Talk:Mormonism and Freemasonry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dog's Breakfast[edit]

This article is really a mess. Anonymous posters throw in information in the most illogical places and do so without citing sources. Or they post new information in front of a citation. This article is an embarrassment.kerfuffle (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences added etc[edit]

I added "differences" and changed "parrellels" to "similarities" and mentioned a few differences between LDS temple worship and that of the masons. I think this adds balance to the article. I also added a few citation requests. Ryancormack (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chapters[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Note on J. Smith's Masonry[edit]

  • 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First, being made a Mason "at sight" does not exempt a man from taking the degrees. It simply allows a Grand Master to convene a Lodge that exists solely to do the degrees for that particular man or to have a man entered, passed and raised in any lodge without that man having to be balloted on. [1] Every jurisdiction (each state in the US) has its own regulations, but this is the general rule. Secondly, Joseph Smith was never a "grand master mason". No such term exists. He was a "Master Mason." A Grand Master is the head of a Grand Lodge or state (or in most of the world, national) regulatory body. In the modern context, being entered, passed, and raised on subsequent days is viewed as something either extraordinary or a modern invention. But, truthfully it isn't. It was often done even in the 1700s for sailors and others who might need the protection of the Fraternity when traveling. I'll look for a citation. As for Joseph Smith serving as Grand Chaplain... that might be simply that he was asked to fill the Chaplain's chair for the night as the Grand Lodge constituted the lodge at Navaroo. This is often done when an officer can't be at a particular meeting. I will look for references for this last and for the events at Navaroo and try to return with them. Adistius (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From a Masonic point of view, the high degree of similarity between the Temple Endowments and Masonic ritual made the Mormons look like irregular Freemasonry. This was the position of the Grand Lodge of Utah. They weren't "anti-Mormon" per se. They were opposed to recognizing irregular and clandestine Freemasonry. I think the position of the Grand Lodge changed in 1984 because, frankly, the Temple ceremonies evolved to a point where they are not quite as blatantly Masonic. Adistius (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what happened in 1984. What happened in 1984 was that the Grand Lodge of Utah finally realized how unmasonic it was to prohibit one religion from being part of the fraternity when the fraternity is explicitly not a religion. The Grand Lodge of Utah was alone among all other grand lodges in prohibiting Mormons from entering the fraternity and there were LDS Masons in all the surrounding jurisdictions. --Taivo (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can provide some insight into this matter. 1872 was around the time when there were several mass murders conducted by Mormons, oft passed off as native massacres. No organisation is ignorant of public relations or ones need to distance itself from any group that appears to be violent in a unilateral manner (ie; it's different to support and stand by a group that is acting in self defense but many of these massacres included the mass murder of women and children, and that is universally bad press no matter way it is spun) I would submit that the greater reason for any issue with Mormonism within UGL Utah would be for this reason.

The confusion behind the similarities of ritual isn't particularly that it is 'irregular Freemasonry,' but rather let's look at it pragmatically. A gentleman who's father and brother are purportedly Freemasons marries the widow of a Freemason. He suddenly finds magical tablets that contain things, secrets. Not in the foot locker of the widow's first husbands belongings, but in a field. All of the words of the rituals match the books of study that are handed to every Mason EAF and above - except for the missing words. The words we leave out so that if our books fall into the hands of non-Masons that they will not be able to reveal secrets. No super exciting secrets, mind. I think realistically it's more an early copyright. A view of we have a really cool initiation into our treehouse club, it leaves a lasting impression on initiates that they are joining an ancient fraternal order and need to be on best behaviour. Let's make sure that the next club down the road doesn't flog it and render all our work designing this useless. This turned into tradition.

Now when you look at most Mormon rituals from a Masonic point of view you hear entire sentences that make sense but with random Jesus-y words thrown in where other words would be. I'm trying to think of an example. Say, you and I know that 'An apple doesn't fall far from the tree.' means something, any arbitrary thing. We publish books with "A ___ doesn't ____ far from the ___." so people may learn this phrase, and of course if they need to know the blanks they can just ask one of us. Then someone else obtains this book and suddenly opens a treehouse and has a tradition or ritual of "A bird doesn't fly far from the nest." But he says he didn't find the book even though you KNOW he is in possession of a chest full of the books with all of our writing in it. And it's not just that one line of text but tens of thousands of lines of text with blanked words suddenly replaced with random places, names, etc. Would you deduce that these texts come from a mystical origin, or that there is more to this story than meets the eye?

