Appearance
Masonic Connections
The claim:
The CES Letter presents seven numbered concerns about the temple endowment and Freemasonry. The core argument runs like this:
Joseph Smith became a Mason in March 1842. Just seven weeks later, he introduced the temple endowment. The endowment contains Masonic elements — signs, tokens, penalties, clothing. Therefore Joseph copied the endowment from Masonry, and the ceremony is man-made.[1]
The CES Letter reinforces this with Heber C. Kimball's statement that "We have the true Masonry," argues that Freemasonry has "zero links to Solomon's Temple," and asks why the Church removed the penalties and Five Points of Fellowship in 1990 if the endowment was divinely revealed.[2]
The real question isn't whether there are similarities. There are. The question is: what do you do with them?
What the CES Letter gets right
The similarities are real, and any credible response starts by saying so.
Joseph Smith was initiated as a Mason on March 15, 1842. He introduced the endowment on May 4, 1842 — less than two months later. The first nine men to receive the endowment were all Masons.[3] There are shared elements: certain handgrips, specific gestures, the use of ceremonial clothing including aprons, and (before 1990) the penalties and Five Points of Fellowship. The Church's own Gospel Topics essay acknowledges the timing and the similarities directly.[3:1]
Heber C. Kimball, a Mason and member of the First Presidency, did write that "the Masonry of today is received from the apostasy" and that Latter-day Saints had "the real thing."[4] That's a real quote, accurately cited.
The CES Letter also correctly notes that modern Freemasonry cannot be reliably traced to Solomon's Temple. Scholars — including LDS scholars — agree that Masonic origins lie with medieval European stonemasons, not ancient Jerusalem.[5] The most thorough scholarly treatment of Masonic influence, Method Infinite by Cheryl Bruno, Joe Steve Swick III, and Nicholas Literski (2022), documents extensive points of contact between the two traditions.[6]
None of this should be hidden or downplayed. The question is whether these facts lead where the CES Letter says they do.
What the similarities actually consist of
When critics say the endowment is "based on" Masonry, the implication is that the ceremonies are substantially the same. A textual comparison tells a different story.
An Interpreter study by David Eddington compared the full texts of the endowment and the Masonic first three degrees using multiple analytical methods — conceptual overlap, vocabulary, and N-gram analysis:[7]
| Measure | Endowment vs. Masonic Rites | Other Comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptual overlap | 10–17% | Masonic vs. Odd Fellows: higher |
| Vocabulary overlap | 10.8% | Endowment vs. Pearl of Great Price: 18.4% |
| Bigram overlap | Low | Endowment vs. Pearl of Great Price: highest |
The endowment shares more vocabulary with its own scriptural source material (the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham) than with Masonic rites. The Masonic first three degrees are textually more similar to the Odd Fellows initiation — another 19th-century fraternal ceremony — than to the endowment.[7:1]
The conceptual overlap is roughly 10–17%, depending on how liberally you define "similar." And that percentage has shrunk further with subsequent changes to the endowment's presentation.[7:2]
The differences are the story
The similarities get attention because they're visible. The differences matter more because they define what each ceremony actually is.
| Feature | Masonic Rites | Temple Endowment |
|---|---|---|
| Central narrative | Legend of Hiram Abiff (murder, burial, raising) | Creation, Fall, Atonement, return to God's presence |
| Candidate's role | Takes the role of Hiram Abiff | Takes the role of Adam or Eve |
| Purpose | Self-improvement, brotherhood, charity | Covenants with God for eternal exaltation |
| Theology | Refers to "the Great Architect of the Universe"; non-sectarian | Explicitly Christian: centered on Jesus Christ's Atonement |
| Covenants | Between man and man | Between man and God |
| Gender | Historically male-only | Both men and women from the beginning |
| Salvation claims | None — Masonry is not a religion | Essential for exaltation |
| Washing and anointing | Absent | Central preparatory ordinance |
| Creation narrative | Absent | Foundational to the ceremony |
| Sealing ordinances | Absent | Central to temple worship |
| Plan of salvation | Absent | The theological backbone |
| Prayer circle | Absent | Present |
Matthew B. Brown documented dozens of Masonic elements with no endowment counterpart: sharp objects pressed against the candidate's body, ritualized walking steps, clapping and stamping, pillars Jachin and Boaz, working tools (compass, square, gavel, level, plumb, trowel), the legend of the three ruffians, a coffin, the cable-tow, and checkered pavement.[8]
The endowment, meanwhile, contains elements with no Masonic counterpart: washing and anointing, a creation narrative, the Fall and Atonement, a series of progressive covenants, the true order of prayer, and sealing ordinances.[8:1]
As Greg Kearney put it: "The temple ritual teaches us about our relationship to deity. The Masonic lodge is teaching us about our relationship to our fellow men."[9]
Bottom line: The ceremonies share a handful of outward forms. They share almost nothing in content, narrative, theology, or purpose.
