Freemasonry And Endowment?

[bjw]

I am a Mormon and Freemason, and am a member of Blue Lodge, Scottish Rite, York Rite, Eastern Star, Rosicrucian Order, and Traditional Martinist Order. I think this is a topic that has many misconceptions from people who only look at the blue lodge degrees and then try to conclude that the endowment only merely borrows from those degrees or that it uses masonry as a "vehicle" to teach its lesson. I use to believe this way when I was in the lower degrees, but having been in masonry as long as I have and learned what I have I have changed my view. I know there's only so much we can talk about since both Mormonism and masonry require secrecy, but I will keep my discussion to non-esoteric topics.

We know masonry was official founded in 1717, but I believe this is only when the Grand Lodge was founded, which I believe was a consolidation of many different fraternities that focused on esoteric subjects, but wanted the fellowship of having a large organization of people in-common. Even today masons can go to a town they've never been to but feel welcome when they see brothers who have gone through the same rituals they have.

One part in the 3rd degree (I won't mention it here) mentions the need for future generations to restore something, and I think early Mormons believed that the masonic rituals pointed to the truth being someday restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. These issued are addressed further in the higher degrees, such as the subject of the "lost word." The Old Testament context is added further in the 14th degree which deals which is Perfect Elu (Elu referring to "elect priest," and Melchizedek is even mentioned at one point.) Those who have been through both this ceremony as well as the LDS Temple Initiatory will notice some similar wording. (I won't go any further on this, this much you can learn through what both organizations publish in books.)

Climbing the ladder further you start to learn the reason for good and evil co-existing, the Rose-Croix degrees touch on this subject, and this is something covered in-depth in Mormonism, not just the temple. The candidate learns if he wants to go further he has to go face-to-face with his own mortality.

The Elu degrees are derived from Martinism and the Rose-Croix degrees are derived from Rosicrucianism but are adapted to Freemasonry. For instance, the Solomon/Hiram legend is not on the forefront when you are going through the Rosicrucian and Martinist degrees directly, but in Scottish Rite it is. Martinism, as I understand its origin, was founded through a lineage of Western occultism/esoteric Christianity in the 1600s and 1700s, who taught esoteric Christian doctrines usually in secret lodge meeting to avoid persecution. Many of these saw masonry as the perfect vehicle to practice their beliefs without doing so publicly, and they formed their own fraternity, which I believe was called the "Order of Elus-Cohen," later shortened to "Elu" when absorbed by the Scottish Rite.

When you join the Traditional Martinist Order, you learn many doctrines that are similar to Mormonism, such as 3 Heavens (two are called celestial and terrestrial), the fall of Adam and Eve being necessary, Angels that stand as guardians to God's presence, goal of life to reintegrate with the Divine, and Jesus being separate from the Father. You don't learn any of these doctrines in the Elu degrees of the Scottish Rite, but when the original order of elus-cohen dissolved it split into many different Grand Lodges of Traditional Martinist Order that are more like "educational lodges" that teach in addition to do degrees. Each one claims to have a lineage that goes back to St. Martin. The Scottish Rite version of the elu degrees have removed most of the Christian theme of the Elu degrees to fit the Freemason Hiramic legend. However, when people study the history of the degrees it points to the original, which is what led me to seek out the Martinist degrees.

The York Rite has some remnants of the Endowment as well, both in procedures as well as the degrees themselves.

In the past few years I've concluded that what Joseph Smith restored is the authentic, ancient order of the mysteries, and we see many remnants of them in the modern-day fraternal orders and societies. I think the early leaders of the LDS church saw it this way as well. Also, while Freemasonry wasn't officially "organized" until 1717 and the Scottish Rite and York Rite, with other "rites" were founded even much later, I think that they are the decendants from many organizations that were supposed to practice their beliefs in secret because they feared persecution, as well as didn't want to have their beliefs mocked by casting "pearls" before "swine." I think once the Great Apostacy occured many groups left the mainstream churches to practice their own beliefs in private and that is why we have so many different fraternities today that practice beliefs that sometimes are in conflict with each other.

