Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[Rev Wayne]

As for your so-called quote of the Minnesota Manual, please cite the edition, year and page number.

I’ll do much better than that, and let the readers decide whose quote is "so-called."

Actually, you have quoted from the wrong page. The quote you cited is from p. 16, the quote I cited is from p. 17. Take a look at the sections for yourself, and you will see that there are actually TWO sections titled “Volume of Sacred Law.” The first section is identifiable by the way it highlights the titles at the start of the section in which it appears, in bold print on the same line. But the other section is distinct from the first by a different form of highlighting, in bold print AND centered AND set off by a line space in between sections.

So why this confusing inclusion of two VSL statements? The difference is, what you quoted is from a section detailing the statements as found in the National Masonic Information Center’s statement. Just below that is the official Minnesota Grand Lodge statement. What Minnesota has done is rather interesting. They post this notice at the beginning of the first statement:

The National Masonic Information Center proposes the following statement concerning Freemasonry and religion and is encouraging Grand Lodges throughout the United States to adopt this statement so that they will have a common position regarding this religious issue. The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Minnesota adopted the following statement as a standing resolution at its 1996 Annual Communication:

And at that point the section begins, with the Masonic Information Center statement apparently being posted first, with Minnesota’s statement afterward. The difference, as pointed out, is distinguishable by the centered formatting of titles in the Minnesota section. Another way to tell is, in the “Display of Flags” section just prior to the second “Volume of Sacred Law” section, Minnesota is specifically mentioned, which would not be the case if this were still continuing the MIC statement. The full statement from the section I quoted reads like this:

An open volume of Sacred Law (Holy Bible) which includes the Old and New Testaments shall be displayed upon the altar at all Stated and Special Communications. When Brothers of other faith traditions who have taken their vows on a different Volume of Sacred Law are present, it is proper and salutary to display on the altar the Volume of Sacred Law which they honor and revere. This practice conforms to the highest ideals of our Craft in respect for the various faith traditions of our members when in Lodge assembled.
The vows of the candidate's initiation must be taken upon the Volume of Sacred Law that will bind them to the solemn obligations of our Fraternity. Each candidate for Masonic initiation should be asked, prior to the first degree, what Volume of Sacred Law they revere as their Great Light in Masonry. If a candidate desires to provide a Volume of Sacred Law other than the Lodge’s, he may do so and his obligations can be taken upon that book. Separate books can be used for each candidate.

My main point I made, which you have obfuscated, was that Minnesota’s VSL is the Bible, as it is in ALL U.S. Lodges. This is made even plainer by their Monitor’s insistence that it be the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, and by the mention of a candidate using a VSL “OTHER than the Lodge’s,” clearly indicating that the Lodge has only ONE—which of course was specified at the beginning of the section.

See for yourselves, readers, rather than taking his word for it. I do not lie.:
http://mn-masons.org/assets/2400.pdf

So the Grand Lodge of MN appears to be consistent with others, by alluding to the the fact that the Bible is NOT the one and only exclusive Volume of Sacred Law.

You made that one up for sure. You seem to have stopped at p. 16, once you found something that agreed with your position. Had you read further, you might have come to the truth of the matter, that they declare the Bible to be their VSL. And as for “other VSL’s,” they also make that explicitly clear that the choice is up to INDIVIDUALS who are free to choose something other than the Lodge’s OFFICIALLY DECLARED VSL, in this case, “The Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments.”

It is merely a symbol representative of ALL so-called sacred writings deemed 'holy' by the individual Mason.

The Minnesota Monitor does not state that it is a “symbol” at all. Where did you pull this out of the air from? It does not appear there, not in the Masonic Information Center’s VSL section, nor in the Minnesota VSL section.

The following link to an article from the Grand Lodge of Indiana will confirm this fact:

How will an article expressing one Indiana Mason’s opinion confirm what Minnesota declares? You ARE, after all, talking about two separate jurisdictions. But come to think of it, what will this one Mason’s opinion confirm even about Indiana’s position, other than this man’s interpretation of it? After all, you have not quoted from Indiana Grand Lodge’s official statements in the least. The website you linked to is Monroe Lodge’s website, which is only one lodge within Indiana GL jurisdiction, and is merely a blogsite link within that website. All this is, is what one Mason has posted on a blogsite. Surely you jest in implying that his opinion is official???

It’s rather deceptive also to state that this is an aricle “from the Grand Lodge of Indiana,” thus implying it is "official" Indiana GL proclamation; it is even further deception to use this to claim that this article in any way “confirms” the statement of a COMPLETELY SEPARATE GRAND LODGE!!

I thought you said you were a former Mason?? I know lots of NON-Masons who would know better than this in a heartbeat.

Finally, just because you can find places where the Lodge quotes Scripture is no indication that it honors Jesus Christ or the the God of the Bible.

Well, you know the return, of course, that just because you can find statements by individual Masons in a Grand Lodge jurisdiction of your choice, that APPEAR to support your position, does not mean you have “proven” what is officially proclaimed by a completely separate Grand Lodge.

But of course, it has already been shown from the very Minnesota Monitor you quoted, that the statement you are now trying to “prove” was never true in the first place—because Minnesota indeed DOES specify ONE particular VSL, the “Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments,” as I have shown, and as anyone can see for themselves by following the link.

But just for extra good measure: take a look at what you skimmed over when you were reading the Monroe Lodge blogsite:

Upon the altar of Freemasonry resides three great lights. Of these three, one is considered the “Greatest Light of Freemasonry”. In Indiana ritual this is referred to as the Holy Bible. In many other jurisdictions it is referred to simply as the Volume of Sacred Law.

