Posted on 04/03/2008 8:28:09 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
It's been nearly a quarter of a century since Freemasons in Utah rescinded a 60-year ban that prohibited Latter-day Saints from joining their fraternity. And while many remember the religious division that had characterized Freemasonry in the Beehive State from pioneer times, Glen Cook believes he is evidence that things are changing among his Masonic brethren. Cook, a Salt Lake criminal defense attorney and Brigham Young University law school graduate, is believed to be the first member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be elected grand master in Utah in nearly a century, overseeing the activities of several lodges around the state and looking to make the group more open to public understanding.
During a recent tour of the Masonic Temple in downtown Salt Lake City following his installation in February, Cook said there are definite misconceptions about Freemasonry in Utah, particularly among Latter-day Saints, "but there's also some reality there as well."
Church founder Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum, were members of the Masonic lodge in Nauvoo, Ill., in the early 1840s, and historians have written in detail about the role of fellow Masons in the murder of the two men in June 1844. Smith's successor, President Brigham Young, and the three succeeding presidents of the church all were made Masons in the Nauvoo Lodge, as were many who presided in church hierarchy during and following Joseph Smith's death.
After leaving the Midwest for what was then the Utah Territory, most Latter-day Saints eventually ceased active involvement with Freemasonry, despite the fact that lodges were chartered here beginning in 1859. Cook said he thinks pioneer Latter-day Saints simply were too busy trying to build a city in the desert and serving their church to participate. Some historians have speculated about whether Freemasonry was discouraged by LDS leaders.
Whether or not that was the case, religious tension within the organization escalated to the point that, in 1925, "the Utah Grand Lodge Code precluded any Mormon ... totally from any relationship whatsoever" with Masonry in Utah, according to author Mervin Hogan's 1978 book, "The Origin and Growth of Utah Masonry and Its Conflict With Mormonism."
That provision of the code remained in force until 1984, when it was rescinded.
Freemasonry is not a religious practice, but confusion about what it is stems in part from the fact that the fraternity is believed by many historians to have originated in the ancient world because its symbols and rituals bear some similarity to sacred ceremonies that existed among the Egyptians, Coptic Christians, Israelites and even the Catholic and Protestant liturgies — all thought to have some common biblical source.
Many believe it originated with the stone masons who worked on Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, though no definitive evidence of that legend is known to exist. Others speculate that its tenets were had by Enoch, and possibly by Adam. Scholars have documented evidence that institutional Masonry dates back only to the Middle Ages, when great European cathedrals were being built by guilds of stone masons who practiced "the craft."
Cook said the fact that membership requires belief in a supreme being and a willingness to make obligations to fellow Masons through Masonic rituals and symbols that bear some limited similarity to LDS temple ceremonies also foster a misunderstanding of what the fraternity is, and is not.
"There is no question that elements of the (LDS temple) endowment and Masonic ritual are similar," Cook said. "The question for faithful Latter-day Saints is whether that makes a difference. I tend to be a rather concrete thinker."
For those who accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and believe he actually saw God and Jesus Christ in vision as a precursor to restoration of Christ's ancient church, "then the rest, I would suggest, should be a corollary" of that belief.
"I think sometimes we spend too much time worrying about issues that don't really matter to our salvation."
Nothing in LDS faith or practice precludes Latter-day Saints from becoming Masons, he said, though family and church obligations may limit the amount of time Mormon men can spend in other pursuits like Masonry.
"Freemasonry should be an adjunct to your faith and not a barrier to its exercise," Cook said. "I tell people that the only secrets we have are modes of recognition and the passwords. For those, you have to look on the Internet."
The "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" addresses questions about the faith's view of the fraternity, noting "the philosophy and major tenets of Freemasonry are not fundamentally incompatible with the teaching, theology and doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. Both emphasize morality, sacrifice, consecration and service, and both condemn selfishness, sin and greed. Furthermore, the aim of Masonic ritual is to instruct — to make truth available so that man can follow it."
The ritual resemblances between the two "are limited to a small proportion of actions and words," according to the encyclopedia, and "where the two rituals share symbolism, the fabric of meanings is different."
