SOT LitnerStandard of Truth listener companion
Betting on ecumenical
S2E14 · Freemasons Part 2
0:00 / 42:31
14 chapters
← All episodes
Standard of Truth · Season 2 · Episode 14 · 42:31

Freemasons Part 2

Raising your hand in class and raising your hand to swear an oath in court are the exact same motion, and nobody thinks they mean the same thing.

Press play above. The page follows along.
The question ·

I've heard that Joseph Smith just stole the temple ceremony from the Masons.

Gerrit (reading listener questions)

Richard and Gerrit return to listener questions on Freemasonry, this time the blunt one: did Joseph Smith just take the temple ceremony from the Masons? Gerrit explains why the topic is hard to discuss when both temple covenants and Masonic rites are kept sacred or secret, and notes that the endowment's presentation has changed over the years. Using raised hands and baptism, he shows that a similar gesture can carry completely different meanings in different settings. He weighs the idea that both trace back to Solomon's temple, finds no historical evidence for it, and lands on what matters most: the covenant between you and God.

Who comes upJoseph SmithSolomonHarry S. TrumanGeorge WashingtonRussell M. NelsonAdamEveAbrahamRoger WilliamsTruman Madsen
Now playing · 0:39

Betting on ecumenical

Richard sets the over-under on how many times Gerrit says "ecumenical" last week.

