Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Rev Wayne]

Hold it right there - FM does not ASK anyone to believe in anything. As I keep say, with little obvious effect, FM is not a religion.

That's a good point, wayseer, and a nuance that some people have trouble seeing. Freemasonry does not ask anyone TO believe in God; they only ask IF YOU DO believe in God. The former would be a requirement; the latter is a simple interrogative. It gets billed as a "requirement," but Masonry actually does not force the belief in God upon anyone. You are equally free NOT to believe. Of course, if you state that you DON'T believe, you will not be a candidate for Masonry--which, of course, shows the wisdom of asking the question BEFORE a person can become a candidate.

 

[O.F.F.]

The fact is, what I said had nothing to do with 9/11 at all, nor necessarily with the Middle East at all, I spoke of war in general. . . War has no winners, and it never has.

Agreed; except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Terrorism, WAR has never solved a thing.

 

[O.F.F.]

Freemasonry does not ask anyone TO believe in God; they only ask IF YOU DO believe in God. The former would be a requirement; the latter is a simple interrogative. It gets billed as a "requirement," but Masonry actually does not force the belief in God upon anyone. You are equally free NOT to believe. Of course, if you state that you DON'T believe, you will not be a candidate for Masonry--which, of course, shows the wisdom of asking the question BEFORE a person can become a candidate.

That's plain silly, or you're just being deceptive again!

Any idiot knows if they are asked, DO YOU believe in a god (any ol' supreme being of choice), and if they answer that they DON'T, and therefore cannot be a candidate for Masonry, then evidently, belief in one MUST BE A REQUIREMENT. Heck, under its FAQ section, even your own Grand Lodge lists it as their #1 "requirement" for membership, which shows your lack of wisdom in knowing the difference between a requirement (a MUST) and a simple interrogative (a question):

How do I join a lodge of Freemasons in South Carolina?

General Requirements
1. Must believe in a Supreme Being.

 

[O.F.F.]

Freemasonry is not a religion anyway

YOU have been PROVEN time-and-time again, here and elsewhere, to be telling a falsehood. Dictionary definitions don't lie, and they totally REFUTE that claim.

...but if it was, which one would it have to be?

The unholy, ungodly, FALSE RELIGION that it is!

...That means the ones who should REALLY have the problem with this are those of other religions, rather than the Christians who join.

If that were the true, then no other religion would ever join Freemasonry, and no Christian would ever resign from it and renounce it. But since YOU and the entire Masonic world knows perfectly well that other religions have enjoyed Masonic membership, they obviously DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM with its RELIGION. If they did Albert Mackey, from your very own Grand Lodge of South Carolina, could have never made this bold claim:

If Masonry were simply a Christian institution, the Jew and the Moslem, the Brahmin and the Buddhist, could not conscientiously partake of its illumination; but its universality is its boast. In its language citizens of every nation may converse; at its altar men of all religions may kneel; to its creed disciples of every faith may subscribe.

So far your responses have totally been PROVEN to be FALSE when examining the Masonic evidence in general, as well as what has already been presented on this forum. If you truly start from a standoint of maintaining objectivity, it comes down very decidedly in favor of the fact that, the FALSE god of Freemasonry IS NOT the God of the Holy Bible.

 

[spidergains]

The better question is, "Can one who professes faith in God be used to fulfill Freemasonry's ultimate goals?"

The Third Temple - The Goal Of The Masonic Lodge Video

 

[O.F.F.]

The small hill near Mount Moriah can be clearly identified by the most convincing analogies as being no other than Mount Calvary. Thus Mount Calvary was a small hill; it was situated in a westerly direction from the Temple, and near Mount Moriah; it was on the direct road from Jerusalem to Joppa, and is thus the very spot where a weary brother, traveling on the road, would find it convenient to sit down to rest and refresh himself; it was outside the gate of the Temple; and lastly, there are several caves, or clefts in the rocks, in the neighborhood, one of which, it will be remembered, was, subsequently to the time of this tradition, used as the sepulcher of our Lord. The Christian Mason will readily perceive the peculiar character of the symbolism which this identification of the spot on which the great truth of the resurrection was unfolded in both systems—the Masonic and the Christian—must suggest. (Ahiman Rezon, Page 149-50)

Readers don't believe this nonsense. As it states, this is merely a "Christian" interpretation of the Legend of the Third Degree. Take note of the "universal" Masonic interpretation as outlined by one of the most prolific Masonic authors of all time; who just so happens to come from Wayne's Grand Lodge of South Carolina:

The legend has been considered of so much importance that it has been preserved in the symbolism of every masonic rite. No matter what modifications or alterations the general system may have undergone,--no matter how much the ingenuity or the imagination of the founders of rites may have perverted or corrupted other symbols, abolishing the old and substituting new ones,--the legend of the Temple Builder has ever been left untouched, to present itself in all the integrity of its ancient mythical form.

What, then, is the signification of this symbol, so important and so extensively diffused? What interpretation can we give to it that will account for its universal adoption? How is it that it has thus become so intimately interwoven with Freemasonry as to make, to all appearances, a part of its very essence, and to have been always deemed inseparable from it?

To answer these questions, satisfactorily, it is necessary to trace, in a brief investigation, the remote origin of the institution of Freemasonry, and its connection with the ancient systems of initiation.

