Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[AndrewCS]

Interestingly enough, not many people understand that freemasonry played a huge role in the eventual ending of Apartheid. Of course, since I don't have enough posts to share a link, you'll have to google "Freemasonry - uniting men even during apartheid".

Not too many people have experienced apartheid first hand.

Having lived in Africa for many years and also in apartheid & post apartheid South Africa currently all that is happening there is inverted apartheid.

Ultimately, post apartheid has not improved the conditions of poverty; in fact, it has only created a different kind of wealth, materialism, corruption, power, hatred and death.

Post apartheid has resulted in the education and health systems been run into the ground and put South Africa as being titled the most dangerous country in the world whilst certain individuals get rich & powerful. Similar to what is happening with Robert Mugabe.

Interesting that if apartheid were so apparent in 1977 (when most of the article letters were written) then surely it would mean that the Freemasons were breaking the law if apartheid was such a hard & fast rule in South Africa at that time? Nelson Mandela was only released and came into power in 1994.

Personally, I certainly do not see these articles or letters playing a “huge role” in ending apartheid.

Any women in your lodges?

Post apartheid Affirmative Action programmes in South Africa require women to be acknowledged and are considered “ previously disadvantaged”.

What are the Freemasons doing about that?

 

[G19]

Please do not try to spin what I have said.[/quote]

You must be british..

Just messing with ya.

 

[G19]

Not too many people have experienced apartheid first hand.

Having lived in Africa for many years and also in apartheid & post apartheid South Africa currently all that is happening there is inverted apartheid.

That has to be a tough situation for South Africans in general.

Ultimately, post apartheid has not improved the conditions of poverty; in fact, it has only created a different kind of wealth, materialism, corruption, power, hatred and death.

I've heard that as well.

Post apartheid has resulted in the education and health systems been run into the ground and put South Africa as being titled the most dangerous country in the world whilst certain individuals get rich & powerful. Similar to what is happening with Robert Mugabe.

What do you think could be done about this?

Interesting that if apartheid were so apparent in 1977 (when most of the article letters were written) then surely it would mean that the Freemasons were breaking the law if apartheid was such a hard & fast rule in South Africa at that time? Nelson Mandela was only released and came into power in 1994.

Personally, I certainly do not see these articles or letters playing a “huge role” in ending apartheid.

The South African Freemasons made a visible stand. They had to formally appeal to the government to get approved. When that happened it set a precedent that spoke volumes.

Any women in your lodges?

What are the Freemasons doing about that?

There are several co-masonic lodges and female masonic lodges around the world, and even in the states.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Any women in your lodges?

Any women in your church's men's group?

I go to a Tuesday morning men's prayer breakfast each week, attended by the men of several churches in town, across denominational lines. It would be a travesty for anyone to start criticizing groups in the church for their exclusionary practices, because a lot of good ones would have to go down the tube. Why try to create accusations over such non-issues as this one? Mike spoke of hypocrisy while ago, which is basically saying one thing and doing another. It is no different if one is a member of a church which has any traditional small groups divided along gender lines, most of which are exclusionary BY THEIR VERY NAME, being denominated as "men's group" or "women's group," or "ladies' circle," or other similar names.

What the Freemasons are "doing about that" is providing and allowing for Eastern Star groups to meet. Often these groups meet in the very same buildings as the Masons, and there is mutual cooperation and consideration in the planning and scheduling of degree work, special meetings, etc. In fact, the most typical meeting place for Eastern Star groups to meet, at least from what I see in our jurisdiction, is in the Masonic Lodge. And from what I see from email notifications of upcoming degree work, there is ample notification of upcoming Eastern Star meetings as well.

I went to a special comedy skit night about a year ago, at the invitation of a Past Worthy Matron, where they put on a spoof of a men's Masonic meeting, complete with men's attire. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and was impressed with the apparent knowledge that the women had of the things that are supposedly kept "secret." The skit itself was a riot, I was laughing all the way through it at the parody of Masonry and how excellently it was done.

I guess they can read the internet, too.

If this is what you consider to be an "accusation," it certainly is a poor one.

 

[George the 3rd]

Andrew,

As you are quick to hound someone for an answer to a direct question of yours, why not answer my question to you?!

George

Hey George,

Would be interested to know what “other” church you belong to ?

I see on you CF Homepage it states

Christian, Denomination Or Other Faith Icon:
Other-Church

Blessings
Andrew,

"Belong to?"! I am not trying to sidestep your question, but really, if I do not belong to God, I belong to nothing. Humans may be affiliated with one organization or another, they may not be affiliated with a group at all. The Body of Christ knows no boundaries, it is contained in no building or location. And most of all, it knows no label or moniker.

I was raised in the Lutheran Church, so what? I sought God in Spirit and in Truth. That was where God touched me. Personal, One to one.

I'm just one leaf on the branch of the "Vine". That's enough for me, is that enough for you?

