Wayne said:
If you really had anything to say about this as applies to South Carolina
The sooner you get O.F.F. your high-horse and stop thinking that this forum, or any other one discussing the topic of Freemasonry, is about YOU or the Grand Lodge of South Carolina, the better O.F.F. you'll be. Neither YOU or your Grand Lodge speaks for, or on behalf of, all Freemasonry in general. So you can keep your lame opinions to yourself.
Wayne said:
You are simply going back to a time in Mackey's life when he held certain opinions that he later repudiated.
He may have repudiated his own words, but neither Albert G. Mackey nor the infamous Wayne Robert Major can repudiate the overwhelming, popular Masonic opinion that Freemasonry is a descendant of the Ancient Pagan Mysteries. In fact, Mackey spoke of two prominent Masonic authors, who you often use to defend your "Christian" misinterpretation of Freemasonry.
First he talks about the views of William Hutchinson and quotes from his work,
The Spirit of Masonry:
Of the theory that the Mysteries were an offshoot or imitation of the pure patriarchal Freemasonry, Hutchinson and Oliver are the most distinguished supporters.
While Hutchinson strongly contends for the direct derivation of Freemasonry from Adam, through the line of the patriarchs to Moses and Solomon, he does not deny that it borrowed much from the initiations and symbols of the Pagans.
Thus he unhesitatingly says, that "there is no doubt that our ceremonies and Mysteries were derived from the rites, ceremonies, and institutions of the ancients, and some of them from the remotest ages."
The History Of Freemasonry by Albert G. Mackey 33° (emphasis added)
As for Dr. George Oliver, he goes on to say, and quotes from his work
The History of Initiation:
Dr. Oliver expresses almost the same views, but more explicitly.
..."In answer to this charge (that Masonry is derived from the Mysteries), if it requires one, I only need reply to the general tenor of that volume, and to declare explicitly my firm opinion, founded on intense study and abstruse research, that the science which we now denominate Speculative Masonry, was coeval, at least, with the creation of our globe, and the far‑famed Mysteries of idolatry were a subsequent institution founded on similar principles, with the design of conveying unity and permanence to the false worship, which it otherwise could never have acquired." (emphasis added)
The History Of Freemasonry by Albert G. Mackey 33°
But then there is a third distinguished supporter of this theory, who you love to quote in defense of the indefensible; Walter Leslie Wilmshurst, who I quoted earlier, but you deliberately ignored it:
Wayne said:
Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions, where he shows the point of the whole argument to be, an assertion that the lodge teaches the same things as Christianity
Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions either, because nothing could be further from the truth of what Wilmshurst
actually "concludes." What he
actually concludes is that
Freemasonry is a descendant of the Ancient Mysteries and, which as they were, was designed to
deify its adherents.
Whether it was intentional or not, from the end of your quote on page 208 to where you resumed quoting on page 209, you skipped a very important section that appears as though you were doing so purposely, in order to give the impression that nothing came before,
"To clear vision, Christian and Masonic doctrine are . . ." Had you placed ellipses appropriately we would have known something came before it. However, since there was more there that you conveniently excluded, in context, it cast a completely different point than what you are trying to claim. For the reader's sake, I will post it here, but for more context they can simple click
here to read the entire book. The portion we are discussing now comes from Chapter 5, with the appropriate title, "FREEMASONRY IN RELATION TO THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES."
Neither the Ancient Mysteries nor Modern Masonry, their descendant, therefore, can be rightly viewed without reference to their relation to the Christian evangel, into which the pre-Christian schools became assumed. The line of succession and evolution from the former to the latter is direct and organic. Allowing for differences of time, place and form of expression, both taught exactly the same truths and inculcated the necessity for regeneration. In such a matter there cannot be a diversity of doctrine. The truth concerning it must be static and uniform at all periods of the world's history. Hence we find St. Augustine affirming that there has never existed but one religion in the world since the beginning of time (meaning by religion the science of rebinding the dislocated soul to its source), and that that religion began to be called Christian in apostolic times. And hence too it is that both the Roman Church and Masonry, although so widely divergent in outlook and method, have this feature in common, that each declares and insists that no alteration or innovation in its central doctrine is permissible and that it is unlawful to remove or deviate from its ancient landmarks. Each is right in its insistence, for in the system of each is enshrined the age-old doctrine of regeneration and divinization of the human soul, obscured in the one case by theological and other accretions foreign to the main purpose of religion, and unperceived in the other because its symbolism remains uninterpreted.
Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 209 (emphasis added)
How a professing "Christian" and seminary-trained "pastor" could miss this is beyond me. Who knows, maybe he is really just a 'babe' in Christ lacking spiritual discernment, assuming he is a Christian at all. One thing is certain though; since he is such an educated man, I must conclude that he missed it deliberately to make a false claim. The Church (the Body of Christ) does not originate from the Ancient Mysteries, nor does it teach the
divinization of the human soul. That's what Wilmhurst taught, and that may very well be what Masons like Wayne believe; but together, that's just their own false doctrine.
Yet Wilmhurst reiterates his point as he goes on to say:
The Christian Master's affirmation "Ye must be born again" is regarded as but a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character, not as a reference to a drastic scientific revolution and reformation of the individual in the way contemplated by the rites of initiation prescribed in the Mysteries. Popular religion may indeed produce "good" men, as the world's standard of goodness goes. It does not and cannot produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership, for it is ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained.
Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 212 (emphasis added)
Again, how a professing "Christian pastor" could miss this, after supposedly reading the 'whole' book is beyond me. Jesus taught that to be "born again" is an act of faith
for as many who receive Him they would become a child of the Living God (John 1:12-13). Never did Jesus teach that being "born again" was merely
a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character (works righteousness). In other words, He taught that it (being born again) is
the only way to become a child of God. He most certainly did NOT teach that it was
a means to produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership (godhood).
The fact is, what Wilmhurst also actually 'concluded,' was that Christianity and Freemasonry teach the
necessity for regeneration (being born again). The difference is, biblical it means becoming a child of God; but Masonically it means becoming a
god. This is what Masonic authors like Wilmhurst taught, and it may very well be what Masons like Wayne believe; but as we can see, it's really just more false doctrine and Masonic heresy.
And then, of course, I could include more supporters of the Pagan origins of Freemasonry such as J. D. Buck, George H. Steinmetz, and other well-known Masonic authors, but I trust the readers here got the point. So you can duck, dodge, dive and connive with the 'repudiation' of
one Masonic opinion, but that will not change the overwhelming facts, even from those authors you personally have endorsed.