The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

[Rev Wayne]

Lastly a chapter has been added upon the important subject which forms the background of the rest—the relationship of modern Masonry to the Ancient Mysteries, from which it [Freemasonry] is the direct, though greatly attenuated, spiritual descendant.

The Meaning of Masonry, W.L. Wilmhurst p. 7 (emphasis added)

Ancient Mysteries pre-date Christianity, their origin is pagan; no matter what you say.

So what exactly is this supposed to prove? Masonry is in good company when it comes to the mysteries.

"That, in all times is the Christian religion, which to know and follow is the most sure and certain health, called according to that name, but not according to the thing itself, of which it is the name; for the thing itself, which is now called the Christian religion, really was known to the Ancients, nor was wanting at any time from the beginning of the human race, until the time when Christ came in the flesh; from whence the true religion, which had previously existed, began to be called Christian; and this in our days is the Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but as having, in later times, received this name." (Works of Augustine, vol. i, p. 12)

According to Augustine, Christianity is a "spiritual descendant" of the same ancient traditions. And Christianity, which predates Masonry by 1500+ years, would be even more of a direct descendant.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I guess we can add a new tactic to the methods described on this thread: dragging discussions into endless and useless tangents every time their arguments bog down.

 

[Skip Sampson]

The frequency of use of that tactic will be reduced nearly to zero if you'll stop using it. Physician, heal thyself. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

And no one yet has answered the challenge I've offered numerous times: Since, as Jesus said, the good tree cannot put forth bad fruit, show me the pattern of evil deeds that would necessarily have to have followed these men. Show me a pattern of Freemasonry leading men to lives of evil. It is not there.

Would the pattern of racism in the southern states from the 1870's through the 1970's fit your challenge? Many of these Masons were leaders in society, and the case can be made that the racism of the Lodge paralleled, and probably contributed to, the racism of their society. Had the Lodge not had a racist admission policy from the beginning, perhaps it would not have continued in society for as long as it did. More probably, it would have died with such a policy, as the 'good' men it attracted were not willing to accept the black man as their equal.

Same thoughts apply to their churches. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

"Their" churches? It seems to be a stretch, even for your usual illogic, to try to limit the scope of what happened in the churches during the same period, to only those where Masons held membership. With that kind of sophistry, I can only figure there's a bias at work in your accounting of this unfortunate chapter of "history."

But thanks for proving my point by making the effort to derail. But you can only succeed so far as the participants here allow it.

 

[Skip Sampson]

And you did not address the main point, which was the answer to your challenge. Nothing new there. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

And you did not address the main point, which was the answer to your challenge. Nothing new there. Cordially, Skip.

Sure I did.

It seems to be a stretch, even for your usual illogic, to try to limit the scope of what happened in the churches during the same period, to only those where Masons held membership. With that kind of sophistry, I can only figure there's a bias at work in your accounting of this unfortunate chapter of "history."

Your problem is, you don't like the answer, because it shows just how shallow the consideration given to the question.

 

[razeontherock]

No propaganda needed. Here's the full-blown effects of masonry (once a high level is achieved) on a family I knew for quite some time:

Take all the young girls you can including your daughter, and force them to work in a strip joint where they are also prostituted. When one refuses to (ahem) ... "obey,"

make an example out of her by putting her in the middle of all the other girls encircled around her but beyond arm's length, and empty a .357 into her vagina. This is a slow way to die, but all the natural impulse to help is restrained by the implied threat of the same happening to you if you don't do as you're told.

Talk to someone that experienced being in that circle, and you'll realize that person will never be the same again.

Yes, there's a reason their society is secret; maybe lots of reasons. And I know most involved w/ Freemasonry are decent, upright people, that never know about any such thing.

Stay away from it. Sorry to be so truthful, but the Truth needs to be told.

 

[Skip Sampson]

So despite what antimasons on this forum have tried to suggest to us about Coil’s position on the matter:

• Masonry may have religious content, but would not be accurately described as “a religion,” or “one of the religions.”
• There is no consistency by which it may be described as a religion, being Christian in Christian countries, Muslim in Muslim countries, etc.
• Its roots are thoroughly entrenched in Christianity.