So Indiana also, as do ALL U.S. LODGES, affirms the Holy Bible as its VSL.

Finally, just because you can find places where the Lodge quotes Scripture is no indication that it honors Jesus Christ or the the God of the Bible. It is merely a mockery of the Word of God designed to bring about its own self-centered, works-based, universal purpose of establishing a sycrenistic religion which include members that reject our Lord and Savior.

For your claim to be true, Freemasonry would have to be an organization that establishes itself as a religion while it states unequivocably and in every place where statements are made on the matter, that it is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion, nor makes any pretense to be one, and everywhere insists that a Mason’s choice of religion is up to the individual Mason. I have no idea how anyone comes up with such convoluted reasoning. You yourself admit to there being Masons of other religions. Do you not see that a claim of "syncretism" is therefore incompatible with a claim of "Muslim Masons," "Jewish Masons," etc.?

And the places where the Lodge quotes Scripture are quite numerous. In times past, the Lodge was populated by men who were only of the Christian faith. In its earliest origins, from which so much of the ritual content derives, it was thoroughly Christian. Its earliest documents express, and unabashedly so, Christian faith. The idea that Masons would be Christians is assumed and stated as though it were a matter-of-fact thing that all Masons would naturally be Christian. That was still the case in much of Masonry even into the 20th century. What is even more significant in that regard is, you will not find another sacred book revered by any other religion, which is thus quoted in Masonry. I have offered the challenge many times to do so, and the challenge has consistently been met with silence. Why? Because the accusers cannot dispute the truth: by all the current evidence found in the rituals, by the direct citations directly from the Bible—both OT and NT—and by the documented past history of thoroughly Christian moorings—if there were any truth to the claim that "Freemasonry is a religion," there is only one religion it could possibly be, and that would be the Christian religion. Freemasonry’s moorings in the Holy Bible, in both precept and practice, are foundational and undeniable.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Furthermore, the passages you quote regarding "being perfect" are written to BELIEVERS (1 Kings 8:61, 1 Chronicles 29:9, Matthew 5:48, and 1 Thess. 3:10), not non-believers. Believers in false gods, including Masons of these false religion, do not acknowledge the God of the Bible.

Voice your denials as long and as vehemently as you wish, you do not by doing so increase their accuracy, which is none, not even one iota. MOST Lodge members are Christians, and in my experience they are some of the most humble, dedicated members of our churches, serving well in many capacities. By your own earlier admission, not all people in churches are believers, so the admonitions regarding “being perfect” are addressed to SOME hearers who would be more aptly described as unbelievers, no matter whether the hearers are in church or in lodge. At the same time, they still are addressed mostly to believers, whether in church or in the lodge. Therefore the “point” you make is irrelevant, since it just as easily applies to Christian churches as it does to the lodge.

Therefore, such Masons do not walk in his statutes, or keep His commandments. They are too busy walking in the statutes of their Koran, Vedas, Upanishads, or the doctrines of Freemasonry.

Well, I’m sure there are some Masons who “walk in those statutes,” but I would not be so quick to declare that in doing so they do not walk in any of God’s statutes at all. There are far too many examples of teachings that are the very heart of Christianity which are taught in many of the other religions. In fact, how about one which is the very heart of Christian faith as Jesus Himself declared it, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” otherwise known as the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Certainly it was taught in Judaism first:

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 B.C. - A.D. 10)

But check out how many other places it may be found:

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 B.C.)
"This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others that you would not have them do unto you." —Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 B.C.)

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga 5:18)

"I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself." (The Siglo-Vada Sutta, about 500 BCE)

"In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and familiars, .... by treating them as he treats himself." (Sigalovada Sutta 31)

circa 700 BC "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.

? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

The fact is, if you look at the dates, you can clearly see that these sources are not derivative, particularly not from the NT accounts where Jesus stated the matter, giving it the designation of being central in Christian teaching. Many of these were centuries before that, and even in some of them was considered central as well (e.g., consider Mahabharata, “This is the sum of duty&#8221.

I have shared this many times before, and each time you have accused me of trying to denigrate the teachings of Christ by trying to make them derivative. Far from it, I am asserting that the teaching which Christ lifted up as one of the essentials of the Christian faith, was also revealed to those of other religions independently of the Christian revelation. It is the clearest indication we have, IMO, that God has given revelation to those of other religions than just the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The fact that this truth is found stated in places other than in the Bible, makes it no less true and no less central than it already was in the Christian faith. Neither does a belief that Jesus Christ is the only way, make this truth any less true for its having appeared elsewhere than in the Christian Bible.

Nor does a belief that the Bible is God’s supreme written revelation to man, make this statement any less true for its having appeared in the writings of any other religion. Nor does the affirmation of its truth even when found in other writings, mean that one who thus affirms its truth, has thereby reckoned other writings to be on a par with, or elevated above, the Bible. Nor does any other such accusations you or anyone else may invent, like the ones just stated, have any validity. I am simply affirming that this statement is truth, and as truth it is God’s truth, just as ALL truth is God’s truth; and since it is God’s truth, it will be God’s truth in whatever place it may be found, be that the sacred writings of some other religion or any other source.

Therefore, your claim that “such Masons do not walk in His statutes,” cannot be maintained—since it is a provable statement that there are truths of God that find expression in the teachings of other religions.

Finally, let me remind you pastor of the most important statement made by the "author and perfector of our faith" (Hebrew 12:2) to his disciples (again, believers):

APART FROM ME YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING! (John 15:5)

Why do you state this as the most important, when Jesus Himself stated otherwise? Jesus was asked what is the most important commandment, and answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and the second is like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself.”

