The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

[O.F.F.]

Wayne,

Your reply to me was nothing but pure jibber jabber in an attempt to dodge why you cited the articles in the first place. I challenged YOUR view that "Freemasonry is of God" by showing that IT CANNOT BE by virtue of the fact (one of many others) that it allows ANY writing that is deemed "sacred" to be called a Volume of Sacred Law and THE GREAT LIGHT IN MASONRY!

I proved it by showing this picture from the Grand Lodge of India, which YOU even said yourself, "Masonry in India was planted from Great Britain" (the Mother of Freemasonry i.e. UGLE).

Skip reinforced, from a respected Masonic source, what the Grand Lodge of India illustrates on its altars.

Volume of the Sacred Law. An open volume of the Sacred Law, "the rule and guide of life," is an essential part of every Masonic meeting. The Volume of the Sacred Law in the Judeo/Christian tradition is the Bible; to Freemasons of other faiths, it is the book held holy by them.

The Masonic Service Association of North America

And by your own words, the Grand Lodge of India is a legitimate, regular Masonic body. You claim that "Freemasonry is of God," then that means Masonry in India is too. Yet my point remains the same; no matter what you cite from articles you found on their website, or from Ahiman Rezon or any other Masonic ritual, manual or author.

LOOK AT THE PICTURE WAYNE! The readers can certainly see it, why can't YOU? As a Christian pastor (a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ) do you really want them to believe that placing God's Word on an altar along with false writings of false religions that acknowledge false gods is from Him?

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

You keep glossing over the fact that what is taught in the Masonic ritual in the Blue Lodge degrees is rooted in the Old and New testaments of the Holy Bible, and no other VSL's. So can you really say that morality is really being taught from the other VSL's? If so, please show where that is being done, because I cannot find any reference to any other VSL other than the Bible in the Blue Lodge degrees.

 

[ALX25]

Which is common to ALL Freemasons, and whose degree work references the Holy Bible, not other VSLs.


Which is exclusively Jude-Christian and references the Holy Bible exclusively.


Which is an extensive study in comparative religions, and references writings of many religions.


Excuse me? There is no requirement to become a Shriner other than being a Master Mason of the Blue Lodge. You are living in the past.


Which is why not all Freemasons are Shriners, and which is why I, as a Christian, I will not join the Shrine.

Jim it doesn't matter how far "you" personally want to advance in masonry, your still part of Masonry, and guess what... the shriners are masons " Ancient Order of the Mystic Shrine ... masons Jim , and as masons they the shriners are continuing there masonic journey for "light" and according to you it's a "study" .. and by the way they happen to "study"(LOL) out of a temple or mosque.

Whens the last time you looked at your masonic brother's Fez with the symbol of a 7th century Arabian Sword with a Crescent Jewel under it..

Are you serious "Cristian mason Jim" do you honestly believe this part of your "elite masonic Craft " is Christian

And guess what Jim "The illustrious Grand High Priest" presents a copy of the muslim Quran to the initiate and the initiate swears a masonic vow of secrecy unto death and repeats " may allah the god of the Arab Moslem and Mohameddan suport me. Amen "

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Jim it doesn't matter how far "you" personally want to advance in masonry, your still part of Masonry, and guess what... the shriners are masons " Ancient Order of the Mystic Shrine ... masons Jim , and as masons they the shriners are continuing there masonic journey for "light" and according to you it's a "study" .. and by the way they happen to "study"(LOL) out of a temple or mosque.

Whens the last time you looked at your masonic brother's Fez with the symbol of a 7th century Arabian Sword with a Crescent Jewel under it..

Are you serious "Cristian mason Jim" do you honestly believe this part of your "elite masonic Craft " is Christian

Of course, this discussion is not about the Shrine, it has been about the Blue Lodge, but I will briefly follow your digression....

It's simple math and logic. All Shriners are Masons, but all Masons are not Shriners. While the Masonic appendant bodies do fall under the general umbrella of "Freemasonry", Shriners, Scottish Rite Masons, and York Rite masons do not speak for Blue Lodge Masons, they have no jurisdiction over Blue Lodge masons, nor are Blue Lodge Masons required to know, undrrstand, or accept ANYTHING that the Shrine, the York Rite, or the Scottish Rite teaches. Just as a person who studies music at a university is a part of the greater university, they are not bound by, governed by, or required to have any knowledge of what a Philosophy major studies.

Or is this one of those "Prince Hall" differences?

And remember that it goes both ways. Using your logic, you place yourself under the exact same criticism because world-wide, Mormons and Jehovah's Witness are considered to be part of "Christianity". While YOU may not agree with that assessment, or even argue that ChristianForums classifies them under the "Unorthodox Theology" sub-forum, it does not remove the fact that the world DOES consider them to be part of Christianity.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Jim it doesn't matter how far "you" personally want to advance in masonry, your still part of Masonry, and guess what... the shriners are masons " Ancient Order of the Mystic Shrine ... masons Jim , and as masons they the shriners are continuing there masonic journey for "light" and according to you it's a "study" .. and by the way they happen to "study"(LOL) out of a temple or mosque.

