Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

O.F.F. · Sep 3, 2007

Again, because it's so long, I have to post this section of the degree in its entirety over 2 posts. It's done so that no one is misled by a Mason saying that I left out something that could refute my claim; which is, NOWHERE-- and I repeat, NOWHERE-- in Masonic Ritual does Freemasonry ever explain that this is not the biblical record.

His body was found at the brow of the hill where one worthy Brother sat down to rest and refresh himself. The Master’s Word or a key to it could not be found on or about it.

King Solomon then ordered them to go with him to raise the body for more decent interment, and ordered that as the Master’s Word was then lost, the first sign given at the grave and the first word spoken after the body was raised should be adopted for the regulation of all Masters Lodges, until future ages should find out the right.

They repaired to the grave where King Solomon ordered them to take the body by the grip of an Entered Apprentice and endeavor to raise it, but owing to the horrible state of putrefaction, the body having been dead fifteen days, the skin slipped from the flesh and it could not so be raised. King Solomon then ordered them to take it by the real grip of a Fellow Craft and endeavor to raise it, but owing to the reason before given, the flesh cleaved from the bones, and it could not be so raised. King Solomon then took it by the strong grip of a Master Mason and raised it on the Five Points of Fellowship, which are, foot to foot, knee to knee, breast to breast, hand to back, and cheek to cheek or mouth to ear.

They teach us these important lessons; foot to foot, that we should be ever ready to go on foot, even barefoot, on a worthy Master Mason’s errand, should his necessities require it and we be no better provided; knee to knee, that we should ever remember our Brethren in our devotions to Deity; breast to breast, that the secrets of a worthy Brother Master Mason, when communicated to us as such, should be as secure and inviolate in our breasts as they were in his before communication; hand to back, that we should be ever ready to stretch forth a hand to support a falling Brother and aid him on all lawful occasions; cheek to cheek or mouth to ear, that we should be ever ready to whisper wise counsel into the ear of an erring Brother and warn him of approaching danger.

They carried the body to the Temple and buried it in due form, and Masonic tradition informs us that a monument was erected to his memory, on which was delineated a beautiful Virgin weeping over a broken column; before her lay a book, open; in her right hand a sprig of acacia; in her left, an urn; and behind her stood Time with his fingers unfolding and counting the ringlets of her hair.

The broken column denotes the untimely death of our Grand Master Hiram Abif; the beautiful Virgin, weeping, denotes the Temple, unfinished; the book open before her, that his virtues there lie on perpetual record; the sprig of acacia in her right hand, the timely discovery of his body; the urn in her left, that his ashes were there safely deposited to perpetuate the remembrance of so distinguished a character; and Time standing behind her unfolding the ringlets of her hair denotes that time, patience and perseverance will accomplish all things.

Thus we close the second section with a tribute to the memory of that distinguished artist, who preferred to lose his life rather than betray his trust, and whose death exhibited an instance of virtue, fortitude and integrity seldom equaled, and never excelled in the history of man.

In the third section, many particulars relative to King Solomon’s Temple are considered. This section also illustrates certain hieroglyphical emblems and inculcates many useful lessons to extend knowledge and promote virtue.

This magnificent Temple, which long challenged the admiration of the world, far exceeded in splendor all other structures that had hitherto been erected. It was begun in the month of April, A. M. 2992, 480 years after the Children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, and it was finished in the month of October, A. M. 2999, 1005 years before Christ.

There were two remarkable events attending the erection of the edifice. Sacred history informs us that there was not heard the sound of axe, hammer, or any metal tool in the building; and Josephus informs us that, although a little more than seven years were employed in its erection, it did not rain except in the night season and while the Craft were gone from labor to refreshment. This we regard as a striking manifestation of the superintending care of Divine Providence.

The Temple is said to have been supported by 1453 columns and 2906 pilasters, all hewn from the finest Parian marble.

There were employed in its erection, three Grand Masters, three thousand three hundred Masters of overseers of the work, eighty thousand Fellow Crafts or hewers in the mountains and quarries, and seventy thousand Entered Apprentices or bearers of burdens. All these were classed and arranged in such manner by the wisdom of King Solomon that neither envy, discord nor confusion was suffered to interrupt or disturb the peace and good fellowship which prevailed among the workmen.

Entered Apprentices formerly held their meetings on the checkered pavement, or ground floor of King Solomon’s Temple, where they met every evening to receive instructions relative to the work of the following day. A Lodge of Entered Apprentices consists of seven or more and must be composed of one Master Mason and six or more Entered Apprentices.

Fellow Crafts held their meetings in the Middle Chamber of King Solomon’s Temple, where they met on the evening of the sixth day of each week to receive their wages. A Lodge of Fellow Crafts consists of five or more, and must be composed of two Master Masons and three or more Fellow Crafts.

Master Masons held their meetings in the Sanctum Sanctorum or Holy of Holies of King Solomon’s Temple, where they met occasionally to devise plans for the prosecution of the work. A Lodge of Master Masons consists of three or more, and must be composed of three Master Masons, representing Solomon, King of Israel; Hiram, King of Tyre; and Hiram Abif.

The three pillars here represented were explained in a preceding degree, and there represented Wisdom, Strength and Beauty. Here they represent our three ancient Grand Masters: Solomon, King of Israel; Hiram, King of Tyre; and Hiram Abif. The pillar Wisdom, Solomon, King of Israel, by whose wisdom the Temple was erected, the superb model of excellence which has so honored and exalted his name; the pillar Strength, Hiram, King of Tyre, who strengthened King Solomon in his great and important undertaking; and the pillar Beauty, Hiram Abif, the Widow’s Son of the tribe of Naphtali, by whose cunning workmanship the Temple was so beautified and adorned.

The three steps usually delineated on the Master’s carpet are emblematical of the three principal stages of human life: Youth, Manhood and Age. In Youth, as Entered Apprentices, we ought industriously to occupy our minds in the attainment of useful knowledge; in Manhood, as Fellow Crafts, we should apply our knowledge to the discharge of our respective duties to God, our neighbor, and ourselves, so that in age, as Master Masons, we may enjoy the happy reflection consequent on a well spent life, and die in the hope of a glorious immortality.

There are nine classes of Masonic emblems, the first eight of which are: the Pot of Incense, the Beehive, the Book of Constitutions guarded by the Tyler’s Sword, the Sword pointing to the Naked Heart, the All-seeing Eye, the Anchor and the Ark, the Forty-seventh Problem of Euclid, the Hour-glass and the Scythe.

The Pot of Incense is an emblem of a pure heart, which is always an acceptable sacrifice to Deity, and as this glows with fervent heat, so should our hearts continually glow with gratitude to the great and beneficent Author of our existence for the manifold blessings and comforts we enjoy.

