.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By Michael S. Thomas
*Introduction*
For years, in fact for as long as I can remember I've heard that
the LDS (Mormon) Church "discouraged" its members from
joining the Masonic Fraternity. This was often a source of
wonderment for me since it was well documented that Joseph
Smith Jr., the founder and first leader of the LDS Church, had
been made a Master Mason while in Nauvoo, Illinois.
Additionally, many of the prominent men of the early LDS
Church were avid Mason's, men such as Brigham Young -
Joseph Smith's successor, Hyrum Smith - Joseph's brother,
Wilford Woodruff, and George Albert Smith, successive leaders
of the Church, to name a few.
Equally puzzling to me, was the masonic prohibition some of
the Fraternities Grand Lodges, had against LDS church
members joining the fraternity.
As to the first point, I've satisfied myself that there has never
been a general statement by the Church specifically discouraging
its members from joining the Masonic Fraternity. There may be
some local church leaders who discourage it for whatever
reasons, but those local leaders speak only to their own
congregations, and not to the general membership of the church.
Even then it is usually to individual circumstances and not in
broad generalities.
On the second point, concerning the Masonic prohibition, it is
indeed a fact that the Fraternity excluded members of the
"Mormon" Church, from joining. This prohibition, although
unmasonic because it was based upon a religious preference,
may have had some justification based upon history and the
Masonic experience. This situation has since been corrected, at
least in the Utah Lodges.
Unfortunately, there's still much misunderstanding from
members of both organizations towards the other. Why do
these misunderstanding persist? The answer may be found by
examining the persecutions which were experienced by both
organizations around the 1830's and 1840's. I've concluded
that individual members, not incompatible dogma instigated and
perpetuated the schism that has existed.
I hope to explain from the points of view as both a Mason and a
Mormon, some of the events which created the schism between
these two organizations. This is not meant to be an examination
of belief and practices of the Church or Fraternity, although
certain aspects may need to be touched upon as background.
In my research to present a factual history, I've found that most
of the literature dealing with this subject is out-dated. Most of
the publications dealing with the subject written by Masons,
point out the various reasons why that particular author thinks
the Mormons are incompatible with the fraternity, and attempt
to show why the fraternity was justified in denying membership
to LDS members. Others are extremely critical of the Utah
Lodges for not allowing LDS members the privileges of
membership in the Fraternity based upon their religious beliefs.
The resources which I've found for either position, fail to reflect
the current practice of the Fraternity of admitting all honorable
men regardless of their creed, so long as they have an unfeigned
belief in Deity. Similarly, there are many misunderstandings as
to the purposes of the Masonic Fraternity among LDS
members, who attach an erroneous "Secret Society" definition
to it.
I believe it is uninformed individuals, not organizational
teachings, that perpetuate these erroneous misunderstandings
and the blind acceptance of false information. For example
according to The Salt Lake Tribune:
"...There is no specific Mormon prohibition of Masonry, but
church spokesman Don LeFever said the church discourages it
members from joining it or similar groups. 'The church strongly
advises its members not to affiliate with organizations that are
secret, Oath- bound, or would cause them to lose interest in
church activities.'"(1)
Taken literally, this would seem to indicate that holding any
public office which requires an oath would be discouraged. Yet
the real facts are that members are encouraged to be politically
and civically active. Or that joining the Boy Scouts, which has
the Scout Oath would also be discouraged, yet the LDS Church
is an ardent supporter of that organization.
The oaths administered in the Masonic Ceremonies bind one to
be honorable, honest, to obey civil law, and to keep
confidences. Encouragement is also given to search out and live
the teachings of Holy Scripture, specifically the Holy Biblein the
United States. All of this is compatible with LDS teachings and
beliefs.
In fact, one of the statements of belief taught by Joseph Smith
to the church was:
"...If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or
praiseworthy, we seek after these things."(2)
From my experience and knowledge of the Freemasons, this is
certainly a praiseworthy organization.
Since the Fraternity openly publishes its membership list, states
its purposes, gives public tours of its buildings, openly
contributes civically to the community, and donates books
containing much of this information to public libraries, It can't
truthfully be called a secret society. When a Mason promises to
keep secrets, what he is promising, is to keep all confidences
"sacred and inviolable". A laudable trait in any moral
organization or society!
A statement made by a member of the First Presidency of the
Church in 1934, also clearly shows that there is not a Mormon
prohibition against Masonry:
"The Mormon Church has no quarrel with Freemasonry or any
other organization which is formed for a righteous purpose ... A
Mason who may become a member to the Mormon Church is in
no way restrained from affiliation with his lodge..."(3)
This statement has never been refuted, or retracted.
Most of the LDS authors who write on this subject, seem to
focus on why its members shouldn't be denied Masonic
membership, based upon their adherence to the tenets of the
LDS Church. However, most of these works were written prior
to 1984, during a time when there was a Masonic prohibition
against Mormon membership in the Utah lodges. Nowhere did I
find an LDS author suggesting that and LDS member shouldn't
join.