Whens the last time you looked at your masonic brother's Fez with the symbol of a 7th century Arabian Sword with a Crescent Jewel under it..

Are you serious "Cristian mason Jim" do you honestly believe this part of your "elite masonic Craft " is Christian

And guess what Jim "The illustrious Grand High Priest" presents a copy of the muslim Quran to the initiate and the initiate swears a masonic vow of secrecy unto death and repeats " may allah the god of the Arab Moslem and Mohameddan suport me. Amen "

Wow. Your post-editing is just really so cool. All of the new material added, and the attention-getting highlighting. It really draws attention...

...to the fact that we're not talking about the Shrine, and all you are doing is digressing.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The MSA provides a more modern statement of Freemasonry's view:


You focus quite a bit on the historical aspects of the Craft, but that focus is superceded by what is happening in the here and now. Notice the MSA's view is that each of the VSL's are "the rule and guide of life." That makes sense to any Muslim who is taught that all holy books are merely part of Allah's book of will, though the Koran would be seen as the last and greatest of these.


Cordially, Skip.

Who's talking about "statements of Freemasonry's view?" Certainly not me. What part of "I was simply pointing out what was said by the articles I cited from the GLOI website" do you guys not get??? Mike tried to make a point with a picture, to the effect of "the Grand Lodge of India does not consider God (as spoken of in Freemasonry) to be the God of the Bible.

I didn't counter with any "statement of Freemasonry's view." I countered with material from the same specific source he was referencing, to show him the evidence from articles on their Grand Lodge website, that his claim is false. When Masons from that Grand Lodge jurisdiction, and not just ANY Masons, but a District Grand Chaplain, a District Grand Secretary, and even the Grand Master himself, all affirm that "every degree in Masonry is derived from some part of the Bible, it is eminently clear that they consider the God of the Lodge to be the God of the Bible.

That's not a statement of opinion on MY part, nor am I attempting to "state Freemasonry's view." I am simply presenting that material as a counter to Mike's posting of a picture of books on a table as "proof" they do not consider the God of whom they speak in Masonry, to be the God of the Bible. I have presented indisputable evidence that they do, and no one has bothered to counter it, mainly because you're all busy trying to spin this to make it look like a personal claim.

Read my lips: what I posted were statements made by members of the Grand Lodge of India, officers of the Grand Lodge of India, even the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of India, all affirming that their rituals, just like those in the Grand Lodge of Scotland (whose rituals they use, by the way), derive their content from the Bible. If they did not consider God to be the God of the Bible, why would they use a ritual whose every mention of God, without exception, is a reference to the God of the Bible?

Childish.

Absolutely correct. The post to me was childish taunting, I simply responded in kind. Glad to see you got the message.

 

[ALX25]

Of course, this discussion is not about the Shrine, it has been about the Blue Lodge, but I will briefly follow your digression....

It's simple math and logic. All Shriners are Masons, but all Masons are not Shriners. While the Masonic appendant bodies do fall under the general umbrella of "Freemasonry", Shriners, Scottish Rite Masons, and York Rite masons do not speak for Blue Lodge Masons, they have no jurisdiction over Blue Lodge masons, nor are Blue Lodge Masons required to know, undrrstand, or accept ANYTHING that the Shrine, the York Rite, or the Scottish Rite teaches. Just as a person who studies music at a university is a part of the greater university, they are not bound by, governed by, or required to have any knowledge of what a Philosophy major studies.

Or is this one of those "Prince Hall" differences?

And remember that it goes both ways. Using your logic, you place yourself under the exact same criticism because world-wide, Mormons and Jehovah's Witness are considered to be part of "Christianity". While YOU may not agree with that assessment, or even argue that ChristianForums classifies them under the "Unorthodox Theology" sub-forum, it does not remove the fact that the world DOES consider them to be part of Christianity.

Regarding shriners they are part of Masonry, regardless of what you understand about them, they are in fact part of Masonry.

And thats a FACT.

I can separate Jehova Wittns., and Mormons, from Christianity based on their doctirnal beliefs because of there "unorthodox theology", however you JIm have not been afforded that luxuary to do so concerning masonry, so christianforums has to do it for you. Your masonic views and seperated theology is now kept seperate from the Christian world here,

that's why I post to "you" in a forum named Unorthox theology... and again thats FACT.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Regarding shriners they are part of Masonry, regardless of what you understand about them, they are in fact part of Masonry.

And thats a FACT.

I can separate Jehova Wittns., and Mormons, from Christianity based on their doctirnal beliefs because of there "unorthodox theology", however you JIm have not been afforded that luxuary to do so concerning masonry, so christianforums has to do it for you. Your masonic views and seperated theology is now kept seperate from the Christian world here,

that's why I post to "you" in a forum named Unorthox theology... and again thats FACT.

Then we are at a stalemate because you have successfully derailed this conversation from its original focus which was a discussion of VSL's used in a Blue Lodge. O.F.F. started it, several commented, and you veered off into tangents distracting from the facts of the original conversation. Please let me know when you are able to actually focus on something instead of spewing distractions.