It was, then, the great object of all the rites and mysteries which constituted the "Spurious Freemasonry" of antiquity to teach the consoling doctrine of the immortality of the soul. This dogma, shining as an almost solitary beacon-light in the surrounding gloom of pagan darkness, had undoubtedly been received from that ancient people or priesthood what has been called the system of "Pure Freemasonry," and among whom it probably existed only in the form of an abstract proposition or a simple and unembellished tradition. But in the more sensual minds of the pagan philosophers and mystics, the idea, when presented to the initiates in their Mysteries, was always conveyed in the form of a scenic representation. The influence, too, of the early Sabian worship of the sun and heavenly bodies, in which the solar orb was adored, on its resurrection, each morning, from the apparent death of its evening setting, caused this rising sun to be adopted in the more ancient Mysteries as a symbol of the regeneration of the soul.

Thus in the Egyptian Mysteries we find a representation of the death and subsequent regeneration of Osiris; in the Phœnician, of Adonis; in the Syrian, of Dionysus; in all of which the scenic apparatus of initiation was intended to indoctrinate the candidate into the dogma of a future life.

It will be sufficient here to refer simply to the fact, that through the instrumentality of the Tyrian workmen at the temple of King Solomon, the spurious and pure branches of the masonic system were united at Jerusalem, and that the same method of scenic representation was adopted by the latter from the former, and the narrative of the temple builder substituted for that of Dionysus, which was the myth peculiar to the mysteries practised by the Tyrian workmen.

The idea, therefore, proposed to be communicated in the myth of the ancient Mysteries was the same as that which is now conveyed in the masonic legend of the Third Degree.

Hence, then, Hiram Abif is, in the masonic system, the symbol of human nature, as developed in the life here and the life to come; and so, while the temple was, as I have heretofore shown, the visible symbol of the world, its builder became the mythical symbol of man, the dweller and worker in that world. (emphasis added)

Chapter 27, The Legend of the Third Degree, The Symbolism of Freemasonry
by Albert G. Mackey (33 degree Mason from the Grand Lodge of South Carolina)

Although he goes on in this same chapter to justify the "Christian" Mason's interpretation of this degree with examples from the writings of such Masonic authors as Hutchinson and Oliver, he states this claim:

And as to the adoption of the Christian reference, Hutchinson, and after him Oliver, profoundly philosophical as are the masonic speculations of both, have, I am constrained to believe, fallen into a great error in calling the Master Mason's degree a Christian institution. . . If Masonry were simply a Christian institution, the Jew and the Moslem, the Brahmin and the Buddhist, could not conscientiously partake of its illumination; but its universality is its boast. In its language citizens of every nation may converse; at its altar men of all religions may kneel; to its creed disciples of every faith may subscribe.

Chapter 27, The Legend of the Third Degree, The Symbolism of Freemasonry
by Albert G. Mackey (emphasis added)

In fact, the final conclusion Mackey makes about this Legend has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or the "Christian" Masons interpretation of it.

But the true ancient interpretation of the legend,--the universal Masonic one,--for all countries and all ages, undoubtedly was, that the fate of the temple builder is but figurative of the pilgrimage of man on earth, through trials and temptations, through sin and sorrow, until his eventual fall beneath the blow of death and his final and glorious resurrection to another and an eternal life.

Chapter 27, The Legend of the Third Degree, The Symbolism of Freemasonry
by Albert G. Mackey (emphasis added)

 

[Rev Wayne]

Readers don't believe this nonsense. As it states, this is merely a "Christian" interpretation of the Legend of the Third Degree. Take note of the "universal" Masonic interpretation as outlined by one of the most prolific Masonic authors of all time; who just so happens to come from Wayne's Grand Lodge of South Carolina:



Although he goes on in this same chapter to justify the "Christian" Mason's interpretation of this degree with examples from the writings of such Masonic authors as Hutchinson and Oliver, he states this claim:



In fact, the final conclusion Mackey makes about this Legend has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or the "Christian" Masons interpretation of it.

If you really had anything to say about this as applies to South Carolina, given (1) that you own a copy of Ahiman Rezon; and (2) given your own declaration that in conversation with Masons, you try as much as possible to approach them with statements from the manuals of their specific jurisdictions; wouldn't it have been more appropriate to cite something from this jurisdiction, rather than just presume that since Mackey was from SC, that every Mason here takes anything he says and swallows it whole, lock stock and barrel?

The fact is, what I quoted comes from the SC Ahiman Rezon, and every word I cited appears there, just as presented here.

So you can go off on a Mackey-posting bender till the cows come home, and you will have proved nothing different. The Bible is the Great Light, the book which must be on the altar before the lodge may open, the letter G is defined in the Ahiman Rezon as indicative of Jehovah, and the small hill near Mount Moriah is identified as Mount Calvary.

As for all the junk (that's what it is) about Dionysius, that constitutes opinions that Mackey FORMERLY held and later retracted, as you already know.

