Freemasonry And Endowment?

[Bill Hamblin]

Some reflections on meta-questions

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/freemasonry-and-endowment/

Please don't divert this thread with minutia

[ChristKnight]

Well I have nothing to add except that I'm nerdily excited about this thread. I've always been somewhat intrigued by Freemasonry (as I mentioned in my other thread, I checked out the House of the Temple in DC and thought it was pretty cool), and when MormonMason mentioned, as you do as well, that a number of the similarities between the Endowment and Freemasonry are found in the higher degrees of Freemasonry, such as those found in the Scottish Rite, that Joseph Smith was not initiated into, that just changed how I think about the relationship between Freemasonry and the Endowment, and piqued my interest in Freemasonry, the Scottish Rite specifically, again.

[sethpayne]

Hi Bill,

Who are "the some" who consider the endowment similar to higher degrees? I would love to read more on this.

Seth

[mathonihah]

Some reflections on meta-questions

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/freemasonry-and-endowment/

Please don't divert this thread with minutia

You have highlighted the differences, and overlooked the similarities. The critics’ arguments are based on the similarities, not the differences.

[Alan]

......... similarities between the Endowment and Freemasonry are found in the higher degrees of Freemasonry, such as those found in the Scottish Rite, that Joseph Smith was not initiated into, that just changed how I think about the relationship between Freemasonry and the Endowment, and piqued my interest in Freemasonry, the Scottish Rite specifically, again.

I think you will find that Brigham and others were.

[Stone holm]

Some reflections on meta-questions

http://mormonscriptu...-and-endowment/

Please don't divert this thread with minutia

I don't find this convincing. Having been involved in both Blue Lodge freemasonry, and the higher degrees York Rite and Scottish Rite. The similarity with much of the Blue Lodge is pretty strong, but the connection with York Rite and Scottish Rite is just not there at all. I believe the better argument is that we should expect similarity with Blue Lodge freemasonry (it was always my understand that Joseph Smith was in fact a Master Mason and that the Pratt brothers were led to him by Masonic signs they saw in the sky) since it was, according to speculative masonry, derived from verbal traditions handed down from near the beginning of Biblical history.

[K-2]

Freemasonry is an initiation ritual by which one becomes a Freemason. The Endowment is a ritual which reveals higher mysteries to those who have already been initiated into the Church of Jesus Christ by baptism.

One becomes initiated as a Freemason after receiving only the first degree. Then one is passed and raised a Master Mason in the second and third degrees.

Some claim that the Endowment parallels the higher degrees of Freemasonry (in which Joseph Smith never participated). To receive the higher degrees of Freemasonry, however, one must have previously received the first three degrees of Freemasonry. To receive the endowment one does not have to have previously received any masonic degree whatsoever.

Certainly Joseph Smith must have been familiar with Masonic exposes and public reenactments of Masonic rituals and ceremonies. Also, since his brother Hyrum and possibly his father were Masons, the subject must have come up during the Anti-Masonic events in the late 1820's. I wouldn't assume that Joseph Smith was completely unfamiliar with the "higher" or appendant degrees. I'm not aware of anyone ever suggesting that one has to be a Mason in order to receive the endowment, so I don't know if it's very enlightening to point out that that is not necessary.

Likewise, the higher degrees in Masonry build closely upon the teachings and practices of the lower degrees; the higher degrees only make sense when contextualized within the framework of the lower degrees. Understanding the Endowment requires absolutely no knowledge of Freemasonry whatsoever.

I think that having a complete understanding of the endowment, particularly its origins and historical development, DOES require at least some knowledge of Freemasonry. The endowment as restored by Joseph Smith has a lot more in common with Freemasonry (signs, symbols, phrases, clothing) than the present version of the endowment. Wouldn't you agree?

[tyler90az]

The Temple Endowment is so sacred that God had the most secret society carry it through until the restoration. Then well the restoration occurred God guided Joseph Smith to the Free Masons, which held a form of the Endowment.

[phaedrus ut]

The Endowment is to Freemasonry as the Book of Mormon is to the KJV. I think that analogous example would work for both believer and critic.

[K-2]

I think you will find that Brigham and others were.

Brigham and others were what? Recipients of the Scottish Rite degrees? Where did you get that idea?

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Bill,

Who are "the some" who consider the endowment similar to higher degrees? I would love to read more on this.

Seth

Michael W. Homer, "'Similarity of Priesthood in Masonry': The Relationship between Freemasonry and Mormonism," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 27.3 (Fall 1994): 1-113.

Joe Swick

[edit - Don't post IRL info if a person hasn't done so themselves] "George Miller"

Mike Reed

[David T]

To be fair, JS had all of his Quorum of the Anointed rushed through the Masonic degrees before he introduced them to the endowment. There are signs and symbols utilized in the endowment that appear without explanation, because they were initially introduced and explained and given a context in the earlier preparatory ceremonies of masonry.

Phaedrus Ut, I believe, has it right, as concerns the original and early participants in the endowment ritual : "The Endowment is to Freemasonry as the Book of Mormon is to the KJV. I think that analogous example would work for both believer and critic."

The 3 initial masonic degrees tell a story of a loss of sacred things that are narratively fulfilled and completed, restored,added upon, and distributed in the LDS endowment.

Familiarity with the biblical narrative told in Antiquities of Freemasonry makes this connection explicit.