Chapters

Tap a chapter to jump there

Transcript

103 moments · tap a time to play from there
Intro Welcome to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, where we explore the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and gain rare historical insights into how a young farm boy was able to establish a new church and grow it by way of visions, manifestations and miracles.
Gerrit Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard LeDuc.
Richard Hello, Gerrit. In this week's podcast, we wanted to do a follow up of the several questions we received relating to Freemasonry and the LDS Church.
Gerrit Right, so last week, we gave a, well, I mean, truth be told, probably a terrible history of Masonry.
Richard Well, like you said, if the Freemasons were so smart, they could do their own podcast.
Gerrit First of all, I'm almost certain that a Freemason somewhere is doing a podcast. I'm pretty sure that. And then second of all, yes. No, I don't know.
Richard I mean, I thought it was actually fairly interesting. It was...
Gerrit Well, I mean, you have to say that because you're sitting across from me, but...
Richard Yeah, I didn't think it was interesting at all.
Gerrit We should let the listeners vote with their feet, or in this case, turning off the podcast.
Richard Although if you had the over at the number of times that Gerrit would say ecumenical at 37, and you took the over, you won.
Gerrit What we're hoping is that our podcast can devolve into a series of gambling where...
Richard DraftKings added it at 35 and a half.
Gerrit Yeah, exactly. Where people just simply bet on the stupid things that I say and they win constantly. Yeah, that's a, I don't know another way to describe ecumenical, but... Across sectarian church lines.
Richard Yeah, yeah, you nailed it.
Gerrit Do you want me to say that every time?
Richard I would love to, rather than ecumenical, if you could say it.
Gerrit So rather than ecumenical, what I'm gonna say is, hey, he ain't got a problem with this guy here. You want me to say that?
Richard Well, so one of the things at the heart of the question that was asked relating to...
Gerrit I spent an entire episode trying to avoid it.
Richard You did, you really did. And really appreciate you coming back in another week to really get to the heart of the issue as it relates to Freemasonry and the LDS Church. Because the history of Joseph Smith in the Freemasons, the history of Freemasons in Utah, that was all interesting, but that wasn't...
Gerrit But it wasn't enough for you. It was interesting.
Richard It never is.
Gerrit But I missed the mark, is what you're saying.
Richard Well, no, no, it was good. It was good, but anyway.
Gerrit You said that was good the way that someone says, when I make them dinner and they taste it, they're like, yes, that's good. No, it's really, really good.
Richard No, we really appreciate you bringing it over.
Gerrit Would you like, no, I don't want any more. No, please, no.
Richard Anyway, so you kind of, I'll let you kind of determine how you weighed into the little...
Gerrit So the questions relating to, the questions we received anyway is, I've heard that Joseph Smith just stole the temple ceremony from the Masons. That's what the question says.
Richard Well, we received several questions. One of them was a little more blunt. Why is Joseph such a thief?
Gerrit I don't think it said that, but it is clearly a source of anti-Mormon criticism and has been that the argument is that the temple ceremony, most specifically the endowment ceremony, was simply taken from Masonic ritual. And that it's not really from God. Joseph just stole it from the Masons and then said, by the way, this is religious.
Richard Well, I think one of the issues is, as it relates to this, is you have something that's secret in its nature with the Mason rights, and you have something that's sacred in its nature with temples. And so this isn't something that's really spoken about. And so critics can take a little bit more license because people that hold things to be a little more sacred are less willing to discuss some of those things.
Gerrit Yeah. And frankly, there's different ways that people have tried to deal with those connections. And I had a student ask me just this last week about this, because one way to try to deal with it... So here's the apparent reality. And I have to say it that way, because again, as Richard pointed out, obviously, temple covenants are sacred. The things that occur in the temple are sacred. They are not things that you're broadcasting on your TikTok. Unless you're one of those people who's already on their way out of the church or already out, then I guess then you do. So because of that, talking about the specifics of how they relate actually becomes pretty difficult. Also, from the Masonic side of things, Masons don't believe anyone should be sharing their secret oath signs and rituals that they do as a part of their progress up the Masonic ladder, essentially.
Gerrit So what does that mean? It means we're dealing with a really weird place where the only information we can actually have that we can publicly discuss is actually coming from people that are criticizing one or the other organization and have been completely disavowed by either of those organizations.
Richard It's a pretty good place if you're going to be a critic.
Gerrit Yeah, yeah. Well, it's a terrible place when you're trying to be a faithful Latter-day Saint doing a podcast. So as I mentioned last podcast, so many days ago, part of the way that Masonic ritual is practiced is that there are certain key phrases and also hand grips and also recreations of some stories that originate in the Old Testament. There is also clothing that is worn that is in the Old Testament. It is unique to Masonry. So, for instance, in Masonry, when people dress in Masonic garb, one of the things they wear is a type of apron that goes around their midsection.