Years ago in writing an article on this subject under the impressions made upon me by the fascinating theories of Doctor Oliver, though I never completely accepted his views, 1 was led to place the organization of Freemasonry, as it now exists, at the building of Solomon's Temple. Many years of subsequent research have led me greatly to modify the views I had previously held.
Although I do not rank myself among those modern iconoclasts who refuse credence to every document whose authenticity, if admitted, would give to the Order a birth anterior to the beginning of the last century, I confess that I cannot find any incontrovertible evidence that would trace Freemasonry, as now a organized, beyond the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages. In this point of view I speak of it only as an architectural brotherhood, distinguished by signs, by words, and by brotherly ties which have not been essentially changed, and by symbols and legends which have only been developed and extended, while the association has undergone a transformation from an operative art to a speculative science. (Mackey, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, "Antiquity of Masonry")

And by the way, don't take for granted the idea that no one here will notice your sleight-of-hand move in FIRST citing from material in Ahiman Rezon, then citing from ELSEWHERE, and all the while, claiming legitimacy for the whole of it, as you certainly were implying:

Take note of the "universal" Masonic interpretation as outlined by one of the most prolific Masonic authors of all time; who just so happens to come from Wayne's Grand Lodge of South Carolina

For some reason, you seem to think your little display of bluster changes things. Nice sentiment, and certainly an interesting sidetrack, but in reality, none of what I said was changed by anything you said. That Dionysius stuff doesn't appear in Ahiman Rezon, and for good reason, it would go against the grain of what is stated there. You are simply going back to a time in Mackey's life when he held certain opinions that he later repudiated.

The record shows that otherwise respected Masonic scholars of the middle to late 1800s, such as Albert Mackey, Albert Pike, and their followers, had ideas about the origins of Freemasonry that are discredited today. No one, in fact, knows where our gentle craft began, but Pike and Mackey were strong proponents of the theory Freemasonry was descended from the Ancient Mysteries and various forms of pagan worship. While their ideas were quite fashionable a century ago, no serious Masonic student takes seriously these parts of their writings.

Henry W. Coil, 33º, is often quoted by anti-Masons as an expert—but only when they think his ideas support their preconceived notions about Freemasonry. They conveniently overlook Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia when it contradicts their twisted fancies, as it does in the case of the Ancient Mysteries:
From about 1779, [the Ancient Mysteries] came more and more into prominence. It was a fertile field and there was scarcely the possibility of disputing anything at all that was said within its limits.… [T]he theme spread like wildfire.… Mackey and Pike embraced it avidly, and the latter’s Morals and Dogma is largely given over to Ancient Paganism. Mackey, in Masonic Ritualist (1867) and Symbolism of Freemasonry (1869) carried it not only to an absurd degree, but to an extent which can hardly be less than revolting to a Christian.…(S. Brent Morris, "The Letter G," The Plumbline, Vol. 1, No. 3)

You also mistakenly take the notion that Ahiman Rezon is somehow the work of Mackey. It's not. What is contained there is, in essence, the work of Webb, Mackey was simply a compiler/editor at a much later point.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Rev Wayne,

A little too late to "stop me right there" after I've already posted the rest, don't you think?

Not at all, I am happy to deal with the rest of your response providing you deal with mine point which your response does not.
My point was about freemasonry not Christianity, the ‘us’ who are Christians and have the Holy Bible as the guide to faith, all Christians do so, not all Freemasons do, so Freemasonry doesn’t have the Bible as the guide to faith.
The believers and followers of Christ were first called Christians at Antioch they weren’t called freemasons. What makes a Christian is believing in, and following Jesus Christ, what makes a freemason is believing in whatever is their god.
Do you agree?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To wayseer,

Where does Jesus 'disagrees with me'? Jesus made no requirement that he is to be worshiped.

God also requires worship as I said.
As I said Jesus disagrees with you “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

FM does not ASK anyone to believe in anything.

not even the rules and regulations of freemasonry, or even the point of it?
I was lead to believe it asks members to believe in a god, which it deceives people in.

 

[O.F.F.]

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.

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:

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.

 

[Rev Wayne]

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.

The usual smokescreen, of course, designed only to try to muddy the waters and see if you can't make the reader forget the simple facts:

that when I cited from Ahiman Rezon, which DOES SPEAK FOR THIS JURISDICTION, you immediately resorted to citing Mackey, WHO DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THIS JURISDICTION, beyond anything he may have contributed to the editing of Ahiman Rezon when his turn as editor came around.

So get O.F.F. your OWN high horse, and quit trying to steer this to some false idea once again with your window dressing. You know as well as I do that every Masonic Grand Lodge is autonomous. What applies in one jurisdiction may easily NOT apply in another. You yourself recently affirmed as much with a citation from a statement made by the UGLE:

Correctly, there is a consensus on many matters within Freemasonry but that is not imposed upon any individual brother. He is free to come to his own conclusion; even though it is possibly not a commonly held view.

As for the quote of Hutchinson, it is clear even from what you posted that Mackey was simply outlining HUTCHINSON'S opinions, NOT stating his own. The quote of Oliver is exactly the same. But what strikes me about this, is why you would quote part of the DISCUSSION of these things, but not share with us Mackey's CONCLUSIONS. Mackey is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in his History of Freemasonry concerning any supposed "connection" with the ancient mysteries:

“It has been a favorite theory with several German, French, and British scholars to trace the origin of Free-masonry to the Mysteries of Pagans, while others, repudiating the idea that the modern association should have sprung from them, still find analogies so remarkable between the two systems as to lead them to suppose that the Mysteries were an offshoot from the pure Masonry of the Patriarchs.
“In my opinion there is not the slightest foundation in historical evidence to support either theory, although I admit the existence of many analogies between the two systems, which can, however, be easily explained without admitting any connection in the way of origin and descent between them. (p. 185)