 

[ALX25]

Then we are at a stalemate because you have successfully derailed this conversation from its original focus which was a discussion of VSL's used in a Blue Lodge. O.F.F. started it, several commented, and you veered off into tangents distracting from the facts of the original conversation. Please let me know when you are able to actually focus on something instead of spewing distractions.

1. The Quran is a VSL for shriners, who are masons.

2. Masonry is the subject, I speak against Freemasonry which includes :

"the Blue Lodge" , "GAOTU", "Worshipful Masters",VSL'S, "Shriners", 32 degree Masons , 33rd Degree Masons , Etc.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You keep glossing over the fact that what is taught in the Masonic ritual in the Blue Lodge degrees is rooted in the Old and New testaments of the Holy Bible, and no other VSL's. So can you really say that morality is really being taught from the other VSL's? If so, please show where that is being done, because I cannot find any reference to any other VSL other than the Bible in the Blue Lodge degrees.

Thanks, Jim, for staying on point.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Then we are at a stalemate because you have successfully derailed this conversation from its original focus which was a discussion of VSL's used in a Blue Lodge. O.F.F. started it, several commented, and you veered off into tangents distracting from the facts of the original conversation. Please let me know when you are able to actually focus on something instead of spewing distractions.

I beg to differ. The "original discussion" was no such thing. Originally there was a question that came up (and even then it was a tangent) about Masonry being "of God" or not. I posted a brief paragraph asking them to define what they intended by the term, and no one responded to that. Instead, it was at that point that Mike took o.f.f. with the tangent by posting a false presentation of my post to do so. But I will show all this shortly, in my next post.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Thanks, Jim, for staying on point.

Thanks. And I still haven't found nor been shown any reference in those degrees to VSL's other than the Holy Bible.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

I beg to differ. The "original discussion" was no such thing. Originally there was a question that came up (and even then it was a tangent) about Masonry being "of God" or not. I posted a brief paragraph asking them to define what they intended by the term, and no one responded to that. Instead, it was at that point that Mike took o.f.f. with the tangent by posting a false presentation of my post to do so. But I will show all this shortly, in my next post.

I stand corrected.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Your reply to me was nothing but pure jibber jabber in an attempt to dodge why you cited the articles in the first place.

That seems to be the area of greatest difficulty for you at the moment: you simply don't understand why I posted it in the first place. Nor have I "dodged" anything at all. "Deflecting" would be a more accurate description, because all I've done since then is deflect all your attempts to spin this thing seven ways from sundown.

I challenged YOUR view that "Freemasonry is of God"

Okay, let me stop you right there, we seem to have located the problem point. I challenge you--no, I don't, I DEFY you--to show where I posted anything in an attempt to "prove Freemasonry is of God." In the original post you cited, the remarks you snipped the one little portion out of was much larger, and covered much more perspective than your snippet treatment of it. From post #488:

Truth is, though, "of God" needs to be clarified before any answer can be given in the first place. If by "of God" one means directly instituted by direct action of God in the same sense as we understand marriage to be divinely instituted, or baptism, or the eucharist, then no, Freemasonry was not instituted by direct proclamation or act of God. If by "of God," is meant simply that its principles are not in conflict with the known will of God or with His revealed Word, then yes, it can be said to be "of God." To declare otherwise by this second understanding, is to leave a doorway wide open for the accusers to declare that if it is not "of God," that there is only one other derivative source it could come from. The antimasonic ploy, of course, is to try to get someone to answer "no, it is not of God," intending by that, the first understanding, that it was not created by direct divine institution; at which point, they will step in, substituting the second understanding and pretending that the response was so intended.

You see that, right? Those are "if" statements. All I was doing was pointing out the logical implications of a couple of ways of understanding the term "of God." I did so in hopes of getting a clarification from someone among the anti crowd, of exactly what they see entailed in the term itself. Who knows, the two ways I saw that it could be taken may not be all, there could be more. I was simply following the wise advice given by a preacher concerning the preaching task, "Gentlemen, always define your terms." I find it good advice in just about any avenue of theological discussion.

Your error was in taking my attempt to get you to define your terms, and running off on a tangent, jumping to several wrong conclusions, and trying to spin this around to make some kind of accusation out of it. Taking an "if" statement, and trying to turn it into "my view," is not only completely fallacious, it illustrates with utmost clarity the problems anyone continually has in trying to discuss anything with you, because your comprehension always seems to be guided not by what was said, but by what you want to try to accuse. Do a little less finger-pointing, and a little more careful reading of the material you find in front of you, and you can avoid such mistakes, and avoid wasting bandwidth to boot.

