Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[O.F.F.]

But then, you and I were not having this conversation, were we?

True, but I'm not concerned with the general jist of your spat with S.E., yet I am concerned with the implications of one of your replies to him. It was you, not him, who said:

Pike stated that the "theosophic and philosophic speculations" in the book are not part of the teachings of the rite. So what about the REST of the material?

As if to say, or imply, that the REST of the material in Morals & Dogma are part of the rite. Yes, you are correct in saying that you and I know that the book is not an official Grand Lodge document, but it has been officially accepted and supported, along with A Bridge To Light (which seeks to explain it in contemporary language), by The Supreme Council, 33rd degree Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction, United States of America.

You know very well that the quotes you provided are not part of Blue Lodge or Scottish Rite Masonry. Yet the statement I quoted above, along with your finally point in that post of "Arguably, then, one can make much more of a case for the above quotes as Masonic opinion, than for the philosophic content of the book," gives that impression, hence my earlier response.

Would you care to clarify what you meant, or should I take it for face value? Freemasonry gives you and Pike the right to interpret its symbolism as you wish, but it does not give you the privilege to claim that such an interpretation is representative of Freemasonry as a whole.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You know very well that the quotes you provided are not part of Blue Lodge or Scottish Rite Masonry.

I thought I already explained this once? You know as well as I do that what SealedEternal has been posting here is the most high-falootin' brand of nonsense that has been created against Masonry. You also already have been given my explanation for it. I tried to deal sensibly with the nonsense, and when that approach was refused, I simply took the opposite tack and posted selected portions of Pike that express a totally opposite view than the one being expressed, as a counter. What I did was done for the purpose of eliciting a response from SealedEternal, to put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. But since you have decided it was your job description to run interference for him, you have pretty much rendered it ineffective by this point--which was probably your purpose anyway.

Of COURSE I know none of Morals and Dogma is a part of Masonry in any official capacity. Perhaps you can do us a favor and explain this to SealedEternal, who doesn't seem to have a clue about Pike, and keeps throwing Pike quotes out here and basically saying, "This is what's wrong with Freemasonry, and why I am against it."

If someone wants to take a stance against Freemasonry, by all means, at least let them do so on the basis of an informed opinion.

I do think the symbols of Masonry, particularly in the Blue Degrees, are best interpreted by Christianity, and were formulated with the intent to do so. You won't find that in Pike; but you will find it stated by Albert Mackey, W.L. Wilmshurst, George Oliver, and William Hutchinson. That's a pretty hefty crew in itself, there certainly have been many others, I cite these because of their reputation for being among the most knowledgeable Masons who have ever lived.

 

[O.F.F.]

I do think the symbols of Masonry, particularly in the Blue Degrees, are best interpreted by Christianity, and were formulated with the intent to do so. You won't find that in Pike; but you will find it stated by Albert Mackey, W.L. Wilmshurst, George Oliver, and William Hutchinson. That's a pretty hefty crew in itself, there certainly have been many others, I cite these because of their reputation for being among the most knowledgeable Masons who have ever lived.

Thank you for sharing what YOU think, but I suspect readers are more interested in what Freemasonry actually teaches, rather than the speculations of its adherents. As for your distinguished "crew" of just 4 dead Masons, you know as well as I do that their "hefty" reputations have little to do with what constitutes "Masonic Opinion." You and they, are merely a tiny microcosm of a small minority of Masons who hold to a Christian interpretation of its symbolism.

To S.E's point, and speaking as a former Mason, the prevailing Masonic position of how its symbolism is interpreted is far more occultic and pagan in nature, than from a Christian perspective as you and your "crew" err to believe.

I tried to deal sensibly with the nonsense, and when that approach was refused, I simply took the opposite tack and posted selected portions of Pike that express a totally opposite view than the one being expressed, as a counter. What I did was done for the purpose of eliciting a response from SealedEternal, to put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. But since you have decided it was your job description to run interference for him, you have pretty much rendered it ineffective by this point--which was probably your purpose anyway.

Your opposing tactic to approach S.E. was NOT sensible at all. It was a lie, which rendered it ineffective due to your duplicity. Your conversation may very well be with S.E., but you two are not the only readers of this forum. My intention was to let others know that you crossed the line when you were being dishonest by presenting a falsehood; giving the impression that the quotes from Pike that you posted were part of the Masonic rite (ritual). You have yet to admit that they are not. So to prevent some readers from falsely believing that they are, which is what you probably intended, I told them the TRUTH.

You stand guilty as a pastor of lying, yet you have the audacity to try and let it slide, by justifying your insidious sinful behavior with another lame excuse.

 

[SealedEternal]

Do you really assume that Nimrod himself took on all these personages intentionally, or was it people who attributed them toward him?

They were likely attributed to him.

Lucifer was denoted by the planet venus who heralds the sun, not the sun itself.

The title is used to denote enlightenment in either case. It's just a Latin name for "light bearer" and esoterically represents Satan who is regarded in the occult as the illuminator of mankind for leading us in rebellion against God. I believe Nimrod was indwelt by Satan and thus was the first antichrist after the flood based on my understanding of Genesis and Revelation, but that's another topic. The Egyptians called this same "god"/antichrist Osiris, and many other cultures had many other names for him. Famous Masonic authors have used many of his titles in their writings, so clearly they are well studied on this issue and consider it to be of great importance to the craft.

SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

I never said the obelisk "is" a Christian symbol, only that it does indeed exist as a symbol in Christian iconography in addition to wherever else it may be a symbol. But I also pointed out it is not a Masonic symbol except in continental Masonry, which is tantamount to saying it is not a Masonic symbol at all.

I showed you from scripture that it is a pagan symbol that is condemned by God countless times, so it has never been "christian" whether or not some nominal worldly people who professed a form of Christianity adopted it. I also think it is disingenuous of you to deny that it has been adopted by Masonry when we all can see it is very prevalent among Masons.

