# Are Mormons Freemasons in Disguise?



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

> My journey out of Mormonism began with the Mormon Temple. One night my husband was watching a documentary on Freemasonry and noticed how similar their temple rites where to those we participated in, in the Mormon Temple. At this point of my Mormon experience I had doubts off and on about the validity of Joseph Smith&#8217;s claims yet never deviled into any serious research. I was simply content in my ignorance, as I trusted in the words of the church leaders to quiet my concerns.
> 
> 
> Instead of letting my husband&#8217;s discovery slip by like I did with so many doubts before I decided to check out his findings to see if there was any cause for concern beginning with the Mormon Temple. The Mormons are very ritualistic and symbolic when it comes to any of their religious ceremonies; everything has to be just right and done in a certain way to the point of being repeated until it&#8217;s done correctly.
> ...


Anyone know the origin of those markings?:help: I would like to do some research on this story and the history of these mystery markings.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

as a member of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints who has gone through the temple rites, I can tell you that this person is lying. based on their description of the cloths & the ceremonies they have obviously never been through the temple.
second Joseph Smith was not a mason when the mason hall was opened in Navoo IL. he was inducted into the masonic order at the time. attendance records indicate he almost never attended meetings except to see the induction of other new members.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

Quit a ramble Free Masonary, the Morman church, all the way to witch craft and the occult. The op doesn't know any thing about Masonry either.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> as a member of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints who has gone through the temple rites, I can tell you that this person is lying. based on their description of the cloths & the ceremonies they have obviously never been through the temple.
> second Joseph Smith was not a mason when the mason hall was opened in Navoo IL. he was inducted into the masonic order at the time. attendance records indicate he almost never attended meetings except to see the induction of other new members.


 You got that right.
i am not LDS. But while living in AZ. I lived for 9 years with a LDS family, they were the nicest family I have ever met, and still remain friends to this day, even after 15 years after I moved back to WI.
Even went to Church a few times with them. I wanted to hear them sing.
Although I do have LDS people in my family background.
There is a small town just South East of Mesa, AZ, named Higley. Higley, AZ.
Those that settled Higley were LDS.
My last name is the same as that town.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

VERN in IL said:


> Anyone know the origin of those markings?:help: I would like to do some research on this story and the history of these mystery markings.


Do you have a link for that quote?

.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

To answer your question...

Some Mormons probably are Masons, but they would hardly be "in disguise".
The Mormon Church is most definitely not part of Freemasonry, although it is possible that Joseph Smith might have borrowed some elements of his ceremonies from the Masons.

Whatever the case, I doubt the author of this article knows enough about either organization to make any kind of authoritative comparison of the two.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

To the O.P.
Sorry, no other way to put it: Perhaps you should do some honest research yourself before posting a load of carp like that.


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

The endowment ceremony is heavily derived from Masonic sources and in my personal experience is accurately described in the OP.


----------



## snoozy (May 10, 2002)

Who cares? If there were elements of Masonry in their religion, why is that something to be disguised? Are freemasons a criminal gang?


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

What's the matter with you? You're not supposed to talk about it in public, now everyone knows


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Actually I have heard some fundamentalist Christians teaching the same type thing about Mormon/Mason similarities. I don't really know anything about either, but the teaching is a bit common in some fundamentalist circles. It's kind of like that saying "looking for demons on doorknobs" when people look for the bad in anything that is different than they are.
Brother Hagin use to tell everyone " Don't go looking for demons on doorknobs" meaning not to be so busy looking for the speck in someone else's eye you miss the beam in your own.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

I've read Mormons writings denying any of this temple ritual goes on at all and to the other extreme I've read ex LDS writings describe in gross detail what seems very much to be some sort of mix of Masonry and other religious ceremony.

The Mormons I have asked directly, at First don't want to discuss this private stuff, but have mostly confirmed what the ex LDS writing say.
The temple rights and dress is very much like old freemasonry. Similar.... not exactly.

But all religions are like that they borrow stuff from each other. Big deal.
I tend now to believe Ex-mormons accounts of the inner workings than I do of active Mormons, as the Active ones simply are not comfortable discussing the details.