I would argue that this is the outlook that many Freemasons during that time frame would have taken. Naturally I cannot speak for the lodge he was clearly close friends with, or why their friendship with him and his newborn religion would warrant them to waive their regularity and thus their very lodge. But I can definitely say that the reason that UGL Utah would have stood distanced from Mormonism lies in the origins of Mormonism, the origins of their ritual, the likeness of their rituals to ours, and the outbreak of incredibly bad media painting Mormonism in a very bad light which warranted no defense or support given it was an issue of, as I mentioned previously, unilateral violence. Sorry if this isn't as insightful as I would have hoped, I lack the time to really explain myself thoroughly and have thrashed this out at 7am on no sleep when I should be tending to other duties purely because I saw an issue unresolved from 2006 pretty much. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 19:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.masonicdictionary.com/sight.html

Note on H. Smith's Masonry[edit]

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)[reply]

Referenc to Joseph Smith being a member of a lodge in 1818 would fall in conflict with the guidelines and requirement of masonry. Smith would have only been 12 at that point in time. That wouls be impossible. Anonymous 0ct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.202.242 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities section....[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Beehive appears in Freemasonry as a fairly minor symbol encouraging Industry and Unity. It's usually given a brief reference if any in my lodge even though out lodgeroom has a symbolic wooden beehive in it. Saxophobia (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section desparately needs some examples. As it stands, it simply states that there are similarities and then moves on to another topic entirely. --8.11.254.188 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badly needs a rewrite....[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Obvious Speculative Nonsense[edit]

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)[reply]

Rewrite Outline[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sacred and secret? - no[edit]

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)[reply]

rm of cats[edit]

If there's no official prohibition on either side for membership (a cited fact), there's nothing from which controversy can arise. Similarly, if there's no official statement of prohibition, LeFevre's "strong discouragement" isn't doctrine or practice. Therefore, there is no justification for either cat. MSJapan 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Inconvenient Truths: Freemasonry is not “faith-promoting”[edit]

There was little new context in that paragraph. There were accusations that LDS editors were "repeatedly removing" it, but that wasn't true. It was removed ONCE by Stormrider. There was statement "In both ceremonies, the central “secrets” of the Masonic and LDS Church, respectively, are communicated to the initiate on the “five points of fellowship” which are unique and central to the Third Degree in Freemasonry, introduced in 1727" that was not in the "Similarities" section, that I moved there. All the other paragrahps are argumentative in nature, and/or make statements as if they were fact. TAU Croesus (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tau, I will revert your most recent edit. First of all, you do not have your facts straight. You may want to review the Endowment (Latter Day Saints) article for clarification. Second, you should consider using reputable sources when you edit. Wikipedia must not be put in the position of declaring facts, only sources can do that. You have to be careful when you edit not to write opinions. As an encyclopedia, a neutral position is demanded. You might want to review the meaning of neutrality. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --StormRider 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought that the person that wrote it was correct about the 5 point thing in the mason's ritual. I do know that historically the mormons did have a 5 point contact (I think before 1990). TAU Croesus (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rules on reverting, and edit wars. This is quickly becoming a war. However, the 'evil' LDS person that originally removed it in september, had the right to do it because of the extensive Original Research present in the paragraph. Other sentences seemed like they were trying to prove a point, which I didn't think was the purpose of wikipedia. TAU Croesus (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Endowment ordinance has evolved over time, but the way it read was not currently correct. Adding a reputable reference and addressing the manner in which the ordinance has evolved would make the "point" acceptable.
It has been a while since I reviewed this history, but if memory properly serves, Joseph Smith was a Mason in the Nauvoo lodge for approximately one month prior to the Navoo temple ordinances being practiced. Additionally, many of the early LDS leaders were Masons prior to Joseph Smith joining. Cheers. --StormRider 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tau, StormRider,

“The wicked flee when no one pursues.” (Venerable LDS aphorism and a favourite of one of my honoured BYU professors, Dr Keith Stirling.) Actually, I wrote “LDS apologists”, not “LDS editors”. Anyone can be an apologist. An editor is usually someone who is working professionally or officially.

Why all the heat? Like it or not, the Masonic third degree predates the LDS Temple Endowment ordinance by more than a century, as indicated in the sources cited. The dates are facts. The close similarities noted were personally witnessed and noted by this contributor, an LDS Church member of more than 50 years standing and a reasonably senior Freemason. Historians and other social science researchers regularly include eyewitness accounts in their work. As a recently retired research professor (81 refereed articles and book chapters, 6 authored and edited books), it is my view that a comparison of the Masonic third degree and the LDS temple endowment prior to some recent “revisions” would lead many to suspect plagiarism. My own LDS Temple Endowment in the 1970s certainly included communication of “secrets” on “the five points of fellowship,” as well as signs, tokens, and grips that are distinct features of the Masonic Third Degree. The number and closesness of the similarities beg the question of intellectual debt.