Early Utah Freemason sentiment was expressed by Grand
Master J.M. Orr in 1878:
"We say to the priest of the Latter-day Church, you cannot enter
our lodge rooms...Stand aside, we want none of you. Such a
wound as you gave Masonry in Nauvoo is not easily healed, and
no Latter-day Saint is, or can become a member in our
jurisdiction."(4)
This statement is important and revealing because I think it will
give us a basis for understanding the feelings that existed on
both sides of the issue. I believe that this "wound" refers to a
series of events which will be treated in more detail later, but
generally refers to young LDS Lodges violating some of the
fraternities ancient landmarks and a general belief and
accusations by Mormon's at the time, that it was the Masonic
Fraternity who was responsible for the murder of Joseph Smith,
or at least for the failure of the killers to be brought to justice.
*Interpretive Approach Used in This Paper*
In researching this subject, it has been my experience that the
interpretation of events and the cause and effect relationship,
differs depending upon the experiences and background of the
person examining those events. I might use the analogy of
three blind men describing an elephant through their sense of
touch for the first time. The one on the side describes it as a
wall, the one at the trunk, as a snake, and the one at the tail, as a
rope. Of course each was right in relating his own experience,
yet each was wrong because they were limited in their total
experience.
In interpreting several cause and effect incidents, I have always
tried to take the most charitable of possible interpretations
towards the organization being considered. Kind of "The benefit
of the doubt" type approach.
*Early Mormon History*
To understand some of the feelings which exist today, it will be
necessary to present some history of the period in which the
conflicts began. Although persecution of the church started in
earnest in Missouri, the schism between the Masons and the
Mormons seems to have had its beginnings in Illinois.
The early LDS Church suffered numerous persecutions and
hatred in Missouri, which became increasingly bitter as the
church grew. The Church was anti-slavery in a slave state, and
as it grew, so did its political clout. While it's true that the
hierarchy didn't dictate to the members how they should vote on
any particular issue, those that were joining the church found
themselves to be like minded people, and in-spite of the absence
of direct guidance from church leaders on political matters, the
indirect influence was certainly there, and having a common
belief system they tended to vote as a group. Also the
encouragement of foreign converts to emigrate and join with the
church in Missouri, resulted in a steady growth of its political
power base.
This, combined with some of the unique doctrines of the church
led to an intense public resentment. This resentment and the
resulting persecution grew more severe as time went on,
eventually culminating in the Governor of Missouri, Lilburn W.
Boggs declaring in 1838 that all Mormons were to either be
driven from the State or exterminated. He apparently felt that
the only way to end the feuds and near civil war conditions
between the Mormons and Non-Mormons, would be to
eliminate one of the sides in the dispute, even if it was by
genocide.
It was under these conditions that the church members fled from
Missouri to Quincy, Illinois where they were welcomed with
opened arms and immediately taken in with a great deal of
hospitality. Ironically, this warm reception was largely for the
same reasons which had caused them to be driven from
Missouri, that is their political influence.
Many leading candidates for public office felt that if the
Mormons could be swayed to their agendas, they would have a
great advantage over their opponents. But whatever the reason,
it was a welcome change from what had been left behind in
Missouri.
In May 1839, the Church began purchasing land in Commerce,
Illinois a farm or two at a time at first, until very large tracts of
land were owned. This soon became the central gathering place
for the Church and eventually the name was changed to
Nauvoo. A liberal Charter was obtained from the State
Legislature, granting it official recognition as a city. The
Charter also granted broad authority to pass laws, establish
district courts, police departments, city councils, a standing
militia (giving official and lawful sanction to the Nauvoo
Legion), etc.
With the privileges granted in the Charter by the State
Legislature, and with the majority of the residents being
Mormon, the constitutional separation of church and state
relationship was unintentionally, but predictably violated.
The principle leaders of the church were also elected to the
most important city positions, giving them almost exclusive
political as well as ecclesiastical authority over the church and
community. As might be predicted, many civil laws were
enacted which reflected the religious beliefs and values of the
majority, often to the displeasure of the minority of non-LDS
residents of the city. Nauvoo grew so rapidly that by the time
the church started it's western exodus it is reported to have been
three times the size of the then current Chicago.
Again, the resentment of local citizens grew as a result of the
political clout the church was gaining, still tending to vote as a
group but inconsistently for any one party at any particular time.
"Leaders of the opposition considered Mormonism much more
than religion as that term was generally understood.
Mormonism meant a rapidly expanding close-knit economic and
political group which, if not checked, might possibly gain
complete control of the state. As the largest single organization
occupying the state's most populous city, the Mormons had
gained the balance of political power in Hancock County by
1843. It was this threat of economic-political control more than
any specific religious doctrine that unified the anti-Mormons
into vigorous militant groups. Before 1844, church leaders
denied any ambition of a political nature, but outsiders noted
that Mormons tended to vote more or less solidly although not
consistently for the same party."(5)
*Anti-Masonism*
The Masons had experienced some of the same public
resentment and suffered many of the same persecutions, but for
different reasons than the Mormons. The Masons had received
a lot of attention and criticism for what the public called "blood
oaths". By way of explanation, the oaths which are administered
during the initiation rituals describe certain penalties for violation
of a Masons promises not to make public the Fraternities modes
of recognition, ritual, etc. These penalties, however are only
symbolic and date back to situations that existed in the middle
ages when the violation of these promises could have put many
lives in jeopardy. The most severe punishment which could be
inflicted by a lodge in the 1800's, and today, would be expulsion
from membership. The public however, had no understanding
of the symbolic nature of these penalties, nor even what they
were, except that they included the taking of life. Most people
mistook them to be very literal. It was during these
circumstances, that events known today as the "Morgan Affair",
ignited the anti-Masonic feelings of the period.