1. I'm certain the disciples were present when Jesus stated this;
2. Jesus said this in answer to the question, "Which commandment is the most important?"
3. Therefore, I'd have to say THIS is the most important thing Jesus said to His disciples, and not what you claim it to be.

Answer this for me, since you do like to toss around things about false gods: since other religions, as I have shown, have in their sacred writings comparable statements to the central truths of our own religion;

and since they are clearly not derivative from it;

exactly how would they have come by them, and exactly how would they also see this particular one as central, centuries before Jesus declared it to be so?

Are you suggesting that false gods would teach them God’s truth? That would be a strange proposition. But if you would acknowledge that they received these by revelation just as we have, then how will you call that a revelation from a “false god?”

Let me know when you get this sorted out.

But no one, including YOU can do anything to make ones self perfect apart from submitting ones will to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:2).

Well, first you distort the Minnesota Manual in what it said, so I suppose I should consider it no surprise that you would distort what I said as well. Where did I make any such claim, for you to feel a need to make this statement??

All I intended to show by quoting the section I did from 2 Peter is, that you are criticizing a passage in Masonry that is no different in expression than what Peter says there about our efforts, or as you wish to designate it, “works.” By the same methods you have applied in making the statement in Masonry out to be "salvation by works," not only could you arrive at the same conclusion concerning Peter's words, you could actually make a stronger case for it.

And you still did not respond to what I said: If Peter says we are to “give all diligence” to these things, and that by doing these things we will “make our calling and election sure,” how is he saying anything different than you claim Masonry is?

And since, as I pointed out from the portions you FAILED to highlight, the efforts of Masons are sought by "the blessing of God," how then is it described as "self-effort" in the first place?

 

[O.F.F.]

Would you not agree that Satanism and Christianity are in diametric opposition to each other?

Hey Brimac,

Per George's last post challenging you to show the connection between Freemasonry and Satanism, there is no need to do the research, since it has already been done.

Freemasonry is a non-sectarian religion. And as such, it is not Christian. Even if one would settle with it being just a 'religious fraternity' rather than a religion, it is not even a Christian fraternity. The evidence posted here by Christians demonstrating its biblical incompatibility is proof enough that it is NOT of God. Anything not of God is of Satan.

But to provide further proof of its Satanic connection click on the following link:

Freemasonry: The Devil's Playground

 

[Rev Wayne]

Speaking of a challenge, the challenge has been put forth again and again, with no one offering a valid response to this day (and that's been 3 years or so):

If Freemasonry is suppposed to be evil;
And since Jesus said evil fruit can only come from an evil tree, and good fruit can come only from a good tree;

Where is there any consistent pattern of Masons being involved in evil actions? (And I DON'T mean accusations or paranoid suspicions about Illuminati and other ridiculous nonsense. The response to the above link may be found at http://www.masonicinfo.com/religious_objections.htm )

And, why is it that the more consistent and provable pattern of Masonic behavior involves Masons doing good rather than evil?

And you should know better, Mike, as a former Prince Hall member. The strong connection between the church and the Prince Hall Lodge is a historic fact and a present reality. At my last appointment, I used to pass by an African-American church every day, and noticed on the same property a little distance away from the church, a smaller two-story brick building. I used to think it was the church social hall, until I realized one day that the social hall was in the rear of the church. I found out later it was a Prince Hall Lodge meeting hall.

Everything I have read about Prince Hall Masonry and what I've seen from their websites, convinces me of the same, that there is strong connection and cooperation between the church and the lodge in Prince Hall.

I would think you of all people should know that the pattern does not fit the accusation here. You even testified yourself on this forum before, when questioned about satanic involvement in Masonry, that you had never seen it even once, and you were 32nd degree. Why do you reverse yourself now, and jump on the bandwagon with the fearmongers and paranoia panderers?

I remind you:

When you were a Freeemason did you ever see any Freemason indulge in any Evil or Satanic worship, or was there any mention of Wiccan content in your Lodge...Just your personal testimony for the benefit of Andrew who seems to think Masonry is based on Witchcraft and Satanism.

Other than our periodic jolly, tipsy, 'boys-will-be-boys' carousing mayhem of wine, women, and song, that's about as evil as it got. Yes, that was sinful on our part in most cases, but no, I have never personally witnessed deliberate Wiccan, Satanism or Witchcraft. But, that has never been my contention. You and I know that those issues exist, and have existed among some Masons, but if so, they are the exception and not the rule.

The issues I've addressed and will continue to address are those that violate biblical doctrine, such as the Masonic worldview of God, the Masonic view of the "VSL," the fatherhood of God, brotherhood of Man, the false impression that Masons are saved by practicing the principles of Freemasonry, the Masonic Baptism, etc. These are critical issues that make its teachings heretical and therefore evil in that sense. And, no Christian should avoid or ignore this for the sake of fraternal relations.

So, doesn't your contention here on this thread, and the link to which you've posted (not to mention the way you titled) constitute a reversal of your stated intention to address "only those that violate biblical doctrine" rather than accusations of Satanism?

 

[O.F.F.]

So, doesn't your contention here on this thread, and the link to which you've posted (not to mention the way you titled) constitute a reversal of your stated intention to address "only those that violate biblical doctrine" rather than accusations of Satanism?

Although I could have elaborated on the matter in that 'old' post, it should have been implied. That is, since my contention, and that of the Order of Former Freemasons, Ex-Masons for Jesus, and a host of mainstream Christian denominations, is that the teachings of Freemasonry violate biblical doctrine, then it is not of God, but of Satan. And, anything of Satan must be Satanic.