Once free of it, an Ex "anything" has no problem with the details.

People's obsession with freemasonry is pretty funny.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Yes, there are many, many "ex-mormon" letters, exposes, blogs, and confessionals all over the internet. Most of them read similar to this one, having just enough fact tossed into the mix along with the many falsehoods, and being directed at non-members, obviously, (who wouldn't know the fact from fiction) that they could likely all be written by the same person. This "letter" or expose, or whatever it's supposed to be, isn't worth refuting.
As an endowed member of the Church who has been through various temples all around the nation, I can safely say that this person has a very warped slant on what goes on in the temple and if they truly ever went through the temple, they only did so once, or went through so long before having written this that they forgot what really happened and just made up stuff to fill in the blanks. 
This very posting smacks of an attempt at expose, so I won't deem it worthy to go into something I consider sacred in light of that (casting pearls before swine and all that...) but I will say that we don't think our underwear is "magic" or holds any "magical properties". That's just stuff and nonsense that no rational person believes. We do view it as symbolically the "Armor of God", reminding us of covenants we've made, the Word of Wisdom, etc. If we truly believed they held some magic powers to keep us safe and protected from physical harm, then wouldn't all worthy mormons who wore their garments faithfully be practically immortal? 
What drivel!


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

thequeensblessing said:


> Yes, there are many, many "ex-mormon" letters, exposes, blogs, and confessionals all over the internet. Most of them read similar to this one, having just enough fact tossed into the mix along with the many falsehoods, and being directed at non-members, obviously, (who wouldn't know the fact from fiction) that they could likely all be written by the same person. This "letter" or expose, or whatever it's supposed to be, isn't worth refuting.
> As an endowed member of the Church who has been through various temples all around the nation, I can safely say that this person has a very warped slant on what goes on in the temple and if they truly ever went through the temple, they only did so once, or went through so long before having written this that they forgot what really happened and just made up stuff to fill in the blanks.


As an endowed ex-Mormon with a pretty darned good memory I think it's an accurate description, although limited, of what happens in the temple. Please point out the "falsehoods" in the above description. 

I've never know any LDS who believed that their temple garments were magical. Sacred and significant, yes - but magical, no.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Whats the big deal IF they are or not, or just a little?? 
Many signers of the Declaration of Independence were Masons~!!!!!
This should not be a consideration for condemning anybody.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

bluesky said:


> As an endowed ex-Mormon with a pretty darned good memory I think it's an accurate description, although limited, of what happens in the temple. Please point out the "falsehoods" in the above description.


 There are quite a few, ranging from tiny, to much larger.
To begin with, the sacrament prayer DOES NOT have to said exactly correctly, to a word, or it must be repeated. It's totally at the discretion of the bishop and rather minor errors or omissions can, and often are, overlooked. Anything glaring or a large ommission would certainly need to be remedied however. Second, we don't remove our street clothes upon entering the temple as an effort to "leave the outside world behind", but to, again, put upon ourselves the armor of God, to unify ourselves as a body of saints and to put on our bodies a symbol of purity and holiness, which is white. Also, depending on what ordinance you are performing in the temple (baptisms, endowments, sealings, etc.) you don't necessarily wear the same things. But we don't make any effort to blot out the outside world. We don't necessarily even think about the outside world because the inside of the temples are so breathtakingly beautiful, but we are taught principles to take with us into the "outside world" as she called it. Another small, but equally important note is that very, very few temples rent temple clothing. Only a handful of them, perhaps the largest ones. Most do not. I've never been to a temple that sold temple clothing, or anything else, inside the temple...never. 
As for the more glaring error, the main one, which is an error in thinking or of putting "facts" together, I'll explain this way. Joseph Smith joined the Masons in Nauvoo, well after the Kirtland temple had been built. The initiatory portion of the temple ordinances was already being practiced in Kirtland, before Joseph had any personal knowledge of anything Masonic in nature. And as far as similarities between the Masonic temple rites and the Mormon temple ordinances or any symbolic similiarities, I can only say that Mormons wear their sacred undergarments all the time, in and out of the temple. I don't know of any Mason who wears his masonic garb out on the streets. Mormon temple goers also don't use, heft, hold, or fondle any physical compass and/or square as the Masons do. The symbols may well have been "borrowed" from the Masons, but they hold entirely different meanings today, similar to the way the cross of mainstream christians has little to do with the ugly means of exectution it stood for in it's day. Today it is a beloved and revered symbol of the Savior. 
To quote a well-respect Mormon and Mason, "the two are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. The simple fact is that no one ever received their endowment in a Masonic lodge and no one has ever been made a Mason in an LDS temple."


