Do masons build?

[Jane_the_Bane]

Personally, I find more insight and meaning in Crowley's "Liber Al vel Legis" than in any verse of the Qur'an, regardless of the man's more despicable character traits.

 

[smaneck]

It is exactly how they see themselves:

Every single Freemason on this list has denied that Freemasonry is a religion.

They say, as I've noted, one thing, but practice another. Their historic racism is just one example of that.

An ironic thing for a Southern Baptist to say given the fact that they split from the American Baptist over the issue of whether slave-owners should be allowed to become missionaries.

We can take the example of a minister who is also a Mason. If he believes as I do, then what is the status of the Muslim who sits next to him in the lodge?

Apparently it is the less fundamentalist ministers who are more likely to become Masons.

In Masonry's eyes, they are equal in God's sight as upright Masons. But how do they view each other? Does the Muslim see the minister as destined for hell and an avowed enemy of Allah?

I expect the same would be true of our Muslim. It is only the less fundamentalist ones who become Masons.

Does the minister see the muslim as lost as long as he belongs to a religion which rejects Jesus?

Muslims don't reject Jesus.

My guess is that such men hide any feelings they may have towards each other in the best interests of Masonry, and, of course, to the detriment of the truth.

Or more likely those men who are attracted to the Freemasons aren't so exclusive in their thinking about salvation as you are.

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

In other words, you identify your own concept with God's concept. A large wing of the church does not share your bibliolatry. They hold that it is Jesus not a book which constitutes the Word of God. But I will let CircuitRider tell us what he believes about the possibility of salvation outside of the church. It didn't seem to be a big concern of Jesus.

 

[Albion]

It is exactly how they see themselves

Every single Freemason on this list has denied that Freemasonry is a religion.

You're exactly right about that, smaneck.

But there's also this (below). I wonder...Did Skip expect us not to notice that he tried to substantiate his allegation that Masons consider Masonry to be a religion by providing us with a statement from a Masonic source that says Masonry is NOT a religion?

Why? It is not how they see themselves.

It is exactly how they see themselves:

"While Masonry is not a religion.... "​

 

[smaneck]

You're exactly right about that, smaneck.

It seems to me part of the problem is poor wording on the Masons part here. It justified Skip saying the Masons were 'religious in nature." It would have been much clearer if the Masons had said that Freemasonry was not a religion but was spiritual in nature.

 

[Albion]

It seems to me part of the problem is poor wording on the Masons part here. It justified Skip saying the Masons were 'religious in nature."

I completely disagree. He purposely tried to pass off "religious" as meaning "a religion." Any high school graduate knows that the words have different meanings and we are not under any obligation to word things so that a professional opponent can't twist our words to make them say something they do not say.

And as for the point, hundreds of associations from the Boy Scouts to the Community Chorus to the Optimists have some degree of a religious nature. But no one is calling them "a religion"-- and for good reason. It would be too ridiculous. But with Masonry, which most people don't know much about and there are plenty of lies told about the fraternity, the absurd has a chance of being believed if handled by the provocateur with sufficient smoke and mirrors.

It would have been much clearer if the Masons had said that Freemasonry was not a religion but was spiritual in nature.

That would be used as "proof" that Masons think that their fraternity is a "religion" in just the same way as they are doing now. When people set out to deceive, and the facts are deliberately ignored, a change like that doesn't stop them at all.

I'm reminded of a poster who insisted to me that there's a devil pictured on the insignia of one of the Masonic affiliate organizations. Suffice it to say, that is not true. But when I referred her to pictures of it, she didn't change her line one iota. Or, how about this--there was a claim made only a couple of weeks or so ago that there was a picture of a devil on the sign in front of a Masonic center...and this poster gave us a picture of that sign. Guess what? No devil. Guess what also? He simply insisted that it was there. Oh yes, he then decided that his claim was that a five-pointed logo IS an image of a demon.

I don't mean to be short-tempered with you, but really, when one is dealing with people who are willing to sacrifice the truth for the sake of their campaign, modest changes in terminology are not going to be effective. In fact, I can predict that if any change were noticed, we'd shortly be reading how this proved that we had "something to hide."