Now, the real question is, did Joseph Smith or any early LDS leaders have any kind of access to these teachings, or did Joseph Smith really receive the revelations to restore the true ancient order that all these organizations seem to have a remnant of?

[mfbukowski]

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

What is important is what one receives by the spirit, one on one, not by study of esoteric rituals of other groups.

Edited April 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

I still read the Endowment ceremony. I think I may learn more from reading it rather than practicing it or watching the temple video with the really bad actor as Satan who is actually a USU professor. Wait!...is that the same video used today? Or did the church upgrade?

[sethpayne]

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.

Interesting article. The Female Masonry relationship is intriguing.

As far as the relationship with other aspect of Freemason rituals (washing & anointing, new name, etc.) go, the parallels aren't unique enough to exclude that possibility that Joseph's inspiritation for these aspects of the temple came from Deut/Lev + Book of Rev. -- but this is minutia irrelevant to your points.

Edited April 2, 2013 by sethpayne

[Stone holm]

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?

To answer that I would have to break a couple vows. Let me put it this way, one doesnt normally think of the degrees contained in the Blue Lodge Masonry which includes the Master Mason degree as being the higher degrees in Masonry. It is very clear from the history that the Saints in Nauvoo were very involved in Masonic activities, in fact one of the poltical fears in Illinois was that the Mormons were going to get control of the Grand Lodge in Illinois and it was pretty well known that if a group got control of that in Illinois at the time that they could control Illinois politics. So in the same sequence of events that resulted in the disbanding of the Nauvoo Militia, there was also action taken to yank the Masonic charters of the two Masonic blue lodges controlled by the Mormons. One of the Masonic charges raised against Joseph Smith, who I believe it is very clear was a Master Mason, was that Joseph Smith had offended Masonic practice by having claimed to have discovered the "lost final key" to Masonry which was referred to as the "Celestial Key" which is the last sign in the Temple Ritual. I don't think I can go further on the subject. I see no reason to worry about the similarities -- it is certainly consistent with Speculative Masonry that there be similarities. The break between Masonry and the Church came because it was believed by the Church leaders at the time that there were fellow Masons in the mob that matyred the Prophet and his brother, and that the Masonic lodges helped to hide the identity of the members of the mob. The Grandmaster in the Utah Territory forbid the Masons to allow Mormons to join which is against Masonic order but the rule stayed in place until one of the leaders of the RLDS Church went to attend a lodge meeting and was rejected and protested and the un-Masonic rule was rescinded. People debate exactly what Joseph Smith may or may not have been doing when he stood at the window and received the final volleys -- I leave that to them to conjecture about.

[canard78]

I still read the Endowment ceremony. I think I may learn more from reading it rather than practicing it or watching the temple video with the really bad actor as Satan who is actually a USU professor. Wait!...is that the same video used today? Or did the church upgrade?

The one with the brunette eve (the older one) has apparently been made 'out of use' - but they're still using the one done a bit later (blonde Eve).

Personally I like a live session best. Seems to bring the symbolism to life much more effectively than the movie. I would love for the church to do more of them.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

I disagree. One cannot accept the divine authenticity of the BOM without also accepting the at least essential authenticity of the Bible. On the other hand, one can accept the divine authenticity of the Endowment without even knowing that such a thing as Freemasonry exists.

It is also worth nothing that most people (though not all) who are both endowed LDS and Freemasons were generally endowed first, and become Freemasons only later, with interest generally piqued after learning about Freemasonry in Nauvoo. They thus engage Freemasonry through an endowment lens, and not visa versa.

[Stone holm]

I disagree. One cannot accept the divine authenticity of the BOM without also accepting the at least essential authenticity of the Bible. On the other hand, one can accept the divine authenticity of the Endowment without even knowing that such a thing as Freemasonry exists.

It is also worth nothing that most people (though not all) who are both endowed LDS and Freemasons were generally endowed first, and become Freemasons only later, with interest generally piqued after learning about Freemasonry in Nauvoo. They thus engage Freemasonry through an endowment lens, and not visa versa.