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

thequeensblessing said:


> To quote a well-respect Mormon and Mason, "the two are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. The simple fact is that no one ever received their endowment in a Masonic lodge and no one has ever been made a Mason in an LDS temple."


Please don't be offended by this question...
Has it ever been stated to you, or is it stated in Mormon services that the symbols go back to Nimrod and the building of the original temple he built?

I ask because this what fundamentalists teaching say about the masonry symbols and their original meaning. So, because I am not Mormon, I am curious if that is what is told to you or not?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

mekasmom said:


> Please don't be offended by this question...
> Has it ever been stated to you, or is it stated in Mormon services that the symbols go back to Nimrod and the building of the original temple he built?
> 
> I ask because this what fundamentalists teaching say about the masonry symbols and their original meaning. So, because I am not Mormon, I am curious if that is what is told to you or not?


This theory has been floating about for a long time, however, I don't believe the church actually supports this idea. I'm relatively sure they do not. 

this site explains a little better, or more succinctly than I could. 
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/temple_masonry.htm


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Seems like a lot more than usual anti-Mormon stuff floating around lately.
Probably doesn't have anything to do with Romney running for president?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I know that what most uninformed people say about Freemasonry is totally off base, so I can only assume the same thing goes for Mormonism.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Do you have a link for that quote?
> 
> .


http://lifeafterministry.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/mormon-temple-clothing-and-other-rituals/

I found out about the Mormon clothing while at the LDS web site looking at their pantry food offerings...:ashamed:

You can see the marks the article criticizes down that page, lots of PICTURES.



Cornhusker said:


> Seems like a lot more than usual anti-Mormon stuff floating around lately.
> Probably doesn't have anything to do with Romney running for president?


The Great White Horse Prophecy must be fulfilled.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Seems like a lot more than usual anti-Mormon stuff floating around lately.
> Probably doesn't have anything to do with Romney running for president?


I actually think that Romney, if he remained true to his faith, would make a good president. A buddhist, if he remained true to his faith, would make a good president. (Our nation wouldn't' become involved in wars that way.)
But that doesn't mean I think I agree with either of those faiths completely. It means I respect things about their belief system.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Seems like a lot more than usual anti-Mormon stuff floating around lately.
> Probably doesn't have anything to do with Romney running for president?


Nah, more than likely it's because there are now two Mormons running for president. Yeah, that's right, Jon Huntsman threw his own hat in the ring a couple of weeks ago. I guess that doubles the threat up for some evangelical/mainstream folk.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

thequeensblessing said:


> Nah, more than likely it's because there are now two Mormons running for president. Yeah, that's right, Jon Huntsman threw his own hat in the ring a couple of weeks ago. I guess that doubles the threat up for some evangelical/mainstream folk.


I guess I qualify as "evangelical/mainstream", and I assure you the fact that they are Mormon isn't a problem at all. I won't vote for either of them, but it's because they're both Progressives. Their religion is the least of my concerns.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

deaconjim said:


> I guess I qualify as "evangelical/mainstream", and I assure you the fact that they are Mormon isn't a problem at all. I won't vote for either of them, but it's because they're both Progressives. Their religion is the least of my concerns.


That's actually refreshing to hear. I likewise doubt I'll be voting for them, despite their being Mormon, for much the same reasons as you...they are too progressive for me.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

thequeensblessing said:


> That's actually refreshing to hear. I likewise doubt I'll be voting for them, despite their being Mormon, for much the same reasons as you...they are too progressive for me.


