Founders of Freemasonry?

[Simpleman25]

LOL! Cordially, Skip.

Made me laugh to, since it wasn't aimed at you for once. ONCE!

 

[circuitrider]

no
join a Soccer Team
most Soccer Teams do not make up names for God, have religious requirements, teach that all religions are equal, or any nonsense like that
Soccer Teams talk about soccer
nothing unchristian about that

also no unchristian oaths that involve murder

so soccer teams are compatible with Christianity

The title "Great Architect of the Universe" was first used by Reformation leader John Calvin. Masons didn't invent it. It is a Prebyterian thing.

Masonry does not teach that all religions are equal. It just does not. No matter how many times you claim it you have misunderstood what Masonry teaches.

As to your ridiculous charge about murder, the most serious thing that can happen to a Mason if he breaks his obligations to Masonry is that he will be expelled from membership. That's it, period.

The question I'm starting to ask, is do you really want to know the truth? Or would you just rather continue to make incorrect false acusations?

 

[Albion]

The title "Great Architect of the Universe" was first used by Reformation leader John Calvin. Masons didn't invent it. It is a Prebyterian thing.

Could be that he's aware of this (it's been mentioned before on these forums) but considers Masons and Presbyterians to be identical or, at the least, equally frightening.

 

[circuitrider]

Could be that he's aware of this (it's been mentioned before on these forums) but considers Masons and Presbyterians to be identical or, at the least, equally frightening.

I've not met many frightening Presbyterians. LOL

 

[Skip Sampson]

As to Masonry being silly, you might think that.

Once again you have failed to read the posts involved. Reading for comprehension appears to be a lost art among Masons, though hypocrisy certainly blooms freely. Here are the relevant comments:

It is a lot more fun to believe that Masons are doing something sinister behind closed doors than to know that we gather to teach moral lessons and have some fellowship.

I think it more silly than sinister. A group of men wearing aprons pretending to be something they are not.

Now that you've had the opportunity to read it all, you will see that your topic was Masons in their behavior in lodge, and not Masonry itself.

I wouldn't refer to Masonry in general terms as sinister; I think evil is a more accurate descriptive. Such assessment is based upon its teachings, as extensively documented by GL cites on various threads on this website. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

There is NO I repeat NO oath about murder in the Masonic Lodge!

That's not strictly true. Here is an excerpt from the Master Mason's oath from the KY GL ritual:

I furthermore promise and swear that I will keep the secrets of a brother Master Mason, when communicated to me as such, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own conscience.

The caveat about murder and treason doesn't appear in all GL rituals, but the requirement to protect another Mason's secrets appears to be standard for the Master Mason's ritual. Note that it cases like KY, it allows a Mason to follow his own conscience about protecting a secrets of a brother Mason who might have confessed a murder to him.

The implications of that promise are significant. A Mason might keep private a discussion with another Mason who admits to child abuse. Were he to do so, he could cite his Masonic oath in his own defense. I have no clue how this would actually work out, but it would be my guess that such a Mason would not report the problem outside the lodge structure, but would try to get the offending brother to seek help. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

The caveat about murder and treason doesn't appear in all GL rituals, but the requirement to protect another Mason's secrets appears to be standard. The implications of that promise are significant. A Mason might keep private a discussion with another Mason who admits to child abuse. Were he to do so, he could cite his Masonic oath in his own defense. I have no clue how this would actually work out, but it would be my guess that such a Mason would not report the problem outside the lodge structure, but would try to get the offending brother to seek help. Cordially, Skip.

It must be Saturday again.

 

[Rhamiel]

Could be that he's aware of this (it's been mentioned before on these forums) but considers Masons and Presbyterians to be identical or, at the least, equally frightening.

I was not aware of that

using flowery language to describe God, in and of itself, is not a bad thing

when the Presbyterians use the term, they mean the Trinity
but since Jews, Muslims, Deists, Hindus and probably a couple of Pagans are in Freemasonry, this term takes on different meanings with them

 

[Albion]

I was not aware of that

using flowery language to describe God, in and of itself, is not a bad thing

That's what you've been complaining about in the case of Masonry though.

when the Presbyterians use the term, they mean the Trinity
but since Jews, Muslims, Deists, Hindus and probably a couple of Pagans are in Freemasonry, this term takes on different meanings with them

With whom? I have no doubt that all or most of those are represented on the rolls of the Presbyterian and other Christian churches also. In fact, I know it for a fact.