The endowment predates Masonry — in pieces
The CES Letter treats March 1842 as the starting point for the endowment. That framing collapses under the historical record.
Temple-related doctrines and ordinances appear across a decade of revelations before Joseph Smith ever entered a Masonic lodge:
| Date | Development | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1830–31 | Book of Moses translated — creation narrative, Fall, clothing of Adam and Eve, covenant structure | Moses 4–6[10] |
| 1831 | Revelations promise an "endowment of power from on high" | D&C 38:32; 43:16 |
| 1832 | D&C 84 describes the oath and covenant of the priesthood | D&C 84:33–42 |
| January 1836 | Washing and anointing ordinances performed in the Kirtland Temple | Joseph Smith Papers[11] |
| March 1836 | Solemn assembly; outpouring of spiritual gifts at Kirtland Temple dedication | D&C 109–110 |
| January 1841 | D&C 124 commands building the Nauvoo Temple for "ordinances" and "keys of the holy priesthood" | D&C 124:34–40 |
| March 1842 | Joseph Smith joins Masonic lodge | |
| May 1842 | Full endowment ceremony introduced |
The creation narrative at the heart of the endowment came from the Book of Moses — translated twelve years before Joseph became a Mason. The washing and anointing ordinances were performed in Kirtland six years before. The command to build a temple in Nauvoo for specific priesthood ordinances came fourteen months before Joseph's Masonic initiation.[10:1][11:1]
Joseph Fielding, who was both an endowed member and a Mason, described Masonry as a "stepping stone or preparation for something else" — the endowment — rather than its source.[12]
The endowment didn't appear from nowhere in May 1842. It was the culmination of a decade of progressive revelation.
Proximity doesn't prove causation
The CES Letter's strongest rhetorical move is the timeline: seven weeks between Masonic initiation and the endowment. The implication is obvious — he copied it.
But proximity in time is not evidence of causation. It's correlation. And the correlation itself requires context.
Joseph Smith had been working toward a full temple ceremony for years. D&C 124, received in January 1841, explicitly commanded the Saints to build a temple in Nauvoo so that God could "reveal mine ordinances therein."[13] The endowment was coming whether or not Joseph ever attended a lodge meeting.
The Church's Gospel Topics essay offers a more measured framework: Joseph's encounter with Masonry may have served as a "catalyst for revelation" — a prompt that helped crystallize ideas he had been developing for over a decade.[3:2] This is consistent with how revelation works throughout Joseph's ministry. The Book of Mormon translation used a physical instrument. The Joseph Smith Translation was prompted by questions arising from his Bible study. The Word of Wisdom emerged from practical concerns about tobacco at meetings. Revelation often comes through engagement with the world, not in a vacuum.
As Jeffrey Bradshaw observed, "significant temple doctrines predate Nauvoo entirely."[14]
Ancient parallels the CES Letter ignores
The CES Letter assumes only two options: the endowment was either (1) divinely invented from scratch or (2) copied from Masonry. It never considers a third possibility: that both the endowment and Masonry draw on themes from genuinely ancient temple worship — with the endowment drawing more deeply and more directly.
Ancient temple rituals across multiple cultures share features with the endowment that have no Masonic parallel:
Egyptian temple rites. The Pyramid Texts (c. 2600–2200 BC) contain sequences of purification, anointing, clothing, and progression through sacred space toward divine presence. Egyptian initiatory texts include ritual washing, re-clothing, and a culminating embrace with verbal formulas exchanged — more than two millennia before Freemasonry existed.[15]
Israelite temple worship. The tabernacle and Solomonic temple involved washing, anointing with oil, and clothing in priestly garments (Exodus 28–29, 40). Oliver Cowdery described the 1836 Kirtland washing and anointing as performed "in the manner that were Moses and Aaron, and those who stood before the Lord in ancient days."[16]
Early Christian initiation. Cyril of Jerusalem's Mystagogical Catecheses (c. 350 AD) describe a multi-stage Christian initiation: candidates stripped off clothing, were anointed from head to foot with oil, washed, given a white garment, and received a "new name" — all before Freemasonry existed by roughly a millennium.[17] Eddington's textual analysis found that the Mystagogical Catecheses was the second most similar text to the endowment, measured by vocabulary and bigrams — more similar than the Masonic rites.[7:3]
Ancient kingship rites. Coronation ceremonies from Mari (c. 1800 BC) included elements familiar to temple-attending Latter-day Saints, including ritual progression, investiture, and receiving authority from deity.[18]
Hugh Nibley spent decades documenting these parallels across Egyptian, Jewish, and early Christian sources — parallels Joseph Smith could not have known about from Masonry or from any source available to him in the 1840s.[15:1]
The "true Masonry" framework
Heber C. Kimball's quote — "We have the true Masonry" — is presented by the CES Letter as an embarrassing admission. Read in context, it's actually a theological claim about origins.