The Mormans I've known (including my Grandfather), have been pretty decent people. I don't agree with the Morman doctrine, but the same could be said for lots of other churches. There are more important issues to look at when choosing a President. I'm a Baptist, as was Jimmy Carter, and it sure didn't make him a good President.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

thequeensblessing said:


> Nah, more than likely it's because there are now two Mormons running for president. Yeah, that's right, Jon Huntsman threw his own hat in the ring a couple of weeks ago. I guess that doubles the threat up for some evangelical/mainstream folk.


I was thinking more of the dem's only candidate.
He's not above slander, gossip, bribes, blackmail, whatever it takes.
We've seen it over and over.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

I am curious as to why people think Masons are bad?
Manyof the founding fathers were masons, along with many other important people in history.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> I am curious as to why people think Masons are bad?
> Manyof the founding fathers were masons, along with many other important people in history.



People fear what they do not understand


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> I am curious as to why people think Masons are bad?
> Manyof the founding fathers were masons, along with many other important people in history.


I suppose it is the thrill of being a part of a secret exclusive society?

My Great Grandpa was a Mason and I did not know it until he died and had the Masonic service, he also attended a Free Will Baptist Church. :ashamed:

Also back on topic, we got many "Communities of Christ"(RLDS) around here that oppose and do NOT practice ceremonies and rituals at their temples, (the Biggest one the Independence temple in Independence MO), they are also open to the public. I also believe they are "more pure" as a Church than those who went west, but I only have one side of the story.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> . I also believe they are "more pure" as a Church than those who went west, but I only have one side of the story.


You only have one side of the story but you believe they're more pure?
I guess you must just jump to conclusions without having all the facts on hand.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> I suppose it is the thrill of being a part of a secret exclusive society?


Not secret or exclusive on either the Masons or the Mormons, anyone can become one.



VERN in IL said:


> he also attended a Free Will Baptist Church. :ashamed:


 You chose the ashamed emoticon. Why would you be ashamed of that?




VERN in IL said:


> My Great Grandpa was a Mason and I did not know it until he died and had the Masonic service,


Did you ever ask your Great Grandfather?
How old were you when he died?
How many long conversations did you actually have with him asking him to tell you about himself?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

VERN in IL said:


> Also back on topic, we got many "Communities of Christ"(RLDS) around here that oppose and do NOT practice ceremonies and rituals at their temples, (the Biggest one the Independence temple in Independence MO), they are also open to the public. I also believe they are "more pure" as a Church than those who went west, but I only have one side of the story.


More pure?? How do you get "more pure"?


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

thequeensblessing said:


> More pure?? How do you get "more pure"?


more "enlighten" by not following a false leader, were they right by following Joseph Smith the 3rd as the "legitimate" successor? Or was Brigham Young the real deal?

Smith waited until he was "inspired by God" to take up his fathers mantle as President of the church. 

If you read about the lawsuit, "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Williams" it was discussed that the RLDS Church, and NOT The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church),were the rightful legal successors to the Latter Day Saint church established by Joseph Smith, Jr., this was a issue over the Kirtland Temple, and who was the legitimate owners, tho the case was dismissed.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

VERN in IL said:


> more "enlighten" by not following a false leader, were they right by following Joseph Smith the 3rd as the "legitimate" successor? Or was Brigham Young the real deal?
> 
> Smith waited until he was "inspired by God" to take up his fathers mantle as President of the church.
> 
> If you read about the lawsuit, "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Williams" it was decided that the RLDS Church, and NOT The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church),were the rightful legal successors to the Latter Day Saint church established by Joseph Smith, Jr., this was a issue over the Kirtland Temple, and who was the legitimate owners, tho the case was dismissed.


