My Response to Mormon Stories

I was directed this morning to a post by Mormon Stories entitled "Temple Ceremony/Masonry." Despite the controversy surrounding John Dehlin, I feel that if this misinformative article from his organization is being used, then a response certainly needs to be made to correct its false claims.

LDS temples play an integral part in the Mormon experience, hosting the religion’s most sacred rituals and ordinances.

So far, not so bad (aside from the improper terms being used to describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

Only members who have participated in a multi-tier personal interview process with patriarchal leaders are granted permission to enter.

This is most members of the Church. The interview process consists of two interviews: with one's bishopric or branch presidency; the other with one's stake presidency or district presidency. The interview consists of a small series of questions to determine whether the Church member believes in Jesus Christ, is living Gospel standards, sustains Church leadership, etc.

After the questions have been asked, the respective leader will typically ask the Church member if he/she has any questions; once the questions (if there are any) are answered, that's the end of the interview. Unless the Church member states that they do not believe in Jesus Christ, live a Gospel standard, sustain Church leadership, etc., an interview can be done within two or three minutes. Afterwards, the Church member is given a temple recommend, a card that carries the signatures of the two interviewers stating that the Church member is worthy (according to the Church member's answers) to enter the Temple of the Lord. This recommend is shown to Temple workers when entering the Temple and acts as authorization to allow the Church member to proceed.

Therein, Mormons are instructed that the knowledge, tokens, and signs obtained within the temple will provide passage through the veil into the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is in reference only to one of the ceremonies of the temple: that of the temple endowment. This also ignores the fact that everything in the temple is symbolic, including tokens, signs, etc.

Token in a general sense refers to any physical manifestation or representation of identity or authorization. An American driver's license, for example, is a token both of one's personal identity as well as of the State's authorization for its owner to drive on State roads. A signature is likewise a token of both identity and authorization, used (for example) on contracts to authorize its terms.

Tokens have also always been part of covenants made with God. The rainbow, for example, was adopted as a token of God's covenant with Noah never to flood the earth completely again. Circumcision was adopted from the Egyptians for the Abrahamic Covenant and later on for the Law of Moses. Water immersion was adopted from the Jewish tvilah for Christian baptism. Bread and wine were adopted by Christ for His disciples to remember His Atoning Sacrifice.The Church has tokens, therefore, for all of its covenants, and there is clear Biblical precedent.

In the early years of the Church, numerous Mormon leaders were Masons. Joseph Smith also joined the Freemasons, introducing the LDS temple ceremonies a mere seven weeks after receiving their rituals, secret hand grips, embraces, clothing, tokens, and penalties.

This is true. Given, however, that there is no commonality/similarity in subject matter, context, and purposes between the Church's temple endowment ceremony and the degree ceremonies of Freemasonry, however, the similarities overall between these are few and superficial, having only to do with how things are taught and nothing to do with what things are taught. We'll get into that more below.

The Church has no records or journal entries of revelations regarding temple ceremonies or covenants.

This is incorrect. The Church has record of various revelations concerning temple covenants, all within its doctrinal canon.

Perhaps the more important one (I think, anyway) is Section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This is a revelation that Joseph Smith Jr received from Jesus Christ on 19 January 1841 (over a year before he even became a Mason) wherein the Saints (or members of the Church) were commanded to build a temple in Nauvoo, Illinois for the following reasons:

1. The ordinances that they were performing at that time were supposed only to be done in a temple of the Lord.
1. The ordinances specified here were:
1. Washings
2. Anointings
3. (Vicarious) Baptisms for the Dead
2. The only exceptions to this are times of poverty when a temple cannot be built or maintained.
2. Jesus Christ desired to reveal other ordinances to His people that had "been kept hidden from before the foundation of the world" until they were revealed to Joseph Smith.
1. The temple endowment was one of the few temple ordinances revealed in Nauvoo after this revelation had been received.
2. Another such ordinance was the temple sealing, which is discussed in Sections 132 and 133 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

For generations, the Church vigorously denied Masonry’s influence while declaring its own ceremonies to be a different, more purifying experience.