So, from now on let me go on record again as saying, that while I have never personally witnessed deliberate acts of Satanism as a former Mason, in my opinion as well as that of many other Christians, since the teachings of Freemasonry violate Scripture, assault the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore undermines biblical Christianity; it is Satanic in nature.

I hope this answers your question.

As for the small philanthropic good that it does I think, unknowingly to most of its adherents, that it serves as a cover-up for its heretical teachings and a veil for the deeper, esoteric meaning of its symbolism; which of course, most Masons have no clue. So they go around thinking they just belong to a social-civic organization that does good things for its community.

Even Esoteric Masons who come from "regular" Masonry explain the truth about Masonic philanthropy:

We say Masonry is a charitable and philanthropic organization. In practice trying to get money out of any Masonic body for any charity, other than their own Lodge, is next to impossible. The savings accounts of most regular Masonic Lodges are measured by tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Their philanthropic and charitable expenses are measured in the tens and only occasionally in the hundreds of dollars. On the average, Masonic bodies give away less than one percent of their income for charitable and philanthropic purposes. Our own Lodge is no exception. We all say one thing and we do another.

A.·. A.·. & E.·. F.·. Grand Lodge Convocation June 23, 1979 (emphasis added)

Yet for something that is Satanic in nature, this should be no surprise. For the Bible says that even Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light, just as some men today are false teachers and false pastors; deceitful "workmen of the cloth," masquerading as apostles of Christ.

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Corinthians 11:13-15

 

[Ave Maria]

I certainly believe that Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity. I mean, why wouldn't it be?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Although I could have elaborated on the matter in that 'old' post, it should have been implied. That is, since my contention, and that of the Order of Former Freemasons, Ex-Masons for Jesus, and a host of mainstream Christian denominations, is that the teachings of Freemasonry violate biblical doctrine, then it is not of God, but of Satan. And, anything of Satan must be Satanic.
So, from now on let me go on record again as saying, that while I have never personally witnessed deliberate acts of Satanism as a former Mason, in my opinion as well as that of many other Christians, since the teachings of Freemasonry violate Scripture, assault the gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore undermines biblical Christianity; it is Satanic in nature.

Gee, I like the way you play around with logic. I get the impression that if one were to play around with logical-sounding strings of statements long enough, just about anything could be justified in one’s eyes.

But it looks like such fun, I just can’t resist giving it a try myself:

You just said recently that the most important thing Jesus said to His disciples was, “Apart from me you can do nothing.”

But we have the clear indication given by Jesus elsewhere in Scripture, when asked the most important command in the law, answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength,” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Therefore, the statement you made about John 15:5 being the most important, was not true.

Anything not of the truth, then, must be a lie.

Anything that is a lie must have satan as its source, for he is “a liar from the beginning, and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

Therefore any lie must be satanic.

You post on this forum under the username of O.F.F., which, as most people know here, is the name of an organization which you founded.

Since you post here under that username, the positions you represent here cannot be construed otherwise than to mean you represent before us the positions of the O.F.F. organization.

SO, since you represent this organization, and since you made a claim that was shown to be untrue, and since anything not of the truth is a lie, and since lies have their origin in Satan, and are therefore satanic:

The only conclusion we may reach (by your logic, that is) is that the Organization of Former Freemasons is a satanic organization.

Naturally, I assume you will pout and whine about the way in which the conclusion was reached—if so, look in the mirror and tell the man you see there that you don’t like his brand of “logic.”

As for your attack of my post, couldn't you find a source a little closer to the present? And couldn't you get one closer to true Freemasonry, since the AAEF is not a connected Masonic body?

In fact, the whole article is a sour grapes spiel intended only to DENOUNCE Freemasonry, and is NOT a financial report as you seem to try to portray it. Anyone who reads the article can easily see your deception in trying to portray it in the manner you do.

The fact is, this has so little to do with Freemasonry, that I had to go online and search for it just to find out what "AAEF" was. But readers, please don't take my word for it, you can read it for yourselves: http://esotericfreemasons.com/candidate/esoteric.html


I also find this statement to be grossly over-stated:

The savings accounts of most regular Masonic Lodges are measured by tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Quite honestly, I can't think of a single Masonic Lodge I have seen yet in our jurisdiction that would have a bank account of "tens" or "hundreds" of thousands of dollars.

Also, the hypocrisy of your accusation has been shown to you before, and apparently you choose to ignore it. The Christian Church operates under the very principle you lambaste, of taking care of their own as a first principle of charity. Galatians 6:10 is the foundation for it: "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers."

The principle has been in place in Masonry since the earliest times when being Christian as a Mason was automatically presumed. I have seen the verse quoted in Masonry as well, which is no surprise, since they obviously have adopted the same Christian principle, just as they have many other Christian and biblical principles.

All you have done, in reality, amounts to the actions of one accuser citing the accusations of another accuser, and all the while trying to make it appear as though Masons are being cited accusing Masons. The author clearly had an axe to grind, and clearly makes misrepresentations, like all the rest of the accusers of Masonry.

Talk about "masquerading!"

The really telling thing is, that you pursue this line of accusation after what was posted at the top of this page. Apparently you have no response when the truth comes out, other than to abandon one attack and begin another one with a bigger hammer?

 

[Rev Wayne]

I certainly believe that Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity. I mean, why wouldn't it be?

The biggest error in seeing "incompatibility" is the false standard set up by Masonry's accusers, by which "compatibility" is skewed in its meaning and becomes something more akin to "conformity."

 

[HadessahRose]

Rat poison is 90% good stuff for the rat....it is the 10 % that kills it...