Yes, as most responsible Latter Day Saints have, I have read and studied this issue from all angles. You are getting a bit ahead of yourself though, aren't you? Yes, the suit was brought, and subsequently dismissed by the court, before any judgement was rendered. Though frequently misrepresented as the original product of Judge Sherman, the findings of fact in the case were written as a *proposed judgment, or nonlegal finding of fact. *by E. L. Kelley, attorney for the RLDS Church. Judge Sherman entered Kelley's proposed judgment into the non-binding findings, regarding the legitimacy of RLDS claims. The court actually issued no judgment at all but chose instead to completely dismiss the case. Though the court dismissed the case, the publication of the findings of fact filed by the attorney representing the RLDS Church in the Painesville Telegraph effectively gave the false impression that the Kirtland Temple Suit had been won. The March 15, 1880, issue of the church organ Saints' Herald also omitted the last two sentences which stated that the case was dismissed.Therefore, the case has been celebrated within the RLDS Church for its determination that the RLDS Church, and not the LDS Church, was the lawful successor to Joseph Smith's original organization.
Now, all that being said, what would the courts prove anyway? They crucified Jesus as a blasphemer, but that didn't change the fact that he was exactly what/who he claimed to be, the Son of God. Just because a judge, district attorney, or even the president of the united states claims that a religion isn't valid, legitimate, or true, has no bearing in reality or fact whatsoever. It's merely the opinion, or wish, of the mortal rendering the opinion.
So being cloaked in deception equals purity?


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

It all comes down to this, was Brigham Young the leader of the church? yes, until Joseph Smith III was president, he could claim that title... what happened in Utah was amazing.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> Did you ever ask your Great Grandfather?
> How old were you when he died?
> How many long conversations did you actually have with him asking him to tell you about himself?


 Not going to answer?


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

VERN in IL said:


> It all comes down to this, was Brigham Young the leader of the church? yes, until Joseph Smith III was president, he could claim that title... what happened in Utah was amazing.


How in the world do you come up with this fascinating tidbit? I've heard various versions of this theory, but never quite this!


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> Not secret or exclusive on either the Masons or the Mormons, anyone can become one.
> 
> You chose the ashamed emoticon. Why would you be ashamed of that?


Three distinguishing principles of secret societies are secrecy, their peculiar emphasis on benevolence, and their system of regalia, badges, rank and formalities, as well as many incidental practices that are radically false, and plainly opposed to sound reason and the Word of God.




> Did you ever ask your Great Grandfather?
> How old were you when he died?
> How many long conversations did you actually have with him asking him to tell you about himself?


I was 7 or 8 years old when he died. At the time all I cared for was the butterfingers, and you just don't think of those questions at that age.



> thequeensblessing said:
> 
> 
> > How in the world do you come up with this fascinating tidbit? I've heard various versions of this theory, but never quite this!


God promised Joseph Smith that his blessing would, "also be put upon the head of his posterity after him." It was Brigham Young and the larger body who truly apostatized. 

Brigham Young was not appointed to the gift of prophetic leadership by Joseph Smith. Did Joseph ordain any man to take his place? He did, Who was it?

Joseph Smith, appointed his son, Joseph Smith III, to be his successor. This is in absolute harmony with instructions and promised of God regarding those upon whom the gift of prophetic leadership would be placed. However, some have attacked these testimonies on the basis that this young man waited so long to assume the duties of this appointment. The church recognized the need not only for appointment but for revelation in the calling of the prophet. 

History proves that this young man waited for this church by a power not his own.

Leaders of the Church in Utah have often quoted only a portion of the testimony of Joseph Smith III and thus attempted to discredit him.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> I was 7 or 8 years old when he died. At the time all I cared for was the butterfingers, and you just don't think of those questions at that age.


So you say it was a great secret until his funeral -- to a 7 or 8 year old who only cared about the candy he got. Yes, sorry Vern, I don't think you're running on all 8 cylinders on this one.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

mekasmom said:


> (Our nation wouldn't' become involved in wars that way.)


considering only congress has the ability to declare war, I don't think even if the president was Gandi. would it keep us from war. perhaps places like Libya but not war.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

||Downhome|| said:


> considering only congress has the ability to declare war, I don't think even if the president was Gandi. would it keep us from war. perhaps places like Libya but not war.


So shooting and bombing in Libya is not really a war. 
Iraq was started by the last President and then later voted upon by conrgess -- remember WMD's?
Afganistan - same thing 

The President orders the actions then has 6 months to convince Congress -- which the latest President has ignored in Libya (illegally in my opinion)


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Whats the big deal IF they are or not, or just a little??
> Many signers of the Declaration of Independence were Masons~!!!!!
> This should not be a consideration for condemning anybody.


And none were Mormons. (not a slam) Mormonism did not start until the 1820's.

