Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Poverello78]

Ok, I think we're on the same page now.

The "perceived conflict" usually comes from two causes; lack of understanding about what Freemasonry is, and the history of the conflict between Freemasonry and the catholic church.

Generally speaking, if the person asking the question is catholic, the answer is simple because of the position that the catholic church has taken on the matter (although they've backed-off of that position in that last 10 years or so).

If the person just doesn't understand what Freemasonry is, they may perceive a possible conflict just because of their lack of information.

Usually, perceived conflicts come from value (or moral) judgements about a subject, organization, or action. This case is slightly different because it's not so much a question of judgement, but rather a matter of understanding what Freemasonry is.

Make sense?

It makes perfect sense; but why would someone ask in the first place?

 

[wayseer]

... why would someone ask in the first place?

Why is it assumed that it is Freemasonry that must justify itself. If it's not your cup of tea, why the interest? Do you level the same questions at Apex, Rotary, Lions, or the local P & C? Probably not. Why Freemasonry?

 

[Jester4kicks]

It makes perfect sense; but why would someone ask in the first place?

In general, I would say it is someone who is consciously trying to adhere to their faith... someone who doesn't know much about Freemasonry... someone who has heard the good things as well as the conspiracy-theories... and they are genuinely confused.

Occum's razor.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Why is it assumed that it is Freemasonry that must justify itself. If it's not your cup of tea, why the interest? Do you level the same questions at Apex, Rotary, Lions, or the local P & C? Probably not. Why Freemasonry?

If I'm reading him right, and I think I am--he doesn't; mainly because, he really isn't "leveling the questions" at Freemasonry either.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. What I'm seeing in his question is a genuine curiosity that might be more easily stated as: If there were no reason for people to be asking the questions/making the accusations against Freemasonry that they do, why would they be asking them in the first place?

If that is so, then I think J4 has answered him well.

 

[Poverello78]

Yeah, I'm sorry for the confusion everyone. My question is genuine but I seem to be having a hard time explaining why I asked it.

 

[wayseer]

If I'm reading him right, and I think I am--he doesn't; mainly because, he really isn't "leveling the questions" at Freemasonry either.

OK - I see where you are coming from.

Maybe I'm the one becoming somewhat paranoid - reading too much into his inquiry.

Thanks.

 

[wayseer]

Yeah, I'm sorry for the confusion everyone. My question is genuine but I seem to be having a hard time explaining why I asked it.

My apologies Poverello. The thread just gets inundated by those pushing an anti-Freemasonry line that I made the mistake of placing you in that category - my mistake. Sorry.

 

[wayseer]

OK - having cleared that little misunderstand let me get back on tract.

Freemasonry does not require anything further than a belief in God. Remember, the Order is a fraternity - a social space and place for men who value such qualities as honesty, integrity, justice, temperance, humility etc, can meet and enjoy one another's company without looking over one's shoulder or trying to manipulate anyone.

If you go Back over some of my earlier posts where I outlined the basics of FM you'll get an idea of some of the historical aspect to the Craft.

That history extended from the days of operative masons who saw that their working tools, the square, level, compasses etc and how they used them, as symbolic of building good character. Modern day FM carries on this tradition as their reason for carrying on the idea of the Craft.

There is no reason why anyone, Christian included, would want to join the Fraternity to 'get something extra'. That is not the object of FM. It's just another group of men joining together and having a bit of good old fashion fun - just enjoying one another's company.

Despite what you may have read on this this thread by others, Freemasonry is a pretty benign sort of organisation. I know we like to promote ourselves by doing lots of charity of work, but much of that is done in good fun and yet another opportunity to just be together.

The other point that you might consider is that many people do not go to Church - for a whole range of reasons, the reasons of which are their own, yet it is interesting that Masons generally do start attending Church as result of their involvement.

Hope this helps.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The other point that you might consider is that many people do not go to Church - for a whole range of reasons, the reasons of which are their own, yet it is interesting that Masons generally do start attending Church as result of their involvement.

And there have been some who have begun attending as a direct result of my own involvement in lodge. Because after talking some things out with me (after hearing that I was a minister), and getting some of the issues aired out--often for the first time--they found out they were not quite so much at odds with anything in the church as they once thought they were. And this I do not view as a bad thing at all.