President Anthony W. Ivins, a counselor of the First Presidency from 10 March 1921 until his death on 23 September 1934, wrote specifically in his work Mormonism and Freemasonry wrote the following:

Whether there are resemblances between the ordinances administered in the temples of the Church and those administered in Masonic temples, the writer [Ivins] does not know. He has made no effort to find out. It is not his business to know. While there are many Masons who are members of the Church, he has not at any time asked one of them for information, nor has any one of them ever proffered it. He has read the criticism of no writer who has written on the subject, his limited knowledge has been derived from books written by recognized Masonic authorities. Were he in possession of knowledge of ceremonies regarded as private and sacred by Masons his respect for the men who are connected with the order would seal his lips.

As is clear here, Ivins admits the possibility that similarities might exist between the Church's temple endowment ceremony and the degree ceremonies of Masonry. Two paragraphs later, he writes:

… the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not influenced by Masonry, either in its doctrines, organization, or the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon.

Although Ivins does make a mistake by including the organization of the Church on this list (since the Relief Society was originally patterned after the structure of a Masonic Lodge), he is otherwise absolutely correct in specifying that Masonry has never influenced the doctrine of the Church, the rest of the organization of the Church, or the translation/publication of The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

The Church even went so far as to chastise historians who accurately documented the striking similarities.

This is a reference to Reed C. Durham, who, by his own words, merely worded poorly his thoughts during a conference of the Mormon History Association in 1974.

Given that the majority of temple ordinances are for the dead, some question why the Church spends billions of dollars on spacious buildings for only the exclusive few.

By "exclusive few" Mormon Stories is referring to the majority of members who are able to access the temple. They also obviously did not read Section 124 of Doctrine and Covenants, which (again) states pretty clearly that such ordinances as listed therein are only to be had in the temple except in times of poverty.

Members of the Church raise money for various things, including temples. If Mormon Stories had their way, few temples would exist, thereby making their "exclusive few" claim applicable (as comparatively very few members of the Church would even be able to visit a temple in such a scenario).

Jesus suggested, “Let the dead bury their dead…come follow me.”

This is a reference to Matthew 8:28 (KJV) and is taken out-of-context. The meaning of this verse is to put Christ above all other things, even the burial of loved ones. Following Christ includes keeping His commandments.

Christ has specifically commanded that we perform vicarious baptisms for the dead, as stated (again) in Section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Mormon Stories is essentially quoting Christ out-of-context in order to persuade us not to follow Christ.

Other devout believers that are aware of the historical context and development of the rites have also expressed wonder at their importance, such as when Church historian Leonard Arrington said, “I have not yet come to feel the necessity of frequent attendance at the temple. I think I get as much inspiration watching birds, or looking at the mountains and the wilderness, as participating in the rituals there.”

Notice here that Mormon Stories is now inserting an individual's anecdotal preference in lieu of a logical argument.

Masonic author Mervin Hogan observed, “It must be readily acknowledged that Mormonism and Freemasonry are so intimately and inextricably interwoven and interrelated that the two can never be dissociated.”

Another individual's opinion.

Freemasonry formed somewhere between the 10th and 17th centuries in England and, contrary to what one may claim, possesses no link to the Biblical temple of Solomon or temple builder Hiram Abiff that its ceremonies center on. LDS author Greg Kerney writes,

“Unfortunately there is no historical evidence to support a continuous functioning line from Solomon’s temple to present. We know what went on in Solomon’s temple; it’s the ritualistic slaughter of animals. Masonry, while claiming a root in antiquity, can only be reliably traced to medieval stone tradesmen.” [2] Even Kerney’s inclusion of medieval tradesman is generous, as the earliest Lodges were primarily composed of aristocratic intellectuals.

