The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

[ChristianMasonJim]

What we are NOT
1. An "anti-mason" organization.

You forgot to include in your "What we are" list: "1. An 'anti-masonic' organization"

to say you are not "anti-mason" is simply a cop-out. You and other Masonic Attackers consistently state, "We are Anti-Masonic, not "Anti-Mason", falsely separating the two. I am a Freemason. I am part of Freemasonry, and Freemasonry is part of me. The two cannot be separated.

Then you hide behind the forum rules and threaten to report those who oppose your viewpoints and use the very same terms.

...we do not impose the Gospel on anyone and certainly do not commit, condone, or advocate violence and hostility of any kind to promote the cause for Christ.

But you and other Masonic Attackers are very quick to condemn with hatred and vitriol what a Freemason believes.

 

[Rev Wayne]

we do not impose the Gospel on anyone and certainly do not commit, condone, or advocate violence and hostility of any kind to promote the cause for Christ.

Commit, condone, or advocate? Violence and hostility of any kind?

Perhaps a case could be made for this, had the word "violence" been set forth by itself. I have seen no instances of ex-Masons committing any violence upon Masons, nor any cases of them condoning or advocating anything of the sort.

But "hostility?" Can O.F.F. really claim that one with a straight face? Or without a nose growing like Pinocchio's? Not condoning and not advocating hostility may be commendable, but they go nowhere without setting the example for it in places like discussion forums. And when it comes to hostility, sadly, I know of no ex-Mason organization which does NOT exhibit hostility toward Masons.

 

[O.F.F.]

...Mr. Washum nor myself were concerned at all with what O.F.F. is or is not, only with the recently expressed insinuations of who the group is/is not affiliated with.

Then you obviously either ignored or totally missed points 2 & 3 of who we (O.F.F.) are; which should clarify any such insinuation.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Then you obviously either ignored or totally missed points 2 & 3 of who we (O.F.F.) are; which should clarify any such insinuation.

Well, let's take a look and check out your current claim and see if it holds any more water than anything else you've said lately:

2. An organization that believes in the solidarity of those who oppose Freemasonry on biblical grounds; and who share Our Statement of Faith, regardless if they accept us or not; or if they believe that such solidarity exist between us or not.

3. An organization that considers any Mason who resigns from, and denounces and renounces Freemasonry, automatically as an informal member of O.F.F. and an "ex-mason for Jesus;" if in fact, he resigns from the Masonic Lodge as a direct result of his knowledge of how Masonic heresy violates the Word of God (the Holy Bible); and his loving relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord; regardless if he ever is – or is not – acknowledged or accepted by the organization formally known as "Ex-Masons for Jesus."

No, I think I read it pretty much as it is there. But it's pablum, and says absolutely nothing about ACTUAL affiliations, which of course is what I referred to. And what I said was punctuated already by Duane Washum, who, even though as he stated, is not a "co-founder" of emfj, is the administrator of their discussion forum. As he so clearly stated for us:

A poster here wrote: "as far as we (O.F.F.) are concern, every Ex-Mason for Jesus is also a member of O.F.F. whether they have been formally recognized as such or not."
I do not consider myself to be a member of O.F.F. And Mr. Gentry is most certainly not in any way, shape, or form, affiliated with Ex-Masons For Jesus in spite of his obvious efforts to claim otherwise. We are not that loose with our membership standards. I will make no further comments on either of those matters, because as far as I am concerned, that issue was settled quite some time back.

Seems to me he's rejected your semantic canoodling on both counts, and flatly rejects the automatic o.f.f. membership on his part, as well as any claims of automatic emfj membership on your part. It seems he has no desire to allow you to presume to be arbiter of what groups he may be affiliated with.

Now, can you at least get past all the sidetracking long enough to answer a simple question like "how many members are in your organization?"--keeping in mind, of course, that you can't add in every emfj by default.

Not that you don't dance divinely, it's just that there's an elephant in the room you've completely ignored, and we're concerned that he might step on you before you get around to answering, and quite possibly eliminate the only member of the "army of one" o.f.f. organization, thus squashing our chances of ever getting a response.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wordnetweb defines "hostility" as: a hostile (very unfriendly) disposition.

But "hostility?" Can O.F.F. really claim that one with a straight face? Or without a nose growing like Pinocchio's? Not condoning and not advocating hostility may be commendable, but they go nowhere without setting the example for it in places like discussion forums.

Readers can easily peruse this thread, or any other one on this discussion forum that falls under the topic of Freemasonry, and see that you too are guilty of "hostility." Even in the above quote, like most other comments you make here, you feel you must always include supercilious remarks, snide or ridicule in every one of your posts. The sad thing is, for it to come from one who claims to be a Christian pastor makes it even more pathetic.