Well, that was where you strayed from what was posted and went off on this tangent. It started with a picture, allegedly ("allegedly," because you have not provided a link) from the Grand Lodge of India, with books on a table which, I'm presuming, is allegedly an altar from the Grand Lodge of India. Problem is, the picture is so small, it's impossible to determine if this is even a lodge at all. Sure, there are chairs there, on each side; and it appears to be a seat raised above the ground floor level, that could be taken to be the WM's seat. But without a checkerboard pattern, or other detail leaving no doubt, how are we to know? Come to think of it, how are we to be able to tell that any of these books are what you say they are? How, also, are we to know this came from the Grand Lodge of India, when a trace of the picture simply traces it to here on CF? But last--and by far the most important--with all the lies you've been caught in on this forum, how are we to simply take you at your word when you tell us this is from the Grand Lodge of India?

Not that I'm disputing your claim; I'm just disputing your claim that this picture has "proved" anything. Provide a link, so I can see the picture in its context, and see for myself that it is what you represent it to be, or you can forget the "proof" claim.

But back to matters at hand:

I've already pointed out for you once the only position I have taken in this:

Masonry was founded on biblical principles, and those principles undergird its entire structure. Here is one of the clearest indications of it, from Mackey's Encyclopedia, "Jehovah":

"Masonry was founded on biblical principles, and those principles undergird its entire structure."


That was the point where I started, in the same post where you erroneously took "if" statements as some kind of position statement. All anyone has to do to see I was not continuing the query about how you guys were intending the very phrase "of God," is to look at the post. I left it to you to respond, separated the next paragraph by spacing, and proceeded to present an actual statement for you to deal with until you got back to me on what you were saying with the term "of God."

You came back with your picture; I responded by continuing with the only point I had made up until then, by citing from GLOI articles that supported the above point. It was easy to see from their statements that "every ritual is derived from the Bible," that they are in essential agreement with that premise as well.

From that point you only digressed even worse. You challenged a statement I made concerning a position taken by those who wrote the articles, "using the term "Volume of Sacred Law" in reference to the Bible, with a completely off the wall notion " That's pretty disingenuous of you," as if you really mistakenly believed that it was "I" who had made the statement and not "them."

At that point, I went through and carefully delineated (1) the steps that were taken in presenting the material; (2) the reason they were presented; and (3) the fact that these were not "MY" positions, but statements made by members of the Grand Lodge of India; and now I have gone back and shown you additionally, (4) why your attempt to counter "Freemasonry is of God" bears no resemblance to what I've been showing all along, "Masonic rituals are of the Bible."

At this point you're really beginning to look quite foolish trying to substitute a discussion of your own and pretend that it's what I've been talking about. I can go through and show you from every single post, where I have clearly enunciated what I've been addressing, and where you have been avoiding addressing it in return. You can either try to man up and stay on point, or go somewhere and address your substitute discussion in a mirror to yourself until you've got it down in mantra fashion. It doesn't really matter to me which, but it's really pretty tedious having to wade through your distortions to help the reader see that you are simply trying to talk past me and slip them a counterfeit discussion.

I have clearly and repeatedly shown you that "Masonry is founded on biblical principles"; and that the rituals of the Grand Lodge of India are biblically based just as those that are found in English-speaking jurisdictions (not surprising, since they use rituals of the Grand Lodge of Scotland). In fact, one of the articles seems to indicate that the versions they use are in English, judging from the discussion of the need to help some readers understand the archaisms of the KJV as found in those rituals.

If you wish to counter this statement, you may. But please quit trying to deceive the readers into thinking I've been in a discussion with you giving opinions of whether the GLOI is "of God," when so far you nor any other accuser has bothered to clarify what you intend by the term.

So here's the deal:

You took an "if" statement which was no statement at all, and turned it into something I did not say;
You posted a picture that challenged a position that was not taken;
You ignored the statement I DID make, about Masonry's principles being biblically based;
You clipped out a snippet of one of the GLOI articles I cited, and tried to attribute what they said to me;
And now you try to continue with that false portrayal, by comparing something that was not even a statement from me, with a statement from the MSA, as if you're challenging a position I took.

Are you sure you're even capable of having a level-headed discussion of issues, when you can't even get it straight what I'm saying, and can't seem to distinguish between what is cited from Grand Lodge articles and what my comments are?

You claim that "Freemasonry is of God," then that means Masonry in India is too.

As anyone can see from post #488, that is not what I said, and not where this started. That is all your own erroneous comprehension--if indeed you believe that. I tend to think not, and that this is just another of your endless sidetracks. If I had to determine exactly what it is you're trying to sidetrack away from, I think it's pretty obvious, it would have to be the very thing I've been pointing out: that the rituals of Masonry ARE based on biblical principles. And that fact is very much true in the Grand Lodge of India as well, where they deal with the issue of how to help everyone understand the KJV language of the biblical passages, and where even the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of India affirms that the stories of Masonry are derived from the Bible.

So no, your endless sidetracking did not work, I am still on point. Now, if you'd like to actually address the subject instead of avoiding it with sidetracks about VSL's, I'm all ears.

LOOK AT THE PICTURE WAYNE! The readers can certainly see it, why can't YOU? As a Christian pastor (a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ) do you really want them to believe that placing God's Word on an altar along with false writings of false religions that acknowledge false gods is from Him?

No, what I "really want" is (1) for you to quit trying to put words in my mouth that I never said; and (2) try addressing what I've actually been saying all along.