 

[O.F.F.]

If that’s true, then blame the Christian Church. Or have you forgotten the abundance of information I have provided you in the past, showing that the source of the idea of “Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man” is Christianity?

CONTRADICTION #1

You really need to cease using Christian references and sources in your attempt to defend Freemasonry, and rationalize it for yourself. Freemasonry is a religious fraternity, but it is NOT a Christian fraternity. Therefore, as a Mason, regardless of what source you provide, you should know that Freemasonry doesn't employ, or imply, the same Christian application of anything you present. Since there are a variety of concepts of Deity, Masonry’s intentions are to present religious concepts in an all-inclusive way in order not to alienate believers of different gods, period.

As a pastor, you should know that the Holy Bible is the greatest love story ever told. And, you should also know that biblically, the “Fatherhood of God" and "Brotherhood of Man” ultimately pertain to those who are "in Christ." If Freemasonry (the Lodge) adopted the concepts from Christianity, then it should apply the highest biblical intention of the terms. However, since the Lodge is not a Christian fraternity, it redefines the concepts for its own purpose, which is as you said "to unite men" regardless to whether they are Christians or not. Therefore, to apply Christian principles with non-Christian motives is a mockery of God and of those biblical principles. And for a Christian or pastor to support such a mockery is a travesty of their faith.

CONTRADICTION #2

Regarding God as the "Almighty Parent" you said:

Masonry’s only claim in that regard is a fraternal one. . .

So what? We all know the origin of the human species. However, this means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. It is amazing that one who calls himself a Christian pastor would make such a big deal about it, rather than emphasizing the highest ideal of the term, namely, the spiritual one. What eternal value does a fraternal perspective of God solely as, "Father of Creation" really have? Absolutely nothing. So why would any Christian want to be involved in a fraternity with such a limited view of God the Father, knowing there is a much greater way to view Him (i.e. as Abba Father)? Isn't our eternal relationship with Him far more important, not only for us, but especially for those who are not in-Christ?

CONTRADICTION #3

“Masonry unites men”—there it is, plain and simple. Masonry does NOT unite religions, it unites men. They come together DESPITE their differences . . .“of every country, sect, and opinion”—the clearest evidence that no one is expected to surrender or alter their beliefs in any way . . .“conciliates true friendship”—NOT “religious affiliation” or whatever it is you are trying to create . . . Masonry only tries to create friendship among those who may happen to be of different opinions on many things.

Actually the correct statement should be, Masonry unites men of all religions under a common concept of God, using common religious terms in order to form a common view of their brotherhood under God. Hence, in effect, Masonry unites religions despite their differences, but allows its adherents to continue to believe the finer details and specifics of the religion from wherever they came. After all, as pointed out earlier, one of the prefaces in the Masonic Bible is:

For Masonry knows, what so many forget, that religions are many, but Religion is one—

Joseph Nort Newton (emphasis added)

On the other hand, the gospel of Jesus Christ unites men of every tongue, tribe and nation into an accurate and proper view of God, and into the correct relationship with Him as "Father" regardless of their differences. As evangelicals, that should be considered a far nobler goal to pursue by a Christian or pastor, than to be involved with a fraternity that does not care how one views God. If as a Christian you know, "there is no friend like Jesus" what kind of "friendship" can Masonry offer anyone that He can't?

CONTRADICTION #4

Regarding its use of religious terms such as "sanctification" and "heaven" you said:

Masonry makes GENERAL references to such things, simply because ALL religions do.

Where in Grand Lodge documentation do they state this purpose for using such terms? If Masonry is not a religion, and religion is not to be discussed in the Lodge, it has no reason to talk about such terms as "sanctification" or "heaven" and how to obtain either, unless it implies by their general use of the terms, that as Masons they can obtain them; which is precisely what they do.

CONTRADICTION #5

It is not out of order, therefore, to speak of things which every Mason will understand, regardless of the fact that he will understand it in his own way and not necessarily in the way YOU feel you can dictate that he must.