George

 

[O.F.F.]

In other words, any argument about "landmarks" finds no consistent format for discussion among the lodges of the U.S., which makes it kinda hard to sustain a claim of "authority" as you have.

Ah, but I see how you conveniently left your Grand Lodge off of the list you posted.

South Carolina

Constitutions, Article 157, says the landmarks as set forth in the Ahiman Rezon of Brother Mackey govern. (Mackey was from South Carolina.)

In other words, any argument about "landmarks" NOT being an "authority" is difficult to make, especially when your own Grand Lodge (your Masonic governing authority) says those "set forth" in YOUR ritual "govern."

The same Masonic authority makes the 18th Landmark read:

Can you name me ONE Grand Lodge which names the "Short Talk Bulletins" as an "authority" in their jurisdiction?

As an English major in college you have obviously done well. You are a reader, researcher and you sometimes put forth a good arguement. So, I know you know darn well you deliberately took this part of what I posted out of context in order to dupe the less educated reader of this forum. That "rev" is intellectual dishonesty.

Therefore, I'll just post again what I did so that you can no longer mislead anyone.

Mackey (your brother from SC) states that the first written law on the subject is found in the fifth article of the Old York or Gothic Constitutions adopted at York in A.D. 926:

“A Candidate must be without blemish and have full and proper use of his limbs; for a maimed man can do the Craft no good.” This requirement has been repeated, and again repeated at various times in many different forms; in the “Ancient Charges at Making” (1686) and in the “Constitutions of 1722-23” which put into print the customs and enactments of the Mother Grand Lodge in 1717.

The same Masonic authority makes the 18th Landmark read:

“Certain qualifications of a candidate for initiation are derived from a Landmark of the Order. These qualifications are; that he shall be a man - shall be unmutilated - free born and of mature age. That is to say, a woman, a cripple or a slave, or one born in slavery, is disqualified for initiation into the rites of Masonry.” -- emphasis added

It is clear from this article, that when the author of it said, the "same Masonic authority makes the 18th Landmark read" he is referring to his previous sentence regarding the authority of the “Constitutions of 1722-23” which put into print the customs and enactments of the Mother Grand Lodge in 1717 (sic), not the Short Talk Bulletin. So pastor, you were wrong in mischaracterizing what was posted.

40 of the 51 Grand Lodges in the U.S. have adopted resolutions declaring Prince Hall to be regular. That's nearly 80%.

This is so laughable, LOL, LOL, . . . It's been well over 200 years since Freemasonry was established in this country, surely it should be 100% by now. And, how can you take pride in a mere 80% when YOUR OWN Grand Lodge of SC is among the other 20% that still doesn't recognize Prince Hall Masonry (African-American)?

My intial post on the matter, was about Freemasonry's discriminatory practices against the handicap, women, and people of color (African descent) as stated in THEIR official authoritative documentation.
But for some reason, you ignored the first two in order to say that I am trying to play the race card.

From the information provided it is clear to see that Freemasonry's discriminatory practices is not limited to racism. And, you can try to downplay this all you wish, by saying the church is no better. But in my entire life, I have not ever been discriminated against by any church I've attended, most of which have been predominately white.

Unfortunately as a former Prince Hall Mason I cannot say the same thing when I was denied Visitation (the 14th Landmark) when I attempted to attend a white lodge in the state of NC from which I hailed. Furthermore, while in the military, I was mistreated frequently by one of my commanding NCO's (a white Mason) for no apparent reason; except that he knew I was a Prince Hall Mason, seeing that we both wore Masonic rings. The racism I experienced didn't come from the church, it came from my fraternity, which I dearly loved at the time.

And, not once have I see an official church edict banning the handicap, women, and people of color (African descent) from joining its fellowship. Yet we now have seen more than one such edict come from the "religion in which all men agree."

 

[O.F.F.]

Christians should not concern themselves with a "religion in which ALL men agree." Agree with it or not it is written: "As surely as I live,' says the Lord, every knee will bow before me (Jesus Christ, not Allah, Vishnu, or GAOTU); every tongue will confess HIM to God." -- emphasis added (Romans 14:11).

Elsewhere God says, "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." -- emphasis added (Philippians 2:9-11).

So as a Christian pastor, why don't you give glory to God by EMPHASIZING Christ, rather than your "religion in which ALL men agree."

All of mankind does not accept Jesus Christ, and ALL never will. So how will your "religion in which ALL men agree" glorify HIM? At the end of the ages, what will such a "religion" really mean? Absolutely nothing; because at the end of the ages ONLY His kingdom, His Church and His religion will remain FOREVER!

Wayne, do you care to respond to this post, and the question I asked about whether or not you consider yourself to be a bond-servant of Christ?

 

[G19]

Wayne, do you care to respond to this post, and the question I asked about whether or not you consider yourself to be a bond-servant of Christ?

