Help Me Maintain OUR Website!!!!!!
R. F. Gould's Military Lodges, published in 1899, was the first full size book on the subject of Lodges warranted expressly for the uses of soldiers and for men in the navy. It was not an interesting book to read, for on many pages it was little more than a directory of names and dates, but it opened up afield for Masonic students. (See p. 667). Unfortunately not many have passed through that opening, except to write a few articles and essays, and the "great history" of Freemasonry among soldiers is yet to be written; and until it is written a long chapter will remain missing out of the general history of the Craft, because Military Lodges have had a larger place in the development and diffusion of the Fraternity than could have been believed in Gould's day; in America they were one of the principal means by which Lodges were introduced into the Colonies, and they left a long and deeply-felt influence on Lodge practice.
It is when it is read in this context of facts that Freemasonry in the Royal Scots by T. R. Henderson (Gale & Polden; London; 1934) becomes so valuable and so illuminating, and in spite of its author's having narrowed himself to one regiment, and in a book of only 100 pages. It is one of the finest Masonic books ever written; manly, sane, straightforward, friendly, has alivingandmovingstyle, and written with courage —courage, because he had to say hard things here and there against the officer caste to which he himself belonged, and age one or two Grand Lodges.
Bro. Henderson gives a number of interesting "firsts" in his opening chapter. The Lodge of Edinburgh was admitting both Operatives and Speculatives as early as 1599, and it is impossible to guess how much earlier (there are some reasons to believe that in Scotland Lodges had always admitted a small number of nonOperatives); doubtless among the Sixteenth Century members at Edinburgh there were military men, because at least one branch of the army always had been in contact with Masonry, the military engineers, and to a iesser extent men specializing in artillery. But the first recorded instance is that of David Ramsey, made a Mason in August, 1637; the second was Alexander Hamilton, who was admitted "Fellow and Master of the Craft," May 20, 1640. It may be that either or both of these Brothers belonged to the Royal Scots, then called The Royal Regiment.
From 1713 to 1748 "the civil government feared and disliked the Army.... The soldier generally was enlisted for life, and was often impressed against his will. More often than not he had to serve along with thieves, pirates and other criminals brought in by press gangs. . ." Colonial service usually "ended in the majority of cases in a miserable death from disease." In contrast Freemasonry "offered the soldier a sphere of action where he could regain his selfrespect .... It is not surprising that ... the Craft spread rapidly among the military forces of the Crown."
The first military (or ambulatory) Warrant ever issued was No. 11, granted in 1732 by the Grand Lodge of Ireland, to the regiment which is now the Royal Scots.
By 1734 four others were at worke There were eight before Scotland issued its first military Warrant 29 or more before any were issued by either of the two Grand Lodges in England. By 1813, and not counting "remote pendicles under Provincial Grand Lodges in foreign parts" (as in the West Indies) there are known to have been 190 under Grand Lodge of Ireland; 116 under Antient Grand Lodge of England; 25 under Modern Grand Lodge of England; 21 under Grand Lodge of Scotland; a total of 352. This was the total number of Warrants from 1732 to 1813; mortality is high among military Lodges, but 219 were still ~:orl;ing after 1813. Since 1813, the year of the Union of the Antient and Modern Grand Lodges, England has issued 25 Warrants; Ireland, 40; Scotland, 2; a grand total of 419 British military Lodges. Of this total 224 were in Infantry; 68 in Militia; 49 in Cavalry; 28 in Artillery; 7 in Royal Marines; 3 in the Royal Engineers; and one in the Foot-Guards.