I do not dictate the application of these terms, the Holy Bible does; and assuming it truly is the Great Light in Masonry and it's ONLY "rule and guide for faith and practice," (sic) than the Lodge would use these terms solely from a biblical perspective, rather than leaving them to the private interpretation of every Mason. The Bible teaches that "Sanctification" comes from the Holy Spirit; but the Lodge invokes its deity for it to come by "the principles of Freemasonry" (sic). The Bible teaches that "Heaven" is obtained by faith in Christ as Lord and Savior; but the Lodge teaches that it (Celestial Lodge Above, sic) can be obtained by living a moral life. Why insist it is their "Great Light" (sic), if they are not going to apply its principles accurately?

CONTRADICTION #6

Masonry, after all, is a "system of MORALITY," not of religion. Even so, morality by necessity entails the mention of religious terms in its expression of moral principles, for morality is essentially religious in its ultimate aims. But its moral principles are not exclusive to any one religion, as is the case with most or perhaps all moral principles.

Assuming Freemasonry is not a religion, I disagree. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, most corporations worldwide have established credo values, which are the guiding principles of moral and ethical behavior that they want their employees to follow. Yet these companies do not use religious terms to convey these moral principles. Freemasonry shouldn't have to either. If it is strictly a "system of MORALITY," and the subject of religion is forbidden to be discussed in the Lodge, it shouldn't feel compelled to discuss terms like "sanctification" and "heaven"—unless, of course, it is some sort of subtle or insidious religion.

CONTRADICTION #7

Masonry’s position is a neutral one, one which is directly paralleled in the Scouting organization, and one which was applied in principle—though without the requirement aspect of it—in the establishment of this nation’s constitution.

You also need to stop comparing your religious fraternity to a non-religious boys club. It's like comparing apples to oranges. The only thing they have in common is that they are both considered a piece of fruit. There is no such thing as a Boy Scouts ritual. There is no such thing as a Boy Scout initiation process or a common altar to which all Scouts kneel to pray. And, there is no such thing as a Volume of Sacred Law required as an "indispensable part of the furniture of every" (sic) scout troop. Likewise, regarding our national constitution, we are born Americans. We are not, neither is any naturalized citizen for that matter, required to undergo a formal initiation process to become a member of our society. No requirement of Freemassonry is imposed on the citizenship of our nation. In fact, we are not even required to profess a belief in a Supreme Being either.

But let's get back to the notion of being strictly a "system of morality." Speaking of "fruit" (pun intended) unlike the Boy Scouts, Freemasonry accepts homosexual membership. How moral is that, when this sin is a clear violation of the very book Masonry calls its "Greatest Light?"

The Church accepts people as they are too, homosexual or otherwise—as does our nation—and they both should. But, unlike Freemasonry, I do not know of any Christian church that would reject a convicted felon. But most Christian churches accept sinners for the purpose of leading them to repentance from their former sinful lifestyle. In the same way, anyone from any non-Christian religion can visit a Christian church, but hopefully by hearing the gospel (click here) they will come to know Christ and become loyal to Him alone. However, you as a Christian pastor, participate in an organization that cares not to address false religious beliefs or sinful lifestyles; yet you have the audacity to call it "a system of morality."

I listed several in this post, and others in previous posts, but are you so spiritually blind that you cannot see these glaring contradictions relative to biblical truth? I see you have already provided the answer to this question.

No one can understand that which he categorically rejects in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

So true, and your adamant denial of the incompatibility of Freemasonry and biblical Christianity is a very perfect example.

 

[wayseer]

Freemasonry is a religious fraternity

You are trying to make a silk purse out of sows ear to satisfy you own ideology. As has been said on numerous occasions within this thread - Freemasonry is not a religion. Your claim that FM is a religion sounds more like your personal mantra.

So why would any Christian want to be involved in a fraternity with such a limited view of God the Father

Only those, who like yourself, fail to grasp the fact that Freemasonry offers no religious outcomes.

If Masonry is not a religion, and religion is not to be discussed in the Lodge, it has no reason to talk about such terms as "sanctification" or "heaven" and how to obtain either

It doesn't.

You also need to stop comparing your religious fraternity to a non-religious boys club. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Why?

... neither is any naturalized citizen for that matter, required to undergo a formal initiation process to become a member of our society.

To become naturalised in Australia one must undergo an 'initiation' process.

The Church accepts people as they are too, homosexual or otherwise

There are many churches that do not recognise homosexuals.