Richard When we were doing the search on presidents and founders of the country that were Freemasons, an iconic picture is of...
Gerrit George Washington.
Richard Well, George Washington, but there's an iconic photograph of a Truman wearing an apron, Harry Truman wearing an apron, a Masonic apron, now having a discussion about whatever the thing is. So that goes to the point where that's...
Gerrit How Dewey didn't win the election, probably.
Richard Yeah, he's holding the newspaper with his apron.
Gerrit And then on the other side, he's like, I'll show you who... Dewey wasn't a Mason, that's why he didn't win.
Richard And that joke is going to play well with Rachel's mom and two other people.
Gerrit Rachel's mom, my mom, I mean...
Richard She always needed Dewey.
Gerrit Well, I mean, come on, she's all in for Kennedy. I mean, come on. It's not that far to get to Harry Truman. So at any rate, the difficulty in approaching this subject, you can see because there's only certain things we can discuss. But so there's some similarities. So first and foremost, there are similarities. And I think that most people listening to this podcast, who are temple going Latter Day Saints, they recognize that in the past several years, there have been multiple changes or differences in the way that the endowment is presented. President Nelson even had to comment on this in a recent general conference. For many people, growing up, most of the people I knew, they felt like what they experienced when they went to the temple and went through an endowment was a literal recreation of exactly the way covenants had been made by previous prophets in the past, all the way back to the beginning of time.
Gerrit If Abraham's making a covenant, that's how he's making it. Elijah, Adam, everybody. Well, that literal nature. Now, the Temple Prep Manual specifically said that the temple is symbolic. And even though it says that, the general reaction is that many people take it very literally, that the things that are part of the presentation of the endowment are taken very literally rather than symbolic. And so people have a great deal of heartburn when things change. This is not unique to our time. There were a considerable number of people who were very critical of the move from a live presentation of the endowment to a video or movie presentation. Now, there are a lot of reasons why that move was made. Obviously, it was much easier to keep things uniform and translated and to make sure everything was done the same way.
Gerrit But it was fundamentally different, right? Instead of having different people in the live presentation act out parts of it, you now had a movie that was the same every time, which was much more efficient, much quicker, much easier, but also not the same thing. And people had a really hard time with that. Is it even the same thing if it's not live? And of course, there are books you can read that talk about the development of Latter-day Saint temple worship. But for the purposes of the people that are asking the question, it is I've heard that the temple ceremony or I've experienced the temple ceremony is so similar to Masonic rites that Joseph Smith just simply took the things from the endowment from Masonry and then called it his own.
Gerrit The appeal to this, of course, of someone who's an antagonist is it provides a way to undermine what has become one of the most sacred parts of our faith. I would guess that most active Latter-day Saints listening to me not only think that the temple is an important part of their faith, but they probably located as the center part of their faith. I mean, obviously the Lord Jesus is the center of our faith, but what is my physical representation of my devotion to Jesus? It's the idea of temple worship, being worthy to do temple worship. The idea of work for the dead is central to our belief that there is an afterlife, that there was a pre-existence, that it's just so key to it. And so hitting at the temple ceremony, undermining someone's faith in it, is a tactic that's used in a way to say, this isn't really from God.
Gerrit If they wear aprons in Masonic ceremony, and you wear aprons in a Latter-day Saint temple ceremony, aha, therefore, it's not really from God. That's essentially what the argument is. If there are certain key words in Masonry, and there are things in any way similar, even the fact that there would be something in Latter-day Saint temple worship, then aha, it's just simply taken from that. Now, of course, part of the problem with that is the idea as certain parts of temple worship are coming directly from the Scriptures, right? So the Book of Revelation is going to talk about the white stone, which Joseph Smith is going to elaborate on and say that the white stone is going to have a new name on it, that it's going to become a Urim and Thummim to all those who go to the celestial kingdom, right?
Gerrit So Joseph's teaching that publicly. Well, you can see how someone might say, if there are any similarities, then that means that there's something just secular and not religious at all in the covenants that I'm making.
Richard Because if it's not completely unique, completely new, completely different, then it must not be directly forgotten.