 

[circuitrider]

That would be used as "proof" that Masons think that their fraternity is a "religion" in just the same way as they are doing now. When people set out to deceive, and the facts are deliberately ignored, a change like that doesn't stop them at all.

Yes, it actually doesn't matter how we word anything. Skip's modus operandi is to then find a way to twist it to say what he wants to say.

It is like his whole line about how Masons either admit or should admit Satanists based on his very narrow interpretation of one qualification of being a Mason. Yet he totally ignores that believe in God is just ONE of the qualification to be a Freemason and that the other qualifications rule out the possibility of a Satanist from joining unless he just out and out lies to everyone about his affiliation. And if he did so and was later found out would be expelled from the fraternity.

Skip, as a non-mason, knows bits an pieces. And the bits and pieces he knows he puts a particular kind of sectarian fundamentalist Christian theological slant on it. So whatever word a Mason uses he will just re-interpret that word to fit his world view.

In his world view the very fact that we deny his beliefs about the Fraternity just reinforces his idea that we are hiding something from him. That is the nature of conspiracy theories. Any denial is a coverup.

Such theories can't exist without denying the simple possibility that we Masons may just be actually telling the truth and that the Masonic fraternity is just a society of men who are seeking to better themselves, be good citizens, and benefit our society.

Unfortunately it is more fun or satisfying for some to believe a bunch of wild theories.

 

[circuitrider]

In other words, you identify your own concept with God's concept. A large wing of the church does not share your bibliolatry. They hold that it is Jesus not a book which constitutes the Word of God. But I will let CircuitRider tell us what he believes about the possibility of salvation outside of the church. It didn't seem to be a big concern of Jesus.

John Wesley himself believed that salvation through Christ was up to God and that some faithful persons of other faiths very well might end up in heaven. He didn't know, didn't believe he could know, and felt all that was up to God.

I preach salvation by faith in Christ because I believe that is the path God has pointed me down. However I never try to tell God what to do. Whom God chooses to redeem is up to God's grace and not my concepts about God. John the Evangelist mentions other sheep that we don't know about. That is in God's hands.

Skip does forget that different denominations/churches think differently about how salvation works. And while he accuses me of interpreting Freemasonry through my theology he often re-interprets Freemasonry through the lens of his own set of Biblical interpretations, many of which Christians in other kinds of churches wouldn't agree with.

 

[Albion]

John Wesley himself believed that salvation through Christ was up to God and that some faithful persons of other faiths very well might end up in heaven. He didn't know, didn't believe he could know, and felt all that was up to God.

I preach salvation by faith in Christ because I believe that is the path God has pointed me down. However I never try to tell God what to do. Whom God chooses to redeem is up to God's grace and not my concepts about God. John the Evangelist mentions other sheep that we don't know about. That is in God's hands.

A really nice explanation IMO.

Skip does forget that different denominations/churches think differently about how salvation works. And while he accuses me of interpreting Freemasonry through my theology he often re-interprets Freemasonry through the lens of his own set of Biblical interpretations, many of which Christians in other kinds of churches wouldn't agree with.

I'd go one step further. He knows that there is no "official" set of religious doctrines to be found in Masonry and, what's more, that all Masons know that they are encouraged to be faithful to their own particular church or beliefs. NEVERTHELESS, if there is any publication in which some writer advances his own perceptions, that then is held out by the opponent of Masonry as "proof" that Masonry as an institution supposedly stands for X or Y.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I am not a Mason. I think I might like to be, but so far haven't felt like spending the money to join. I know a number of Masons, nearly all of them serious Christian believers. Those friends are why I am interested in joining. They are good folk to a man.

All the Masons I know make pretty good sense. IF they really are planning to take over the world, I want them to get on with it. The Masons could not possibly make a bigger mess of things than whoever is running it now.

 

[smaneck]

I completely disagree. He purposely tried to pass off "religious" as meaning "a religion."

In fairness, he did use the phrase 'religious in nature.' But I agree he was playing 'gotcha.'

Or, how about this--there was a claim made only a couple of weeks or so ago that there was a picture of a devil on the sign in front of a Masonic center...and this poster gave us a picture of that sign. Guess what? No devil.

Surely you understand that as far as these folks are concerned, whether there is a devil in front or not, the devil is behind it.