And I will be expecting that link to the picture so we have a context and not just your word.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Thanks. And I still haven't found nor been shown any reference in those degrees to VSL's other than the Holy Bible.

Nor will you. Mike knows that, hence his avoidance of it, and his substitute discussion about VSL's.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

No, what I "really want" is (1) for you to quit trying to put words in my mouth that I never said; and (2) try addressing what I've actually been saying all along.

Oh, like THAT's going to happen!

 

[O.F.F.]

Those are "if" statements. All I was doing was pointing out the logical implications of a couple of ways of understanding the term "of God." I did so in hopes of getting a clarification from someone among the anti crowd, of exactly what they see entailed in the term itself.

I agree with the two examples you gave of what can constitute being "of God." However, as I said before, I strongly disagree that when applying either definition to Freemasonry the answer is NO IT IS NOT OF GOD!

Your error was in taking my attempt to get you to define your terms, and . . . Taking an "if" statement, and trying to turn it into "my view," . . .

First of all, it wasn't me who used the term in the first place when you tried to define it after it was used. Secondly, you know darn well I would NEVER say or imply that Freemasonry is of God. Thirdly, if you supply the condition to argue that Freemasonry is "of God," which is precisely what YOU did, and in doing so affirmed that it is, than it most certainly IS YOUR VIEW! After all it was YOU who said:

If by "of God," is meant simply that its principles are not in conflict with the known will of God or with His revealed Word, then yes, it can be said to be "of God."

You did not position this statement as simply one of a number of ways to view the term, you went on to infer that YOU meant this is YOUR position.

To declare otherwise by this second understanding, is to leave a doorway wide open for the accusers to declare that if it is not "of God," that there is only one other derivative source it could come from.

Therefore we can assume that YOUR VIEW is that "Freemasonry is of God," at least by virtue of your second definition of the term. Otherwise, you'd leave that doorway, you talked about, wide open! So I took off from that point on to prove to you that it ISN'T FROM GOD; by virtue of the Masonic definition of "Volume of Sacred Law" as ILLUSTRATED by the Grand Lodge of India, and DEFINED by the MSA. Yet even now you persist on declaring that it (Masonry) is "of God":

I've already pointed out for you once the only position I have taken in this: "Masonry was founded on biblical principles, and those principles undergird its entire structure."

Since YOU believe that Masonry was founded on biblical principles, and that "Masonic rituals are of the Bible," it stands to reason that YOU also believe that "its principles are not in conflict with the known will of God or with His revealed Word." Since that is YOUR VIEW, then YOUR POSITION is that "Freemasonry is of God!"

I have clearly and repeatedly shown you that "Masonry is founded on biblical principles"; and that the rituals of the Grand Lodge of India are biblically based . . .

Which underscores YOUR position that "Freemasonry is of God," and as I said before, it implies that Masonry in India is too!

I will be expecting that link to the picture so we have a context and not just your word.

Here it is:

Lodge Universal Peace hosts the Aug. 2010 DGL meeting of the Scottish Constitution in India​

Now having seen it in context, I'll ask you again. As a Christian pastor (a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ) in all honesty by the Holy Spirit and with a straight-face, do you really want readers to believe that placing God's Word on an altar along side false writings of false religions that acknowledge false gods is from Him?

I will be expecting a simply yes or no, will suffice. Please do not respond with paragraphs and paragraphs of more jibber jabber.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I agree with the two examples you gave of what can constitute being "of God."

Well, seeing as how the two examples I gave were practically diametric opposites, I'm not surprised you would agree with both. You've demonstrated your capability of expressing belief in contradicting positions many times in the past, so I'm sure this is child's play for you to adopt them both rather than answer the question and tell us what you intend by the phrase "of God."

W: If by "of God," is meant simply that its principles are not in conflict with the known will of God or with His revealed Word, then yes, it can be said to be "of God."
M: You did not position this statement as simply one of a number of ways to view the term, you went on to infer that YOU meant this is YOUR position.

Say WHAT!!?????

Take another look at what he does here, readers, this is Antimasonry 101 at its finest, the old slice and dice game. Mike pretends I only presented the "yes" side, and says I sought to "infer" something, when he knows good and well when I have something to say to him, I've never hesitated to come right out with it. But he seems to think you folks don't know how to read quotes in their entirety. Here is the statement Mike cites, alongside its antithesis--EXACTLY as I stated them the first time, and EXACTLY as I cited them when referring to them again after he went back several pages to resurrect this non-argument:

If by "of God" one means directly instituted by direct action of God in the same sense as we understand marriage to be divinely instituted, or baptism, or the eucharist, then no, Freemasonry was not instituted by direct proclamation or act of God. If by "of God," is meant simply that its principles are not in conflict with the known will of God or with His revealed Word, then yes, it can be said to be "of God."
[***NOTE: The post was incorrectly identified as #488 in my previous response. It is actually #466.--W.]

I still reiterate what I already said, these are CONDITIONAL statements. And no, I did not endorse either of them, simply stated each condition, and what would be the result if the conditions were met.