The Beehive is an emblem of industry, and recommends the practice of that virtue to all created beings, from the highest seraph in heaven to the lowest reptile of the dust. It teaches us that as we came into the world rational and intelligent beings, so we should ever be industrious ones; never sitting down contented while our fellow creatures around us are in want, especially when it is in our power to relieve them without inconvenience to ourselves.

The Book of Constitutions guarded by the Tyler’s Sword reminds us that we should be ever watchful and guarded in our thoughts, words and actions, particularly when before the enemies of Masonry, ever bearing in remembrance those truly Masonic virtues, silence and circumspection.

The Sword pointing to the Naked Heart demonstrates that justice will sooner or later overtake us; and although our thoughts, words and actions may be hidden from the eyes of men, yet that All-seeing Eye, whom the Sun, Moon and Stars obey, and under whose watchful care even the Comets perform their stupendous revolutions, pervades the inmost recesses of the human Heart, and will reward us according to our merits.

The Anchor and the Ark are emblems of a well-grounded hope and a well-spent life. They are emblematical of the Divine Ark which safely wafts us over this tempestuous sea of troubles, and that Anchor which shall safely moor us in a peaceful harbor, where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest.

The Forty-seventh Problem of Euclid teaches Masons to be general lovers of the arts and sciences.

The Hour-glass is an emblem of human life. Behold how swiftly the sands run, and how rapidly our lives are drawing to a close. We cannot, without astonishment, behold the little particles which are contained in this machine - how they pass away almost imperceptibly; and yet, to our surprise, in the short space of an hour they are all exhausted. Thus wastes man. Today he puts forth the tender leaves of hope; tomorrow blossoms, and bears his blushing honors thick upon him; the next day comes a frost which nips the shoot; and when he thinks his greatness is still aspiring, he falls, like autumn leaves, to enrich our mother earth.

The Scythe is an emblem of time, which cuts the brittle thread of life and launches us into eternity. Behold what havoc the Scythe of Time makes among the human race. If by chance we should escape the numerous ills incident to childhood and youth, and with health and vigor arrive at the years of manhood, yet withal we must soon be cut down by the all-devouring Scythe of Time, and be gathered into the land where our fathers have gone before us.

The ninth is not monitorial; it is the Setting Maul, the Spade, the Coffin, and the Sprig of Acacia. The Setting Maul is that by which our Grand Master Hiram Abif was slain; the Spade, that which dug his grave; the Coffin, that which received his lifeless remains; and the Sprig of Acacia, that which bloomed at the head of his grave.

The first three are striking emblems of mortality and afford serious reflection to all thinking men, but they would be more dark and gloomy were it not for the Sprig of Acacia that bloomed at the head of the grave, (WM: * * *.) which serves to remind us that there is an imperishable part within us which bears the nearest affinity to the Supreme Intelligence which pervades all nature and which will never, never, never die. (WM: *)

Thus we close the explanation of the emblems upon the solemn thought of death, which without revelation would be dark and gloomy, but we are suddenly revived by that ever green and ever living sprig of Faith, which strengthens us with confidence and composure, to look forward to a blessed immortality, and we doubt not that on the glorious morn of resurrection our bodies will rise and become as incorruptible as our souls.

Then let us imitate the example of our Grand Master Hiram Abif, in his virtuous and amiable conduct, in his unfeigned piety to God, in his inflexible fidelity to his trust, that we may welcome the grim tyrant, Death, and receive him as a kind messenger sent from our Supreme Grand Master to translate us from this imperfect to that perfect, glorious and celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides.

WM: My Brother, this concludes the Third Degree of Freemasonry, with the exception of the Charge. If you will rise, I will repeat it to you.

Master Mason Degree of Freemasonry, Grand Lodge of Nevada, circa 1986, pg. 20-25 (emphasis added)

From begin to end, this is the explanation of the Third Degree, which they state at the very beginning as an historical account of this degree. And, as you can see, they conclude this degree with no further explanation. Notice, not once did they explain that this is NOT the biblical account, as Wayne claims they do in so "many cases."

To me it's a mockery of God's Word, even to the point of expressing that Master Masons could go where, actual Scripture states, was reserved only for the Levitical Priesthood. That is, holding their meetings in the Sanctum Sanctorum or Holy of Holies of King Solomon’s Temple.

Furthermore let me say again, NOWHERE-- and I repeat, NOWHERE-- in Masonic Ritual does Freemasonry ever explain that this is not the biblical record. Therefore, initiates are led to believe that this is true and one of the "secrets" of Freemasonry. What secret is this you might ask? See my next post!

O.F.F. · Sep 3, 2007

The Third Degree has a deeper meaning as explained in The Symbolism of Freemasonry by Albert G. Mackey:

Before concluding this part of the subject, it is proper that something should be said of the authenticity of the legend of the third degree. Some distinguished Masons are disposed to give it full credence as an historical fact, while others look upon it only as a beautiful allegory. So far as the question has any bearing upon the symbolism of Freemasonry it is not of importance; but those who contend for its historical character assert that they do so on the following grounds:

First. Because the character of the legend is such as to meet all the requirements of the well-known axiom of Vincentius Lirinensis, as to what we are to believe in traditionary matters.

Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est.

That is, we are to believe whatever tradition has been at all times, in all places, and by all persons handed down.

With this rule the legend of Hiram Abif, they say, agrees in every respect. It has been universally received, and almost universally credited, among Freemasons from the earliest times. We have no record of any Masonry having ever existed since the time of the temple without it; and, indeed, it is so closely interwoven into the whole system, forming the most essential part of it, and giving it its most determinative character, that it is evident that the institution could no more exist without the legend, than the legend could have been retained without the institution. This, therefore, the advocates of the historical character of the legend think, gives probability at least to its truth.

Secondly. It is not contradicted by the scriptural history of the transactions at the temple, and therefore, in the absence of the only existing written authority on the subject, we are at liberty to depend on traditional information, provided the tradition be, as it is contended that in this instance it is, reasonable, probable, and supported by uninterrupted succession.

Thirdly. It is contended that the very silence of Scripture in relation to the death of Hiram, the Builder, is an argument in favor of the mysterious nature of that death. A man so important in his position as to have been called the favorite of two kings,sent by one and received by the other as a gift of surpassing value, and the donation thought worthy of a special record, would hardly have passed into oblivion, when his labor was finished, without the memento of a single line, unless his death had taken place in such a way as to render a public account of it improper. And this is supposed to have been the fact. It had become the legend of the new Mysteries, and, like those of the old ones, was only to be divulged when accompanied with the symbolic instructions which it was intended to impress upon the minds of the aspirants.