Apart from the fact that Mormon Stories spelled Greg Kearney's surname incorrectly (twice) and made the incorrect claim that "the earliest Lodges were primarily composed of aristocratic intellectuals," I can agree with this assessment. Freemasonry as a speculative fraternity historically traces back to 1598 Edinburgh, Scotland (Wallace-James). Prior to becoming speculative Masonry, however, Lodges were full of "operative Masons" (or actual stonemasons); it wasn't until the popularity of Gothic architecture began to fade that they started to bring in "accepted" members with no background in stonemasonry (Hodapp 23), which would one day lead to membership consisting of philosophical gentlemen. So, Kearney's inclusion of medieval tradesmen is accurate, not generous.

During Joseph Smith’s upbringing, Masonry was regarded as a mysterious organization full of secret combinations and viewed as a threat to free government. 

It is true that Masonry was falsely viewed as a threat to free government and that it was considered by many to be an evil combination.[*] This was due to the Morgan Affair (The Morgan Affair).

Scholars note that it may have worked its way into the Book of Mormon, becoming the Gadianton Robber narrative with their secret oaths, covenants, and desires to overthrow a democratic Nephite government.

Now Mormon Stories is being generous, attributing the political intrigues and conspiracies detailed in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ to Freemasonry even though such themes have riddled human history and literature since time immemorial.

Joseph Smith Sr. became a Grand Master Mason in 1818.

This is false on multiple counts. The title Grand Master Mason pertains to an administrative office/rank and is only had in the Grand Lodge of Scotland (Grand Master Mason); it is equivalent to the title Grand Master of just about every other Grand Lodge jurisdiction. A Grand Master (or, in the case of Scotland, a Grand Master Mason) is the presiding officer over the entire Grand Lodge. Even so, although there is evidence that Joseph Smith Sr was a Master Mason (Freemasonry and the Church of Latter-day Saints Founders)—which is a degree, not an administrative office—there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever presided over a Grand Lodge jurisdiction nor, therefore, held the title of Grand Master or Grand Master Mason.

Hyrum Smith affiliated with Masonry in 1825 before running afoul of the brotherhood by not paying his debts, as evidenced by brother Joseph’s 1830 letter of warning to “..beware of the freemasons…who care more for his body than the debt…heard were in Manchester, got a warrant.” [4] 

Here is the actual quote (Smith et al. 206-207):

Brother Hyrum [Smith], beware of the Freemasons, [Alexander] McIntyre heard that you were in Manchester and he got out a warrant and went to your father’s to distress the family but Harrison [Samuel Harrison Smith] overheard their talk and they said that they cared not for the debt, if they only could obtain your body. They were there with carriages. Therefore beware of the Freemasons, This from yours &c.

Kirtland Geauga Co. Ohio

Nov^r. 12^th. 1830

This certainly sounds ominous. However, any threats would have been un-Masonic conduct and grounds for reprimands and even suspension for those supposed Masons. Of course, Joseph is relaying this information secondhand; those of us who have played the telephone game know that sometimes things can unintentionally be changed in transmission.

Joseph again wrote Hyrum in March 1831, warning that creditors were again pursuing Smith Sr. for unpaid debts, “Come to Fayette, bring father, do not go through Buffalo for they lie in wait for you.” [5]

This note does not have any obvious relevance to Freemasonry.

Oliver Cowdery’s father, at least three of his brothers, and his cousin were Masons. 

I would love to see primary, authoritative sources in-context to support the claim that Oliver Cowdery's father, siblings, and cousin were Masons. What's more, I would love to understand the relevance of this, given that:

• Oliver Cowdery himself is not recorded to have been a Mason.
• Oliver's family members who were Masons would not likely have shared any Masonic secrets with profanes.[†]

Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Newell Whitney remained Masons for life.

It's true that these were Masons (Goodwin 3); I am not aware of any evidence, however, of them joining any Lodges after their exodus West. If none of them ever resigned from the Fraternity, then they would have been considered unaffiliated Masons in good standing (which would likely have been the protocol for the Grand Lodge AF&AM of Illinois once it had dissolved the Nauvoo Lodges).

Joseph Smith was expedited into Masonry on March 15, 1842, and remained a member for life.