I know where you're going with the question Mike but it really doesn't apply in the way you think it does.

For instance, can one be free of the effects of gravity? Then you're not 'free'. But that has nothing to do with the masonic requirement of being a free man. In that context it refers specifically to the ability of a man to travel from place to place and make decisions for himself. Additionally, the fraternity makes it plain that nothing will come before: "God, country, neighbor, family, or self". Therefore, bondservants of Christ may join without fearing that the lodge will in any way come between that first and primary relationship.

Your reasoning here just doesn't work Mike.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wayne, do you care to respond to this post, and the question I asked about whether or not you consider yourself to be a bond-servant of Christ?

I seem to have gotten no response to a question posted several pages ago, and repeated more than once since then, with still no response:

Do brotherly love, relief, and truth conflict with the Christian faith?

Do “beauty, wisdom, and truth” conflict with the Christian faith?

Does keeping confidential matters confidential conflict with the Christian faith?

Does “taking care of widows and orphans and keeping oneself unspotted from the world” conflict with the Christian faith? (James 1:27)

Does loving one’s neighbor as oneself conflict with the Christian faith?

Does being diligent and not slothful in one’s occupation conflict with the Christian faith?

Do patience, humility, and every positive virtue conflict with the Christian faith?

A simple yes or no to each will suffice.

So since I obviously asked my question first, and have received no response, what right do you suppose you have to address me with ultimatum-style demands that I answer YOUR questions?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Ah, but I see how you conveniently left your Grand Lodge off of the list you posted.

Man, your accusations have no end, do they? Since you missed it the first time:

5 GL's simply list Mackey's 25, but not all indicate they adopted them officially. In fact, D.C. is one of these, and specifically states that they are listed FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

SC is not unique, they were included among these, hence it got no SPECIFIC reference as did the ones in a category by themselves.

In other words, any argument about "landmarks" NOT being an "authority" is difficult to claim, especially when you own Grand Lodge (your Masonic governing authority) says those "set forth" in YOUR ritual "govern."

What are you trying to assert anyway, Masonic opinion of landmarks in SC? You’ll have to pardon me, but I thought you were making some kind of assertion about the landmarks having some kind of authority in Masonry, which as I have shown, cannot be the case, since some have 25, some have only seven, ten, or three, or eight, and so on and so forth across the whole spectrum of lodges in the U.S . And we haven't even begun to consider the matter from the standpoint of Masonry worldwide. Or didn't you know this is primarily a U.S. issue, and that even lodges in the U.S. have basically rejected Mackey's idea?

And I see you also “left off” the link to the article by David Gray of PHA Ohio who explains why Mackey’s landmarks are not really landmarks by Mackey’s own definition anyway. It’s just as well, because apparently the Bessel site has an old link that doesn’t work anyway. The link to the article is On Mackey’s 25 Landmarks. . .What’s So Ancient?

This is so laughable, LOL, LOL, . . . It's been well over 200 years since Freemasonry was established in this country, surely it should be 100% by now.

The church has been here FAR longer than that, surely they should not be lagging BEHIND Masonry, should they??

But from what I have seen in both organizations, in PRACTICE the churches certainly are FAR behind what is taking place in the lodge. 40 GL’s now recognize PH, NC had a recent vote that was very close, SC will probably not be far behind, I have heard input from Masons who are not only open to it, but think it’s way overdue. With our change of Grand Masters, there is an expectation of positive change coming. I welcome it with open arms, as do many of us here.

And, how can you take pride in a mere 80% when YOUR OWN Grand Lodge of SC is among the other 20% that still doesn't recognize Prince Hall Masonry (African-American)?

Now THERE’s due cause for a good LOL, calling 80% “mere.” Hahahahahaahaha. You may indict SC all you wish, but we are not dealing with only SC here, no matter how you try to misconstrue the information.

My intial post on the matter, was about Freemasonry's discriminatory practices against the handicap, women, and people of color (African descent) as stated in THEIR official authoritative documentation.
But for some reason, you ignored the first two in order to say that I am trying to play the race card.

Well, gee, you’ve played the race card so many times, why should I think you were doing any differently this time?

And apparently you think the readers here are idiots.

Do you not think anyone can see through the façade and recognize that 80% recognition of Prince Hall, and open membership for any man of any race who wishes to join our lodges, do not fit your accusation of “Freemasonry’s discriminatory practices?

Do you not think anyone can see for themselves that a supposed “landmark” which has not been adopted by more than 7 total U.S. lodges (according to Bessel’s list), can somehow be used to label ALL FIFTY-ONE of them as “DISCRIMINATORY????”