Not sure that you have to accept the Bible in order to accept the divine authenticity of the BOM. While it is true now that few LDS have any clue about Freemasonry. Not sure whether there are more people who become Freemasons before or after they become Mormons -- that I don't know, in some parts of the country like Utah, I would say that is undoubtedly true, in other parts maybe not. I would not, however, necessarily be willing to concede that at the time the Temple Rites were being given to the Brethern by Joseph Smith or that when the men were able to actually receive those rites in Nauvoo that were endowed first and became Masons later -- in fact, my money would be on the opposite if someone had access to the Lodge membership rolls and compared them to the men who received their endowments before the move West. In fact, I would wager, if gambling wasn't against my religion, that the opposite probably remained true for awhile after the move West.

[Tacenda]

Not sure that you have to accept the Bible in order to accept the divine authenticity of the BOM. While it is true now that few LDS have any clue about Freemasonry. Not sure whether there are more people who become Freemasons before or after they become Mormons -- that I don't know, in some parts of the country like Utah, I would say that is undoubtedly true, in other parts maybe not. I would not, however, necessarily be willing to concede that at the time the Temple Rites were being given to the Brethern by Joseph Smith or that when the men were able to actually receive those rites in Nauvoo that were endowed first and became Masons later -- in fact, my money would be on the opposite if someone had access to the Lodge membership rolls and compared them to the men who received their endowments before the move West. In fact, I would wager, if gambling wasn't against my religion, that the opposite probably remained true for awhile after the move West.

And you'd win that bet.

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed

Not exactly. My position is more nuanced than this, Bill.

Perhaps when I have time I will explain my position to you again. Perhaps you will have to wait for my research to be published.

In the mean time, I advise you to study early 19th century Freemasonry more.

Also... keep your eyes open for Mike Homer's forthcoming book.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Mike Reed

[K-2]

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.

Yes, I totally agree. There are a number of what, according to traditional Christian understanding, would be scriptural loose ends that are tied up neatly by the endowment. There are bits of doctrine that are relevant to the temple that are scattered througout the scriptures, and they are usually read past without being noticed as such. I believe that many of the similarities between the endowment and Freemasonry are no more significant than those between the endowment and ceremonies in other religious or occult traditions. There are a few things though that suggest that Freemasonry was directly on Joseph Smith's mind when he restored the endowment. I think that's fine. Masonry was pretty well understood by men during that time, so it makes sense for the endowment to have been codified with a bit of a Masonic flavor.

[Stone holm]

Yes, I totally agree. There are a number of what, according to traditional Christian understanding, would be scriptural loose ends that are tied up neatly by the endowment. There are bits of doctrine that are relevant to the temple that are scattered througout the scriptures, and they are usually read past without being noticed as such. I believe that many of the similarities between the endowment and Freemasonry are no more significant than those between the endowment and ceremonies in other religious or occult traditions. There are a few things though that suggest that Freemasonry was directly on Joseph Smith's mind when he restored the endowment. I think that's fine. Masonry was pretty well understood by men during that time, so it makes sense for the endowment to have been codified with a bit of a Masonic flavor.

I don't see much of the dramatization portion of the endowment being connected to freemasonry, the signs and tokens on the other hand. I don't think that freemasonry informs you that much as far as the Temple is concerned although it reminds of things that have relatively lately been taken out and may give you an understanding of what you are doing that is no longer clear in certain parts of the Temple ritual. Freemasonry may , however, give you some insight into the Old Testament that you might not otherwise have. Given that Mormonism has such a tight bind with American ideals, I find it not surprising that both the majority of the Founding Fathers would be Master Masons, but the majority of the Church leaders who participated in the early years of the Restoration were also Masre Masons.

[ERayR]

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.

Why would Masonry give one a more complete understanding of the endowment? While similar symbols are used, and indeed some may have come from Masonry, they have been used to convey Mormon doctrine and teachings, not Masonic teachings.

If we were trying to teach Masonic teachings then an understanding of Masonry would be helpful but since we are teaching Mormon doctrine in our temples it would be much better to have a better understanding of Mormonism.

[Stone holm]

Why would Masonry give one a more complete understanding of the endowment? While similar symbols are used, and indeed some may have come from Masonry, they have been used to convey Mormon doctrine and teachings, not Masonic teachings.

