Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.Albion said:However, you have not been "discussing" anything.
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.You are only repeating hearsay and giving us your own interpretations of various state Masonic organizations' by-laws,
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?along with a few personal attacks that, believe me, don't enhance anyone's credibility.
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 admit to not having been trained in research as theologians, clergy, historians, etc.
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.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.
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.circuitrider said: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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
- Church of the Nazarene,
- Mennonites,
- The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention,
- Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod,
- Evangelical Lutheran Synod
- Christian Reformed Church in North America,
- Church of the Brethren,
- Assemblies of God,
- Society of Friends (Quakers),
- Free Methodist church,
- Seventh-day Adventist Church,
- Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
- Free Church of Scotland,
- Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland,
- Presbyterian Church in America,
- Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland.
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, 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.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?