 

[circuitrider]

I'd go one step further. He knows that there is no "official" set of religious doctrines to be found in Masonry and, what's more, that all Masons know that they are encouraged to be faithful to their own particular church or beliefs. NEVERTHELESS, if there is any publication in which some writer advances his own perceptions, that then is held out by the opponent of Masonry as "proof" that Masonry as an institution supposedly stands for X or Y.

Agreed Albion. I guess what I never understand, that I don't know if Skip would or could explain, is why he thinks what Masons believe and know about Masonry is different than what he thinks/believes about Masonry.

Skip do you ever talk to Rotarians or Kiwanians and say "Oh now, your organization doesn't teach what you say it teaches."

Frankly Skip's insistence that he knows what Masonry teaches and yet Masons don't strikes me as just bizarre.

 

[circuitrider]

I am not a Mason. I think I might like to be, but so far haven't felt like spending the money to join. I know a number of Masons, nearly all of them serious Christian believers. Those friends are why I am interested in joining. They are good folk to a man.

All the Masons I know make pretty good sense. IF they really are planning to take over the world, I want them to get on with it. The Masons could not possibly make a bigger mess of things than whoever is running it now.

Archie,

I don't know where you live. But here in Iowa joining usually requires an initiation fee which is often less then $100. It pays for things like an apron and sometimes other items given to you. Dues are usually also less than $100 per year. My current lodge is $65 per year. So over all the costs of membership tend to be pretty reasonable.

As to running the world, I'm afraid not. If we ran the world I think our lodge elevator would get repaired faster.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Personally, I find more insight and meaning in Crowley's "Liber Al vel Legis" than in any verse of the Qur'an, regardless of the man's more despicable character traits.

lol. I haven't read the former, but have found the latter to be pretty insipid. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Every single Freemason on this list has denied that Freemasonry is a religion.

As does every U.S. Grand Lodge. Your comment pertained to my claim that Freemasonry describes itself as religious in nature, and my quote from the Iowa GL noted that. Bottom line is that Freemasonry, meaning its GLs, deny being a religion (which I do not concur with) but claim to be religious in nature (which I do concur with).

An ironic thing for a Southern Baptist to say given the fact that they split from the American Baptist over the issue of whether slave-owners should be allowed to become missionaries.

A view often expressed by Masons, to which I respond:
1. Why do you think the sins of the SBC justify the sins of Freemasonry? Moreover, the SBC apologized for it; not sure I've seen any GL apologize for their treatment of blacks, but perhaps a Mason can weigh in on that.
2. The Baptists, of all flavors, were heavily involved in the abolitionist movement and never denied salvation to blacks. Freemasonry, on the other hand, fought tooth and nail to keep them out of their lodges on the basis of skin color alone.

Apparently it is the less fundamentalist ministers who are more likely to become Masons.

Probably. More interested in the words of men than the word of God.

Muslims don't reject Jesus.

Debatable. I think their denial of his being the son of God is a direct rejection, to say nothing of their denial that he was God incarnate. I'd say the entire Koranic treatment of him is one large rejection because it is false.

Or more likely those men who are attracted to the Freemasons aren't so exclusive in their thinking about salvation as you are.

Indeed. They tend to reject John 3:16 - 18 and Ephesians 2:8 - 10 on that topic. I think such men are the target of Freemasonry. Note this requirement for membership in the Iowa GL:

You must be tolerant of other religions, cultures, and points of view.

Pretty interesting requirement; just what does 'tolerant' mean? We can certainly tolerate anyone choosing his own religious beliefs and practicing them openly, but I cannot 'tolerate' remaining silent when I believe another's beliefs are false. It is not wrong to speak to another about religious truth; it is wrong to not speak your mind in fear of being anti-masonic. The requirement seems to me a clear warning against speaking of your personal beliefs to other Masons. Wouldn't want to destroy lodge harmony, ya know.

In other words, you identify your own concept with God's concept.

No, I identify God's concept as my own.

A large wing of the church does not share your bibliolatry.

I would not say my reverence of the Bible is excessive; I merely treat it as the word of God and try to comply with it. Of interest, you could accuse Freemasonry of the same practice, based on their PR materials. But all are free to choose their authority for their doctrine, just as I have done. How do you view the Koran, by the way?