I'd like to address only the first bullet herein because, while Wayne may not be totally wrong on that, he is certainly not correct. I may take a shot at the third later, because I do not think that was all Coil was pointing out.

The following addresses Coil's views from his article entitled "Religion" from his encyclopedia. Of note, both Wayne and I are using the 1st edition of that book, not the hatchet job that is the second. I'll let Coil do his own talking, though I have bolded especially relevant parts.

Religion touches everything and we would not expect to find it entirely absent in a society so old and widespread as Freemasonry. We do find it, but there is no question upon which the attitude of the Fratnernity, over several centuries, has been less certain or predictable or its views from time to time more conflicting. This is illustrated by the statements of two contemporaneous authorities, who were, in fact, associates. Mackey called Freemasonry religion; Pike dissented. The former said that any society which demanded or inculcated a religious belief or based its activities or ritual on religious principles and teachings, including the Divine Law, is to that degree religion; but Pike argued that one could not hold two religions at the same time and, hence, a Christian, a Jew, or a Moslem could not also accept Freemasonry as his religion. The logic of Pike's statement is not convincing, for, while one might not hold two inconsistent religions at the same time any more than he could be a monarchist and a republican at the same time, there is nothing to prevent one holding two or three religions, philosophies, or political theories which are not inconsistent. (Pgs. 511 - 512)

Some attempt to avoid the issue by saying that Freemasonry is not a religion but is religious, seeming to believe that the substitution of an adjective for a noun makes a fundamental difference. It would be as sensible to say that man had no intellect but was intellectual or that he had no honor but was honorable. The oft repeated aphorism: "Freemasonry is not a religion, but is most emphatically religion's handmaid," has been challenged as meaningless, which it seems to be. If Freemasonry is not religion, how could it presume to aid religion? How does it aid religion any more than it aids politics? Neither is subject to discussion in the lodge. There was another commonly accepted statement in the 19th century to the effect that Freemasonry furnished all the religion a man needed, and thousands of Freemasons have acted on that interpretation. (Pg. 512)

In asserting that Freemasonry is not a religion, the speaker inevitably thinks of a sect or denomination or a church congregation or church ritual and forms. He is likely to be thinking of church going, hymn singing, communion service, collecting the free-will offering, and hearing a sermon. But there can be religion without any church and, indeed, without any congregation or even one companion, save God. There can be religion without the recitation of any liturgy; and the recitation of a formula does not necessarily induce religion. In short, there can be much religion which is neither a religion nor one of the religions. (Pg. 512)

(b) Definition of Religion. Funk and Wagnals' New Standard Dictionary (1941) defines Religion as: "A belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers), conceived of after the analogy of the human spirit, on which (or whom) man regards himself as dependent, and to which (or whom) he thinks himself in some degree responsible, together with the feelings and practices which naturally flow from such belief." This comes close to defining Freemasonry as many writers have defined it saying that the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is the whole story. Freemasonry certainly requires a belief in the existence of, and man's dependence upon, a Supreme Being to whom he is responsible. What can a church add to that, except to bring into one fellowship those who have like feelings? That is exactly what the lodge does. (Pg. 512)

(c) Belief; Creed; Tenet; Dogma. Does Freemasonry have a creed (I believe) or tenet (he holds) or dogma (I think) to which all members must adhere? Does Freemasonry continually teach and insist upon a creed, tenet, and dogma? Does it have meetings characterized by the practice of rites and ceremonies in and by which its creed, tenet, and dogma are illustrated by myths, symbols, and allegories? If Freemasonry were not religion, what would have to be done to make it such? Nothing would be necessary or at least nothing but to add more of the same. That brings us to the real crux of the matter; the difference between a lodge and a church is one of degree and not of kind. Some think that, because it is not a strong or highly formalized or highly dogmatized religion such as the Roman Catholic Church where it is difficult to tell whether the congregation is worshiping God, Christ, or the Virgin Mary, it can be no religion at all. But a church of Friends (Quakers) exhibits even less formality and ritual than does a Masonic lodge. The fact that Freemasonry is a mild religion does not mean that it is no religion.

