First, let me point out that the entire manuscript record book for Nauvoo Lodge Under Dispensation is housed in the LDS Historical Department. I had no difficulty at all getting access to this record, thus I see little excuse for a CES instructor, such as Mr. Brown, to rely on the very tiny (pamphlet/booklet sized) excerpt of the first few meetings, typescripted and published by Melvin Hogan.

Second, your question underscores a major difficulty found in earlier attempts to explore this topic. With the exception of Melvin Hogan (who couldn’t write coherently enough to get commercially published–his papers at the U of U include scathing letters from publishers, talking about how they can’t make heads or tails of his writing), the subject has been treated by non-Mormon Masons, and non-Mason Mormons (and even Hogan was basically LDS in name only). Neither of these groups understand the esoterica and jargon of the other. As a result, they (especially the LDS authors, to be frank) have a tendency to miss important implications, even when they bother to look at original records.

For those familiar with Masonic structure and terminology, the full Nauvoo Lodge recordbook and Joseph Smith’s journals demonstrate that he was far more involved than many have supposed. For example, one entry indicates that Joseph “introduced a few men into the lodge.” The meaning of that phrase is not immediately apparent to non-Masons, so it appears to mean he played tour guide and/or made social introductions for these men. In reality, however, that phrase is very specific in Masonic terminology. It refers to the ritual participation of the Senior Deacon—one of the most complex and demanding roles involved in conferring Masonic degree work. Joseph didn’t hold the lodge office of Senior Deacon, but one doesn’t need to do so in order to take the Senior Deacon role in degree work. This is a far cry from “only attending three meetings” or even being an uninvolved wallflower.

Joseph’s actions with regard to the predominantly-Mormon lodges show up in a variety of contemporaneous records, and ultimately, they make it clear that he was deeply interested in the growth of Freemasonry among the Mormon people, having long-term intentions in that regard.

Nick, I don’t know if you’re still reading this–I always come late to these things. If you would be willing to shed a little more light on your point number 3, in your response to Sam, I would greatly appreciate it. I believe I had an obligation at another session that prevented me from hearing your Provo paper (and if not, hopefully you’ll buy that excuse).

Without having heard your paper, I am quick to believe that your research has shown JS’s attendence at a number of lodge meetings in Nauvoo. I also find the idea that JS did not have an awareness of Masonry (particularly given, as you point out, his own family’s involvement) at a much earlier time…ludicrous. Finally, I have no desire to minimize JS’s Masonic ties.

Having said that, beyond attendance, the manuscript sources seem to indicate little involvement on JS’s part. Would it even be fair to say “unusually” or “uncharacteristically” little participation by JS? When comparing the lodge minutes to the minutes of the FRS of Nauvoo, or the municipal court records, or the city council proceedings, or the Mayor’s court docket books, or the high council minutes, or the misc. twelve minutes, or records of JS’s interactions with the Temple committee, or Nauvoo House association–it just seems that when he is present at the meetings of other organizations he generally features prominently as a participant, and this does not seem to be the case for the lodge–Hyrum, for instance (and obviously by position), is far more central to the organiation.

The above assertion may simply betray my ignorance of Masonry. Perhaps the purpose of the minutes would preclude references to general discussion. Perhaps the organizational structure (if that is an appropriate phrase) would explain JS’s apparent silence. At any rate, I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on this.

I think there are some who like to think literally about things, and LDS teachings and Masonry can share that view, in that Masons were literal descendants of masons working on Solomon’s Temple, and for LDS that the restored gospel and temple rituals are word for word the teachings taught by prophets of old, including Solomon. However there is little evidence to support these literal points of view.

I think Mormons and Masons can both have a similar approach that many things are more symbolic in nature…not literal, and in that (for both of them), there is power and meaning in my life in these times.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2009/10/review-matthew-b-browns-exploring.html

Howdy-One of these times we’ll need to find a list of things we can agree on. I’m sure the list would be long. I’ll start with one possibility-John Wayne movies. I recently saw the last movie he made, Shootist. It was vintage Wayne. I’d give it 3/4 stars.

Jared it may be helpful for you to understand that this idea has about as much merit as advocating racial segregation. It was a bad idea. Besides, a writers orientation often comes through in their comments, if the ability to compartmentalize is what provides consistency to your worldview.

And I didn’t get a vibe for your take on Stevenson. It reads as a little nationalistic but unobjectionable once the nationalistic tone is filtered out to me. Are there widely regarded flaws in his analysis?

I think when you realize how many early church converts were Masons back in the 1800s, it seems likely to be influential in Mormonism as it was developed in to the church it is today.

Some people seem to be defensive that temples couldn’t be influenced by Mason rituals, but if it was consistent with God’s will, why not? Certainly one could argue Protestant or Methodist or Catholic or Jewish rituals and teachings were influential on today’s church (baptism, sacrament, 10 commandments), so why are truths from these religions restored to one true church ok, but truths pulled from Masonry to be restored in the true church not ok? God didn’t start from scratch with Joseph Smith, He started with what was there (bible and modern rituals), and built upon them to clarify and correct them.