 

[Rev Wayne]

Rat poison is 90% good stuff for the rat....it is the 10 % that kills it...

Interesting point. But we are not talking about poison here--or rats either, for that matter--or killing, etc. etc. etc.

You might also say that since 90% or more of what we eat is not the "good stuff" we'd just as well stop eating.

 

[HadessahRose]

Interesting point. But we are not talking about poison here--or rats either, for that matter--or killing, etc. etc. etc.

You might also say that since 90% or more of what we eat is not the "good stuff" we'd just as well stop eating.

90% compatiable? 10% is the part that is the problem with masonry...that is the part that kills...don't pull your 'stuff' with me bro. It is NOT compatiable...light and dark don't mix. I know you sugar coat everything and say it isn't bad...but...anyway..whatever. Think what you will.

 

[O.F.F.]

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 B.C. - A.D. 10)

But check out how many other places it may be found:

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 B.C.)
"This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others that you would not have them do unto you." —Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 B.C.)

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga 5:18)

"I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself." (The Siglo-Vada Sutta, about 500 BCE)

"In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and familiars, .... by treating them as he treats himself." (Sigalovada Sutta 31)

circa 700 BC "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.

? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

With all these quotes from other religions, you are sounding like a truly devoted Mason more and more with each post you make. In fact, you souund a lot like your Masonic brother Manly P. Hall:

The true Mason is not creed-bound. He realizes with the divine illumination of his lodge that as a Mason his religion must be universal. Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, the name means little, for he recognizes only the light and not the bearer. He worships at every shrine, bows before every altar, whether in temple, mosque or cathedral, realizing with his truer understanding the oneness of all spiritual truth.

The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, Manly P. Hall ; page 65

After all, it is you who expressed such 'oneness' saying that there is spiritual truth in all religions.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Freemasonry had its modern inception in 1717 with the joining of three lodges to form the United Grand Lodge of England. Its roots and its origins go back much further, though not so far as some try to suggest. There is no foundation for those who try to find roots for speculative Masonry any farther back than the medieval trade guilds. One of the earliest documents found in Masonry is the Regius Manuscript, from about 1390, a document which establishes an indisputable Christian faith as the Masons’ creed. The tradition of the Four Crowned Martyrs appears there:

The art of the four crowned ones.

Pray we now to God almighty,
And to his mother Mary bright,

That we may keep these articles here,
And these points well all together,
As did these holy martyrs four,
That in this craft were of great honour;
They were as good masons as on earth shall go,
Gravers and image-makers they were also.
For they were workmen of the best,
The emperor had to them great liking;
He willed of them an image to make
That might be worshipped for his sake;
Such monuments he had in his day,
To turn the people from Christ's law.

But they were steadfast in Christ's law,
And to their craft without doubt;
They loved well God and all his lore,
And were in his service ever more.
True men they were in that day,
And lived well in God's law;
They thought no monuments for to make,
For no good that they might take,
To believe on that monument for their God,
They would not do so, though he was furious;
For they would not forsake their true faith,

And believe on his false law,
The emperor let take them soon anon,
And put them in a deep prison;
The more sorely he punished them in that place,
The more joy was to them of Christ's grace,
Then when he saw no other one,
To death he let them then go;
By the book he might it show
In legend of holy ones,
The names of the four-crowned ones.

To be sure, it speaks of a Catholic faith, as indicated by the prayer at the start. That is hardly surprising, since it comes from a time well before Henry VIII reigned and established the Anglican Church in England. At the time of this document, and the Cooke Manuscript from around 1410, all that Masonry consisted of in what can be determined from the written accounts, is an opening prayer, a history of the craft, and a recitation of the “Old Charges,” which were simply a set of moral instructions. There was no mention of degrees, as there was only one ceremony at all.
In 1550, the Harleian Manuscript hints at two degrees, and says “There is several words and signs of a free mason to be revealed to you.” In 1696 the Edinburgh House Register Manuscript has the first actual written record of a candidate receiving two degrees. He was made a fellow craft or mason. At the time there was no Hiram legend. The Trinity College, Dublin Manuscript is the first to speak of three degrees, in 1711. In 1726 the Graham Manuscript establishes that there were three degrees, but in this document, there was as yet no Hiram legend. The one who was raised in this account, oddly enough, was Noah, whose three sons go to his grave and raise him on the five points of fellowship, saying “There is yet marrow in his bone.”

Throughout the time frame mentioned above, Masonry was essentially Christian, and Christian expression was common in its documents, as already shown with the Regius Manuscript. In the Graham Manuscript, we have some of the symbolism of Masonry shown to be Christian in origin. Many critics have made much of the strange fashion of dress of the candidate for entry into the craft, which the Graham Manuscript explains in this manner:

-- A reason for such posture?
-- In regard one God one man make a very Christ, so one object being half naked half clothed, half shod half barefoot, half kneeling half standing, being half of all, was none of the whole, this shows a humble and obedient heart for to be a faithful follower of that just Jesus.

The addition of “secrets” into Masonry goes hand in hand with the onset of the Protestant Reformation, and the establishing of the Anglican Church, with the subsequent tug-of-war as found expressed even in the back-and-forth shift of the monarchy between Catholicism and Protestantism. The Masons, true to their ideals of free thought, rejecting the restricting and confining actions of the Catholic Church, opting for Protestantism instead. The shift from their earlier Catholic foundation can be easily traced through the historic trail evident in their documents. Thus it was that the secrecy they became known for was a secrecy of necessity, and one for which Masons in many countries paid dearly during the Inquisition.