And yes I did research Mormonism (King Strang) for a report (close to home, Charlevoix County Michigan esp Beaver Island).

And I was formerly married to a RLDS member so I caught a lot of info.

fwiw, I am a lapsed Lutheran (Missouri Synad)


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> So you say it was a great secret until his funeral -- to a 7 or 8 year old who only cared about the candy he got. Yes, sorry Vern, I don't think you're running on all 8 cylinders on this one.


You have not refuted my statement.


> Three distinguishing principles of secret societies are secrecy, their peculiar emphasis on benevolence, and their system of regalia, badges, rank and formalities, as well as many incidental practices that are radically false, and plainly opposed to sound reason and the Word of God.


That is my definition of a secret society, and yes, even non masons give butterfingers to their children(--- is your point here?), and I NEVER said it was a great society. I am friends to some masons, and I have nothing to do with their fraternal affiliations.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

VERN in IL said:


> You have not refuted my statement.


 You are correct: I was merely pointing out that your statement of great suprise in finding out at the funeral when you were 7 or 8 that Grandpa was a Mason is totally illogical. Especially when you admited that your only real interest in Grandpa was in the candy he gave you and that you never cared about talking to him about himself.(which is not too unusual for a 7 or 8 year old) 
That you would be suprised under that situation is totally illogical.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

> I was merely pointing out that your statement of great suprise in finding out at the funeral when you were 7 or 8 that Grandpa was a Mason is totally illogical.


When your brought up in a secular Christian household that taught against secrets and double mindedness, yes it is very logical. It was how I was raised, I was told; Mason = Worshipers of "the bearer of the light". I also was told there were tooth fairies and a Santa Claus.... 

..and it was not like you see today, he didn't have the Masonic square and compass emblems on his car, and my Great Grandma didn't know anything done at the lodge.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

I have found this tid bit, there is no doubt that Masonry practice is in the Mormon church.

This article basically summarizes the history of Joseph Smith.


> Joseph Smith:
> America's Hermetic Prophet
> 
> by Lance S. Owens
> ...


I found this interesting, from the article:



> Fifty years later, at the end of the nineteenth century, leaders of the Utah church would still occasionally state in private that the Mormon temple ritual embodied "true Masonry" &#8211; a fact unknown to most modern Mormons. But then, of course, almost all of this history is unknown to the average modern Mormon. Even well-educated "Latter-day Saints" today *seldom understand the origins of the compass and square embroidered upon the breasts of the ritual garment worn by temple initiates*. The relationship of these temple rituals' development with Joseph Smith's occult vision and the concurrent introduction of Masonry in Nauvoo is now, however, becoming the subject of intense renewed interest.


So those markings at this link that I posted earlier in this thread are indeed masonic in nature? 
http://lifeafterministry.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/mormon-temple-clothing-and-other-rituals/



> Joseph Smith's quest for a sacred golden treasure buried in dark earth, his involvement with ceremonial magic, the angelic visitations, the pseudepigraphic texts he "translated", his declaration of Masonry as a remnant of priesthood, and his restoration of a Temple with its central mystery of a sacred wedding &#8211; all could be fitted into one very recently recognized context: Hermeticism.





> Shortly after his Masonic initiations, Smith began formulating the rituals that would be instituted in his own Mormon Temple, then still under early phases of construction in Nauvoo. Six weeks later a first version of this "endowment" (as the ritual was subsequently called) was given by Joseph to a "Holy Order" of nine disciples, all of whom were Master Masons. Many elements of the "endowment" ritual directly paralleled Masonic ceremony, a fact plainly evident to participants. Smith explained to his followers that Masonry was a remnant &#8211; even if somewhat corrupted &#8211; of the ancient priesthood God had commissioned him to restore in its fullness. In turn, essentially every prominent male figure in the Mormon Church who was present as an adult in Nauvoo became a Master Mason.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

And once again I ask, what is wrong with Masons? (outside of your own mind)

You admit you were taught that 


VERN in IL said:


> It was how I was raised, I was told; Mason = Worshipers of "the bearer of the light".


I can only assume you believe that is a reference to Lucifer from the way you are talking.
Since you were also told that


VERN in IL said:


> I also was told there were tooth fairies and a Santa Claus....


