Founders of Freemasonry?

[circuitrider]

Yeshuaslavejeff,

Did you know you are misspelling YHWH? The "V" you are using comes out of German and not Hebrew.

 

[Rhamiel]

off topic

 

[circuitrider]

Rhamiel, we've been off topic for pages and pages. The original post was about the founders of Freemasonry. We've long past gone off that topic.

Instead we ended up on a merry path of Skip trying to tell me that while he doesn't understand UMC doctrine he was going to explain to me what the UMC means when we don't have a position on something.

 

[Skip Sampson]

However, you have not been "discussing" anything.

I think it truer to say that little to no discussion has been occurring on the points I've raised, as Masons do not wish it discussed in open forum.

You are only repeating hearsay and giving us your own interpretations of various state Masonic organizations' by-laws,

You are, again, in error. I'm quoting from authoritative Masonic documentation that clearly states the positions of the Grand Lodge that originated it. It doesn't need much in the way of interpretation. And it's not just the by-laws and regulations. If you ever read my posts for content, you'll see most rely on training documentation and ritual, straight from the horse's mouth.

along with a few personal attacks that, believe me, don't enhance anyone's credibility.

Then why do so many Masons engage in the practice? For a perfect example, go read your post #91 on this thread. Therein you make a slanderous statement which you subsequently refused to back up with facts. Don't you think you are being hypocritical in criticizing me for a practice you yourself engage in? Or don't you care?

You admit to not having been trained in research as theologians, clergy, historians, etc.

Like the man said: I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing. I can read Masonic documentation very well and understand what it teaches. Your entire argument is just misdirection from the fact that you do not wish to discuss the issues.

You are not in the position to be able to "discuss" Masonry, although we're happy to explain to you the history, values, and etc. of Masonry just as we'd do for anyone else on this Philosophy forum.

Sure I am. From your comment, though, you've just agreed with my views about Masons unwilling to actually discuss what it teaches. You'd prefer to 'explain' whatever you think it means, but not defend it. Your idea of discussion is this: "Shut up, they explained." Hardly a rational exercise in logic. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Instead we ended up on a merry path of Skip trying to tell me that while he doesn't understand UMC doctrine he was going to explain to me what the UMC means when we don't have a position on something.

Which was in response to your post. I think we all understand what 'no position' means, but you are the only one that has concluded that 'no position' means the UMC supports what you are doing. Pretty strange, all things considered. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Simpleman25]

I think it truer to say that little to no discussion has been occurring on the points I've raised, as Masons do not wish it discussed in open forum.You are, again, in error. I'm quoting from authoritative Masonic documentation that clearly states the positions of the Grand Lodge that originated it. It doesn't need much in the way of interpretation. And it's not just the by-laws and regulations. If you ever read my posts for content, you'll see most rely on training documentation and ritual, straight from the horse's mouth.Then why do so many Masons engage in the practice? For a perfect example, go read your post #91 on this thread. Therein you make a slanderous statement which you subsequently refused to back up with facts. Don't you think you are being hypocritical in criticizing me for a practice you yourself engage in? Or don't you care?Like the man said: I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind is blowing. I can read Masonic documentation very well and understand what it teaches. Your entire argument is just misdirection from the fact that you do not wish to discuss the issues.Sure I am. From your comment, though, you've just agreed with my views about Masons unwilling to actually discuss what it teaches. You'd prefer to 'explain' whatever you think it means, but not defend it. Your idea of discussion is this: "Shut up, they explained." Hardly a rational exercise in logic. Cordially, Skip.

Why do you continue down the same path post after post? I've shown you numerous times that just because you can read doesn't give you complete knowledge on a subject.

You may be very "book" smart. Without applied knowledge what you know is much less than you think.

Take me for example. You claim my lodge breaks OK grand lodge rules. Yet every mason on here understands how we work within the rules to keep non Christians from becoming members. Heck, most don't agree with what we do, yet they know how we've done this for decades.

How do they know this? They are masons with applied knowledge.

 

[Albion]

I think it truer to say that little to no discussion has been occurring on the points I've raised, as Masons do not wish it discussed in open forum.

Sorry, no. We've explained Freemasonry and answered questions from every inquirer, but you just check-in weekly to demand the same information again and again. There's never anything new from you.

