Did Joseph Believe Masonry was Ancient?

[_Willy Law]

Finishing up Quinn's Magic World View.
His view is that the Book of Mormon is not anti mason but instead anti occult magic. He points to the fact that most anti masons in Joseph's time did not view masonry as ancient and were very vocal about their claims that Masonry had no ancient ties. He assumes that if Joseph was an anti mason he would have shared this view. Obviously whatever Joseph (or Sidney or Oliver or Spaulding) was talking about in the Book of Mormon it was not masonry.

I have always had the opinion that Joseph and the early hierarchy of the church absolutely believed that masonry was ancient. I can't recall the exact quote but I believe Heber C Kimball said that Joseph called the endowment "Celestial Masonry" and claimed that masonry had the true priesthood but had been corrupted. I even recall a quote linking masonry to Adam but I may be mistaken on that one.

Am I misunderstanding what Quinn is trying to say? Or am I misunderstanding what the early hierarchy believed?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I am not sure, but there was an article on the FARMS website years ago that stated the modern day temple ceremony was "PURE MASONRY" and confirmed that the temple ceremony did originate from the Masonic influences on Joseph Smith.

I cannot find the article now. Perhaps a Dannyite had it pulled?

[_George Miller]

Finishing up Quinn's Magic World View.
His view is that the Book of Mormon is not anti mason but instead anti occult magic.

I have spent a fair amount of time examining Quinn's view in EMMWV. My own examination suggests that Quinn, while more familiar than most historians, was not familiar enough with Masonic literature of the early to mid 1800s to make an accurate assessment of Joseph Smith's views on Masonry. Quinn is correct that the Book of Mormon is not anti-Masonic. IMHO the Book of Mormon does repeatedly discuss Freemasonry and its focus is not anti occult. Being unfamiliar with Masonic sources written during the early 1800s, Quinn and every other Mormon historian have missed that there are actually two Masonic organization being discussed in the Book of Mormon. The first organization was Speculative Masonry which originated before the foundations of the earth, was administered to Adam and passed down the patriarchal line to Moses and subsequently King Solomon and went hand in hand with the priesthood. The second organization was Spurious Masonry which originated with Satan, was administered to Cain and his posterity. After the flood Spurious Masonry was propagated through Ham and subsequently by the Egyptians. This was a common view of Freemasonry among members of the Fraternity from the 1820s-1870s.

He points to the fact that most anti masons in Joseph's time did not view masonry as ancient and were very vocal about their claims that Masonry had no ancient ties.

Yes this is Quinn's argument. Because the central thesis of this book is to establish the Magic-Mormon connection, Quinn seeks to minimize or eliminate the potential influence of Freemasonry upon Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Quinn's arguments in this regard are sometimes problematic. For example Quinn makes the following claim.

Moreover, in the Masonic magazine sold near Joseph Smith's home in 1826, an article stated: "Freemasonry has likewise been identified by some zealous Masons, with the Eleusinian Mysteries." The author summarized those ancient rites and rejected their linkage with Freemasonry: "God forbid, therefore, that Masonry should ever have been identified with those mysteries." (Quinn, 238)

However, if you actually look at the article in question you will find the following disclaimer about the article.

We give below some observations upon the origin of Freemasonry as an institution, which, it will be readily seen, are, in great measure, in contradiction to the commonly received opinions respecting its antiquity. We recommend them to the attention of our readers, not as doctrine, but as the speculations of an able writer, - the opinions of a scholar, who has made the subject his study, and one who has by no means viewed in a contracted the history of our birth. If necessary, in some future number of our paper, we shall offer our ideas respecting their correctness. (Escritoir)

The Escritoir did in fact later present their own version of Masonic history by reprinting a popular Masonic version of history over multiple issues which confirmed the antiquity of the craft.

The History of Freemasonry- Drawn from Authentic Sources of Information.
Escritoir. 29 APR 1826. 1(14):105-06.
Escritoir. 06 MAY 1826. 1(15):113-14.
Escritoir. 13 MAY 1826. 1(16):121-22.
Escritoir. 20 MAY 1826. 1(17):129-30.
Escritoir. 27 MAY 1826. 1(18):137-38.
Escritoir. 03 JUN 1826. 1(19):145-46.
Escritoir. 10 JUN 1826. 1(20):153-54.
Escritoir. 17 JUN 1826. 1(21):161-62.
Escritoir. 24 JUN 1826. 1(22):169-70.
Escritoir. 01 JUL 1826. 1(23):177-78.
Escritoir. 08 JUL 1826. 1(24):185-86.
Escritoir. 15 JUL 1826. 1(25):193-94.
Escritoir. 22 JUL 1826. 1(26):201-02.
Escritoir. 29 JUL 1826. 1(27):209-10.