The move in 1717 was a move designed to produce some sort of identifiable standard for Masonic ritual and practice, which was widely varied from one lodge to another at that point. Even so, for various reasons, there have still been some widely variant examples of ritual from one place to another. One writer has estimated that in the U.S. “there are as many versions of ritual as there are Grand Lodges.” Yet at the same time, it is easy to see that since 1717 there has been an overall sense of preservation, which has been the main reason for many of the archaisms still found in ritual content (e.g., “so mote it be,” our “antient” brethren, etc.).

Over time there has been less and less overt mention of Christian faith in Masonic content, but the principles still remain. And since, as noted above in the Graham Manuscript, the symbolism itself derives from specific Christian reference, arguably there is still the same Christian content of ritual as there was at the time of the establishing of the modern Grand Lodge in 1717, since the main symbolic content of the rituals remains intact.

The point of accusation and the focus of debate have been centered on the idea of “compatibility.” Certainly for the Christian Mason interpreting the symbols from a Christian viewpoint, and understanding the solidly identifiable history of foundation of Masonry upon biblical principles, and of Masonry’s undeniable Christian foundation and origin, membership in the craft presents no conflict with his Christian faith. A lot has been conjectured by accusers on various points, and these points have been well-taken and considered by many Christians in the craft, and reasons explained for why the accusations are in error, or have resulted from faulty and improper understanding of what accusers see in the things they accuse. Much has been made of certain pronouncements of penalty as found in the obligations. But since 1965 in the UGLE, that content was changed so that they could not be so construed, and at a later point, as I understand it (though I have no information on the date), they were removed altogether, so that in a significant number of Freemasonic lodges, the accusation would be an empty one. Besides, as someone else has ably pointed out, the penalties were simply a reflection of penalties were carried out IN ACTUALITY in some of the laws upon the books by which the land was governed in those times. Harsh and cruel they appear to us, but such were the times. But Masons today understand the history, and they understand that these are not intended as literal pronouncements, and Masons see them in every way as symbolic only.

And who knows, in time perhaps more lodges than just the UGLE will see the lack of any real gain that is to be served by allowing these archaic forms to remain in our current forms, and find another way of instilling the sense of solemnity desired in taking the obligations.

As for any foundation for accusations of “Satanism,” that whole line of reasoning is specious at best, and largely the result of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Leo Taxil, to which he confessed and made public confession and retraction, which is still A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. I notice that the above link provided for a supposed “connection” is simply more of the same, an article making specific reference to those of pseudo-masonic bodies, the usual lot of Crowley and company, and even Ms. Blavatsky, who never could have been a Mason for explicitly obvious reasons.

In other words, to anyone who knows anything about Masonry and about Masonic history in the least, the whole line of argument is totally without any foundation whatsoever.

 

[Rev Wayne]

With all these quotes from other religions, you are sounding like a truly devoted Mason more and more with each post you make.

Instead of accusing, Mike, why not respond to what I actually said? You have totally ignored the points made with these quotes, and substitute accusation for response. Such pretension has not gone unnoticed, and I certainly will not sit idly by and let it go unchallenged. So take another look at what I SAID, Mike, and tell me if you have any VALID response other than to blow it off with another accusation?

Well, I’m sure there are some Masons who “walk in those statutes,” but I would not be so quick to declare that in doing so they do not walk in any of God’s statutes at all. There are far too many examples of teachings that are the very heart of Christianity which are taught in many of the other religions. In fact, how about one which is the very heart of Christian faith as Jesus Himself declared it, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” otherwise known as the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Certainly it was taught in Judaism first:

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 B.C. - A.D. 10)

But check out how many other places it may be found:

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 B.C.)
"This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others that you would not have them do unto you." —Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 B.C.)

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udana-Varga 5:18)

"I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself." (The Siglo-Vada Sutta, about 500 BCE)

"In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and familiars, .... by treating them as he treats himself." (Sigalovada Sutta 31)

circa 700 BC "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.

? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

The fact is, if you look at the dates, you can clearly see that these sources are not derivative, particularly not from the NT accounts where Jesus stated the matter, giving it the designation of being central in Christian teaching. Many of these were centuries before that, and even in some of them was considered central as well (e.g., consider Mahabharata, “This is the sum of duty&#8221.

I have shared this many times before, and each time you have accused me of trying to denigrate the teachings of Christ by trying to make them derivative. Far from it, I am asserting that the teaching which Christ lifted up as one of the essentials of the Christian faith, was also revealed to those of other religions independently of the Christian revelation. It is the clearest indication we have, IMO, that God has given revelation to those of other religions than just the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The fact that this truth is found stated in places other than in the Bible, makes it no less true and no less central than it already was in the Christian faith. Neither does a belief that Jesus Christ is the only way, make this truth any less true for its having appeared elsewhere than in the Christian Bible.

Nor does a belief that the Bible is God’s supreme written revelation to man, make this statement any less true for its having appeared in the writings of any other religion. Nor does the affirmation of its truth even when found in other writings, mean that one who thus affirms its truth, has thereby reckoned other writings to be on a par with, or elevated above, the Bible. Nor does any other such accusations you or anyone else may invent, like the ones just stated, have any validity. I am simply affirming that this statement is truth, and as truth it is God’s truth, just as ALL truth is God’s truth; and since it is God’s truth, it will be God’s truth in whatever place it may be found, be that the sacred writings of some other religion or any other source.

Therefore, your claim that “such Masons do not walk in His statutes,” cannot be maintained—since it is a provable statement that there are truths of God that find expression in the teachings of other religions.

 

[Rev Wayne]

After all, it is you who expressed such 'oneness' saying that there is spiritual truth in all religions.

