MCB wrote:Suere. Maybe I used a term with some negative associations. What I mean is that Masonry responded to the Morgan affair by changing the way they did things. They countered the negative publicity and negative attitude towards themselves by changing. When this changed, some left Masonry for Mormonism.
Remember Thomas Sharp's railing against the abuses of Masonry that were happening just a few miles upriver. He said that Masonry was constructed to encourage ethical behavior in its members-- that was its purpose. And, yes, Stak, it does go back to June 27, 1844.
I am ready to listen to the rest of the podcast.
No not really any negative associations, I just needed some clarification.
The truth is that Masonry really didn't change all that much after the Morgan Affair. Instead the perception of Masonry changed amongst the average American. Before the Morgan Affair, American's looked to Masonry and its members as champions of the Democratic process, an organization that promoted learning and science, a moral educator of men coming into adulthood, and as an organization to which the pillars of the community belonged. As such it was a revered organization by many Americans. Because of the Morgan Affair, Masonry lost as Bullock puts it "the right to reverence".
There were changes within Masonry as a result of the Morgan Affair, but it largely in the area of "bragging rights." Being involved in such a high profile scandal, Masonry could no longer make the claims it previously did. Before the coverup Masons could brag that the members of its fraternity held many of the high and mid-tier leadership positions in the nation, and as such it was powerful. When 80-90% of its members resigned and a portion of the American public wanted to outlaw Masons from running for office, they could no longer make such claims.
Freemasonic claims to antiquity went largely unchallenged in the early 1800-20s; and Masons could freely claim, without being looked at askance, that their fraternity went back to Adam; and that the great men of Christian history were all Masons. During the Morgan Affair such claims became suspect to ridicule. Anti-Masons were free to label these claims as ludicrous in the press. However, those that maintained there membership, despite the scandal, commonly maintained there belief in its antiquity. However, they also only discussed this history behind closed doors after the Morgan Affair. It was not until the late 1800s that Masonic historians in researching their own history elucidated their real history that Masons began to fully reject their legendary history en masse.
During late 1830s and throughout the 1840s, as Freemasonry came out of its dark days, the actual rituals and banter behind closed doors was largely the same as that in the early 1800s. There were, however, some minor changes. For example having come to the realization that some Masons didn't "get" the obvious fact that the penalties were only "symbolic", some Grand Lodges added within the lectures afterwards explicit statements that these were only symbolic. Other than that the rituals were largely the same and the lectures explaining the ritual were largely the same. The after hours conviviality was at times calmed down in comparison to the early 1800s, but the same can be said about drinking across the nation.
Now lets discuss the Masonic-Religious connection. Before the Morgan Affair, Masons claimed to be the teachers of moral virtue; and one of the most common epithet for Mason was the "handmaid of religion." During the 1820s pastors of churches commonly joined Masonry, and while there were exceptions like amongst the Baptists, this was generally looked at as good thing. During the early to mid-1820s Freemasons were bold enough to claim in print, and even more commonly behind closed doors, that Freemasonry was to play a key role in bringing religious and political tolerance into the world and in preparing the world for the millennial reign of Christ. However, during the Morgan Affair many congregations and churches came out publicly against Freemasonry, jumping on the anti-Masonic bandwagon. After the Morgan Affair, with many Evangelical congregations kicking out members who maintained their Masonic affiliations, it was very difficult for Masons to make such claims.
I think that accurately describes the changes (or lack there of) in the Fraternity due to the Morgan Affair.
To get more at your question, Brooke's in his Refiner's Fire plotted the various characteristics of the first wave of Mormons. He found that one positive factor for converts was Masonic activity. However, this trend died as the church expanded outward. In particular Kirtland was the home of the Disciples of Christ (a Baptist offshoot) and was located in the most active zone of anti-Masonic activity in Ohio. One of the most prominent anti-Mormon writers was also a major force within the anti-Masonic party, and early on he tried to link Mormonism and Masonry. As such Joseph ceased any overt outward signs of trying to fullfill his vision of a Mormon-Masonic merger. However, as I discuss in the podcast, he was doing lots of things covertly behind the scenes to set the stage.
Because so many of the converts during this period came from a group that was likely uninvolved with Masonry, I don't think you idea really fits the facts all that well during the second wave of Mormon conversions. Additionally, we have several prominent anti-Masons join the ranks during this period, including W. W. Phelps and George W. Harris.
After the Morgan Affair died down, and while the Mormons were in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith reinitiated his plans to tie the organizations together. The Mormons joined the fraternity in droves, in large part due to Joseph's promptings, and within months there were more Mormon Masons than non-Mormon Masons in the state.
Does this answer your question more completely?