... unlike Freemasonry, I do not know of any Christian church that would reject a convicted felon.

.... which demonstrates what you have been told all alone - Freemasonry is not a religion. It is a fraternity and similar to any other organisation has the right to reject certain classes of individuals.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As a pastor, you should know that the Holy Bible is the greatest love story ever told.

How well I know. I am still in love with my Savior Jesus Christ, who delivered me from a 14-year drug addiction problem, when I finally realized I could not continue living as though my life were my own and hit my knees in prayer. And He did it instantaneously, giving me the grace to walk away from all that mess completely, never even once considering looking back. He lifted my feet from the miry clay and placed my feet on the Rock to stay, and has blessed me in all good things as I walk in obedience to Him in all things—including joining the lodge, which I did at the leading of the same One who guided me away from my former life.

But what does this have to do with Freemasonry, and why would you assume I needed to be told something which has been my greatest joy and the source of my very life???

And, you should also know that biblically, the “Fatherhood of God" and "Brotherhood of Man” ultimately pertain to those who are "in Christ." If Freemasonry (the Lodge) adopted the concepts from Christianity, then it should apply the highest biblical intention of the terms. However, since the Lodge is not a Christian fraternity, it redefines the concepts for its own purpose, which is as you said "to unite men" regardless to whether they are Christians or not. Therefore, to apply Christian principles with non-Christian motives is a mockery of God and of those biblical principles. And for a Christian or pastor to support such a mockery is a travesty of their faith.

You really need to read up on this and see for yourself that what you just claimed is NOT the path of development of this doctrine. Call it what you will, the Christian idea of FOG-BOM developed along the same lines it follows in Masonry. If it did not, I would not have bothered making note of it. Just because you don’t believe it does not make it true. You are not a dictator of what paths the church has taken, nor of how it got there or why. Read some of the Christian sources which declared this doctrine as a Christian principle in the same time period it developed in Masonry, and earlier, and I’m sure you will be surprised, because you certainly revealed just now that you truly do not have a handle on this at all.

What eternal value does a fraternal perspective of God solely as, "Father of Creation" really have? Absolutely nothing.

What eternal value does Masonry PLACE upon God as “Father of Creation?” Not one whit, it has nothing to do with "eternal value," and everything to do with properly valuing other human beings in THIS life. Didn’t you even READ the statement as posted???

By the exercise of brotherly love, we are taught to regard the whole human species as one family, the high and low, the rich and poor; who, as created by one Almighty Parent, and inhabitants of the same planet, are to aid, support and protect each other. On this principle, masonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion, and conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance. (Manual of the Lodge, Entered Apprentice Degree, this particular citation of it is from the current (2003) Ahiman Rezon from SC)

“Conciliating true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance” is an intended purpose IN THIS LIFE. The sooner you drop your false perspectives and realize that Masonry is NOT a religion and not even TRYING to be, the sooner you can stop making a fool out of yourself by posting nonsense like this.

For Masonry knows, what so many forget, that religions are many, but Religion is one—

Ah, yes, the famous partial quote again? Why did you not post the rest:

For Masonry knows, what so many forget, that religions are many, but Religion is one--perhaps we may say one thing, but that one thing includes everything--the life of God in the soul of man, and the duty and hope of man which proceed from His essential character. Therefore it invites to its altar men of all faiths, knowing that, if they use different names for "the Nameless One of a hundred names," they are yet praying to the one God and Father of all; knowing, also, that while they read different volumes (of Sacred Law), they ale in fact reading the same vast Book of the Faith of Man as revealed in the struggle and sorrow of the race in its quest of God.

The context is always different than your claim. I’m sure that what you intended to imply was, that Masonry is trying to subsume all religions into one. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the fuller context, he clarifies the simple statement which you cited out of context. He makes no claim that “religionS are one,” he says that religion, and by this he intends “religious practice,” which is the common Masonic perception (since morality is the aim), and further clarifies by saying religion is “one thing, but that one thing includes everything. As for the “nameles one of a hundred names,” I highly doubt very many Masons agree with him—even though he IS correct that there IS only “one God and Father of all.” As for “reading the same book” which antimasons have misrepresented in the past as a statement about “all sacred books are the same,” fails as an accusation, because Newton clearly calls it “the book of the faith of man as revealed in the struggle and sorrow of the race in its quest of God.” That has no reference WHATSOEVER to “sacred books.” The only thing said about sacred books is that “they read different volumes,” a fact which presents no problem in either saying it or believing it, since it is common knowledge that men of different faiths have different sacred books.