I can and have denied a connection with any Lucifer. It does not exist except in your imagination. There are no rituals anywhere in Masonry with any "lucifer" in them anywhere.

Do you deny that masonry uses the concept of a search for enlightenment in many of its rituals? Lucifer simply means "light bearer" in Latin. You're seeking enlightenment that is not from the Lord Jesus Christ, so who is the real god of Masonry?

One thing is for certain also, no matter what you think you have done here, you have not come close, even once, to stating a single thing that is true of "Masonry itself." For one thing, you have based most of your claims on Morals and Dogma, which was written specifically for, and applies only to, Scottish Rite Masonry. In doing so, you have automatically made your claims irrelevant to the huge majority of Masons who have never applied for membership in that order.

You keep trying to obfuscate with this shell game you're playing. Any evidence I present by famous Masons somehow is not relevent to all Masons for one reason or another, so you just wave it away as irrelevent. Please tell me then what book does clearly explain the true meaning of Masonry that all Mason's agree with. Is there one, or will you just hand wave away any evidence I present?

I'd have a response to this if I weren't completely doubled over in laughter at "hidden in plain sight for all to see."

Then I guess you haven't grasped the purpose of symbology yet, which is hard to believe since you claim to be a Mason.

Yes I can, where were you? And if you disagree, where is any proof of your claim?

You deny that Masons use the obelisk? The proof is in the thousands of obelisks they have erected including the huge one in Washington DC.

Masonry does not go back thousands of years, you are dreaming. Even the most diehard anti's know better than that one.

I never said that Masonry went back thousands of years. I said the pagan symbols that it adopts are from the ancient mystery religions which go back thousands of years. There have been many secret orders all through history that used many of the same ones, but they didn't necessarily call themselves Masons.

Let's face it, the Victorian Era was a period when not only Christians but EVERYONE was interested in obelisks. It's even historically known as the "Egyptian revival" period.

I would strongly disagree that true born of God Christians ever joined in a revival of Egyptian paganism, but that is another topic.

And since you speak of a "connection to Lucifer/Baal/Osiris/Nimrod worship in the Bible":

Maybe you can cite for me, chapter and verse, exactly where the Bible tells us anything about "Lucifer worship" or "Osiris worship" or "Nimrod worship" in the Bible.

I already did. Nimrod worship is described in the Tower of Babel story, while Osiris worship was described in the biblical references to pagan practices in Egypt which I posted in the scriptures that reference obelisks. The common Hebrew name for him was Baal, so that is the term you will commonly find reference to.

Try as I may, I cannot find "Lucifer" anywhere in any Bible but the King James and the Vulgate from which the KJV got it--and even there, I do not find Lucifer "worship"; I cannot find "Osiris worship" anywhere in any Bible; nor do I find any "Nimrod worship" in the Bible.

Your claims just multiplied to the Nth degree of bizarre!

Why are you mischaracterizing what I wrote? Lucifer is a Latin name, so of course it's not used in Hebrew or Greek in the Bible. The concept of worshipping the pagan counterfeit gods is referenced throughout scripture, but obviously they used Hebrew and Greek terms rather than Latin.

Ridiculous. With this, as with many other Masonic symbolic references, the origins are found in Jewish and Christian precedent.

That is absolutely false. In the Bible one entered God's temple from the east and went west to find the enlightenment of the holy of holies. I believe the same was true in the garden of Eden and all other biblical examples, because scripturally it is always going west that one finds the illumination of God, while in Masonry is the exact antithesis. In Masonry one always goes to the east to find the enlightenment, because that is where the pagan sun god resides. Satan always turns God's things on their head.

Once again, we find Masonry following a pattern gleaned from Christian practices.

Sadly many of the Jewish leaders as well as professing Christian leaders were and are involved in occult orders, and have attempted to christianize many of the occult traditions into a hybrid religion. These practices are not Biblical however and are condemned by the Bible. From what I understand virtually all Southern Baptist Churches have the enterance in the west and the altar in the east due to the high level of Freemason pastors and leaders. That doesn't prove that Freemasonry is Biblical, but rather that much of what professes to be Christianity has been infiltrated by paganism.


SealedEternal

 

[SealedEternal]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Masonry itself had nothing to do with the occult. We all agree that many Masons are occultists seeking after esoteric enlightenment right? All "gods" are regarded as equal as far as Masonry is concerned whether it is the God of the Bible, Baal, Osiris, or any other right? So what fellowship has a child of the true God with Baal worshippers, occultists, satanists, Muslims, etc? Are these the "brothers" of a child of God? They cannot be because they have different fathers. God repeatedly says to come out of their midst and be separate, and not to have fellowship with such people, so for that reason alone a Christian cannot be a Freemason.

SealedEternal

 

[HisdaughterJen]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Masonry itself had nothing to do with the occult. We all agree that many Masons are occultists seeking after esoteric enlightenment right? All "gods" are regarded as equal as far as Masonry is concerned whether it is the God of the Bible, Baal, Osiris, or any other right? So what fellowship has a child of the true God with Baal worshippers, occultists, satanists, Muslims, etc? Are these the "brothers" of a child of God? They cannot be because they have different fathers. God repeatedly says to come out of their midst and be separate, and not to have fellowship with such people, so for that reason alone a Christian cannot be a Freemason.

SealedEternal

Amen and amen! TRUTH!

 

[izarya]

They were likely attributed to him.



The title is used to denote enlightenment in either case. It's just a Latin name for "light bearer" and esoterically represents Satan who is regarded in the occult as the illuminator of mankind for leading us in rebellion against God. I believe Nimrod was indwelt by Satan and thus was the first antichrist after the flood based on my understanding of Genesis and Revelation, but that's another topic. The Egyptians called this same "god"/antichrist Osiris, and many other cultures had many other names for him. Famous Masonic authors have used many of his titles in their writings, so clearly they are well studied on this issue and consider it to be of great importance to the craft.