Gerrit And I think that that's fueled by the fact that temple worship is very different than my sacrament meeting worship. And so let's say I'm a brand new elder, getting ready to go on my mission, and I go to the temple for the first time. What I see there is likely to be very different than what I've anticipated. But most especially, even if I had no expectations whatsoever, it's a different way of worshiping than I worship in my sacrament meeting. And I think this is where antagonists of the church, as well as the devil, try to make us equate something being new and unique with that thing being wrong. That's one of the problems we deal with in history, honestly, right?
Gerrit I'm talking all the time about what's going on in the culture of the past, in part because what's the easiest thing to do is to say, well, the past is different, so therefore it's wrong. And I think that that goes on here a little bit. Let me give you an example of where we will do some things that seem similar, but even though they seem similar, they have very, very, very different meanings. So context ends up being everything. Here's an example of that. Think of the act of raising your right hand. I teach BYU students. They raise their right hand all the time. If they're left-handed, they'll raise their left hand, but usually they raise their right hand to ask a question. Sometimes they raise it. Right now, Richard has a broken right hand.
Richard Yeah, I'd raise my left hand.
Gerrit Well, if you raise your right hand, it's more of like a club.
Richard It is more of a club.
Gerrit And you fell down some stairs?
Richard Well, anyone can fall downstairs, Gerrit. I fell up some stairs. I tripped and I fell up some stairs, fell into a door jam, broke the middle of my hand. Uh, got a cast. It got worse. Had to have surgery. It's really turned into a whole thing.
Gerrit I'm glad we could make a mockery of it.
Richard It hurts. It hurts incredibly bad.
Gerrit Yeah, he's been doing this entire, this entire podcast he's been doing in agony, not only because he has to listen to the content, but also because his hand hurts. This is true. Two reasons for agony. At any rate, even in that classroom setting, if there was no audio, right, and all you could, you just watch students raising their hand, they might be raising their hand for entirely different reasons. I might say, how many of you have done the reading, right? And a bunch of hands go up and...
Richard Most hands don't.
Gerrit Yeah, well, are they trying to be honest because they're BYU students? The reality is none of those hands should go up. That's actually different. That's them saying, I did or I didn't do something. Whereas, what if I'm lecturing and someone raises their hand? They're doing the exact same thing as they did before, only now the point of them raising their hand is to interrupt the lecture in order to ask a question. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but the point of raising the hand, it's the exact same motion.
Richard Totally different.
Gerrit One was to declare, I have done my homework even though I know I haven't. The other is, I need to stop you where you're at because I don't understand X. If you've listened to this podcast long enough, you realize hands are going up all the time. They're like, nothing you're saying is making any sense.
Richard What does ecumenical mean?
Gerrit What does ecumenical mean? Why do you have a podcast? Why was I even born? It just goes further down the line. At any rate, so that's just in my classroom. People will raise their hand for multiple different reasons. Well, so now, let's say it's the exact same student, and now they are in a court. Of law where they are being sworn in as a witness to a crime that they committed.
Richard Now these are my students, University of Utah students.
Gerrit All University of Utah students, to a crime that they witnessed. Maybe they participated in it too, and they took state's evidence. I don't know. Okay, so all the BYU students that commit crimes, but then get lower sentences by testifying against their friends. Anyway, when they go up to be sworn in, they're also going to raise their hand. Raise your hand, put your hand in the Bible, right? And you're going to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, to help you out, right? So you'll notice, even in our society, someone raising their hand, it's the exact same action. The only reason you know what it means is on the basis of your other cultural apparatus surrounding it. If I'm at an auction and I raise my hand, I neither want him to call on me, nor do I want to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, nor do I need to affirm that I did my homework, even though it's the exact same motion.
Richard So one example, just even in a church setting, when there's a calling and you're sustaining a particular person, there's a tremendous amount that goes into that sustaining, that I'm there to support them, to help them. There's a lot of commitment that you're making just in that simple gesture. When even just, to your point, later on in that same sacrament meeting, we'd like to welcome the Johnson family into our ward, all those sick and...
Gerrit Right. Would you like to manifest your support for them with a raise of the right hand? Like, okay. Sure. But that's not the same thing.
Richard As supporting a bishop in their calling.
Gerrit Even though the hand symbol is exactly the same. Right. We talk about it in a court of law, we talk about it in the classroom, we talk about it in church. The point is, raising my right hand, or my left hand, whichever one I'm raising, it means something completely different, not on the basis of the gesture itself. The context in which the gesture is given is what determines the meaning behind it. When I said, you know, temple worship is going to seem very odd to people. One of the reasons why it seems odd to people, I think, is again, because it's so new, and it seems so different from our other forms of worship. I suppose if we went to the temple, and we just sang hymns the whole time, people would be like, okay, so it's like choir practice only, you know. But I want you to think about just how crazy baptism is for just a minute. Whatever you happen to think about temple ritual, think about baptism.