It does not really mean much that he "remained a member for life" given that he was assassinated only two years and three months later.

Because of his father’s rank as Grand Master, he was raised to the rank of first degree Mason within one day.

Here we have a repeated error that becomes a false premise. Joseph Smith Sr was never a Grand Master. He was a Master Mason (like most Masons). I invite Mormon Stories to inform us over which Grand Lodge and during what year(s) Joseph Smith Sr served as Grand Master. We know that he was raised to the degree of Master Mason in Ontario Lodge No. 23 in Canandaigua, New York (Freemasonry and the Church of Latter-day Saints Founders). However, we also know that he was not a Grand Master over the Grand Lodge of New York because they do not list him among their Past Grand Masters (Past Grand Masters)! So please, Mormon Stories, let us know over which Grand Lodge jurisdiction(s) Joseph Smith Sr was Grand Master as well as what year(s) he served therein.

Rather, JS (Jr) was friends with Grand Master Abraham Jonas; Jonas recognized JS's good character and for that reason allowed Nauvoo Lodge, U.D. to initiate, pass, and raise him "speedily" (Nauvoo Lodge, U.D.).

Also, one is not "raised to the rank of first degree" for multiple reasons, including:

• Ranks (synonymous with offices or chairs) and degrees (synonymous with orders or grades) are completely different areas of advancement in Masonry.
• A raising correlates with the third degree (that of Master Mason), not with the first degree (that of Entered/Initiated Apprentice).

Smith recorded, “I officiated as grand chaplain at the installation of the Nauvoo Lodge of Free Masons. . . . In the evening I received the first degree in Freemasonry in the Nauvoo Lodge.” [6] Smith also recorded, “I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree.” [7]

True.

On May 4-5, 1842, mere weeks after obtaining the Masonic rituals, Smith introduced the LDS endowment ceremony to close friends […]

True.

[…] including Masonry’s nearly identical tokens, signs, penalties, prayer circle, new name ritual, apron, etc.

Tokens

Most of the tokens in Masonry differ in physical form from those used in the Church's temple endowment ceremony. All of them, however, differ in correlation with subject matter, context, and purposes.

Signs

The signs as used in the ritual of the Grand Lodge F&AM of Utah differ in physical form from those used in Masonry. There are variations in signs between jurisdictions, but I am not aware of any jurisdiction whose signs are similar enough to those of the Church to make a big deal out of it.

Penalties

Penalties in Masonry have Biblical precedence and are used to measure a Mason's integrity (Cole What Are Masonic Penalties? (Symbolic vs Literal)). Penalties in the Church (no longer had since 1990) were used to inculcate the importance of not sullying sacred things in mundane environments, which is another Biblical concept (Matthew 7:6 KJV).

Prayer Circles

Prayer circles are not had in Masonry. This conclusion is shared by Greg Kearney (Kearney), whom Mormon Stories cited earlier in their article. In fact, if you do a restrictive search of the terms "prayer circle," "freemasonry," and "site:.org" on Google, you'll find:

• an overwhelming amount opinion-/gossip-pieces from sources antagonistic to the Church.
• Greg Kearney's clarification of the matter on FAIR.
• other opinion-pieces from non-Masonic sources.
• a newsletter from a Scottish Rite body
• this source is irrelevant given that:
• there is no record of Joseph having joined the Scottish Rite.
• the Scottish Rite was not even established in Illinois during Joseph's lifetime.

I find it quite telling that Mormon Stories is willing to cherry-pick from Kearney's firsthand knowledge/experience what benefits their agenda but completely ignores the truths that he shares that conflict therewith.

New Name

Kearney affirms that there exist some Grand Lodge jurisdictions that give a new name (Kearney). The Grand Lodge F&AM of Utah does not, and I imagine that there are other Grand Lodge jurisdictions that also do not. It is therefore worth looking into the ritual that the Grand Lodge of Illinois AF&AM utilized during Joseph's day to see if it was used in that jurisdiction at that time. Until such can be demonstrated, it will neither be proven nor disproven that Joseph learned the idea of a new name from Masonry.