The majority of Military Lodges on both sides in the Revolutionary War were chartered by Ireland, England, and Scotland. How many may have been chartered by American Provincial Grand Lodges is not known. Masonry in the Formation of Our Government: 1761-1799, by Bro. Philip A. Roth; Milwaukee, Wis.; 1927, lists ten: St. John's Regimental Lodge, July 24, 1775; American Union, February 15, 1776, Washington No. 10, October 6, 1779; these were constituted by Massachusetts. Pennsylvania (Philadelphia was then the National Capital) chartered: Lodge No. 19, May 18, 1779; Lodge No. 20, in 1779; Lodge No. 27, April 4, 1780; No. 28, in 1780; No. 29, on July 27, 1780; No. 31, March 26, 1781; No. 36, September 2, 1782. No. 20 was for the North Carolina line; No. 27 for Maryland; Nos. 31 and 36 for New Jersey.
The most epochmaking of archeologic finds since the discovery of the site of Troy was the wholly unexpected uncovering of the ruins of a great and very advanced civilization which had its center in the Island of Crete, and which was at its height at about 1400 B.C. It was superior to the Egyptian civilization contemporaneous with it, and it was in a number of its achievements the equal of the Greek civilization which followed it; it is even believed that Homer, (or if there never was a man by that name, then the Homeridae) was a descendant of the Minoans, and that the Homeric gods and goddesses were mythic recollections of old kings and heroes of Crete. This means that a wide-spread culture including mathematics, art, music, architecture, skilled crafts, medicine, merchants, and argosies of ships had its center only a short (geographic) distance from Palestine a half millennium before David established the Jews as a nation with a capital, and Solomon built his Temple.
The Minoan discoveries have not contained any data of direct interest to Freemasons, but the discovery as a whole has a very large indirect importance. A number of Masonic writers have endeavored to persuade their readers that Freemasonry originated among the Hermetists of the Middle Ages;
the Hermetists, as the name implies, originated in turn in Egypt; Egypt thus became the ultimate cradle of Freemasonry—one writer (Palmer) professed to see in the Book of the Dead the first faint outlines of the Masonic Ritual. The strongest argument they had, the only one to which non-Masonic historians could give their assent at the time, was that the fraternities and arts of builders must have originated in Egypt because in it alone, in ancient times, were those arts known. Now that the Minoan civilization has been liscovered, and a detailed knowledge of it is being increased almost day by day, that can no longer be said. Any argument sound for the Egyptian is equally sound for the Minoan; and if any argument were required the scales would tilt toward the Minoan because it, unlike Egypt, was in the line of those civilizations which led to Europe. The most eminent authority on the Minoans was the man who made the first and the largest of the discoveries about them, the late Sir Arthur Evans. Those discoveries with a factual description of them in detail as written by him are found in the volumes of The Palace of Minos in Knossos; Macmillan; New York; 1921.
In what Charles Sumner Lobingier described as "the first direct step toward the formation of the Mother Supreme Council" of the Scottish Rite, John Mitchell received a patent from Barend Moses Spitzer vw hich raised him to 'sthe degree of K. H. and further to the highest degree in Masonry," and granted him authority to establish a Lodge of Perfection and the several Councils and Chapters where there are no such Lodges or Councils.' This was dated April 2, 1795, seven years before the new (to be) Supreme Council's Manifesto.
Little is known about Mitchell's early life except that he was born in Ireland about 1741, came to Pennsylvania, and must have early shown himself possessed of great native ability as well as patriotism because in 1776 he was appointed Muster-Master of the Pennsylvania Navy; the following year was appointed its Acting Commissary (one of the most thankless and difficult positions in the Colonial forces); and then was appointed Deputy Quartermaster-General of the Continental Army, and continued to be such until 1780. In 1791 he moved to Charleston, S. C.,where, seven years later, he became active in the Society of the Cincinnati, and continued active in it until 1816.
He became Worshipful Master of Lodge No. 8, in Charleston; was Junior Grand Warden of the (Antient) Grand Lodge of South Carolina; and in 1799 and in M 1800 was its Deputy Grand Master. On June 24, 175)9, he, with two others, issued a circular to the Lodges urging them to support the proposal for a General (or National) Grand Lodge.