In about 1825, William Morgan, a Freemason in New York,
announced that he would publish an expose' on Freemasonry,
revealing its rites, rituals, modes of recognition, etc. Shortly
after he made this announcement, Mr. Morgan mysteriously
disappeared, never to be heard from again. With nothing but
rumor and speculation to go on, the Masonic Fraternity was
accused of his kidnapping and murder for violating his oaths to
the Fraternity. As tension built anti-Masonic political parties
began to spring up, and met with so much success among an
outraged and misinformed population, that a national
"Anti-Masonic Party" was officially organized. On two
occasions they even had legitimate candidates for the office of
United States President. The persecution became so severe that
many lodges folded and went out of existence for lack of
membership. But by 1835 the storm had passed and the
Fraternity began the process of healing and recovery.
*Salt in Open Wounds*
The indignities these two organizations suffered would naturally
make them suspicious of outsiders, no matter who the outsiders
were. While the Masons had been thus persecuted, and
understandably sensitive to public opinion, hearing all kinds of
false accusations about their Fraternity being a secret society,
administering blood oaths, and protecting its members from
prosecution for crimes they committed, the LDS Church
published its Book of Mormon. A passage from that book was
taken by many to be speaking about the Masonic Order.
"But behold, Satan did stir up the hearts of the more part of the
Nephites, insomuch that they did unite with those bands of
robbers, and did enter into their covenants and their oaths, that
they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever
difficult circumstances they should be placed, that they should
not suffer for their murders, and their plunderings, and their
stealings. And it came to pass that they did have their signs, and
their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother
who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness
his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother,
nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this
covenant. And thus they might murder, and plunder and steal,
and commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, contrary
to the laws of their country and also the laws of their God."(6)
Except for the recent persecutions and a similarity to the publics
accusations of the time, Masons probably would never have
thought that this had been written about them, since anyone
even superficially familiar with the Masons, know that the
Fraternity would itself condemn any such behavior by its
members, and they would immediately be expelled from the
Lodge and turned over to Legal authorities for lawful
disposition.
The acts described in this passage would be as loathsome to any
Mason, Mormon, or any other God fearing citizen. But since
these things had been so widely spoken against the Fraternity by
ignorant people, to see them in print again by a sect who was
claiming it to be scripture, would naturally incite a great deal of
resentment.
It can easily be seen why it would create fears of renewed
persecution, and why it would be interpreted as a statement of
the Church against Freemasonry. However, had this actually
been the case Joseph Smith and most of the early church leaders
would never have joined the Fraternity, most of whom joined
after the Book of Mormon was published.
It was during this rebuilding period for Freemasonry, the
persecution of the LDS Church, and this era of political clout in
the Church, that all these circumstances combined into a series
of events that would end in a schism between the Masons and
Mormons, leaving a feeling of bitterness and misunderstanding
between the two organizations for over a century and a half.
*Mormon Interest In Freemasonry*
Let's now examine the interest Joseph Smith had in the Masonic
Fraternity and why he joined. As previously stated, he and his
new church had suffered numerous persecutions and had many
atrocities committed against them. Early in his ministry, as the
church was being organized, Joseph lamented:
"I continued to pursue my common vocations in life... all the
time suffering severe persecution at the hands of all classes of
men, both religious and irreligious... and persecuted by those
who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me
kindly, and if they supposed me to have been deluded to have
endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have
reclaimed me..."(7)
These persecutions continued to build and become more violent
in intensity. Joseph fervently wanted them to end, for both
himself and the Church. Several of his associates, including his
brother Hyrum, were Masons and familiar with the Fraternities
teachings of a belief in God and the brotherhood of man. They
convinced Joseph that the fellowship they would find within its
Lodges would give them solace and respite from the
persecutions and prejudices, as well as a degree of protection
from the violence.
"If ever a man was in need of sympathy and the friendship of
good men, that man was Joseph Smith. It was under these
circumstances that Joseph Smith became a member of the
Masonic Fraternity. He hoped to find there the friendship and
protection which he so much craved, but which had been denied
him outside of his few devoted adherents."(8)
*Masonic Interest In Mormonism*
If the foregoing establishes any valid reasons for the Mormon
interest in Freemasonry, we should now examine why the
Masons allowed the Mormons to establish Lodges under the
authority of the Grand Lodge of Illinois. To discover this, we
must look towards the Grand Master at the time, one Abraham
Jonas. A "Master Politician" , Abraham Jonas became the
Grand Master of the Illinois Grand Lodge through a series of
unlikely events, as described by one noted Masonic Author,
Mervin B. Hogan, concerning Illinois Grand Lodge elections.
"As a result of evident dissension among the ... lodges, the six
lodges represented were unable to elect anyone present to the
principal office. Rather obvious speculation suggest that as a
desperate last move an absent dark horse was introduced into
the picture. This personage was Abraham Jonas. ...