For example, in the quote above, if you really believed that "hostility" was so bad on my part you would not have included the remark about a nose growing like Pinocchio's. Or do you really think readers believe that your posts are "friendly?" So your claim about "hostilily" is just one more piece of evidence of your very own hypocrisy (Matthew 7:5).

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Ok, fine, so we all recognize the hostility here. So let's man-up and cut the hostility and move on to real discussion. Please.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wordnetweb defines "hostility" as: a hostile (very unfriendly) disposition.



Readers can easily peruse this thread, or any other one on this discussion forum that falls under the topic of Freemasonry, and see that you too are guilty of "hostility." Even in the above quote, like most other comments you make here, you feel you must always include supercilious remarks, snide or ridicule in every one of your posts. The sad thing is, for it to come from one who claims to be a Christian pastor makes it even more pathetic.

For example, in the quote above, if you really believed that "hostility" was so bad on my part you would not have included the remark about a nose growing like Pinocchio's. Or do you really think readers believe that your posts are "friendly?" So your claim about "hostilily" is just one more piece of evidence of your very own hypocrisy (Matthew 7:5).

Just another of your typical attempts at reversing the comments made, no matter what anyone says.

I think readers are mature enough here to recognize the differences:

"a nose growing like Pinocchio's" vs YOUR typical ejaculations like "bald-faced LIAR!" complete with every bold print and exclamation point you can muster, leaves no doubt which one is "hostile" when compared with the other.

Again, "bald-faced LIAR!" which has probably been your epithet of choice, is direct, inflammatory, and exclamatory. And so are these remarks:

B.S. and YOU know it! Me and millions, upon millions, of other Christians have enough familiarity with the Bible to stay the hell out of Freemasonry. The ironic thing is, despite the fact that YOU are supposedly a seminary-trained pastor, YOU are obviously either too biblically ignorant or too biblically disobedient to even give a damn.
not.

TAKE YOUR CHALLENGE AND SHOVE-IT UP YOUR MASONIC APRON!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, go ahead and hide under your little skirt (Masonic Apron) like the cowardly little 'sissy' that you are.

Compare that with the remarks you singled out:

But "hostility?" Can O.F.F. really claim that one with a straight face? Or without a nose growing like Pinocchio's?

Maybe you weren't paying attention, or maybe you are just deliberately ignoring it, but those are question marks. The question invites the reader to look at your posts in general, compare them with your current claims concerning "hostility," and decide for themselves if your remarks can be considered accurate.

YOURS, by contrast, are the same as always, unbending, unyielding, trying to impose upon the reader the worst possible frrame you can put upon it. The attempt is not just in what you say, either, your entire presentation of it tries to impose upon the reader visually, whether it's caps, bold, or underline, trying to force the reader to adopt the same conclusions you have--for example, in this case, with things like "must always."

You, of course, will deny it as always, but I would hope the readers know better.

And now that you've managed yet another side-tracking post without answering the question, perhaps you can get around to responding to the question:

How many members are in the o.f.f. organization? That shouldn't be too hard. And my remarks about it, believe me, will cease to appear snide to you or anyone else, if you will simply provide us with an answer.

Otherwise, we can only assume that we have discovered that the antimasonic organization o.f.f. is hundreds of times as secretive as the Masons have ever been accused of being--since Masonic membership numbers have been a matter of public record for quite a long time now.

The irony of this is, if Masonic membership numbers were not a matter of public record, and you were pursuing this line of questioning instead of me, the level of "hostility" that would be displayed by you right about this point would be unimaginable.

 

[Rev Wayne]

"Is Christ divided? Was EMFJ or the Masonic Lodge crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of O.F.F.? . . . You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow the Grand Lodge of South Carolina (GLSC)," and another, "I follow EMFJ or O.F.F.," are you not mere men? What, after all, is O.F.F. or EMFJ? (1 Corinthians 1:13 and 3:3-5 modified)

"Modified" is certainly a self-justification for this butchery of scripture and authorial intent. The very question "Is Christ divided" clearly implies that Paul is addressing the body of Christ, because the Greek particle mē is used to ask the question, which automatically entails a negative rather than a positive answer. By asking the question in that manner, the implied answer is "of course not!" For your little spiel to have any resemblance at all to what Paul was doing, emfj, off, and GLSC would ALL have to be factious branches of Christianity. Paul was dealing with those who were all indisputably Christians, and were separating from one another, primarily on their identifying themselves with the preaching of different individuals, whether Paul, Cephas, or Apollos, etc. And one thing I think we can all agree on, YOU would be the last one here to identify the lodge as a branch of the Christian Church.

And what is Freemasonry? Only servants, through whom you may have, came to believe. . ."

You knew better before you ever hit the "enter" button on this nonsense. I have witnessed many times to how I came to Christ, and to the fact that it was LONG before ever joining the lodge.