“Is modern Freemasonry a lineal and uninterrupted successor of the ancient Mysteries, the succession being transmitted through the Mithraic initiation which existed in the 5th and 6th centuries; or is the fact of the analogies between the two systems to be attributed to the coincidence of a natural process of human thought, common to all minds and showing its development in symbolic forms?
“For myself, I can only arrive at what I think is a logical conclusion; that if both the Mysteries and Freemasonry have taught the same lessons by the same method of instruction, this has arisen not from a succession of organizations, each one a link of a long chain of historical sequences leading directly to another, until Hiram is simply substituted for Osiris, but rather from those usual and natural coincidences of human thought which are to be found in every age and among all peoples.” (p. 197)

"Coincidences of human thought" is hardly a "link," so you can pontificate about it till you're blue in the face, but you will not force upon Mackey an interpretation that clearly is not his, but your own. Theories of ancient origins of Masonry in a direct line of descent, were effectively laid to rest with publication of Gould's History of Freemasonry in 1885. Mackey, to his credit, though it meant he could never manage to go through a lifetime of work and revise his opinions accordingly, at least published an acknowledgment of Gould's work, giving it due credit, and acknowledged what that meant for theories he had accepted for practically all his life, adjusting them accordingly. (Pike did not, and went ahead with Morals and Dogma, simply choosing to put his (in)famous disclaimer in the preface, not being willing to abandon what had taken a monumental amount of work to put together.)

What you have cited from Mackey just now, is nothing more than a small portion of the discussion in his History of Freemasonry in 1898 (several years AFTER Gould's history). You have tried to take the part and portray it as the whole of his opinion on the matter, a disingenuous effort at best, since you already knew Mackey's opinion was changed after having read Gould's work and checking out Gould's sources and finding the work a commendable one.

 

[O.F.F.]

As for the quote of Hutchinson, it is clear even from what you posted that Mackey was simply outlining HUTCHINSON'S opinions, NOT stating his own. The quote of Oliver is exactly the same.

Precisely, which was to make the point that, so what if Mackey 'repudiated' his own opinion, it does not repudiate the abundant Masonic opinion in general, or those held by the Masonic authors you endorse, regarding Masonry as a descendant of the Ancient Pagan Mysteries. This is the organization YOU support, so FACE THE FACTS, and it makes you, and every other "Christian" Mason, look like a repudiation of the Christian faith.

Nevertheless, it's funny how YOU often quote Wilmhurst, Hutchinson and Oliver as experts of your twisted "Christian" view of Masonic heresy—but only when YOU think it's convenient to use their ideas to support YOUR preconceived notions about Freemasonry. Yet once someone quotes their damaging views, you abandon their opinion like a hot potatoe. That's sounds pretty hypocritical to me, and I suspect the readers would agree.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Precisely, which was to make the point that, so what if Mackey 'repudiated' his own opinion, it does not repudiate the abundant Masonic opinion in general, or those held by the Masonic authors you endorse, regarding Masonry as a descendant of the Ancient Pagan Mysteries. .

I'm fully aware of who held what opinion and at what point in time. The misunderstanding about the age of Masonry was at one time a very common opinion in Masonry, primarily because there were so many people around who failed to understand that the Temple-building story is an analogy, used because the natural focus of the operative stone-Masons who first drew upon the Bible in creating speculative Masonry, would have been on stories that inolved their trade.

All speculation about that history ended with Gould's thorough History of Freemasonry, and what had once been a widespread opinion rapidly dwindled in popularity. His sources were so reliable, and his documentation so complete, that his conclusions on the matter were considered unquestionable. That was one of the reasons as eminent a Mason as Mackey immediately acknowledged the veracity of it, and adjusted his own opinions as a result.

But Oliver was already dead by the time this work was published, as was Hutchinson, so neither of them ever had the chance to see it, and thereby recognize any need to change those theories and opinions.

And before your chant turns into a mantra, that endorsement of the idea that Christianity derived from the mysteries, may I remind once again of that which you already know (having been reminded of it several times already), of just what the origin of that opinion is:

That, in all times, is the Christian religion, which to know and follow is the most sure and certain health, called according to that name, but not according to the thing itself, of which it is the name; for the thing itself, which is now called the Christian religion, really was known to the Ancients, nor was wanting at any time from the beginning of the human race, until the time when Christ came in the flesh; from whence the true religion, which had previously existed, began to be called Christian; and this in our days is the Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but as having, in later times, received this name.--Saint Augustine

Nor was Saint Augustine alone among the early church fathers who held that opinion.

As for Wilmshurst and your continued blather over nothing, I have stated already I have somewhat to present to show your error there as well--contingent upon your first responding to the aforementioned issues on which I have already shown your own deliberate avoidance.

You want a response, I want several, but since you STARTED the pattern of ignoring WHAT you choose to ignore, WHEN you choose to ignore it, you really need to get down O.F.F. your hypocritical soapbox and forget about trying to demand from others that which you are unwilling to do yourself. It's pretty disingenous of you, too, to use that word "hypocritical" when I was VERY CLEAR in explaining this for you earlier. It is YOUR pattern of avoidance of particular issues, at your own whim, which has led to my adoption of your own behavior and ignoring whatever I choose coming from you.