Little or nothing is known about Spitzer, except that he possessed authority from a French Council. His name is Jewish but very little reliance ean be placed on names of that period especially in the West Indies, because many Gentiles had Jewish names—descendants of some Gentile of Franee or Spain adopted into a Jewish family—and many Jews had Gentile names.
French, Italian, and German Fascist .anti-Masons between the two World Wars published everywhere and many times statements that the Scottish Rite was made" by Jews. It would make no difference if it had been, but as a matter of record the Rite was remade" by Frenchmen and only a few Jews were active in it during the formative period of the Mother Supreme Couneil. Frederick Dalcho said that he believed Spitzer to have been a Prussian but wasn't sure Mitehell himself was one of the outstanding men of the Colonies; and the more that is learned about them the more of the founders of the American Rites are found to have been men of his calibre. It once was the fashion to believe that the Craft had begun obscurely, in out-ofthe-way corners, in tents or log cabins, and by "uncouth pioneers" • it is knownthatonthecontraryitsfounderawere the founders of Colonies, and of high office in their administrations or in trade or in the armies, and that Lodges were far more conspicuous in their activities then than now).
The short biographical sketch of Bro. J. W. S. Mitchell on page 671 was inadvertently so worded as to convey a misleading impression of Bro. Mitchell both as a man and as a scholar, a fact which is regretted. In 1858 he published A History of Freemasonry and Masonic Digest, which had a content so diversified that the descriptive title to the two volumes occupies the whole of the titlepage. By 1869 it had gone to its seventh edition, and second only to Preston and to Oliver was the most widely-read Masonic book in America. Vol. I of that edition contains 720 pages; Vol. II contains 719 pages. The two together covered the histories of Operative Masonry, of Speculative Masonry, the High Grades, the Egyptian Mysteries, and they contained many pages about Solomon, for Mitchell followed Oliver in believing that Solomon had been the first Grand Master.
Bro. Mitchell began the composition of his history only ten years after Mackey (in 1845) had published his Lexicon; the Lexicon was a slender volume of very brief articles, most of them only a short paragraph in length, and in the book certain of Mackey's theories are scarcely less quaint than were some of Mitchell's. and yet Mackey was a highly-educated and widelyread man. The two men both suffered from the almost complete lack of any available literature; there were no Masonic libraries; it was almost a case of reading Oliver or nothing. If this fact be taken into consideration, then Bro. Mitchell was entitled to great credit, and was, relative to the handicaps under which he worked, both a learned and an intelligent man, and ought still to possess the same gratitude from Masons that was accorded to him by his contemporaries who bought up seven editions of a large and expensive work.
Also, the work has positive values for Masonic students now: it shows what was known and thought and practiced in Freemasonry in the United States a decade before the Civil War, and explains much that otherwise remains obscure; and though Bro. Mitchell's theories of the history of the Craft are obsolete, his two volumes were not confined to theories; on almost every page are facts about the Craft in his own and in the preceding period which do not cease to be facts when divorced from the theories. These facts are of great worth, just as are the facts in Oliver's books. And again, the chapters on jurisprudence as it was thought and practiced in the 1850's is invaluable for comparison with jurisprudence now.
When the article on Mithras, page 671, was first composed no sources of information w ere available except passages here and there in Greek and Roman writings and in the polemical writings of early Church Fathers; and these last hated Mithraism so bitterly that they cannot be trusted. Since that time the full, detailed history of Mithraism has been put together, piece by piece, by archeologists, who have discovered tens of thousands of inscriptions and manuscripts.
On the whole, the collected writings of Franz Cumont, though among the first in the scientific period, still are the best introduction to the subject In the most skeletonal outline, Mithraism was: an Ancient Mystery Cult; the germ of it was in the old Iranian and Babylonian sun cults; it became a separate cult in Phrygia; planted in Greece it was cleansed of its old ugly imagery, ofsten very brutal and even savage, by artists and sculptors; after being introduced into Italy in the First Century, it soon became popular, especially in the army, and some Emperors belonged to it; soldiers carried it as far west as Ireland, as far north as the Baltic, as far east as the Danube, and as far south as Egypt. For some two centuries it was Christianity's most powerful rival. Once it was overthrown, Churchmen destroyed every trace of it they could find, and in consequence a once great religion was forgotten for nearly a thousand years.