My suggestion would be that you stick to the topic and refrain from mutilation/manipulation of Scripture in the attempt to make it subservient to your agenda.

And while we're at it: how many members are in your o.f.f. organization?

 

[Skip Sampson]

Jim:
You’ve raised a couple of issues to which I now have time to respond. In our discussion on the apron lecture, you make two errors: first, you are letting your individual interpretation supersede the passages’ actual meaning; secondly, you missed one of the Ahimon Rezon references to the apron lecture.

...purity of life and conduct which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the celestial Lodge above...", that clearly refers to a condition that can never be obtained by man's own doing--it can only be obtained by the redeeming covering of Jesus Christ, symbolized appropriately within the context of Masonic working tools by the white lambskin apron.

The first error is in assuming that what can be stated about the concept is necessarily what it actually means. Your addition of Christian meaning does not change the stated verses themselves; rather, you add, at best, an interpretation which is acceptable to your personal belief structure. This is a common error among Masons, in that they really don’t want to see Freemasonry for what it is, but would rather paper over those lessons to make them more acceptable. In that, you are forgetting a key element of Freemasonry: it is up to the Mason to conform to Masonry, not for the Mason to change it. Under your view, any Mason could reinterpret the passages to his own liking, which is your point of departure for much in Freemasonry. I do not agree, nor does Masonry.

You might also ask yourself this question: If you already know that Christ is the “how,” why do you need Freemasonry, which denies His name?

As to the second error:

This passage itself really is pretty straight forward: It plainly and simply refers to the condition that one must be in, in order to gain entry into Heaven. This is a fairly universal belief across many religions. The passage, however, does not discuss "how" one attains that condition--only that the condition exists.

And again, I assert that the apron lecture, which Masonic Attackers so consistently and viciously attack, represents the condition one must be in to gain entrance to Heaven, not a method to gain entrance to Heaven as they so often misrepresent.

Here, you are, quite simply, incorrect. You want Freemasonry just to state the “condition” for entrance, but to leave the “how” to the individual Mason. More ‘papering over,’ as the AR actually does state the “how.” Here are the passages that apply:

The lamb has in all ages been deemed an emblem of innocence; by the lambskin, the Mason is, therefore, reminded of that purity of life and conduct which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides. (Ahimon Rezon, 2010 edition, pg. 86)

The lambskin or white leather apron is an emblem of innocence and the badge of a Mason; by it the Mason is reminded of that purity of life and rectitude of conduct so necessary to his gaining admission into the Celestial Lodge above. This symbol of purity presented to our Brother on his first entrance into Masonry constantly reminds us of the need of a virtuous life. (AR, 2010, pg. 281)

Looking at both verses, it becomes clear that the Masonic lesson of the apron is that “purity of life and conduct” IS necessary to get into heaven, in that it refers to a virtuous life. This pretty much destroys your argument in that it points strongly to the “how” you are trying to avoid. A virtuous life is not a requirement to get into heaven. Were it so, Christianity, like Masonry, would be a salvation by works faith structure. Thus, you’ve missed the real meaning of the lecture in casting about for a meaning you can live with.

Masons commonly miss that point about the apron lecture, so don’t feel all alone. Several GL’s with which I am familiar provide more information on the lecture than their members actually realize. For example:

The Apron is at once an emblem of innocence, and the badge of a Mason. By purity it meant blamelessness, a loyal obedience to the laws of the Craft and sincere good will to the Brethren; the badge of a Mason signifies that Masons are workers and builders, not drones and destructionists. (FL GL, LSME, Booklet 2, pg. 8)

The Apron is at once the emblem of purity and the badge of a Mason. By purity is meant blamelessness, a loyal obedience to the laws of the Craft and sincere good will to the Brethren;" ('A Lodge System Of Masonic Instruction' - Nevada, p. 28)

The lambskin apron is at once an emblem of innocence and the badge of a Mason. By innocence is meant clean thinking and clean living, a loyal obedience to the laws of the craft, and sincere goodwill and charity toward one’s brethren. The “badge of a Mason” signifies, among other things, that Masons are workers and builders, not mere theorizers, gadflies, and intellectual eunuchs.
The lamb has always been a symbol of innocence and sacrifice. There are two senses in which innocence is being used here: Innocence, in one sense, meaning free from moral defect; the other sense is that of being newly born and without blemish, in the sense of fulfilling the goal of Masonic initiation—that of spiritual rebirth. (CA GL, EA Candidate Guide, pg. 21)

Like SC, these GL’s do not leave the meaning open for interpretations such as you are attempting. They are pretty clear what ‘purity’ means in the Masonic sense. Such demands for purity, as well as SC’s requirement for a virtuous life, also fit perfectly into the whole idea of the ‘spiritual temple’ the Mason is supposedly building in which, if He finds it acceptable, God will indwell. What a travesty! Also perfectly fitting is the comment from CA, which goes even further in linking the apron with the Masonic ‘spiritual rebirth,’ which seems to be a common idea in Masonic ritual and documentation.