If we were trying to teach Masonic teachings then an understanding of Masonry would be helpful but since we are teaching Mormon doctrine in our temples it would be much better to have a better understanding of Mormonism.

I agree with most of this except Masonry does provide insight into some of the actions that used to be explained or were obvious from the Temple rituals but have been deleted without being replaced with any explanation or anything left in the ritual to explain why you are doing the action. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on the reasoning behind the deletions which the general membership is not privy to and probably never will be.

[ERayR]

I agree with most of this except Masonry does provide insight into some of the actions that used to be explained or were obvious from the Temple rituals but have been deleted without being replaced with any explanation or anything left in the ritual to explain why you are doing the action. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on the reasoning behind the deletions which the general membership is not privy to and probably never will be.

Masonry provides insights into Masonry and is not necessarily transferable to Mormonism. If one wants insight into Mormon temple rituals you attend temple worship, pay attention and pray for personal revelation.

[Thinking]

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

If it came from God, why was it necessary to borrow from freemasonry?

[Tacenda]

If it came from God, why was it necessary to borrow from freemasonry?

I've thought this and the reason for feeling I'd been kicked in the stomach when finding out about it. Just walk around Salt Lake to see that we have Masonic symbols like the beehive, lion statues, and on the temple in places we have clasped hands, all seeing eye & a 5 pointed star and other things I won't say but am a walking example of. Luckily upon finding out it wasn't Satanic from the beginning and that Satanists adopted it, it was better. I feel that when Joseph spoke about ladders he may have been referring to the Jacob's Ladder concept with the Sun, Moon & Stars etc. Joseph integrated some Freemasonry into our religion because he saw it as a religious entity, IMHO.

[ERayR]

I've thought this and the reason for feeling I'd been kicked in the stomach when finding out about it. Just walk around Salt Lake to see that we have Masonic symbols like the beehive, lion statues, and on the temple in places we have clasped hands, all seeing eye & a 5 pointed star and other things I won't say but am a walking example of. Luckily upon finding out it wasn't Satanic from the beginning and that Satanists adopted it, it was better. I feel that when Joseph spoke about ladders he may have been referring to the Jacob's Ladder concept with the Sun, Moon & Stars etc. Joseph integrated some Freemasonry into our religion because he saw it as a religious entity, IMHO.

The symbols are not in and of themselves Masonic symbols or Egyptian symbols or Hebrew symbols or Mormon symbols. They are just symbols to which Masons or Egyptians or Mormons attach meaning. While the meanings to a particular symbol attached by the individual groups may be similar, to understand what meaning has been attached by a particular group one must become familiar with that group.

Joseph did not integrate Freemasonry into Mormonism. He used symbols the Masons used in a Mormon context.

[Thinking]

Joseph did not integrate Freemasonry into Mormonism. He used symbols the Masons used in a Mormon context.

Except that Mormon context did not exist until the freemasonry bits were integrated. The endowment that was introduced in Kirtland did not have that Mormon context.

[Yep]

I still read the Endowment ceremony. I think I may learn more from reading it rather than practicing it or watching the temple video with the really bad actor as Satan who is actually a USU professor. Wait!...is that the same video used today? Or did the church upgrade?

The revealing of the endowment to the public was addressed here:

Temple Worship, John A Widtsoe

Many apostates have tried to reveal the ordinances of the House of the Lord. Some of their accounts form a fairly complete and correct story of the outward form of the temple service; but they are pitiful failures in making clear the eternal meaning of temple worship and the exaltation of the spirit that is awakened by the understanding of that meaning. Such attempts are only words; symbols without meaning. Is anything more lifeless than a symbol of an unknown meaning?

...

If we are correct in believing that the blessings obtained in the temples of the Lord are a partial fulfillment, at least, of the promise made when the Holy Ghost, who is a Revelator, is conferred upon man, it would be expected that temple ordinances would be in the nature of a revelation to those who participate. Certainly the temple is a place where revelations may be expected.