A local building and center was called a mithreum; it had a priesthood, sacred writings, baptism, doctrines of God, Satan, heaven, hell, judgment day, end of world, missionaries, admitted candidates by initiation, divided its membership into grades or degrees, etc. Much of Mithraism became embodied in Manicheism, the cult in which Augustine had been a member before his conversion; Manicheism in turn became reembodied in Patraism, etc., and thence very distinct traces of it are found in the Waldensians, the Albigensians, the Huguenots, the Anabaptists, and on into Puritanism. The root idea which persisted through its transformations w as the doctrine of dualism; that evil is as real as the good, and that man's life is a struggle between the two. (See Chapter in Gould's History of Freemasonry; and [more modern] in A History of Freemasonny, by Haywood and Craig.)
MONTESQUIEU, A MASON.
Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Breda et de Montesquieu, was born near Bordeaux, France, in 1689; died 1755. He published his Lettres persanes in 1721; in 1748 he published his L'Esprit des Lois, "greatest book of French Eighteenth Century," translated into English as Spirit of Laws. It was one of the very few of the supreme masterpieces in the world to win fame almost as soon as it was printed—it was in fact famous before its publication because Montesquieu already was known as the first political thinker in Europe and Britain before his book went to the printer.
It was a fashion among the older historians of the United States to say that the Fathers and Founders of the nation had found their first ideas of democracy and a republican state in French literature, but this is now known not to have been true. Washington was in the war against the French when a young man, and did not alter a deeply-rooted dislike of them until the second or third year of the Revolutionary War. John Adams was a student of Greek and Latin political writings. Franklin formed his own ideas years before he went to France. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to "French theories." Jefferson knew and loved French literature, but as he stated over and over he had found his first inspirations for his own conception of democracy in an early, exhaustive study of the Angles and Saxons (he taught Anglo-Saxon). The one outstanding exception was Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws; it was studied like a Bible by the American Revolutionary thinkers.
In 1735 the Duke of Richmond and Dr. Desaguliers constituted a new Lodge in Paris in the Rue de Bussy, which met in the home of the Duchess of Portsmouth and was mainly composed of English peers. Ambassador Waldegrave was a founder, and his son Lord Chewton was initiated at the time. In an item published in the St. James Evening Post, London, September 20, 1735, Montesquieu is mentioned as having been one of the founders.
The Lodge's first French Candidate, Count Saint-Florentin, Secretary of State for France, was sponsored by him. In his article on Freemasonry in the French Encyclopedia Lalande (Master of the Lodge of the Nine Muses), the as tronomer and mathematician, sketched this period of French Masonry and gave Montesquieu credit for being one of the founders of the French Craft.
Montesquieu (like Voltaire) was at the time working to introduce the "English philosophy" of Newton and Locke ("philosophy" was used in the sense of science) into France, and it is not unlikely that he was able to discuss it with friends in the Lodges without danger of antagonizing French political and religious prey judice; moreover in London as well as in Paris Masons of that decade were keenly interested in Newton, Locke, Halley, etc., and were among the founders of the Royal Society. The Lodges were also the first audience to welcome The Spirit of Laws. When Schwartz and Novikov established their famous Lodge in Moscow, which was a Russian "Nine Muses," they translated The Spirit of Lasts into Russian. The present writer has found no mention of Masonry in Montesquieu's books (he had no occasion to mention it) but the Lettres persanes, or The Persian Letters, is, like Locke's work on Toleration (Locke probably was a Mason), in thought and spirit a Masonic classic.