Edited April 2, 2013 by David T

[Bill Hamblin]

You have highlighted the differences, and overlooked the similarities. The critics’ arguments are based on the similarities, not the differences.

Actually, I'm analyzing the meta-function of the rituals within the respective groups.

[Bill Hamblin]

One becomes initiated as a Freemason after receiving only the first degree. Then one is passed and raised a Master Mason in the second and third degrees.

Certainly Joseph Smith must have been familiar with Masonic exposes and public reenactments of Masonic rituals and ceremonies. Also, since his brother Hyrum and possibly his father were Masons, the subject must have come up during the Anti-Masonic events in the late 1820's. I wouldn't assume that Joseph Smith was completely unfamiliar with the "higher" or appendant degrees. I'm not aware of anyone ever suggesting that one has to be a Mason in order to receive the endowment, so I don't know if it's very enlightening to point out that that is not necessary.

I think that having a complete understanding of the endowment, particularly its origins and historical development, DOES require at least some knowledge of Freemasonry. The endowment as restored by Joseph Smith has a lot more in common with Freemasonry (signs, symbols, phrases, clothing) than the present version of the endowment. Wouldn't you agree?

99+% of Mormons seem to understand it just fine without any knowledge of Freemasonry.

[Bill Hamblin]

To be fair, JS had all of his Quorum of the Anointed rushed through the Masonic degrees before he introduced them to the endowment. There are signs and symbols utilized in the endowment that appear without explanation, because they were initially introduced and explained and given a context in the earlier preparatory ceremonies of masonry.

Phaedrus Ut, I believe, has it right, as concerns the original and early participants in the endowment ritual : "The Endowment is to Freemasonry as the Book of Mormon is to the KJV. I think that analogous example would work for both believer and critic."

The 3 initial masonic degrees tell a story of a loss of sacred things that are narratively fulfilled and completed, restored,added upon, and distributed in the LDS endowment.

Familiarity with the biblical narrative told in Antiquities of Freemasonry makes this connection explicit.

The question here is the broader function of the rituals within their respective communities.

[David T]

99+% of Mormons seem to understand it just fine without any knowledge of Freemasonry.

I'd say it's a far cry to say that 99+% of endowed Mormons would claim to understand the endowment.

Edited April 2, 2013 by David T

[David T]

Here is a beautiful post expressing deeper meaning lost on members through some aspects of the ritual that have been removed in its modern iteration - most likely due to the fact that it's meaning and significance never successfully transferred into LDS discourse with the separation from the leadership and body of the Church with familiarity with Freemasonry. I believe the link is full appropriate to appear here - it has several times in the past, the moderators were aware, and it was not removed:

The Sacred Embrace As Five Points of Fellowship @ Wheat & Tares

Edited April 2, 2013 by David T

[ALarson]

I think you will find that Brigham and others were.

I remember reading this too. I also believe that John C. Bennett was a Scottish Rite Freemason and so was Heber C. Kimball (and maybe others?).

Here's one website I found that lists famous Scottish Rite Freemasons and it lists Brigham Young as one (I'm not saying that means he was....but it's interesting):

http://crscottishrite.org/famous.html

[Bill Hamblin]

I'd say it's a far cry to say that 99+% of endowed Mormons would claim to understand the endowment.

OK, 99+% of Mormons who understand the endowment do so without any knowledge of Masonry.

[Bill Hamblin]

Here is a beautiful post expressing deeper meaning lost on members through some aspects of the ritual that have been removed in its modern iteration - most likely due to the fact that it's meaning and significance never successfully transferred into LDS discourse with the separation from the leadership and body of the Church with familiarity with Freemasonry. I believe the link is full appropriate to appear here - it has several times in the past, the moderators were aware, and it was not removed:

The Sacred Embrace As Five Points of Fellowship @ Wheat & Tares

Or maybe the meaning of the endowment is not as intimately connected with Freemasonic theory as some think?

[Bill Hamblin]

I'd say it's a far cry to say that 99+% of endowed Mormons would claim to understand the endowment.

I think the broader point is that the endowment is meaningful (perhaps more meaningful) when decontextualized from a masonic context, while Royal Arch masonry, and other higher degrees are not.

[K-2]

OK, 99+% of Mormons who understand the endowment do so without any knowledge of Masonry.

I don't think their knowledge of it is as complete as it would be with some knowledge of Freemasonry. I think a great many endowed Mormons do not understand that there might be any deeper level of understanding than what they now posess, let alone know how or where to come about it.

[David T]

Or maybe the meaning of the endowment is not as intimately connected with Freemasonic theory as some think?

I think it's fair to say that the meaning of the endowment as presented today is not as intimately connected with Freemasonic theory as its form was when initially presented by Joseph Smith and initially edited by Brigham Young.

Edited April 2, 2013 by David T

[Bill Hamblin]

I think it's fair to say that the meaning of the endowment as presented today is not as intimately connected with Freemasonic theory as its form was when initially presented by Joseph Smith and initially edited by Brigham Young.

That's certainly true. The question remains: how intimate was it initially? But that's not the question I'm asking here.

I made three points. Are they accurate observations, or not?

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't think their knowledge of it is as complete as it would be with some knowledge of Freemasonry. I think a great many endowed Mormons do not understand that there might be any deeper level of understanding than what they now posess, let alone know how or where to come about it.

Well, a deeper knowledge of scripture would actually be more helpful in that regard in my opinion.

It came from God. It borrowed a bit from Freemasonry.