Since Jonas was not present, Adams adjourned the Grand
Lodge until Tuesday, April 28, 1840 as the announced date for
the regular installation of the newly elected and appointed
officers. At this later date, Jonas again was not present so
Adams... installed Jonas by proxy.... It appears to be virtually
certain that Abraham Jonas was totally without interest, concern,
or the slightest aspiration relating to the Illinois Grand
Mastership. ... (Adams) attended to the Organization of the
Grand Lodge, and persuasively enlisted Jonas to their common
cause of individual political preferment."(9)
Mr. Jonas had a political agenda in running for various public
offices, and had been convinced by Adams that by courting
Mormon favor, he could more effectively promote his own civic
aspirations. Additionally, as Grand Master involved in the post
"Morgan Affair", he undoubtedly hoped to stimulate the growth
of the Fraternity after its precipitous decline during the
anti-Masonic era. The Mormon Lodges would greatly increase
the size of the Illinois Grand Lodge.
Unfortunately, many of the older, established Lodges in the
State felt that the Dispensations granted to the Mormon lodges
had not been done according to Masonic regulations. That,
combined with the hard-feelings which existed among Masons
because WGM Jonas had made Joseph Smith a "Mason at
Sight", cost the Mormon lodges much of the needed support
from their closest sister Lodges.
*Attempts To Expand*
Initially the young church embraced the Fraternity, and
enthusiastically set about to establish Lodges in their
communities. So many new lodges were being created that the
distances, modes of transportation, and means of
communication, made it difficult for a new lodge to be properly
supervised in its work. Additionally, the closer non-Mormon
lodges felt no desire to assist the Mormon Lodges, feeling they
were "inadequately familiar with them".
In their zeal to grow and prosper, many mistakes were made and
many Landmarks violated. While the Nauvoo Lodge was under
Dispensation, from March 15, 1842 to August 11, 1842, the
Lodge Initiated 286 candidates, and Passed and Raised nearly as
many. Additionally, the Mormon Lodges, balloted on several
candidates at one time, which was a serious violation of
Masonic protocol. Other violations included using the Masonic
Lodge for city offices, a church warehouse, and as a meeting
place for the newly organized Mormon Women's Relief
Society.
Many of the violations were not uncommon among new lodges
of the period, Mormon and non-Mormon alike. However, the
seriousness of these errors in judgement were amplified by the
nature and general perception of the church as an organization.
The church seemed a radical organization. They didn't feel an
obligation to follow the established conventions of the time, but
boldly established many new doctrines, practices, and rituals.
The counsel and correction which was offered by Masonic
authority to correct some of these irregularities, undoubtedly
was seen by the Mormons as interference and as jealousy from
their sister Lodges, as well as additional persecution. This
attitude culminated in the Mormon Lodges being declared
"Clandestine" and they were no longer recognized by the Illinois
Lodges. Even this was seen as harassment and largely ignored
by Mormon Lodges who continued to Initiate, Pass, and Raise
candidates. Their determination and inflexibility was
considered by many as hardheadedness and arrogance.
It's hard to say with certainty that Masonic jealousy didn't play
some small role in the revocation of the Mormon Charters. The
persecutions of previous years, the zeal with which the Masonic
Fraternity guards its ancient land marks, combined with the tide
of public opinion against the Church, and seeing the rapid
growth of the lodges in LDS communities, the neighboring
Lodges feared that the Grand Lodge would eventually be
controlled by Mormon Masons, possibly destroying the
Fraternity as an ancient institution with new innovations,
thereby destroying its usefulness, and reducing it to the mere
status of a local men's club.
The lodge membership figures for the year 1842 in Illinois is
telling, and in hindsight makes the rising tide of ill will somewhat
predictable. Mormon Lodge membership in two of the lodges
were: Nauvoo, 285 and the Rising Sun Lodge at Montrose,
Iowa Territory, 45.
Comparatively, non-LDS Lodge Membership at this same time
by Lodge, Bodely No. 1, 25; Harmony No. 3, 23; Springfield
No. 4, 43; Columbus No. 6, 16; Macomb No. 8, 22, Juliet No.
10, 25; Rushville, UD, 10; Warren, UD, 8. (10)
This gave the growing Mormon Lodges 330 members while the
older established non-Mormon Lodges had only 172.
*The Schism Completed*
With the events of this period as a back drop, let's examine the
alleged involvement of the Masonic Lodges in the martyr of
Joseph and Hyrum Smith.
During this period of anti-Mormon sentiment, Thomas C.
Sharp from the City of Warsaw, assumed leadership of the
anti-Mormon movement. Mr. Sharp edited the influential
Warsaw Signal, a prominent newspaper of the time.
"To counter Mormon political power Sharp organized an
anti-Mormon political Party in 1841, urging Whigs and
Democrats to come to his support. Searching for issues upon
which to challenge Mormon power, Sharp criticized the
establishment of the Nauvoo Legion, the city charter, the
prophets expansive land transactions, and the solid Mormon
vote.(11)
Thomas Sharp was so key in agitating the public against the
Mormons, I will here include several of his quotations, which he
published by the Warsaw Signal in 1844.
May 29th: "We have seen enough to convince us that Joe Smith
is not safe out of Nauvoo, and we should not be surprised to
hear of his death by violent means in a short time."
