Do masons build?

[GabrielWithoutWings]

So the Satan worshipper does meet the qualification requirements in that area. So too the worshipper of Molech, one presumes. Cordially, Skip.

Theoretically, I suppose. Though, I have hard time imagining a Moloch worshiper and a Satanist going down to an old-folks' home to help them wash dishes. A Moloch worshiper and a Satanist probably wouldn't feel at home doing a bunch of charity events, considering their philosophy typically runs along the 'might makes right' and 'only the strong survive' mentality.

 

[circuitrider]

Nope. Agnostic means that you don't know. I don't know if God is real or not, but my behavior can certainly reflect that I should act as if God does exist. I'd like to think there's a God, but I don't know for sure.

It would then depend on how you personally interpret "not knowing." All of us who believe in God belief on faith and not some direct knowledge of God. If you believe (knowing or not) that is your choice and you'd be qualified. If you don't believe in a Supreme Being (knowing or not knowing) that crosses into not being qualified. We don't admit atheists as you know.

 

[circuitrider]

Theoretically, I suppose. Though, I have hard time imagining a Moloch worshiper and a Satanist going down to an old-folks' home to help them wash dishes. A Moloch worshiper and a Satanist probably wouldn't feel at home doing a bunch of charity events, considering their philosophy typically runs along the 'might makes right' and 'only the strong survive' mentality.

Freemasonry is also opposed to evil. So those who choose to follow a deity that is evil are disqualified on that ground even if they believe their evil deity is supreme. An evil deity doesn't fit the over all philosophy or purpose of Freemasonry.

 

[Skip Sampson]

First, Satan is not a "Supreme Being." You know as well as I do that Satan was created by God and as created being is obviously not a Supreme Being.

Untrue, as you are reflecting your view of things which may not be shared by a Satanist. You said:

If you can honestly say you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being you qualify.

If a Satanist believed that satan was his Supreme Being, it would meet the general qualifications that your GL sets. As I noted before, the lodge investigation committee would probably find fault in that, even though most GL's claim that they care little about a man's beliefs beyond the general statement.

The FL GL a year or so back claimed wiccans would not meet their requirements; however, that rule lasted only a bit longer than the term of office of the GM who signed it, if memory serves. In any event, the general Masonic view is that any supreme being is ok as long as the candidate views it as such. You can no longer hide that fact.

Someone who serves the "prince of darkness" would not qualify for being a man of good moral character.

Why not? As noted, Masonry, in general, doesn't care about the belief structures of its members as long as they claim to believe in a supreme being, by any name. If you find no fault in a worshipper of Allah, the Mormon Jesus or Shiva, why would satan bother you? As a Mason, you've abdicated your authority to determine whether the entity another Mason calls as a supreme being is really a supreme being.

Your view is that Masons do look beyond the general requirement and do want to know about the religious beliefs of its candidates, which puts you at odds with the GL position. One of you is wrong. Cordially, Skip.

 

[circuitrider]

Sorry Skip, none of the above is true. Your misunderstandings of the membership requirements abound despite years of Masons correcting you.

 

[Albion]

No, that's purely theoretical--which seems to be the realm from which most of your questions and pronouncements come, Skip. In reality, neither the agnostic nor the Satanist could fudge the initiation's inquiry into the candidate's beliefs sufficient to be admitted. Not without some deception.

 

[14messenger]

Sorry Skip, none of the above is true. Your misunderstandings of the membership requirements abound despite years of Masons correcting you.

What are the requirements? How come there are requirements?

 

[14messenger]

No, that's purely theoretical--which seems to be the realm from which most of your questions and pronouncements come, Skip. In reality, neither the agnostic nor the Satanist could fudge the initiation's inquiry into the candidate's beliefs sufficient to be admitted. Not without some deception.

(Hmm, I see now that CircuitRider and I expressed approximately the same thought at almost the same time. )

Congratulations.

Anybody can be a mason since its based on Christian principles.

 

[Albion]

Congratulations.

Anybody can be a mason since its based on Christian principles.

No, but I'd appreciate it if you'd read the threads dealing with Masonry before asking questions that have been answered dozens of times already.

 

[14messenger]

Your a mason Skip Sampson. Your a mason GabrielWithoutWings. Anybody that wants to be a mason, your a mason.

 

[14messenger]

No, but I'd appreciate it if you'd read the threads dealing with Masonry before asking questions that have been answered dozens of times already.

Your a mason Albion. Congratulations.

 

[14messenger]

We masons dont discriminate against any. If your a Christian, your a mason. Welcome aboard. My lodge is stronger.

Washington welcomes you.

 

[smaneck]

Untrue, as you are reflecting your view of things which may not be shared by a Satanist.

Show us a Satanist who believes Satan is the supreme being then there will be something to talk about.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Show us a Satanist who believes Satan is the supreme being then there will be something to talk about.

The Temple of Set would come to mind here, as would theistic Luciferianism.

There's also the Ordo Draconis et Atri Adamantis, the Temple of Ascending Flame, and many, many others.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

The Temple of Set would come to mind here, as would theistic Luciferianism.

There's also the Ordo Draconis et Atri Adamantis, the Temple of Ascending Flame, and many, many others.

Agreed on the Temple of Set. They define Set as the First Principle of Isolate Intelligence, ie, the first being to say "I." They describe this with the Khemetic word XEPER (Khepher) which translates to "to come into being." If I remember correctly, it's also the only Left-Hand Path religion to have 501(c)3 status.