Wikipedia articles are of value when they present a balanced and comprehensive view of their topic. They should help readers to become aware of important issues relevant to the topic. The version of this article that I first read, and as this article reads each of the now four times that one of you zealous “seekers after truth” removed my contribution, lacked this balance in omitting the issue of the debt owed to the Masonic Third Degree by the LDS Temple Endowment. The Church would be happy if no one ever suspected the existence of antecedents to the official canon. To omit alerting readers to the existence of this issue is rather like an article on Nazism that disingenuously describes that phenomenon as “a German political philosophy and party of the early 20th century” and omits mention of book burning, anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, or World War II. Omission of material facts or issues will not improve the value of Wikipedia articles. Over time, suppression of controversial issues would undermine Wikipedia.

Some religious organisations are known, at one time or another, to have engaged in the suppression of information that would undermine their position. The recent difficulties of the Roman Catholic Church are an example. The problem is not so much in the failings of individual priests, which are bad enough, but in the will and action to cover-up by Church authorities. The Dead Sea Scrolls are though to provide some challenges to traditional Christian doctrine as it has developed over the centuries. Joseph Smith has been praised as a “genuine religious genius” by Morton Bloom, as well as reviled as a charlatan by writers such as Fawn Brody. The truth no doubt lies somewhere between these two positions. Joseph Smith certainly led a controversial life. It was a sobering experience for me to visit Carthage Jail and to examine the bullet hole in the door of the cell in which Joseph, Hyrum, and John Taylor were held in 1844. The Smith brothers certainly gave their lives for, or as a result of, their beliefs and actions, also historical fact.

If the present article dealt with a topic entitled “Sources of LDS Doctrine and Belief”, mention could properly be made of issues such as the roles of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the authorship of the Book of Mormon , which contains long tracts that are nearly identical to parts of the Old Testament, and of other Standard Works, including an analysis of the provenance and content of the “ancient Egyptian papyri” that were the purported source of the Pearl of Great Price. Other issues, such as the timely revelation in 1978 that men of black African origin could begin to hold the LDS priesthood, and the motivation for the official abandonment of polygamy in order to gain Statehood, would no doubt be raised. These and other issues go to the genuineness and authenticity of the LDS religion and are far beyond the scope of the present article.

Another of my BYU professors, Dr H Curtis Wright, himself a student of Dr Hugh Nibley, took great care to point out to us that “There is the world of Faith, and the world of Reason. The rules of one do not necessarily apply to the other.” At the end of the day, each person should be in a position to make informed choices of what they believe. After all, if the LDS Church, or any other belief, is “true”, that truth will withstand any test of its veracity. Suppression by removal of material that raises relevant issues will undermine the value of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is to approach its potential, contributors will be free to raise relevant issues and facilitate the search for increased knowledge and truth by its readers.

At the end of the day, Jesus taught us to seek after truth when he said “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John, 8:32

Cheers, Demolay—Preceding unsigned comment added by Demolay1 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demolay, you have gone in many directions in your edit. On a personal note, IMHO, faith and reason are eternal companions. However, man is limited to his current knowledge and an unwillingness to admit that "we just don't know enough presently" leads men to incorrect conclusions. It was not long ago that scholarly men knew that spontaneous generation was the way animals were created. What we choose to think is historical fact is at times the personal opinions of of individuals that are anything but objective.
Wikipedia is not concerned about truth. Truth is a matter for individuals, rather we are concerned about facts and/or opinions as cited by reputable sources. We are building an encyclopedia, we are not a blog or a soapbox. Personal experience and knowledge is off base for us because it violates original research. Having been published or the degrees obtained in this life are meaningless to Wikipedia; however, you will find that a surprising number of us could say the same or similar things. There are a host of other policies that your edit violated, but suffice it to say that it is not what you said, but how you said it that is the problem. Go back, use reputable sources and try to use concise language. If you had a reputable source that said Joseph Smith created the temple endowments standing while talking with aliens, it would be admissible.
Everything you have discussed above is already on Wikipedia. You may wish to spend a little time reviewing LDS related articles; I would speculate that even a learned man as yourself would find additional critiques of the Latter Day Saint movement. Cheers. --StormRider 15:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this. I first tried to edit that section you wrote, so as to keep what wasn't Neutral Point of View. I ended up with one sentence. That sentence was about the 5 points of contact. I then added that sentence into the APPROPRIATE heading, since what your section is was doing was comparing similarities. That sentence was removed by stormrider, because it had no references. Anyway, the page isn't suppose to be an argumentitive essay. Most of your section was pointing at dates more than anything. TAU Croesus (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Demloy's POV tirade again. What does it take for you to learn how to write a NPOV sentence, paragraph, or section? This is getting tiresome. If you will not learn, you will continue to be reverted. Cheers. --StormRider 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly reject Demolay's tone. It is apparaent he has an axto grind. His disinterest in discussing his edits or achieving any form of consensus does not bode well for the present time. Hopefully, he will change his mind and enter into a discussion of how to make his proposed edits acceptable. Cheers. --StormRider 15:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...Let me get this straight...[edit]