SealedEternal

Lucifer was never a Latin name proper until the whole Jerome/Vulgate thing.

"Satan" is not regarded in the occult as a light-bearer, most real occultists don't equate the Christian concept of satan with Lucifer, that's your modern Christian take on things older than Christianity.

Lucifer is generally considered as a symbolic Archetype, more along the lines of Prometheus.

Nimrod, the Egyptians etc.. could not have been 'anti-Christ,' because they predate both Christianity and Christ incarnate.

They [Famous Masonic Authors] could also have been playing, "send the fool a little further."

 

[Rev Wayne]

I showed you from scripture that it is a pagan symbol that is condemned by God countless times, so it has never been "christian" whether or not some nominal worldly people who professed a form of Christianity adopted it.

And I clearly pointed this out for you, which you thought you could ignore and it would go away—but since it clearly refutes your claims, and more to the point, since it is the Word of God, no, it will not go away:

Genesis 28:18—And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.

Genesis 31: 34—AndJacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon.

Exodus 24:4—And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Gee, nothing there about these “pillars” being “condemned by God.” Nor is there anything about the pillars in the temple of Solomon being “condemned by God.” Nor is there any indication in any of the above passages that any of this involved “Lucifer/Baal/Osiris/Nimrod worship.”

You're seeking enlightenment that is not from the Lord Jesus Christ,

You are greatly mistaken. And you need to be careful with such statements. I happen to KNOW the Lord Jesus Christ, and more importantly, He knows me, and I am His. I worry about people making accusations like that, because it attributes the things of God to Satan, which some take to be the understanding of what the unpardonable sin of “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost” is.

Any evidence I present by famous Masons somehow is not relevent to all Masons for one reason or another,

Then tidy up what you present. The problem is with you, not with us. We have consistently pointed out that the Masons whose opinions you have posted here, are of the quasi-/pseudo- variety. You claim you have not seen Grand Lodges saying so; in response, I have posted Grand Lodge quotes saying so, and provided links.

You deny that Masons use the obelisk?

Of course I do, it’s not a Masonic symbol except in the minds of accusers, who can’t resist the prospect of having a nice, juicy tidbit of an accusation which allows them the nonsense of claiming phallic worship in relation to Masonry.

One monument does not make “thousands.” Care to substantiate something for just once in your claims, or will you continue to consider your merely stating something to be sufficient “proof?” And what will you do with the “thousands”of obelisks that Christians have used to adorn gravesites from one end of this country to the other?

That is absolutely false. In the Bible one entered God's temple from the east and went west to find the enlightenment of the holy of holies. I believe the same was true in the garden of Eden and all other biblical examples, because scripturally it is always going west that one finds the illumination of God, while in Masonry is the exact antithesis. In Masonry one always goes to the east to find the enlightenment, because that is where the pagan sun god resides.

And what will you do when Jesus returns in the east? Will you doubt your own eyes and refuse to go with Him, on the grounds that you have to “go west to find the illumination of God?”


I know there’s a lot of talk about that stuff, much of it meaningless except in the minds of the ones who wrote it. The lodge here in the town where I live faces toward the north. The lodge I last belonged to before moving here faced toward the south.

The only people who truly follow any pattern with any of this are the mortuaries. Graveyards are always aligned where the person’s body lies on the back with the head toward the west, with the notion that at the return of Christ in the east, those who rise to meet him will thus rise facing the east.

You guys are always harping about “sun worship” and seeing a snake under every rock. But you blind yourselves to the same things found in the Christian Bible. In Malachi 4:2 Jesus Christ is called the “Sun of Righteousness.” In Psalm 84:11, God is referred to as “a sun and shield.”

The concept of worshipping the pagan counterfeit gods is referenced throughout scripture, but obviously they used Hebrew and Greek terms rather than Latin.

Why the straw man, is it easier to knock over than the real thing? I never said anything about “the concept of worshiping the pagan and counterfeit gods”—NOR DID YOU. I was responding to YOUR comment that the obelisk “is repeatedly condemned by God because of it's connection to Lucifer/Baal/Osiris/Nimrod worship in the Bible.”

I can appreciate your backing off the earlier false statement, but you are mistaken if you think I have forgotten what you said. Despite your attempted reframe, you clearly spoke in error in claiming any worship of lucifer, Osiris, or Nimrod in the Bible.

But that was not the first, it’s one of many in a long string of gaffes that are beginning to accrue to your account.

You have claimed an authority for Pike’s Morals and Dogma that does not, and never did, exist.

You have claimed “Lucifer/Baal/Osiris/Nimrod worship in the Bible” when the only one that can be sustained is Baal worship.

You have claimed Masonic connections with obelisks, which you cannot back up and HAVE NOT backed up with anything but your own personal worn-out protestations.

You have spoken of the appendant degree bodies of Masonry as “higher” degrees, which they truly are not.

You have spoken of Masons “working for the 33rd degree,” which no Mason CAN do or WOULD do.

You have claimed that Masons “hand out the books in lodge” of Albert Pike, Manly Hall, and the like, which I have NEVER seen done, or even heard of it happening.

You have claimed that the obelisk represents “the pagan sun god who Mason's call lucifer," which is about as loopy an accusation as I’ve seen made anywhere.

You have claimed (hee-hee) that “their occult books explaining that Lucifer, the serpent of the garden, is the enlightener of mankind for encouraging mankind to rebel against the God of the Bible, are all highly regarded in Masonic Libraries, and read by the high lever adepts,” and you actually appear to have said this in total seriousness, which is the real puzzle.