A man may be born without religious ceremony; he may be married without religious ceremony; he may live a long life without religious ceremony; but one moment comes to every man when he feels the need of that missing thing-when he comes to crossing into the great beyond. Freemasonry has a religious service to commit the body of a deceased brother to the dust whence it came and to speed the liberated spirit back to the Great Source of Light. Many Freemasons make this flight with no other guarantee of a safe landing than their belief in the religion of Freemasonry. If that is a false hope, the Fraternity should abandon funeral services and devote its attention to activities where it is sure of its ground and its authority. (Pg. 512)

Perhaps the most we can say is that Freemasonry has not generally been regarded as a sect or denomination, though it may become so if its religious practices, creeds, tenets, and dogma increase as much in the future as they have in the past. Only by judging from external appearances and applying arbitrary gauges can we say that Freemasonry is not religion. For example, some say that Freemasonry cannot be religion, because it does not proselyte or try to make converts as all religions do, but that is not true, for the Jews do not proselyte, being content to maintain their religio-racial integrity. Perhaps the strongest argument against Masonry as religion has never been asserted and that is the very important observation that the religious dogma of the Fraternity has not been consistent enough to identify it as a sect, but its announced adherences have repeatedly changed and may even now be changing. In English-speaking countries, it seems to adhere to the Old Testament dispensation; in Scandinavian countries it is officially Christian; in Islamic countries, it is Mohammedan; and in France and a few other jurisdictions, it is neutral, following more closely than any other country the doctrine of the premier Grand Lodge of 1717.

Nothing herein is intended to be an argument that Freemasonry ought to be religion; our purpose is simply to determine what it has become and is; and the next succeeding paragraphs will trace the development of its present character. (Pg. 513)

Heterodoxy bothers all religions and Freemasonry is not exempt. (Pg. 517)

In closing this dissertation on an important subject, one on which opinions may differ widely, it must be concluded that no matter how filled we may be with religious fervor, we must give up any idea that Freemasonry was intended to be another religious sect and that, containing as it does a large proportion of men who have already espoused some church or denomination, any such career would be plagued by internal discord or submerged in the large number of existing sects. On the other hand, Freemasonry, as a universal, moral society open to all men of good report and intentions, has performed and will continue to perform a valuable and necessary function in the world. (Pg. 522)

One can see that, from this article, Coil saw Freemasonry as both 'religion' and 'a religion.' He saw no difference between the two. He was also clear that it was neither sect nor denomination.

But there's another part of Coil's that was not discussed in Wayne's post and which should have been: his article entitled 'Definition of Freemasonry.' The oversight is curious, because that article bears directly on the topic at hand. Here is the summation of that article:

Definition of Freemasonry in its broadest sense: Freemasonry, in its broadest and most comprehensive sense, is a system of morality and social ethics, a primitive religion, and a philosophy of life, all of simple and fundamental character, incorporating a broad humanitarianism and, though treating life as a practical experience, subordinates the material to the spiritual; it is a religion without a creed, being of no sect but finding truth in all; it is moral but not pharisaic; it demands sanity rather than sanctity; it is tolerant but not supine; it seeks truth but does not define truth; it urges its votaries to think but does not tell them what to think; it despises ignorance but does not proscribe the ignorant; it fosters education but proposes no curriculum; it espouses political liberty and the dignity of man but has no platform or propaganda; it believes in the nobility and usefulness of life; it is modest and not militant; it is moderate, universal, and so liberal as to permit each individual to form and express his own opinion, even as to what Freemasonry is or ought to be, and invites him to improve it if he can. (Pg. 159)

'"the religion of Masonry"; "a mild religion"; "a primitive religion"; "a religion without a creed". Case closed. Cordially, Skip.

 

[BarryK]

Perhaps if the members of the freemasons were entirely open and transparency with everything that they do, there would be no cause for their opponents to come up with the "antimason propoganda machine"
with that being the case, whe can we realisticly expect total openness and transparency with the freemasons?