You did not position this statement as simply one of a number of ways to view the term,

No, I didn't, I stated only two, not "a number."

Besides, I made it clear from the very start of the post, I had no intention of trying to answer the question. For one thing, it was not directed to me in the first place; for another, I wasn't even directing my response to you either; for a third, you weren't the one involved anyway, and with ALX on ignore, I wouldn't have even seen the comment if Jim hadn't quoted it; and finally, I gave about as clear an indication as anybody could want, that I considered it similar to the entrapment questions commonly asked by Pharisees of Jesus:

Please provide a reference to documentation that states that Freemasonry is "of God".
I doubt he'll give you any genuine response, he's too sold on distractions. And besides, it's just another of those antimasonic Pharisaical questions that they get you coming or going, no matter which way you answer. If you say yes it is, they will go out of their way to try to prove it's not; if you say it's not, they will go out of their way to try to prove that it is, but that it is not of the biblical God.

Your deck has a couple of aces missing if you really thought that after labeling it a trick question, and pointing out what the antimasonic accusation would then be if someone answered, that I would actually be so foolish as to try to actually ANSWER such a deceptive maneuver.

you went on to infer that YOU meant this is YOUR position.

No, I just provided food for thought in a different direction, by leaving it alone, and then prefacing a quote from Mackey with:

Masonry was founded on biblical principles, and those principles undergird its entire structure. Here is one of the clearest indications of it, from Mackey's Encyclopedia, "Jehovah":

What I can't figure out is why you would go to such great lengths to pursue such a non-issue and non-statement, when it wasn't you who asked it in the first place? Why try to fight ALX's battles for him, is he your evil twin or something?

Since YOU believe that Masonry was founded on biblical principles, and that "Masonic rituals are of the Bible," it stands to reason that YOU also believe that "its principles are not in conflict with the known will of God or with His revealed Word." Since that is YOUR VIEW, then YOUR POSITION is that "Freemasonry is of God!"

NOW who's doing the "inferring?" You put two and two together and came up with ten. If I were going to make a statement that "Freemasonry is of God," I would have done so. Your logic is as flawed as usual. Let's put your claim, and my statement side by side, and show the readers the ridiculous assertion in all its fullness:

"Freemasonry is of God"
"Masonic rituals are of the Bible"

Nope, still don't see it, these are two different propositions. You are trying to equate "Freemasonry" with "Masonic rituals." There is a lot more to Freemasonry than the rituals. You are also trying to equate "God" with "the Bible." I hope I don't have to explain for you why that proposition is just plain ludicrous. You are also trying to equate these two:

"its principles are not in conflict with the known will of God or with His revealed Word."
"Freemasonry is of God"

I say this because you state the first, and then infer from it the second.


The problem with that is, you can no more equate "the principles of Freemasonry" with "Freemasonry," which this action does, than you can equate "Masonic rituals" with "Freemasonry." Both "principles of Freemasonry" and "Masonic rituals" are subsets of the broader word "Freemasonry." Looks like the same old antimasonic trick of taking the part and treating it as though it were the whole.

Which underscores YOUR position that "Freemasonry is of God," and as I said before, it implies that Masonry in India is too!

I didn't say "Freemasonry is of God." After the ridiculous double-edged question, I wasn't about to do anything to give you that automatic cannon fodder. I simply presented a simple FACT--one which you have YET to disprove--and left any judgment of the question you keep trying (unsuccessfully) to FORCE me to introduce into what I've presented, to the readers.

As a Christian pastor (a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ) in all honesty by the Holy Spirit and with a straight-face, do you really want readers to believe that placing God's Word on an altar along side false writings of false religions that acknowledge false gods is from Him?

I will be expecting a simply yes or no, will suffice. Please do not respond with paragraphs and paragraphs of more jibber jabber.

Sorry, but if you want simple answers, you'll have to stop asking loaded questions.

For one thing, you have always falsely presumed that VSL's placed on an altar together implies equality. I disagree, the very use of more than one is the clearest indication that there are members present of different religions, and each one has his VSL represented. Otherwise, Masonry would have its own VSL, and all members would profess one VSL. What IS represented in such an instance as the GLOI, is neutrality. The differences between equality and neutrality are tremendous. Many people, yes, even including some Masons, have unfortunately completely misunderstood Masonry's position of neutrality, considering it a stance of equality. If Masonry in India were truly trying to adopt a position of equality, then where are all the other VSL's that could be up there? Why only five? The answer is simple: unlike the U.S. where Christianity predominates, India is a religiously divergent culture. The presence of the VSL's that it places there, is simply representative of the fact that their members hail from five different religions.

The Bible itself affirms that God's dealings are not just with any one group of people, but with all. You've been in enough discussions in the past to know the drill, too, you find it in Luke 4, Romans 2, Acts 10, Acts 17, 2 Kings 5, and that's only for starters.

You yourself affirmed it, right before Christmas of last year, or maybe you had forgotten (or perhaps you WANTED to forget):

Romans 2:15 (Amplified Bible):

They (atheists) show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them] -- emphasis added.