Gerrit Now, think about what baptism looks like. If you had never heard of baptism, you'd never seen it before. The description of what it actually is. Yeah, well, what are you doing? Well, we're going to throw this guy under the water so we can take his sins away. Why can't you just say his sins? No, because we have to, because it washes them away. Why don't you just say that? I mean, the reality is baptism is incredibly complex. It involves, you know, submerging in water. It involves all kinds of rituals surrounding it. But it's not weird to us because baptism has been a part of Christian history for 2000 years. So because of that, it's not weird at all, even though for essentially any Christian, it's just about the most involved thing that you do at all in your worship service, right? If you think it's bad to have to answer the door when the fast offering, you know, boys come around.
Gerrit I mean, this is a change of clothes is involved in a towel. I mean, this is incredible. You just don't think of it as being weird because it's so culturally normal to you. But baptism is a really good example of how even though things might seem similar, what really matters is the covenant that's being made. In our earlier conversation, which you also didn't listen to, but you could go back and try to find it, but we don't label these things, so it's not like you'd be able to figure it out. At some point, we will have a staff, aside from Richard and his broken hand, now he's entering, frankly, his descriptions have gotten worse because now he's entering them with just his left hand and he's right-handed, and only some of the fingers on his left hand work. So now, you're going to be lucky if the descriptions are like, good podcast, yay. I mean, anyway.
Gerrit We had a discussion about the fact that baptism just means something totally different to a Protestant than it means to a Latter-day Saint. I'm not saying that baptism is important to Protestants. It's incredibly important to them. But if you have a discussion with them about what it means, you'll very quickly realize that when a Latter-day Saint says, it's important to be baptized, and a Lutheran says it's important to be baptized, they don't mean the same thing. For Protestants, they don't believe that baptism is essential for salvation. Probably the most surprising thing that some of you had when you were on your missions is you met some Baptists who proceeded to have an argument with you about whether or not baptism was essential to go to heaven. I mean, you would think if you could get anyone on your side about the essential nature of baptism, it would be someone with baptism in the name, right?
Gerrit A Baptist. I remember when I first met a Baptist, and I thought, oh, I could build on a common thought here because they obviously see baptism as essential. Now Baptists see baptism as incredibly important. It is the outward demonstration of their commitment to Jesus. But it doesn't save them. They are saved by faith and grace. It is not essential for salvation. What's essential for salvation is that they have faith in Jesus. And of course, if you have faith in Jesus, you will want to be baptized because that's what people with faith in Jesus do. So baptism is more a reflection that you've committed to Jesus, but not an essential key unlocking the doorway to heaven for you. So already there's a very big difference. Now, Baptists baptize by immersion, just like Latter-day Saints do. The phraseology is depending on where you're at. Baptist churches have local control, so the words they use to baptize are often differing from one another.
Gerrit But if you were to go watch a Baptist baptism, which I have, you would actually be very surprised at how similar it is to a Latter-day Saint baptism. There is a confession of faith, usually of the person getting baptized publicly, but the prayer is often very similar, and the person is immersed fully in the water and they're brought about of the water. Imagine if you were having a conversation with your Baptist friend, who hearing the Latter-day Saints also baptized by immersion, said to you, what, you guys just stole that from us? I mean, all these other Protestant groups are primarily sprinkling and baptizing babies, but you guys are doing immersion just because you're like stealing that from us. A Latter-day Saint would recoil from that. No, no, no, no, no. I mean, we believe that this is how it was done originally. But a Baptist might still say, no, your church wasn't even founded until 1830. There have been Baptists all throughout, before that in colonial America, back to Roger Williams.
Gerrit You took your baptism form from us. Again, a Latter-day Saint would say, maybe eventually push comes to shove. I know it seems similar, but what you mean when you get baptized, that you are demonstrating this outward commitment to Jesus, which is beautiful, but that the ordinance itself is not actually essential for salvation, couldn't be further from what a Latter-day Saint means. What does a Latter-day Saint mean? Not only is this ordinance essential, it has to be performed in the exact proper way and has to be done by someone who has authority to do it. While they might look similar and they both demonstrate a devotion to Jesus, the reality of those similarities actually is that they seem more similar than they actually are.
