My brother-in-law, who I have been trying to get interested in Masonry, came to me yesterday, and told me Jesus told him no oaths, per Matthew 5:34, and that's that. He's not interested in joining.

Matthew 5:34 doesn't prohibit Christians from joining the Army, or taking an oath of office, or being sworn in court. So what does Matthew 5:34 mean?

Never mind.  No need to start a theological nit-picking argument.

he doesn't want involved  is what it means.

The King James version reads like this;   But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne

Oh, I'm not going to push him or anything. However odd I think his interpretation is.

He's Protestant, and evangelical. Going to a non-denominational congregation right now. I wonder if there are any Masons in his church. I'd sure like to know.

"I affirm."

Forgive me, but I'm not catching your meaning.

Oaths usually begin "I, [name], do solemnly swear or affirm that . . . ." or people will say "I [name] do solemnly affirm that. . . ." Either is legally sufficient when an oath is called for. In court here, the judge or clerk says to the witness "You do solemnly swear or affirm that the evidence you give in this cause shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [usually 'so help you God']" and the witness says "Yes" or "I do" or "So help me God."

the creator facepalms at the silly man made religious dogma

Please explain in great detail what you mean

Conjecture on top of conjecture.

"...no one knows...", Mark 13:32.

Perhaps you should let your buddy answer.

As in all things, interpretation is key.  

The Society of Friends interpret, "...swear not at all...All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No';..." as keep your mouth shut unless you're agreeing or disagreeing to a direct question.

Another interpretation is, don't just say it for the sake of saying it:  do it.  Anyone can say, "I swear..."  But by either doing it, "Yes", or not, "No" is the measure of one's sincerity, truth and acting as promised.  

I believe that Christ, who rarely spoke in very plain direct terms, was speaking against how the Pharisees had twisted Old Testament law into a legal system rather than the relationship of man to G-d.  Remember, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."  Pretty much everything Christ taught was returning the Jews to what G-d had commanded, not what the "System" had become.

That's kind of the way I would interpret it. Not a blanket prohibition, but an admonition not to take such an oath lightly. Do not commit lightly.

I would tell him that if b his convictions say he cannot take the obligation then he shouldn't join.  It's his choice.

If you want to stir the pot, ask if he is married and did he say vows at his wedding.

That's normally an, "I do", precisely because of Matthew 5:34.

He's my wife's brother. We're close. He's not married. I did ask him about the other oaths taken in daily life. From the pledge of allegiance, to marriage vows. He did not reply. I'm not going to push it.

That's the BEST call.  No reason to start a fight.

not just that.. theres no reason to push anyone into anything.  either they want it or they don't.... really theres no middle ground.  this applies to anything in life.

Awesome answer TBS. Thanks. I might consider imparting this information to him, in a round-about way.

Anytime someone asks me that question I tell them I've never taken an oath in the fraternity and/if they press it more I tell them what Slayer said. The most important part about taken the obligation is what the Worshipful Master promises you before you take it.

you are eligible for this.  S+C

He was looking for a reason to not join....He found one.

Not necessarily. He's only been a bible studying, church going, devoted Christian for five or six years now. He was born into my wife's Mormon family, but the entire family fell away from the church in about 1988 when he was pre-ten. He may have nominally considered himself Christian, much as my wife has, ever since she quit the Mormon Church. But being as close of a family unit as they are, Mom & Dad are still alive, and everyone's very close, they all kind of underwent a spiritual awakening to actual protestant evangelical Christianity, when my Mother-in-law went in search of a new church to join. They have all been baptized within the last five years. I'm not sure he ever had a prejudice against Masonry, and brought the whole issue up unbidden one day not too long ago. I hadn't spoken to him about Masonry in months, perhaps years before he brought up the oaths thing.

Everyone I know who is a Mason is a good dude.

I have heard a lot of things, and plenty of criticism and antagonisms towards the LDS Church, but not wanting to be a Mason because early-LDS leaders were masons for a brief time in LDS Church history is a first.

Masonry was a big deal in 1800s America. The first Mason lodge established by the LDS Church was in Nauvoo, long after the LDS Church was already established, and after Smiths death, Young ceased the Nauvoo Mason lodge prior to the move West.

Smith was made a "Mason on sight" (which is rare) as the Mayor of Nauvoo by Illinois Masons. He would not have come-up as a Mason, or knew much about the organization or its methods prior to that.

After the LDS Church went West, not long after Smiths murder, no Mason lodges were formed by the LDS in the West, and the Masonic Lodge in Utah had a no-Mormon policy that lasted until 1984.

Since it was a brief history in Nauvoo, and I have studied LDS history for a long time, I would not call the relationship between the LDS Church and masons, "STRONG."

Smith, and the Saints, had built the Kirtland Temple, and Smith had received the Temple Ordinance revelation prior to his being made a "Mason on sight" with no background in Masonry... It is difficult to call the relationship between the Masons and the LDS Church, "STRONG" except for the brief stint the LDS Church had a Mason lodge in Nauvoo...

Smith had received the revelation on Temple work prior to his becoming a Mason, and participating in Mason rights.



It was just the Utah lodge. Other lodges allowed LDS.



The truth be told...

Most folks who raise the Mason issue with LDS don't like *either* Masons or the LDS.


"From 1925 to 1984, the Grand Lodge of Utah prohibited members of the LDS Church from joining, but no other Grand Lodge followed this ban and Latter-day Saints were free to join Lodges outside Utah. In 1984, the Grand Lodge of Utah officially dropped its anti-Mormon position and allowed Latter-day Saints to join. Today there is no formal obstacle in Utah or in any other Grand Lodge preventing Latter-day Saints from becoming Freemasons. Since 1984, several of the Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Utah have been Latter-day Saints."
Link


The LDS Church has always taught that Smith was a Mason. The LDS Church has always taught that the Masons were pretty good people. Some of those who killed Smith were thought to be Masons, but that is only something brought up to show the open and blatant hypocrisy of those who murdered Smith in cold blood. Masons have always been referred to in positive terms in LDS history and teachings.

I was openly taught in Seminary and Institute that Smith was a Mason. It is in official lessons and manuals. One of my Institute Professors was a Mason.

Similarities /= "VERY close ties."

Not an issue. And being a Utah Mason, and a native Utahn, I'm well aware of the history between the LDS church and the fraternity.

My BIL was maybe 8 years old when the family quit the church. Not even sure he was ever baptized. I'm certain he has no lingering issues there.