How about that? The laws of God written on the heart, which is one of the blessings of the New Covenant, was proclaimed by you to be a privilege enjoyed even by atheists. Seems to me it's disingenuous of you to affirm atheists as recipients of New Covenant blessings, and deny it to people who at least have a belief in God. Don't know how you reconcile it with Hebrews 11:6, which says those that come to God must first "believe that He IS." Seems to me it's also disingenuous of you to take issue over sacred books, and gloss over it when it comes to people (atheists) who don't even have a god, much less a book.

And your entire argument over the issue of VSL's is in total contradiction to your standard position taken in the past, that the VSL is symbolic, and that none of the content is relevant to its presence on the altar. In fact, you took particular exception to it in regard to the Bible, declaring it to be something somehow less than Christian, or whatever, to refer to the Bible as "only" a symbol. It was refuted, of course, when I posted numerous Christian references which also referred to it as a symbol.

more jibber jabber.

Childish.

 

[O.F.F.]

How about that? The laws of God written on the heart, which is one of the blessings of the New Covenant, was proclaimed by you to be a privilege enjoyed even by atheists. Seems to me it's disingenuous of you to affirm atheists as recipients of New Covenant blessings, and deny it to people who at least have a belief in God. . .Seems to me it's also disingenuous of you to take issue over sacred books, and gloss over it when it comes to people (atheists) who don't even have a god, much less a book.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are discussing. Talk about being disingenuous; disingenuous,... why you mendacious excuse for existence. I quoted the Apostle Paul from Romans 2:15 and YOU have the audacity to claim that "I" was saying that atheists enjoy the privilege of the New Covenant. UnbelievaBULL! I NEVER made such a proclamation and YOU know it.

You are simply demonstrating your own dishonesty or revealing your stupidity, as one who is supposed to be a seminary-trained pastor, of what Paul was talking about in the first place. He was talking about man's God given "CONSCIENCE" not about anything to do with the New Covenant!!! And that was the only context in which I referred to it at the time.

Sorry, but if you want simple answers, you'll have to stop asking loaded questions.

No, I just need to stop asking any questions to Masons who claim to be seminary-trained pastors. Deep down you know the answers to the questions, but your self-deception won't allow you to admit it. So I'll go ahead and end all your nonsense by answering them myself for the readers.

1. Any organization that places the Holy Bible on an altar alongside false writings of false religions that acknowledge false gods is NOT OF GOD.

2. Masonic rituals are NOT biblically based. Freemasonry distorts Scripture in order to deceive it's naïve adherents, who claim to be "Christians," that its rituals are based on the Bible.

3. Masonry was NOT founded on biblical principles, but on principles of UNIVERSALISM, which is its primary goal.

Therefore, Freemasonry is NOT OF GOD, it is of the Devil. Anyone who is a member of it supports the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of darkness. Knowingly or unknowingly, deliberately or unintentionally all Masons ultimately serve Satan; the prince of the power of the air. And if they claim to be a Christian, they need to repent from the sin of their involvement in it, resign from their lodge, and renounce it.

 

[O.F.F.]

Here is more Masonic teaching about what constitutes the VSL (Volume of Sacred Law) or the symbol called the Great Light of Masonry. Wayne has insisted that VSL is the term used primarily for the "book" a Mason is obligated on, which should be of his particular religion. But he stresses more importantly that the Masonic term, "The Great Light in Masonry" can only mean the Holy Bible. As the following quotes will prove, nothing could be further from the truth.

Freemasonry is non-sectarian and non-doctrinal in character. The presence of the VSL, on the altar of a Lodge may, therefore, appear at first glance at odds with this basic concept. But the VSL on our altars in New South Wales is not to be regarded as evidence that the Lodges of this Jurisdiction are Christian in character, although it is, of course, true that the majority of Lodge members are essentially Christian in their affiliations. Its presence is no more than a symbol, a representative of all the great books of the religious teachings, which have particular significance to particular groups of people. In some Jurisdictions other works replace the Bible on the altar. Singapore Lodge, a Lodge working under the English Constitution, uses no fewer than six Vs of SL of different faiths. As one Scottish Grand Lodge authority puts it: "The Volume of the Sacred Law, no matter though it be our Bible or the Sacred Writings of the Hindu, the Zendavesta of the Parsee, or the Koran of the Mohammedan, typifies the Mind or Will of the GAOTU, the Great First Cause - the Creator and Preserver of the Universe - the Great Life-Giver, that Great Unknown and Unknowable which is manifested in His Universe. As the VSL is not read in our Lodges, its teachings per se are of no consequence. It is a symbol and a symbol only, and it is shown as supporting the other two symbols, the Square and Compasses. (emphasis added)

"Volume of Sacred Law" found at The Masonic Trowel

Just as Freemasonry uses the name Great Architect (referring to all gods as one) so as to be inclusive to the faiths of all its members, so to should it use the name Volume of the Sacred Law to be inclusive of all books of faith of its members. (emphasis added)