Your problem, as usual, is the snippet style of quoting, which has presented you with more problems in the past than I could list here.

Where in Grand Lodge documentation do they state this purpose for using such terms? If Masonry is not a religion, and religion is not to be discussed in the Lodge, it has no reason to talk about such terms as "sanctification" or "heaven" and how to obtain either, unless it implies by their general use of the terms, that as Masons they can obtain them; which is precisely what they do.

Then by the logic you just expressed, Masonry also implies, by their general use of the BIBLE AND NO OTHER HOLY BOOK TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THEIR RITUALS, that the correct path to pursue “sanctification” and “holiness” is through the teachings of THE HOLY BIBLE. I’ve tried to tell you this many times in the past, and have told you many times also, that because of this, the only ones who should REALLY have any problem with Blue Lodge, are the adherents of OTHER religions than Christianity. I’ve also pointed out with repeated citations of statements by Albert Mackey, William Hutchinson, George Oliver, and W.L. Wilmshurst, who ALL stated, BEYOND this, that Masonry was DESIGNED to teach Trinitarian Christianity.

I know you aren’t gonna like it, but hey, YOU are the one who opened the door to suggestions of what is “implied” rather than sticking to what you can SHOW. Naturally, I couldn’t resist showing you what is “implied” by the total limitation, with no exceptions, of material from the HOLY BIBLE and NO OTHER sacred book, in Masonic ritual.

I do not dictate the application of these terms, the Holy Bible does; and assuming it truly is the Great Light in Masonry and it's ONLY "rule and guide for faith and practice," (sic) than the Lodge would use these terms solely from a biblical perspective, rather than leaving them to the private interpretation of every Mason. The Bible teaches that "Sanctification" comes from the Holy Spirit; but the Lodge invokes its deity for it to come by "the principles of Freemasonry" (sic).

As I just stated, the principles of Masonry are founded on the Bible, and Masonry has clearly stated it so, and I have clearly SHOWN it to be so, many times over.

The Bible teaches that "Heaven" is obtained by faith in Christ as Lord and Savior; but the Lodge teaches that it (Celestial Lodge Above, sic) can be obtained by living a moral life. Why insist it is their "Great Light" (sic), if they are not going to apply its principles accurately?

You forget, at the time the statement to which you refer was drawn up, it was practically a foregone conclusion that a Mason was also a Christian. It was very strongly so during most of the 1800’s, and even more so in the 1700’s. Besides, the statements you always cite as "proof" are indirect statements which are not intended as a theological treatise about "how to get to heaven." That in itself is the one problem with trying to make any such assertion.

Assuming Freemasonry is not a religion, I disagree.

That’s what you get for assuming instead of sticking with facts.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, most corporations worldwide have established credo values, which are the guiding principles of moral and ethical behavior that they want their employees to follow. Yet these companies do not use religious terms to convey these moral principles. Freemasonry shouldn't have to either. If it is strictly a "system of MORALITY," and the subject of religion is forbidden to be discussed in the Lodge, it shouldn't feel compelled to discuss terms like "sanctification" and "heaven"—unless, of course, it is some sort of subtle or insidious religion.

Masonry is not a corporation. Corporations have various guiding purposes for their existence. Masonry’s is simply the development of moral character. It would be a false assumption for Masonry to assume that moral development can occur without a belief in God, for God must be the source of morality. Every religion has recognized that fact since time immemorial. Masonry thus has the requirement of a belief in God, simply because the very nature of morality and an organization dedicated to moral development require it. Just because Masonry does not presume to choose a man’s religion for him is not an accusable point. Of course, you will probably reply that the source of morality should be the Christian God and the Holy Bible. Since Masonry’s principles are founded on the Bible, and since the Holy Bible is the only sacred book from which you will find direct citation in Masonic ritual, I see no conflict with my Christian faith. In fact, why would it be a bad thing to have an organization which does not automatically repulse men of other religions by being in name affiliated/associated with a different religion than their own, which yet teaches biblical principles? And if these men found the principles attractive, and they later found out the source of them, would that not be a positive attraction for the Gospel and for Christ? Sure, it’s not direct, but according to you, it doesn’t have to be, since so much importance accrues to what is “implied.”

