Talk:Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do: edit purge Freemasonry COTW Improve to Featured status Freemasonry Improve Order of Quetzalcoatl More... Review Requests All regular Grand Lodges Listed for deletion Grammar corrections Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta Wikify Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm Watch this list — Edit this list

Contents 1 Quality 2 Chapters 3 Note on J. Smith's Masonry 4 Note on H. Smith's Masonry 5 Similarities section.... 6 Badly needs a rewrite.... 7 Obvious Speculative Nonsense 8 Rewrite Outline 9 Sacred and secret? - no

[edit] Quality

This article is .. well, for lack of better nomenclature, pretty damn bad. I've never seen so many point forms used in an article, can someone with extensive knowledge in the subject perhaps extrapolate and iron out this mess? Jachin 11:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Terrible spelling and grammar in places as well. If I knew more on the subject I'd fix it up, and may attempt to do so anyway after a bit of research. Osgoodelawyer 20:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have extensive knowledge, but what I do have, I have written up. Hopefully it looks better now. I know it looks better than before. That really was a disgrace. Epachamo 00:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chapters

While 9 chapters may be intriguing, the chapters weren't divided till after the death of Joseph Smith. The book of Mormon originally had no chapters. Also, NOWHERE in the entire doctrine and Covenants is Joseph refered to as Enoch. I have deleted those parts. Who researched this anyway? It sounds like a quickly thrown together conspiracy theory. There certainly was a connection between the early church and masonry, and should be presented objectively. Epachamo 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Epachamo. I didn't add in the info you discussed, but in earlier versions (and non LDS versions) of the D&C, the brethren used "code names." This is referred to in the heading of the LDS version of D&C 82, and you can read more about it in History of the Church. Smith's used two code names - Enoch and Gazelem - depending on a number of factors.

I agree this article is poorly worded. There are much better examples such as the Hiram Abiff legend and the Brass plates story (if the brass plate story is true, it gives more legs to the Hiram Abif story. The talismans, the Masonic allusions in the Book of Abraham, the Enoch legends, the temple similarities, and the masonic distress call used by smith at carthage. Then there is the use of masonry by brigham young to intimidate the government during the utah war. Very brilliant move, IMHO. There are also vast differences that shoudl be discussed, allowing women into the anointed quorum, the closer similarities to gnostic ceremonies and orthodox rites (see Chrism), and more. the article doesn't even discuss John Bennett, Hyrum's involvement in masonry, the small number of masonic meetings Smith attended, the masonic symbols on temples and meeting houses, the elevation time waived for smith to become a grand master mason, the attempted reform of the Illinois lodge by Mormons, and more. -Visorstuff 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Visorstuff- thanks for the info. I had forgotten that they had done that with the code names. If I'm not mistaken, the Church leaders have since put back the original names. That must have been why I could not find reference to it in the D&C. I tried to organize this article and make it a little better. My knowledge on the subject is limited however. It sounds like you know quite a bit of information on the subject. Have you thought about re-organizing the article? Could you read through the changes and additions I made and correct any errors you see? Most of the information I have is notes from a class I took from Susan Eastman Black and is just skimming the surface. I will see if I can put back the reference to Enoch. Epachamo 06:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 18 December 2005

I've thought about it, but I have too many weaknesses to properly work on an article such as this - the main weakness being time, and the second is remembering my sources. I do a much better job at making sure articles are accurate. I can take a stab, but someone will need to add in the sources I reference, as I dislike having to go back and look for them. But this article is definitely on my to dos. -Visorstuff 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note on J. Smith's Masonry

