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It's been nearly a quarter of a century since Freemasons in Utah rescinded a 60-year ban that prohibited Latter-day Saints from joining their fraternity.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That provision of the code remained in force until 1984, when it was rescinded.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."
> Ask Jesus. He’s the one who made the proclamation.
I’d rather ask you.
> Transparency and Secrets are contradictory terms.
How so? Like all organizations, Freemasons have things that are confidential and not to be disclosed to non-members. Believe it or not, you do not have a Constitutional “Right to Know”. If busybodies wrote your Constitution, you would have that right. But they didn’t, so you don’t.
If you think it thru carefully, you would probably agree that is a good thing.
> So far, other than saying “well that is their opinion” you have done nothing to refute what has been said
I don’t have to refute it, beyond noting that it is his opinion to have and to hold and to spruik forth as much as he likes. I don’t share his opinion, I don’t have to share it, and I don’t have to argue it — it is there on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and I choose to leave it. I am free to argue the toss with Pike if I felt his Opinion important enough to refute, but frankly why waste the time?
> A financial institution will not make you swear upon getting your throat slit if you break the promise.
Neither does Freemasonry. Once again demonstrating the futility of trying to delve into things that are really of no legitimate concern to you. As I said, the analogy is perfect.
> Jah Bul On is not compatible with Christianity.
Again demonstrating the futility of delving into matters that do not concern you. “Jah Bul On” plays no part of the three degrees of regular Freemasonry. And you would be thoroughly disappointed if you knew what it did pertain to, and why.
As Alexander Pope (a famous Catholic Freemason) once famously wrote:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
And that, really, is very sound advice, both for life in general and for Freemasonry in specific.
> Any “penalty” short of disfellowshipping to a mere fraternal organization is an exercise in control that nobody should be willing to take. A fraternal group should have the right to say who is included in their organization and who isn’t. They shouldn’t have penalties beyond that.
Who says we do? And what do you think happens to Freemasons who break their promises and tell our Secrets?
> Not the same situation.
> Not the same situation again.
Identical situations. If you disagree, then in what ways are they different? They are the same: the analogy fits perfectly!
> Freemasonry is not a legal entity subject to governmental laws if you break a secret.
Neither is a bank, neither is any organization for which you must sign a Confidentiality Agreement.
> You may have civil damages, but unlike a bank, or an insurance company, it stands alone and is a different breed of cat if you will.
In what way? Seriously, you Conspiracy Theorists are talking out of your hat!
There were no theological disputes.
Actually the report includes use of the name of God and Mason Rituals among its disputes calling freemasonry "blasphemous and heretical".
The only reason the Roman Catholic Church has an issue anymore is a historical accident..
History is certainly involved, but there are also a great many theological objections. Both are looked at in the study I linked to earlier.
Indifferentism is a theological term of course. Many Catholics are indifferent to their Church's teaching; however not something to boast about. In this case, to engage in an activity which would mean they cannot receive the Holy Eucharist should be a grave matter to any sincere Catholic.
So grave that I wonder if the Catholics you speak of are aware of it and do not receive or are unaware that if they do, they are receiving unworthily.
I am not going to name them [Freemason Priests) because, like all people, they are entitled to their privacy. If they wanted to make their Freemasonry public, they would.
If it's no problem, as you seem to believe, what would be the problem?
I would disagree: Priests are not entitled to privacy to conceal violation of their oaths of obedience and violations of canon law.
If these priests exist, they must rely on the secrecy of other masons and cannot plead ignorance of their offense to the Church.
Except for Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Quakers, many of the Orthodox, and most Bible-Churches.
I've posted Catholic views on Freemasonry, this includes Eastern Orthodox who have their own proscriptions. I also posted the Anglican study and conclusions. There is also a Lutheran one which I'll find if you wish.
As to Baptist, which I think would be considered a "Bible-Church", I'll note that in 1993, the Southern Baptist Convention overwhelmingly approved a report on Freemasonry. I'll post a link to a article on this report below. It says in part:
This action recognized the many charitable endeavors of Freemasonry. It also acknowledged that "many outstanding Christians and Southern Baptists now are, and in the past have been Masons." For the first time in the history of the SBC, however, the Convention concluded, "many tenets and teachings of Freemasonry are not compatible with Christianity or Southern Baptist doctrine." The report accepted by the Convention identified eight tenets and teachings of Freemasonry that it concluded were not compatible with Christianity."The tenets teachings and objections are then described. The fill article is here: Freemasonry
our rituals are worked, at Refectory.
Dark to Light, Worshipful Master, Temple, Altar.. If Masonry is misunderstood to be a religion, you surely can see how.
“Worshipful” (Capitalized)
LOL.
Defintion: “(initial capital letter) British. a formal title of honor used in announcing or mentioning certain highly regarded or respected persons or groups (usually prec. by “the”).”
> It is enough for me that He said it and as Sovereign God I know He does nothing without a purpose. It isn’t for me to question His purpose, just obey it.
That’s a cop-out: Proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.”
So let’s search out this particular matter, then: I am going to suggest that Christ did not issue a “commandment” here, but rather a divine ideal, when it came to swearing oaths.
Ideally, the Servant of Christ’s behaviors and deportment should be so circumspect, his conduct so honest and honorable, and his ways so upright and reliable that there should be no need for elaborate oaths in order for his word to be acceptable by all. Thus, when he says “yes” it means “yes”, and when he says “no”, it means “no”. No further assurances are needed.
If that is so, then it entirely explains that particular passage, and also does not contravene the common practise of taking oaths, as did Ruth, David, Solomon and many others.
And as must most people in this world even today, as they have yet to perform to the Divine Ideal. It is the job of the Christian to aspire to that ideal and become known as a man of his word.