Even if he did, however, there is a monumental difference between the Masonic new name and the Church's new name: Some grand lodge jurisdictions do have in their ritual to give a new name to the candidate, though that name is standardized in ritual for every candidate (Hams 2008), whereas the new name given in the Church is on a standardized rotation (as opposed to being standardized in the ritual) and has no Masonic purpose or context.

What's more, there is Biblical precedent in the Bible for receiving a new name in conjunction with making a covenant with God. The most notable examples are Abram, Sarai, and Saul who each became Abraham, Sarah, and Paul respectively.

Today under the New and Everlasting Covenant (which was effected in the current dispensation), part of our temple covenants include not disclosing our new names except in proper circumstances explained therein.

Ritual

This is an over-general term that's being misrepresented as if it were some specific similarity. Ritual is synonymous with ceremony. What do we call the event that transmits the ordinance of the temple endowment? The temple endowment ceremony.

Now, I'll happily concede that Joseph adopted some ritualistic elements from the Masonic pedagogical system or teaching model (i.e., concepts of theatrical presentations, of gestures for tokens, of illustrative symbols, etc.); however, these were adapted to:

• teach the Church's doctrine concerning our divine origin/potential as God's children.
• be a ceremonial vehicle whereby we can make covenants with God to keep His commandments.

No such doctrine or covenants are had in Masonry. Therefore, as previously stated here and elsewhere, the only similarities between the Church's temple endowment ceremony and the degree ceremonies of Freemasonry are in how things are taught and have nothing to do with what things are taught. That makes all similarities few and superficial.

Aprons

Aprons were never unique to Masonry. Even so, the aprons used in Masonry have no resemblance to those used in the Church aside from one very general detail: they look like aprons. That's it. Aprons in Masonry are Lambskin or White Leathern aprons which symbolize the rectitude of conduct against which we should measure and improve our actions; aprons in the Church symbolize the fig-leaf aprons worn by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:7 KJV), pursuant to the moral allegory based on the Creation used in the temple to convey the above-described doctrine and covenants.

Richard Bushman suggests “He had a green thumb for growing ideas from tiny seeds.” [8]

I suggest that Joseph was just as inspired as Noah, Abraham, John the Baptist, and Jesus Christ Himself were relative to adopting/adapting extant concepts to help teach and be tokens for the covenants established by Christ through him.

Mormonism’s bond with masonry ebbed and flowed with the political landscape, but by October 1842, Nauvoo’s 253 member lodge outnumbered the 227 Masons in all other Illinois lodges combined. Nauvoo Masons held a fundraising play on April 24, 1844 to pay Smith’s mounting legal bills. Brigham Young and other LDS Church leaders participated in lead roles.

I'm not exactly sure why this is an issue.

Years later, Heber C. Kimball quipped, “We have the true Masonry…they have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.” [9]

This was an opinion shared by many members of the Church during that time; it was based on the popular theory among Masons that Masonry literally descended from King Solomon's Temple. This theory is only held by a minority of Masons today for reasons previously explained.

Since this principle was never canonized as doctrine in the Church, it is irrelevant. 

Smith’s last words when he was murdered in Carthage Jail came as he attempted to jump out of the window, “Oh Lord, my God…,” were the likely the first words of the Masonic cry of distress: […]

This is possible, but evidence is lacking. Prayers commonly start out the same way; the phrase is so common that it's a line in a popular Christian hymn ("How Great Thou Art"). What's more, all of Joseph's attackers were disguised in blackface and Joseph likely did not know many Masons outside of Nauvoo (much less in Missouri, a completely separate Masonic jurisdiction by that time), especially given that Illinois Lodges outside of Nauvoo refused to interact with the Nauvoo Lodges. With bullets flying around everywhere, I doubt that Joseph recognized any Masons in the crowd to whom he might have appealed.

Like I wrote, though, it's not impossible that this was his intent.