• Just a friendly note: "Tuesday, 15.—I officiated as grand chaplain at the installation of the Nauvoo Lodge of Free Masons..." conflicts with "Wednesday, March 16.—I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree." in that it would be impossible for Smith to officiate as grand chaplain (or reg Chaplain in a reg Lodge, for that matter) w/o actually yet being a Freemason. Grye 19:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that part should be clarified a bit. Here is the entire quote from Smith's Journal, "officiated as grand chaplin at the Installation of the Nauvoo Lodge. of Free Masons. at the Grove. near the Temple, Grand master Johas being present. A Large number of people assembled on the occastion, the day was exceedingly fine, all things were done in order, and universal satisfaction manifested. Admitted a member of teh Lodge in the evening." Dean Jessee wrote about this event, "on this date, (March 15, 18420 Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were made "Mason's on sight" wchich allowed them to participate in the installation of the Lodge. The same day the two leaders were made entered Apprentice Masons; the next morning, Fellow Craft Masons; and, in the afternoon, Master Masons." Jessee Dean C. editor The Papers of Joseph Smith page 370 footnote 2. I don't understand completely the workings of freemasonry, but apparently he was a mason without being an entered aprentice. Whether this was illegal or not I don't know. If it is, I think it should be mentioned. Epachamo 20:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is provision to be made a Mason at sight, but it doesn't require the degrees to be worked. However, the usual procedure to be a Grand Chaplain usually requires being a Master Mason first (I believe the usual requirement of being a Past Master to hold a Grand Lodge position does not apply to Chaplains, but I could be mistaken). In any case, while this is not illegal, it is certainly weird (Smith was a Grand Lodge officer pro tem without even being a Mason), and might point to a mistaken recollection on Smith's part, although no one writing about Smith even from a Masonic POV has addressed that particular issue. MSJapan 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It sounds not legal on several counts, but legal or no, if it happened, &/or is in his journal, I'd say put it in, carefully noted as such. Grye 21:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't legal in Freemasonry, however, you may want to research the letter that authorized the Nauvoo lodge. Needless to say the charter was revoked - Smith did act as chaplin, he rose three degrees literally overnight, and the lodge grew from 0 to over 400 in just a few weeks. There are major irregularities. I believe in a book about the history of freemasonry in Missouri (I'll have to double check my source) the Nauvoo lodge was described as "renegade," or something like that. I can address, but I really don't have the time to go into that much detail. In my opinion the similarities are not as closely related as anti-mormons seem to suggest, but when you get into historical masonry and legends that MSJapan and I have discussed elsewhere, that is where there are similarities. Hope this context gives soem background. -Visorstuff 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me there are a few things going on. Quoting from an article published in 2001 by the Grand Lodge of California:

"The minutes of Nauvoo Lodge for Tuesday, March 15, 1842, shows Grand Master Abraham Jonas (Illinois Grand Master) opened the lodge in the 3rd degree of Masonry and conducted a public installation of Nauvoo Lodge "at the grove near the Temple." The minutes then go on to show that both Joseph Smith, Jr., and Sidney Rigdon "were duly initiated Entered Apprentice Masons during the day." The record for Wednesday, March 16, ceremonies again lists the two candidates and shows that they were made fellowcraft and Master Masons at sight. The first five Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow were all made Masons in Nauvoo Lodge. Also practically every member of the hierarchy was or became a Mason shortly after the Prophet was raised to the degree of Master Mason." See The Mormon Church and Freemasonry

It is a longstanding Masonic tradition that a Grand Master at his discretion has the authority to make a man a Master Mason on sight. If Grand Master Jonas was indeed in Nauvoo in March 1842, it may be reasonable to assume that Smith et al. were so raised and were legitimate and regular Master Masons as a result.

It is also well-known that there was a great deal of anti-Mormon sentiment in the Masonic community of the day. Smith was murdered in 1844 by a mob that included several Masons. It is quite likely that there was considerable pressure on the Grand Lodge of Illinois to revoke the charters of the Nauvoo Lodges at some point.

Indeed, the Grand Lodge of Utah was founded in 1872 as an openly anti-Mormon organization. According to a Masonic source (the aforementioned article) more than any other organization it is responsible for the assertions that the LDS temple ceremonies were essentially ripoffs of earlier Masonic rituals. The Grand Lodge of Utah officially held this position until 1984. --Faustus37 05:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on H. Smith's Masonry

I think he (Hyrum) was a Mason, but there's no citations anywhere . Please add him w/ citations to Talk:List of Freemasons/citation, then add him to List of Freemasons. Also, when this is done, it would be apropriate to add cat:freemasons to his article page. Note: Heber C. Kimball's article's section's existance is rather nice... Grye

According to an article published by the Grand Lodge of California in 2001, "An older son (of Joseph Smith Sr.), Hyrum Smith, was a member of Mount Moriah Lodge No. 112, Palmyra New York." See The Mormon Church and Freemasonry --Faustus37 05:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities section....

"Similarities include handshakes, oaths, aprons, beehives, continual reference to breast plate, Urim & Thummim and Melchizedek priest."