I recommend a vacation from the antimasonic conspiracy websites, they are really beginning to get your thinking skewed.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Your opposing tactic to approach S.E. was NOT sensible at all. It was a lie, which rendered it ineffective due to your duplicity. Your conversation may very well be with S.E., but you two are not the only readers of this forum. My intention was to let others know that you crossed the line when you were being dishonest by presenting a falsehood; giving the impression that the quotes from Pike that you posted were part of the Masonic rite (ritual). You have yet to admit that they are not. So to prevent some readers from falsely believing that they are, which is what you probably intended, I told them the TRUTH.

Relax Mike, you seem to be getting mixed up in Wayne's explanation. SE posted quotes from Pike that he thought proved Pike was a satanist. Wayne just used other quotes, also from Pike, to show that Pike also spoke extensively about christianity and his beliefs in it.

It's no different than any other person that goes over to christian apologetics and says "look at this quote in the bible that shows christianity is horrific"... to which everyone promptly shows other verses in the bible that either contradict that verse, or put it into context.

You stand guilty as a pastor of lying, yet you have the audacity to try and let it slide, by justifying your insidious sinful behavior with another lame excuse.

Wow... thank you for reminding me what real christians are like. (...and people wonder why I have no interest in the faith...)

As long as we're on the subject of lying though... did you ever get around to officially resigning from being a mason?

I showed you from scripture that it is a pagan symbol that is condemned by God countless times, so it has never been "christian" whether or not some nominal worldly people who professed a form of Christianity adopted it. I also think it is disingenuous of you to deny that it has been adopted by Masonry when we all can see it is very prevalent among Masons.

You keep saying it is prevalent... but, so far, you haven't actually linked any of it to the masons. Where's the connection?

Then I guess you haven't grasped the purpose of symbology yet, which is hard to believe since you claim to be a Mason.

I guess not... why don't you help us out and present your "grasp" of it?

You deny that Masons use the obelisk? The proof is in the thousands of obelisks they have erected including the huge one in Washington DC.

Umm.... the design on the Washington monument was selected by a board of directors from the Washington National Monument Society. It was designed by a mason... but his original design was much different than what was settled on. We could talk about his architectural background and his influences... but how about this; if the symbol of the obelisk was so important, why would a mason design a monument that covered much of the obelisk? If masons truly use obelisks to honor some kind of pagan god, why did the original design call for a statue of Washington at the top?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Masonry itself had nothing to do with the occult. We all agree that many Masons are occultists seeking after esoteric enlightenment right?

Umm... where did any agree on that?

All "gods" are regarded as equal as far as Masonry is concerned whether it is the God of the Bible, Baal, Osiris, or any other right?

Incorrect. Masonry makes no judgement regarding the equality of gods. It simply sees all men as equal, and welcomes any man who declares his belief in god.

So what fellowship has a child of the true God with Baal worshippers, occultists, satanists, Muslims, etc? Are these the "brothers" of a child of God? They cannot be because they have different fathers. God repeatedly says to come out of their midst and be separate, and not to have fellowship with such people, so for that reason alone a Christian cannot be a Freemason.

SealedEternal

You might as well say that no christian should be on the same bus, train, or airplane as someone else from another belief. That no christian should be in the same restraunt as someone else from another belief. That no christian should be in the company, or do business with someone else from another belief.

I don't understand why anyone would think that the god they believe in intended for mankind to be so divided over their beliefs.

 

[wayseer]

I don't understand why anyone would think that the god they believe in intended for mankind to be so divided over their beliefs.

Which is why Freemasonry exists - as a place for men who subscribe to various beliefs can met without have to justify, explain or defend that belief.

 

[SealedEternal]

You keep saying it is prevalent... but, so far, you haven't actually linked any of it to the masons. Where's the connection?

Masons have erected them in London, Paris, New York, and Washington DC and many other locations around the world, because as many Masonic historians claim, their hero Hiram Abiff is really Osiris reborn. The story of Hiram Abiff parallels the story of Osiris in many ways, and the obelisk is esoterically representative of his missing phallus.

I guess not... why don't you help us out and present your "grasp" of it?

Alright. Symbols are designed to both conceal and reveal at the same time. Usually they contain many different levels of interpretation. In a secret society with a degree system, the elitists who claim to hold the esoteric knowledge can give the first degree adepts one level of understanding, the second degree adepts a deeper level of understanding, and so on and so on. At every level the student thinks they grasp the concept and have been enlightened to the meaning, but much of the deeper meaning is still being concealed from them. Thus the esoteric knowledge is always hidden in plain site and concealed from all who are not supposed to understand it, and revealed incrementally to those as they are deemed worthy of being given it.

Umm... where did any agree on that?

Are you denying that Eliphas Levi, Arthur Edward Waite, Manly Palmer Hall, Albert Pike, and Aleister Crowley were Masons or that they were occultists?

Incorrect. Masonry makes no judgement regarding the equality of gods. It simply sees all men as equal, and welcomes any man who declares his belief in god.

Yes, and the true God does make such distinctions and repeatedly says that His children have no fellowship with the children of these other so-called "gods" and should come out of their midst and be separate. Therefore a child of the true God by definition cannot be a Mason.

You might as well say that no christian should be on the same bus, train, or airplane as someone else from another belief. That no christian should be in the same restraunt as someone else from another belief. That no christian should be in the company, or do business with someone else from another belief.

No, the Bible says that God's children are to be in the world to testify of Him, but He says that we are not to be of the world or have fellowship with those who do not recognize Him as Lord.

SealedEternal

 

[wayseer]

Masonic historians claim, their hero Hiram Abiff is really Osiris reborn.

Please supply your reference for this rather bold statement. I have found no respected Masonic Historian making any such statement. Or, are you just relying on your own imagination?

The story of Hiram Abiff parallels the story of Osiris in many ways, and the obelisk is esoterically representative of his missing phallus.