Some of the similarities between Masonry and Mormonism (specifically in the temple) include the following:

[List]

Everything listed here has also been addressed by Kearney. I will note, however, (as I have done elsewhere) the incorrect use of the term blood oath. This term is defined as "a very serious or solemn oath" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Blood Oath).[‡] This term covers wedding vows, the US Constitutional Oath, the US Pledge of Allegiance, the British Pledge of Allegiance, the Scout Oath, etc. What is meant here are the symbolic penalties.

That clarified, we do not make oaths to anybody in Freemasonry; rather, we merely take obligations upon and unto ourselves. If we don't have oaths in Masonry, then it logically follows that we don't have blood oaths either.

It is disingenuous of Mormon Stories to talk about "penalties" and "blood oaths" as if they mean two separate things without clarification. It is also ignorant and/or deceitful (by way of fearmongering) to use the term blood oath as if it means anything at all sinister in any way logically applicable to the Church or to Freemasonry.

It should also be noted that either Mormon Stories plagiarized this list from Michael Norton or Michael Norton plagiarized it from Mormon Stories. Either way, one or both of these antagonists is guilty of the very same thing that they claim Joseph Smith to have done, as neither one of them credits the other or anybody else for the list.

How ironic.

Mormon temple ceremonies have changed significantly over the years, but anyone who has experienced the LDS temple endowment will recognize the Masonic rituals. All the signs and tokens are essentially shared with Masonry or only slightly embellished. Mormon temple ceremonies are so similar that one historian called the endowment Celestial Masonry.

A documentary compilation of the changes of the temple ceremonies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been published in a volume called Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History, available here. It quotes directly from letters issued by prophets and apostles to each other, to temple presidents, to the general membership, etc.

To those who are able, I also recommend going through the degrees of Masonry. Such firsthand knowledge/experience will show that most antagonistic entities (like Mormon Stories) value bias over truth (as has been shown here).

Mormonism has long shared an awkward relationship with Freemasonry, unsure when to embrace or shun it completely. Prohibited from discussing the temple rituals, many members take it upon faith that ambiguous symbolism and hidden meanings stem from sacred and ancient origins.

This is a generalization fallacy; it pretends to represent members overall in how they individually interpret and discern symbolism, meanings, what is disclosable, and what is not. This is a mark of hubris on the part of Mormon Stories; they do not have the omniscience required to make such a judgment honestly.

The LDS Church has generally adopted the position that its temple rituals remain uninfluenced by Masonry. Efforts to propagate such thinking include the 1934 publication of Relationship of Mormonism and Masonry by general authority Anthony Ivins. The introduction of his book admonishes members to “refrain from identifying themselves with any secret, oath-bound society,” as such affiliation “tends to draw people away from the performance of Church duties.”

This was a stance that evolved from a long history of persecution from:

• fellow citizens in Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri
• the state of Missouri (Executive Orders)
• the federal government (Gedicks and McConnell; Poll and Powell)

A penal oath, commonly referred to as a blood oath, was a known Masonic ritual requiring members to swear to surrender their lives rather than reveal the secret tokens and signs given them. Ceremony participants covenanted, “I will never reveal the [token]… Rather than do so, I would suffer my life to be taken.” The sworn obligation to secrecy and psychologically controlling aspects surrounding the temple experience are textbook indoctrination.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this one, since most of it has already been addressed here. Indoctrinate literally means "to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle; to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments; to teach" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Indoctrinate). In other words, it merely means to teach somebody, including in regard to religious or spiritual subject matter. That's it. Those who misuse the term by limiting it solely to religions with which they disagree is (surprise) yet another form of deceitful fearmongering.

Members grew increasingly unconformable with the cryptic ritual, resulting in declining temple attendance, so the Church conducted a survey in 1988 to gauge member sentiment. The penal oath and explicitly performed penalties […] were removed from LDS ceremony in 1990. Though no longer clearly identified in LDS ceremony today, remnants of the signs and penalty motions remain. At one point in the ceremony, temple patrons are instructed during a hand gesture to extend the thumb, which represents the blade with which you cut the throat and belly.

See above concerning the symbolic penalties.