They hold that it is Jesus not a book which constitutes the Word of God.

I think it more true to say that such people hold as authority the opinions of men as above and beyond the doctrine found in black-letter Bible.

But I will let CircuitRider tell us what he believes about the possibility of salvation outside of the church. It didn't seem to be a big concern of Jesus.

Salvation as Jesus expressed it is not to be found in a church; it is to be found in himself. But don't forget that he upbraided Nicodemus in John Chapter 3 about the proper teachings of a 'church,' so to speak, and the importance of church leaders in knowing the truth, and then teaching it.

It justified Skip saying the Masons were 'religious in nature."

Not really. I'm just the messenger, stating what the GLs proclaim to be true. It's not an opinion, but provable fact. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

I wonder...Did Skip expect us not to notice that he tried to substantiate his allegation that Masons consider Masonry to be a religion...

You are greatly in error, and show clearly that you are not reading my posts for content. While I've pointed out that some masons have described Masonry as a religion, I've never said Freemasonry, or Masons in general, see it as such. I see it as a religion, and point out that such as assessment is based on the facts in Masonic ritual, practice and doctrine.

He purposely tried to pass off "religious" as meaning "a religion."

Untrue. I quoted the Iowa GL in showing that I was correct to describe Freemasonry as religious in nature, and that it is a common theme in Freemasonry.

And as for the point, hundreds of associations from the Boy Scouts to the Community Chorus to the Optimists have some degree of a religious nature. But no one is calling them "a religion"-- and for good reason.

And the 'good reason' is because they do not do what Freemasonry does. Refer to my post #135 to see why I make that comment. It might do you good to read what I actually write. In my view, anyone comparing Freemasonry to the Boy Scouts does so in abject ignorance of the former, and with insult to the latter. After all, Boy Scouts do have adult leadership.

That would be used as "proof" that Masons think that their fraternity is a "religion" in just the same way as they are doing now.

Actually, Smaneck's point is well-taken and, of interest, many GL's do proclaim its spiritual nature. Here's a fuller quote from the Iowa SMEC (emphasis added):

While we cannot categorically define what Masonry is, we can say with assurance what it is not. It is NOT a cult, a religion, a secret society, or a political group. While Masonry is not a religion it is religious in nature. Belief in a Supreme Being is a fundamental requirement for becoming a Mason. Masonry is a charitable organization, an organization dedicated to strengthening a man’s character, improving his moral and spiritual outlook, and broadening his mental horizons. (pg. 2)

All GL's teaching the necessity of Masons building a Spiritual Temple in their bodies, thus highlighting the spiritual aspect of Freemasonry.

He knows that there is no "official" set of religious doctrines to be found in Masonry and, what's more, that all Masons know that they are encouraged to be faithful to their own particular church or beliefs. NEVERTHELESS, if there is any publication in which some writer advances his own perceptions, that then is held out by the opponent of Masonry as "proof" that Masonry as an institution supposedly stands for X or Y.

I use both GL documentation and the writings of knowledgeable Masons in my discussions. The GL's are the authorities within their jurisdictions and the knowledgeable Masons write from their backgrounds within Masonry. I think there are 'official' religious doctrines to be found in GL documents and their treatment of the spiritual temple in the EA degree is most obvious.

As to the use of 'some writer,' no one can deny that such men as Henry Coil or Allen Roberts knew what they were talking about on the subject of Masonry, and that their writings should be seriously considered. Specifically, I believe Allen Roberts was reflecting his own extensive experience when he wrote in his The Craft and It's Symbols:

You have entered a new world. Symbolically and spiritually you have been reborn. This started the moment you were prepared to become a Freemasonry. ... You will find that the ritual is but the beginning of what can be a tremendous spiritual and philosophical experience. (pgs. 3 - 4)

He is not just 'some writer.' Moreover, all the GL's that either sell his book or give it free to newly raised Masons are testifying to the truth of what he wrote. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

You are greatly in error,

No, I'm not, and your deliberate abuse of that quote shows us what's what.