Yes, I see. It is your imagination.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Masons have erected them in London, Paris, New York, and Washington DC and many other locations around the world

How do you intend to substantiate this? Given your track record so far, we have more reasons NOT to believe you.

The story of Hiram Abiff parallels the story of Osiris in many ways,

Can you cite examples from both stories and show us what you consider to be “parallels,” or are you STILL going to post claims without following the common courtesy of providing something to support them?

The story of Osiris has nothing to do with Masonry. From the BC/Yukon website:

There is nothing to link this mythology with Freemasonry. Although the topic of several recent books, there is also nothing to prove that the Hiramic legend of Freemasonry is somehow a result of the death of either the boy-king, Tutankhamen (fl. 14th century BCE) or king Seqenenre in 1570 BCE.

Besides, people have been doing the same thing in regard to Christianity, drawing "parallels" between Christ and Osiris:

As to the Trinitarian nature of the godhead, the question is, whether the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a supernatural revelation, or whether it is but under a new name an old Osirian dogma. The orthodox Christian triad, speaking generally, is a Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The triad, however, which is the most popular with the vast majority of Christians is, Father, Mother and Son. Now such also was the trinity most commonly worshipped throughout ancient Egypt, namely, Osiris, Isis and Horus. (Emil Walter, New Discoveries in the Origin of Christianity: A Treatise on the Origin of Christianity, its Causes and Consequences, p. 103)

and the obelisk is esoterically representative of his missing phallus.

You repeat the mantra very well, but where do you find this connection with Masonry, and where is your supporting evidence that you base this on?

At every level the student thinks they grasp the concept and have been enlightened to the meaning, but much of the deeper meaning is still being concealed from them.

Source? Evidence? You’ve said this over and over, but where do you get it from? What causes you to think this?

Are you denying that Eliphas Levi, Arthur Edward Waite, Manly Palmer Hall, Albert Pike, and Aleister Crowley were Masons or that they were occultists?

Lévi is best known for his Doctrine of Transcendental Magic (1855), Ritual of Transcendental Magic (1856) and History of Magic (1860), all written before his brief association with Freemasonry.
Initiated: 14 March, 1861
Quit/dropped from rolls: August 21, 1861

Waite was received into the Golden Dawn in January 1891 although his attendance and involvement was sporadic. Entering the The Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia (SRIA) in April, 1902, Waite precipitated a schism in the Golden Dawn the following year. He purged magic from the rituals, replacing it with mysticism. This society, the Independent and Rectified Rite of the Golden Dawn, was soon torn by further feuds and was dissolved by Waite in 1914, to be replaced by the Fellowship of the Rosy Cross in 1915.

Golden Dawn and Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia are not Freemasonry.

Manly P. Hall:

Published in 1923, the preface of later editions of The Lost Keys of Freemasonry states "At the time I wrote this slender volume, I had just passed my twenty-first birthday, and my only contact with Freemasonry was through a few books commonly available to the public."

Hall was a Mason, but not until 1954. Lost Keys of Freemasonry and The Secret Teachings of All Ages, the most often cited and criticized Hall works, were written in 1923 and 1929, respectively. In a nutshell: Nothing of Hall’s that comes under scrutiny of anti-Masons is of any Masonic significance at all.

Aleister (Edward Alexander) Crowley has been described as a brilliant, yet flawed, student of symbolism and ritual. He was also a clandestine freemason, having had at least four major contacts with regular Freemasonry. Although influencial in the Ordo Templi Orientis and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (HOGD), Crowley had no influence on Freemasonry.

Raised: December 17, 1904 (Irregular)
Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343, Paris
Grande Loge Nationale Francaise

That leaves only Albert Pike, among the ones you mentioned, who truly was a Mason at all. BC/Yukon GL website says:

Albert Pike’s Morals & Dogma (1871) can easily be quoted out of context by anti-masons attempting to prove Freemasonry is satanic, luciferian, pagan or gnostic. Morals & Dogma quotes extensively from the texts of earlier authors. As a poorly organized, unindexed, and unreferenced, study in comparative religion, it is only by carefully noting context that the reader can determine where Pike is voicing an opinion and where he is simply detailing the opinions and beliefs of other writers, other cultures, or other times.
Not content with merely quoting Pike out of context, some anti-masonic writers will either concoct their own "quotes" or resort to the discredited "Lucifer is God" hoax of confessed fraud Léo Taxil.

Yes, and the true God does make such distinctions and repeatedly says that His children have no fellowship with the children of these other so-called "gods" and should come out of their midst and be separate.

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. (1 Cor. 5:9-10)

Paul clearly indicates that when we are told not to fellowship with someone, it is not an exhortation to stay away from those of the world, for the only way to manage that would be if we were no longer in this world.

No, the Bible says that God's children are to be in the world to testify of Him, but He says that we are not to be of the world or have fellowship with those who do not recognize Him as Lord.

That’s not what Paul said. He put that exhortation strictly on the basis of internal discipline within the body of believers.



Apulcius, De Aur. Asin., lib. ii., describing a solemn idolatrous procession, after the Egyptian mode, says, "A chest, or ark, was carried by another, containing their secret things, entirely concealing the mysteries of religion." And Plutarch, in his treatise De Iside, &c., describing the rites of Osiris, says, " On the tenth day of the month, at night, they go down to the sea; and the stolists, together with the priest, carry forth the sacred chest, in which is a small boat or vessel of gold. Pausamos likewise testifies, lib. vii., c. 10, that (the ancient Trojans had a sacred ark, wherein was the image of BACCHUS, made by Vulcan, which had been given to Dardanus by Jupiter. As the arle was deposited in the Holy of Holies, so the heathens had in the inmost part of their temples an adytum or penetrale, to which none had access but the priest. (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible, With a Commentary and Critical Notes, p. 448)

 

[Rev Wayne]