Cook said he sees signs within the Utah fraternity that a new openness is developing toward the community at large, and toward Latter-day Saints in particular, evidenced not only by his recent installation in ceremonies that were open to the public, but also in a willingness to acknowledge the faith in ways it hasn't previously been recognized.
On Feb. 2, during meetings before his formal installation took place, Cook said "a seasoned brother came to me and said, 'We should have a moment of silence for (deceased LDS Church) President (Gordon B.) Hinckley,"' as his funeral was taking place. "At 11 a.m., the grand master called the Grand Lodge of Utah to silence for that."
Later in the day, as members were having lunch together in the Masonic Temple downtown, someone mentioned that President Hinckley's funeral cortege would be passing their building shortly. "A group of Masons gathered on the front steps for that, not limited by religion, and stood with their hands over their hearts as the cortege passed," Cook said.
"I think those three things really signaled to me the change that has come about. ... I think LDS culture has changed, and that today, civic activities are not inappropriate."
As for what he plans to emphasize during his term as the 137th grand master of Utah, Cook said he will focus on the fraternal tenets of brotherly love, belief and truth.
"I find Freemasonry to be something at which to marvel, to be something which I view in awe," Cook wrote in a recent message published in a fraternal newsletter. "In a world in which men war and shed the blood of the innocent based on race, ethnicity and tribe, we have united ... without regard to the color of a man's skin, caring only about the tenor of his heart."
In short, Masons "are men who try to lead moral and upright lives. They contribute significantly not only on a private basis, but in a public way" as well, he said, noting they fund Shriner's Hospital for Children, help with arthritis research and other community causes.
"It's the place where I've found friends, men who have cared for me and my family and hold the moral values that I hold."
> The reasons for the Church’s view that Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic Faith begin with indifferentism and continues on extensively.
I suppose I am indifferent to their Indifferentism — as it would appear are many Catholics who enjoy the fellowship of Freemasonry: and indeed have throughout the ages.
ping
Was Ruth acting against Scripture - since Jesus hadn’t said it yet, no - nor, were Solomon & David. Swearing oaths was common in the Old Testament. They aren’t in the New Testament. There is a reason for that.
As to my not reading the book, I have been a Christian for 31 years. I have a degree in theology from an internationally respected seminary. I have read the book and I do understand it.
Concerning not holding a gun to the head, I never said that Masons did. Non-initiates, upon invitation or recommendation, may choose to join or not join. It is the “how” one joins that is an issue.
As to non-disclosure statements - One typically has an idea of what they are getting into when such a thing is signed. If you work for a financial institution, you will not share financial secrets. If you work for a military institution you will not share military secrets. You know the general gist of what it is about and the reasons why they are secret. I would consider that letting your yes be yes or no be no. The Lord may say I’m wrong there, but I doubt it. It isn’t an “I swear upon penalty of having my throat slit or my heart ripped from my chest” that I will keep the secrets of this organization that I heretofore know nothing about. When a Freemason swears to this organization, he is swearing allegiance to a group that he knows NOTHING about. In that, he is putting blind faith and trust in a human organization. There is a difference between that and non-disclosure statements or even the pledge of allegiance.
Not quite.
Guess you have never read Humanum Genus, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON FREEMASONRY.
> Yep, whatever. Masons have no hierarchy. There is no growth in knowledge within the group.
That’s right. Each Freemason is free to devise and develop his own views based upon the basic Freemasonic framework of morality, and to draw what lessons are appropriate to his own situation and belief system.
Once you get to Third Degree, that’s it really. You will have opportunity to take on various roles within the Lodge, and you may choose to enhance your Masonics by pursuing a side-degree (as Pike did), but your Third Degree is as high as it gets.
> You all are just a bunch of good ol’ boys sitting together chewin’ the fat and nothin’ more to it. Uh huh.
We don’t sit together and chew the fat until after our rituals are worked, at Refectory. And neither Religion nor Politics are permitted to be discussed in Lodge — that is one of our rules, and it is very strictly enforced. Worldwide. Neither are we permitted to tout for business or seek any financial gain or advantage thru our Membership.