It appears to me that this article is the result of 4 years of bickering and arguing over the supposed truth. What you have left as an "article" is merely slightly more than a stub with a few misguided citations thrown in. From what I can tell, Storm Rider has been the sort of mediator, though I'm still uncertain of his stance. While on the other hand you have what appears to be various people who "have seen the light" so to speak, claiming to have been involved in both "rituals" of the Mormons and the Masons, and thus have the only clear and true understanding. Pardon the tone of my words, as I think this whole article to be a joke. Until someone takes the time to actually write an article that presents BOTH sides of the story equally (which has already been done..not here) then it will remain as such.

Joseph Smith borrowed some ideas to convey a point he felt called to share...so what? Get over it! That doesn't mean Mormons are Masons, or the reverse of that. The LDS church has stated over and over again that various religions (with respect to the fact that Masons consider themselves a fraternity...I consider them as such, similar to the Elks or Knights of Columbus) have parts, or multiple parts of the truth (as seen from the LDS perspective). This in itself says quite plainly (without tinted glasses trying to sway the crowd) that it is completely plausible that the original ideals were borrowed (stolen, plagiarized, whatever). So why all the bickering? Let's just come to an agreement that it was borrowed, developed over time, which resulted in changes (not cover ups). And we can all go about being happy :)

Oh, and by the way...the link to the Free Mason website..you know, the one where it claims the Masons have an article about their link to Mormons...It doesn't work, says the article does not exist.Infero Veritas (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infero Veritas, I think the introduction of Greg Kearney's article into the mix, even though currently it is only a small reference, can help the whole situation. Unlike some, he does not CLAIM to have been involved in both, but is currently a member of the LDS Church in full standing (including being a temple recomend holder) and is a mason in good standing. Since he is unwilling to tell us fully about either groups rituals, and since this is general on both sides, we at least need to incorporate the fairly rare full understanding of both sides that he brings into the discussion.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith not a mason when the Church was founded[edit]

Joseph Smith did not become a mason until Nauvoo. Should this not be pointed out. To say "Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", or however we explain what he founded, "was a freemason", implies when he founded the Church he was a freemason. However, since he would not become a freemason until about a decade later, the order seems to be ignored.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably also worth noting that in the period around 1830, he was probably anti-Mason, based on the treatment of secret societies in the Book of Mormon. --8.11.254.188 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Church not a journal[edit]

This issue does not neccesarily change the validity of the quote from History of The Church. However, since much of that work was compiled after Joseph's death he had many ghost authors. Even at that, only part of it comes from his journals (often written by scribes, sometimes from his dictation, but in many cases not), other parts are based on other peoples journals (with the references to Joseph made first person), other documents available and some is based on reminiscences written down several years after events. My point is that it is not a journal, so we should not call it such in the article. Its use as a source I support, we just need to properly identify it.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog's Breakfast[edit]

I find it highly unlikely that the Worshipful Master recently instated in the lodge in Illinois was the first Mormon WM since Nauvoo. Masonry does not ask what religion its members belong to, and I'm sure there are many WMs who have come and gone who were members of the Church without anyone ever realizing it. I'm not even sure how this particular WMs religious affiliation would have made it in to the lodge minutes, since discussion of religion is forbidden in the lodge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptPostMod (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag[edit]

This article isn't neutral in its present form. It is entirely too POV and, especially in the Similarities/Differences sections, it sounds more like, "sure, but...." in its wording and choice of references. This is a difficult topic to deal with for two reasons--the secrecy of the LDS temple rites and the secrecy of the Freemason rituals. It is therefore important that sources from both sides of the issue need to be fairly used. Reliable sources here become critical. Right now, there is no balance in the discussion. That's why I've added the POV tag for now. This article can be improved and there are neutral sources available out there. (Taivo (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Differences" section[edit]

This is a pointless section and is only apologetic in nature, "A religion is different than a fraternity". Duh. It's not encyclopedic in nature. Yes, there are many differences between a trout and a lion. That's not interesting or relevant to the fact that they share similarities (a backbone, a heart, etc.). It should be removed. (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Masonic distress when Joseph was killed[edit]

I made an edit to this section, the quote referenced is from Times and Seasons, Volume 5, No 13. The line said: "It is recorded that he ran towards the open window with both hands above his head, palms forward, and proclaimed, "Oh Lord my God."