I've never said Freemasonry, or Masons in general, see it as such. I see it as a religion

Well, I agree that this ^ is an improvement. Masons don't believe it to be a religion, but you do, and in defiance of all the facts of the matter. OK. I can live with that. By the way, what other religion do we know that doesn't have a list of doctrines, admits to membership people of widely-different beliefs, doesn't attempt to teach religion, and doesn't conduct any worship? I'm hard pressed to think of that as constituting a religion of any kind.

Untrue. I quoted the Iowa GL in showing that I was correct to describe Freemasonry as religious in nature

Yes, but you used that quote as allegedly proving not that it is religious in nature but as supposedly evidence that it is, rather, a religion. That kind of deliberate misuse of words, particularly when making such a serious allegation as this, completely destroys your credibility IMO, even if you might be able to raise other points worth considering.

 

[Skip Sampson]

It is like his whole line about how Masons either admit or should admit Satanists based on his very narrow interpretation of one qualification of being a Mason. Yet he totally ignores that believe in God is just ONE of the qualification to be a Freemason and that the other qualifications rule out the possibility of a Satanist from joining unless he just out and out lies to everyone about his affiliation.

That is untrue. You may consult my post #146 to see where I made exactly those points.

At issue, though, is Masonry's view of what constitutes "a Supreme Being." I take the GL at its word that the matter lies totally within the perception of the candidate and is not defined in any more detail than stated. Under that statement, any deity is ok if the man feels it meets the requirement, whether you agree or not. No doubt, a Satanist could easily interpret it that way; thus, it covers Satan. And Allah, and Molech and the tree in the man's backyard, for that matter.

Skip, as a non-mason, knows bits an pieces.

More to the point, I know what the GL's teach via their code, ritual and training documentation, which is far more than just "bits an pieces."

So whatever word a Mason uses he will just re-interpret that word to fit his world view.

No, I present such information exactly as I find it, and draw conclusions from that material accordingly. The reason I post the documentation is to allow the reader to examine the basis upon which my conclusions rest.

As to world view, we all have one. Mine is Christian, and as the man said, I see all things by it. You belong to a religious organization that has no room for Jesus; thus, it is a danger to any Christian.

In his world view the very fact that we deny his beliefs about the Fraternity just reinforces his idea that we are hiding something from him.

Again untrue. Freemasonry hides nothing from those who wish to know about it. I do think that individual Masons hide from reasoned discussions because they simply cannot answer factually the arguments expressed. You guys are simply incapable of, or afraid of, discussing Freemasonry in a rational manner in an open forum. One only needs to read this thread to see the truth of that.

Such theories can't exist without denying the simple possibility that we Masons may just be actually telling the truth and that the Masonic fraternity is just a society of men who are seeking to better themselves, be good citizens, and benefit our society.

You forgot to mention that your GL also says it is a religious organization.

And while he accuses me of interpreting Freemasonry through my theology...

Where have I done that?

I guess what I never understand, that I don't know if Skip would or could explain, is why he thinks what Masons believe and know about Masonry is different than what he thinks/believes about Masonry.

Maybe because I read GL documentation and you don't? In a real sense, all I know from your views is that you think I'm wrong, but refuse to document where, why and how. At any rate, I'll let the GL's views remain the basis of my assessments. After all, they are the authorities.

Skip do you ever talk to Rotarians or Kiwanians and say "Oh now, your organization doesn't teach what you say it teaches."

Nope. They are not religions.

preach salvation by faith in Christ because I believe that is the path God has pointed me down. However I never try to tell God what to do. Whom God chooses to redeem is up to God's grace and not my concepts about God.

Interesting. UMC doctrine indicates that the Bible contains all things necessary to salvation; don't you think John 3:16-18 and Ephesians 2:8-10 are clear that faith in Jesus is the only means to salvation? If not, why would you disregard that?

Interestingly enough, your comments about 'other sheep' is one used by Mormons to justify their views as well. Cordially, Skip.

 

[smaneck]

A view often expressed by Masons, to which I respond:
1. Why do you think the sins of the SBC justify the sins of Freemasonry?

I'm not suggesting it does, but given the fact that the Freemasons are no longer practicing racism why are you still holding it against them and accusing them of hypocrisy and not doing the same in regards to your own church?