June 5th: "If one portion of the community sets the law at
defiance, are we bound to respect the laws in our reaction to
it?..."
June 12th: "War and extermination is evitable! CITIZENS
ARISE, ONE AND ALL!!! Can you stand by and suffer such
INFERNAL DEVILS!... We have no time for comment! Every
man will make his own. LET IT BE WITH POWDER AND
BALL!"
JUNE 19th: "STRIKE THEM! for the time has fully come. We
hold ourselves at all times in readiness to cooperate with our
fellow citizens... to exterminate, utterly exterminate, the wicked
and abominable Mormon leaders."
The above editorial comments will serve to show that Thomas
Sharp was bitterly anti-Mormon, and the reader may surmise
how the Mormons felt towards him.
There was enough evidence after the murder of Joseph and
Hyrum Smith to be convinced that Mr. Sharp had played a key
role in inciting the actions which led to the murders. Several
witnesses testified that Thomas Sharp had been among the party
that traveled to Carthage and committed the murder.
Sharp was arrested for the murders with others of note, Jacob
Davis and Levi Williams. However, none of these men were
ever convicted. Not because of a lack of evidence, but
because of legal wrangling. (Which wrangling did not involve
the Masons, so far as I know.) It was during the pre-trial
preparations that the Masonic Fraternity became entangled in
the controversy which brought Mormon accusations of a
cover-up.
In an apparent effort to garner public support, the defendants
attempted to find refuge in the Warsaw lodge while awaiting
trial. To the Fraternities credit, the Grand Lodge of Illinois
called the Warsaw lodge to an accounting for its actions. The
following describes the circumstances.
"In the meantime, the defendants were apparently trying to
strengthen their position by new allegiances within the influential
Masonic order. Mark Aldrich was a member of Warsaw Lodge
No. 21, founded in January 1843. With an immediacy and
urgency that cannot have been coincidental, Jacob Davis,
Thomas Sharp, and Levi Williams were all initiated into the
small Warsaw Lodge in October and December 1844. Before
spring all three had been passed to the second degree, and Davis
and Williams had been raised to Master Masons. How much
advantage the defendants expected to derive from this
association is unclear, though it is a fact that many of the most
influential men in the County and State at this time were
Masons. The list includes Justice Richard M. Young of the
Illinois Supreme Court, who was to be the judge at the trial;
James H. Ralston, former states attorney; Judge Stephen A.
Douglas; former circuit judge O.C. Skinner, who was to be
among the defense counsel at the trial; George W. Thatcher, the
anti-Mormon clerk of the county commissioners court; and
various members of the Warsaw Militia, such as Charles Hay,
Henry Stephens, and several of the Chittenden family.
"Whatever uncertainties may exist in the benefits the defendants
expected to derive from their Masonic affiliation, there is no
doubt that the state officers in the Masonic order identified an
impropriety in this maneuver and took decisive disciplinary
action. In its annual meeting in 1845 the Grand Lodge of
Illinois appointed a select committee to investigate reports that
the Warsaw lodge had violated Masonic regulations by
conferring degrees upon persons who were under indictment.
In response to this investigation, officials of the Warsaw Lodge
admitted that the degrees had been conferred on Davis,
Williams, and Sharp, but pleaded that the men in question were
'worthy members of society, and respected by their fellow
citizens.' Their standing in the community 'had not been at all
impaired by the indictment, but, on the contrary, they were
regarded with greater consideration than before, from the fact
that they had been particularly selected as the victims of
Mormon vengeance.' The Grand Lodge was apparently
unimpressed with the defense. A year after this report was
submitted, the Warsaw Lodge surrendered its Charter, ostensibly
because 'the members of Warsaw Lodge No. 21 have no
suitable room to work in...' This voluntary relinquishment of a
Charter because of supposed housing shortage in Warsaw was
undoubtedly a face-saving disposition in lieu of involuntary
suspension for violation of regulations of the order."(12)
*Mormon Exodus - Nauvoo to Utah*
The death of the Mormon leader, Joseph Smith Jr. did nothing
to stop the persecution experienced by the members of the faith.
In fact rumor, and the expectation that non-Mormons would be
made the targets of Mormon vengeance, further incited the non-
Mormon population and the persecution continued to mount,
rather than subsiding in any degree. What was seen by some as
arrogance by the remaining Mormon leader's, could also have
been defensiveness in an effort to protect the members of the
newly established Church.
With increasing mob action and public misinformation against
the Mormons, it soon became apparent that it would again be
necessary to leave their homes behind. Brigham Young, the
new leader of the sect, turned his eye's to the Salt Lake Valley.
It was probably the hope that such a place would never be
chosen by travelers as a desirable place to be settled by others,
and that such a place would offer isolation and protection from
the rest of the world. It appeared to be a barren wasteland. Jim
Bridger, a scout and explorer once declared that he would give,
a thousand dollars for every ear of corn that could be grown in
the Salt Lake Valley.
In spite of its barren appearance, it was a place of tremendous
resources. The only thing lacking was water to cultivate its rich
soil. Irrigation systems were devised to bring the water down
from the mountains, and settlements were established
throughout the territory. The Mormon's, were determined to
make this "desert blossom as the rose".