 

[Rev Wayne]

RW: Masonry’s position is a neutral one, one which is directly paralleled in the Scouting organization, and one which was applied in principle—though without the requirement aspect of it—in the establishment of this nation’s constitution.
OFF: You also need to stop comparing your religious fraternity to a non-religious boys club. It's like comparing apples to oranges. The only thing they have in common is that they are both considered a piece of fruit. There is no such thing as a Boy Scouts ritual. There is no such thing as a Boy Scout initiation process or a common altar to which all Scouts kneel to pray. And, there is no such thing as a Volume of Sacred Law required as an "indispensable part of the furniture of every" (sic) scout troop.

This response required such significant attention, I chose to separate this reply from my other remarks. First, before my response about scouting, let me address your brief response to my comments about our nation’s founding:

Likewise, regarding our national constitution, we are born Americans. We are not, neither is any naturalized citizen for that matter, required to undergo a formal initiation process to become a member of our society.

How is this relevant to anything I said? The only thing I said in comparison with our nation was, there is a principle of neutrality in regards to religion, that was involved in the establishment of the constitution. Nothing was said about any initiation process for citizenship. Are you sure you read my comments, or did you merely skim through and miss that part?

No requirement of Freemassonry is imposed on the citizenship of our nation.

No such comparison was made. Check yer reading comprehension, Ace. My statement was, “Masonry’s POSITION is a NEUTRAL one. . . which was applied in principle. . .in the establishment of this nation’s constitution.” Nobody said anything even REMOTELY resembling what you just stated. You do this so often, I think you may need some remedial reading courses.

In fact, we are not even required to profess a belief in a Supreme Being either.

Again, yet another evidence of the need for the reading comprehension courses. Heck, I even set this one off in dashes, thinking SURELY anyone can see something set off from the rest of the text:

—though without the requirement aspect of it—

How could anyone have missed THAT?? Why do you feel the need to point out it is not required, when I clearly prefaced my comments with this one exception, that the requirement aspect was different??

But, to the reply to your comments about Scouting. First of all, some basic comparisons between the two:

Freemasonry: "Open to men of all faiths."
Boy Scouts: Open to boys of all faiths.

Freemasonry: "Masons believe that there is one God."
Boy Scouts: Boy Scouts are also monotheistic.

Freemasonry: "persons of different faiths may join together in prayer"
Boy Scouts: The same is also true.

Freemasonry: "Its moral teachings are acceptable to all religions."
Boy Scouts: Twelve Scout Laws would not conflict with any religion: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Freemasonry: Tied by oaths.
Boy Scouts: Boy Scout oath.

Freemasonry: "Masonry primarily uses the appellation, "Grand Architect of the Universe:' and other non-sectarian titles, to address Deity."
Boy Scouts: Uses generic "God."

Freemasonry: "Women's Auxiliary" = Eastern Star
Scouting: "Women's Auxiliary" = Girl Scouts

Freemasonry: Demolay
Scouting: Cub Scouts

Freemasonry: Rainbow Girls & Job's Daughters
Scouting: Brownies

Freemasonry: Head is known as the Master
Scouting: Head is the Scoutmaster

Freemasonry: Organizational body known as Council (York Rite)
Scouting: Organized into Councils

Freemasonry: Sub-division into districts.
Scouting: Sub-division into districts.

Freemasonry: Excludes atheists.
Scouting: Excludes atheists.

Freemasonry: Localized Co-Masonry groups (U.S.)
Scouting: Localized Co-educational scouting groups (primarily Europe)

Freemasonry: Masonic Monitors
Scouting: Scout Handbook

Freemasonry: A primary principle of duty to God.
Scouting: A primary principle of duty to God.

With the obvious parallels, I'm mystified at why we have not had boys renouncing their Boy Scout oaths to form a group of "Ex-Boy Scouts" who then bad-mouth the organization.

Next, some points you made, with response:

There is no such thing as a Boy Scouts ritual.