But if, on the other hand, it be admitted that the legend of the third degree is a fiction,that the whole masonic and extra-scriptural account of Hiram Abif is simply a myth,it could not, in the slightest degree, affect the theory which it is my object to establish. For since, in a mythic relation, as the learned Müller has observed, fact and imagination, the real and the ideal, are very closely united, and since the myth itself always arises, according to the same author, out of a necessity and unconsciousness on the part of its framers, and by impulses which act alike on all, we must go back to the Spurious Freemasonry of the Dionysiacs for the principle which led to the involuntary formation of this Hiramic myth; and then we arrive at the same result, which has been already indicated, namely, that the necessity of the religious sentiment in the Jewish mind, to which the introduction of the legend of Dionysus would have been abhorrent, led to the substitution for it of that of Hiram, in which the ideal parts of the narrative have been intimately blended with real transactions. Thus, that there was such a man as Hiram Abif; that he was the chief builder at the temple of Jerusalem; that he was the confidential friend of the kings of Israel and Tyre, which is indicated by his title of Ab , or father; and that he is not heard of after the completion of the temple,are all historical facts. That he died by violence, and in the way described in the masonic legend, may be also true, or may be merely mythical elements incorporated into the historical narrative.

But whether this be so or not,whether the legend be a fact or a fiction, a history or a myth,this, at least, is certain: that it was adopted by the Solomonic Masons of the temple as a substitute for the idolatrous legend of the death of Dionysus which belonged to the Dionysiac Mysteries of the Tyrian workmen.

Albion · Sep 3, 2007

O.F.F. said:
Furthermore let me say again, NOWHERE-- and I repeat, NOWHERE-- in Masonic Ritual does Freemasonry ever explain that this is not the biblical record.

...and NOWHERE--and I repeat, NOWHERE--in the Boy Scouts' ceremonies is it every explained that the three-fingered salute does not refer to Krishna, Shiva, and some other Hindu deity.

This line of argument that X = Y because it is not explicity denied as being Y is sophomoric.

If you are so concerned about Christians who are Masons (or Christians contemplating becoming Mason) endangering or compromising their faith, you cannot logically also describe them as knowing nothing about their faith and about the Bible--which is what this argument does.

chaoschristian · Sep 3, 2007

O.F.F. said:
Furthermore let me say again, NOWHERE-- and I repeat, NOWHERE-- in Masonic Ritual does Freemasonry ever explain that this is not the biblical record. Therefore, initiates are led to believe that this is true and one of the "secrets" of Freemasonry. What secret is this you might ask? See my next post!

I am more concerned for the millions who believe that the Left Behind Series is historically Biblical than the one or two Masons who didn't realize the allegory is not canonical.

You are really stretching that poor 'therefore' to beyond the breaking limits to grasp at your conclusion.

The reason it's not said, the reason it doesn't need to be said is that the great vast majority of Masons know the story isn't canonical, having actually read their scriptures and all and being familiar wth the passages involved.

Again, you are committing an error of the most modern type, that literary tools such as myth, allegory and parable must necessarily be without truth because they are not fact.

Rev Wayne · Sep 3, 2007

Again, because it's so long, I have to post this section of the degree in its entirety over 2 posts. It's done so that no one is misled by a Mason saying that I left out something that could refute my claim

Well, I hate it you had to go to all that trouble, but the fact of the matter is, no one has to refute any of this at all. It was refuted long ago by Mackey himself:

[SIZE=+1]

[SIZE=+1]Years ago in writing an article on this subject under the impressions made upon me by the fascinating theories of Doctor Oliver, though I never completely accepted his views, 1 was led to place the organization of Freemasonry, as it now exists, at the building of Solomon's Temple. Many years of subsequent research have led me greatly to modify the views I had previously held.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Although I do not rank myself among those modern iconoclasts who refuse credence to every document whose authenticity, if admitted, would give to the Order a birth anterior to the beginning of the last century, I confess that I cannot find any incontrovertible evidence that would trace Freemasonry, as now a organized, beyond the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages. In this point of view I speak of it only as an architectural brotherhood, distinguished by signs, by words, and by brotherly ties which have not been essentially changed, and by symbols and legends which have only been developed and extended, while the association has undergone a transformation from an operative art to a speculative science.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

[/SIZE]Read it carefully and understand exactly what he's saying with this, because this was a profound move for him to have to make, considering the opinions he had held and how long he had supported them. This acknowledgment came at a time very late in his life, after practically everything he had ever written on the subject of Freemasonry had long been published.

A lot of these theories he had held in common with Albert Pike, who became aware of the case as Mackey states it here at about the same time Mackey became aware of it. Pike, who was just about finished writing his signature piece, Morals and Dogma, would have had to make such drastic cuts and revisions, that he went ahead and published the work, without retraction, choosing instead to include a disclaimer in his preface stating that the reader could accept or reject anything in it as he/she may choose.

Although Mackey does make this statement in his Encyclopedia, there was very little he could do by way of any thorough retraction of the theories as found in the entire volume of his writings. Those had taken many years of a lifetime that was drawing to a close, and he simply did not have enough time left on this earth to even think about undertaking such a task.

Thus it is, when we read anything Mackey wrote, it has to be viewed through the lens of, "Was this pre- or post-retraction?" For the most part, the task for us is very simple: any theories of speculative Freemasonry in which Mackey makes any claims for a history of the organization going any farther back than the medieval guilds, we have to accept his own word that on the basis of better information than he had earlier in his life, he retracted those opinions. But that is not always the easiest of tasks, particularly in a work like his Encyclopedia, which contains a curious mix of theories about "ancient" Masonry, and theories that are more in line with his later statement of retraction. The reason for that is, it was during the compiling of information for the Encyclopedia that he came into possession of more accurate information, and thus the retraction was made during the work on the Encyclopedia.

It's easy to see from all that you've posted, that Mackey clearly was supporting a position concerning Freemasonry at a time before the medieval guilds, and that he himself made a statement at a later point that essentially negates any claims that he might have made earlier regarding Freemasonry being pre-Christian, and thus also negates your claims in posting the material as "proof" that Masons "believe" this to be "biblical."

The piece you quoted from Mackey's Symbolism is an excellent case in point. The publication date is 1869, LONG before Mackey came to his later conclusions and retracted any theories of Masonry in antiquity.

Not that it matters anyway, his was not much of an argument in support of what he said in what you posted anyway. All three of the criteria on which he based the argument, fail to make the case he claims. The first claim is that we are to believe all things handed down "universally." He tries to make the claim that the Hiram legend was a part of Masonry for such a long time, that

it is evident that the institution could no more exist without the legend, than the legend could have been retained without the institution.

You yourself have taken part in discussions we have had in the past about when Hiram actually arrived in Masonry, so you are posting this material despite previous knowledge that Hiram does not even date from the founding of the modern lodge in 1717.