Truth is truth, wherever it is found. It just sometimes needs to be reframed to fit the true teaching of God.

Keep in mind, Sam, that I was answering someone’s question about the “origins” of Freemasonry, with the broadest of strokes. I was not writing a nuanced history of the Fraternity with due analysis of all theories. That said, I don’t believe anyone has a definitive answer to that very complex question.

Your response to the question of whether Smith turned to Masonry for political protection falls flat for me.

Perhaps it would be helpful, Sam, to consider that I wasn’t responding to such a question. As you suggest, human motivations are complex–they are rarely, if ever, attributable to a single factor. In all likelihood, Smith became a Freemason for a variety of reasons, some more prominent in his mind than others. Did he anticipate that Mormon involvement in the Fraternity might hedge against persecution? Probably. Did he hope that using the Grand Hailing Sign of Distress of a Master Mason would recruit aid from his fellows at Carthage? Undoubtably, since it did so when he was arrested at Dixon, Illinois. It’s probably also true that he was motivated in part by his extended family’s heavy participation in the Fraternity. It’s well documented that he anticipated a spiritual benefit upon himself and his followers.

But the syllogism you used: Masons pledge not to seek political gain, apologists says Smith sought political gain, therefore apologists believe (or should believe) Smith lied, sounds like the type of scholarship often employed in what many disparagingly term apologetics.

Indeed, if I had used such a syllogism, I should be intellectually flayed alive. You are mistaken, however, in assuming that I’ve done so (and honestly, Sam, you’re the only person who has responded in such a way to a comment that I’ve been making for various audiences over the past 4-5 years).

Let me clarify the matter for you:

(1) As you are surely aware, many vocal critics of Joseph Smith have pointed to parallels between Masonic ritual and the Mormon Endowment as evidence that he was a fraud, suggesting that these parallels prove blatant plaigarism.

(2) This critical argument is flawed in a variety of ways, not the least of which is that Moses clearly made use of Egyptian and other traditions in his rituals, implements, and sacred architecture, yet these are still regarded by believers as revealed from deity. Further, the Bible even contains numerous incidents of fraudulent behavior on the part of men who were still considered holy and/or prophets.

(3) Rather than address this critical argument in a rational way, the majority of 20th and 21st century LDS apologists have attempted to minimize Joseph Smith’s involvement and knowledge regarding Freemasonry, reasoning that if Joseph Smith knew next to nothing about Freemasonry, he couldn’t have plaigarized it in designing the Endowment. For example, since at least the time of B.H. Roberts, LDS apologists have attempted to claim that Joseph Smith only attended three Masonic meetings in his lifetime–the meetings in which he received his own three degrees. As I recall, you were present during my Provo MHA presentation, when even Ken Godfrey admitted that I had entirely disproven this traditional claim.

(4) In many written works, LDS authors have posed the question of why Joseph Smith became a Freemason–Ken Godfrey being just one prime example. Because they wish to establish that Smith did not become a Freemason in order to “rip off” Masonic ritual, these authors have presented various alleged reasons for Joseph’s participation. These alleged reasons have typically fallen into the categories of protection against persecution, social integration, and political advantage.

(5) We can be assured that LDS apologists have made the arguments in #4 above, in order to uphold the character of Joseph Smith against critics’ claims that he was a dishonest man who should not be considered a prophet. In making this supposed “defense,” however, LDS apologists have demonstrated an important lack of understanding regarding the Fraternity. They don’t research enough to know that a candidate for Masonic degrees makes an oath that his petition is not motivated by “mercenary purposes.” Since they don’t understand this simple fact, they ignorantly ascribe various “mercenary purposes” as Joseph Smith’s primary motivation for becoming a Freemason.

(6) By ascribing primarily mercenary motivations to Joseph Smith’s participation in Freemasonry, these LDS apologists unintentionally create exactly the problem that they were trying to solve. While the critics have called Joseph a liar for supposedly plaigarizing ritual and claiming it was revealed from deity, the LDS apologists have effectively called Joseph a liar for having primary motivations that he swore he did not have.

In other words, Sam, this traditional defense is no defense at all, and as such, I’ve been raising the point repeatedly in an effort to stamp it out. It’s a misguided attempt to address an already weak criticism, and frankly, authors like Brown could do much better.

My one word of caution for everybody working on this–you have to be very cautious about synchronizing Mormonism and Masonry. Masonry in 1820 wasn’t Masonry in 1842 wasn’t Masonry in 1717 wasn’t Masonry in 2000, wasn’t the fraternal, esoteric quest of various ancient and medieval traditions. With regard to Masonry particularly, Masonry in Illinois wasn’t Masonry in London may not even have been Masonry in New York. While there’s less geographical variation in Mormonism (note I said “less,” not “no”), Mormonism in Kirtland differs in some important ways from Mormonism in Nauvoo and in other important ways from Mormonism in Utah.

