Creation (resurrection and awakening texts); (4) the garden (including tree and ritual meal motifs); (5) travel (protection, a ferryman, and Osirian texts); and (6) ascension (including victory, coronation, admission to heavenly company, and Horus texts). Like such ancient ceremonies, the LDS temple Endowment presents aspects of these themes in figurative terms. It, too, presents, not a picture of immediate reality, but a model setting forth the pattern of human life on earth and the divine plan of which it is part (“Freemasonry and the Temple,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 volumes, 528).

There is no universal agreement concerning when Freemasonry began. Some historians trace the order’s origin to Solomon, Enoch, or even Adam. Others argue that while some Masonic symbolism may be ancient, as an institution it began in the Middle Ages or later.

2. In the Lord’s interactions with mankind, it is obvious there is nothing of arbitrariness. Everything the Lord does has potential impact on the quality of the eternal existence of each individual. Throughout the scriptures we see evidences of the Lord’s wont to utilize ritual in man’s worship of God. The Lord intends that his people on earth involve themselves in appropriate ritual. The Lord wants us home, and man’s participation in ritual obviously has a potential role in man’s spiritual progression and in his eventually qualifying himself to return to his celestial roots. I have previously considered the several reasons why ritual is important in the spiritual progress of man (please review “The Lord’s Use of Ritual” in volume 3, chapter 29 of Ye Shall Know of the Doctrine).

The particulars of the rituals vary in scripture. For example, the Syrian military captain Naaman, suffering with leprosy, was told to dip himself seven times in the muddy Jordan River by the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 5:1-27). The Lord desired to improve the spiritual vision of Enoch and asked his prophet-in-training to anoint his eyes with clay and then wash them (Moses 6:35). The Lord healed the blind man by spitting on the ground, making clay of the spittle, and having the man anoint his eyes and then wash them in the waters of the pool of Siloam (John 9:6-7).

A question may reasonably be raised. Was there something intrinsically sacred and vital in the Jordan’s muddy water, in Enoch’s clay, in the Lord’s saliva combined with the dust of the ground, or in the water in the pool of Siloam? Or were they sacred and vital because the Lord commanded their use in working his miracles. Are the physical details of rituals, in and of themselves, particularly critical, or does the sacredness begin when the Lord commands their use. Are the specific gestures, grips, posturings, and instructions utilized in the temple endowment essential in any way except that the Lord commands us to utilize them? Might it be that the Lord may condone the use any object, action, or combination of words he chooses as he involves us in sacred ritual? Might it be that the ritual itself is less important that his commanding us? Perhaps the Lord saw in a few particulars of the Freemasons’ ritual, gestures and words satisfactory for our use in the temple endowment. And perhaps the fact that the LDS and the Freemasons share in these is of little moment.