I’ve already responded, as anyone can see, to the question about women, they certainly are not discriminated from joining their own Masonic organization of Eastern Star. And there is nothing “discriminatory” about having men’s groups or women’s groups that meet for mutual charitable concerns. Churches have been doing that for years; in fact, churches used to be split down the middle in their seating, with women on one side and men on the other. As for the one about people with handicapping conditions, that was explained in the very article you quoted it from, had you chosen to include it all rather than ellipsing it out as usual. That is mainly an archaism, and one of many which still remains in an institution with a heavy emphasis on preservation of forms. In the old days of operative Masonry, it was clearly an issue, as someone with a handicapping condition could not very well do much masonry work. At least most lodges have seen the antiquity of it and have discontinued its appearance in their forms (as already mentioned, only 7 still have it).

But it’s easy to see why you would use ellipsis to remove certain things:

Inspired by patriotism some Jurisdictions have relaxed the severity of their physical requirements in favor of soldiers who have suffered in behalf of their country. Into the argument pro and con as to the expedience of such relaxations this Bulletin can not go. Suffice it here that the lodge to which an applicant applies should be meticulously careful to see that the candidate conforms literally to the requirements as laid down by the Grand Lodge.

Naturally you wouldn’t want anyone to see that significant changes have taken place since 1930, right?

But in my entire life, I have not ever been discriminated against by any church I've attended, most of which have been predominately white.

You’re saying you’ve attended predominately white churches all your life?

And in our day and time of political correctness, I’m not surprised anyway that you would not be directly discriminated against. You certainly wouldn't see anything of it directly, it would be the person responsible for you being there, if anything could be mustered up against them. Usually (in my experience anyway) that will be the pastor, and believe me, there are a million ways of causing grief for the pastor if someone chooses to do so. (The usual method is the fuzzy area of “visitation.” Plant that seed, and there will be 100 different ideas of what that means, and 100 different ways to decide the pastor is not doing enough of it, and out the door (s)he will go. )
I had shared with you before, an experience I had in a 2-point charge, with one church being okay on racial mixing, the other adamantly opposed. The one opposed was due to the influence exerted by one racist person in the church. It was so deep that when we were discussing growth and looking at ways to attract new members, a church sign welcoming visitors was proposed. This man was willing to concede that the church certainly needed to grow, but he stated very directly that “if we put a sign out, the blacks will come in and try to take over.” There’s absolutely nothing to justify that conclusion, but among those with a racist mindset, it’s an inbred idea.

Furthermore, while in the military, I was mistreated frequently by one of my commanding NCO's (a white Mason) for no apparent reason; except that he knew I was a Prince Hall Mason, seeing that we both wore Masonic rings. The racism I experienced didn't come from the church, it came from my fraternity, which I dearly loved at the time.

Which only serves to prove what I’ve already said, racism is not limited to any one venue at all, and it has no one color on its face. Your witness shows you have faced it from Masons. My own witness has also shown that black friends of mine have faced it from their own people for attending white churches, and my pastor friend faced it from the leadership in the black church for allowing white ministers in his pulpit. You speak against something that you see as institutional and (so you say) built in by statute. I speak against something I also see as institutional, even though it is not built into any statute, because it is built in by practices, in the actions of those who have ostracized their own race for daring to try to make a difference in race relations by being proactive in living out the tenets of their faith.

As I understand it, the same was true when a recent attempt was made to vote for Prince Hall recognition in NC, it was voted down, as I understand it, mainly by the PH lodges, who apparently figured they’ve gotten along just well without recognition for some time now, and figure they will continue to do so.

I found the same to be true in a merger consideration that took place among the United Methodist Church, the AME church, and the CME church. The consideration was eventually shuttled, because the bishops in the AME AND CME had almost dictatorial authority, and even though they were to be made bishops in any merger plan among the three denominations, the move would have amounted to a forfeiture of some of their power and authority as bishops. Was it racist? I doubt it, but a lot of people who are aware that it was the AME and CME who shot the plan down, will likely think so.

My whole point is, this thing cuts across all color lines, it cuts across denominational lines, it cuts across Masonic lines in both our lodges AND Prince Hall. At least change has been coming, I would think 80% who have decided on recognition would be enough to convince you that change is taking place.

I would think also, that since 40 Grand Lodges have now extended such recognition, and since ALL of them have done so RELATIVELY RECENTLY (Connecticut was the first, in 1989), that would be even MORE evidence for you that change is taking place, and will CONTINUE taking place, the leaven eventually leavening the whole lump.

There is still the matter of your comment that what you posted came from:

THEIR official authoritative documentation.

I will remind the readers once again that you offered no response to my request for documentation from you that there is even ONE GRAND LODGE ANYWHERE that calls the Short Talk Bulletins “authoritative documentation” for ANYTHING IN THE LEAST, in their jurisdiction. Until you do, you can’t refer to the information as “authoritative documentation” just on your own arbitrary labeling of it as such.

And since the article you posted from was dated 1930, which was nearly 60 YEARS before Connecticut became the first of 40 GL’s to recognize Prince Hall, your information is CLEARLY outdated.