From which direction are the similarities? It's not specified. Furthermore, half that stuff doesn't appear in Masonry at all, and some of what does is not restricted to Masonry. So, the section doesn't make sense, and from the Melchizedek Priesthood article on WP, that itself is either a Christian or LDS concept. MSJapan 06:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the above paragraph should be changed as well. It touches on things that both Masons and Mormons consider very sacred. I think it should mention however that there are similiarities between the two, just not go into the nitty gritty detail. The parts that may not be sacred like the Urim and Thummim and Melchizedek priesthood should be clarified or taken out. How do mason's relate to it? Epachamo 17:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They don't appear in Masonry at all, so we don't relate to it in the slightest. In fact, I hadn't heard of them at all prior to seeing them here. MSJapan 21:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the beehive isn't actually secret, to either discipline, so I'd think most things written about it would be OK. The Handshakes, aprons, Oaths, & the rest seem OK as-is. Like MSJapan, I know nothing of Urim & Thummim and Melchizedek, not to say I shouldn't... Grye 21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Urim and Thummim were two stones Joseph Smith said he used in translating the Book of Mormon. Is there a parallel to that in Masonic history? Epachamo 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, at least from a historical standpoint. There's obviously a connection to stones (it being called Masonry and all), but there's no mystical purpose or hidden secrets in said stones. MSJapan 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In the Enoch legend we've discussed, Enoch places the urim and thummim in a box under/with two pillars and the a metalic record. This is the similarity. see http://www.cephasministry.com/mormon_is_there_no_help.html for a Mormon view of the similarity. -Visorstuff 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badly needs a rewrite....

The introduction is longer than the rest of the article, there is no way to attribute what information came from what book, and some of the material is outright wrong, and contradicts material in other, more well-researched WP articles. MSJapan 21:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Ardenn 21:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Speculative Nonsense

I suggest we eliminate this wording entirely: 'Like a shell within a shell within a shell. It is interesting to note that the "Book of Mormon" which has many many books in it, also contains one called "the Book of Mormon" thereby creating a shell within a shell.'

I have seen it on poor comparison websites before, and it just seems like an entirely bizarre stretch to compare two things that aren't the same. I could just as easily use that logic to say that The Lord of the Rings is Masonic because it has three books creating a progression of three degrees, and that is obviously a nonsensical connection. Even the proposed connection is poor, nine arches within each other, does not parallel to one Book of Mormon inside of another Book of Mormon, there would have to be nine.

209.40.69.13 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite Outline

I have decided to do a major revamping of this article and have thought of the following outline:

• Introduction
• Pre-Nauvoo era (1800-1840)
• Nauvoo era (1840-1846)
• Pioneer era (1846-????)
• Freemasonry and Modern Mormonism (???? - 2006)
• Theological Parallels, with appropriate sub-sections
• External Links
• Notes
• References

In the Introduction there would be a brief explanation about the two movements, with a synopsis on the influence each has had on the other. The next four sections would discuss the history the two have had with each other. I put suggested dates for the different eras. Their is a definite difference in relationship between Freemasonry during the pioneer era and the modern day era, but I'm have trouble pinning it down to a specific date or event. It seems the change was gradual. Any suggestions? The theological parallels section would include sensitive and appropriate similarities between the two. These seems to be the most logical divisions. Any suggestions or critisism would be most welcome. Epachamo 15:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've waited a while and haven't heard any negative comments so I'm going to start the revision. Epachamo 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred and secret? - no

I have a real problem with the following line (from "Similarities between Mormon worship and Freemasonry"): Both groups hold such symbols as sacred and insist (until relatively recently on pain of death) on secrecy. From the Masonic side, this statement is totally inaccurate. 1) Freemasons do NOT hold such symbols (or any symbols) as "sacred" - that is a word that has a religious meaning, which is not appropriate in discussing Freemasonry as it is not a religion. 2)Freemasonry has never insisted on secrecy... yes, the fraternity has "secrets" (its handshakes, passwords, and other recognitions signals), and Masons promise to keep them such... but to say that the fraternity insists on secrecy is not accurate. After all, these "secrets" have been written about and exposed since the early 1700s... If a Mason wishes to expose them yet again, it really does not harm the fraternity in any way. It is especially wrong to say that any such insistance is (or was) "on pain of death". I assume the statement is alluding to the so called "bloody penalties" contained in the Masonic Obligations. However, if you read any of the various exposés of Masonic ritual you will see that these penalties are symbolic, internal penalties - they are things that a thoughtful Mason would be willing to have happen to him, rather than something which would actually occur. The obligations date back to the Middle Ages, when it was very common for promises and oaths to contain such horrifying penalties (they are actually fairly mundain by Medieval standards)... In context of the times, it was a fancy way of saying "I really, really mean it". Today we say "Cross my heart and hope to die," or "May God strike me dead." In short, Freemasonry has never insisted on secrecy, and (especially) never insisted on secrecy "on pain of death". Blueboar 12:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)