While the endowment has been revealed to the public by apostates, revelations pertaining to it will not occur outside of the temple.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Yep

[bjw]

The symbols are not in and of themselves Masonic symbols or Egyptian symbols or Hebrew symbols or Mormon symbols. They are just symbols to which Masons or Egyptians or Mormons attach meaning. While the meanings to a particular symbol attached by the individual groups may be similar, to understand what meaning has been attached by a particular group one must become familiar with that group.

Joseph did not integrate Freemasonry into Mormonism. He used symbols the Masons used in a Mormon context.

I agree with this. When you look into the past mysteries that led to the formation of masonry, many of them were using these symbols long before masonry was formed. The beehive, for example, can be looked at as a symbol of industry, but has long been a symbol of Merovingian descent. Either meaning can be acceptable in this context, such as Nibley thinking that the honey bee symbolism in the Book of Ether was only symbolic and could refer to a dynasty.

However, I think the similarities of Mormon theology with early masonic thought in the Elus-Cohen/Martinist degrees will either show a common ancient source of similarities between Mormonism and the ancient mysteries, or some non-Mormons may argue that early LDS leaders had access to some of the higher level degrees. For instance, Emmanuel Swedenborg believed in the idea of 3 heavens, and the teachings of St. Martin have some similarities as well.

I watched a video on Youtube of Sandra Tanner talking about the temple, saying that Joseph Smith could not have restored anything from masonry because masonry was founded in the 1700s and didn't really go back to the Old Testament time period. She seemed to emphasize that he copied things that pertained to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood that were fabricated in the 1700s and couldn't possibly be things Jesus Christ would want practiced in his temples.

The problem I see with this reasoning is that there is no evidence that these elements of blue lodge masonry did not exist before the 1700s. The Grand Lodge wasn't founded until 1717, but that doesn't mean that people were not practicing elements of the ancient mysteries before then, that were handed down "mouth-to-ear" for thousands of years until finally being consolidated into the masonic degrees in 1717. The degrees have a ton of symbolism, as does the Temple Endowment, that can take a lifetime of contemplation to understand. I feel the same way about the architechtural symbolism and designs on the outsides of the temples.

The Spirit can use these things to teach us lessons. There is also much benefit in contemplating the different ways similar symbols are used in different traditions.

[ERayR]

I agree with this. When you look into the past mysteries that led to the formation of masonry, many of them were using these symbols long before masonry was formed. The beehive, for example, can be looked at as a symbol of industry, but has long been a symbol of Merovingian descent. Either meaning can be acceptable in this context, such as Nibley thinking that the honey bee symbolism in the Book of Ether was only symbolic and could refer to a dynasty.

However, I think the similarities of Mormon theology with early masonic thought in the Elus-Cohen/Martinist degrees will either show a common ancient source of similarities between Mormonism and the ancient mysteries, or some non-Mormons may argue that early LDS leaders had access to some of the higher level degrees. For instance, Emmanuel Swedenborg believed in the idea of 3 heavens, and the teachings of St. Martin have some similarities as well.

I watched a video on Youtube of Sandra Tanner talking about the temple, saying that Joseph Smith could not have restored anything from masonry because masonry was founded in the 1700s and didn't really go back to the Old Testament time period. She seemed to emphasize that he copied things that pertained to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood that were fabricated in the 1700s and couldn't possibly be things Jesus Christ would want practiced in his temples.

The problem I see with this reasoning is that there is no evidence that these elements of blue lodge masonry did not exist before the 1700s. The Grand Lodge wasn't founded until 1717, but that doesn't mean that people were not practicing elements of the ancient mysteries before then, that were handed down "mouth-to-ear" for thousands of years until finally being consolidated into the masonic degrees in 1717. The degrees have a ton of symbolism, as does the Temple Endowment, that can take a lifetime of contemplation to understand. I feel the same way about the architechtural symbolism and designs on the outsides of the temples.

The Spirit can use these things to teach us lessons. There is also much benefit in contemplating the different ways similar symbols are used in different traditions.

The similarities or even sameness of meaning of the same symbols in two or more entities does not invalidate their validity.

[MormonMason]

I think you will find that Brigham and others were.