Apulcius, De Aur. Asin., lib. ii., describing a solemn idolatrous procession, after the Egyptian mode, says, "A chest, or ark, was carried by another, containing their secret things, entirely concealing the mysteries of religion." And Plutarch, in his treatise De Iside, &c., describing the rites of Osiris, says, " On the tenth day of the month, at night, they go down to the sea; and the stolists, together with the priest, carry forth the sacred chest, in which is a small boat or vessel of gold. Pausamos likewise testifies, lib. vii., c. 10, that (the ancient Trojans had a sacred ark, wherein was the image of BACCHUS, made by Vulcan, which had been given to Dardanus by Jupiter. As the arle was deposited in the Holy of Holies, so the heathens had in the inmost part of their temples an adytum or penetrale, to which none had access but the priest. (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible, With a Commentary and Critical Notes, p. 448)

Lo and behold, a man whose commentaries are widely read and respected in Christian circles, is involved in a discussion about the presence of objects paralleling the Ark of the Covenant in the BIble. In doing so, he mentions Osiris, and Bacchus as well. If we adopt the same reasoning as that which is used to criticize Freemasonry because of PIke's writing, then we must accuse Clarke of teaching that which goes against Christian faith, and we must accuse Christianity as well, because of PIke's connection with it.

 

[champuru]

i think it is fine... people are just overly suspicious of different organizations.

 

[SealedEternal]

LAYING THE CORNER-STONE; MASONS PREPARING THE OBELISK'S FOUNDATION


New York Times Archives
October 10, 1880, Wednesday
Page 5

THE STONE DULY SQUAREDAND LEVELED AND LOWERED INTO PLACE-POURING ON OIL, CORN, AND WINE-THE GRAND MASTER'S ADDRESS

The corner-stone of the foundation upon which the Egyptian obelisk known as Cleopatra's Needle is to stand in Central Park, was laid yesterday, with the Masonic ceremonies appropriate to such an occasion. The site in the Park is on an elevation just west of the New Museum of Art, and the corner-stone is such only in name, being imbedded in the centre of the masonry on which the obelisk is to stand. The stone is a cube of about 3 feet, and it was lowered into its position yesterday with a great derrick. A number of Masonic emblems were put in it, but not nearly all the articles that are finally to be sealed with it, among which are a telephoneand other recent scientific inventions. Lieut.-Commander Gorringe, who brought the obelisk to this country, said that the articles to go in the corner-stone were not all ready, and that it was not yet even decided what these articles would be, but a list of them would be ready by Tuesday. Yesterday's ceremonies were entirely Masonic, and several thousand members of the order took part.

The full article goes into greater detail here:



This obelisk was originally erected in Hellopolis an estimated 3400 years prior, before being moved to New York by the Freemasons. The early Egyptians regarded the obelisk as the shape sacred to the "sun god" Ra, who they believed was the creator of humanity, the source of all heat and light, the being on whom man was totally dependent. By the fifth dynasty Ra had become so popular that he became the state deity. Heliopolis was his main centre of worship where the first kings erected primitive obelisks in honor of him.

The spirit of the Sun-God was supposed to enter the stones at certain periods, and on these occasions human sacrifices were offered to it. The pharoahs of later dynasties worshipped Osiris, the god of the Underworld, whom the priests at Heliopolis claimed was Ra's grandson to ensure that Heliopolis remained the greatest religious centre in Egypt.

A book published by the Freemasons titled Obelisks provides detailed information on the Babylonian origins of Masonry and many ancient obelisks around the world. There were actually two removed from Egypt a few years prior to the completion of the Washington Monument, with the one being placed in New York in 1880, and another in London in 1878. They are also placed in other locations throughout the world which illustrates Freemasonry's love affair with the most evocative symbol of all egyptian religion. The Freemasons raised the funds to erect the Washington monument and performed the official Masonic ceremonies for the laying of the cornerstone and final dedication of the monument that brought it into being as well. They always seem to be in the forefront whenever an obelisk is erected.

The broken column denotes the untimely death of our Grand Master Hiram Abiff; the beautiful Virgin, weeping, denotes the Temple, unfinished; the book open before her, that his virtues there lie on perpetual record; the sprig of acacia in her right hand, the timely discovery of his body; the urn in her left, that his ashes were there safely deposited to perpetuate the remembrance of so distinguished a character; and Time standing behind her unfolding the ringlets of her hair denotes that time, patience and perseverance will accomplish all things...
​

Master Mason Initiation Lecture
​

Masonry still retains among its emblems one of a woman weeping over a broken column, holding in her hand a branch of acacia, myrtle, or tamarisk, while Time, we are told, stands behind her combing out the ringlets of her hair. We need not repeat the vapid and trivial explanation... given, of this representation of Isis, weeping at Byblos, over the column torn from the palace of the King, that contained the body of Osiris, while Horus, the God of Time, pours ambrosia on her hair.

Albert Pike 33°
Morals and Dogma, page 379

The name Hiram Abiff given by Freemasonry is a Biblical veneer given to conceal the identity of the god of the mystery religions who is called by various names such as Nimrod, Osiris, Gilgamesh, Dionysus, Bacchus, Dumuzi, etc in many other cultures.

Books of Freemasonry and other mystery religions state that it is not intended that the "uninitiated" or lower orders understand occult symbols, but it is important that they venerate and even worship them. Albert Pike even states that they are intentionally lied to about their true meaning, because only the elites are entitled to know the true meaning.

They also believe that symbols such as obelisks hold the sacred mysteries which were known to the ancient religions, and that it is their duty to hold and protect this knowledge. Throughout the ages these mysteries or secret doctrines have been entrusted only to the adepts -- the sages or "elect" -- of the mystery religions, nevertheless, they say that they will be revealed to the world at the end of the age. This of course corresponds to the biblical prophecies of the revealing of the antichrist.