Kimball wrote that "The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon, and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing."[4:1]
Early Latter-day Saints weren't saying the endowment came from Masonry. They were saying both derived from something older — and that Masonry preserved fragments while the endowment restored the whole. This is a restoration framework, not a borrowing framework.
The CES Letter objects: if Freemasonry has "zero links to Solomon's Temple," then the restoration framework collapses. But this conflates two claims. Modern Freemasonry as an institution traces to medieval guilds. The ritual motifs it employs — handgrips, sacred words, progressive initiation, temple-building narratives — may draw on older traditions that circulated widely in the ancient world.[8:2]
Whether or not Masonic institutions descend from Solomon's Temple is a different question from whether ancient temple worship included elements that later appeared in both Masonic ritual and the endowment. The evidence from Egypt, Israel, and early Christianity suggests it did.
"Why not earlier Masonry?"
The CES Letter raises a pointed question: if Masonry is a corrupted version of ancient temple rites, why doesn't the endowment resemble an earlier form of Masonry? Why does it look like the specific version Joseph Smith encountered in 1842?[1:1]
This assumes the endowment was meant to be an archaeological reconstruction. It wasn't.
The endowment uses familiar forms to communicate revealed content — the same pattern visible throughout Joseph's ministry. The Book of Mormon came through in King James English, not ancient Hebrew. The Doctrine and Covenants uses 19th-century legal and biblical language. God speaks, as D&C 1:24 says, "unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."
If certain Masonic forms provided a recognizable vocabulary for sacred instruction, employing them is no more damning than using King James phrasing to render Nephite records. The vessel is contemporary. The content is not.
Why the endowment changes — and what that means
The CES Letter asks: if the endowment is revealed, why did the Church remove the penalties and Five Points of Fellowship in 1990?[2:1]
The question assumes that "revealed" means "frozen in time." It doesn't.
The Church distinguishes between the ordinance (the covenants, teachings, and their binding nature) and the presentation (how those teachings are communicated). The presentation has been adapted repeatedly:
- The sacrament was originally administered with wine; now water is used.
- Baptismal clothing has changed over time.
- Temple instruction was originally live; it later moved to film; it now uses live-action video.
- The 1990 changes removed elements; the 2019 changes adjusted roles; the 2023 changes shortened the presentation.
None of these changed the covenants themselves.[3:3]
The penalties and Five Points of Fellowship were among the most visibly Masonic elements. Their removal is actually more consistent with the restoration framework than with the plagiarism framework. If Joseph had simply copied Masonry, removing Masonic elements would gut the ceremony. Instead, the endowment lost a few minutes of presentation and every covenant survived intact. The Masonic-looking elements were the scaffolding. The covenants were the structure.
Willard Richards, who was present at the first endowment, taught that its introduction was "governed by the principle of Revelation."[19] The same principle governs its ongoing refinement.
The endowment's theological content has no Masonic source
Set aside the outward forms entirely. Ask what the endowment teaches.
It presents the creation of the world. The placing of Adam and Eve in the Garden. The Fall. The introduction of the gospel. A progressive series of covenants — obedience, sacrifice, chastity, consecration. The Atonement of Jesus Christ. And a return to God's presence through the veil.
None of this exists in Masonic ritual. Not the creation narrative. Not the Fall. Not the Atonement. Not the progressive covenants. Not the return to God's presence. Not the sealing of families for eternity.
Masonry tells the story of Hiram Abiff — a legendary architect murdered at Solomon's Temple. The candidate symbolically dies and is raised. The moral is fidelity and brotherhood. It's a story about human relationships, not divine redemption.
The endowment tells the story of every person — creation, fall, redemption, return. The candidate doesn't symbolically die. The candidate makes covenants with God and learns to enter God's presence.
These are not the same ceremony with different window dressing. They are fundamentally different in every dimension that matters: narrative, theology, purpose, and outcome.
The positive case for the endowment
The endowment doesn't just survive the Masonic comparison. It invites a harder question: where did its content come from?
The Book of Moses, translated in 1830–31, provided the creation and Fall narratives. D&C 84 (1832) outlined the priesthood oath and covenant. The Kirtland Temple ordinances (1836) established washing and anointing. D&C 124 (1841) promised the restoration of specific ordinances.