A few more points:

Learned Masons have been, therefore, always disposed to go beyond the mere technicalities and stereotyped phrases of the lectures, and to look in the history and philosophy of the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries, for a true explanation of most of the symbols of Masonry, and there they have always been enabled to find the true interpretation. (Ahimen Rezon, 2010, page 81 – 82)

I am somewhat amazed that you, a self-proclaimed Christian, would actually refer to this passage in support of your views. Just what truth will you find in “the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries”? Didn’t Jesus note that he was the Truth? Why are you searching in false religions for ANYTHING?
Finally,

Skip, so now please tell me your answer to "Let us suppose that Adolf Hitler, just in his last dying breath in his bunker, called upon Jesus to save him. Would you expect to see him in heaven given [Jim's] comments above?

Absolutely. Jesus came to save the lost, and it merely requires their faith in him as their savior. Under the Masonic viewpoint, however, he would not be there as he did not have a ‘virtuous life.’ Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I'm sure Jim has somewhat to reply to you, Skip, and I leave that to the two of you to work through. However, I do have somewhat to say by way of a point of clarification concerning something you cited from Ahiman Rezon:

Learned Masons have been, therefore, always disposed to go beyond the mere technicalities and stereotyped phrases of the lectures, and to look in the history and philosophy of the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries, for a true explanation of most of the symbols of Masonry, and there they have always been enabled to find the true interpretation. (Ahimen Rezon, 2010, page 81 – 82)

Incredibly funny you should go there. First let's look at the quote in fuller context, then I will comment.

The second section of the first lecture, according to the system prevailing in this country, is occupied with an explanation of the symbolic meaning of the ceremonies that are detailed in the first; without, therefore, a knowledge of the second section, the first becomes barren and insignificant. It must, however, be confessed that many of the interpretations given in this section are unsatisfactory to the cultivated mind, and seem to have been adopted on the principle of the old Egyptians, who made use of symbols to conceal rather than to express their thoughts. Learned Masons have been, therefore, always disposed to go beyond the mere technicalities and stereotyped phrases of the lectures, and to look in the history and the philosophy of the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries, for a true explanation of most of the symbols of Masonry, and there they have always been enabled to find this true interpretation.

So, "the interpretations given in this section are unsatisfactory to the cultivated mind," and therefore we are to look elsewhere to "find the true interpretation." By "this section," of course, the statement is referring to the second section of the Entered Apprentice lecture. Squarely within the EA lecture, second section, guess what we find:

THE BADGE OF A MASON​

The lamb has in all ages been deemed an emblem of Innocence; by the lambskin, the Mason is, therefore, reminded of that purity of life and conduct which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides.

Thanks for clarifying this for us, Skip. The gist of your allegations, by your own declaration--since you are the one who lifted this piece out for us to examine--have just been made null and void. Since, as you have just pointed out for us, the interpretations of the entire second section of the lectures are, Masonically speaking, "unsatisfactory to the cultivated mind"; and since, therefore, "learned Masons look elsewhere for the TRUE interpretation"; we cannot overlook the fact that this declaration includes the interpretation offered in the "badge of a Mason" statement as well.

Therefore, since the interpretation as you have criticized it is really NOT the "true interpretation"; and since no further elaboration is offered by which we may determine what the "true interpretation" of the "badge of a Mason" might be, it looks like your apron cannon just ran out of fodder.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

The first error is in assuming that what can be stated about the concept is necessarily what it actually means. Your addition of Christian meaning does not change the stated verses themselves; rather, you add, at best, an interpretation which is acceptable to your personal belief structure. This is a common error among Masons, in that they really don’t want to see Freemasonry for what it is, but would rather paper over those lessons to make them more acceptable. In that, you are forgetting a key element of Freemasonry: it is up to the Mason to conform to Masonry, not for the Mason to change it. Under your view, any Mason could reinterpret the passages to his own liking, which is your point of departure for much in Freemasonry. I do not agree, nor does Masonry.

It is certainly not my point of departure. Freemasonry is filled from top-to-bottom with symbolism and allegory, and the apron lecture is just another example of such symbolism and allegory. Specific interpretations very depending upon the person interpreting.

You might also ask yourself this question: If you already know that Christ is the "how," why do you need Freemasonry, which denies His name?

Your question is flawed because the two are mutually exclusive. Freemasonry provides a "why" and Christianity provides the "how". They are completely independent of each other, because Freemasonry is not about the "how".

I don't "need" Freemasonry. Neither do I "need" to go bowling, ride a bike, discuss issues with friends, or watch TV. I choose to be a Freemason because it provides a forum to interact with Godly men who are loyal, patriotic, and concerned for the morality of individuals, families, and this country at-large. And in South Carolina, most of those Godly men whom I know to be Freemasons, happen to also be Christians.

