Ever since the introduction of the Mormons temple endowment ceremony in 1842, similarities between the sacred LDS ritual and the Masonic rituals for the Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft and Master Mason have been commented upon.
One element in particular was very similar – the penalties assigned for violating oaths of secrecy. While the penalties were removed from the LDS temple ceremony in 1990, they were a prominent part of the ritual for over a century and many men and women today remember their use.
But just how similar were these components of Mormon and Masonic ritual?
BBC to the Rescue
The secret nature of each have historically made it difficult to compare. Several years ago the BBC created a multi-part documentary on Freemasonry. As part of that documentary, and with the assistance of Master Masons, they recreated scenes from the masonic ceremonies depicting the penalties. This gives us a reliable source to examine those elements.
Non-essential
Since the penalties have been eliminated completely from the Mormon Temple ceremony they cannot be said to have been essential to the purpose and efficacy of the ceremony. As non-essential components, they do not have the sacred character of the names, signs and tokens that each faithful temple goer promises to never reveal. Because of this, it would not be a violation of the temple oath to review those penalties.
1984
In 1984 a sub rosa audio recording of the LDS temple endowment was made. By extracting only those non-essential parts of the recording which refer to the penalty and were subsequently removed or significantly altered we are able to compare the similarities between LDS and Masonic ritual on the question of the penalties without violating Mormon covenants.
To be clear, a Mormon going through the endowment ceremony today promises to never reveal certain specific elements of the ceremony. These are special names, signs (postures of the hands and body) and tokens (special handgrips). This post and the video below do not violate those promises. The church itself has started openly discussing and showing elements related to the temple ceremony. It recently published video of the garments as well as the Temple Robes on the Mormon Newsroom website and Youtube channel. Both the garment and temple robes are essential parts of the Temple ceremony, however no promise is made to never disclose them. Temple robes are also publicly displayed in LDS funerals, as the deceased is clothed in the robes for burial.
Comparison
It is now possible to compare the reenactments of the freemasonry ritual with the audio recordings of the now removed and non-secret portions of the 1984 LDS temple ceremony to see just how similar they are. The following video does just that:
As you can see, critics who claim that Joseph Smith appropriated elements from Freemasonry in the original endowment ceremony have credible reasons for their claims. These are not the only similarities.
Conclusion
While Mormons today who are unfamiliar with Masonic ritual may be surprised to see these similarities, there were a large number of men in Nauvoo at the time of the introduction of the endowment who were Freemasons at the time. These similar elements would be very familiar to them and Joseph is recorded as having acknowledged a connection between Masonry and the Endowment. (This will be the subject of a future post so stay tuned)
While critics accuse Joseph of simply plagiarizing Masonic elements and re-tooling them with his own theological foundation and goals, faithful Mormons aware of these connections are usually adamant that Joseph did not “steal” Masonic ritual, but rather used the ready vocabulary and symbolism to convey a very different message and purpose using familiar ritual elements. It is important to these Mormons to draw this distinction because to have the Endowment ceremony be derivative of and originate from an archaic fraternal society, rather than divine revelation, would be an unacceptable proposition.
I agree.
Resources
BBC Documentary Series on Freemasonry: youtube.com
Audio recording of 1984 Temple Ceremony: youtube.com
Video from inside endowment room: lds.org
Thanks for this superb post. I appreciate what you are doing on this blog both with this post and others such as Joseph’s polygamy. Thanks for taking the time to do such thorough research. We need correct information out here. I have been aware for a while of the masonic source for so much of what makes up the temple endowment. Unfortunately, most mormons are clueless. The interesting thing is the scriptures themselves reveal the evil roots of the mormon’s temple worship for those with eyes to see. I strongly recommend reading this blog post as an example:
http://www.weepingforzion.com/works-in-the-dark/
In thinking about your posts on Joseph’s polygamy, I think it would also be well worth your while to read these posts pertaining to Smith.
http://www.weepingforzion.com/in-smiths-foundry-forging-an-idol-of-himself/
There is great stuff on that weepingforzion site. I can’t recommend it enough and it seems so consistent, in many cases, with the things you are covering here. Keep up the excellent work.