So since my own choice of doing so was patterned upon YOUR first showing the same pattern, perhaps you need to be reminded that if you wish to call someone a hypocrite, go look in your mirror and do your complaining to the man you see there.

 

[wayseer]

To wayseer,
God also requires worship as I said.
As I said Jesus disagrees with you “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

So, how would you know if one is 'worshipping in spirit and in truth'? You don't unless you apply your own rules - which you have consistently done on the thread.

I was lead to believe it asks members to believe in a god, which it deceives people in.

Again you have been lead in the wrong direction. As I said FM does NOT ASK anyone to believe in anything. All that FM requires is an acknowledgment that one believes in God - the same as taking an oath in a court of law. As I said, FM are prohibited from talking about religion whilst in lodge.

 

[O.F.F.]

All speculation about that history ended with Gould's thorough History of Freemasonry, and what had once been a widespread opinion rapidly dwindled in popularity. His sources were so reliable, and his documentation so complete, that his conclusions on the matter were considered unquestionable.

Considered unquestionable by whom, you and A. G. Mackey? Gould wrote History of Freemasonry in 1887. Since then, many other eminent Masons apparently disagreed with him; making your characterization of Masonry's Pagan roots theory as "rapidly dwindled in popularity" a falsehood. Here are several examples from the7thfire.com to prove why:

Masonic author J. D. Buck 32° makes these statements in the introduction of his book, Symbolism or Mystic Masonry (1897):

Freemasonry is modeled on the plan of the Ancient Mysteries, with their glyphics and allegories, and this is no mere coincidence; the parallels are too closely drawn.

You've seen earlier in his book, The Meaning of Masonry, published in 1922 what W.L. Wilmshurst had to say about it. In this same book he makes the following statement:

It remains with the Craft itself whether it shall enter upon its own heritage as a lineal successor of the ancient Mysteries and Wisdom--teaching, or whether, by failing so to do, it will undergo the inevitable fate of everything that is but a form from which its native spirit has departed.

Masonic author, R. Swinburne Clymer, M. D., says in the introduction of his book, The Mysticism of Masonry (1924):

There are indeed many reasons why the present volume should be generously circulated among all classes of students of the Occult and Mystic, especially the members of the Masonic bodies.

The vast majority of Masons smile with derision when the term "Occult Science" is used in connection with the Mysteries but, despite this, if it had not been for the Occult Fraternities, Masonry could not have existed.

It is the duty of every sincere Mason who is interested in the spirit of the teachings of his Order, carefully to study the philosophy of the masters who have reconstructed the Ancient Wisdom to suit his needs, and having done so, to guide his actions in all the affairs of life so as to be prepared for his entrance into the Great Lodge hall where he must give an account of all his deeds and in return receive his "Mark."

And also from this same book he states:

All Masonry of the past dealt largely with the ethics and symbolism of the Ancient Mysteries. If the Masons of the present age will but seek for the spirit of the symbolism upon which the degrees are based, the grandest achievements in the knowledge and reconstruction will be possible and the mysteries concealed in the Greater Mysteries of Antiquity will be recovered to them.

Masonic author, S. R. Parchment states in his book, Ancient Operative Masonry (1930):

The inspiration which prompted the writing of this book had behind it a threefold purpose: First, it is the hope of the author that what is here set forth may assist in effacing from the mind of the public the erroneous belief that Masonry is but a fraternal organization. This belief is held by the masses who have no knowledge of the Ancient Wisdom Religion, and by that portion of the Craft who, although duly initiated into the fraternal organization, have not yet been instructed in, nor have they been imbued with sufficient interest to peruse, the legends of the symbolic fraternity. Had they been so inspired they would have discovered that the Masonic organization is but the outer door to a far more ancient and honorable Spiritual Order.

. . .The hierophants of the universal science and sublime philosophy taught in the Great Mysteries of Egypt, India, Persia, Chaldea and other nations of antiquity, revealed certain secrets pertaining to the finer forces of nature to such candidates as were worthy and well qualified. These faithful ones were also instructed in the doctrine of universal Brotherhood, and finally initiated into the "I am that I am" consciousness. These ideals are the landmarks, traditions and glyphics of Ancient Operative Freemasonry--nothing more.

In his book, Freemasonry Its Hidden Meaning (published in 1948 by Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company), George H. Steinmetz calls the "teaching of the Mysteries, the true parent of Freemasonry" and states that Freemasonry is a descendent or reincarnation of the Mysteries.

It is entirely out of harmony with the profound teaching of the Mysteries, the true parent of Freemasonry.

If Freemasonry is the actual descendant or, if one prefers the term, reincarnation of the Mysteries, back of its "veil of allegory," then must be concealed a deeper truth than expounded in the various lectures of the degrees.

Therefore, we should be able to discover a similarity in its degrees with these ancient grades. The first degree should concern itself with the physical or material; the second should deal with the psychical or mental; the third degree wholly with the spiritual. The ceremony of initiation in each degree should reveal a more recondite teaching than that which appears on the surface. It should be discovered that its symbology and allegory is as useful to CONCEAL that teaching from those who do not seek it out as to REVEAL it to him who, "of his own free will and accord," earnestly and prayerfully attempts to pierce the veil of mystery.