It is certain that Montesquieu had been a Mason before he helped to found the Lodge in Rue de Bussy in 1735. He had struck up a life-long friendship with Lord Chesterfield while in Italy, and was by Chesterfield introduced in London; since Chesterfield was an indefatigible missionary for Freemasonry wherever he went it is reasonable to believe that it was he who interested Montesquieu in the Craft during the latter's first stay in London. The St. James Evening Post for September 7, 1734 (almost exactly one year before the founding of the Lodge in Paris) mentions him as having been an attendant in a Lodge held in the home of Charles Lennox, the Duke of Richmond, who had been Grand Master in 1724. The Duke had been a member of No. 4, of the four old Lodges which had formed the first Grand Lodge of the world in London in 1717. The records show that he was attending Grand Lodge as late as 1738. Desaguliers, James Anderson, Lord Paisley, the Count Le Lippe, Lord Waldegrave also were members; and it is probable that Montesquieu was made a Mason in this Lodge.
The Minutes of Horn Lodge show that about 1738 Montesquieu was a visitor. The old Lodge No. 4 had met at the Rummer and Grapes in 1717, then moved to the Horn Tavern in New Palace Yard, Westminster. (The Black Death had begun in that spot.) The Duke of Richmond was Master in 1737-8, with George Payne as Deputy Master. In 1772 it met at the King's Arms in the same neighborhood. After the Union of the Modern and Antient Grand Lodges in 1813 it continued as Somerset Lodge, then in 1828 it absorbed the Royal Inverness Lodge. (For history see No. 4, by A. W. Oxford; Quaritch; London; 1928). In the Horn Lodge the Duke of Richmond initiated Lord Chesterfield, the Duke of Tuscany, the Emperor Francis I, etc. The Duke later became sponsor of Lodges in Tuscany, the first in Italy, and it was against these that Clement XII addressed his denunciations in 1738 in the first of the Papal Bulls against Masonry. Richmond had been one of the generals who had put down the Jacobite rebellion in Scotland. In one way or another Lodge No. 4 was at the center of more history, Masonic and civil, than any other Lodge in the world.
"MORALS & DOGMA."
During a number of private conversations, the late Mrs. Lillian Pike Roome, of Boston, a daughter of Albert Pike (her home was a Pike Museum), described her father as she had seen him day by day until her marriage, as above all a man who had had a passion for reading. An attendant of the Public Library of Washington reported that "the General came in almost every morning"; and he went on to say that he "read old religions and old philosophers." This is borne out by Pike's own letters to his friends, especially to Parvin and to Mackey, of which there are very many, and which students of Pike hope to see collected and published.
This preoccupation and passion with "old religions and old philosophies" is manifest in Morals and Dogma the book given to each Candidate by the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite, S.J., and called, though Pike would have resented the description, "the Bible of the Scottish Rite."
This famous book is not so much a commentary on the Scottish Rite Degrees—has no such relevancy or connection with them that Preston's Illustrations has with the Craft Degrees—as it is a series of soliloquies, or meditations, or expositions of the high themes of metaphysics, and theology, and cosmology; and their author keeps his eyes fixed not on modern works of Freemasonry but on the epics and bibles of religion, and more especially those of the Iranian and Indian sages, on the Zend-Avesta, the Vedas, the Tripitaka, etc.; and the image of the book as it must have been in his own mind could be best illustrated by a picture of the Seven Sages of Greece in a circle, discussing God, Cosmos, and Man. It is therefore almost a book for students of metaphysics and theology rather than for Masons. To such students the central idea in Pike's thought is clear: Pike refused to admit that God is Divinity only, that is, a God for theology and churches: he insisted that God is Deity, that is, the Ground and Souree of matter, life, the heavens, space, time, and he therefore believes that God must be thought out by the mind as well as worshipped by the heart.