Well, considering the above post, in order to prove there is NOT spiritual truth in all religions, you must:

(1) Prove the things I quoted do not exist in the sources they are quoted from; or
(2) Prove that the statement they all affirm is not true.

I'd say that presents you with a formidable challenge: the first is well-documented, and the effort to disprove it would fail; the second is biblical, and you would not have any desire to disprove it.

Therefore your premise has failed.

Therefore, since not only is there one truth found in Christianity which is also found in other religions, it happens to be a truth which is at the HEART of Christian faith.

Moreover, since this central Christian truth was already present in many other religions prior to and independent of the Christian revelation, its presence there cannot be described as derivative.

In addition, its presence is not recorded in just any old source in those traditions, it is recorded in the books they consider sacred, indicating they consider God to be the source, and the truth as thus recorded to be the will of God.

Therefore, since the presence of this central Christian truth in other religions is not derivative of the Christian revelation; and since it is true in what it affirms; and since those who recorded it understood it to be divine truth and recorded it in sacred writings of their religions, thereby deeming its source to be God and its truth to be indicative of the divine will:

The only possible way that it could have been perceived by those who recorded it in this manner, would be by divine revelation from the One True God.

What this does NOT mean:

It does not mean that all things contained in those sacred writings are thereby to be considered divine truth. (To do that all the other statements claimed as divine truth within each religious tradition, would have to be examined and proven true.)

It does not mean that all the gods of those religions are thereby to be considered as "different names for the same God." (To do that it would have to be shown that all things represented as true about God within that religion and its writings were identical with the Christian revelation of God.)

But the most serious challenge presented by all this is, how, if you are to sustain your premise about "false religions" and/or "false gods," can you explain how a revelation of truth, perceived as divine truth, and in accord with divine truth in the Christian revelation, could have been revealed to and perceived by those of such false systems? The Bible tells us, after all, that "the natural man" cannot receive divine truth.

I have to admit, I've tried countering this thing from the Christian standpoint, from every conceivable angle, and I have found no explanation that works all the way around. But it poses no problem for me, as I have not made the claims, as you have, about "false religions" and "false gods."

I simply invite you to wrestle with it and see what you can come up with.

 

[AndrewCS]

Nothing will change my mind:

Personally, I will not be convinced that Freemasons are aligned with God’s word.

For that matter, no “secret” society for me is aligned with God’s word.

 

[Rev Wayne]

For that matter, no “secret” society for me is aligned with God’s word.

It's a good thing for you that you didn't have to live out your Christian faith during the Roman persecution, when the Christians were forced into an existence living in the catacombs in hiding. It was the perfect place for them, with fear from the Jews on the one side and the Romans on the other: the Jews were forbidden from contact with dead bodies, and so would not go there; and the Romans were very supersitious about both burial grounds and departed spirits. Christians who met up with other Christians often could not reveal themselves to be believers in Christ, for fear of exposing not only themselves but their family and friends. A method of identification was eventually devised, by which one Christian would draw half the fish symbol on the ground, and the other, recognizing the symbol, would complete the symbol by drawing the other half.

Thus early Christianity also had its symbols and modes of recognition, as well as its secrecy. Someone may object that "that was different," yet in its infancy Masonry was the same: they were Christians, but they were Christians who had chosen the fledgling Protestant faith, which put them in the same danger as all Protestant believers. They suffered persecutions at the hands of the Inquisitors, and so they developed a system of signs and tokens of recognition, whereby one Mason might know another "in the dark as well as in the light." They took their allegiance to God and to one another on "the book," as it was called in the earliest times, which at first was the Gospel of St. John, and later came to include all of the Holy Bible. And they taught in symbol as yet another means of concealment of purpose, for the Roman Church of those days would permit no ecclesiastical rivals.

The eventual resolution of each happened in different ways. Christianity was blessed by the emperor as the religion of the land. Freemasonry did not enjoy quite the same promising outcome. The church was no longer undergoing persecution as one united body; in fact, one body of the church was now persecuting all others who would dare remove themselves from that unity. Eventually Protestantism won out in England, but the Masons could not be certain even then how long it would last, with the monarchy having declared first one, and then the other, as the religion of the land.

That was a major contributing factor in the continuance of a certain degree of secrecy, to be sure--although it would be in error to say it was the only reason. We can only speculate on how the church itself might have developed had it not received the blessing of being declared the "official" religion.

 

[AndrewCS]

It's a good thing for you that you didn't have to live out your Christian faith during the Roman persecution, when the Christians were forced into an existence living in the catacombs in hiding. It was the perfect place for them, with fear from the Jews on the one side and the Romans on the other: the Jews were forbidden from contact with dead bodies, and so would not go there; and the Romans were very supersitious about both burial grounds and departed spirits. Christians who met up with other Christians often could not reveal themselves to be believers in Christ, for fear of exposing not only themselves but their family and friends. A method of identification was eventually devised, by which one Christian would draw half the fish symbol on the ground, and the other, recognizing the symbol, would complete the symbol by drawing the other half.

Thus early Christianity also had its symbols and modes of recognition, as well as its secrecy. Someone may object that "that was different," yet in its infancy Masonry was the same: they were Christians, but they were Christians who had chosen the fledgling Protestant faith, which put them in the same danger as all Protestant believers. They suffered persecutions at the hands of the Inquisitors, and so they developed a system of signs and tokens of recognition, whereby one Mason might know another "in the dark as well as in the light." They took their allegiance to God and to one another on "the book," as it was called in the earliest times, which at first was the Gospel of St. John, and later came to include all of the Holy Bible. And they taught in symbol as yet another means of concealment of purpose, for the Roman Church of those days would permit no ecclesiastical rivals.