 

[O.F.F.]

Perhaps if the members of the freemasons were entirely open and transparency with everything that they do, there would be no cause for their opponents to come up with the "antimason propoganda machine" ...

This thread was not created by the opponents of Freemasonry, it was started by a proponent of the Lodge; a Mason who has an axe to grind against those who oppose his non-Christian religious fraternity.

 

[BarryK]

This thread was not created by the opponents of Freemasonry, it was started by a proponent of the Lodge; a Mason who has an axe to grind.

so there is no "anti masonic propoganda machine"? thee are loads of websites that indicate that there is such a thing

 

[Skip Sampson]

I think it better stated that there are many websites whose purpose is to warn men of the dangers of Freemasonry. It's not a matter of propaganda, but of stating the factual concerns and letting men make their own choices.

Masons can't see that. Their view is almost always the simplistic one: they are only in it for the $$. No real consideration of the facts expressed, just knee-jerk, negative responses. On the whole, Masonry's critics present a clearer case than do Masonry's defenders. Cordially, Skip.

 

[O.F.F.]

so there is no "anti masonic propoganda machine"? thee are loads of websites that indicate that there is such a thing

For you to call such websites a "propoganda machine" gives them a negative connotation and an impression that they all work together and have the same purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Skip indicated, it's about sharing the facts, particularly from former Masons, and allowing interested people to draw their own conclusions.

By your assessment, this website would be part of that "machine" since the topic is place in the category of Unorthodox Theology; not to mention, the site owner and administrator has expressed his opinion against Freemasonry as not for Christians.

 

[PerrySB]

If Freemasonry is such a "good" organization, then why does the vast majority of Christendom find it abhorrent to the fundamental teachings of the historic Christian faith?

Oh come now that should be pretty easy to understand, many fundamentalist are afraid of anything they don’t understand and consider anyone that doesn’t dance to their drummer out of the game. Lets face it you have Baptist that can’t stand Pentecostals and Catholics that don’t like anybody, and Adventist that think anybody that doesn’t worship on Saturday and eat veggie burgers is going to hell. The Jesus only folks that think if you aren’t baptized in only Jesus name you have missed it and my goodness if you don’t speak in tongues you must be full of the devil. Or only 144k are going to heaven, how stupid is that.
That is the kind of simple minded thinking that has divided the so called orthodox church the last two hundred years. We need to learn to accept people and not be so judgmental and bigoted. We serve of God of love and compassion and He has demonstrated that to us in the most powerful way through his son.
The body of Christ still has an awful lot to learn about love and acceptance. Maybe that is why Jesus avoided the religious leadership of the day.

 

[bbbbbbb]

At best, many individuals such as myself (a former DeMolay) find no need whatsoever for Freemasonry, having found all of our deepest needs fully satisfied and met in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is the same with my relationship with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox who find value in praying to Mary and the saints. Why do I need or want them when I have Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, the All and in All?

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

No propaganda needed. Here's the full-blown effects of masonry (once a high level is achieved) on a family I knew for quite some time:

Take all the young girls you can including your daughter, and force them to work in a strip joint where they are also prostituted. When one refuses to (ahem) ... "obey,"

make an example out of her by putting her in the middle of all the other girls encircled around her but beyond arm's length, and empty a .357 into her vagina. This is a slow way to die, but all the natural impulse to help is restrained by the implied threat of the same happening to you if you don't do as you're told.

Talk to someone that experienced being in that circle, and you'll realize that person will never be the same again.

Yes, there's a reason their society is secret; maybe lots of reasons. And I know most involved w/ Freemasonry are decent, upright people, that never know about any such thing.

Stay away from it. Sorry to be so truthful, but the Truth needs to be told.

Your use of the sickness of one person to paint Freemasonry negatively is abhorrent. You can find deranged people in all walks of life and in countless institutions, religious and secular. So while we must have compassion on those who suffer, this is obviously an isolated case. My experience with Freemasonry has revealed nothing but genuine, compassionate, Godly men of unselfish service to others.