So much for the first of his claims.

The second and third fall very easily. The second claims validity on the basis of non-contradiction. Many people use that same kind of argumentation when they say "Jesus never said anything against homosexuality, so gay must be okay." That is, quite simply, not a valid argument.

The third falls because it is an argument from omission. "Scripture is silent on the matter, therefore the account may be taken as true?"

Come on, Mike, I thought even you could see the faulty logic in something like that.

Not that it matters, anyway, I'm just pointing out that even if Mackey had not retracted this already, it never was much of an argument.

Rev Wayne · Sep 3, 2007

Furthermore let me say again, NOWHERE-- and I repeat, NOWHERE-- in Masonic Ritual does Freemasonry ever explain that this is not the biblical record.

Interesting, Michael. What I find obvious in what you posted, and the very scant comments you posted along with it, is that nowhere in what you posted do you claim to have shown where Masonry clearly DOES claim this to be the biblical record. Since you have not shown where they DO, your claim that "nowhere do they explain it is NOT" is an argument from absence--which, as I just pointed out in my previous post, is no argument at all.

My Brother, you will now return to the East, and receive an historical account of this degree

And somehow you interpret this as "this is the biblical record?" Maybe it's a matter of incorrect highlighting again. For instance, try my version:

My Brother, you will now return to the East, and receive an historical account of this degree

Nope, I'm afraid a "historical account of THIS DEGREE" is not a "historical account of the biblical record."

Besides, with all your highlighting, once again you obscure pertinent information by the act of leaving it unhighlighted. My standard practice with your posts is to read the unaccented material first, because it often contains material you overlooked. For instance:

But if, on the other hand, it be admitted that the legend of the third degree is a fiction,—that the whole masonic and extra-scriptural account of Hiram Abif is simply a myth,—it could not, in the slightest degree, affect the theory which it is my object to establish. For since, in a mythic relation, as the learned Müller has observed, fact and imagination, the real and the ideal, are very closely united, and since the myth itself always arises, according to the same author, out of a necessity and unconsciousness on the part of its framers, and by impulses which act alike on all, we must go back to the Spurious Freemasonry of the Dionysiacs for the principle which led to the involuntary formation of this Hiramic myth; and then we arrive at the same result, which has been already indicated, namely, that the necessity of the religious sentiment in the Jewish mind, to which the introduction of the legend of Dionysus would have been abhorrent, led to the substitution for it of that of Hiram, in which the ideal parts of the narrative have been intimately blended with real transactions. Thus, that there was such a man as Hiram Abif; that he was the chief builder at the temple of Jerusalem; that he was the confidential friend of the kings of Israel and Tyre, which is indicated by his title of Ab , or father; and that he is not heard of after the completion of the temple,—are all historical facts. That he died by violence, and in the way described in the masonic legend, may be also true, or may be merely mythical elements incorporated into the historical narrative.

Check out the bold print, and you will see what Mackey claims as fact--and the information he lists there is clearly discernible from the biblical account. The rest, he says, may or may not be true. Yet somehow, even after you read all that (assuming you DID, that is), the only thing you managed to conclude from it, and then highlight it, was the line that followed:

But whether this be so or not,—whether the legend be a fact or a fiction, a history or a myth,—this, at least, is certain: that it was adopted by the Solomonic Masons of the temple as a substitute for the idolatrous legend of the death of Dionysus which belonged to the Dionysiac Mysteries of the Tyrian workmen.

And of course, as we now know, he came to a point in his life where he received better information, and on the basis of that information, retracted any claim to theories of pre-guild speculative masonry, thus by his own words making this null and void.

O.F.F. · Sep 3, 2007

MOA said:
Interesting, Michael. What I find obvious in what you posted, and the very scant comments you posted along with it, is that nowhere in what you posted do you claim to have shown where Masonry clearly DOES claim this to be the biblical record. Since you have not shown where they DO, your claim that "nowhere do they explain it is NOT" is an argument from absence--which, as I just pointed out in my previous post, is no argument at all.

OFF said:

My Brother, you will now return to the East, and receive an historical account of this degree

Click to expand...

And somehow you interpret this as "this is the biblical record?" Maybe it's a matter of incorrect highlighting again. For instance, try my version:

MOA said:

My Brother, you will now return to the East, and receive an historical account of this degree

Click to expand...

Nope, I'm afraid a "historical account of THIS DEGREE" is not a "historical account of the biblical record."

Where one places the emphasis doesn't change the statement as it's recorded in Masonic Ritual; namely that they say it is a historical account. And, they then go on to explain ITS HISTORICAL and BIBLICAL CONTEXT, and they unequivocally present it as such in ritual without any disclaimer. In other words, they don't have to say "THIS IS THE BIBLICAL RECORD" when they clearly present it as such without equivocation.

As an institution, Freemasonry has yet to deny this position and probably never will, because it continues to appear in current issues of the same ritual throughout all regular jurisdictions. You may not believe it's an historical account, and neither do I, but that doesn't change the historical FACT that, from its inception up to this present day, Freemasonry continues to teach that it IS.

Albion · Sep 3, 2007

O.F.F. said:
Where one places the emphasis doesn't change the statement as it's recorded in Masonic Ritual; namely that they say it is a historical account.

Well, so is the fact that there were stonemasons building cathedrals in the Middle Ages. Historical and Biblical are two different things.

And, they then go on to explain ITS HISTORICAL and BIBLICAL CONTEXT, and they unequivocally present it as such without a disclaimer. In other words, they don't have to say "THIS IS THE BIBLICAL RECORD" when they clearly present it as such without equivocation.

What evidence do we have of this? Not that it is an analogy to something in the Bible, but that it is taught that the Hiram Abiff story is from the Bible?

As an institution, Freemasonry has yet to deny this position and probably never will,

How do you know that? The Masons here have denied it, so I doubt very much that no one else has. You almost always ignore any question I ask, as though you don't have an answer, so how about these questions at least?

Rev Wayne · Sep 3, 2007

Where one places the emphasis doesn't change the statement as it's recorded in Masonic Ritual; namely that they say it is a historical account. And, they then go on to explain ITS HISTORICAL and BIBLICAL CONTEXT, and they unequivocally present it as such without a disclaimer. In other words, they don't have to say "THIS IS THE BIBLICAL RECORD" when they clearly present it as such without equivocation.

As an institution, Freemasonry has yet to deny this position and probably never will, because it continues to appear in current issues of the same ritual throughout all regular jurisdictions. You may not believe it's an historical account, and neither do I, but that doesn't change the historical FACT that, from its inception up to this present day, Freemasonry continues to teach that it IS.