I have always had the opinion that Joseph and the early hierarchy of the church absolutely believed that masonry was ancient. I can't recall the exact quote but I believe Heber C Kimball said that Joseph called the endowment "Celestial Masonry" and claimed that masonry had the true priesthood but had been corrupted. I even recall a quote linking masonry to Adam but I may be mistaken on that one.

While you have royally mangled the quotes and their sources, you are entirely correct that the early leaders of the church including Joseph Smith believed in the antiquity of Freemasonry.

Am I misunderstanding what Quinn is trying to say? Or am I misunderstanding what the early hierarchy believed?

You are not misunderstanding either source. Quinn is just incorrect, probably due to limited access to Masonic sources from this time period.

[_MCB]

George, I am currently reading this:

PROOFS
OF A
CONSPIRACY
AGAINST ALL THE
RELIGIONS AND GOVERNMENTS
OF
EUROPE,
CARRIED ON
IN THE SECRET MEETINGS
OF
FREE MASONS, ILLUMINATI,
AND
READING SOCIETIES,
COLLECTED FROM GOOD AUTHORITIES,
BY JOHN ROBISON, A. M.
PROFESSOR OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, AND SECRETARY TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH. 1798

I got my pdf from a public domain library. You are right about different factions within Masonry, some downright evil.

[_George Miller]

George, I am currently reading this:

PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY AGAINST ALL THE RELIGIONS AND GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE, CARRIED ON IN THE SECRET MEETINGS OF FREE MASONS, ILLUMINATI, AND READING SOCIETIES, COLLECTED FROM GOOD AUTHORITIES,
BY JOHN ROBISON, A. M.

I got my pdf from a public domain library. You are right about different factions within Masonry, some downright evil.

Good MCB- This is the source you want to be reading if you want to make a case for Spaulding. You also want to read Augustin Barruel work which was published concurrently. However, be warned that the story told by both Robison and Barruel is what should be called an early 19th century conspiracy theory and is largely incorrect with respects to actual history. Both Robison's and Barruel's work were adapted to produce The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is in many ways the founding story for the modern day antisemitic movement.

[_MCB]

Augustin Barruel? Is that also available online? Just lazy at this moment.

[_George Miller]

Augustin Barruel? Is that also available online? Just lazy at this moment.

Yes you are lazy :-) [Smile Wink]

In the time it took you to write your message you could have found it on Google Books.

Here is a link to an English translation on Google Books to the third volume in the series which discusses how the Masons, Philosophers, and the Illuminati caused the French revolution.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2Kb314 ... uel&pg=PP1

[_MCB]

Wooah!!! Thank you. Yea, I just went downstairs to get a smoke. Thank you again. Maybe others will want to read both. <eyes wide open> What is the quality of the translation of Barruel? My French is rusty, but if I read them in tandem, I might get more meaning out of it. Oh, doesn't appear to be a problem, since he apparently supervised and approved the translation.

[_Willy Law]

Thanks George. Now I remember you discussing two types of Masonry previously.
Quinn does elude to it but seems to equate the branch of Masonry that came through Cain and Ham as occult rather than a branch of masonry.

[Hawkeye]

Quinn's EMMWV is brilliant, but the book's biggest flaw (in my view) is that Quinn does not do justice to the influence of Freemasonry. I continue to maintain that a bifocal lens should be used when interpreting many of the things Quinn includes in his book. I think Reed Durham was spot on in the way he interpreted the Jupiter Talisman, for example. There is no question that there was some cross-pollination going on in Smith's day between the circles of folk-magic and freemasonry.

As I write in my forthcoming book,

The Smiths and several early Saints were also involved in (and influenced by) freemasonry—which perhaps should not be treated as a mutually exclusive influence, as several branches of freemasonry were experimenting with folk magic, at times adopting various elements into their fraternities. One Masonic official observed that some of the younger Masons “were ‘so in love with mysteries’ that they did not care where they came from,” and it is quite telling that Ebenezer Sibley even dedicated his occult manual to "the Ancient and Honourable fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons."

About the Masonic mythology and antiquity. Indeed there were some brethren who did not believe the spaculative craft was ancient... however, early Mormonism sided with those who believed and taught that it existed before the foundations of the world. And as illustrated in a source I shared with George Miller in an email last week, there was also a belief floating around that the third of the hosts of heaven were kicked out for unmasonic conduct.