 

[Skip Sampson]

... many fundamentalist are afraid of anything they don’t understand...

I think you oversell the point. Most fundamentalists believe in the fundamental truths of the Bible. It's what defines them. Where people go astray is when they place their own views ahead of the Biblical ones and insist that certain biblical 'doctrines' should be enforced on others, first. Many people do not understand just what Christianity is, let alone how to become one, but they do insist on calling themselves such and living lives in error. Others are plainly led astray by false teachings, some of which you have noted.

We need to learn to accept people and not be so judgmental and bigoted.

Anyone who is a Christian must understand that it changes you from the inside out, and that it is our job to conform to Christ, not to beat people over the head with a Bible. Having said that, the Christian is called to witness to others and to make disciples, hence the comments you will find on this forum on the dangers and false teachings of Freemasonry. There is no compromise in what we are called to do, though there is always forgiveness.

Given our calling, how can we be other than judgmental? We are not called to condemn others, but we certainly are instructed to exercise spiritual discernment, first with our own actions, then with those of others. For us to not speak out is to let others continue down the path to condemnation. Have you learned to accept homosexuals, for example? Mormons and JW's, for another? If not, why not, you ol' judgmental bigot.

We serve of God of love and compassion and He has demonstrated that to us in the most powerful way through his son. The body of Christ still has an awful lot to learn about love and acceptance.

You might be correct, but we won't learn it in a Masonic Lodge.

Maybe that is why Jesus avoided the religious leadership of the day.

He didn't avoid them. Rather, he took them on squarely and let them know how they were falling short of God's calling for them. You might say he was being judgmental and bigoted, and certainly was not accepting of them for what they were. I guess you must have missed that in your criticism. Our criticism of Masonry is firmly rooted in the lessons and actions of Jesus Christ. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

You can find deranged people in all walks of life and in countless institutions, religious and secular. ... My experience with Freemasonry has revealed nothing but genuine, compassionate, Godly men of unselfish service to others.

Did you note the contradiction in your statements? Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Mackey called Freemasonry religion; Pike dissented.

Still no different than what I have said. This statement does not say "Mackey called Freemasonry 'A' religion," which is what I have been consistent in stating, and which is obvious to anyone who has read Mackey. Mackey went to great lengths to explain-and very capably so-why Masonry does not fit the claim that it is "a" religion.

Some attempt to avoid the issue by saying that Freemasonry is not a religion but is religious, seeming to believe that the substitution of an adjective for a noun makes a fundamental difference.

I already covered this as well. Coil may rant all he wishes about the difference between an adjective and a noun not being substantive, but he is, quite simply, completely wrong on the point. Mackey's thoroughness illustrates Coil's failure to comprehend the difference. In fact, I do not take it as a failure to understand it so much as a refusal to do so, given the way he words the above statement.

It would be as sensible to say that man had no intellect but was intellectual or that he had no honor but was honorable.

A protest without a shred of meaning. His objection, when applied to what he is protesting, amounts to, "if a man is religious, he is a religion." He really ought to have left off mentioning what is "sensible, for his objection clearly is not.

If Freemasonry is not religion, how could it presume to aid religion?

Just one more example of the unfortunate tirade that occurred because Coil refuses to consider the difference between "religion" and "a religion" to be valid. I really have to believe he did not understand what he read in Mackey at all, or he would not have engaged in meaningless prattle such as this.

In asserting that Freemasonry is not a religion, the speaker inevitably thinks of a sect or denomination or a church congregation or church ritual and forms. He is likely to be thinking of church going, hymn singing, communion service, collecting the free-will offering, and hearing a sermon. But there can be religion without any church and, indeed, without any congregation or even one companion, save God. There can be religion without the recitation of any liturgy; and the recitation of a formula does not necessarily induce religion. In short, there can be much religion which is neither a religion nor one of the religions.

Coil is certainly correct in the conclusion; where he made his error is, this was covered in the first three definitions, all of which Mackey said COULD be understood as "religion." Why he goes to such lengths trying to apply it to the one definition for which it does not fit is puzzling. And he does not even seem to comprehend that his objection is basically with Webster and not Mackey, for it was Webster's definition that Mackey was expounding upon.