Gerrit There's a pretty big difference between believing baptism is essential for salvation and baptism is not essential for salvation. Those aren't the same thing. You either believe that it is or you believe that it's not. And so even though the form appears similar, even though it is certainly Christianity in demonstration, the real power of that is based upon what a believer thinks that it means. What a believer thinks that it means.
Richard So even outside of Christianity, so a person that is Jewish, especially somebody that might be more orthodox, they might say, well, you just stole baptism from us. Anyway, in Judaism, there are many different ritual washing ceremonies that are done. And if you look at a mikveh, M-I-K-V-E-H, if you look at a mikveh, it looks very similar to a baptismal font. And when do you go in and perform certain ritual washings before Yom Kippur, conversion to Judaism, the more orthodox Jews in preparation for Sabbath. And even though, like you said, the Baptist baptism looks very similar to our baptism, and Christianity is kind of this strand that attaches throughout. But for Judaism, there's a lot of similarity, but it's completely different.
Gerrit It has nothing to do with their commitment to Jesus as the Messiah. I'm going to guess yes.
Richard Yes, yes, very little.
Gerrit Yeah, I would guess that there's very-
Richard Especially the more orthodox.
Gerrit Most orthodox practitioners of Judaism don't believe that their mikvah bath is a demonstration of their devotion to Jesus as the Messiah.
Richard But it's a great example where like, even, so the one, okay, those seem similar. They don't mean quite the same thing. To a Latter-day Saint, it means this, but this one, I mean, couldn't be more different in terms of what it means.
Gerrit Well, and so I think some of the ways that some Latter-day Saints have attempted to deal with the apparent similarities of some Masonic ritual and some Latter-day Saint temple ritual is to say, well, maybe they just got them all from the same place. Maybe we'll take the Masons with their word, right, that they got all these ceremonies all the way back to Solomon's temple and that they somehow made their way all the way through medieval Europe. And the reason why they look similarly is because of, because they actually trace all the way back to Solomon's temple. Now, I understand the appeal to that. The appeal to it is, oh, well, the reason why they look similar is they all come from God originally. And that's the reason why they look similar. Of course, the problem is, historically speaking, is there's no way to demonstrate that. I mean, the earliest, the earliest that people can really kind of say this is possibly proto-Freemasonry is a poem that's written in the 1380s.
Gerrit You know that you're only off by 1200 years, you know, or even more. You know, so I mean, it's hard to measure that way. But I understand why someone wants that. Look, is it possible that some of the Freemasonry ideas date all the way back to Solomon's Temple? I suppose it's possible. Is there any evidence that demonstrates that? No. So historians are going to say it doesn't. Or if they're being very kind, they will say it very likely doesn't. And you even find some Masons will say the same thing, that it's based upon what happened back in Solomon's Temple. But I don't have to be doing the exact same motion that was done in Solomon's Temple in order to be a Mason. Similarly, I think Latter-day Saints sometimes tend to think that the way temple ceremonies are done is the way that they've always been done.
Gerrit And so whenever there's any deviation or variation of that, that causes a great deal of heartburn. Similarly, based upon the questions we receive, heartburn is created when someone thinks that some of the motions or actions that are taken in the temple endowment are in any way similar to any other symbols, actions that are done primarily from Freemasonry because that's the antagonistic attack. Oh, Joseph Smith just took this and da-da. So another way that people try to approach this, rather than the historical way of saying, well, it traces all the way back to Solomon's Temple, which I call it the historical method, which it isn't at all. It's the opposite of the historical method because you don't actually have sources that demonstrate that. But another way that some Latter-day Saint thinkers have tried to think about this is that, well, Joseph is tasked by God of furthering the progression of Latter-day Saints towards the celestial kingdom by helping them make and keep sacred covenants.
Gerrit Perhaps Joseph is told that, and Joseph isn't actually directed specifically how that is supposed to take place. Well, already as a Latter-day Saint, Joseph is performing baptisms that sure look like other baptisms, but they're baptisms for the dead, that are utterly rejected by every other Christian group and considered a heinous blasphemy. But it sure looks like baptisms that other Christians perform. Joseph didn't receive from God a new way. Oh, when we do baptisms for the dead though, what we do is we just sprinkle them. I mean, that didn't happen. So for other people examining this, they would say that Joseph, maybe God gave Joseph a great deal of leeway in the way that these things would be presented. But the most important part was that covenants were made.
Gerrit God's going to have a covenant keeping people. All the way back to Adam and Eve. You can read in the Book of Moses that God is going to make and keep covenants with people, with Abraham, with the children of Israel, with the New Testament Christians. And so, whether the way that covenant is made, whether it's taking them under the thigh, like Abraham swore Isaac, right? Whether that's how the covenant is made physically or whether it's made in another way, is probably less important than that a covenant is being made. Obviously, the words that are uttered in Abraham's covenant that he makes to God are not word for word in English the ones that we might make when we make a covenant.