 

[Rev Wayne]

So as a Christian pastor, why don't you give glory to God by EMPHASIZING Christ, rather than your "religion in which ALL men agree."

I do. I have given consistent personal testimony and witness again and again. In fact, I have been criticized for doing so, it has been called “irrelevant” and even worse things than that. Apparently, just like Jesus said, don’t give pearls to swine, they will turn and rend you for it.

And I do not speak of the “religion in which all men agree” in a way that EXCLUDES Christianity. Since the "religion in which all men agree" is NOT a SEPARATE set of teachings, but is comprised of teachings found in all religions, you know very well I have consistently shown how it INCLUDES Christianity, otherwise it would not be ALL who would agree, now would it?

And since you seem to wish to separate the two, let me remind you exactly what point I was MAKING, which was, the central truth as Jesus defined it in Christianity, i.e., the Golden Rule, is cited in several places in Masonic monitorial sources, in the context of the Old Charges and “the religion in which all men agree.”

You yourself earlier acquiesced to the point that the Golden Rule was also a part of other sacred writings of other religions, and that it appeared there independent of the biblical revelation, and in many cases pre-dated it, making it therefore something they had received by no other possible means than by revelation from God.

Since we received that acknowledgment from you, and since the Golden Rule also appears in the context of the Old Charges' discussion of the “religion in which all men agree,” it is one central and pivotal tenet which is at the heart of what Masonry intends by that term.

The connection of purity with one’s faith and religion was another point that was established. It was shown to be “necessary” (Heb. 14:12, Rev. 21:27) in the Christian description of it, and citations were given from writings of other religions showing it was considered necessary in their descriptions of it as well. So the description of it as necessary in the apron lecture does not conflict with the same estimation of it in the Christian revelation for certain, nor in any other religion’s teaching, as far as I can determine.

So the beginnings of establishing the truth of this phrase, “religion in which all men agree,” and the process of determining just what falls into that category, is already well underway here, despite the attempts of you and others to derail the discussion.

Masons may not have fared very well in the area of discrimination, but neither have the churches. It has only been in recent years that I have begun to see pulpit exchanges as a regular exercise encouraged upon the pastors in our churches here, and it is only in recent years that the lodges have begun to extend Prince Hall recognition. It has only been in recent years that many churches have begun to implement positive changes making their churches completely handicap-accessible, the lack of which was in itself an automatic exclusionary practice toward handicapped people. And it has only been in recent years that many lodges have begun to drop the archaic forms expressed in “landmarks” and other Masonic content concerning the handicapped.

So I will simply invite you to be a part of the process once more. The question you are addressing is irrelevant as far as what it says to the issue. You are trying to answer a question that is not even being asked, namely, "is the Masonic lodge successful in its promotion of brotherly love shown toward all?" That does not settle the issue at all of whether this teaching is compatible with Christian faith. Obviously it is, since you keep coming back to issues of the church to address it. But you don't seem to realize that in your effort to assert that Masonry somehow fails at the task, you automatically assert the point I was making, which is, that Masonry teaches it in the first place. Clearly it does, and clearly it is doing a better job than in former days, of accepting all which it entails.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne,

The answer to all of your listed questions is no, but what does conflict with Christianity is:

• Violation of the First Commandment in the name of 'religious tolerance' (placing the God of the Bible on the same 'level' as false gods of false religions)
  
• Denying the deity, exclusivity and uniqueness of Jesus Christ
  
• Teaching a 'works' based salvation
  
• Treating the Holy Bible as a piece of furniture, and in the name of religious tolerance, placing it on the same 'level' and veracity as the quasi-sacred writings of false religions
  
• And, exercising discriminatory practices

And, since Freemasonry is guilty of ALL OF THIS, it is in conflict and no Christian should partake in it, no matter what any Mason says to the contrary.

 

[G19]

but what does conflict with Christianity is:

• Violation of the First Commandment in the name of 'religious tolerance' (placing the God of the Bible on the same 'level' as false gods of false religions)

False. The masonic concept of tolerance is between men, not religions. The fraternity does NOT make all religious level or equal in any way, it simply allows men the freedom to make up their own mind and protects that freedom.

Denying the deity, exclusivity and uniqueness of Jesus Christ

False again Mike. Freemasonry does NOT deny the deity of Christ, anywhere, any time, in any way. Nor does it deny any doctrine of exclusiveness. If you're saying that the fraternity does not make these doctrines a qualification for membership, then I'll agree. That's because we're not a religion.

Teaching a 'works' based salvation

You've already been shown this to be completely false. Now you're just using argumentum ad infinitum (if you say it long enough people will eventually believe you).