If the symbols can be consistently interpreted in this manner, throughout the three degrees, we have confirmed Freemasonry to be the reincarnation of the Ancient Mysteries of Egypt; we have rediscovered some part of the ancient teaching and have removed the veil of allegory…

The Master Mason, a booklet authorized by the Grand Lodge of Indiana and compiled by their Committee on Masonic Education, plainly shows the connection between Hiram Abiff and the Mystery Religions.

The idea that lies behind the Hiramic legend is as old as religious thinking among men. The same elements existed in the story of Osiris, which was celebrated by the Egyptians in their ancient temples; the old Persians told it concerning Mithras, their hero god. In Syria, the Dionysian Mysteries had the very same elements in the story of Dionysius: for the Romans, Bacchus was the god who died and lived again. There is also the story of Tammuz, older than any of these. These are collectively referred to as the ancient mysteries. They were celebrated by secret societies, much like ours, with allegorical ceremonies, during which the initiates were advanced from one degree to another in these old societies. Read these old stories for yourself and marvel how men in all ages have taught the same great truths in the same effective way.

As readers can see, this book challenges the Freemason to read the stories of these Old Mystery Religions to see how they teach the same "great truths" as Freemasonry. The truth is: the Mystery Religions were the enemies of the church in New Testament times; they were pagan and Satanic, loaded with rituals that included sexual perversion and even human sacrifice.

The Grand Lodge of Indiana proudly states that Hiram Abiff had a direct relationship to Tammuz, which was clearly denounced as an abomination by the Old Testament prophets.

He said to me, "Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the darkness, each at the shrine of his own idol? They say, 'The LORD does not see us; the LORD has forsaken the land.' " Again, he said, "You will see them doing things that are even more detestable."

Then he brought me to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz. He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this."

He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east.

Ezekiel 8:12-16​

Other Masonic authors also brag about the connection between Freemasonry and the Ancient Pagan Mysteries. Henry C. Clausen, 33° former Scottish Rite Sovereign Grand Commander says in his book, Your Amazing Mystic Powers (1985):

A new day is dawning for Freemasonry. From the insufficiencies of modern theology, the hopelessness of materialism, and the sterility of academic philosophy, men are turning to those eternal truths perpetuated in the arcana of the ancient mysteries.

Finally, in his book, A Bridge to Light, published by the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in 1988, Rex R. Hutchens 32° explains about the 23° degree:

Here we begin the symbolic initiations into the Mysteries practiced by the ancients from whom Masonry has obtained her great truths.

As we can see, over 100 years well after Gould's History of Freemasonry, the theory lives on in Freemasonry today! I believe the documentation above, as well as what I've previously posted, should be sufficient to establish in the minds of honest readers an undeniable link between the Masonic Order and the Ancient Pagan Mystery Religions. Not because I say so, but because of the testimony from Masons themselves.

Wayne, perhaps you don't subscribe to the theory, but if you were honest about it, this should be enough to make you sick, and convince any devoted Christian to walk away from Freemasonry. Those of you who remain in it, while denying its connection to the Ancient Mysteries, Freemasonry cares not. For as Steinmetz said; it is as useful to CONCEAL that teaching from those who do not seek it out as to REVEAL it to him who, "of his own free will and accord," earnestly and prayerfully attempts to pierce the veil of mystery.

P.S.

The Grand Lodge, the highest Masonic authority, states clearly that they show the pathway to the teachings of Masonry and those teachings are acquired and understood by reading and reflection on the views expressed in Masonic literature. Where would a Mason go to obtain books which would contain teachings about Masonry? Mentioned earlier, the Grand Lodge of Indiana publishes the small book, The Master Mason, which answers the question:

Yet it is vitally important that the deeper meanings of this degree be understood if one is to become a Master Mason in fact as well as in name. . . The literature of Masonry in all its many phases is within your reach and your Worshipful Master or Secretary can give you particulars. . . Much has been written of Freemasonry. Probably your own Lodge possesses a library of books telling of the history of Freemasonry and treating of its philosophy, symbolism and jurisprudence. These books are at your disposal at all times and there are many others that you may purchase for study in your own home.

According to one of the highest Masonic authorities, Masonic books play a large part in the Masonic education process. Denial from individuals that these books collectively speak for Masonry are simply not true. Many Masons who offer these denials know that they are not being truthful.

There are a large number of Masonic books which are anti-Christian. If Masonry were unbiased with regard to the claims of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and if the vast majority of Masons were indeed genuine Christians, it stands to reason that there would be a plethora of Masonic books written by Masonic authors which clearly state that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Those books, revealing the Gospel, would be distributed throughout the entire Masonic world with equal zeal and fervor. However, there aren't any, because Jesus and the Gospel are simply not acceptable enough for the Religion of Freeasonry. As a result, it follows that Masonry is not acceptable to Jesus Christ either.

Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven.

Matthew 10:32-33​

 

[Rev Wayne]

Masonic author J. D. Buck 32° makes these statements in the introduction of his book, Symbolism or Mystic Masonry (1897):

"Masonic author" J.D. Buck? Hahahahahahahahahaha! From masonicinfo.com:

J. D.Buck - In 1896 (over a century ago), Jirah D. Buck wrote a book titled "Symbolism of Mystic Masonry". You'll sometimes see it quoted by anti-Masons. Here's what the review in "A Masonic Readers Guide" (1956) had to say about it: "An illustration of the use of a vivid imagination and making the Craft an occult organization. To be read with caution." Over 50 years ago - and long before the current crop of those who spread their claims that Masons were devil-worshipping pagans of some sort, Masons were being advised that Buck's writings were far from reality. Using quotes from his works may prove a point for the religious intolerant; the legitimacy of their arguments, however, is seriously undermined when it is noted that others disagree with his claims totally. We fail to find any other review of the works of Masonic authors (and there are dozens) which take even the slightest note of Buck's work.