As was previously mentioned, it was their hope that in a place so
remote uninviting, they might be isolated and be able to establish
their "Zion" and practice their new religion free from outside
interference and influence. Likewise, they were determined
never to be driven from their homes again.
Once in the Salt Lake Valley, rumors, embellished by time and
distance, traveled back and forth across the plains. The telling
of Mormon insurrections and impending rebellion flourished in
the east. Johnston's Army was dispatched by President
Buchanan to investigate and put down any insurrection or
rebellion and to install the New Territorial Governor and other
Federal Officers. Word reached the Mormon's that the army
was coming to exterminate members of the church. The
personal diary of a resident of the valley, echoes the rumor.
"The news is that the president of the U.S. is going to send on
enough soldiers to kill all of the Mormons off."(13)
In what Brigham Young saw as measures of self-defense, was
seen in the east as rebellion and defiance. Mormon harassing
raids were ordered against on the supply wagons of the Army,
hoping to slow them down, and keep them out of the Valley.
Further, he placed teams of militia at the various passages of
Emigration Canyon, with the intention of ambushing the army as
they entered the valley.
*Self-Appointed Mediator Prevents Bloodshed*
Seeing how volatile the situation was, and certainly thinking
clearly enough to know what the outcome of these attacks would
be, a federal army officer who had befriended the Mormon's at
various times in the past, entered the valley from the southern
part of the territory. Upon his arrival, he requested a meeting
with Brigham Young and managed to convince him of the folly
in what was about to take place. Colonel Thomas Leiper Kane,
succeeded in convincing Brigham Young that the Army's
purpose was not to destroy the Saints, but to assure the peaceful
transfer of governmental power in the area, and to protect
territory residents.
"Not unexpectedly, Kane assured his old friend that the federal
troops were sent to Utah to guarantee the installation of the new
federal officials, to construct necessary forts within the territory
needed to control the Indians, and to regulate overland emigrant
travel."(14)
Brigham withdrew from his intended fight with the army. That
done, Colonel Kane traveled and met the approaching army and
dissuaded its commander from taking actions against the
Mormons for the harassing raids.
The soldier's entered the valley unopposed, traveling to a site
which they designated as Camp Floyd. Generally there was an
uneasy and watchful co-existence, but the animosity continued
between the Mormons and non-Mormons, in large part because
of the political power the Church still exerted in the territory,
and the apparent mixture of politics with religion.
*References To The Possibility Of Mormon Lodge's In Utah*
After leaving Nauvoo, the Mormon Church took no action to
continue any affiliation the any Masonic Lodges, although there
is an account of Lucius N. Scovil using his Masonic Ties to help
secure supplies and favors for a group of new converts traveling
to the Utah Territory from the port of New Orleans in 1848.
It is interesting to note that in the Journal of Wilford Woodruff,
fourth President of the Mormon Church, under the date of
August 19, 1860, Brigham Young is quoted as saying, "G.A.
Smith would like to go to England and obtain five Charters for
Lodges, which would give us a Grand Lodge which would make
us independent of all other Grand Lodges in the world. This is
what Brother Scovil would like to do and this could be done..."
Apparently Brigham Young didn't think it was a good thing and
the Church never organized a Lodge after leaving Nauvoo.
*Freemasonry Arrives In Utah*
Amid the monotonous duty in the middle of the desert at Camp
Floyd, a group of Master Mason Soldiers organized a Lodge,
under a Dispensation granted on March 6, 1860 with a Charter
issued to Rocky Mountain Lodge No. 205 on June 1, 1860 by
the Grand Lodge of Missouri. This short lived lodge was not
without critics among non-Masons. But in this case, the
criticism was not from the Mormons.
"For many soldiers, membership in the "Rocky Mountain
Lodge" of Masons provided a refreshing diversion, although
controversy over its secret meetings and signs rocked the
military outpost almost to its foundations. 'There is an effort
being made to get up a secret society among the soldiers and
officers. One of the privates of my company is, I understand, an
important member of a lodge to which officers belong. The
soldier should have his head shaved and be drummed out of
service and the officer be cashiered.'"(15)
The Lodge was short lived in Utah and the Charter was
surrendered in July of 1861, because of the onset of the Civil
War. Johnston's Army received order's to leave Camp Floyd.
(Which had been re-named Fort Crittenden.)
Masonry again came to Utah in 1866. A group of Master
Mason's petitioned the Grand Lodge of Nevada for a
dispensation to work, which was granted on the 25th of January
1866.
"... but recalling the difficulties with the Mormons at Nauvoo,
Illinois, and more recently with Mormons in Nevada, he
attached to the Dispensation an edict requiring the 'Lodge to
exclude all who were of the Mormon Faith.' The
Lodge...objected to the restriction, not because they wanted to
admit Mormons, but because they believed any such rejection
should be theirs and not some out-of-state authority. After a
stormy period, and failing to receive a Charter from Nevada,
they finally obtained one from Kansas on October 21, 1868.