In his last years Pike was drawn once again back to Ancient Craft Masonry, the original source and foundation of the Freemasonry of every Rite, and wrote in an unpublished treatise a newer, and more humble, commentary on its deceptively simple ceremonies and symbols, but did not live long enough to write a Morals and Dogma for the Three Degrees. Toward the end he tried to make his friends realize that his Morals and Dogma itself had never been finished; was indeed as he said, not a book but a mountainous mass of materials waiting to be milled and smelted down into a book. This explains why there are whole pages in it taken word for word from other writers, and other pages from other writers re-written in his own words.
Moreover, as he said, he had not been able to bring his studies of the Zend-Avesta, Vedas, etc., down to date, and to make use of the works of modern scholars; this in turn is why Bro. A. V. W. Jackson, the worldfamous authority on Zoroaster and the Zend-Avesta, of Columbia University, found in his critical analysis of the pages in Morals and Dogma that Pike had used authorities now discarded, and lacked the mass of knowledge acquired by archeology and Oriental language researches, and that Pike's picture of Zoroastrianism is not now acceptable to authorities. This win not disturb Masons who read Morals and Dogma; they have never read it for sake of what of philosophy and of Zoroastrianism and metaphysics there is in it; they have read it for the sake of what they find of Pike in it; he is the object of their studies. Pike's vision of Freemasonry was a sound one, even though his Orientalism was that of an amateur; he saw that there is a Masonry of the MIND, and that if Masonry were not sound and true in its philosophy it could not be sound and true anywhere else.
MORAY, SIR ROBERT.
The paragraph on page 680 is of especial interest because Moray was made a Mason in 1641, which was five years before the Initiation of Ashmole at Warrington. Bro. William J. Hughan very properly called attention to the fact that Moray was not the first known non-Operative on English soil because, as Bro. Edward Conder had shown in his Hole Craft, non-Operatives belonged to the "accepcion," a division of the Masons Company of London, "as early as 1620." But the "accepcion" was not a Lodge; its records were not regular Lodge Minutes; and the fact therefore does not derogate from the importance of the record which proves that Moray had been regularly made a Mason, on English soil, and the event recorded in the still-existing Minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh.
The Minutes record that R. Moray, described as Quartermastcr to the Army of Scotland, then on English soil, had been made a Mason at Newcastle, May 20, 1641, and the Minute thus made was for the purpose of authenticating and registering his membership in the Lodge. The Initiation also is notable for the reason that Robert Moray (afterwards Sir Robert) was believed to have been one "of the great and good men of his day," a founder and first president of the Royal Society, and had been buried in Westminster Abbey. For both of these reasons much has been written about him in Masonic books and periodicals.
But it happens that a biography of Sir Robert which was published in 1922 raises a disturbing question. In The LiJe of Sir Robert Moray, by Alexander Robertson (Longmans, Green & Co.), page 10, the author writes that, "On the 5th of November, 1641, indeed, there is mention in the Acts of Parliament of Scotland of a Robert Murray who was General Quartermaster, and this may have been the Moray with whom we are covcerned" (italics ours).
This raises the question as to whether the Robert Moray who was recorded in the book of the Lodge at Edinburgh was the Sir Robert of the Royal Society. Bro. A. Murray Lyon himself, in his history of the Lodge, raises another question when he says that he "died June 1673, and was buried in the Cannongate Churchyard"; but in a book about Westminster Abbey published in 1753 it is stated that "Sir Robert Murray" was buried there, near D'Avenant, and makes it clear that this Sir Robert was the president of the Royal Society. The author of that book says, "he was a great admirer of the Rosy Crucians" and this has been taken to mean Freemasonry, but the context rather suggests it was chemistry that was meant, for it goes on to say that howas "well versed in Chemistry . . ." and chemistry in that period often was called rosicrucianism by non-scientific men. These data mean that until proof is found that the Robert Moray of the Edinburgh Lodge was the Sir Robert Moray buried in Westminster Abbey that which has been w ritten about the question must be held in suspense.
NOTE. "Murray" and "Moray" were often used interchangeably.
MORMONISM AND MASONRY.