Treating the Holy Bible as a piece of furniture,

That has to be the weakest argument I've seen so far. Actually, that's an admission of how utterly important the bible is in the lodge since once cannot be opened without it.

and in the name of religious tolerance, placing it on the same 'level' and veracity as the quasi-sacred writings of false religions

False. Freemasonry doesn't 'level' anything. If a Muslim wishes to be obligated on the Koran, then that's the book that means something to HIM. The fraternity is interested in the sincerity of the candidate, not his religious affiliation. So, there is no 'leveling', that's a false claim.

And, exercising discriminatory practices

... and over and over again...

And, since Freemasonry is guilty of ALL OF THIS, it is in conflict and no Christian should partake in it, no matter what any Mason says to the contrary.

Right, and since it is NOT guilty of all that, every christian who wishes to join should do so without fear and condemnation from the antis-with-agenda.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Violation of the First Commandment in the name of 'religious tolerance' (placing the God of the Bible on the same 'level' as false gods of false religions)

Wrong. You YOURSELF already admitted that the receipt of the Golden Rule by those of other religions was not only fact, but that it also could only have been by revelation. Surely you didn't think by that, that I meant they received it from a "false god???"

Of course not. What I was intending by that, and still do, is that they could only have received this central truth from the one God who IS true, the creator of all things in the universe. And I am not through with the task of showing just how many concepts there are which ARE common among religions, making "false god" claims even further in error. "False god-concepts," certainly, but even Jesus didn't tell people their gods were false, He just corrected their misunderstandings ABOUT God.
Whatever happened to your "WWJD?" If Jesus did not tell those not of the faith that they had "false gods," why should I? Shouldn't I follow His own practice of pointing out the errors in concepts, rather than stooping to accuse?

Denying the deity, exclusivity and uniqueness of Jesus Christ

I've never done this, so you certainly have not SHOWN that I have. All I have shown is that there are truths, even truths which Jesus taught, which have been taught in other times in other religions, and still are. That does not limit the uniqueness or exclusivity of Jesus. In fact, it does not even address it at all.

Teaching a 'works' based salvation

Gee, I thought you were over this nonsense already. This WAS, after all, totally based on the lambskin apron lecture, and was TOTALLY based on one phrase in that lecture about "purity of life and rectitude of conduct" being "so essentially necessary," and you have been shown beyond all doubt that they ARE so, from clear statements in Scripture (Heb. 14:12, Rev. 21:27). You were also shown clearly that when the Bible speaks of holiness or sanctification, it puts it in terms of "sanctification of the Spirit" (2 Thess. 2:13, 1 Pet. 1:2), so that discussion of the necessary purity is not properly defined in terms of "works" anyway, it being the work of the Spirit and not of man.

Treating the Holy Bible as a piece of furniture, and in the name of religious tolerance, placing it on the same 'level' and veracity as the quasi-sacred writings of false religions

(1) Furniture is a NECESSITY. Besides, it is more often described as the GREAT LIGHT of Masonry, and the "rule and guide of our faith." And you have not considered where the idea of it as "furniture" came from in the first place:

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:
3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,
4 To devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass,
5 And in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.
6 And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee;
7 The tabernacle of the congregation, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is thereupon, and all the furniture of the tabernacle,
8 And the table and his furniture, and the pure candlestick with all his furniture, and the altar of incense,
9 And the altar of burnt offering with all his furniture, and the laver and his foot,
10 And the cloths of service, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, to minister in the priest's office,
11 And the anointing oil, and sweet incense for the holy place: according to all that I have commanded thee shall they do.
(Exodus 31:1-11)

There are many allusions to and discussions of many things in Masonry that derive straight from the Bible, as I just pointed out in great detail in a recent post. All of these are easily recognizable to anyone familiar with biblical terminology at all, and even MORE recognizable to anyone familiar with KJV, for all the biblical references found in Masonry derive from the KJV Bible. The idea of "furniture" is simply one more example of it.

ANYTHING residing on the altar in the tabernacle was described as "furniture." And where does the Bible reside in many churches, and in all U.S. lodges? On the altar, of course.

So, then, in an institution which has the Bible as its "Great Light," and which has at the center of its allegories the building of King Solomon's Temple:

Why should it come as any surprise to you that from a passage describing Bezaleel, who also finds mention in Masonry as one of the earliest stone workers, that Masonry would adopt the idea of "furniture" to describe those items which are on the altar, just as the OT describes the items on the altar in the tabernacle?

(2) It is not placed on the "same level" as a requirement for ME, nor is it so for any Grand Lodge in the U.S., ALL of which have the Holy Bible as the Book with which their lodges shall be opened, thereby making the Bible the VSL in all U.S. Grand Lodge jurisdictions. Any individual candidate may choose another book for his obligation. And the book of his choice is a choice made ONLY for HIM, he nor the lodge nor the Grand Lodge nor anyone else may determine for ME which book I consider sacred. I choose the Holy Bible, I made that choice LONG before entering Masonry, and that choice has not changed.