However, Times and Seasons mentions nothing of "palms forward", it says: "...and were then shot to death, while, with uplifted hands they gave such signs of distress as would have commanded the interposition and benevolence of Savages or Pagans. They were both Masons in good standing. Ye brethren of "the mystic tie" what think ye! Where is our good Master Joseph and Hyrum? Is there a pagan, heathen, or savage nation on the globe that would not be moved on this great occasion, as the trees of the forest are moved by a mighty wind? Joseph's last exclamation was "O Lord my God!""

So I changed it to read: "It is recorded that he ran towards the open window with uplifted hands, and proclaimed, "Oh Lord my God."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.55.28 (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to Mormonism and Freemasonry?[edit]

I'm of the view that if an article discusses issues relating to the LDS Church and/or Mormon fundamentalists, and does not discuss issues that are carried over into the modern Community of Christ, its name should refer to "Mormonism", even if it discusses early Mormon history involving Joseph Smith. I think that's the case here. To my knowledge, the modern Community of Christ doesn't really have any significant connection to Freemasonry, given that they don't practice the Nauvoo endowment. So this article is really about Mormonism only. COGDEN 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting distinction, but I believe that the majority of people are going to include the Community of Christ in Mormonism. Mormonism is about using the Book of Mormon, not about "LDS" in the name. Indeed, "Latter Day Saint movement" and "Mormonism" are synonyms. Until the Community of Christ stops using the Book of Mormon as scripture, it's still part of the Latter Day Saint Movement/Mormonism. --Taivo (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Community of Christ is sometimes regarded as part of Mormonism, but that is increasingly rare, especially since the Community of Christ strongly denies that it is part of Mormonism. Use of the Book of Mormon is not the defining element of Mormonism, given that the book does not contain any of the doctrines that make Mormonism distinct from traditional Christianity. The Community of Christ is now pretty much an idiosyncratic form of Protestantism. They accept the Book of Mormon as inspired literature, but don't believe it has equal authority to the Bible.
Even if it were, however, I still think "Mormonism" is a better term, because it is more widely-used. COGDEN 22:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with changing the name of this article, but don't accept the reasoning that the Community of Christ is not part of Mormonism or your definition of Mormonism. "Mormonism" is per WP:NCON a better title anyway since it is the most common English term for the Latter-Day Saint movement. --Taivo (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least we agree on the title, so I made the move. We can discuss the scope of the article separately if the issue arises. COGDEN 10:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Most of the Freemasonry/Mormonism connection deals directly with Smith and his connection anyway since once the LDS church arrived in Utah, the Freemasonry connection (such as it is) was already in place and there was no further input. --Taivo 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive?[edit]

More than 2/3 of this talk page is more than 2 years old; does anyone object to the older material being archived? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be a good idea.... I came to the talk page looking for the source of the 11/2009 Dispute Tag, and I'm STILL not entirely sure why the tag is up there. It seems the discussion(s) stalled quite a long time ago.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Simple Cleanup[edit]

Gentlemen, I have made some simple cleanup such as standardizing everything as Latter-Day Saints (not Latter Day or Latter-day). I also did what I could to eliminate reference to the "LDS Church" as I believe that there is no such church. In some places, I changed it to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I also made some changes in hyphenation some work on parallelism.200.1.183.219 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The good faith efforts are appreciated, but you should familiarize yourself with WP:MOSLDS. That is the style guide used for most wikipedia articles on this subject. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mormonism and Freemasonry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Citation doesn't meet WP:RS[edit]

See commentary on Chateau's article from the British Columbia and Yukon Grand Lodge site.

THIS SHORT PAPER on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its relationship to Freemasonry is neither complete, nor entirely accurate. [...] An adequate overview, this paper should only be considered an introduction to a much larger subject.

Recommend removal and replacing with better sources. Deaddebate (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Article to Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint Movement[edit]

I recommend we change the name of this article to "Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint Movement" to be more in line with Wikipedia MOS. Any thoughts or objections? Epachamo (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement. Edohi1991 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mormonism_and_Freemasonry&oldid=1209120329"