Moreover, the SBC apologized for it

It took them until 1995 to do so! Some Southern Baptist Churches were officially practicing segregation up until 1980. Unofficially many still do. How many blacks attend your church?

; not sure I've seen any GL apologize for their treatment of blacks, but perhaps a Mason can weigh in on that.

Have you looked? Or did you just accuse them of racism without bothering to check?

Why does a Christian like you not heed Jesus' words to take the beam out of your own eye before looking at the speck in someone else's?

2. The Baptists, of all flavors, were heavily involved in the abolitionist movement and never denied salvation to blacks. Freemasonry, on the other hand, fought tooth and nail to keep them out of their lodges on the basis of skin color alone.

Really? What members of the Southern Baptist Church (as opposed to Baptists who just happen to live in the South) were involved in the abolitionist movement?

Just like there were separate churches for whites and blacks there were separate lodges for white and black Masons. The question of salvation is not an issue for Freemasons because being a Mason is not necessary for salvation.

Probably. More interested in the words of men than the word of God.

Really? How about you? I just took my mother to church this morning and we read from Matthew 5:42

"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."

Have you given to every beggar or loaned money to everyone who wants to borrow from you?

Or do you practice the same Social Darwinism as most Fundamentalists?

Debatable.

Not at all debatable. The Qur'an says nothing which suggests a rejection of Jesus. In fact it represents Him as saying as a babe in arms: "Blessed am I on the day of my birth, the day of my death, and the day in which I come again."

I think their denial of his being the son of God is a direct rejection

What you think is irrelevant to the question of whether they reject Jesus.

Indeed. They tend to reject John 3:16 - 18 and Ephesians 2:8 - 10

I don't read a word of exclusivity in John 3:16-18. That 'whosoever doth not believe in Him can go to hell' is your own interpretation. When John 3:18 speaks of judgement it is speaking of those who hate the Light as the verses that following indicate. Likewise Ephesians 2:8-10 is not saying anything exclusive.

We can certainly tolerate anyone choosing his own religious beliefs and practicing them openly, but I cannot 'tolerate' remaining silent when I believe another's beliefs are false.

Yes, I've noticed that.

It is not wrong to speak to another about religious truth; it is wrong to not speak your mind in fear of being anti-masonic.

But it is not truth you want to speak of, it is exposing the 'falsehood' of others. Otherwise you could just quote John 3:16 or Ephesians 2:8-10 without having to add, "And if you don't believe this you are going to hell!"

No, I identify God's concept as my own.

Sorry, you are not God to be so certain what His concepts are. All you have at the end of the day is your own understanding.

I would not say my reverence of the Bible is excessive; I merely treat it as the word of God and try to comply with it.

Jesus is the Word of God, your Bible says so.

How do you view the Koran, by the way?

It too is the Word of God. But you'll have to go back to the World Religion Forum is you want to discuss that.

I think it more true to say that such people hold as authority the opinions of men as above and beyond the doctrine found in black-letter Bible.

When you can honestly tell me you follow Matthew 5 literally, we can discuss that. What I've observed is that Fundamentalist Christians want to believe whatever Paul says they should believe but they don't want to do whatever Jesus says to do.

Salvation as Jesus expressed it is not to be found in a church; it is to be found in himself. But don't forget that he upbraided Nicodemus in John Chapter 3 about the proper teachings of a 'church,' so to speak, and the importance of church leaders in knowing the truth, and then teaching it.

No mention of the Church in John 3. Didn't exist yet.

 

[circuitrider]

Skip, argue with John Wesley about his views of salvation and not me. LOL

I see the pattern. You aren't a Mason yet you think you know what Masons believe and teach. You aren't a United Methodist but you now intend to argue with a United Methodist about what we believe about soteriology. Sorry Skip a cursory perusal of one of our doctrinal statements hardly suffices for a full discussion of UMC views of salvation. Nor will proof texting one part of the Bible over against another help. Remember, you are the person who is a Biblical inerrantist and not me. I don't intend to defend my views of the Bible based on your interpretations.

 

[circuitrider]

If you want a pretty clear idea of what many United Methodists believe take a good look at this book. Rev. Thielen is a pretty typical UM Pastor.

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Least-Believe-Christian-Edition/dp/0664239382