And, exercising discriminatory practices

A charge on which you seem to try to exonerate the church, even though it currently is faring much more poorly. Both the church and the lodge teach brotherly love for all, it is the TEACHING we are focused on in issues of compatibility, NOT the SUCCESS RATE.

And you still have not, and will not, make a case for "discrimination" stick with the lodge or with any other CURRENT institution, by pulling out 77-year-old UNOFFICIAL articles to "document" your case. I could do the same thing and "prove" that we only have 48 states and have only had 31 presidents. But my information in doing so would be as outdated as yours is in trying to make a case for discrimination over something which is already out the door in the huge majority of lodges, and is well on the way to being out in the rest of them.

And, since Freemasonry is guilty

There's your problem right there, you have assumed that which you clearly have not shown. It's those false assumptions which get you every time.

SO, since Freemasonry is falsely accused in ALL OF THIS, it is not in conflict with Christianity, no matter what any antimason says to the contrary.

 

[George the 3rd]

Since Mike is so fond of quoting "Masonic authorities" that have no authority at all, I thought it might be informative to quote from the Grand Lodge of Ohio's website: http://www.freemason.com/html/how_to_join.php
in order to give anyone curious about an official declaration on some of the subjects covered in the discussions in this topic. (Please note, areas highlighted with different colors are mine, and are done so in order to draw attention to what I consider significant statements that relate to discussions within this topic!)

What is Freemasonry?

Freemasonry is the oldest, largest and most widely recognized fraternal organization in the World. Founded in London, England in 1717, its current worldwide membership totals 3.6 million members, 1.6 million of which are in North America. With 120,000 Masons and 530 local Lodges, Ohio has one of the largest Masonic memberships of any state in the country.​

As a fraternal organization, Freemasonry unites men of good character who, though of different religious, ethnic, or social backgrounds, share a belief in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of mankind.​

The traditions of Freemasonry are founded upon the building of King Solomon's Temple, and its fraternal ceremonies use the working tools of the stonemasons to symbolize moral lessons and truths. For example, Masons are reminded at Lodge to "meet upon the level of equality, act by the plumb of uprightness, and part upon the square of virtue."​

Like most organizations, one will get out of Freemasonry what he is able to put into it. However, membership in Freemasonry is not meant in any way to interfere with an individual's commitment to his faith, family, or occupation. Freemasonry is not and never can be a replacement for these important institutions, but rather it is a positive environment that reminds every Mason of his duty to God, his community, his family and himself.​

Freemasonry provides opportunities for sincere, honest, forthright men who believe in God and desire to contribute to the improvement of their communities and themselves. Through our Masonic Fraternalism, we reaffirm our dedication and unity to become involved citizens who have a strong desire to preserve the values that have made and continue to make America great.​

WELCOME!​

What are the Ceremonies?

The experience of becoming a member of a Masonic Lodge is divided into three ceremonial stages that Masons call "degrees." These three degrees are loosely based upon the journeyman system, which was used to educate Medieval craftsmen. Symbolically the degrees represent the three stages of human development: youth, manhood, and age.​

The first degree of Freemasonry is the Entered Apprentice degree. It is a candidate's first experience with the ceremonies of the fraternity and like all Masonic ceremonies is a solemn and meaningful event. Though new to Freemasonry, an Entered Apprentice enjoys the title of "Brother."​

The Fellow Craft degree is the second ceremony and exposes a Brother to more of the symbolism and philosophy of the fraternity. For skilled craftsmen this degree would have marked one's progress from an apprentice to a journeyman.​

The Master Mason degree is the last of the Lodge ceremonies and with it a candidate becomes a full member, enjoying both the rights and responsibilities of membership.​

During all three ceremonies, a candidate is treated with complete respect. At no time, is he ever made to feel uncomfortable or harassed in anyway. Masonic ceremonies are a wonderful tradition shared by men such as George Washington, Harry S. Truman, Dave Thomas, and other men of integrity. These ceremonies are always conferred in such a way as to bring pride to the candidate and the members of the Lodge.​

Joining a Masonic Lodge and Becoming a Master Mason

Joining a Masonic Lodge is an opportunity for qualified men to become members of the world's oldest, largest, and best known fraternal organization. The process of becoming a member is divided into stages marked by three separate ceremonies, the symbolism of which is intended to strengthen a man's commitment to his Faith, his family, and his community.​

Master Masons are men from a variety of ethnic, religious, and economic backgrounds who share a belief in the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God, work to improve themselves and their communities, and are an asset to all who know them. Membership in a Masonic Lodge is an honor that says a great deal about the character and personal integrity of a man.​

Qualifications for Membership

Application for membership is open to men who:​

• Have been an Ohio resident for at least one year
• Are at least 19 years old
• Have a belief in a Supreme Being
• Live a good moral and social life
• Do not advocate the overthrow of the government
• Can read and write English
• Are recommended by two members of the Lodge they wish to join.