These pieces — assembled over a decade of revelation — form the backbone of a ceremony that teaches the plan of salvation from creation to exaltation. Ancient parallels from Egypt, Israel, and early Christianity confirm that these aren't modern inventions but recoveries of genuinely ancient worship patterns.
Jeffrey Bradshaw's comprehensive 2022 study concluded that "Latter-day Saint temple ordinances are more closely related to biblical and ancient sources than to Freemasonry."[14:1]
A reasonable person can acknowledge that Joseph Smith encountered Masonic ritual and that the encounter influenced certain outward elements of the endowment's presentation. But the ceremony's theology — its content, its covenants, its narrative — comes from somewhere else entirely.
Further Reading
The Church of Jesus Christ has published a video overview of Joseph Smith and Masonry as part of its "Now You Know" series, addressing both similarities and differences between Masonic rites and the temple endowment.
Bottom line: The similarities between the endowment and Masonry are real but shallow — roughly 10–17% conceptual overlap, concentrated in outward forms. The endowment's core content — creation, Fall, Atonement, covenants, sealing, return to God's presence — has no Masonic source. A decade of prior revelations provided its theological backbone. Ancient parallels from Egypt, Israel, and early Christianity confirm it draws on something far older than a medieval fraternity.
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Temples & Freemasonry," nos. 1–3, pp. 106–107. ↩︎ ↩︎
Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Temples & Freemasonry," nos. 4–7, pp. 107–109. ↩︎ ↩︎
"Masonry," Church History Topics, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/masonry?lang=eng ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Heber C. Kimball, quoted in Stanley B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball and Family: The Nauvoo Years (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 1980), 458. ↩︎ ↩︎
David Stevenson, The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590–1710 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). See also Margaret C. Jacob, The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts and Fictions (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006). ↩︎
Cheryl L. Bruno, Joe Steve Swick III, and Nicholas S. Literski, Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2022). Described as "the most significant Mormon Studies book to come out in 2022," it documents Masonic influence across the Restoration period. For a detailed LDS scholarly response, see Bradshaw's 100-page review in Interpreter 54. ↩︎
David Eddington, "A Textual Comparison of Masonic Rites and the LDS Temple Endowment," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 66 (2025): 311–356. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/a-textual-comparison-of-masonic-rites-and-the-lds-temple-endowment/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Matthew B. Brown, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2009). See also "What are the differences between the Endowment and Freemasonry?" FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Freemasonry/Unparallels ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Greg Kearney, "The Message and the Messenger: Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry," FAIR Conference, August 2005. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2005/the-message-and-the-messenger-latter-day-saints-and-freemasonry ↩︎
Moses 4–6, Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Moses was translated between June 1830 and February 1831. See "Old Testament Revision 1," Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-1/1 ↩︎ ↩︎
Oliver Cowdery, journal entry, January 21, 1836: the anointing was performed "with the same kind of oil and in the manner that were Moses and Aaron, and those who stood before the Lord in ancient days." See also "Historical Introduction to Kirtland Temple Dedication," Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/ ↩︎ ↩︎
Joseph Fielding, diary entry, quoted in Andrew F. Ehat, "'Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord?' Sesquicentennial Reflections of a Sacred Day: 4 May 1842," in Temples of the Ancient World, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994). ↩︎
Doctrine and Covenants 124:40–42: "For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood." ↩︎
Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-day Saint Temple Ordinances (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation, 2022). See also Bradshaw, "An Important New Study of Freemasonry and the Latter-day Saints," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 1–104. https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/freemasonry-and-the-origins-of-latter-day-saint-temple-ordinances ↩︎ ↩︎
Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975; 2nd ed., 2005). Nibley compared Egyptian, Dead Sea Scroll (Manual of Discipline), and early Christian sources (Odes of Solomon, Pistis Sophia, Cyril of Jerusalem) with the endowment. ↩︎ ↩︎
Oliver Cowdery, journal entry, January 21, 1836. Published in Leonard J. Arrington, "Oliver Cowdery's Kirtland, Ohio, 'Sketch Book,'" BYU Studies 12, no. 4 (1972): 426. ↩︎
Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catecheses (c. 350 AD), Lectures 19–23. See F.L. Cross, ed., St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1977). ↩︎
Stephen D. Ricks, "Kingship, Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1–6," in King Benjamin's Speech: 'That Ye May Learn Wisdom', ed. John W. Welch and Stephen D. Ricks (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 233–275. ↩︎
Willard Richards, in Joseph Smith Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1948), 5:1–2. ↩︎