 

[americanvet]

There is NO I repeat NO part of the Masonic obligation that you promise to MURDER someone. I was replying to the context of another poster. I never said the word murder didn't appear.

 

[Skip Sampson]

There is NO I repeat NO part of the Masonic obligation that you promise to MURDER someone. I was replying to the context of another poster. I never said the word murder didn't appear.

Never said you did. What you did say is this:

There is NO I repeat NO oath about murder in the Masonic Lodge!

As you now see, there is such an instance in the MM oath. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

Never said you did. What you did say is this:As you now see, there is such an instance in the MM oath.

No, there is no such oath, none.

You not only have no personal knowledge of these things, but you apparently cannot even understand the written material you've collected.

The passage you are referring to--and referred to earlier--is this one:

furthermore promise and swear that I will keep the secrets of a brother Master Mason, when communicated to me as such, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own conscience.

Any normal reader can see that the wording means that I will keep the secrets of a brother when communicated--EXCEPT FOR MURDER and treason. That means, in ordinary English, that if something about a murder or treason is communicated to you, that information does not fall under the promise made not to divulge anything told to you in confidence. That's the obvious meaning...and yet you and Rhamiel are raving about something that's pure fiction.

You're charging innocent and good people with murder!...and yet you cite as your evidence a text that states that they are freed from any promise to keep a confidence if they learn about someone else's knowledge of a murder or treason.

 

[circuitrider]

You're charging innocent and good people with murder!...and yet you cite as your evidence a text that states that they are freed from any promise to keep a confidence if they learn about someone else's knowledge of a murder or treason.

Thank you Albion! The problem is that Skip can take any phrase and turn it from its obvious and natural meaning and make something else out of it. He calls Masonry evil while creating obviously fabricating untruths.

 

[Skip Sampson]

No, there is no such oath, none.

Actually there is, and you quoted it in your own post. americanvet claimed no oath about murder and I showed him he was mistaken. I'd suggest you read my post #226 before taking this further.

Any normal reader can see that the wording means that I will keep the secrets of a brother when communicated--EXCEPT FOR MURDER and treason. That means, in ordinary English, that if something about a murder or treason is communicated to you, that information does not fall under the promise made not to divulge anything told to you in confidence. That's the obvious meaning...

You can't even read your own quotes? Look at the entire oath again:

I furthermore promise and swear that I will keep the secrets of a brother Master Mason, when communicated to me as such, murder and treason excepted, and they left to my own conscience. (emphasis added)

It clearly notes that should secrets concerning murder or treason be shared, the Mason can pass them along or not, depending upon his own conscience. From what I've seen, though, few GL's add the 'conscience' clause.

More to the point is the inconvenient fact that some GL's do not include the 'murder and treason' exception in the oath. They seem to be a rarity, though.

You're charging innocent and good people with murder!

You have again become disconnected from the facts. By no reading of my posts can any reasonable person come to the conclusion you have reached. I think your superficial rage rings hollow, and reflects your desperation to find something to complain about. Id suggest that if you wish to complain, take it up with americanvet, who initiated the discussion with his slightly erroneous comment. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

Actually there is, and you quoted it in your own post.

No. If you call that an oath (which is another matter altogether) it says that there ISN'T ANY obligation in that regard, not that there is one!

 

[Albion]

One thing's for sure. No one is talking about the "Founders of Freemasonry" anymore, so all of this is off-topic and we should end it here.

 

[Ellwood3]

Who founded Freemasonry?

people keep telling me that it was founded by Christians and is compatible with Christianity.....

but how can we say it was founded by Christians if they will not tell us who the founders were?

Rhamiel,


A more complete response to your question, focusing on the meaning of Christianity follows.

It seems to me the essence of your question is something like this:

How can we say Christianity is of the same spirit as Freemasonry, when we don’t know even who founded Freemasonry (including all of its branches)?
To answer your question I must define the word “Christian,” instead of debating it.

