Yes. The pre1990 Mormon blood oath is almost identical. The whole thing is a copy. Joseph Smith was a Mason. http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/penalty.shtml http://www.helpingmormons.org/enter.htm http://www.nireland.com/evangelicaltruth/symbols.htm Mormon text: "We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots." Mason text: "I will... never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry... binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots..." Mormon text: "We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip, or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field." Mason text: "[I am sworn] under no less penalty than to have my left breast torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence and thrown over my left shoulder and carried into the valley of Jehosaphat, there to become a prey to the wild beasts of the field, and vulture of the air..." Mormon text: "[If we reveal] any of the secrets of this, the First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood... we agree that our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out." Mason text: "[I am sworn] under no less penalty than to have my body severed in two in the midst, and divided to the north and south, my bowels burnt to ashes in the center..." http://www.algonet.se/~daba/lds/endowmen.htm They are best known for secret handshakes, embroidered aprons and the dire penalties reputed to be inflicted on those who break their oath of secrecy. But today's Freemasons insist that tattletales are no longer—if ever they were—subjected to "having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out ... and buried in the sands of the sea." In fact, so eager are Britain's Freemasons to dispel the sinister associations that still cloud their reputation that the United Grand Lodge of England (UGL) whose 300,000 members represent 90% of the Masons in England and Wales has hired a public relations agent. http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/flack.html "Fraud and falsehood only dread examination" Samuel Johnson.

To Fully Understand & answer this question, You would have to know where the First 'Masons' got their ceremony from. Some believe that the Masons trace their ceremonies back to the Crusades & the Knights Templar. Others say that they come from stone masons who copied things from Solomons Temple. & some say that they are from the Egyptian Pharoahic Rites. There are as many Variations of Masons as there are Churches in Christianity. All these Origins are Speculative & Noone knows for Sure. One thing is for sure. They are all from Religious origin, You must believe in God, You must covenant to live by certain Rules. They were eventually Tried for many things including Devil Worship, which they still are accused of Today, By those who were Jealous of their Nobility, Charity & Honor. Yes, Joseph Smith was a Mason. Yes, He had Angels from many Dispensations visit him & Restore the Fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There is something that just has to be pointed out about a certain answer to this question. If you follow the links and compare what they give as an account of the oaths that we take in the temple to what that text of the answer gives as the oaths you will see that they are completely different. One set of oaths that we allegedly took is a definite blood oath calling for a rather gruesome death should the person taking it break it. The other is a statement that the person would rather die than violate the oath. There is no threat that such would be the case if they do violate the oath. The wording of the two sets of oaths are very and profoundly different. Yet the person who posted them claims to be giving factual information about us but does not see the contradiction in her own post and in the sources upon which she is relying. If her sources can't get their stories straight, then why should anyone believe that they are providing accurate information?