...During the difficulty ... with the Grand Lodge of Nevada, a...
group of Masons from Salt Lake City and Camp Douglas...
petitioned the Grand Lodge of Montana for a
Dispensation to open King Solomon Lodge, U.D.. Montana
granted the Dispensation on October 22, 1866, but felt that
'King Solomon', being identified as a polygamist, was not an
appropriate name for the new lodge, so they named it Wasatch
Lodge, after the Wasatch Mountains, which partly ring Salt
Lake City. This Dispensation had no restriction on Mormons,
such as the Nevada Grand Lodge had imposed..."(16)
*Defensiveness Perpetuates Divisions*
With both organizations clinging to the memories of both real
and imagined wrongs, and determined to be vigilant in
preventing any recurrences, they have for the most part
continued to politely ignore each other. As the population grew,
the conflicts between Mormon's and their non-Mormon
neighbors hence, the Mason's also escalated. The main source
of animosity being the strict control of the Church over the
affairs of the area in which they lived through their continued
political influence, and volatile issue of polygamy.
The Church had repeatedly petitioned for Statehood, and had
been turned down as often as they applied, the Congress having
passed laws against polygamy, and the Church being adamant
that it was their right to practice their religious beliefs. The
situation of the Church worsened as their adherence to this
doctrine remained inflexible. As a result the Government was
ready to disenfranchise the Church, confiscating all of its
property and assets.
After much consideration, Wilford Woodruff issued the
Manifesto in October 1890, abandoning the practice of
polygamy as doctrine and forbidding the Church to practice it
any further. With this done, the situation started improving for
the Church generally, and Statehood was finally achieved in
1896.
Of all the unique doctrines of the Church, polygamy was
probably the one that caused the most division both within the
Church, and with their non-Mormon neighbors. The Church
saw it as their right to practice their religious principles, and the
Government saw it as outright defiance of the law. Rank and
file citizens generally viewed the practice as a barbaric custom,
motivated by lust.
*Masonic Prohibition Against Mormon's Made Official*
Through all of these events, there still had been no formal
prohibition against any Mormon visiting or joining a Masonic
Lodge, although an informal ban was generally adhered to. In
1879, John O. Sorenson, a Mason and member of Argenta
Lodge No. 3, was suspended from the Craft because he joined
the Mormon Church.
In explanation for the suspension based upon religious
affiliation, the Grand Secretary of Utah prepared a circular and
sent it to all the Grand Lodges and leading Masons in America
by way of explanation to the Fraternity outside of Utah, who
had no understanding of the local situation.
(While every Craftsman was free) "to join any church and
embrace any creed he chooses, and (Freemasonry) demands of
him only that he shall admit the theological belief taught on the
threshold of our sacred Temple, and further, that he should be
loyal to the government under which he lives, and yield a willing
obedience to all its laws, the Masons in Utah contend that the
latter important prerequisite is wanting in Mormons, because
one of the chief tenets of their church in Utah is polygamy,
which the United States Statute has declared to be a crime, and
which all civilized nations consider a relic of barbarism."(17)
This unofficial prohibition continued through the turn of the
century into the 1900's. In his 1904 report Grand Secretary
Diehl wrote, "The pioneers of Utah Masonry knew what they
were doing when they taught the Unwritten Law of Utah
Masonry, and the present generation has experienced enough to
teach that law to the next one."(18)
In 1923, it was noted in a meeting of the Grand Lodge that Utah
Mormons living in other jurisdictions could, and some did gain
membership in the Fraternity, and that being denied visitation
rights in Utah resulted in "humiliation" and "embarrassment".
In January 1924 a Resolution was presented to the Grand Lodge
forbidding members of the LDS Church from joining any Utah
Masonic Lodge. The resolution was laid over for one year and
the following reworded resolution was presented and adopted by
the Grand Lodge in 1925.
"Whereas, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
commonly called the Mormon Church, is an organization, the
teachings and regulations of which are incompatible with
membership in the Masonic Fraternity, therefore: "Be It
Resolved: That a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints,
commonly called the Mormon Church, is not eligible to become
a member of any Lodge F.& A.M. in this State and membership
in such Church shall be sufficient grounds for expulsion."
An attempt was made to repeal the Anti-Mormon Resolution in
1927, but the Grand Lodge rejected the appeal and what had
been unwritten law became written law.(19) Other attempts at
repeal occurred in 1965 and 1983. These attempts also failed,
and this was the state of affairs between the Church and the
Fraternity for the next fifty-seven (57) years, until 1984.
*Wounds Begin To Heal*
In 1984, the Masonic Fraternity took the first steps towards
ending the long standing rift. A resolution was presented to
eliminate the prohibition, and make members of the church
eligible to join and visit Utah Masonic Lodges. The Report of
the Jurisprudence Committee, examining this resolution is
interesting, in that I think it reveals some of the issues members
of the Fraternity had struggled with for those many years.
"...Certainly there is great merit in the proposal, since the
Resolution and Decision are contrary to fundamental Masonic
law.
"...Certainly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has
little or no concern for or fear of the Masonic Fraternity. They
do, however, strongly urge their members not to join
organizations such as ours, insisting that any time and energy
available beyond their daily vocation and their hours of rest, be
spent in furthering the interest of their Church.