Masonic author, R. Swinburne Clymer, M. D.,

Who??? Get real, who ever heard of this guy? I sure haven't, and you yourself have acknowledged we've done this for how many years?

Clymer was a member of Rosicrucianism, not Masonry, so what else did you EXPECT???

Masonic author, S. R. Parchment states in his book, Ancient Operative Masonry (1930):

Who???? Never heard you or anyone else ever mention this guy, either. Where are you digging this junk up?

S.R. Parchment was also NOT a Mason; but not only was he a Rosicrucian, he left the Rosicrucians to form his own organization, the Rosicrucian Anthroposophic League. So in other words, he was a pseudo-Mason who became a pseudo-pseudo-Mason.

And do you not look at the title at all??? We're not talking about OPERATIVE Masonry here. NOBODY disputes that there were stoneworkers in ancient times, that's just bizarre that you would think so.

In his book, Freemasonry Its Hidden Meaning (published in 1948 by Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company), George H. Steinmetz calls the "teaching of the Mysteries, the true parent of Freemasonry" and states that Freemasonry is a descendent or reincarnation of the Mysteries.

Have you ever managed to locate Steinmetz's Masonic credentials? I submit that not only does he have none, there are so many strong similarities between his work and that of Manly Palmer Hall, I think it was a Hall pseudonym.

The Master Mason, a booklet authorized by the Grand Lodge of Indiana and compiled by their Committee on Masonic Education, plainly shows the connection between Hiram Abiff and the Mystery Religions.

This could have come from any of a number of accuser websites--David Icke, Ed Decker, abovetopsecret forums, Ephesians 5-11, it's a popular cut & paste item for sure.

Fine, Indiana likes to speculate about such things, they can do so, I don't really care, and the huge majority of Masons do not care. You are trying to take oddball speculation and try to present it as mainstream Masonry, which is pure foolishness. Not only that, you do so in full recognition that what you do is totally FALSE in its every claim. You guys have been doing this for years, taking a totally off-the-wall reference (Indiana seems to be a common source for it, Nevada exhibits a few of the same type differences) and trying to pretend it represents mainstream Freemasonry.

As we can see, over 100 years well after Gould's History of Freemasonry, the theory lives on in Freemasonry today!

Why refute things that no one is claiming? Nobody said you can't find it today if you look for it. But being able to find it does not alter one single thing. What was stated was, Gould's History of Freemasonry has so thoroughly disproved it, that any reasonable researcher of the matter can see that the theory is unsustainable. You can find it a thousand times, and cite every source you can find in doing so, and it will still be just as false a theory as it was when you started.

I believe the documentation above, as well as what I've previously posted, should be sufficient to establish in the minds of honest readers an undeniable link between the Masonic Order and the Ancient Pagan Mystery Religions. Not because I say so, but because of the testimony from Masons themselves.

What you are doing is a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. Here is a description of it, which shows what is wrong with considering anything you just posted to be credible:

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

Now observe what a Masonic author who DOES have some credibility has to say on the matter:

The real test of Masonic acceptance of the Ancient Mystery theories of Mackey and Pike is to study the writings of serious Masonic historians from the authentic school, not those from the romantic period. The publications of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, the American Lodge of Research, the Texas Lodge of Research, the Ohio Chapter of Research, and others show that these absurd theories have been politely ignored. They have died the quiet death they deserved. The pathetic irony is that only one group today believes the tall tales of Mackey and Pike--not the Grand Lodges, not the Scottish Rite, but the anti-Masons. Our enemies are so anxious to believe the worst about us, they rush to embrace hypotheses long since abandoned, if ever widely accepted. Whether they are incompetent as historians or simply facile liars is for others to decide. (S. Brent Morris, "The Letter G," The Plumbline, Vol. 1, No. 3)

The record shows that otherwise respected Masonic scholars of the middle to late 1800s, such as Albert Mackey, Albert Pike, and their followers, had ideas about the origins of Masonry that are discredited today. No one, in fact, knows where our gentle Craft began, but Pike and Mackey were strong proponents of the theory Masonry was descended from the Ancient Mysteries and various forms of pagan worship. While their ideas were fashionable in Masonic circles a century ago, no serious Masonic student takes seriously these parts of their writings. (Morris, Ibid.)

So apparently, not only are most of those on your list a bunch of unknowns, according to Morris, they are evidently not serious Masonic students in the first place.

And anyway, if your sources are supposed to be so knowledgeable, how is it your list is composed of Buck, a laughing-stock in Masonry, a couple of Rosicrucians, and the singularly oddball opinion you can rustle up when you want to try to present it as represntative of Masonry?

But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Just wait, readers, till you see my next post.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wayne, perhaps you don't subscribe to the theory, but if you were honest about it, this should be enough to make you sick, and convince any devoted Christian to walk away from Freemasonry.

"HONEST???" Is this for real??? You come here and plagiarize at least ONE antimason website, and perhaps even more, and you DARE to speak of "honest???"