“Christian” is a term first used in Antioch. It is in a passage referring to Barnabas looking for Saul (Paul):



26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26 (ESV)




I got that from the online free YouVersion Bible App. The rest of that chapter is here:


http://www.bible.com/bible/59/act.11.esv

The word in Greek is “Christianos.” It means a follower of Christ. As an example, Barnabas is a “Christian.” He showed commitment to Christ.
Nowhere does the Bible say Barnabas was a Christian because he went to seminary, or served a role in a church, paid or unpaid. It does not say Barnabas believed Jesus was the Messiah and that made him a follower (also called “disciple”) of Christ. Even the devil knows Jesus is the Messiah. Barnabas was a Christian, because he lived out his life in faith.

So I will define “Christian” like it was originally: A Christian loves and honors God, and worships Him and Him alone with all their heart, soul, and might, is part of the definition.


The term "Christian" that is so casually applied by many, makes anyone who attends services in a congregation, who believes certain things, a “Christian.”

Not exactly. Christians went to Antioch due to their extermination elsewhere. They lived in fellowship with the Holy Spirit and in Holy communion with Jesus Christ. They put their lives in the hands of God and lived out their faith despite needing to move to a different homeland due to persecution. They were not hypocrites, a Greek word from the theatre meaning pretenders or play actors.

Christians, as first defined, were committed followers.

That is a needed sketch to define what a “Christian” is.

I will reframe your question like this:

Some people claim what they call “Christians” are the founders of Freemasonry and claim Freemasonry is of the same spirit as those who are committed to following Christ. Nevertheless, they have not given evidence about who founded Freemasonry. If we can’t even say it was founded by the Holy Spirit working through its founders being led by Him, how can we say Freemasonry is compatible with the Spirit of God?

The short answer is “we can’t.”

And, more than that, we can say with great certainty that being a Freemason or leading others into Freemasonry or into other secret societies is utterly incompatible with being a Christian—a follower of Christ—no matter what the Freemasons claim as being their commitment to Christ.

No denomination should allow any person involved in an occult organization to be in any position of power within one of their churches. Willingness to do so only heaps condemnation on that denomination. Those tailoring their interpretation of scriptures to allow worship of other gods, sacrifice their association with the Holy Spirit.

In other words, there are consequences for sin.

Most denominations, however, likely don’t even think about Freemasonry (a form of satanic practice) and many don’t know much about it.

 

[Albion]

Some people claim what they call “Christians” are the founders of Freemasonry

Do they?

I have not heard this. I have never read anyone on these forums make such a claim. Rhamiel didn't.

Before you go any further in your analysis of things, I think we need to know who these people are who are saying that they know who the "founders" of Freemasonry are, and of course who those founders are, too.

If we can’t even say it was founded by the Holy Spirit working through its founders being led by Him, how can we say Freemasonry is compatible with the Spirit of God?

It would depend on whether or not Freemasonry is hostile to Christianity or actively opposes it or its teachings.

And, more than that, we can say with great certainty that being a Freemason or leading others into Freemasonry or into other secret societies is utterly incompatible with being a Christian—a follower of Christ—no matter what the Freemasons claim as being their commitment to Christ.

No, "We" cannot say that. We cannot say that because there are no secrets in Masonry that are in conflict with a Christian's obligations to his God.

No denomination should allow any person involved in an occult organization to be in any position of power within one of their churches.

I might agree, but Masonry is NOT an occult organization, so there's no problem there.

Those tailoring their interpretation of scriptures to allow worship of other gods, sacrifice their association with the Holy Spirit

.
Masonry doesn't do that either.

By the way, you are off-topic. You started to discuss the founders of Freemasonry and turned your post into an all-purpose rant against Masonry. Stick to the topic and don't use it as a foot in the door for going off on something else.

Most denominations, however, likely don’t even think about Freemasonry (a form of satanic practice) and many don’t know much about it.

Most probably do know somewhat more about it than you do, if this post is any indication.

But the bigger issue is one that we've discussed here before. You, personally, have chosen not to endorse Masonry--as a matter of your own personal religious convictions. That doesn't make them correct or even the standard in Christianity. They're just your own ideas, and we're all free to join or not join any denomination we want.

 

[circuitrider]

And the usual falsehoods about Pike and Hall are restated ad nauseum. It doesn't matter how old the Taxil Hoax is or how old the false material related to Pike and "Lucifer" are, people still keep using these two old long disproved accusations.

It is a shame that "Thou shalt not bear false witness..." is not more widely followed among Christians.

 

[Albion]

It is a shame that "Thou shalt not bear false witness..." is not more widely followed among Christians.

I often think that myself. It's not as though the commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness unless you heard it from someone else."