Gerrit There's going to be variations and differences. This is something that Joseph doesn't seem to have a hard time with. Joseph feels okay with the idea that God gives revelation to people on the basis of what they need now, not on the basis of what they needed 2,000 years ago. And so, you know, the church as the movement of the restoration is restoring the powers, the keys that God once had on the earth. And as President Nelson said, the restoration is ongoing. It's still unfolding. We still don't have all of the keys restored. The key to the resurrection hasn't been restored yet. But I'm sure we'll find out. We'll all know when it is. I mean, that will be something that we will all experience. So I think it's important to recognize that even if there are some similarities between Masonic, you know, fraternal organization ritual, maybe some of the clothing is similar.
Gerrit Maybe some of the interactions are similar. First of all, it's not all the same. So there's that. So if the argument is, oh, it's just all taken from Masonry, well, it's not a very good argument because it's not. So even if you say, well, they took this and this, well, then where did the other rest of it come from? Well, I'm sure they stole that from something else. I mean, you can see that that stops being an academic argument because you don't actually have a source for where the other things come from. But even if there are things that are similar, just like our baptism is similar to Baptist baptism, just like our confirmation is similar to Catholic confirmation, they mean something entirely different. All religious worship is imbued with the power that the believer gives to that ritual. If I'm just singing, it has no religious basis at all. But if I'm singing a hymn, and in my heart it's part of my devotion to the Lord Jesus, well, suddenly the act of singing takes on a completely new meaning than it once did.
Gerrit So obviously, as I said, there are people on both sides of this about where you can trace these similarities to. But I think the most important thing is to recognize that our covenants that we make are with God. Whether they appear similar to other things that people might do in their daily life is actually immaterial. Just like I'm doing a very different thing when I raise my right arm to the square to baptize my daughter, than when I raise my right arm to raise my hand to ask a question in a physics class that I can't understand. I'm doing the same thing, but the meaning, one profane, the other sacred, they couldn't be further from each other. So I think it's one of those areas where you trust that God is allowing things to unfold in the way that God wants them to unfold.
Gerrit What matters is, am I keeping my covenants with God? Am I treating these covenants with the sacredness that they need to be treated? Obviously, the rest of the world isn't. Obviously, as a Latter-day Saint, you know that people make a mockery of our temple worship. What they think about it is absolutely meaningless because the covenant that you make is between you and your God. And we believe temple covenants are how we can achieve not just salvation from hellfire, but exaltation into a celestial kingdom that Christians don't believe even exists. So, of course, they're not going to accept our temple worship as legitimate. They don't think exaltation is legitimate. But don't allow the fact that they don't believe that it's legitimate or some former member, some apostate who's criticizing the church on that don't allow them to dictate what it is the covenant between you and your God is.
Gerrit I don't care if it looks similar to them. It means something entirely different to me. And it's sacred and it's mine. And frankly, I don't owe you an explanation of why I keep sacred covenants in my religion. If you're not a member of the religion, you aren't owed an explanation any more than you can go demand what it is that someone's praying for in Islam or what the Buddhist is thinking about as he sits and meditates in his temple. You might be curious and you might inquire, but religion is something that is personal. And hopefully, as we've discussed this, it's helped you understand at least the context of Masonry, why it does seem so weird, even when people throw that connection up, because of our relatively negative history in America itself, with the idea of a kind of secretive organization, but especially inside of Latter-day Saint history, where that organization was for over a century an antagonistic organization towards Latter-day Saints.
Gerrit So hopefully that helps, hopefully that answers the questions. I'm sure it didn't. Like most podcasts, we say we're going to try to answer questions, but I really should just put it out front. We don't have answers to the questions, so all I can do is talk about, oh, you want to know about that? Well, let me read a letter that Joseph Smith wrote to Hiram in 1830, which doesn't answer the question.
Richard There was a great, one of our favorite people ever is Truman Madsen, and he had Timeless Questions Gospel Insights. This is Timeless Questions, No Real Insights.
Gerrit Incredible Questions, Terrible Insights by Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat. Yeah, that's exactly what this is. Thanks so much for listening. Hopefully it was at least somewhat clear. That's what I'm trying to do, but as you can see, only Rachel's mom's going to be listening after this.
Intro Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth.com. Until next time.