All you have shown is that Masonry says the account has a historical context. But nowhere in what you have shown does Masonry claim the legend is STRICTLY historical biblical context. And therein, you have not proven your point. But there are some things that must be clarified as well, since you accuse me of dishonesty on the basis of a false apprehension of what I said. My statement that Masonry nowhere claims any intent of presenting this as factual was based on two things which you will find stated everywhere you choose to look in Masonry, repeated often enough that you should have been well familiar with it by now.

(1) "Freemasonry is a system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols."

All of Masonry's teachings are allegory, Hiram Abiff is only one more. By allegory Masonry clearly understands, though you have shown by your mischaracterizations of allegory that you do not, that the teachings presented are not presented in literal but in symbolic form.

As I already pointed out to you from your quote of Mackey, he clearly understands that there are historical aspects to the Hiram story, and there are added details that are not historical, and he delineates between the two.

(2) The Master Mason degree drama is referred to as the Hiramic "Legend."

Like "allegory," the word "legend" clearly signals as well, that this is not intended to be portrayed as literal, factual information.

Concerning "legend," we find:

Legend.—A legend may properly be defined a traditional tale. All countries and all religions have their legends. In the Ancient Mysteries there was always a legend on which much symbolical instruction was based. These legends of the mysteries, although they varied as to the subject of the history in each, yet all agree in this, that they were funereal in their character—that they commemorated the death by violence, and the subsequent resurrection, of some favourite hero or hero-god—and that beginning with lamentation they ended in joy. " (Mackey, Lexicon of Freemasonry, p. 192)

"Legend" then, is "symbolical."

LEGEND. Amongst the Jews the type parabole, whether expressed dramatically or by words, was a legend or symbol. This method of conveying a striking truth buy the use of metaphorical imagery, was employed in their private as well as their public affairs. The symbols, parables, or legends, were, in process of time, multiplied so abundantly, as to form the chief contents of the Mishna and Gemara, compiled by the Rabbi judah Makkadosh and his successors, which form the text and annotations of the Talmud. (Macoy's Dictionary of Freemasonry, p. 570)

Interesting thing, bringing the Talmud into it, because Joseph Fort Newton has noted the same thing in regard to the Hiramic Legend:

All the workmen were killed that they should not build another Temple devoted to idolatry, Hiram himself being translated to heaven like Enoch. The Talmud has many variations of this legend. (The Builders, p. 167)

I think you forget the level of biblical scholarship that is exhibited in much of Masonry. I consistently find in reading back through much of Masonic writing, particularly as found in the entire century of the 1800's, that those who wrote about Masonry were well-versed in patristics, in ecclesiology, in Judaic studies and rabbinic writings, in apocryphal writings, in the pseudepigrapha, and were well-informed on the work of top-notch biblical scholars who were their contemporaries.

That being the case, when you look at what has come down to us from them and from many who have followed, it is no surprise to me to find that are well aware of the meaning of terms like "allegory" and "legend," even to the point of defining the significance of those terms in traditions beyond their own, such as Dr. Oliver does in the definition here from Macoy's Dictionary, and as Newton does in The Builders.

Since it was men like Oliver, Mackey, Newton, Pike, and many other men of extensive knowledge who have been responsible for much of what gets included even today in ritual content, I find it to be a very ill-informed and ludicrous opinion, to suggest that these men and others who have used the terms "allegory" and "legend," did not know exactly what they were saying when they used them. Therefore, when Masonry calls the Master Mason drama an "allegory" or a "legend," the terms themselves have defined it as something other than literal, factual, or historical. That does not, of course, prevent any such drama thus categorized, from having literal, factual, or historical elements within them, even though the whole may not be described by any of those terms.

Rev Wayne · Sep 3, 2007

In other words, they don't have to say "THIS IS THE BIBLICAL RECORD" when they clearly present it as such without equivocation.

And with that statement, you assume more than you have proved. "Present it as such" has not been shown by what you posted. They said they were detailing, in the account you posted, "an historical account of this degree." They did not describe it as a "biblical account," and therein lies the difference. What I said was, that Masonry does not relate the Hiram story and claim it to be strictly biblical. You posted this to try to counter what I said, obviously, but you fail to see that you have not shown it at all. Just because they show from the biblical account that it has a historical foundation, does not mean that they thereby intend that ALL of the Hiram story in every detail comes directly from the biblical account.

And you have ignored the statement Mackey made IN THE SAME MATERIAL YOU QUOTED that shows that he clearly states not all of it is from the biblical account.

Rev Wayne · Sep 3, 2007

Apparently, Michael, you thought to slip a counterfeit past us. Mackey is obviously of a different opinion than you claim:

To divest this Legend of its corrupt form, and to give to Hiram Abif, who was actually an historic personage, his true position among the workmen at the Temple, can not affect, in the slightest degree, the symbolism of which he forms so integral a part, while it will rationally account for the importance that has been attributed to him in the old as well as in the new Masonic system. Whether we make Hiram Abif the chief Builder and the Operative Grand Master of Solomon's Temple, or whether we assign that position to Anon, Amon, or Ajuon, as it is in the Old Legend, or to Adoniram, as it is done in some Masonic Rites, the symbolism will remain unaffected, because the symbolic idea rests on the fact of a Chief Builder having existed, and it is immaterial to the development of the symbolism what was his true name. The instruction intended to be conveyed in the legend of the Third Degree must remain unchanged, no matter whom we may identify as its hero; for he truly represents neither Hiram nor Anon nor Adoniram nor any other individual person, but rather the idea of man in an abstract sense. (Mackey, History of Freemasonry, p. 420-21)

Pretty difficult to take an "idea of man in an abstract sense" and turn it into any kind of portrayal of anything "historical" or "biblical," don't you think?

But hang onto your hat. There's a lot deeper stuff than that when it comes to Mackey:

Prior to 1860—many writers on Masonry held to the opinion that Speculative Masonry dates its origin from the building of King Solomon's temple by Jewish and Tyrian artisans, and, no doubt, general assent was given to the proposition ; but subsequent authorities in Masonic history do not now concur therein. Speculative philosophy existed prior to the construction of the Temple, but we may conjecture that in the formation of the rituals of the three degrees of Symbolic Masonry, the authors took the Temple and its construction as symbols, whereby the instructions in the moral principles, which formed the foundation of Speculative Masonry, were conveyed to the initiates. The very spirit of all of our lectures proves conclusively that when they were formulated they were designed to teach pure trinitarian Christianity, and while the Jewish scriptures did forecast the intermediary of a Christos, as all the ancient heathen mysteries did also, yet Jesus Christ as shown and demonstrated in the writings of the New Testament, was not understood by the Jewish writers of the Old Testament, nor by but very few of that faith since. The first three degrees taken in connection with the Holy Royal Arch, as they have always been with our Brethren of England, certainly show pure Christianity, as taught throughout the writings of the New Testament scriptures. (Mackey, History, p. 1769)

Now that's really interesting. Imagine the man who was Dr. Oliver's most ardent critic for expressing opinions of Masonry that interpreted it from Christian viewpoints, making a statement that powerful concerning Masonry's foundations! I find it significant too, that not only does he state this to be the case, he says it shows this "conclusively."