"... Your Committee on Jurisprudence suggest that you consider
very carefully before you cast your ballot on this highly
emotional subject. Would abolishing the Standing Resolution
have any impact on membership, for good or for ill? Could
members of the LDS Church become active and valuable
members, thereby strengthening the Craft, and at the same time
remain loyal to their faith? Would such Church members fully
respect our Ancient Landmark which prohibits any discussion of
religion in a Masonic Lodge? Would such members apply
individual pressure on our devotees to join their Church? Is the
aim of abolishing the Resolution and Decision solely for the
purpose of enlarging our membership? Is there any point in our
taking unilateral action, without any change in the position
presently held by the leadership of the LDS Church? Are you
willing to continue to defend this deviation from Masonic
law by retaining this restriction?(20)
"The answer to these and other questions you may have in your
minds are in your hands."(20)
One portion of the report I here quote separately, reveals the
sincere struggle and a belief of many Masons, but with which I
personally disagree. That there are conflicts within the basic
dogmas of these two organizations.
"Anyone reading LDS literature quickly discovers that some of
their (LDS) dogma is contrary to the tenets of Freemasonry.
"(21)
In my experience, I have found nothing in either's teachings that
would be mutually exclusive of the other, or in conflict with any
basic tenets. While individual members may differ in their belief
systems, I can find nothing which excludes the other, in the
moral teachings, when fully examined.
*The Results of Change*
Over the years, there has been no mass movement of Mormons
joining Masonic Lodges, indeed, none was expected. The
Fraternity was making internal adjustments to align its practice
with its teachings. There have been many that have joined the
Fraternity who are active LDS, and are welcomed so long as the
regulations of the Order are observed and respected. Many of
the misconceptions and misunderstandings are being dispelled,
one on one by individuals. I believe both are enriched by the
experience. Certainly, it is one of my cherished affiliations, and
never have I been asked to compromise my beliefs, or my
associations in either institution.
*Conclusion*
I have heard of life-long Masons who have joined the LDS
Church, and have unquestionably yet mistakenly accepted as
fact that the Church prohibits membership with the Masonic
Fraternity and demitted from their lodges.
Likewise some LDS Members who petition Masonic lodges, get
cold feet and drop out because some superficial similarities in
the ritual which exist between some small portions of the LDS
Temple rites and in the first few degrees of Masonry.
Both of these situations are saddening and senseless. They
occur because of a misunderstanding of the facts. What the
church discourages are affiliations which would cause a person
to lose interest in church activities. I have found just the
opposite to be the case. Freemasonry in no way that I've seen,
detracts from church participation, but rather encourages one to
be fully active in his own peculiar creeds.
It must be remembered by all ,that Masonry readily announces
and warns, that it offers no path to salvation, only brotherhood.
Salvation must be sought out in our own places of worship and
houses of faith.
I add my own voice to that of Mervin B. Hogan:
"It is clearly evident to anyone who acquaints himself with this
creed (Mormonism) that there are no conflicts or
incompatibilities whatsoever between the teachings, theology,
and dogma of Mormonism and the philosophy, principles and
tenets of Universal Freemasonry."(22)
*Footnotes*
(1) Masons Use Service, Repect to Build Friendships. The Salt
Lake Tribune, Section D1, Monday February 17, 1992.
(2) THE ARTICLES OF FAITH of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. History of the Church, Vol 4, pages 535-
541
(3) The Relationship of Mormonism and Freemasonry.
Anthony W. Ivens, The Deseret News Press, Salt Lake City,
Utah. Copyright 1934. Page 8. (Pesident Ivins was a counselor
in the First Presidency of the LDS Church under President
Heber J. Grant.)
(4) Mormonism and Masonry. By Cecil McGavin. Bookcraft,
S.L.C., Utah. 1949. Page 187
(5) Nauvoo: The City of Joseph. David E. Miller and Della S.
Miller. Copyright 1974. Peregrine Smith, Inc.
(6) Book of Mormon, Helaman, Chapter 6, Verses 21-23
(7) The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, 1:27-28
(8) See (3) above. Page 179.
(9) Mormonism and Freemasonry: The Illinois Episode, Mervin
B. Hogan, Copyright 1977.
(10) See (4) above. Pages 111-112.
(11) Carthage Conspiracy, The Trial of The Assassins of
Joseph Smith. Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, University of
Illinois Press. Copyright 1975 by the Board of Trustees of the
University of Illinois. Second Printing 1976.
(12) See (11) above. Pages 66-67
(13) Andrew J. Allen, Diary. February 3, 1958 (Transcript),
University of Utah, page 32.
*Foot Notes (Continued)*
(14) Camp Floyd and The Mormons - The Utah War. Donald
R. Moorman with Gene A. Sessions. University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City, Utah. Copyright 1992
(15) See (14) above.
(16) First 100 Years of Freemasonry In Utah, Vol I, 1872-
1972, Gustin O. Gooding, Past Master of Utah Research Lodge.
Published by Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons of Utah.
Page 5.
(17) See (16) above.
(18) See (16) above. Page 31.
(19) See (16) above. Page 51.
(20) Proceedings of Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons
of Utah. 1984, Odendahl, Salt Lake City, Utah. Page 63
(21) See (20) above.
(22) Mormonism and Freemasonry: The Illinois Episode. By
Mervin B. Hogan. Copyright 1977 by McCoy Publishing and
Masonic Supply Company Inc. Richmond VA. Additional
material and arrangement Copyright 1980 by Campus Graphics,
Salt Lake City, Utah. Page 270.