And lastly, Freemasonry does not deny His name, it omits His name--BIG difference. We have been over this many times as to why, and the conclusion continues to be the same that Freemasonry is religiously neutral, leaving specific definitions of God and Salvation up to the individual.

I am somewhat amazed that you, a self-proclaimed Christian, would actually refer to this passage in support of your views. Just what truth will you find in “the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries”? Didn’t Jesus note that he was the Truth? Why are you searching in false religions for ANYTHING?

My, what a boring life you must lead. OK, don't get me wrong, the Bible is absolutely the best resource for Biblical Truth, and I certainly would never fault anyone from reading that and that alone. But like many, I look to history for many things for a variety of reasons. There is great wisdom to be found in our past. When I want Biblical Truth and the history of Christianity or Judaism, I read the Word of God that is the Bible. But I also look to the writings of the ancients to better understand their cultures and perspectives in poetry, mythology, history, personal accounts, the list goes on. Historical and ancient writings are fascinating and very enlightening. But it appears that when I read such writings from sources other than the Bible, I discern the differences in those writings, and it appears that you do not. To deny history is to deny the very things that led us to where we are today. And to deny the writings that make up that history is amazingly short-sighted.

 

[O.F.F.]

PMFJI, but I will as we wait for Skip's reply.

And lastly, Freemasonry does not deny His name, it omits His name--BIG difference.

Sorry Jim, I would have to strongly disagree with you; and so does Webster's online dictionary. They define "deny" as: "to refuse to admit or acknowledge." That sounds very close to "omit" in my understanding of the definition, as well as theirs, which is "to leave out or leave unmentioned." So in reality, given Freemasonry's "omission" of Jesus' name as YOU put it, there really is no difference.

We have been over this many times as to why, and the conclusion continues to be the same that Freemasonry is religiously neutral, leaving specific definitions of God and Salvation up to the individual.

Likewise, we've been over this many times as to why this position should NEVER be acceptable to a Christian who knows the SPECIFIC truth about God and Salvation. To accept Freemasonry's neutrality on these matters is to tacitly approve that any other definition of God and Salvation is just as acceptable as the truth (which is absolute, NOT neutral or relative). And that is, as has been said many times here before, a clear violation of the First Commandment.

OK, don't get me wrong, the Bible is absolutely the best resource for Biblical Truth...

Not sure what you mean here, but let me remind you that the Bible is the ONLY source for biblical truth. Other sources may confirm it as such, but let me reiterate Skip's questions, because you have yet to answer them. Just what biblical truth will you find in “the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries”? And if Jesus noted that He is the Truth, what more can you find from the ancient pagan world religions?

To deny history is to deny the very things that led us to where we are today. And to deny the writings that make up that history is amazingly short-sighted.

Jim, do you ever stop to listen to what you are saying? To deny (or omit) Jesus, which you just admitted Freemasonry does, is to deny the very PERSON who led us to where we are today. History is HIS-sTORY!!! And for a Christian to ignore this, in favor of their organization's neutrality on the matter, is extremely short-sighted; and again, it's biblically unacceptable.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Sorry Jim, I would have to strongly disagree with you; and so does Webster's online dictionary. They define "deny" as: "to refuse to admit or acknowledge." That sounds very close to "omit" in my understanding of the definition, as well as theirs, which is "to leave out or leave unmentioned." So in reality, given Freemasonry's "omission" of Jesus' name as YOU put it, there really is no difference.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. The definition of "deny" being "To refuse to admit or acknowledge" has a clear negative connotation to it in its "refusal". To omit, or "To leave out or leave unmentioned", on the other hand, is completely neutral. In the context as I described, omitting the name "Jesus" or any other name for that matter, is simply neutral; it is not divisive or negative as you infer.

Likewise, we've been over this many times as to why this position should NEVER be acceptable to a Christian who knows the SPECIFIC truth about God and Salvation. To accept Freemasonry's neutrality on these matters is to tacitly approve that any other definition of God and Salvation is just as acceptable as the truth (which is absolute, NOT neutral or relative). And that is, as has been said many times here before, a clear violation of the First Commandment.

Generally speaking, Freemasonry's neutrality DOES place all religions "on the level". And it is neutral--not positive or negative. It only leaves neutrality when viewed from a specific religion's perspective. So to the the Christian, there is a disparity, so as I have stated before, it is an opportunity for a Christian to evangelize. And as stated before, if you understand the history and the time when Freemasonry was formalized, it was more inter-denominational neutrality than inter-religious neutrality.

Not sure what you mean here, but let me remind you that the Bible is the ONLY source for biblical truth. Other sources may confirm it as such, but let me reiterate Skip's questions, because you have yet to answer them. Just what biblical truth will you find in “the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries”? And if Jesus noted that He is the Truth, what more can you find from the ancient pagan world religions?