So if you are looking for conspiracy theories within Freemasonry you are going to be disappointed: you are far more likely to encounter them at the local Bowling Club. Many prospective candidates find it disappointing when they are advised of this before they join: yet they are (or at least should be) told this at their first interview — prior to being asked to keep any secrets.
> Glad to hear it. He wasn’t the only one saying such things, which leads us non-initiates to believe where there is smoke, there is fire, but okay, if you say so.
I guess that is one of the risks of trying to delve into things that are really none of your concern: you are unlikely to understand that which is none of your business. That is why we have Secrets and that is why we keep them.
> Then Pike was a liar?
No — he was writing his viewpoint on what Freemasonry meant for him. Nothing more. And — as I have also pointed out — his views are not reflective of Freemasonry in general nor are they necessarily shared by all: he is free to say whatever he likes, even if what he says is thoroughly daft and sinister-sounding, and even if he sounds like he is calling all the shots. The plain and simple fact is that he isn’t — any more than John McCain calls the shots for all Conservatives on the FRee Republic.
I don’t know if I can put it any simpler or plainer than that — I am certainly trying to help you understand, and I am certainly trying to be patient.
> Any other Mason who wrote about what Freemasonry was all about is a liar?
No, similarly they are merely men with opinions of their own, too.
> You may call it opinion if you like, but folks like Pike were speaking of the whole of Freemasonry.
No, he wasn’t. Pike was speaking on behalf of Pike and nobody else.
> He is either telling the truth or he is a liar. If he is a liar then Freemasons should sue the owner of his copyright to keep his books off the market.
Why should we do any such thing? He is entitled to Free Speech, and he is entitled to his opinions. He has revealed none of our Secrets — which is the only thing ever required of a Freemason — so why should we care what he has written?
Your Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by Freemasons. They incorporate many of the concepts that I just outlined for you in the paragraphs above: free speech, the right to an opinion, equality, &tc. This is probably not a coincidence: Freemasonry and The Enlightenment blossomed and flourished at about the same time.
It may interest you to know that each of your US States has a “Grand Lodge” with its own Constitution. Freemasonry is a very decentralized organization.
In many ways that is one of its strengths: because it is so loosely-knit it is necessary for there to be fundamental agreement on only a very few fundamental principles: get it too complicated and then there can be no amity. Interestingly that is one reason why it is unlikely that women will ever be allowed to join a Regular Lodge anywhere in the world: every one of the Lodges in every Constitution worldwide would need to agree to it. In practical terms this will never happen.
> If I were to join, I wouldn’t be allowed to talk. No thanks, I don’t give up my freedom of speech that easily.
Not so: talk as much as you like. Just don’t reveal the confidences entrusted to you (the “Secrets”), and don’t cause friction amongst your friends by arguing Religion or Politics at the dinner table, don’t slander another Mason or speak ill of your country. In other words, do nothing that a decent gentleman and good citizen wouldn’t do. Outside of that, talk about whatever you want.
Even in a non-Masonic world you are expected to keep confidences and behavioral norms, and “freedom of speech” is no excuse for violating those.
> I said you do not understand cult dynamics.
Freemasonry isn’t a cult: it is a society of men concerned with moral and spiritual values. Members are taught its precepts by a series of ritual dramas, which follow ancient forms, and use stonemasons’ customs and tools as allegorical guides.
Nothing more sinister than that.
Convince yourself if you like: it is all spelled out in plain English here, at the UGLE website:
http://www.ugle.org.uk/masonry/what-is-freemasonry.htm
> What I meant by that is when you have a cult like situation (which Freemasonry does if for no other reason than the severe social pressure to keep the workings of the group secret and only for the initiated),
No. You are asked to keep your word because that is an essential part of moral behavior, upon which all that follows is built upon.
> men (or women) are drawn closer and closer into the group’s social setting and ill find it difficult to leave.
I know very little about how cults work because I have no direct experience in cults. If this is how a cult works, then I can certainly tell you that Freemasonry does not work like that.
> In some cases, they will find this difficult due to external pressure. In others, it is their internal gage that won’t let them do it.
Plenty of Freemasons leave the Craft for a whole variety of reasons. Nothing bad happens to those who leave, and usually the Craft is better off for it. Those who stay want to be there and find the experience valuable.