As an aside, if anyone would like perspective on Left-Hand Path religions, there's been a re-issue of Lords of the Left-Hand Path by Stephen Flowers. It's available on Kindle.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Sorry Skip, none of the above is true.

Are you claiming that I've misquoted you? If I didn't, you are spectacularly wrong.

You've highlighted the reason I weigh in now and then on Masonry: Masons simply do not tell the whole story when asked. You confirmed that all it takes to pass the GL qualifications bar is a belief in a supreme being, then turn around and claim that you must agree it's actually a supreme being or it doesn't matter. By your guidelines, if you don't think Allah is a supreme being, candidates proclaiming him as such cannot qualify for initiation.

This entire subject centers around two main truths:
1. A candidate may pass the GL test by claiming to believe in anything he perceives as a supreme being. Notice that it's the candidate's perception of that, and there is no requirement for other Masons to certify his perceptions.
2. Though GL's often claim that a candidate's specific religious beliefs are irrelevant, an investigation committee will most likely delve into such matters. As you pointed out, a Satanist might not qualify under the 'good morals' consideration, though he does under the 'supreme being' section.

In the matter of our Satanist, we should bear in mind that Masonry is religious in nature. If you do not object to a Muslim, Mormon or Hindu becoming a Mason, all of whom worship a false god, why would you object to a Satanist who does the same? If you do not object to a Koran, Book of Mormon or Vedas on the altar during degree work of those types of men, why not anything else that reflects 'God's will' as men understand it?

An interesting dichotomy: Masons often proclaim one thing in public, do another in private. The word for that is hypocrisy. Cordially, Skip.

 

[smaneck]

Virtually all of the so-called Satanists groups have their genesis in the thinking of Aleister Crowley, a truly despicable man but he never actually believed in Satan's existence.

 

[smaneck]

In the matter of our Satanist, we should bear in mind that Masonry is religious in nature.

Why? It is not how they see themselves.

If you do not object to a Muslim, Mormon or Hindu becoming a Mason, all of whom worship a false god, why would you object to a Satanist who does the same? If you do not object to a Koran, Book of Mormon or Vedas on the altar during degree work of those types of men, why not anything else that reflects 'God's will' as men understand it?

An interesting dichotomy: Masons often proclaim one thing in public, do another in private. The word for that is hypocrisy. Cordially, Skip.

Sorry, just because they don't live up to your standards of what constitutes religious diversity does not make them hypocrites. The truth of the matter is that you think anyone with a different concept of the Divine than your own is actually worshiping Satan. Your real objection to the Freemasons is that they don't share this bigotry.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Why? It is not how they see themselves.

It is exactly how they see themselves:

While Masonry is not a religion it is religious in nature. (Iowa SMEC, 2007, pg. 2)

That statement is a common theme among GL training documentation.

Sorry, just because they don't live up to your standards of what constitutes religious diversity does not make them hypocrites.

You are again in error. My standards are not what are involved; rather, that of Freemasons are. They say, as I've noted, one thing, but practice another. Their historic racism is just one example of that.

We can take the example of a minister who is also a Mason. If he believes as I do, then what is the status of the Muslim who sits next to him in the lodge? In Masonry's eyes, they are equal in God's sight as upright Masons. But how do they view each other? Does the Muslim see the minister as destined for hell and an avowed enemy of Allah? Does the minister see the muslim as lost as long as he belongs to a religion which rejects Jesus? Perhaps some of our Masons can weigh in on that. My guess is that such men hide any feelings they may have towards each other in the best interests of Masonry, and, of course, to the detriment of the truth.

The truth of the matter is that you think anyone with a different concept of the Divine than your own is actually worshiping Satan.

You are batting zero so far. My concept has nothing to do with it. All religions point to an authority for what they teach. Christianity points to the Bible and we base our doctrine on black letter Bible verses. What is real clear from them is that Jesus is the only means of salvation, and any religion that does not teach that, does not teach the truth. You can take it or leave it, but it is exactly what it says.

As well, they are not necessarily worshipping satan, those who reject Jesus' role in salvation, though their rejection must certainly be pleasing to him.

Your real objection to the Freemasons is that they don't share this bigotry.

Perfect score! My objection to Freemasonry is the unchristian nature of their doctrines. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Virtually all of the so-called Satanists groups have their genesis in the thinking of Aleister Crowley, a truly despicable man but he never actually believed in Satan's existence.

Crowley has an extremely bad reputation (partially because he deliberately cultivated it), but calling him a "truly despicable man" strikes me as somewhat lopsided.

It's true that one must take him "cum grano salis", that he never escaped the rampant Christian fundamentalism of his upbringing (if only by inverting it so vehemently in his victorian "bad boy"-persona), and that his world view had certain affinities with the fascist "strong man"-ideologies of his day.

But he was also an extremely erudite autodidact with extensive knowledge of both eastern and western religions and philosophies, ranging from esoteric indian sects over the qabbalah to renaissance humanism and rosicrucianism.

Interestingly, neo-paganism (specifically Wicca) owes many of its tenets to Crowley, and contemporary occult/western mystery traditions would certainly look fundamentally different if it wasn't for Crowley, Blavatsky, and the Order of the Golden Dawn.

And yes, Crowley was not a satanist - contrary to popular rumor.
In fact, many adherents of "left-hand-path"-spiritualities consider him as deeply steeped in the conceptual errors of the "right-hand-path" as the fundamentalist parents he so thoroughly resented.

And regardless of what Crowley believed or did not believe, there *are* theistic satanists today.