Names those who were, then, because Brigham Young certainly wasn't. Brigham Young's Masonic history is known (York Rite Blue Lodge only [1st through 3rd Degrees of Masonry]) and it doesn't include the Scottish Rite. Brigham Young's petition was received and read on Thursday, March 17, 1842. His petition was balloted upon and Brigham Young was initiated as an Entered Apprentice on Thursday, April 7, 1842, Passed to the Degree of Fellowcraft on Friday, April 8, 1842, and Raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason on Saturday, April 9, 1842. He was not associated with the Appendant Bodies of either the York Rite or the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. There also was no Scottish Rite in Illinois during the lifetime of Joseph Smith.

[MormonMason]

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

He was a famous Mason but was not a member of the Scottish Rite. A number of persons in that list never were members of the Scottish Rite. There was no Scottish Rite in Illinois during the lifetime of Joseph Smith.

[livy111us]

I've thought this and the reason for feeling I'd been kicked in the stomach when finding out about it. Just walk around Salt Lake to see that we have Masonic symbols like the beehive, lion statues, and on the temple in places we have clasped hands, all seeing eye & a 5 pointed star and other things I won't say but am a walking example of. Luckily upon finding out it wasn't Satanic from the beginning and that Satanists adopted it, it was better. I feel that when Joseph spoke about ladders he may have been referring to the Jacob's Ladder concept with the Sun, Moon & Stars etc. Joseph integrated some Freemasonry into our religion because he saw it as a religious entity, IMHO.

The all-seeing eye is MUCH older than masonry and can be found in the Bible, BOM and other non-LDS literature. Joseph Smith was using this phrase prior to being introduced to masonry and this imagery on the temple more closely reflects the biblical and BOM accounts of God than anything else.

1 Kings 8:29

1 Kings 9:3

2 Chronicles 6:40

2 Chronicles 7:15–16

2 Chronicles 16:9

Psalms 33:13–14, 18

Psalms 34:15

Proverbs 5:21

Proverbs 15:3

Jeremiah 32:19

Amos 9:8

Hebrews 4:13

1 Peter 3:12

(Neville Cryer says the Freemasons borrowed the All-Seeing Eye emblem from the Jesuit monks / “The Sources of Masonic Practice”)

1828–29 – “I pray the God of my salvation that he view me with his all-searching eye” (2 Ne. 9:44).

1828–29 – “under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God” (Jacob 2:10, 15).

1828–29 – “the glance of [God’s] all-searching eye” (Mosiah 27:31).

1830–31 – “I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also” (Moses 7:36).

2 January 1831 – “Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made; The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes . . . . mine eyes are upon you. I am in your midst and ye cannot see me” (D&C 38:1–2, 7).

13 August 1831 – “mine eyes are upon those who have not as yet gone up unto the land of Zion” (D&C 62:2).

1 November 1831 – “Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men” (D&C 1:1).

November 1831 – “Behold and lo, mine eyes are upon you” (D&C 67:2).

31 July 1832 – “my heart is naked before his eyes continually” (PWJS, 243). [Letter, Joseph Smith to William W. Phelps]

4 January 1833 – “the eyes of my Maker are upon me” (PWJS, 274). [Letter, Joseph Smith to N. C. Saxton]

17 May 1834 – “I exclaimed to the brethren, that for a witness that God overruled and had His eye upon them” (HC, 2:68–69). [Joseph Smith]

9 November 1835 – “him whose eye surveys all things at a glance” (Joseph Smith diary / history).

May 1835 – “the scrutinizing eye of ‘him with whom we have to do’” (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, no. 8, May 1835, 121). [Oliver Cowdery]

29 January 1836 – “Lord had eye upon thee” (PWJS, 152). [Patriarchal Blessing given by Joseph Smith, Sr.]

May 1836 – “they stand naked and exposed to the piercing eye of Jehovah” (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2, no. 20, May 1836, 318). [Parley P. Pratt]

May 1836 – “God is not mocked with impunity. His all seeing eye behold you at all times . . . . his presence fills immensity, and his all-seeing eye surveys the whole of his vast creation” (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2, no. 20, May 1836, 306) [John Whitmer]

April 1837 – “the scrutinizing eye of Jehovah is ever upon them” (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 3, no. 31, April 1837, 493). [ED. – William Marks]