You are twisting words here. Skip asked, "Just what truth will you find in “the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries”? Didn’t Jesus note that he was the Truth? Why are you searching in false religions for ANYTHING?" To which I answered, "When I want Biblical Truth and the history of Christianity or Judaism, I read the Word of God that is the Bible." How much clearer do I have to be? And to answer Skip's question, I find quite a bit, actually. A short list would include learning and understanding the perspectives that pre-Christian and non-Christian people and cultures had. Learning about the history that pre-dates or is concurrent to Christianity. Broadening my knowledge about the world around me by understanding how others who are different from me see the world. Obviously, that is not exhaustive. If you do not see any value in that, so be it.

Jim, do you ever stop to listen to what you are saying? To deny (or omit) Jesus, which you just admitted Freemasonry does, is to deny the very PERSON who led us to where we are today. History is HIS-sTORY!!! And for a Christian to ignore this, in favor of their organization's neutrality on the matter, is extremely short-sighted; and again, it's biblically unacceptable.

Once again, we have to agree to disagree. First off, there is no denial, it's omission (see above.) Nothing negative about it. Second, while Biblical history obviously encompasses all of Judeo-Christian history, it simply does not encompass many other cultures and societies. One would have to be blind, ignorant, or in denial to not understand that. Finally, there is absolutely no Biblical conflict here because I have stated that for Biblical Truth, I turn to the Bible.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Sorry Jim, I would have to strongly disagree with you; and so does Webster's online dictionary. They define "deny" as: "to refuse to admit or acknowledge." That sounds very close to "omit" in my understanding of the definition, as well as theirs, which is "to leave out or leave unmentioned." So in reality, given Freemasonry's "omission" of Jesus' name as YOU put it, there really is no difference.

Strange way to determine theological matters. Since "denying Christ" is theological in nature, it would be more proper to treat the concept theologically and biblically. The most common Greek usage would be aparneomai, the same term used in the passages telling the story of Peter's denial. The word has as its primary meaning:

to affirm that one has no acquaintance or connection with someone

This is the biblical sense. With Masonry, it cannot be taken as "denial," for Masonry makes no determination one way or the other. However, as you know, in SC that is not entirely the case, because there are two specific references, both in the MM degree, which affirm both OT and NT concepts of who God is--one of them specifically using the name Jehovah, the other (though not by name) specifically defining the symbolism of the "small hill" as Mount Calvary, and making reference to "the sepulchre of OUR LORD."

With those references in Ahiman Rezon, this is a moot point anyway, for it can be characterized as neither a refusal nor an omission. Not that it matters, since the antimasonic spin on this one is skewed from the beginning. There is no position in Masonry "denying Christ." Nor is there any position in Masonry denying any other name used by any other religion. Masonry's position is one of religion and politics being a non-topic in lodge, and a man's concept of God being his own. The continual mischaracterization of this by antimasons, in which this is construed as having application to Jesus only, is pure farce.

To accept Freemasonry's neutrality on these matters is to tacitly approve that any other definition of God and Salvation is just as acceptable as the truth (which is absolute, NOT neutral or relative).

The problem for your claim is, that's not Masonry's position to begin with. Masonry makes NO position statement on what is "acceptable." This is merely a figment of your imagination. Masonry leaves the matter neutral only out of recognition of the fact that its members do not all hail from one religion. Neutrality does not constitute endorsement, no matter how many times you try to spin this.

And that is, as has been said many times here before, a clear violation of the First Commandment.

This claim is even more bizarre than the previous one. Masonry, which uses none of the specific names of God as used by any of the religions, is accused of "having other gods before me." Now really, Michael, how do you propose to substantiate a claim that Masonry puts other gods before Christ, when it names no other gods?

And once again I will ask you, since you have not only once but repeatedly declined response on the matter: where is your condemnation of Scouting, which takes the same identical positions as Masonry on practically every issue you raise against the lodge?

Just what biblical truth will you find in “the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries”? And if Jesus noted that He is the Truth, what more can you find from the ancient pagan world religions?

I can certainly give you a Masonic response. Masonry has stated all along that there was a core of truths passed down since the time of the confusion of languages at the diaspora of Babel. In doing so, Masonry's most common use of "mysteries" has taken the same definition as that understood by some of the early church fathers, most notably Augustine, who said:

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.