The fact is, just so the readers will know, just about the whole of what you just said can be found, all in one piece, on an antimason website--NOT MICHAEL'S, BY THE WAY--where he obviously lifted the bulk of it and posted it, as is, without the LEAST attribution to its original authors--a practice which, by the way, he has freely engaged in (and been caught at) many times in the past.

Clearly all he is doing here is proliferating nonsense by cut & paste, nonsense which he himself KNOWS from his own experience in Masonry, simply is not so, and is the speculation of people, albeit "Masons," who have nothing better to do with their time.

To see exactly how this material has been lifted and appropriated, as though he had compiled this in its entirety, click here:

O.F.F.'S LATEST BLUNDER

But in full recognition that some may not bother with the link, let's post a sample here from the site:

Other Masonic authors also brag about the connection between Freemasonry and the Ancient Mysteries, the Ancient Wisdom, and the Occult, etc. Henry C. Clausen, 33° Sovereign Grand Commander says in his book, Your Amazing Mystic Powers:
[This is word-for-word the same introduction to the quote as found in his citation of the material. What are the odds that would happen, unless lifting directly from it, or from someone else's proliferation of it with their own cut & paste?]

A new day is dawning for Freemasonry. From the insufficiencies of modern theology, the hopelessness of materialism, and the sterility of academic philosophy, men are turning to those eternal truths perpetuated in the arcana of the ancient mysteries.

Mason S. R. Parchment states in his book, Ancient Operative Masonry:
[And so is this one, except the word "Mason" becomes "Masonic," and the word "author" was added, as with the following one from Clymer.]

The hierophants of the universal science and sublime philosophy taught in the Great Mysteries of Egypt, India, Persia, Chaldea and other nations of antiquity, revealed certain secrets pertaining to the finer forces of nature to such candidates as were worthy and well qualified. These faithful ones were also instructed in the doctrine of universal Brotherhood, and finally initiated into the "I am that I am" consciousness. These ideals are the landmarks, traditions and glyphics of Ancient Operative Freemasonry--nothing more.

Mason R. Swinburne Clymer, M. D., says in the introduction of his book, The Mysticism of Masonry:

There are indeed many reasons why the present volume should be generously circulated among all classes of students of the Occult and Mystic, especially the members of the Masonic bodies.

The vast majority of Masons smile with derision when the term "Occult Science" is used in connection with the Mysteries but, despite this, if it had not been for the Occult Fraternities, Masonry could not have existed.

It is the duty of every sincere Mason who is interested in the spirit of the teachings of his Order, carefully to study the philosophy of the masters who have reconstructed the Ancient Wisdom to suit his needs, and having done so, to guide his actions in all the affairs of life so as to be prepared for his entrance into the Great Lodge hall where he must give an account of all his deeds and in return receive his "Mark."
[So what are the odds that he would not only word his intro the same, but also lift the exact same partial citation from the intro as was done on this website?]

And also from the book:
[Again, same intro and quote.]

All Masonry of the past dealt largely with the ethics and symbolism of the Ancient Mysteries. If the Masons of the present age will but seek for the spirit of the symbolism upon which the degrees are based, the grandest achievements in the knowledge and reconstruction will be possible and the mysteries concealed in the Greater Mysteries of Antiquity will be recovered to them.

This, of course, is not the first time he has engaged in such flagrant plagiarism. When caught once before, he tried to go in and edit the post and then deny it, by adding the attribution after he was caught red-handed. Which is why, as soon as this posts, I will be saving a copy of the page to preserve his post as it appears, in case he tries the same thing again.

Why he shoots himself in the foot in this manner is anybody's guess. Maybe it's just an easy shortcut to him, to find where someone else has done the work he is too lazy to do, and just use it. Or maybe he just doesn't have an original thought in his head, and everything he has ever posted is pretty much the same: somebody else's arguments, "borrowed" (to put it loosely) and re-posted.

But what it is, so there will be no excuses to try to justify it, is out-and-out PLAGIARISM. Apparently he will stop at nothing to post his misrepresentations of Masonry, and feels it necessary to borrow them from elsewhere.

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

Yes indeed, and that's why I keep exposing your dark and fruitless deeds at every continued blundering opportunity for which you open the door. You'd really be better O.F.F. posting nothing at all, as to post falsehoods, ignore the exposures of them, admit to nothing, and then to top it off, post a plagiarized response.

What on earth could you have been thinking? And please, don't continue to try to convince us you're doing "Christian" ministry, that's been so disproven at the very first falsehoods that it is totally untenable by now.

And the really bizarre thing is, that you would have me "walk away from Freemasonry" because of what Rosicrucians and other pseudo-Masons believe.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Wayne, perhaps you don't subscribe to the theory, but if you were honest about it, this should be enough to make you sick, and convince any devoted Christian to walk away from Freemasonry.

Yes it should do.

 

[wayseer]

Yes it should do. [/FONT][/COLOR]

The stories in the Bible are also 'linked' to 'ancient pagan traditions'. Perhaps you would like to do away with Christianity on that account.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To wayseer,

The stories in the Bible are also 'linked' to 'ancient pagan traditions'. Perhaps you would like to do away with Christianity on that account.

The Biblical testimony is clear who is God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not sure Freemasons who are believers in other gods are.