Sure there is. When I was in Scouts, we had a regular ritual every time we met, of saying the Scout Oath and the 12 Scout Laws, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Regular as a clock, first thing we did as we opened meetings.

There is more I could say about this, but I will refrain for now.

There is no such thing as a Boy Scout initiation process

I guess you never went through the Order of the Arrow, eh?

or a common altar to which all Scouts kneel to pray.

In the U.S., most Scout troops meet in churches. No need to have their own altar in a place that already has one.

And, there is no such thing as a Volume of Sacred Law required as an "indispensable part of the furniture of every" (sic) scout troop.

See previous answer, and insert "Volume of Sacred Law" in my answer in place of "altar."

 

[Rev Wayne]

Here are a couple of head-turners:

Notice there are apparently more books than one in the foreground. But which one is on top? (Hint: It has a Cross on the cover).

http://www.lgfo.org/Pic1a-N3.jpg


Nice curtain for a backdrop: with a huge white cross emblazoned on the red. If I'm not mistaken, there are two more crosses on the foreground table here, one on top of the Bible, and a fairly large wooden cross lying flat to the left of the Bible.

Here's the catch: these pictures are from the website of the Lebanese Grand Orient.

 

[JamesKurtovich]

Fraternal organizations are stupid. The question is, why would anyone join a group like this?

 

[JamesKurtovich]

I'm not sure if a more blunt childish and ignorant statement could be said...

Why did Elias Ashmole join such an organization? Why did Wolfgang Mozart join? How about Gerald Ford? Benjamin Franklin, Gene Autry, John Wayne, George Washington, etc.?

Or how about the millions that rely on Childrens Hospitals, Shriners or Scottish Rite Hospitals? Why would anyone care to help their fellow man? It's stupid right?

Who would want to be apart of such an organization that dates so far back in history that includes men that have helped shape modern times, rich in history, philosophy and science...

What about men who believed in the concept of freedom and liberty? Why would just anyone want hold onto such values?

Above your dumb little remark I posted some examples from history, some great Christian men that belonged to such an Organization. Why would just any man want to belong to something that these men felt was wonderful to be a part of and hold onto such values?

Most of the greatest minds in history belong to such an organization... Why indeed would just any man belong? Some of history's great men belong to such an organization, why would just any man belong? You're right...Not just any man will want to belong, only great men not fools who state foolish and ignorant remarks such as yourself.

I don't know why those people join these fraternal organizations, but name-dropping doesn't really give them credibility.. if George Washington and Mozart did it, doesn't mean I ever would. I don't care how great the mind is.

You can help your fellow man without joining the Freemasons. You can help anyone you want, without performing or partaking in rituals or being in a "brotherhood". Just help through your church with your church family.

Why would a Christian or anyone care how far back the Freemasons go? Our church has been around 2,000 years... and being a member of that is good enough. Plenty of history there.

 

[Rev Wayne]

If a Christian cannot be a Freemason, then why were there great Freemasons that were Christian?

I have been privileged to know some wonderful Christians in my time, whose influence on me in my early years was enormous. I never knew, until several of them died within a short time frame, and after noticing obituary notations that the first couple of them had been Masons, I got in the habit of looking for it when others later died also, and to a man, it turned out they were all Masons. Kinda stops you in your tracks when you've been against Masonry and suddenly are put in the position of, "if Masonry is evil, then what am I, after all my Christian influences turned out to be Masons?" The adjustments in my thinking were thus hemmed in, and God gave me only one direction in which to find my way out of the dilemma, I had to change my estimation of Masonry. After all, I could not deny what sort of men these were, the fact that they were Masons could not change that; nor could I deny the influence they had on me, which in essence was to deny my own Christian faith. God works in mysterious ways to get His points across.

 

[O.F.F.]

I have been privileged to know some wonderful Christians in my time, whose influence on me in my early years was enormous. I never knew, until several of them died within a short time frame, and after noticing obituary notations that the first couple of them had been Masons, I got in the habit of looking for it when others later died also, and to a man, it turned out they were all Masons. Kinda stops you in your tracks when you've been against Masonry and suddenly are put in the position of, "if Masonry is evil, then what am I, after all my Christian influences turned out to be Masons?" The adjustments in my thinking were thus hemmed in, and God gave me only one direction in which to find my way out of the dilemma, I had to change my estimation of Masonry. After all, I could not deny what sort of men these were, the fact that they were Masons could not change that; nor could I deny the influence they had on me, which in essence was to deny my own Christian faith. God works in mysterious ways to get His points across.