I guess it's that you want us to confirm your allegations even if we know them to be untrue. I won't do that, and I won't be drawn into an exchange of insults no matter how many times we are taunted.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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?

It seems not to be particularly old as an organisation, perhaps from the seventeenth or eighteenth century but a historian would be best qualified to offer evidence for any claimed beginning century. I have no idea who may have founded it.

The Catholic Church prohibits Catholics from membership saying "the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." See this link for the full text of the prohibition.

 

[circuitrider]

Which was in response to your post. I think we all understand what 'no position' means, but you are the only one that has concluded that 'no position' means the UMC supports what you are doing. Pretty strange, all things considered. Cordially, Skip.

Skip, how many ways can it be said that the denomination has no position on Freemasonry (or Kiwanis, or Rotary, or the Men's Gardening Club either.)?

And at the same time numerous individual Methodists are extremely supportive of Freemasonry including pastors, Bishops, etc.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that few if any Methodists would even think of it as a topic to talk about objecting too.

The problem is you expect denominations to have a position on Freemasonry because of your very negative view of the Fraternity while the majority of mainline Protestant denominations have no position on Freemasonry because there isn't anything to have a position on.

You and I live in very different faith cultures.

 

[Albion]

The problem is you expect denominations to have a position on Freemasonry because of your very negative view of the Fraternity while the majority of mainline Protestant denominations have no position on Freemasonry because there isn't anything to have a position on.

This is very true. Because it gets brought up often, I have tried to find a good list of which churches actually do and which don't take a stand on Masonry.

It's proven hard to find a ready-made list that is comprehensive and consistent, but the one I did find lists about a DOZEN Protestant denominations that have taken a stand "against" Masonry, which in some cases merely means asking the membership to be cautious about joining. Then, of course, there are the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

That's it. A modest number by anyone's count. And this out of estimates of the number of denominations in America that range up to 40,000 or more.

Part of the problem in compiling a list is that sometimes a particular church body is named while at other times it's a whole denomination. The Free Methodists, for example, owe their existence partially to anti-Masonic attitudes that are now considered out of date, but none of this applies to the much, much larger United Methodist Church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The number of Christians involved in churches and denominations discouraging Masonic membership is not small, it would be well over half of all Christians. Possibly three quarters or more. Clearly the Catholic Church representing around half of the world's Christians prohibits membership, if the Orthodox also prohibit it then that would make another fifth or more and then there's the various denominations which may amount to another fifth or more.

 

[Albion]

The number of Christians involved in churches and denominations discouraging Masonic membership is not small, it would be well over half of all Christians.

Of course, that would be the Catholic reply because the RCC amounts to about half the world's Christians in itself. Then you throw in the EOs too.

But the accusation is normally that the great majority of CHURCH BODIES, DENOMINATIONS, or something like that, have taken such a stand.

The facts are otherwise...and, as I explained in my previous post...overwhelmingly so.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course, that would be the Catholic reply because the RCC amounts to about half the world's Christians in itself. Then you throw in the EOs too.

But the accusation is normally that the great majority of CHURCH BODIES, DENOMINATIONS, or something like that, have taken such a stand.

The facts are otherwise...and, as I explained in my previous post...overwhelmingly so.

You mentioned 40,000 denominations, is that a credible number?

 

[Albion]

You mentioned 40,000 denominations, is that a credible number?

I said "estimates" and "range," but it, or something like it, is the number that's often used on CF. However, there's no question that the number of denominations, in just the USA, is in the thousands, so a dozen or so having taken even a half-hearted or unenforced stand against Masonry doesn't amount to much. That's the point, and it stands in contrast to the claim that "the churches" have taken a stand, etc.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I said "estimates" and "range," but it, or something like it, is the number that's often used on CF. However, there's no question that the number of denominations, in just the USA, is in the thousands, so a dozen or so having taken even a half-hearted or unenforced stand against Masonry doesn't amount to much. That's the point, and it stands in contrast to the claim that "the churches" have taken a stand, etc.

Is your count credible? If you found only a few does that mean anything significant - besides you found only a few?

 

[Albion]

Is your count credible? If you found only a few does that mean anything significant - besides you found only a few?