The Masonic Dictionary

Like most other things in Freemasonry, the Holy Bible is itself a symbol of Divine Truth in every form. When viewed as a symbol, it represents that divine truth or knowledge from whatever source derived. Freemasonry invites men of all faiths to its teachings, requiring only a belief in a Supreme Being, knowing that we all pray to the God and Father of the Universe regardless of the actual name one uses to address Him. Thus, the Bible is often referred to as the Volume of Sacred Law, allowing men of differing faiths to use the Sacred Writings of their faith as the Volume of Sacred Law. (emphasis added)

"The Great Light in Freemasonry" from the Grand Lodge of Texas

On this broad platform, Freemasonry promotes friendships among right-thinking men of every creed, sect and opinion. Each is assured of complete liberty of conscience. All believers in the Ever Living and True God, however various their individual conceptions of Him may be, may join hands around the altar of the Fraternity. Modernist and Fundamentalist, Christian, Jew, and Moslem, meet there upon a common plane as Brothers all. Freemasonry is not concerned with what particular understanding any of them may venerate the Volume of Sacred Law providing it is venerated.

VOLUME OF THE SACRED LAW IN FREEMASONRY at Masonic Travels

What is meant by the Volume of the Sacred Law?

The holy book of one's prevailing faith and the Great Light in Freemasonry. (emphasis added)

Must all Masons be obligated on the Bible?

The primary requirement of a Freemason is a belief in a Supreme Being, whether He be called God or Allah or Jehovah or any of the names by which the Supreme Architect of the Universe may be designated. Hence a candidate for Freemasonry should be obligated on a book he considers to be a Volume of the Sacred Law of his religious faith, (e.g. Holy Bible, Torah, Koran).

Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania

Notice carefully how the Grand Lodge of PA clearly refutes Wayne's claim that only the Bible can be considered the Great Light in Masonry. It not only defines any VSL as the Great Light in Freemasonry, it goes on to say that the VSL is any "sacred" book of any religious faith.

Likewise, notice in the following how prominent Masonic author, Carl Claudy proves Wayne wrong too; by indicating that "The Great Light in Masonry" can be different Volumes of Sacred Law depending on the predominant religion in a given country. And that even in lodges in the United States, the Bible is a symbol of ALL "holy books of all faiths."

The Holy Bible is always referred to as "The Great Light" or "The Great Light in Masonry," in this country which is predominantly Christian. The practice may be and often is different in other lands. What is vital and unchangeable, a Landmark of the Order is that a Volume of the Sacred Law be open upon the Masonic altar whenever the lodge is open. A lodge wholly Jewish may prefer to use only the Old Testament; in Turkey and Persia the Koran would be used as the V.S.L. of the Mohammedan; Brahmins would use the Vedas. In the Far East where Masonic lodges have members of many races and creeds it is customary to have several holy books upon the altar that the initiate may choose that which is to him the most sacred.

The Holy Bible, our (in the U.S.) Great Light in Masonry, is opened upon our (U.S. lodges) altars. Upon it lie the other Great Lights - the Square and the Compasses. Without all three no Masonic lodge can exist, much less open or work. Together with the warrant from the Grand Lodge they are indispensable.

The Bible on the altar is more than the rule and guide of our faith. It is one of the greatest of Freemasonry's symbols. For the Bible is here (in the U.S.) a symbol of all holy books of all faiths. (emphasis added)

INTRODUCTION TO FREEMASONRY by CARL H. CLAUDY

Finally, despite what Wayne quotes from the Grand Lodge of India, it has clearly supplied its subbordinate lodges with the proper definition of VSL.

V.S.L.

"Volume of Sacred Law" or "Holy Writ." The "Great Light" of Masonry. A book of Divine Revelation. It is the Book of Faith of the prevailing country or region. The book of that natural religion in which all men agree.

LODGE BHRIGUCHETAN No. 321 Under The Grand Lodge of AF&AM of India

Again, all of this is consistent with the 21st Landmark I quoted earlier from the eminent Mason from Wayne's state of South Carolina, Albert G. Mackey:

It is a Landmark, that a "Book of the Law" (or VSL = Volume of Scared Law) shall constitute an indispensable part of the furniture of every Lodge. I say advisedly, a Book of the Law, because it is not absolutely required that the Bible be used. The "Book of the Law" is that volume which, by the religion of the country, is believed to contain the revealed will of the Grand Architect of the universe.

Hence, in all Lodges in Christian countries, the Book of the Law is composed of the Old and New Testaments; in a country where Judaism was the prevailing faith, the Old Testament alone would be sufficient; and in Mohammedan countries, and among Mohammedan Masons the Koran might be substituted.

Masonry does not attempt to interfere with the peculiar religious faith of its disciples, except so far as relates to the belief in the existence of God, and what necessarily results from that belief. (emphasis added)

Jurisprudence of Freemasonry (21st Landmark) by Albert G. Mackey

I could go on, but I suspect discerning Christian readers get the point. Any true Christian, in her or his right mind, will read these quotes and conclude that Freemasonry is as far from God as Satan himself. For anyone to disagree with this fact is to say they really don't know Jesus Christ.