No, I'm afraid Mackey clearly is not of the opinion you sought to portray him to be.

And I certainly hope you caught:

the authors took the Temple and its construction as symbols

O.F.F. · Sep 3, 2007

You can quote all the Masonic scholars you wish, but none of them -- by Masonic rule -- speak on behalf of Freemasonry. So you have not refuted the facts I presented.

Masonic ritual issued by Grand Lodge authority is the only official documentation that applies here. Your view, and the opinion of Masonic scholars, is irrelevant if what you, or they say, cannot be substantiated by Masonic ritual.

And no matter what you post, the Third Degree ritual by Masonic authorities clearly says it is a historical account. And, it then goes on to explain this HISTORICAL account in a BIBLICAL CONTEXT, and it is unequivocally presented as such without any disclaimer.

Albion · Sep 3, 2007

O.F.F. said:
You can quote all the Masonic scholars you wish, but none of them -- by Masonic rule -- speak on behalf of Freemasonry.

But when they say what you want us to think--then they do!

LOL

chaoschristian · Sep 3, 2007

O.F.F. said:
And no matter what you post, the Third Degree ritual by Masonic authorities clearly says it is a historical account. And, it then goes on to explain this HISTORICAL account in a BIBLICAL CONTEXT, and it is unequivocally presented as such without any disclaimer.

I don't think this means what you want it mean.

Rev Wayne · Sep 3, 2007

You can quote all the Masonic scholars you wish, but none of them -- by Masonic rule -- speak on behalf of Freemasonry.

I quoted primarily from Mackey. Why was it okay when YOU quoted Mackey, but not okay when I posted from Mackey to REFUTE what you claimed as Mackey's position (which was shown to be in error, by the way)?

So you have not refuted the facts I presented.

For once, I agree, I have not refuted the facts you have presented--mainly because you have not presented any. If they were facts, I couldn't have refuted them so easily.

Masonic ritual issued by Grand Lodge authority is the only official documentation that applies here.

And apparently you use a different standard on your website. Why is that?

Your view, and the opinion of Masonic scholars, is irrelevant if what you, or they say, cannot be substantiated by Masonic ritual.

You seem to have forgotten what the issue is. This isn't about anything "I" said or "they" said. It's about something you said, and a challenge I issued to you to back it up, which you have not. You clearly stated:

You may not believe it's an historical account, and neither do I, but that doesn't change the historical FACT that, from its inception up to this present day, Freemasonry continues to teach that it IS.

You make blanket statements like this, covering territory that goes all the way back to 1717. Yet every time I have posted material covering the time frame as you just stated it, you insist on CURRENT Grand Lodge material.

You quote from Albert Mackey, I quote from Albert Mackey in return, mainly to point out that you have MISREPRESENTED MACKEY, and showed exactly where your errors were made. I can't blame you for getting a little hot and bothered by the fact that you were caught mis-stating the case where Mackey is concerned, but you can't realistically expect to quote from non-Grand Lodge materials like Mackey's Symbolism of Freemasonry, and then turn around and insist that everybody else play by different rules.

So like I told you before, I don't accept your guidelines, they are skewed in your favor, and everybody who reads your posts and sees you quoting from the sources you try to deny everyone else, can plainly see the two-faced nature of your insistences. You are CLEARLY trying to play on a field that is less than level, and anyone would be a fool to accept your terms.

So take your self-appointed position as arbiter of what is allowed in this debate, and put it in file 13, because I doubt anyone else will do any differently than I will do in simply disregarding such bluster.

And no matter what you post, the Third Degree ritual by Masonic authorities clearly says it is a historical account.

An overstatement. The NEVADA version of it says so. And so far that is the ONLY one you have posted. So you state the matter as though all of Masonry makes this statement, which is not true. One Grand Lodge does not speak for all Freemasonry, be they the "official documentation" or not. ONE does not equal "Masonic authorities clearly say it is a historical account." One Grand Lodge = "ONE GRAND LODGE has said it is a historical account." And ONE GRAND LODGE has "authority" over only one Grand Lodge jurisdiction. In the U.S. that generally means the territory of one state, in Canada it would mean one province, generally speaking, and elsewhere, usually one country. Nevada is sparsely populated, as, for the most part, are its lodges. I'm afraid they don't speak for nearly as much of Masonry as you would like them to.

Interesting, too, that you would try to assert this from one Grand Lodge, after stating only recently that "no one Grand Lodge speaks for all of Masonry." More of that abundant commodity known as anti-masonic double-speak.

You had another one recently, too, that was a side-splitter:

Where one places the emphasis doesn't change the statement as it's recorded in Masonic Ritual

That's a riot of a statement, given the caps and bolds and underlines that accentuate every post you put up.

And you STILL have not provided anything even close to what I said anyway. All you have done is try to reframe it. Since you have done so, I will repost EXACTLY what was said so everyone can be clear about what I said, and about your failure to produce it, and your attempt to provide "proof" by belligerently trying to limit the content of what others post, and by re-defining the content of what others have already posted:

If Masonry were truly trying to “violate God’s Word,” that in itself would go against every principle they stand for. But the glaring problem with your accusation is, it has nothing to do with what Revelation 22:18-19 is saying. You have TOTALLY and COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED what John was addressing when he made the comments. To "add to" or "take away from" the Word of God, Masonry would have to be changing the Bible in some substantial fashion, and then PRESENTING it as "the Bible." Clearly they have done nothing of the sort. The third degree of Masonry is exactly that: the third degree of Masonry; or, the Hiram legend, as it is often called. NOWHERE--I repeat, NOWHERE--does Masonry tell the allegory of the third degree, and then claim "THIS is the biblical account of the building of King Solomon's temple." In fact, quite the contrary, they point out where the biblical story may be found, and in many cases will even state exactly what the differences are and why this is NOT the biblical account.

That was exactly what I said, and anyone can easily see I did not say anything about "historical accounts." I CLEARLY and EMPHATICALLY said, "NOWHERE does Masonry tell the allegory of the third degree, and then claim 'THIS is the biblical acount of the building of King Solomon's temple."

If you wish to reframe posts, then reframe your own.

If you wish to limit content, then limit your own.

If you wish to talk about "dishonesty," then talk about your own.

And while you're at it, if somewhere along the line you find something that is actually a response to what I said, and not a make-believe, a reframe, or a substitute, by all means produce it and we'll consider it.