SealedEternal

 

[Rev Wayne]

Gee, I sure hope you don’t think your latest post has provided any “evidence” of anything you’ve been claiming. If anything, it just shows how greatly mistaken you have been on all of this.

Yes, I’m very familiar with the erecting of “Cleopatra’s Needle” and the kooky claims of John A. Weisse, who was contacted by Commander Gorringe to examine the obelisk just after it had been discovered. In fact, perhaps you missed it, but I had already mentioned the book Weisse wrote about it, The Obelisk and Freemasonry, and the bizarre claims of the ads for the book.

Just to show you an example of the kind of nonsense that John Weisse set forth as “evidence” that the obelisk “Cleopatra’s Needle” came from ancient “Masonic” origins:

C.—“Gorringe” Stone No. 3.—This was found near A, but placed more toward the west. In form it is a rectangular parallelogram and all its faces are roughened down. Toward the angle of one of its faces and pointing to it was found a thoroughly oxidized metallic trowel, rather larger than those at present in use. I did not see it entire, because three or four days after it was discovered the stone was broken and three-fourths of the upper part of the trowel were taken away, leaving only the portion near the handle. A second theft was subsequently committed, and there now remains only a portion of the handle of the trowel. The stone is 3 ft. 11 in. long, 2 ft. 2 in. thick, and 1 ft. 3 in. high.

Signification.—Considering the roughened state of the stone and its proximity to stone A, and more especially toward the imperfect faces of the latter, I regard this stone as representing the apprentice and fellow-craft, while the presence of the trowel is emblematical of the master.

A teeny piece of oxidized metal, a roughened slab of stone, and he extrapolates from this, a “Masonic” trowel “emblematic of the master,” and a representation of the apprentice and fellow-craft degrees?

If he had bothered to read even the least Masonic history, he would not have made such a horrific blunder. According to the most accurate Masonic histories, there were at most only two degrees, and some say only one, at Masonry’s “modern” founding in 1717. Had someone simply pointed out to Weisse this very significant detail, he might not have made the error of anachronistically trying to assert a representation in ancient Egyptian artifacts of something that never became a reality until thousands of years later!!

There’s far more:

E.—This is a block of Syenite granite similar to that of which the obelisk is made. It was found by Brother Gorringe in the interior of the foundations. In shape it is a cube, and its faces are carefully dressed and finished. It is 3 ft. 6 in. long, 3 ft. 5 ½ in. high, and 2 ft. 8 ½ thick.
Signification.—Judgeing from the shape and dimensions of the stone, as well as from its situation (between the east angle of the chamber and the east angle of the pit), this stone, to my mind, represents the perfect ashlar.
F.—This block is also of syenite granite. It is in shape a rectangular parallelogram. It was found by Bro. Gorringe in the interior of the chamber, between east and west. Four of its faces are rough, one finished, and the last roughened down. This stone is 5 ft. 3 in. in length, 3 ft. 5 ½ in. in height, and 1 ft. 4 in. in thickness.
Signification.—This, I think, is meant to represent the rough ashlar, as well as the work of the three degrees.

It’s easy to see that the basis on which Weisse determined that all these things were “Masonic” in origin, was that he examined them and declared them to be so. Yet in reading the accounts and descriptions of these things, there is not the least recognizable “Masonic” symbol to be found. Weisse mentions Mariette Pacha, a premier Egyptologist of the time, to whom Weisse paid a visit. But curiously, all he had to offer him were the same written verbal descriptions as in his book, and Pacha immediately told him he could make no such evaluation from mere descriptions. He mentions contacting another Egyptologist with information about hieroglyphics supposedly found with the stones, yet all he sent him was his own interpretation of the hieroglyphics he saw! He apologizes to another he contacted, for not having detailed drawings available, because Gorringe had left and had already taken most of the artifacts with him.

Throughout his accounting of what was found, it is exactly the same: very little, if anything, of any substance, and a trail of "we had this, or that, but it was stolen," or similar excuses. That trail is accompanied by a trail of supposed "Masonic" emblems and their descriptions, which are exaggerated and/or imagined. And with each of these, which supposedly represented symbolism of three degrees which had not even fully developed by 1717, one has to be amazed at the clairvoyance of these ancient Egyptians. Somehow they looked across thousands of years and saw that these things were going to develop in a land thousands of miles away from them, and then transcended time and distance to foretell these things and represent them in non-Masonic fashion, and then leaving them in the perfect where they knew they would be discovered and interpreted Masonically by an over-zealous “researcher.”

It’s easy to understand why Masons would have been interested in this obelisk. After all, Catholics were easily duped by the antics of someone like Leo Taxil, it’s not so surprising that in an atmosphere of historical curiosity, someone like Weisse could come along and tell people what they want to hear, and find a hearty acceptance without even minimal investigation of the facts.

I found this contemporary review of Weisse's book, The Obelisk and Freemasonry, to be particularly enlightening:

Discoveries made by a French Abbe in the archives of the University of Strasburg about the end of last century, disclosed the historic origin of the Masonic order, as a medieval trade-guild founded in the thirteenth century. Subsequent investigations into the character of these guilds showed that the many peculiarities of the order were marks which it had in common with other guilds of the same character. Masonic authors, such as Flligel, Steinbrenner & Fert, have followed up these indications, and have given us an authentic account of the Order's history.
But alongside this historic literature of the order, there has long been growing an apocryphal and aberglaube-ish literature, which seeks to connect it with whatever is mysterious and enigmatical in ancient and mediaeval history. The first form of this was suggested by the constant reference to Biblical facts and traditions, which the mediaeval masons like other guilds of the sort, constantly employed, and which were handed down in the traditions of the order. Hence the myth of a great secret society founded by Adam, or by Noah, or by Kings Solomon and Hiram at the building of the temple, and handed on to our own time. By some, again, the Knights Templars were proclaimed as a branch of this great society, and it was claimed that Masonry perpetuated that order, hence the addition of Temple Masonry to the older ritual of the craft. The French Masons, being less Biblical than the English, preferred to
connect the order with the Greek and Egyptian mysteries, and cast ridicule on Hiram and Solomon. Our author seems to be most catholic in his his historical affiliations of his order. Nothing comes amiss to him. He carries the order back to India as well as Egypt. He reproduces the exploded accounts of Masonry in Anglo-Saxon England. He degrades the organization of the Masonic guild in 1275 into a mere convention of existing lodges. He claims as Masons the Rosicrucians, an order which existed nowhere outside the fertile brain of J. Valentine Andrae, (1616), and especially he labors to show that Masonry existed in Egypt, that the mural paintings of the Rhine valley disclose the ritual of initiation, and that the obelisk recently sent over as a gift to the American people, but kindly appropriated by the city of New York, is quite a monument of the craft as it once was. We can commend his book to such as are easy of belief and fond of mysteries. (The Penn Monthly, 1880, P. 903-04)

If you saw and were curious about it as I was, the mention of this as being "aberglaube-ish," the reference is German, and has to do with the irrational or superstitious. Sounds like this reviewer was up on true Masonic history, and was as skeptical as I am about this so-called "connection" with Masonry. It's pretty certain that the Egyptians did not represent, in part or whole, any Masonic symbolism either on the obelisk or any artifacts which accompanied it. This can be logically ascertained by their having been denoted as symbolic of the "three degrees of Masonry," which simply did not exist before sometime between 1717 and 1730. But with origins of Masonry firmly established at a much later time, it is anachronistic in its entirety.

 

[Jester4kicks]

LAYING THE CORNER-STONE; MASONS PREPARING THE OBELISK'S FOUNDATION


New York Times Archives
October 10, 1880, Wednesday
Page 5

It was so nice of you to only quote the portions of the article that appeared to support your position.... So allow me to actually continue the citation. (isn't it a pain when people actually take the time to check your sources?)

The most remarkable part of the Grand Master's address was that in which he disclaimed any Masonic origin for the hieroglyphics found upon the obelisk, and this was a part of his oration, coming from such high Masonic authority, that could not have been peculiarily edifying to those persons who have found, as the profess to believe, evidences of the exitence of the Masonic order at the time this obelisk was first erected. Speaking of the obelisk the Grand Master said:

We find delineated there certain emblems which are to be found in common use among the operative craftsmen of the Middle Ages, and it is an evidence that these marks are definitive mementoes of a systematic labor. They are suggestive of a connection which may have existed by regular sequence between the Eastern and Western builders. I do not, however, consider that we should regard these marks as symbolic, for while such an inference may be drawn, yet the geometrical outlines should not be accepted without qualification. We find that thay labored with the same tools that are preserved in our society, and regarded by us in a symbolic sense as teaching moral lessons. (paragraph broken up for easier reading)

Now, brethren, let us consider for a few moments these discoveries with reference to Masonic history. I touch upon the point because it has been so prominently brought before the public in connection with this obelisk, and especially because, in the judgment of many, they seem to have a direct allusion to our fraternity. In considering these discoveries from a Masonic stand-point, we must eliminate from out minds the Masonry of today as now organized. Although many events, or rather the minute circumstances of such events, are uncertain, the most valuable part of history rests upon visible monuments, such as pillars, edifices, heaps of stones, &c., erected upon the occasion of remarkable events. These monuments, attracting the attention of the rising generation, would naturally cause such inquiries concerning their origin and use as would long preserve the knowledge of the transactions to which they refer. It is questionable to my mind whether we are to confine ourselves to the historical rule - that is, to limit our views to that which can only be proved by indisputable facts and consecutive links to be true. Should we not take a broader ground, and look to the principles which antedate the time assumed for the origin of Masonry as at present constituted? There can be no question but that in the secret societies of Egypt are to be found some elements now embraced in the principles or symbolism of Masonry of the present; and yet, notwithstanding this, I am not prepared to state that we should consider that Freemasonry existed in those days.

After making this frank admission, the Grand Master continued: "We cannot honestly claim because of such traces that those societies or institutions were Masonic in nature. In the annals of our craft there have been handed down to us much that is mythical and traditionary in its nature, and many of the old writers on Masonic history have, in the support of their theories, given us much that is misionary. We all know that when we enter the field of speculation there is really no limit to the extent it may be carried. Do not understand me as destracting in the least degree from the importance of these discoveries. They may have within them elements which may prove much, but I do not think we should hastily decide that they are conclusive."

I think he summed it up nicely.


Oh.... and, from what I can tell, the masons had nothing to do with bringing the obelisk here. It was a gift from Ismail Pasha, the Khedive of Egypt (or more accurately, his son).

 

[Rev Wayne]

Masonry still retains among its emblems one of a woman weeping over a broken column, holding in her hand a branch of acacia, myrtle, or tamarisk, while Time, we are told, stands behind her combing out the ringlets of her hair. We need not repeat the vapid and trivial explanation... given, of this representation of Isis, weeping at Byblos, over the column torn from the palace of the King, that contained the body of Osiris, while Horus, the God of Time, pours ambrosia on her hair.

Albert Pike 33°
Morals and Dogma, page 379

We've been pretty patient up until this point, but I think it's about time I share what's on my mind, and probably a few others here, and inform you that it's high time you gave up on quoting Albert Pike to us. We've pointed out for you more than enough times just how little value any citation of Pike, particularly from Morals and Dogma, has in making any case against Freemasonry. The book is ignored by anybody but anti-Masons, it is given little regard by anyone but esotericists, and it does not have, and never had, any authority in Masonry whatsoever, except in the minds of its critics.

Your credibility, which didn't start out very high to begin with, has steadily declined since your appearance here. Can we anticipate any improvement?