Was Joseph Smith a Mason? The Temple and Freemasonry

Similarities exist — but they point to common ancient origins, not plagiarism

The Criticism

Joseph Smith became a Freemason in March 1842 in Nauvoo, Illinois. Two months later, he introduced the Nauvoo Temple endowment ceremony. Critics argue the timing is not coincidental — that Joseph borrowed heavily from Masonic ritual and repackaged it as divine revelation. The similarities between certain elements of the temple ceremony and Masonic ritual are real, and this argument is worth taking seriously rather than dismissing.

Taking it seriously, however, means following the evidence where it actually leads — and the evidence leads to a conclusion that is the opposite of what the critics intend.

Joseph Was a Mason — That Is True

There is no dispute about the historical fact. Joseph Smith was initiated as a Master Mason on March 15–16, 1842. He was an active Mason in Nauvoo. Many members of the early Church, including his brother Hyrum and many Apostles, were also Masons. Joseph's own journals record his participation in Masonic lodge activities.

Acknowledging this is not a concession to the critics. It is simply the truth. The question is what to make of it.

What Similarities Exist

Genuine similarities between the Nauvoo endowment ceremony and Masonic ritual exist at the level of structure and symbol: both involve ritual clothing, both use certain handshakes or grips, both include instruction on spiritual progression through a series of stages, both invoke covenants. The resemblances are real enough that no honest treatment of the subject can pretend they don't exist.

The differences, however, are at least as significant as the similarities. The doctrinal content of the temple endowment is entirely different from Masonic ritual. The purpose is different. The covenants are different. The theology underlying each is different. And the Masonic ritual itself does not claim to be ancient temple worship — it is a fraternal organization that claims to preserve symbols it believes to have ancient origins.

The Theory of Common Ancient Origins

Freemasonry does not claim to have invented its symbols and ceremonies. Masonic tradition holds that its rituals preserve something ancient — symbols and practices that trace their origins to the builders of Solomon's Temple. Whether or not that claim is historically accurate in its specifics, Masonry has always positioned itself as a preserver of something older than itself.

LDS scholars, beginning most systematically with Hugh Nibley, have argued that if this is true — if both Masonry and the temple endowment draw on a common ancient source — then the similarities are evidence of authenticity, not plagiarism. Two things that look alike may resemble each other because one copied the other, or because both copied a third thing. The question is which explanation fits the evidence better.

Joseph Smith himself, when asked about the similarities, acknowledged them and attributed them to the preservation of ancient ceremony in an imperfect form. His explanation was that Masonry had preserved elements of the ancient temple rites in a corrupted way, and that what he introduced was a restoration of those ancient rites in their purer form.

What Was in Solomon’s Temple

The Bible describes Solomon's Temple in detail sufficient to make clear that it was not simply a house of worship. It was a place of specific, structured ritual — with priestly vestments, washings, anointings, a veil separating the outer courts from the Holy of Holies, and sacred covenant-making that ordinary Israelites did not access. The priests who served in the temple wore specific ritual clothing. They performed specific ritual acts. The symbolism was layered and intentional.

Scholarship on the ancient Near East has established that sacred ceremony involving ritual clothing, covenant-making, and symbolic drama was common across the cultures of Lehi's world and earlier. The Egyptian pyramid texts, the Mesopotamian ritual traditions, and the Israelite temple cult all share structural and symbolic elements that suggest a common, very ancient pattern of sacred ceremony.

Both Masonry and the LDS temple endowment may reflect, in different degrees and with different degrees of corruption or restoration, elements of this ancient ceremonial tradition.

Why Ceremony and Symbol Predate Masonry

Freemasonry in its recognizable form dates to the early 18th century in England — the first Grand Lodge was founded in London in 1717. Some historians trace elements to earlier craft guild traditions from the medieval stonemasons who built Europe's cathedrals. The claim that Masonry preserves ancient temple symbolism is itself a claim made within Masonry, not a conclusion independently established.

Ritual washing and anointing appears in the Old Testament. Priestly vestments appear in Exodus. Symbolic garments appear in ancient Israel and throughout the ancient Near East. These practices predate Masonry by thousands of years. If the LDS temple ceremony shares elements with these ancient practices, and if Masonry also preserves some of those elements, the shared ancestor is ancient temple worship — not Masonry.

The critical mistake is treating Masonry as the source when Masonry is, at most, a corrupted transmission of an older source.

Why This Is Actually Evidence of Authentic Ancient Ceremony

The argument turns on itself. Critics cite Masonry as evidence against the temple. But consider the logic from the other direction: if ancient temple ceremony did involve ritual clothing, washings, anointings, covenant-making, and symbolic drama — as the Bible and ancient Near Eastern scholarship both confirm — then a restored temple ceremony should exhibit those elements. If it did not, that would be evidence against its authenticity.

The fact that some of these elements appear in Masonry means only that Masonry has preserved fragments of the ancient tradition. The fact that they appear much more fully, coherently, and doctrinally developed in the LDS temple endowment is what you would expect from a genuine restoration rather than a borrowing.

Joseph Smith's encounter with Masonry likely prompted reflection on the ancient ceremonial traditions those symbols represented. The endowment he introduced is not a copy of Masonic ritual. It is a doctrinal and covenantal structure of a completely different order — one that makes theological sense in a way that Masonry's symbols, divorced from their doctrinal context, do not.

The temple endowment is ancient ceremony restored. Masonry is ancient ceremony fragmented and preserved without its original doctrinal foundation. The similarities point to the same source. That source is not the Nauvoo lodge — it is Solomon's Temple.