Perhaps not everything you learned in childhood was 100% Truth with a capital T

Your objections to "secrets" are laughable as anyone may join either organization and find out for thmselves. In Mormons case we make Sacred Covenants with God in our Temples and those Covenants are personal and sacred, having an audience of gawkers is just not something that will happen.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

> And once again I ask, what is wrong with Masons? (outside of your own mind)


... searching on the Internet is EASY; :cowboy:


> Joseph Fort Newton (1880-1950), an Episcopal minister and recognized authority in the Masonic world, said, "Masonry is not a religion but Religion -- not a church but a worship in which men of all religions may unite." In fact, Freemasonry even sees itself as superseding and unifying all religions. (At various times and places, Freemasonry has met religious and political opposition. Religious opponents, especially the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, have traditionally claimed that Freemasonry is a religion and is a secret organization.)
> 
> Henry Wilson Coil is the author of the encyclopedia that many lodges now accept as their authoritative source (Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia). Coil says that if Freemasonry is not a religion, nothing would have to be added to make it such, and that the religious service at the funeral of a Mason is evidence enough that Freemasonry is a religion. But the fact that Freemasonry is religion would not necessarily condemn it, except that the views of the Masonic religion are in open conflict with Biblical Christianity, so much so that, in our opinion, a knowledgeable and committed Mason could not possibly be a true Christian.
> 
> ...


Care to disprove this?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Of course, everything you read on the internet is true.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Of course, everything you read on the internet is true.


It is when it has many written references, and my Original question was answered. Confirmed with my external research and the help of some users in this thread. The conclusion is Mormonisim has much similarities, perhaps more than any other religion to the Order. The markings on the garments are indeed of Masonic origins, nothing to do with Christianity. As a Bible Christian that is a very important thing, and I can witness for Christ.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)




----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

and oggie exposes the ringleaders of the masonic conspiracy to rule the world. outstanding work.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

VERN in IL said:


> It is when it has many written references, and my Original question was answered. Confirmed with my external research and the help of some users in this thread. The conclusion is Mormonisim has much similarities, perhaps more than any other religion to the Order. The markings on the garments are indeed of Masonic origins, nothing to do with Christianity. As a Bible Christian that is a very important thing, and I can witness for Christ.


I can see where that would make the internet a more reliable source than first hand experience. Carry on.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

VERN in IL said:


> It is when it has many written references


Actually, that doesn't prove anything, either, unless the references are reliable.


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

Vern - I have tried to stay out of this but since you have decided to make some assumptions, I will do my best to reply to your Joseph Fort Newton quote. I know very little about the Masons...I haven't read all the comments in this thread because of your intent. However, some things need to be addressed to keep the record clear of what the LDS church teaches.

_ 1. Source of Authority. Masons refer to the Bible as the "Volume of the Sacred Law" (V.S.L.), and it is considered an indispensable part of what is called "the furniture" in a Masonic Lodge. But the Bible is used only in a so-called "Christian" lodge -- ---------_

I am not sure the point you are making with this. Is it perhaps that Mormons do not use the Bible? You are wrong there. We do believe and use the Bible.
We do not believe that the tribe of Judah is the only people the Lord had interest in. our SS classes rotate through all our books of scripture with all getting as much attention as any of the others. We do belive in the Book of Mormon as another witness of Christ and when the 10 tribes are gathered - we believe their records will be brought forth also for us to study. 

_At the heart of Masonry is a secret Luciferian doctrine which a Mason only comes to understand as he reaches the higher levels. Manly Palmer Hall, another of the great authorities on Masonry, writes, "When the Mason ... has learned the mystery of his Craft, the seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands. ..." (Manly Palmer Hall, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, p. 48). The Apostle John warned that those who deny that Jesus is the only, all sufficient Christ, and that He came once and for all in the flesh, have embraced the spirit of Antichrist (1 Jn. 4:1-3). ................._

Not sure what this has to do with any doctrine of the LDS church either. Are you saying that those LDS members that attend the temple think they are 'higher' than people that don't? . 