I said I found a listing that had only a few. Those listed I was able to verify as having taken a negative stand, but I'm also thinking that if the compiler who set out to make such a listing didn't find but a dozen or so out of thousands, that shows us something.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I said I found a listing that had only a few. Those listed I was able to verify as having taken a negative stand, but I'm also thinking that if the compiler who set out to make such a listing didn't find but a dozen or so out of thousands, that shows us something.

It may show no more than that he found only a few after performing a relatively easy web based search.

Wikipedia lists these:

There is a range of intensity among those Protestant denominations which discourage their congregants from joining Masonic lodges. Denominations that, in some form or other, discourage membership of Freemasons include the small
Evangelical Lutheran Synod, to larger Protestant church bodies. Among Protestants opposed to Freemasonry are the

1. Church of the Nazarene,
2. Mennonites,
3. The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention,
4. Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod,
5. Evangelical Lutheran Synod
6. Christian Reformed Church in North America,
7. Church of the Brethren,
8. Assemblies of God,
9. Society of Friends (Quakers),
10. Free Methodist church,
11. Seventh-day Adventist Church,
12. Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
13. Free Church of Scotland,
14. Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland,
15. Presbyterian Church in America,
16. Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland.

Most of these condemnations resulted from the work of church committees appointed only in recent decades. Many of these Protestant condemnations have never been enforced.​

 

[Albion]

Well, you see that you too found only about the same number--a dozen or so, as I said, out of thousands.

Of course, there probably are some that were overlooked, but there are also a few entries on this list that perhaps shouldn't be there, by the same token.

The Southern Baptist Convention hasn't taken a stand against Masonry ALTHOUGH a church board earlier had made a recommendation. And some of the entries towards the end of this list are of non-American churches, and I was trying to compare apples to apples (denominations in America vs. how many denominations are IN America).

So, I think my point is valid.

It may show no more than that he found only a few after performing a relatively easy web based search.

Wikipedia lists these:

There is a range of intensity among those Protestant denominations which discourage their congregants from joining Masonic lodges. Denominations that, in some form or other, discourage membership of Freemasons include the small
Evangelical Lutheran Synod, to larger Protestant church bodies. Among Protestants opposed to Freemasonry are the

1. Church of the Nazarene,
2. Mennonites,
3. The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention,
4. Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod,
5. Evangelical Lutheran Synod
6. Christian Reformed Church in North America,
7. Church of the Brethren,
8. Assemblies of God,
9. Society of Friends (Quakers),
10. Free Methodist church,
11. Seventh-day Adventist Church,
12. Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
13. Free Church of Scotland,
14. Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland,
15. Presbyterian Church in America,
16. Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland.

Most of these condemnations resulted from the work of church committees appointed only in recent decades. Many of these Protestant condemnations have never been enforced.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, you see that you too found only about the same number--a dozen or so, as I said, out of thousands.

Of course, there probably are some that were overlooked, but there are also a few entries on this list that perhaps shouldn't be there, by the same token.

The Southern Baptist Convention hasn't taken a stand against Masonry ALTHOUGH a church board earlier had made a recommendation. And some of the entries towards the end of this list are of non-American churches, and I was trying to compare apples to apples (denominations in America vs. how many denominations are IN America).

So, I think my point is valid.

Yes, I did find 16 rather than hundreds but that is no surprise since I did a single google search and read only a single web page from the results.

I did not expect Wikipedia to present an exhaustive list so I did not treat the list of 16 that it provided as exhaustive.

If there are 40,000 denominations then perhaps there are hundreds or thousands that do (or would if confronted with the issue) prohibit membership in a Masonic organisation.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I did find 16 rather than hundreds but that is no surprise since I did a single google search and read only a single web page from the results.

Well, it's clearly thousands or tens of thousands, not hundreds. And I DID a much more extensive search before concluding that I wasn't finding much.

If there are 40,000 denominations then perhaps there are hundreds or thousands that do (or would if confronted with the issue) prohibit membership in a Masonic organisation.

You can always hope to find, with a more laborious search, that 1 out of 40 (or something on that order) has prohibited membership. But it's just a hope. Remember that some on this list haven't prohibited anything but just issued a caution or advice.


I don't think that would show anything other than that my point was correct.