(b) Definition of Religion. Funk and Wagnals' New Standard Dictionary (1941) defines Religion as: "A belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers), conceived of after the analogy of the human spirit, on which (or whom) man regards himself as dependent, and to which (or whom) he thinks himself in some degree responsible, together with the feelings and practices which naturally flow from such belief."This comes close to defining Freemasonry as many writers have defined it saying that the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is the whole story. Freemasonry certainly requires a belief in the existence of, and man's dependence upon, a Supreme Being to whom he is responsible. What can a church add to that, except to bring into one fellowship those who have like feelings? That is exactly what the lodge does. (Pg. 512)

"Feelings?" Where did THAT come into the picture? If this was a part of his continued address of Mackey's comments, then he went off the grid, for Mackey never addressed Funk & Wagnalls at all. And you highlighted incorrectly, imo, the correction takes note of this in the same light I have already discussed it, when it speaks of "practices." I have consistently stated, that when "religion" is seen in Masonry, it most commonly denotes "religious practices." The "feelings" part, I have no idea where Coil comes from, other than he saw in it Funk & Wagnalls. I don't have "religious feelings" in lodge meetings.

If Freemasonry were not religion, what would have to be done to make it such? Nothing would be necessary or at least nothing but to add more of the same.

Masonry has no "sacred book" that contains the tenets of Masonry and is treated in the same manner as the sacred book of any of the religions; there is no person considered the spiritual head of Masonry; there is no worship service; there are no sacraments; these days there isn't even any music, the only place I recall music in lodge was in York Rite, and even then it was hymns of the Christian Church; there is no orthodoxy since Masons are free to believe as they choose; there is no evangelization/proselytism; and those are only for starters.

No, I'm afraid Coil missed the mark pretty wide with this one, there are quite a few things that would have to be added to make it "a religion." But then, he missed the mark anyway (or perhaps you did by including this one) since his objection is not to "a religion," but to "religion"--which as you know, has never been my point of contention in the first place.

Many Freemasons make this flight with no other guarantee of a safe landing than their belief in the religion of Freemasonry. If that is a false hope, the Fraternity should abandon funeral services and devote its attention to activities where it is sure of its ground and its authority. (Pg. 512)

And because he makes subjective claims, you automatically jump on his bandwagon? How "many" is he talking about? Where is the verifiability? Where is the funeral service unconnected with any other religion whatsoever? All of them I've attended, and the practice is actually becoming less and less used anyway, were connected with Christian funerals.

Heterodoxy bothers all religions and Freemasonry is not exempt.

I'm not surprised at it from Coil, but I'm surprised you'd even consider it worth mentioning.

Only by judging from external appearances and applying arbitrary gauges can we say that Freemasonry is not religion.

Again, irrelevant to what I've consistently stated about Masonry not being "A" religion, because "Freemasonry is not religion" simply does not say the same thing I've been saying.

In closing this dissertation on an important subject, one on which opinions may differ widely, it must be concluded that no matter how filled we may be with religious fervor, we must give up any idea that Freemasonry was intended to be another religious sect and that, containing as it does a large proportion of men who have already espoused some church or denomination, any such career would be plagued by internal discord or submerged in the large number of existing sects.

Skip, are you feeling all right, bud? Why do you include a statement by Coil that is in agreement with exactly what I've been saying?

One can see that, from this article, Coil saw Freemasonry as both 'religion' and 'a religion.

One can even more easily see that Coil was confused on the two definitions, and after going to great lengths to "refute" Mackey's point that Masonry is not "a" religion, turned right around and in the last quote above, states exactly the same thing himself.

'"the religion of Masonry"; "a mild religion"; "a primitive religion"; "a religion without a creed". Case closed.

The religious practice of Masonry, a mild religious practice, primitive religious practices. Religious practice does not constitute a religion. Coil said as much himself. And a religion without a creed is no religion. Case closed.