_4. Sin. Sin is seldom referred to in Masonic literature. The reality of sin in the Biblical sense is denied (much like the Christian Scientists); Masons think that any "shortcomings" can be overcome by greater enlightenment. Yet in attaining the degree of Master Mason, the symbolism implies that a person is redeemed from the death of sin and sin's pollution. [HJB]_ 

Not sure about this one either. We do believe there is sin and that each of us is very likely to commit it. Greater knowledge doesn't release us from sin- only Christ can do that. In fact, since NO one can live a perfect life, that is why Christ - a Savior - was provided for us. If it weren't for Christ, not a one of us would have a chance.... so what's your point here? We do believe that knowledge is a good thing and we each need to learn as much as we can during our lives. But just knowing stuff doesn't get us anywhere.

_5. Salvation and Future Life. Masons think that salvation refers to being brought from the material to the spiritual; i.e., when man returns to "his forgotten inherent spirituality." Masons believe that the degree of Master Mason is symbolical of old age, which allows a person to happily reflect on a well-spent life and to "die in the hope of a glorious immortality." Because they deny the reality of sin, Masons see no need of salvation in the Biblical sense. They see salvation as a step-by-step enlightenment, which comes through initiation into the Masonic degrees and their mysteries. [HJB] _

:shrug:

_In the 19th degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, the initiate is told that attachment to Masonry's "statutes and rules of the order" will make him "deserving of entering the celestial Jerusalem [heaven]." In the 28th degree, he is told that "the true Mason [is one] who raises himself by degrees till he reaches heaven" and that one of his duties is "To divest [him]self of original sin ..." Masons clearly teach a salvation by works, or character development, not a salvation by faith in Christ alone. ._

Mormon doctrine does NOT teach that we do not need Christ. Nor does it teach that we are saved by our works. We do believe that we have to keep the commandments that Christ gave to us. This is our "work". We believe that the Atonement of Christ will not be in effect for those that deny Him and his teachings.  Therefore, we teach to do as He said. We believe that a real faith, changes a person. It inspires them to act. If I have faith that Christ will answer my prayers - I will pray. But to insinuate the the LDS faith teaches that we gain salvation by our own hands is ridiculous. None of us can do that. In the end, we will all be found wanting - no matter how good of a life we lived or how much we served or learned or accomplished. We will all need the mercy and grace of Christ to gain our Salvation. I realize that others teach that there is nothing that we have to do...that is only our faith that saves us. I feel that this is more a definition issue than a doctrinal issue. In the end, that is very true. But in the mean time, we believe that we should live the principles directed to us in the Bible,the Book of Mormon and the directions that we are given by the prophet of our church today. It is by doing the things Christ asked of us that our faith in Him grows and is strengthened. Our faith will help us avoid sin but it will not save us. 

We do believe that there will be a difference in the portion of the Lord's kingdom that say a murder, thief, child abuser, etc will receive compared to a person that led a very moral, upright life and kept the commandments of God, etc. I am not sure what other churches teach, but we do not believe that the heaven and hell spoken of in the Bible are the end. They are temporary until the final judgement. At that time, we will each be given a portion of God's kingdom. Maybe this is what you are referring to? I do agree that it's a difference in doctrines...but not sure what it has to do with Masons. 

There is one connection that I haven't seen you make in all your research. I will mention it for you to mull around with. :happy2:

Perhaps the similarities that you see between Masons and the LDS church are because they began with the same thing. Over time, the masons teachings changed. And with the Mormons - it was RESTORED to what it once was. There are also similarities between LDS teachings and muslim teachings....as well as Catholic....and Baptists...and Methodists...and Lutherans....and pretty much all of them out there. Most people bent on discrediting the LDS church pick the Masons to reflect upon. 

Knowing what I know of LDS doctrine, I'm just not seeing the similarities you are trying to present. Your Newton quote doesn't put any light on it for me either. 

Here's a little scripture we use fairly often. It's from the Book of Mormon, so I don't expect it will affect you much. 

_2 Nephi 9:28-29
28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the blindness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the ccounsels of God._

Sometimes, trying to prove things intellectually doesn't work. There are things beyond the intellect that can't be grasped by logic and reason alone. It takes the help of the Lord to find our way to through all the muck.


----------