In 1839 the Latter Day Saints, or Mormons, under the leadership of Joseph Smith, the author of their Book of Mormon, purchased land in Illinois at the village of Commerce, and re-christened it Diauvoo. The Saints came in in large numbers. Among them were a number of hIasons under the leadership of Dr. John C. Bennett, Heber C. Kimball, and Hyrum Smith, Joseph Smith's brother. On October 15, 1841, Grand Master Jonas, Illinois, issued a dispensation for a Lodge October 15, 1842, and personally constituted it March 15, 1842. This was less than one year after Joseph Smith married his first plural s if e, "the first instance of the practice of polygamy" in the United States. (Bennett later became a violent opponent of the Mormons.)
When—so we learn from Smith's own journal—the new Lodge installed its officers in an open grove, before a large crowd, Joseph Smith acted as Grand Chaplain, though not a Mason. He and one Sidney Rigdon were that day "made Masons at Sight." Upon this, Bodley Lodge, No. 1, of nearby Quincy, Ill., sent a resolution to Grand Lodge asking for an investigation. On August 11, less than six months afterhe had issued the Dispensation, Grand Master Jonas suspended it; between the two dates Nauvoo Lodge had Initiated 286 Candidates, and "Raised" 256. After it had reformed itself the Lodge vwas on November 2, 1842, permitted to resume labor.
The Saints took in new members in such droves, that by October 3, 1843, there were five Mormon Lodges: Nauvoo, Nye and Helen, in Nauvoo; Keokuk, U. D.; and Rising Sun, NTo. 12, at ANontrose. Keokuk and Montrose were in Iowa Territory. Grand Lodge OD that date listened to complaints about the scandalous irregularities in the practices of these Lodges, no one of which had made reports to Grand Lodge or appeared in it to answer questions; Grand Lodge suspended the five, and ordered them to return their Dispensations, Charters, and Reeords. But the Lodges continued to work in defiance of the Grand Lodge and "made" Masons by the thousands. A detailed record may be found in the Grand Lodge Proceedings of Illinois for 1843,1844, 1845, and 1846. On June 27, 1844, Joseph Smith and his Brother Hyrum were murdered by a mob at Carthage, Ill. After Brigham Young had taken the place of Joseph Smith, and had moved the Church to Utah, the Latter Day Saints renounced and denounced Masonry, forbade Mormons to be Masons, and have been actively Anti-Masonic ever since.
See Mormoism and Masonry, by S. H. Goodwin; Salt Lake City; 1921. In 1935 a Mormon wrote a "reply" to it (How can a man "reply" to a set of written records?): Mormonism and Masonry by E Cecil McGavin; The Deseret News; Salt Lake City Another reply, and "as full of 'whoppers' as the yarns about Paul Bunyan," is The Relationship of Mormonism and Freemasonry; Deseret News Press; 1934. The Story of the Mormons, by William Alexander Linn: Macmillan, New York; 1923, contains a section on Nauvoo.
Mormon theologians have had a task unique in the history of Biblical criticism and exegesis, and which has been more than onee smiled at by other theologians familiar with the seerets of their own eraft: the Mormons hase had to prove that Joseph Smith did write The Bool; of Mormon, else he was not the Prophet of their Revela tion or the head of their Chureh; they also have had to prove that he did not write it, beeause he himself declared that he had found the Book already written! In a brb chure on Mormonism and Anti-Masonry written as a sequel to his ,Mormonism and Masonry, Bro. S. H. Goodwin (Grand Secretary, Utah) proved that the Book of Mormon contained a sizeable number of words and phrases coined by Anti-Masonic stump-speakers and writers which were current in Joseph Smith's early years in New York, these findings added another problem to the Mormon theologians' already too onerous task: if the Book of Mormon had been written in heaven by an angel how had this Anti-Masonic jargon gotten lnto the sacred Book?
[What is Freemasonry] [Leadership
Development] [Education] [Masonic
This site is not an official site of any recognized Masonic body in the United
States or elsewhere.
Last modified: March 22, 2014