Nothing sinister about that, either.
> As to “talking down” to other groups such as Catholics, Freemasons, or Mormons - I speak to them based upon what the Word of God says. I don’t speak in my own authority or the authority of the church.
The word of God is silent concerning Freemasonry. In the same way as it is silent about Conservative values. Concepts espoused by both are spelled out and alluded to by Scripture, but there is no Scriptural fiat that requires a Christian to blast away at Freemasons. Or Catholics, for that matter. Or Latter-Day Saints.
This raises the question “is doctrine important, then?” Insofar as it allows you to properly conduct yourself as Christ has commanded, then yes as a Christian doctrine is important.
But we are not going to be given a multiple-choice quiz about doctrine, surely? Christ is going to be looking at how we have conducted ourselves, what we have done with the talents invested in us, whether we have hid our light under a bushel or let it shine forth, whether we have visited the sick or imprisoned and comforted the sorrowful. If we learn nothing else from his teachings, we learn that — surely?
> You tend to attack the person personally. We are discussing a subject. We disagree. I’m not a big name-caller. But frequently I find that those who protest that I’m calling names tend to be the biggest offenders themselves.
Throwing around terms like “cult” is certainly a form of name-calling, isn’t it? It carries with it really ugly connotations like the Jonestown group and the Branch Davidians and others of their ilk, and really ugly images of mind control and mindless obedience. If mindless obedience were a Freemasonic trait then there would be no United States of America because many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and many concepts in your Constitution are Freemasonic concepts. Believe it or not! So “cult” is definitely an unfair label, one that is bound to cause offense.
Accusing people of telling lies is never a pleasant thing to do, particularly when they are not. It is difficult not to take that as a personal attack: indeed it is another form of name-calling, isn’t it? And a particularly nasty one as it carries with it the bearing of false witness.
And speaking on a subject about which you are ignorant is ignorance. There is no other word that fits. And professing to know something with authority when you are in no real position to do so is arrogance. And there is no other word for that, either. And if you are not amongst the initiated then you are amongst the profane (those who are not initiated). ‘Tis an old-fashioned form of the word, but then Freemasonry IS OLD FASHIONED by definition: we have been around a very, very long time.
Some would argue we have been around alot longer than Christianity. Me, I am not certain of that: we have certainly been around alot longer than any Protestant sect, and possibly as long as the Catholics. Certainly longer than any political party anywhere, and much longer than any modern political dynasty anywhere.
I regret if any of these terms offended you.
Yes, I know. That is what I said in my post.
They took the fraternity initiation and twisted it into a gnostic religious ritual.
The “highest level” is Mater Mason.
(I am also a Sir Knight Templar and former worshipful master. You are mistaken.)
I guess she thinks the Boy Scout Oath is anti-Christian, too.
Don’t forget the Fellowship of Odd Fellows........
“Not Catholicism nor other mainstream Protestant.”
Except for Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Quakers, many of the Orthodox, and most Bible-Churches.
Indeed, many an Archbiship of Caternbury was a Sir Knight Templar — back when the Anglicans were hard-asses.
The only reason the Roman Catholic Church has an issue anymore is a historical accident largely related to the Protestant break up — the Knights of Columbus take the same oath as the Knghts Templar -— except the Templars swear to protect all Christiandom, while the KOC concentrate their efforts on the RCC.
“So what was the Mason’s beef with Mormons? I guess I don’t get it.”
The founders of mormonism were members of the masonic fraternity. The handshakes, initiation ceremony, etc, of masonic fraternity are (supposedly) secret, and one takes an oath about that.
The founding mormons did two things bad:
(1) twisted the fraternal initiation into a gnostic religion (thus soiling its name — the continutuing ignorance being shown on this thread by people who like to spread lies) and
(2) broke their oaths and revealed the “secret” handshakes to non-masons.
Until recently, the mormon temple ritual (available on the internet) was an amalgamation of the first three Blue Lodge initiations and the 4th degree -— which is the first degree of the York Rite with an added veneer of pseuedo-Christianity/gnostic seriousness.