Masonry's pursuits are not of the man-to-God genre, they are pursuits which engage in the man-to-man relationship. Masonry recognizes that all human beings are truly "of one blood," and descended of one set of earthly parents, so that we all are truly of one earthly family. Hence Masonry's primary emphasis upon charity, and its affirmation of the "royal law," which is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." As a Christian, my Bible tells me to "Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone." That's EVERYONE. And Masonry provides a format in which this is dynamically possible, even more so than is typically true within the Christian Church. Part of this living in peace with everyone is the application of the Golden Rule. This is the Golden Rule in action in the lodge, when even the right to impose one's own religion upon someone who is a follower of another religion, is voluntarily (and temporarily) set aside. A Muslim sets aside this right out of recognition that to his fellow lodge member who is a Christian, the name of Allah would likely offend him. Likewise, the Christian sets aside this right out of recognition that to his fellow lodge member who is a Muslim, the name of Jesus would be just as offensive to him as the name "Allah" would be to himself.

That understanding is no different than one I entered into some years ago with my own brother. At about the age of 16, he announced to the family that he no longer chose to believe in the Christ he had been taught to worship and serve all his life, and from that point considered himself an atheist. This occurred at a time when I was adrift myself, though certainly not to that same extent, and so it presented no real conflicts between us. Until, of course, the Lord got hold of my life and turned me back around. From that point there began to be severe antagonism between the two of us, which escalated to a point where I began to feel I had lost my brother forever. Thankfully, that did not turn out to be the case, and when I began to make overtures for a reconciliation, he was agreeable to put aside our difficulties--on one condition: religion was never to be a subject of discussion between us. With no other recourse to be reconciled to my brother, and after much prayerful consideration, I chose to leave his spiritual condition and eternal destiny to God, and we continue to enjoy a relationship founded on and enriched by our many areas of common interest.

So when it came to considering joining Masonry, and understanding that position of neutrality, it wasn't something I had to be taught. I already knew how it worked, firsthand, for I had already been in such a relationship, i.e., one based on a mutual agreement of neutrality where our religious views were concerned. That's why I can so easily see the errors of comprehension made by those who falsely portray this as a "violation of the first commandment."

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

This is the biblical sense. With Masonry, it cannot be taken as "denial," for Masonry makes no determination one way or the other. However, as you know, in SC that is not entirely the case, because there are two specific references, both in the MM degree, which affirm both OT and NT concepts of who God is--one of them specifically using the name Jehovah, the other (though not by name) specifically defining the symbolism of the "small hill" as Mount Calvary, and making reference to "the sepulchre of OUR LORD."

And of course, there's also the part in the EA ritual after the Obligation where Genesis 1:1 is read referencing "God" who is, of course, the God of the Old Testament (and by extension, the New Testament.) It never makes any reference to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna, Mithra, or any other gods.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Therefore, since the interpretation as you have criticized it is really NOT the "true interpretation"; and since no further elaboration is offered by which we may determine what the "true interpretation" of the "badge of a Mason" might be, it looks like your apron cannon just ran out of fodder.

Wayne, I think you've packed too much filler into your sausage. Take a look at the operative parts of the AR passages:

The second section of the first lecture, according to the system prevailing in this country, is occupied with an explanation of the symbolic meaning of the ceremonies that are detailed in the first; without, therefore, a knowledge of the second section, the first becomes barren and insignificant. It must, however, be confessed that many of the interpretations given in this section are unsatisfactory to the cultivated mind, and seem to have been adopted on the principle of the old Egyptians, who made use of symbols to conceal rather than to express their thoughts. Learned Masons have been, therefore, always disposed to go beyond the mere technicalities and stereotyped phrases of the lectures, and to look in the history and the philosophy of the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries, for a true explanation of most of the symbols of Masonry, and there they have always been enabled to find this true interpretation.

First, you'll note that while 'many' of the interpretations are called unsatisfactory, not all are. You have no idea if the writer was referring to the apron lecture or not.

Second, you cannot blithely refer to the apron lecture as "NOT the true interpretation" because you simply do not know if that's the case or not. My view is that it isn't an interpretation, but a blunt statement.

Third, the AR quote notes clearly that without the second section discussion of the apron, the first section discussion is "barren and insignificant." Thus, the second section statement, since it is clear and concise, gives all the meaning we need to understand the purpose of the Masonic apron.

Fourth, only those with 'cultivated minds' would find the second section unsatisfactory, meaning darn few Masons ever would. I certainly do find them unsatisfactory, but not in the way the writer envisioned. And since I know Jesus, the Truth, I need not look into false religions to find any meaning at all. Unlike Masons.

Finally, the second section discussion is in near-perfect harmony with the first, in that it supports the Masonic view that the purity of life and conduct are all one needs to get to heaven. It's called salvation by works, and is a clear Masonic teaching. Cordially, Skip.

 

[O.F.F.]

Take a look at the operative parts of the AR passages:

First, you'll note that while 'many' of the interpretations are called unsatisfactory, not all are. You have no idea if the writer was referring to the apron lecture or not.

Second, you cannot blithely refer to the apron lecture as "NOT the true interpretation" because you simply do not know if that's the case or not. My view is that it isn't an interpretation, but a blunt statement.