Soon after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, Brigham Young added an Oath of Vengeance to the LDS temple ceremony. “You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” The sacred practice was not eliminated until the early 1930s.

Members prayed that God would take vengeance against the government for the martyrdom of Joseph Smith; however, they never made any oaths that they themselves would take vengeance. So "oath of vengeance" is a misleading label.

Also, take notice that they linked to Wikipedia here. What's ironic about this is that Wikipedia itself has stated that it is not a reliable source of information; so that speaks to the quality of research that went into this Mormon Stories article.

During the temple endowment ceremony, each member receives a new name which they are instructed to always remember, keep sacred and never reveal, except at a specific place inside the temple. Since January 1, 1965, each male and female who goes through the temple on any given day receives the exact same new name for each sex, regardless of which temple they attend across the globe.

This is true, including the date (when the new names were standardized on a rotation Church-wide; Anderson 389n38). The new name is symbolic, not literal.

Because these names are symbolic and not literal, this does not detract from the sacred nature of the covenants that we make with Jesus Christ through His authority in the temple.

These “secret” names are provided to the temple workers daily during a special prayer meeting. Every temple has a set of placards containing the male and female names, in addition to a number representing the day of the month. The new name each temple patron receives depends only on their gender, whether the ordinance is live or proxy, and the day of the month. An exception occurs if the name of the day coincides with the person’s actual first name, in which case he/she receives the replacement name of Adam/Eve respectively. For endowments given in languages other than English, new names are translated to their nearest equivalent in that language.

I see no reason for an argument here.

Garments (specially designed underwear initially resembling long johns, and now t-shirts and boxer briefs) are to be worn at all times, day and night, to serve as a constant reminder of the covenants made within LDS temples. Members are provided specific instruction regarding how to care for the underwear, when it may be removed, and that they should not alter it in any way.

True. Given the sacred covenants that it represents, it logically follows that we should have instructions on how to use/handle them. We also have such instructions for less sacred things in society; for example, we have a federal Flag code in the United States (4 U.S. Code § 8 - Respect for Flag). We are not the only religion to have sacred clothing.

Historian D. Michael Quinn writes, “In Mormon folklore the temple garment sometimes functions as a classic amulet that has power in itself. To some Mormons, the garment has power to protect only what it touches.” Testimonies of physical protection powers occurred prior to Smith’s death, but accelerated dramatically thereafter. The Church has also promoted the physical protection aspect of garments. Bill Marriott declared in a 60 Minutes interview that his underwear protected him from certain harm, while Mike Wallace displays his professionalism during the exchange.

Paul H. Dunn also claimed that garments protected him in battle. As many of his sports/war stories were revealed to be fabrications, it became a turning point away from LDS literal protection claims.

Today, Mormons are offered ambiguous notions of spiritual protection and covenant reminders by wearing their temple garments day and night. By 1998, the Church was officially discounting the idea that garments offer physical protection, but that they merely guard against temptation and evil.

It has never been written anywhere in the Church's doctrinal canon that temple garments offer physical protection; it has always only ever been a token and a physical reminder of covenants made with God. It is disingenuous of Mormon Stories to reference irrelevant opinions of individuals as if they were ever representative of the doctrine of the Church.

All-in-all, I find that Mormon Stories has sacrificed truth and integrity in favor of gossip—which laces their article throughout—and has a poor understanding concerning the basics of Freemasonry.

Works Cited

“4 U.S. Code § 8 - Respect for Flag.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/8.

Anderson, Devery S, editor. “Chapter 6: ‘Standards and Principles’ 1961-1970.” Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History, Signature Books, 2011, p. 389n38.

“Blood Oath.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20oath.

“Chapter 1.” Mormonism and Masonry, by S. H. Goodwin, Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 1992, p. 3.

“Chapter 2: From Cathedrals to Lodge Rooms: A History of the Freemasons.” Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2013, p. 23, smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B0FSAW4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1.

“Chapter 8: Masonic Activity in Nauvoo.” Mormonism and Masonry, by E Cecil McGavin, Bookcraft Publishers, 1956, p. 93.