The liberals in England (who were instrumental in that report) don’t like masons because it is a good-ole-boys network in England, and how one gets ahead.
Look at the things that were “incompatible” with Christianity in the report -— things like “supporting private vs. public charity” “support of capitalism” etc.
There were no theological disputes.
Yeah, the article kinda skimps on an important aspect — what the beef was in the first place.
“religious tension within the organization escalated to the point that, in 1925, “the Utah Grand Lodge Code precluded any Mormon ... totally from any relationship whatsoever” with Masonry in Utah,”
The closest we get is that “religious tensions” within the Utah Grand Lodge had something to do with it. I reckon it could have been because Mormon religious ceremony is similar in form to Masonic ceremony, or because non-Mormons and Mormons were at such odds outside the lodge they couldn’t drop the beefing inside the Lodge. It is wierd that the Masons were the ones to ban the Mormons, one would think it would be the other way around considering the tolerance Masons usually express for differing religions. Could it be that the Mormons were treating Mason ceremony as a religious ceremony and thus were breaking the rule against talking about religion?
Freegards
> Was Ruth acting against Scripture - since Jesus hadn’t said it yet, no - nor, were Solomon & David. Swearing oaths was common in the Old Testament. They aren’t in the New Testament. There is a reason for that.
Curious to know what that reason might be.
> As to my not reading the book, I have been a Christian for 31 years.
Snap! I was baptized at 16.
> Concerning not holding a gun to the head, I never said that Masons did. Non-initiates, upon invitation or recommendation, may choose to join or not join. It is the “how” one joins that is an issue.
It’s easy: ask a Mason, be interviewed, and if you choose to join, be Initiated and be told the Secrets. Then pay your annual subscription and dining fees. And occasionally — if you want to — contribute to the Fund of Benevolence. Nothing could be simpler or more transparent.
What you seek — to be told the Secrets before you promise to keep them — you can’t have. Nobody in their right mind would tell you a secret without first obtaining your undertaking to keep it confidential.
> As to non-disclosure statements - One typically has an idea of what they are getting into when such a thing is signed. If you work for a financial institution, you will not share financial secrets. If you work for a military institution you will not share military secrets.
Same with Freemasonry. If you join the Freemasons, you will not share Freemasonic secrets. Just like that — the analogy is perfect.
> You know the general gist of what it is about and the reasons why they are secret.
Similarly with Freemasonry. They are Secret because they are not to be divulged to non-Freemasons. You are told in advance that there is nothing in the Secrets that would violate your personal ethics, your religion, the law, or any other serious undertaking (e.g. your marriage vows, business contracts) or your loyalties and obligations to your Country. Sounds reasonable to me: that covers off just about everything that you would have any reasonable business to be concerned about. It is about as close to Full Disclosure as you can get, without being told the Secrets themselves. What more would you need to know?
> I would consider that letting your yes be yes or no be no. The Lord may say I’m wrong there, but I doubt it. It isn’t an “I swear upon penalty of having my throat slit or my heart ripped from my chest”
Another good reason not to meddle in things you have no legitimate business in delving into. Believe it or not, Freemasons do not swear to that penalty, what you may have read or heard notwithstanding.
> that I will keep the secrets of this organization that I heretofore know nothing about. When a Freemason swears to this organization, he is swearing allegiance to a group that he knows NOTHING about.
Similarly if you join the CIA. Or Ernst & Young. Or the FBI.
> In that, he is putting blind faith and trust in a human organization.
Ibid. You do the same thing when you hand your paycheck over to your bank for deposit, don’t you? Or take out an insurance policy, don’t you? Or trust the Police to enforce the laws rather than taking the law into your own hands, don’t you?
How is this different to Freemasonry?
> There is a difference between that and non-disclosure statements or even the pledge of allegiance.
None at all. None.
As is the Boy Scouts then
Thanks for the info. Very interesting.
Freegards
There is a lot of stupidly, misinformed people, in this world. I would like to take a lot of tax credit for those good works that I did anonymously.
“As a 33 Degree, I thought you may want to respond to the accusation that it is not known to the blue lodges because our level isn’t high enough.”
The highest degreee in masonry is the 3rd degree, that of master mason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.