And you might consider consulting a dictionary so you can be clear about the difference between "historical" and "biblical," it might save you a lot of wasted effort.

Rev Wayne · Sep 3, 2007

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since the ritual under consideration comes from the Nevada Grand Lodge, it would be appropriate to ask whether Masons in Nevada truly view the ritual presented here as ACTUAL history, or whether, as is the case with a lot of the content in my own jurisdiction, a lot of the content is continued mainly out of Masonry's ages-old penchant for preservation. Therefore, from the website of the Grand Lodge of Nevada, on a link to an article on "The Antiquity of the Craft," we find:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Antiquity of the Craft ..." - How many times have we all heard that phrase? [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But, has it been shown to you, in living black and white? How do you know how old some of our ritual (verily, almost all of our ritual) really is? [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We have all been told that our Craft dates back to the Operative and Speculative Masons of England in the early 1700's, and that our tenants, ideas and philosophies go back to the days of the stonemasons employed at the building of King Solomon's Temple, but have you seen any rituals published in those eras? [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]It is unclear whether the question is being asked in regard to the building of Solomon's Temple, or in regard to the Speculative Masons of England of the 1700's. However, further down the page, in an introduction to the publishing of copies of Preston's Illustrations of Masonry, the statement is made:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are many examples of "The Antiquity of the Craft" found in a comparison of this book versus our modern-day ritual. Let's look at how Masonic Ritual in London 1796 compares to Masonic Ritual in Nevada in 1996 - two hundred years and half a world away! [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]Following that notation, there is a side-by-side comparison in parallel columns of exactly what it says, 1796 ritual with 1996 ritual, with the 1796 version described as an example of "antiquity."

And what do they say of Solomon's time?

We have all been told that our Craft dates back to the Operative and Speculative Masons of England in the early 1700's, and that our tenants [sic], ideas and philosophies go back to the days of the stonemasons employed at the building of King Solomon's Temple

Claiming a Solomonic connection to "tenets, ideas, and philosophies," is a far cry from claiming either historical or biblical foundations.

Like many Grand Lodges, my own included, there is a lot included in the content of the three degrees that hails from a time when the common theory WAS that Masonry's speculative roots extended back as far as the history of the operative craft. But Masons have known better for well over a century now, as can be seen by the comments posted from Mackey's History of Freemasonry a bit earlier.

And now we can see much more clearly, that apparently even Nevada Masons do not trace speculative Masonry back so far either.

Since there has been only one manual considered here, allow me to post a portion from another one for comparison:

OUR traditional history ascribes the foundation of Freemasonry to the building of King Solomon's Temple, or, as it is called in Scripture, 'the palace of Jehovah,' a designation intended to intimate that its splendour and magnificence were not intended to reflect honour on those engaged in its construction, but only that it should be rendered a fit dwelling for Him who is the 'King of kings, and Lord of lords.' As the ceremonies and lectures have many allusions to the Temple, a description of the building and its situation is essential to obtaining even a general notion of this remarkable structure. The following account is drawn from the historical books of the Old Testament and other trustworthy sources. (Jeremiah How, The Freemason’s Manual, p. 407)

Notice the author here indeed refers to this as "our traditional history," indicating a similar view of this as historical. But even so, notice he also refers to the ceremonies and lectures as having "many allusions to the Temple." That is the first idea we get that this is not the strict idea that some people might apply to historical accounts. But he also makes the comment that the story that follows, which actually is similar to the account as found in the Nevada ritual, is "drawn from the historical books of the Old Testament and other trustworthy sources."

By this comparison, and by the comments made here compared with those made in Nevada, it is easy to see that Nevada's comment about theirs being a "historical account" need not be so dogmatically insisted upon as a statement intended to mean "biblical." By that, of course, I refer to "biblical" in the same ultra-dogmatic sense in which it would no doubt be interpreted by the accusers--that is, strictly word-for-word and/or detail-for-detail in accord with the OT accounts as recorded in 2 Chronicles and elsewhere.

I think it's a real hoot that anybody would go to such lengths over such a non-issue. Especially when this whole non-issue was derived mainly from an imponderable defense of the non-issue raised over Revelation 22:18-19.

Rev Wayne · Sep 5, 2007

Now we're getting somewhere.

I was curious about where Nevada derives their ritual, which is the only one I'd been able to find like it. I had come across sources before that one or another portion of it, but none that contain all the material posted here.

Much of the material is, of course, biblical. Some of it is said to derive from "Masonic traditions." And all the various sources are in one sense or another "historical." But the various threads may be unraveled and by examination we may determine what may and may not be said about what we find portrayed here.

The accounts of Solomon employing the services of Hiram the architect through King Hiram of Tyre, are of course biblical. The account appears in two places, in 1 Kings and in 2 Chronicles. Mention is made in the Masonic account about this being 480 years from the tiem of the Exodus. This too is biblical, stated in 1 Kings 6:1. Also, the mention that "neither axe, nor hammer," etc. "was heard," is from 1 Kings 6:7.

The most significant biblical point that I found, however, was the enumeration of the various workers. In the posted material, it was stated thus:

There were employed in its erection, three Grand Masters, three thousand three hundred Masters of overseers of the work, eighty thousand Fellow Crafts or hewers in the mountains and quarries, and seventy thousand Entered Apprentices or bearers of burdens. All these were classed and arranged in such manner by the wisdom of King Solomon that neither envy, discord nor confusion was suffered to interrupt or disturb the peace and good fellowship which prevailed among the workmen.

This one I had tracked down and found the same numbers in 1 Kings 5:15-16. But in Scripture, the three "Grand Masters" are King Solomon, King Hiram of Tyre, and Hiram, or "Huram" or "Huram-Abi" as found in some of the biblical references; the 3,300 "Masters" are Solomon's chief officers of the work (the Masters "of" overseers is a typo and should read "or"); the 80,000 FC's are "hewers"; the 70,000 EA's are "burden bearers." The author of the ritual was including the designation of each from the scriptural account, as well as the designation as it would have been termed in operative masonry.

But I was having a problem at this point because I kept running across a discrepancy in some versions, which had the number of "Masters" as 3,600 instead of 3,300. I finally found a keyword that would pull up some helpful information on a search. It was a chapter from Manly P. Hall's The Secret Teachings of All Ages, titled "The Hiramic Legend." In this chapter, Hall pointed out that

Daniel Sickels gives 3,300 overseers, instead of 3,600, and lists the three Grand Masters separately. The same author estimates the cost of the temple at nearly four thousand millions of dollars.