The problem is that there are still living, breathing, arguing representatives of both Mormonism and Masonry, and most of us will be inclined to believe that in at least some crucial ways what we understand behind Mormonism and/or Masonry as practitioners is true of belief and practice at a different historic period. I personally think that the best shot for someone writing a compelling treatment is a sympathetic academic with friends in both traditions but without a horse in the devotional race. Get the history written well and sorted out, and then have active adherents write the devotional work that is needed to digest relevant findings. The problem, as Bullock and Stevenson have suggested, is that most outsiders don’t care enough to muddle through the stacks of often stereotyped, redundant, and esoteric records that both traditions have accrued over the centuries.

Ben’s comment is particularly important in such a flexible set of traditions as those designated Masonic. The deterministic model of influence falls apart when there is so much fluidity in traditions.

Nick, your comments read like you think Stevenson is more a Scottish freedom fighter than a credible historian of early Masonry. Do you not buy his argument that the English borrowed heavily from early 17th-century Scottish innovations?

Nick, there is an important problem in the logic you use at a couple of points in this review that I would point out in the interest of improving your already excellent work. Your response to the question of whether Smith turned to Masonry for political protection falls flat for me. I agree that such a view is an inadequate account of Smith’s Mormon Masonry, but your reasoning isn’t strong. That Masons vow they are not seeking political gain would not make Smith (or anyone else) a liar for joining Masonry in the hopes of a better life related to the induction into the community. In fact, I suspect that induction for larger political gain was the rule rather than the exception. The pledge to not seek political gain seems more a reminder and a hedge against the implications of common human behavior than some inviolate pledge that it is only enlightenment or similar Kantian impulse that drives affiliation. That Smith called out to fellow Masons as he was shot to death suggests that he hoped at least then that his involvement in Masonry could protect him. Now of course, Smith did not turn to Masonry for frankly mercenary aims, nor was the desire for the fraternity’s protection his only reason for joining. But the syllogism you used: Masons pledge not to seek political gain, apologists says Smith sought political gain, therefore apologists believe (or should believe) Smith lied, sounds like the type of scholarship often employed in what many disparagingly term apologetics. The mental life of people is much more complex than the kind of stark contrasts implied by the syllogism.

In fact, I think Smith was drawn to Masonry in part because he thought it would be good for the Mormons in terms of protection from vigilantes and procurement of political power. In that respect, he wasn’t that different from Ben Franklin or myriad others. That motivation was compatible though, with a pledge to avoid political partisanship (Smith saw his allegiance to his people as wholly separate from politics, and he felt that their protection was both crucial and compatible with fraternal oath-taking) and with a great fascination for the rich bodies of tradition that antebellum American Masonry made available, many of which Smith knew from sources other than Masonry, but which he found wonderfully integrated into a ritual system within the fraternal order.

I agree the Bennett association is just Robinson casting aspersions, though, again, there may have been an important role for Bennett–remember that for many in Nauvoo Bennett’s mastery of the pomp and circumstance of frontier life looking toward the great cities of the East was intoxicating.

Suddenly Masonry seems much more interesting than I thought it was.

Agreed, I didn’t expect my comment about a Bio to generate so much discussion.

#51 Mike S.–Please be kind. I think the idea has merit. Please don’t demean me personally. If you want to address the merit or lack of merit in the idea, please do so. Let the idea live or die without introducing mean-spiritedness.

Your comment brings up a good point. A Bio should be written by the author themselves. By the way, you’re Auto-Bio is too harsh. Be kind to yourself.

I find your suggestion very absurd, but your attempt to categorize and pre-compartmentalize everyone certainly explains a great deal about where your posts come from and how your mind works.

I suggest taking any given post/comment and evaluating it on its own merits. It doesn’t really matter whether the writer is any of those things you suggest above (ie. New Order Mormon, True Blue Mormon, Cafeteria Mormon, Agnostic, Atheist, Investigating Mormonism, Former Mormon, and etc.) In fact, posting completely anon would also be a great way for ideas to live and die on their own merits. The main reason I like “tags”, whether or not they are real names, is that some people tend to always have insightful comments, while others I merely gloss over as they same basically the same thing to any topic…

I agree with much of what you say about Nick’s post.

I’m suggesting it would be a convenience to have an idea of a writers stance before reading them, especially for the first time.

The kind of Bio I’m thinking about could be written from a simple criteria. For example:

Regarding the Book of Mormon: do you accept it as scripture? 1)Yes, 2)No 3)I don’t know

The American people acquire the news from many sources. Each one of these sources can be identified by an editorial stance. Is there an application for this in the Bloggernacle? I, for one, think so.

Nick and I may disagree in our views of the church, but he’s done a spot on job discussing the shoddy historical work in this text. When apologists try to make claims to the world, and not bear their testimonies, they must play by the rules: do good research, and be as unbiased as possible (not that any history text really is unbiased). It seems clear that this text hasn’t done that. As a ‘true believer’ I fully agree with what Nick wrote, and would probably have been harsher about his claims too.