The eventual resolution of each happened in different ways. Christianity was blessed by the emperor as the religion of the land. Freemasonry did not enjoy quite the same promising outcome. The church was no longer undergoing persecution as one united body; in fact, one body of the church was now persecuting all others who would dare remove themselves from that unity. Eventually Protestantism won out in England, but the Masons could not be certain even then how long it would last, with the monarchy having declared first one, and then the other, as the religion of the land.

That was a major contributing factor in the continuance of a certain degree of secrecy, to be sure--although it would be in error to say it was the only reason. We can only speculate on how the church itself might have developed had it not received the blessing of being declared the "official" religion.

Shalom Rev,

So in terms of that explanation:

I am a Spirit filled believer in Christ and you are a Freemason. We worship the same God – yes ?

Why then should you have a secret anything to set you apart from me ?


I would also like to point out that if we refer back to those “dark ages” we would not be communicating like this over the internet – yes? So if you agree then you must admit that the world has moved on from the dark ages – yes ?

God Bless

 

[Rev Wayne]

Why then should you have a secret anything to set you apart from me ?

Good question, since there ARE no secrets. Now that you know the derivation, and now that you yourself say we worship the same God, maybe you and all the other accusers here can lay it to rest.

I would also like to point out that if we refer back to those “dark ages” we would not be communicating like this over the internet – yes? So if you agree then you must admit that the world has moved on from the dark ages – yes ?

I'm sure you have a point, I'm just not quite sure why you aren't stating it. Either you missed the point or you are trying to distract from it. Your claim was that "no secret society is aligned with God's Word." My answer was, to provide two clear examples of secret societies that were aligned with God's Word, thus disputing your claim: (1) the early church under persecution from the Roman empire; and (2) the early Lodge, under persecution from the Roman church.

 

[O.F.F.]

Answer this for me, since you do like to toss around things about false gods: since other religions, as I have shown, have in their sacred writings comparable statements to the central truths of our own religion;

and since they are clearly not derivative from it;

exactly how would they have come by them, and exactly how would they also see this particular one as central, centuries before Jesus declared it to be so?

Are you suggesting that false gods would teach them God’s truth? That would be a strange proposition. But if you would acknowledge that they received these by revelation just as we have, then how will you call that a revelation from a “false god?”

. . .I simply invite you to wrestle with it and see what you can come up with.

Okay, I wrestled with it and this is what I came up with so far. Just because most religions B.C. or A.D. have some form of The Ethic of Reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" doesn't mean that their religion is not false. They remain false on the premise that, as compared to biblical Christianity they contain mutually exclusive ideas and concepts, including their concepts of deity. Unless you want to go on record as saying that the Bible is not exclusively the divine truth and ultimate authority of God's revelation to mankind.

Also, they remain false because they do not contain the whole truth. In other words, partial truth is a entire lie. Namely, they lack the ultimate truth, Jesus Christ himself -- the Living Word, who claimed to be the ONLY WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. Unless you wish to go on record as saying that Jesus was a liar, and that John 14:6 should not be taken literally.

By the same token, their gods remain false because their concepts of God are incomplete. Assuming they are monotheistic, as is the Masonic god (G.A.O.T.U.), their concepts are limited in that they lack the exclusivity of the One True God of the Bible (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). To simply stop at the two attributes that you so vehemently claim, namely, "Supreme" and "Creator" without fully acknowledging Him completely is a false representation of the truth or Reality of who He actually is. Hence the god of Freemasonry and the gods of non-Christian faith systems are FALSE.

Additionally, I believe that mankind has been able to embrace the Ethic of Reciprocity, not because of divine revelation found in FALSE religions, as you are trying to argue, but based on True Divine Revelation in Holy Scripture-- namely, Romans 2:14-15:

14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

So the divine revelation you are attempting to place on the so-called "sacred writings" of false religions, is really NOT inspired writing, but what is place by God in the hearts of men to begin with. Even atheists have some form of moral code of conduct that cooresponds to the Ethic of Reciprocity.

But the most serious challenge presented by all this is, how, if you are to sustain your premise about "false religions" and/or "false gods," can you explain how a revelation of truth, perceived as divine truth, and in accord with divine truth in the Christian revelation, could have been revealed to and perceived by those of such false systems? The Bible tells us, after all, that "the natural man" cannot receive divine truth.

For the most part, I've just answered this question. But let me add, I believe as a pastor recently told me. Since God doesn't want anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.(2 Peter 3:9), He will deposit just enough truth in the hearts and minds of men in order to lead them to the ultimate truth found in Christ Jesus the Lord. But it will be up to them to accept this free gift of salvation once the gospel has been presented to them.

Yet, until then, believers in the false gods of false religions, including those in the Masonic religion who believe in GAOTU, remain deceived because they do not have the Holy Spirit.

13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14

I have to admit, I've tried countering this thing from the Christian standpoint, from every conceivable angle, and I have found no explanation that works all the way around.

Well I hope this post helps you understand the biblical worldview on the matter much better.

But it poses no problem for me, as I have not made the claims, as you have, about "false religions" and "false gods.

What claims have I made that you are referring to? The only claims I've made regarding False Gods and False Religions is that they exist as any faith system apart from biblical Christianity, which includes the Masonic Faith.

Answer this for me, since you like to toss around things about divine truth in all religions and that as long as one believes God is "Supreme" and "Creator" they must be worshipping the same God; are you trying to suggest the same thing as your Masonic brother Max Müller was quoted as saying; that there is no such thing as a False God?

There never was a false god, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man. - Max Müller

Quoted in the Grand Lodge of Louisiana Masonic Monitor, 1949