Quote board

Make a share card from any line

Although if you had the over at the number of times that Gerrit would say ecumenical at 37, and you took the over, you won.

RichardBanter

Well, we received several questions. One of them was a little more blunt. Why is Joseph such a thief?

RichardBanter

It means we're dealing with a really weird place where the only information we can actually have that we can publicly discuss is actually coming from people that are criticizing one or the other organization and have been completely disavowed by either of those organizations.

GerritInsight

Well, anyone can fall downstairs, Gerrit. I fell up some stairs.

RichardBanter

The context in which the gesture is given is what determines the meaning behind it.

GerritInsight

I mean, you would think if you could get anyone on your side about the essential nature of baptism, it would be someone with baptism in the name, right?

GerritBanter

What matters is, am I keeping my covenants with God?

GerritInsight

I don't care if it looks similar to them. It means something entirely different to me. And it's sacred and it's mine.

GerritInsight

This is Timeless Questions, No Real Insights.

RichardBanter

More from this episode

Claim checkThings people say, and what the episode shows.

Claim check

What critics say, and what the episode found
Masonic and temple rites look alike because both come straight from Solomon's temple.
Joseph Smith just stole the temple ceremony from the Masons, so it isn't from God.
Take it to classReady to use in a lesson or a talk.

Take it to class

Ready to copy into a lesson or a text

The same gesture, like a raised hand, can mean a question, an oath, a bid or a sustaining vote; context gives it meaning.

Latter-day Saints and Baptists both baptize by immersion, yet mean very different things by it; outward similarity doesn't make ordinances the same.

The temple prep manual teaches that the temple is symbolic, which can ease the heartburn when its presentation changes.

Your temple covenants are between you and God; critics don't get to define what they mean to you.

Banter binThe funniest moments in this episode.

Banter bin

The running jokes, for people who skip ahead
The ecumenical over/underDraftKings had Gerrit's "ecumenical" count at 35 and a half; Richard took the over at 37 (1:23, callback 17:46).
Start your own podcastIf the Freemasons were so smart, they'd do their own podcast, and one probably does (0:56).
It was goodRichard's review of last week sounds like someone tasting dinner they didn't want (2:40).
Dewey wasn't a MasonTruman's Masonic apron explains the 1948 election, a joke for Rachel's mom and two other people (7:26).
Richard fell up the stairsA broken right hand, a cast, surgery, and episode descriptions now typed left-handed (15:47, callback 22:28).
The audience: Gerrit's mom (and Rachel's mom)Only Rachel's mom will still be listening after this one (7:36, 41:44).
Timeless Questions, No Real InsightsRichard's twist on Truman Madsen's title; Gerrit's version: Incredible Questions, Terrible Insights (41:31).
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown MailbagSend Gerrit and Richard your question.

The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag

Your question could be next week’s episode
Questions from Litners drive a lot of episodes. Send yours. If it makes the show, Richard reads it on air.
Go deeperWhere to read more.

Go deeper

Deep dives the episode points toward
Read what the temple preparation materials say about the temple being symbolic (9:07).
Compare how Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics and Latter-day Saints each understand baptism (23:30).
Learn about the Jewish mikvah and ritual washing before Yom Kippur and the Sabbath (28:19).
Trace how covenants were made in scripture, from Abraham to the New Testament, as Gerrit suggests (34:15).
SOT Litner · S2E14.