In which case, this is no different to Freemasonry. After we have sworn our Oaths in each of the Degrees, we no longer require oaths from each other when giving our assurances: the word of a Freemason is generally sufficient.
> A dictionary might be helpful here. If you are hiding things, you aren’t transparent.
Transparency does not necessitate full disclosure. And anyway, you do not have the right to Transparency, nor the right to know. If you did, it would be in your Constitution. It isn’t, so you don’t. Simple as that.
That said, I think that any fair reading of our discourse would reveal that I have bent over backwards to be forthright with you, and to give you sensible answers and responses. In so doing I have gone the extra mile: most people would not have bothered.
> For the purposes of the discussion, it would be helpful if you would try to refute it because thus far you’ve just said “you’re wrong, because I said so, and since you’re not a Mason then you shouldn’t even be looking into this stuff and you’re an idiot for using our leaders to point stuff out to us.”
Except, of course, that Pike is not one of our “leaders” and is, as I keep saying, just another Freemason with just another set of opinions — to which he is entitled. I have no need nor no intention of refuting what he has written. I’m not going to argue his case, for or against: I have no horse in his race, no stake in his game. To me his view is interesting but not relevant. It is thus pointless for me to try to refute what he has written. Don’t you get it yet?
> Not much of an argument if you ask me (which I know you didn’t). Beyond this, I could quote authorities but since you don’t recognize them I’m wasting my time. Guess we will leave it there.
That’s right — not much of an argument. I have no intention of arguing from Pike. He is not an “authority” for me to argue from. It would make as much sense for me to do so as it would for you to argue your case from Joseph Smith. Do you get it yet?
Hope so, because if not then you have wasted alot of my time.
*DieHard*
> Sir Isaac Newton, for example didn’t place an oath of office on the teachers at Trinity college.
Sir Isaac Newton the Freemason, you mean.
> Oh Poppycock! You are asking us to believe that a Supreme Commander of your organization is not a leader?
Whatever...
> Yes, I get it. Pike is a problem for Masons so you want to sweep him under the rug.
Whatever...
You Conspiracy Theorists are tiresome, and will not be persuaded that your pet conspiracy theory holds no water. Fine — this has been a colossal waste of everyone’s time, and your Conspiracy Theory has once again been validated in your own mind.
Good.
You are clearly more comfortable looking for Freemasons skulking around causing mischief than accepting a simple, uncomplicated set of facts, even when patiently laid out for you will full explanations.
Fine.
You would prefer to see evil machinations happening behind every closed door, and feel vindicated in making shrill accusations of “cult! cult!” merely because the doors to a private Secret Society is closed to non-members like yourself, and have been for many centuries and will be for many more centuries to come.
That’s alright.
You prefer to assert that Christians have no business in Freemasonry, despite many good Christians — and indeed men of goodwill of most world religions — find fraternity and value within our organization, one that has served both Crown and the United States of America with distinction and honor, and one that has preserved the good social mores, values and structure throughout the ages, preferring to place sinister complexions on things that you do not understand, and seeking evidence in the most improbable places for wrongdoing where none exists.
OK, that is your prerogative. That is, after all, what Conspiracy Theorists are good at.
We are entitled to our privacy and to restrict admission and information to Members-Only, much like any club. Non-club members like you are free to whinge and complain about that as much as they like: you are probably better off not being members as this would spoil your fun.
I suppose next you’ll be investigating the Illuminati and the Rosicrucians. And what about the Knights Templar? Or, for that matter, Opus Dei? Here’s a hint: all of us Secret Society Conspirators meet on the third full moon of every year at Stonehenge to plot the next twelve month’s worth of mischief, and to organize the New World Order. You will be able to tell us apart from the Druids and Wiccans and other folk wearing hooded robes because we’ll be the ones swearing blood-curdling oaths.
Be careful not to get caught watching our Rituals, tho’! Or you might get bar-coded on your forehead or on your hand, and micro-chip implanted and your DNA cataloged. You have been warned...!
Attributing motives and otherwise reading minds of another Freeper is "making it personal."
Thanks, I have no intention of continued participation in this discussion.
I was done to, Moderator.
To clarify: Are you saying that no one speaks for Freemasonry on this issue?
> I would disagree: Priests are not entitled to privacy to conceal violation of their oaths of obedience and violations of canon law.
So Canon Law trumps a Freemasonic Oath, in your view? Why so? Which trumps which: Canon Law or State Law? Canon Law or Federal Law? Canon Law or the Rules and Regulations of the Tennis Club?
I’m not trying to trivialize Canon Law — I am trying to point out that while it may be of some considerable moment to you, it is of no relevance to me: this despite the fact that I respect the Catholic Church as a worthy and good religious organization.
> If it’s no problem, as you seem to believe, what would be the problem?
Every Freemason is entitled to either disclose his membership openly (as I have) or have it remain in confidence — that is an everyday common privacy expectation, and a matter of common decency. It is not up to me to disclose on behalf of someone else, merely to satisfy your curiosity. That’s what busybodies do, and I am not a busybody. You have no legitimate business knowing: it is none of your concern.
> If these priests exist, they must rely on the secrecy of other masons and cannot plead ignorance of their offense to the Church.
As what they do is not illegal, it is none of anybody’s concern one way or the other. If it were illegal they could not rely upon confidentiality within Lodge.
For that matter, it is not even immoral, so I find it impossible to work up a sweat worrying about it.
Interesting... thanks for the historical context, Brother. I have learned something today. And, naturally, it makes perfect sense that the Craft in Utah would respond as they did, within the context you have described.
Given that, then, I wonder what has changed to permit this recent chain-of-events?
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.