Third, the AR quote notes clearly that without the second section discussion of the apron, the first section discussion is "barren and insignificant." Thus, the second section statement, since it is clear and concise, gives all the meaning we need to understand the purpose of the Masonic apron.

Fourth, only those with 'cultivated minds' would find the second section unsatisfactory, meaning darn few Masons ever would. I certainly do find them unsatisfactory, but not in the way the writer envisioned. And since I know Jesus, the Truth, I need not look into false religions to find any meaning at all. Unlike Masons.

Finally, the second section discussion is in near-perfect harmony with the first, in that it supports the Masonic view that the purity of life and conduct are all one needs to get to heaven. It's called salvation by works, and is a clear Masonic teaching. Cordially, Skip.

Good points Skip! But from what you quoted from the Grand Lodge of South Carolina's Ahiman Rezon (AR):

...Learned Masons have been, therefore, always disposed to go beyond the mere technicalities and stereotyped phrases of the lectures, and to look in the history and the philosophy of the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries, for a true explanation of most of the symbols of Masonry, and there they have always been enabled to find this true interpretation.

I now understand more why Masons like Jim feel compelled by this Masonic imperative the desire to indicate his adherence to it when he stated earlier that:

"When I want Biblical Truth and the history of Christianity or Judaism, I read the Word of God that is the Bible." How much clearer do I have to be? And to answer Skip's question, I find quite a bit, actually. A short list would include learning and understanding the perspectives that pre-Christian and non-Christian people and cultures had. Learning about the history that pre-dates or is concurrent to Christianity. Broadening my knowledge about the world around me by understanding how others who are different from me see the world. Obviously, that is not exhaustive.

Which is to say, when he wants Masonic truth, or the "true interpretation" of its symbolism, he looks into the history and the philosophy of the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries, for a true explanation of most of the symbols of Masonry, and there he has always been able to find this true interpretation.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Which is to say, when he wants Masonic truth, or the "true interpretation" of its symbolism, he looks into the history and the philosophy of the ancient religions, and the organization of the ancient mysteries, for a true explanation of most of the symbols of Masonry, and there he has always been able to find this true interpretation.

For "Masonic truth", I study and research those historical resources that Freemasonry points to as well as resources that it does not. And that means examining many historical resources, including the Bible and the history and philosophies of ancient religions and cultures. Keeping within the context of Skip's question, "Why are you searching in false religions for ANYTHING?", I do not approach the ancient religions as "false religions", but as I would approach any historical event that is part of the larger history than what is contained and described within the Bible. It's a simple scholarly methodology. The Bible certainly provides the answers for all of life's needs and wants, but it provides minimal historical material about cultures outside Judeo-Christian history. So please explain why is it so unreasonable to use historical resources other than the Bible for historical education and research.

 

[janwoG]

To OFF,

Your sigle defines you as ex mason. Have you really been initiated in a lodge, if yes in which one? Or have you learned about masonry only in some recommanded books. I know masonry from France, Switzerland, and Germany. There we are bound on ethical level only. Every theological methaphysical speculation is beyond the scope of the lodge, and is let free to every brother as a private opinion. In other words, freemasonry offers a forum to men of good will and different faiths or no faith to meditate about ethics. A similar forum unrelated to freemasonry but with similar objectives is Weltethos of Hans Küng a Roman Catholic theologian, defining the common ethical base in worldreligions. A difference, is that our ethical meditation is not related to a specific religion, because again religion is beyond the scope of the lodge.
I do not know why freemasonry is discussed in that forum. It should be in Christian outreach.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

There we are bound on ethical level only. Every theological methaphysical speculation is beyond the scope of the lodge, and is let free to every brother as a private opinion. In other words, freemasonry offers a forum to men of good will and different faiths or no faith to meditate about ethics.

janwoG, your observations in jurisdictions outside the United States appear to correspond with my experiences here in the U.S., but expect your comments to be refuted and rebuffed by Masonic Attackers, because they simply do not see it that way. No matter how many times you explain that Freemasonry is not a religion, but a study in ethics and morality that is separate from religion, they come back with claims that it is heretical and anti-Christian. I've even been accused of worshiping demon spirits.

That said, and as has been stated before, the Freemasonry that I and Rev. Wayne experience, particularly because of our location in the "Bible Belt", tends to be Christian-leaning. Prayers are often closed in the name of Jesus, and Christianity or Christian concepts are found in many Masonic symbols, ritual, and writings. Maybe not directly stated, but taken in context, they are interpreted that way. While this may seem odd to those in other jurisdictions, it's primarily because the vast majority of members (all in many cases) are professed Christians. This does not mean that we reject Masonic traditions outside of our region, or outside our faith, we just contend that Freemasonry can be and is many things to many people, and interpretations can and do vary as well. These are viewpoints that the Masonic Attackers vehemently disagree with.