June 1837 – “In vain do they attempt to hide from the scrutinizing eye of Jehovah” (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 3, no. 33, June 1837, 525). [ED. – William Marks]

5 July 1838 – “the God of heaven has His all-searching eye upon the camp of the Saints” (HC, 3:98–99). [Joseph Smith]

20 March 1839 – “thine eye, yea thy pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens . . . . let thine eye pierce . . . . Behold, mine eyes see and know all their works” (D&C 121:2, 4, 24).

ca. 3 July 1839 – “the God of Jacob has His eye upon you” (HC, 3:394) [Epistle of the Twelve – Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, George A. Smith]

September 1840 – “the all-searching eye of an Omnipresent God” (Pratt, An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, 26). [Orson Pratt]

9 January1841 – “God that sheweth mercy; having his eye at the same time directed towards his covenant people” (Millennial Star, vol. 1, no. 9 January 1841, 223). [brigham Young, Willard Richards]

13 December 1841 – Epistle of the Twelve: “the sick and the destitute are to be denied the blessings of the Lord’s house; God forbid; His eye is ever over them for good” (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 4, 15 December 1841, 625–27; HC, 4:473).

26/27 – God has an all-seeing eye G. V. Shann, trans., Book of Needs of the Holy Orthodox Church (New York: AMS Press, 1969) [reprint of the 1894 edition, translation of the Slavonic service book of 1882 (Moscow)]

The beehive would also have a scriptural backing. The Book of Mormon says "And they did also carry with them Deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee" Ether 2:3. This imagery has been used as a symbol of being industrious since the beginning of Mormonism. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says "The beehive and the word Deseret have been used variously throughout the History of the Church. The territory settled by the Mormon pioneers was called the State of Deseret. The emblem of the beehive is used in the seal of the State of Utah and is a common decoration in Utah architecture, symbolizing industriousness. Brigham Young's house in Salt Lake City is called the Beehive House. Early Sunday schools were part of the Deseret Sunday School Union. A vital part of the Church Welfare Program carries the name Deseret Industries."

Handclasps also predate masonry. There is abundant evidence of handclasps in early Christianity as well as in Israelite coronation ceremonies. Here is a quick synopsis of handclasps: “The handclasp continued in early Christian ritual, both gnostic and \"orthodox.\" According to Galatians 2:9, \"the right hand of fellowship\" (dexias koinoas didonai tini) is given \"as a sign of friendship and trust,\" though this does not necessarily suggest ritual practice, such as we found in the Sabazian and Mithraic mysteries. The handclasp as marriage rite, however, continued in Christian surroundings. The salvific handclasp is nearly the trademark of the iconography of Christ's postcrucifixion descent into Hades. One of the most frequent scenes in this tradition is that of Christ grasping the hands of Adam and Eve to lift them up out of hell and to resurrect them. While sometimes he grasps their wrists, . . . in other depictions he lifts them with a true dextrarum iunctio.

The fifth-century Gospel of Nicodemus describes a true handclasp: \"And the Lord . . . took the right hand of Adam and went up out of hell (tenens dexteram Adae ascendit ab inferis), and all the saints followed him. . . . He went therefore into paradise holding our forefather by the hand, and delivered him, and all the righteous, unto Michael the archangel.\" Here the [handclasp] starts the ascent, continues it, and ends it on the threshold of paradise. A similar handclasp is used in the apocalyptic 1 Enoch: \"And the angel Michael, . . . seizing me by my right hand and lifting me up, led me out into all the secrets of mercy; and he showed me all the secrets of righteousness.\" \"The Handclasp and Embrace as Tokens of Recognition,\" in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., 2 vols. (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990), 1: 620 - 631.). Here is a excerpt (pp. 620-621):

Point being, I think some are too quick to assume that certain symbols are masonic without realizing that these same symbols pre-date masonry by centuries or even millennia. The debate is not why Joseph Smith borrowed from masonry, but rather, is he pulling from masonry or from a more ancient source? Was he pulling from the same source as masonry was pulling from? I am compelled by the evidence to believe in the latter.