“Chapter 9: Resemblances.” Mormonism and Freemasonry, by Anthony W Ivins, The Deseret News Press, 1934, p. 89.

Cole, Brandon. “What Are Masonic Penalties? (Symbolic vs Literal).” MasonicFind, 26 Jan. 2021, masonicfind.com/what-are-masonic-penalties.

Durham, Reed C. “Reed C. Durham on 1974 Talk.” FAIR, The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc., www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Primary_sources/Reed_C._Durham_on_1974_talk.

“Executive Orders.” The Missouri Mormon War, Missouri Secretary of State, www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/findingaids/miscMormonRecords/eo.

“Freemasonry and the Church of Latter-Day Saints Founders.” An Introduction to the History of Freemasonry, Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A. F. & A. M., 1 Feb. 2017, freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/lds/founders.html.

Gedicks, Frederick, and Michael McConnell. “Common Interpretation: The Free Exercise Clause.” Amendment 1: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition, National Constitution Center, constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/265.

“Grand Master Mason.” Structure, Grand Lodge of Antient Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland, www.grandlodgescotland.com/structure/grand-master-mason/.

Hams, Byron E. “Why a Life Time Apprentice.” Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry, Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry, 9 Oct. 2008, 4:50 AM, www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/Hams.html.

Harper, Douglas. “Profane.” Online Etymology Dictionary, www.etymonline.com/word/profane.

Holy Bible: Authorized King James Version. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2013, Gospel Library, www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/.

“Indoctrinate.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate.

Kearney, Greg. “Similarities Between Masonic and Mormon Temple Ritual.” FAIR, The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc., 7 Sept. 2013, www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/ask-the-apologist-similarities-between-masonic-and-mormon-temple-ritual.

Mackey, Albert G. “Profane.” Encyclopædia of Freemasonry, Edited by William J Hughan and Edward L Hawkins, New and Revised ed., II, The Masonic History Company, 1927, p. 590.

Nauvoo Lodge, U.D. “7:00 PM.” Lodge Minutes, 15 Mar. 1842, p. 28., archive.org/details/NauvooMasonicLodgeMinutes18411842/page/n1/mode/2up. Internet Archive.

“Past Grand Masters.” Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of New York, GLNY F&AM, 7 June 2018, nymasons.org/site/past-grand-masters/.

Poll, Richard D. “The Utah War.” Utah History Encyclopedia, Edited by Allen Kent Powell, University of Utah Press, 1994, www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/u/UTAH_WAR.shtml.

Smith, Joseph. “Part 4: October 1830–January 1831.” Documents: July 1828–June 1831, edited by Michael Hubbard MacKay et al., vol. 1, The Church Historian’s Press, 2013, pp. 206–207, www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-the-church-in-colesville-2-december-1830/11.

“The Morgan Affair.” The Short Talk Bulletin, Mar. 1933, freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/morgan_affair.html.

Wallace-James, R. E. The Book of the Lodge of Aitchison's Haven, 1598-1764. Lodge St John Kilwinning, No. 57, 1998, Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/aitchison-lodge.pdf.

Webster, Noah. “Combination.” American Dictionary of the English Language, S. Converse, 1828, webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/combination.

                                                                                    

[*] In Joseph's time, Combination was defined in part as "Intimate union, or association of two or more persons or things, by set purpose or agreement, for effecting some object, by joint operation; in a good sense, when the object is laudable; in an ill sense, when it is illegal or iniquitous. It is sometimes equivalent to league, or to conspiracy. We say, a combination of men to overthrow government, or a combination to resist oppression" (Webster).

[†] Profane etymologically means "outside the temple" and referred to the uninitiated—or those ignorant of rites—both in ancient history and among 19th-century Masons (Harper; Mackey et al. 590).

[‡] There is also the definition "an oath taken by two or more people in which they ceremonially use or exchange each other's blood"; however, this has never occurred in the Church nor in Freemasonry and therefore is not relevant.