There is NO restriction for membership based on racial or ethnic background. I belong to a Lodge under the Grand Lodge of Ohio and know personally men of many ethnic backgrounds, including those of African decent.
There is NO restriction for membership based on physical condition. I personally know Masons who have significant physical disabilities including the loss or lack of use of limbs. I can tell you without reservation that even if a man who is without sight were to petition a Lodge, he would not be rejected on that account. During the ceremonies, where "sight" was a significant aspect of the proceedings, there would be a Brother Mason at his side to explain and clarify what the significance was in order to complete his experience. Masonry states it is the internal, not the external qualification of the man it considers. Likewise, it is the internal, spiritual and philosophical aspect of the ceremonies that Masonry considers of utmost importance. As long as a man can comprehend what is happening, or what would have happened had he been physically able to experience it himself, he would receive the Masonic degrees. In fact, I would suggest that should a man with a disability experience the degrees of Masonry with the extra effort that would have been afforded him, the fraternal bonds of Masonry would be enhanced for both him and those Brothers who assisted him!

And finally, though I feel I'm beating a dead horse, there is never any suggestion that any other "god" other than God, who is referred to by the attribute, not "name" of The Great Architect of the Universe, certainly not "GAOTU" is the God of Masonry. Every reference above in the quote from the website should be clear to anyone with a brain to discern refers to God Almighty. Men may differ and possess differing degrees of insight and understanding as to the nature of God. That is not Masonry's concern. As stated above, "However, membership in Freemasonry is not meant in any way to interfere with an individual's commitment to his faith" and is "is intended to strengthen a man's commitment to his Faith".

As far as Masonry and Christianity being compatible, though I am no "authority", I feel confident in saying that if a man's faith precludes membership in organizations like Masonry, Masonry would not wish to have him join. Membership should and must be of a man's "own free will and accord". If in his heart and conscience he finds Masonry and Christianity as he understands it to be compatible, then he would be welcomed and would never be persuaded to change anything about his personal beliefs.

 

[AndrewCS]

There is NO restriction for membership based on racial or ethnic background. I belong to a Lodge under the Grand Lodge of Ohio and know personally men of many ethnic backgrounds, including those of African decent.


There is NO restriction for membership based on physical condition. I personally know Masons who have significant physical disabilities including the loss or lack of use of limbs. I can tell you without reservation that even if a man who is without sight were to petition a Lodge, he would not be rejected on that account.

That’s great


What about women ?

 

[George the 3rd]

Andrew,
I will answer your question by referring you to what Rev. Wayne said about it and which I could nether improve or add to:

Any women in your church's men's group?

I go to a Tuesday morning men's prayer breakfast each week, attended by the men of several churches in town, across denominational lines. It would be a travesty for anyone to start criticizing groups in the church for their exclusionary practices, because a lot of good ones would have to go down the tube. Why try to create accusations over such non-issues as this one? Mike spoke of hypocrisy while ago, which is basically saying one thing and doing another. It is no different if one is a member of a church which has any traditional small groups divided along gender lines, most of which are exclusionary BY THEIR VERY NAME, being denominated as "men's group" or "women's group," or "ladies' circle," or other similar names.

Now, care to answer MY question?

 

[G19]

That’s great


What about women ?

Rev Wayne already answered that question.

But anyway.... it's a FRATERNITY. Women are free to form their own organization if they wish. They can join the Eastern Star. They can join a co-masonic, or female only masonic lodge if they wish.

 

[AndrewCS]

Andrew,
I will answer your question by referring you to what Rev. Wayne said about it and which I could nether improve or add to:

Originally Posted by Rev. Wayne
Any women in your church's men's group?

I go to a Tuesday morning men's prayer breakfast each week, attended by the men of several churches in town, across denominational lines. It would be a travesty for anyone to start criticizing groups in the church for their exclusionary practices, because a lot of good ones would have to go down the tube. Why try to create accusations over such non-issues as this one? Mike spoke of hypocrisy while ago, which is basically saying one thing and doing another. It is no different if one is a member of a church which has any traditional small groups divided along gender lines, most of which are exclusionary BY THEIR VERY NAME, being denominated as "men's group" or "women's group," or "ladies' circle," or other similar names.




Now, care to answer MY question?

Really,

This is not in the same context.

If a church has a men’s meeting it means that a particular time / day there is a men’s group but thereafter the FAMILY come back together to the church.

It does not mean that women are excluded ALL THE TIME.

 

[AndrewCS]

Rev Wayne already answered that question.

But anyway.... it's a FRATERNITY. Women are free to form their own organization if they wish. They can join the Eastern Star. They can join a co-masonic, or female only masonic lodge if they wish.

Really,

This would be a great topic for Oprah.

Keep on posting brothers

I love it

God loves you

PS: Are you three related, belong to the same lodge or something that you all answer each others questions ?