It's pretty sad when a 'Christian pastor' would sound as though he is giving more glory to a fraternity, for his Christian influence, rather than to God. But in any event, Masons are not the problem. I know, and continue to associate with many good and 'upright' men in the lodge, and they know why I am no longer a member. The contention of O.F.F., and most Christians who oppose Freemasonry, is NOT the men in the lodge. It is what men are taught in the lodge; that is the issue. And, there are a host of heretical issues at that. So while it may be difficult not to, my plea is that Masons not take our stand against the lodge personally. Again, it's not you, it's what you've been taught that's the problem.

Having said that let it be known, that all members who have been fully confronted with the heretical issues and still decides to vehemently, and publicly, defend the teachings of Freemasonry, will be exposed as false teachers; according to 2 Peter 2:1-3. And, if he professes to be a Christian pastor, he most definitely will be exposed as such, because he -- more than any other -- should know better. Any Mason's refusal to concede, repent and renounce the heretical teachings of Freemasonry constitutes deliberate rebellion against God. And if he is known publicly to be a staunch defender of the Masonic faith, as far as we (O.F.F.) are concerned, he should and will be exposed as such; according to Ephesians 5:11:

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

 

[O.F.F.]

If a Christian cannot be a Freemason, then why were there great Freemasons that were Christian?

To answer the question, they didn't know better; but those that did, got out for Christ sake, and are also Ex-Masons for Jesus.

 

[McArthur]

To answer the question, they didn't know better; but those that did, got out for Christ sake, and are also Ex-Masons for Jesus.

Dear sir, you can't just dismiss individuals assuming that they are ignorant without first knowing their background. I personally would like to know your educational qualifications in order to accurately compare to some of the more educated gentlemen of the Masonic organization and properly judge rather or not if these fine gentlemen did not know any better.

Lets examine John T. Chrisitan and compare his knowledge and accomplishments to yours before jumping to conclusions.

John Tyler Christian (1854–1925) was a Baptist preacher, author and educator. He was born December 14, 1854, near Lexington, Ky. His family moved to Henry County, Ky., when he was six years old. He professed faith in Christ and joined the Campbellsburg (Ky.) Baptist Church at the age of sixteen. He is said to have received the foundations of his highly respected theology under the preaching of Elder J. H. Spencer.

Dr. Christian was educated at Bethel College, Russellville, Ky., and was strongly influenced there by Dr. W. W. Gardner. In June, 1876, he graduated from that college with a Bachelor's Degree. In 1880, he earned his Master of Arts degree from Bethel, and in 1888 the college conferred on him the honorary title of Doctor of Divinity. In 1898, Keachie College, La., honored him with the title LL.D. He was well known for his skills both as a debater and as a prolific and gifted author.


He became pastor in Tupelo, Miss., beginning in 1877, and served that church two years. He was afterward pastor of Sardis (Miss.) Church, and from there he moved to the First Baptist Church of Chattanooga, Tenn., beginning in March, 1883. After pastoring there for three years, he next became Secretary of Missions for Mississippi Baptists. In 1893, beginning June 1, he became pastor of the historic East Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. Later he pastored churches in Arkansas.


In 1919, he became Professor of Church History at the Baptist Bible Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana (renamed the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in 1946). He played a major role in the controversies surrounding the restorationist views of Baptist history taught by William Heath Whitsitt in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Louisville, Kentucky. He wrote extensive rebuttals to Whitsitt's works and eventually published a history of the Baptists written from a secessionist's perspective.


The John T. Christian Library of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is named in his honor. According to the Seminary, "The basic collection came from the library of the outstanding church historian, John T. Christian, who was the first librarian of the seminary. He gave the school his personal library of 18,000 volumes when he joined the faculty in 1919."His personal papers are housed in the Archives at the John T. Christian Library, on campus at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

If you will, kind sir, post your credentials. After all, this fine Doctor obtained a very good education and taught as well. I have trouble in believing a gentlemen with such education and training, one with a Library named after him at a Theological Seminary, would not know any better.