“Since the penalties have been eliminated completely from the Mormon Temple ceremony they cannot be said to have been essential to the purpose and efficacy of the ceremony.”
Apparently, then, the evidence that penalties (and other previously sacred aspects of LDS ritual like the Five Points of Fellowship) were “non-essential” is that these elements have been removed. Aside from skirting on the edge of logical fallacy, this kind of reasoning is also exceedingly problematic both for LDS ritual and doctrine.
I agree that it is problematic. It means that their initial inclusion in the ritual was an uninspired blunder on the part of Joseph – an insertion of the philosophies of men, mingled with the divinely ordained and sacred elements of the endowment.
I think the best argument that might be made is that the penalties are still a part of the ceremony and have simply been buried under a level of symbolism and are encoded in the hand signs – still very visible and present for those who understand.
“As non-essential components, they do not have the sacred character of the names, signs and tokens that each faithful temple goer promises to never reveal. Because of this, it would not be a violation of the temple oath to review those penalties.”
That would depend, Jonathan. If you have promised not to disclose these parts of the Endowment, their removal from the modern ritual does not mean that the promise to not disclose is no longer binding. Of course, for those who have never made such a promise, disclosing these ritual elements will be seen by the faithful as in poor form at best, and making light of sacred things at worst.
For both Freemasons, whose ritual is understood to be an extended allegory, the secrets are symbolic, as is the promise not to disclose. The inability to keep even a symbolic secret reveals something about a man’s character — about his fidelity and integrity. Such individuals may not be subject to the symbolic penalties, but Masonically, he is rightfully held in disdain for his betrayal of a trust.
Joe,
Were the penalties associated with the Masonic obligations *always* symbolic? When the earliest groups that formed masonry protected trade secrets which guaranteed them livlihood – the implications of divulging secrets had far weightier implications.
Unions trying to protect their turf have threatened people with their lives. Are we to assume that the oaths and penalties of Masonry never, ever were anything other than symbolic?
I know that people who want to put an aura of dignity on the ancient fraternal brotherhood probably want to paint a idealized view of the group, just as much as Mormons want to say that Blood Atonement was never acted upon and that doctrine was just symbolic. The reality is that when it was first taught, blood atonement had an element of symbolism, but a very real and tangible threat accompanied it and there were several people who paid that price.
I am genuinely interested from a historic perspective if the penalties of freemasonry were meant to be only symbolic from the very beginning.
Thinker: “Were the penalties associated with the Masonic obligations *always* symbolic?”
To the best of my knowledge, yes. Likely, they were connected to the idea of “cutting a covenant” in ancient Judaism.
There are certainly historical connections, as well.
Did Judaism have different kinds of cutting? one for the throat, one for the heart and one for the belly? How deep was the connection? I am just wondering if the connection was meant to be there from the start or if that explanation has just been grafted in to try to dilute the threatening nature of the oath by associating with with some form of religious tradition.
As far as I know, in “cutting a covenant” an animal was sacrificed to signify that a covenant had been made – not as a penalty of a promise being broken. It just sounds like retrospective apologetics to my ear.
It is not secret that I am a skeptic of your position regarding the penalties. Since the actual wording of the oath is given an a literal form, you cannot go back and make it symbolic just to avoid the unpleasant implications of it being a literal thing.
Though I understand that it is helpful to do so.
Forgive me for challenging you on this point a bit more, but I an interested if a more satisfying answer can be offered and I know you are well equipped to address this point.
I also note that Blood Atonement was also always symbolic – but was brought into effect in a very real and lethal way. As such, simply acknowledging that something always had a symbolic dynamic to it does not exclude it from having a very threatening lethal element to it as well.
Jonathan: “It is important to these Mormons to draw this distinction because to have the Endowment ceremony be derivative of and originate from an archaic fraternal society, rather than divine revelation, would be an unacceptable proposition.”
This is either-or reasoning, Jonathan. I have elsewhere discussed several other real possibilities.
Joe,
I would be interested in your other explanations if you want to post a link or copy-paste what you wrote, I would be grateful. I don’t recall that particular point being the subject in the long thread in the Church Historian FB group, but I may have lost the trees in the forest…