With that information, the picture became clearer, and Sickels is apparently the manual upon which the Nevada Grand Lodge drew its information, though not entirely. In making the comparison, it was easy to see that there is material in the Nevada ritual that is nearly word-for-word as it is found in Sickels' Ahiman Rezon (in fact, it was by this comparison that I was able to determine that "masters 'OF' overseers" was a typo, because that passage was identical to Nevada's except where Sickels had "masters 'OR' overseers").

Hall had also quoted from Anderson's Constitutions, and Anderson had the 3,600 figure rather than Sickels' 3,300, so I pulled out my copy of Anderson to see if there was any other information I could glean. There I found out that the discrepancy was not Masonic, but scriptural. Anderson drew his information from 2 Chronicles 2:18 rather than 1 Kings 5:16 (Anderson goes to some great lengths in his footnotes suggesting possibilities for why the difference occurs in those two accounts, but it was material that is not really germane to the current focus here).

Add to all this mix, the comment already cited from Joseph Fort Newton in The Builders, indicating that there are several traditions concerning Hiram that Masonry probably also drew on, from Talmudic sources--these might also be described as "historical," albeit of a different sort.

"What," you may ask at this point, "does any of this have to do with the claims made here?"

One point I wanted to establish with this focus on what Scripture says compared to the Hiram legend, was the fact that much of what is said in the legend is in fact in accord with the biblical accounts. But Masonry does not try to portray a strictly biblical story, for theirs is allegory and will naturally contain allegorical elements that can in no way be construed as, nor intended as, literal history. And they make it clear, even in the material that was posted, despite Mike's claims to the contrary.

Some obvious points were missed in the Nevada version of the ritual, which if noticed earlier might have given us all a clue much earlier that they did not mean by "historical account," a literal account that would by necessity require provable factual information at all points. (1) They make the following statement within the quoted material:

In the third section, many particulars relative to King Solomons Temple are considered. This section also illustrates certain hieroglyphical emblems and inculcates many useful lessons to extend knowledge and promote virtue.

This is a frank acknowledgment that not only the factual history is included, but also "useful lessons" and "hieroglyphical emblems," i.e., "symbols," which are not historically literal information either. (2) When they end with "Thus we close the explanation of the emblems," it is patently obvious that they were not speaking of those emblems as "historical" information--and CERTAINLY not as "biblical." (3) Third, and perhaps the most obvious of all, is this:

Sacred history informs us that there was not heard the sound of axe, hammer, or any metal tool in the building; and Josephus informs us that, although a little more than seven years were employed in its erection, it did not rain except in the night season and while the Craft were gone from labor to refreshment.

With such a clear delineation between "sacred history" and Josephus' accounts, it is clear they are not viewing this presentation in its entirety as literally "historical," nor are they viewing it as "biblical." But there's more (there usually is). As noted above, much of this derives from Daniel J. Sickels' Ahiman Rezon. It should be noted, then, what Sickels has to say as he presents it. First of all, he too designates this as "historical" with the statement,

"This section recites the historical traditions of the Order, and presents to view a picture of great moral sublimity."

But he also has this to say, obviously in anticipation that someone may make more of it than was intended:

That portion of the rite which is connected with the legend of the Tyrian Artist, is well worthy the deep and earnest study of thoughtful men. But it should be studied as a myth, and not as a fact; and, if thus accepted, it will be found exceedingly rich in instructive lessons, and lessons, too, which admit of an immense variety of applications; whereas, if it be regarded simply as a ceremony commemorative of historical occurrences, it has no philosophical importance nor significance whatever.
Against the notion that it is a representation of a scene that actually occurred in the Temple, it may well be urged that, outside of Masonic tradition, there is no proof that an event, such as is related in connection with the Temple-builder, ever transpired. (p. 194-95)

With this fresh insight, and with the details clearly discernible within the Nevada material itself, as posted, that show even they were not presenting this as either strictly biblical or strictly historical in nature, then we can safely say that the following claim has been thoroughly debunked and should from this point be dismissed:

As an institution, Freemasonry has yet to deny this position and probably never will, because it continues to appear in current issues of the same ritual throughout all regular jurisdictions. You may not believe it's an historical account, and neither do I, but that doesn't change the historical FACT that, from its inception up to this present day, Freemasonry continues to teach that it IS.

Clearly the Hiramic legend is not intended as a literal historical or biblical account of events. Even less supportable than the above claims would be this one:

Furthermore let me say again, NOWHERE-- and I repeat, NOWHERE-- in Masonic Ritual does Freemasonry ever explain that this is not the biblical record.

Sickels' Ahiman Rezon sure does, which really skewers this claim. And it stands to reason that the Nevada people, having drawn their material from Sickels, are aware of his statements that it is not factual--not that they ever thought otherwise than he does.

G19 · Sep 5, 2007

Thank you Wayne for these insightful posts! You always go above and beyond and I'm grateful for the time you put in here.

George the 3rd · Sep 5, 2007

Fishy said:
You can quote all the Masonic scholars you wish, but none of them -- by Masonic rule -- speak on behalf of Freemasonry. So you have not refuted the facts I presented.

Masonic ritual issued by Grand Lodge authority is the only official documentation that applies here. Your view, and the opinion of Masonic scholars, is irrelevant if what you, or they say, cannot be substantiated by Masonic ritual.

And no matter what you post,the Third Degree ritual by Masonic authorities clearly says it is a historical account. And, it then goes on to explain this HISTORICAL account in a BIBLICAL CONTEXT, andit is unequivocally presented as such without any disclaimer.

Well, Fishy,
The opening statement of the lecture of the Third degree in Ohio plainly states that the manner of the death of Hiram Abiff is furnished "by Masonic tradition alone"!

That is an "Official Masonic authority", per your definition and a clear "disclaimer"!

Rev Wayne · Sep 6, 2007

It suddenly occurred to me that Michael once again cited some other manual than SC's Ahiman Rezon, and that this usually means the material was not suitable for antimasonic quoting. On that hunch, I went right to the source, where I found:

The idea of the legend was undoubtedly borrowed from the Ancient Mysteries, where the lesson was the same as that now conveyed in the third degree of Masonry.

Viewed in this light, it is evident that it is not essential to the value of the symbolism that the legend should be proved to be historical. Whether considered as a truthful narrative of an event that actually transpired during the building of the Temple, or simply as a myth, embodying the utterance of a religious sentiment, the symbolic lesson of life and death and immortality is still contained in its teaching, and commands our earnest attention. (Ahiman Rezon, 2003, p. 146)

As you've been so deliberate about pointing out in the past, this constitutes the idea of "Masonic authority" as you have defined it, and this "Masonic authority" says the passage need not be considered historical.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

An Ex-Mason for Jesus

An Ex-Mason for Jesus

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

An Ex-Mason for Jesus

Facilitator

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

An Ex-Mason for Jesus

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

Active Member

Prestidigitator

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency