• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Interestingly, in submitting the petition, I found out that my next-door neighbor, who is presenting my petition, is Past GM of SC. That blew me away, there is nothing that would have given a clue in the least, he's just your average age 70+ retiree who piddles with yard work all day.
Now that's pretty cool.
Actually, I did mis-state the matter, though I did not know it at the time. I was looking for his name on a list of PGM's on the GL website, and did not see it there, so I googled his name. It turns out, he was past MI Grand Master of York Rite in SC (1985). Not that I'm any less surprised.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The UGLE does NOT RESTRICT its definition of "Volume of Sacred Law" (VSL) to ONLY the Holy Bible.
So in actuality, the UGLE (the Mother of Freemasonry) defines the "VSL" as "The holy book of a Mason's religion," not strictly the Bible. To be a disingenuous Mason is one thing, but to be a disingenuous pastor is appalling.

All I can do is point the statement out once again, and prove to you that it says EXACTLY what I stated:

The Bible, referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law, is always open at every Masonic meeting.

Just because neither you nor the UGLE can recognize exactly what their own statement says, is no reflection on me.

With the dependent clause interjected within the main statement, the declarations of the sentence are not as readily seen. Therefore, since there are two things that this sentence declares, we will separate the phrases in which they are stated so we can see them in proper perspective:

FIRST STATEMENT:

“The Bible is always open at every Masonic meeting.”

SECOND STATEMENT, WITH THE UNDERSTOOD SUBJECT IN PARENTHESES:

“(The Bible is) referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law.”

http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/freemasonry-and-religion.htm

So if anyone is being “disingenuous,” it would naturally have to be either them or you. I simply quoted what the statement says on the official UGLE website. You are way out on a limb if you think to hold me responsible for its content.

But the real no-brainer here is, in your haste to criticize, and in your zeal for highlighting the wrong emphases, you missed something very obvious: the Q & A response that you just posted says EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS I SAID EARLIER! Take a look again at the third sentence of your quote:

The Bible will always be present in an English lodge but as the organisation welcomes men of many different faiths, it is called the Volume of the Sacred Law.

Once again, to follow the language logic, remove the subordinate phrase “but as the organisation welcomes men of many different faiths,” and once again, you will find two direct statements:

FIRST STATEMENT:

The Bible will always be present in an English lodge

SECOND STATEMENT:

it is called the Volume of the Sacred Law.

There is only ONE possible antecedent for the pronoun “it” in this phrase, since “The Bible” is the only noun referent that precedes “it.” So, as I said already, and by the UGLE’s OWN WORDS again:

“IT” (the Bible) is called the Volume of the Sacred Law—which is precisely what they said in the statement I quoted, and is precisely what they say here.

Ironically, I was prepared to concede that the first statement, as I have shown that it clearly reads, was probably not their intent, until I saw that they repeated the same thing in the portion you quoted. I hardly think they would “slip” twice, so apparently they said exactly what they meant to say, which is plain to any reader:

MY QUOTE: “(The Bible is) referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law.”

YOUR QUOTE: “(The Bible) is called the Volume of the Sacred Law.”

Posting quotes where the terms "Redeemer" or "Lion of the tribe of Judah" mean absolutely nothing, since it has already been shown here, by Grand Lodge authority, that Masonically these are generic terms for the "Mediator" or "Messiah" of the religion of any Mason. This makes perfect Masonic sense, since Grand Lodge monitors are issued to Masons who are Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, others who have no faith other than in a Supreme Being, or "Higher Power"

Sorry, we’re already beyond this point. You are objecting on the basis that there are Masons of other faiths. You have already acknowledged that there are spiritual truths which are found in all religions, Christianity included. So NATURALLY, members of each religion will interpret them according to the terms and expressions found within their own religion, and not someone else’s.

I thought we were clear on that point? For you to return to accusations based on the same presuppositions as before, constitutes a reversal on your part.

Personally, I have no problem with the fact that the things of Masonry may have other interpretations since, after all, that does not void my own interpretation, which is, of course, Christian. But I thought we were discussing issues of compatibility with Christianity? Variety of interpretation cannot be a point of incompatibility, as proven by our recent exercise concerning the Golden Rule. Many traditions have the Golden Rule, they developed it pre-Christian and perhaps even pre-Judaism, and independently; thus, since its truth is undeniable, so is its having been received by divine revelation, just as we claim as Christians.

For you to reverse yourself in this manner now, and start crying “incompatibility” because of other possible interpretations, is a complete abandonment, reversal, and undermining of all the groundwork that we have laid to this point.

So your whole spiel on “Lion of the Tribe of Judah,” though well-taken, is essentially irrelevant. The Golden Rule was shown to be a point of compatibility between Masonry and many religions--Christianity included, of course, unless you wish to try to prove the Golden Rule "incompatible with Christian faith?" All you have shown with this current address, is to show that quite possibly, “Lion of the tribe of Judah” finds compatibility with those same religions which held the Golden Rule in common.

(But I seriously doubt it, mainly because only one Sacred Volume that anyone can name, or has named, has a reference point of “tribe of Judah,” and that is the Bible. And you forget also, there are an ABUNDANCE of Masonic references—MONITORIAL references—which CLEARLY cite the Revelation 5:5 Scripture reference from which this comes. Moreover, many of those which CONTAIN those references to Rev. 5:5, ALSO include the further reference, in case there was any doubt, to “who has prevailed to open the seven seals.”)

Crybaby the matter all you wish, there simply is NO OTHER source for this, and that includes MASONIC ones, from which you can get either “has prevailed to open the seven seals” or “tribe of Judah,” other than the Bible. The statements you cite, I am certain, are well-intentioned, but they are for the most part designed to "protect" Masonry from imagined attempts to "Christianize" Masonry. The fact is, though, that neither you nor they realize that no one may "Christianize" that which already clearly has Christianity as its source. Given the abundant number of MASONIC sources that cite Rev. 5:5, and the abundant number of MASONS who have recognized this and clearly stated it to be so, I would have thought that someone who claims to be as biblically grounded as you seem to present yourself to be, would easily recognize the source. Apparently you aren't quite as familiar with the Bible as you wish others to believe you are.

by Chuck Easttom, former 32° Mason from Oklahoma

Heh, heh, heh, you’re kidding, right? You rail at me because I quote from the Masonic Heirloom Bible, and then quote anecdotal material from FORMER Masons??

But I notice even he puts in a disclaimer:

But maybe it's different elsewhere.

Boy, talk about an UNDERstatement! It’s so different every place I’ve seen it, that his remarks are foreign. I don't put much stock in claims by people with axes to grind, ESPECIALLY ex-Masons, given the consistent "witness" of the ones I have encountered.

The Masonic Heirloom Bible, by the way, is presented to every Master Mason in our jurisdiction upon raising. That makes it official here, no matter what you claim. The same is done in many other places, as well.

As for your claim that it is “not official,” you are DEAD WRONG. For one thing, it has a presentation page with the names of each of the lodge officers, the dates of initiation, passing, and raising, the name, number, and address of the lodge where presented. But most of all: Stamped into the presentation page is the Grand Lodge seal, making it official.

But, since you undoubtedly will immediately go into conniptions of denial, I suppose it would be in order to post this as well:

SEC. 90. Seal.—Each chartered Lodge must have a seal, an impression of which must be attached to all its official papers. (Ahiman Rezon, p. 381)

Regardless of your claims, the Grand Lodge Seal makes this an official Masonic publication for this jurisdiction. In the past when this has been pointed out to you, you have tried to insist that the seal does not endorse content, only the presentation page, but that is incorrect, because this seal is used in the same manner with every copy of the Ahiman Rezon that is distributed. The seal appears there, just as it does in the Masonic Bible, on the presentation page. You may, of course, if you wish, object that it has nothing to do with the Masonic content in either instance, but I doubt you'd find any agreement on that point.

If the Heirloom Bible Publishers were not publishing this under the auspices of the Grand Lodge, they would be using Masonry's symbols illegally, and in jurisdictions where the Grand Lodge has taken steps to protect the Square and Compass symbol, they could be taken to court (Michigan would be one place, Canada and New Zealand are other places where this has been done. Scotland has a copyright in place protecting, more specifically, the S&C logo that incorporates the use of the letter G.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You never know what you might find when you look around a bit. From the O.F.F. website, in an article titled "Freemasonry's Plan of Salvation":

By what authority does Freemasonry state, as a "given", that Masons shall pass "upward and inward through the pearly gates..."? The Craft extends a promise of everlasting life to be realized by all Masons (Christians & non-Christians) who adhere to its teachings: From the Heirloom Masonic Bible, page 26:
"By the practice of Freemasonry its members may advance their spirituality, and mount by the theological ladder from the Lodge on earth to the Lodge in heaven."​
So apparently you will post articles on your website that answer questions of "by what authority" Masonry does certain things, which are then answered from the Masonic Heirloom Bible;

But you criticize me when I cite the Masonic Heirloom Bible here??

Apparently your ideas of whether it's official or not simply depend on whether or not it's convenient for you at that particular point in your argument?

Furthermore, a ceremony for laying a corner stone does not have anything to do with becoming a Mason. I challenge you to show us where Jesus Christ is specifically mentioned in or during any of the Blue Lodge rituals (1st, 2nd or 3rd degree ceremonies).
Ah, yes, the never-ending antimasonic circle of bait-and-switch: You ask for statements from monitors, we provide statements from monitors; you object it is outdated, we provide current monitorial materials; so you move totally away from the thread OP and rather than address issues of compatibility, you start insisting on specific references to Jesus, and limiting the monitorial work to only the Blue Degrees.

And all the while, both here and elsewhere, you do not even follow the guidelines you seek to impose on everyone else, quoting from materials from a century ago and older, quoting from any old Masonic source you please, and endorsing those who do the same. This is Pharisaism, my friend, and quite honestly, I had expected better from you. So at this point, I have a new proposal for you. No, strike that, it's not a proposal, I'm simply serving notice for you that since you do not adopt and implement your own guidelines, neither will I.

Also, Andrew Utley, "The Master Mason’s Guide" and Jeremy Ladd Cross, "The True Masonic Chart" are NOT official monitors of any Grand Lodge. You knew that when you posted quotes from them, and could not answer my question, when I asked you to provide the Grand Lodges that currently use them.
"Could not answer?" On the contrary, since you clearly indicated you preferred material from CURRENT monitors, I provided such material for you so there could be no question that such materials are in existence CURRENTLY, contrary to your insinuation that they were not. And I see from your responses:

The Masonic Heirloom Bible is NOT an official publication of any Grand Lodge in the world. To post excerpts from it as if it were, is not only disingenuous, it's deliberately misleading.

As for Oklahoma Masonry, although he is not a member of O.F.F., let a former member who practiced in that jurisdiction tell us like it really is:
that you have not truly "responded" at all. Instead, you have attacked. In one attack, you criticize the use of a source as official--yet you allow it be used as an official source in accusations on your website.

That is self-contradictory.

In the other attack, you have used an anecdotal source from someone who sounds rather vindictive, and a source which, by the standards which you yourself have insisted upon as "authoritative," fails miserably.

In other words:

(1) you clearly implied that only CURRENT monitorial quotes would suffice;

(2) I supplied sources that would meet the criteria;

(3) So far you have not addressed the content of any of them at all.

(4) Even in the two you attacked, you did so with invalid arguments.

Since you clearly indicated your preference for CURRENT materials, and since I clearly PROVIDED them, perhaps you could actually ADDRESS them?

But I also have one of those little nagging questions that won't go away:

You criticize the Cross and Utley monitors because you can't find any Grand Lodges who currently use them.

Yet I notice you have provided links on this forum that take us to articles attacking Masonry while citing Mackey's Encyclopedia, and Harry Pirtle. And on your own website, you cite Albert Pike, Carl Claudy, Lynn Perkins, among others, but most glaringly, you cite Duncan's Monitor!!

Tell me, just out of curiosity: Utley's is 1865, Cross's is 1851, and Duncan's is 1866;

So exactly WHY are Utley and Cross a problem and Duncan is NOT??

And I have a second question, too, naturally:

Can you provide for me a list of Grand Lodges who currently use Duncan's Monitor? :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
By the practice of Freemasonry its members may advance their spirituality, and mount by the theological ladder from the Lodge on earth to the Lodge in heaven.

Heirloom Masonic Bible, page 26

I guess if the Heirloom Bible Publishers chooses to personalize bibles for some Grand Lodges, with their seals, so that they can twist God's Word and put Masonic spins on it, then based on that criteria, it is official "Masonic" documentation. And, judging from the above quote from it, it's obviously NOT Christian.

MOA said:
So if anyone is being “disingenuous,” it would naturally have to be either them or you. . . Just because neither you nor the UGLE can recognize exactly what their own statement says, is no reflection on me.

You can ignore the highest authority of Freemasonry when they say the "VSL" is "The holy book of a Mason's religion," and not strictly the Bible, if you wish. I simply posted how they ACTUALLY define it, and you keep trying to spin it to narrowly define it as the Bible only, which simply is NOT true.

MOA said:
So your whole spiel on “Lion of the Tribe of Judah,” though well-taken, is essentially irrelevant. . . All you have shown with this current address, is to show that quite possibly, “Lion of the tribe of Judah” finds compatibility with those same religions . . . But I seriously doubt it, mainly because only one Sacred Volume that anyone can name, or has named, has a reference point of “tribe of Judah,” and that is the Bible.

So what, the story of King Solomon's Temple is found in the Bible too, but we both know that the Legend of Hiram Abif is intertwined with it by Freemasonry in order to create one big Masonic lie. The point is, Freemasonry quotes the Bible in its material out of contest to promote Masonic principles, NOT Christian ones. You are just deceiving yourself to think otherwise, and statements like this, and the following, prove it:

MOA said:
The statements you cite [from Masonic authorities], I am certain, are well-intentioned, but they are for the most part designed to "protect" Masonry from imagined attempts to "Christianize" Masonry. The fact is, though, that neither you nor they [Masonic authorities] realize that no one may "Christianize" that which already clearly has Christianity as its source. [emphasis added]

Talk about self-contradiction, this comment goes against every previous statement you've ever made that "Freemasonry is NOT Christian, and never intends to be," or words to that effect. Make up you mind pastor -- this is Freemasonry, not Burger King -- you can't "have it your way" or both ways!

You refuse to agree with Masonic authorities that the Bible is not solely THE "Volume of Sacred Law" and you refuse to agree with them when they clearly intend NOT to "Christianize" Freemasonry. So I guess you're just all alone by yourself as a Masonic authority in you OWN imaginations; attempting to make Freemasonry something, that by its own admission, it clearly is NOT intended to be.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I guess if the Heirloom Bible Publishers chooses to personalize bibles for some Grand Lodges, with their seals, so that they can twist God's Word and put Masonic spins on it, then based on that criteria, it is official "Masonic" documentation. And, judging from the above quote from it, it's obviously NOT Christian.
I must say, that's quite a hefty accusation. I'll tell you what--you saw the definitions I posted from the glossary of the Masonic Bible, which give the clearest indication of how many of the concepts of Christianity are defined by Masonry. If it wouldn’t be too much trouble, when you can find spare time from your railing, can you please point out for me exactly which ones you have a problem with?

Page 44, post #433, http://foru.ms/t1182104&page=44

Just in case you have trouble finding it. :)

And I do find it strange that you refer to this Bible as “not Christian.” Mine is King James, so while I would have to concur if someone wished to make a statement that it might not be the best translation available, I would NEVER say it was not Christian.

You can ignore the highest authority of Freemasonry when they say the "VSL" is "The holy book of a Mason's religion," and not strictly the Bible, if you wish. I simply posted how they ACTUALLY define it, and you keep trying to spin it to narrowly define it as the Bible only, which simply is NOT true.

No spin at all, except on your part when it comes to what I’ve said. It’s no problem of mine if you can’t discern the difference between “IS” and “IS REFERRED TO.” The Bible IS on their altars, is the statement that clearly is made. And the Bible IS REFERRED TO as the Volume of Sacred Law, is the second statement that was made.

The only time that might change would be if someone of another faith takes an obligation and exercises HIS option of taking it on the book of his own faith. And even then, the VSL changes ONLY FOR HIM, and ONLY FOR THE DURATION OF THAT DEGREE WORK.

Or did you miss what they ALSO clearly said:

Thus, when the Volume of the Sacred Law is referred to in ceremonies, to a non-Christian it will be the holy book of his religion and to a Christian it will be the Bible.

“When the VSL is referred to in ceremonies,” even then, to the Christian it will STILL be the Bible. It means something else only to someone other than a Christian. And even then, the Bible will still BE the book on the altar in the UGLE, NOT some other book, and NOT “BE REFERRED TO.” It will still BE the Bible on their altars, despite all your circumlocutions to the contrary. IN THEIR OWN WORDS:

The Bible, referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law, is always open at every Masonic meeting.
How could it be open at EVERY MEETING, if it's not THERE ON THE ALTAR at every meeting??

And what significant difference does it make what it is “referred to” as, when it’s still the Bible? Many Christians, after all, have also "referred to" the Bible as the “Volume of Sacred Law.” But to them also, it’s STILL the Bible.

I think you have let one little misperception take you off on a whole paroxysm of useless and wasted effort. The thing you seemed to take exception to was my mention that the statement by the UGLE “restricts” the meaning to only the Bible. By that, you clearly took it to mean that I was trying to say that the UGLE restricts it. I said nothing of the kind. My reference was to language logic only, as already stated, and the language logic clearly IS restrictive. The statement

The Bible, referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law, is always open at every Masonic meeting

has within it a subordinate clause (“referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law”) that is both appositive and restrictive (after all, why else do they call them “restrictive” clauses?). The logic of the sentence, as worded, further defines the just-stated subject, “The Bible,” by providing the further point of information about it that it is “referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law.”
And my statement on the matter was:

Statement of the United Grand Lodge of England, restricting the UGLE definition of "Volume of Sacred Law" to the Holy Bible
SUBJECT="Statement"
VERB= "restricting"
UGLE = object in a prepositional phrase

"UGLE" in my sentence was an object, not a subject. I clearly said this STATEMENT restricts the definition. And I have shown just exactly how it does so.

And that’s it. That’s how it’s worded, and as worded, that’s exactly what it says. And with that, I am done with this nitpicking on your part. If you have that much of a problem with this, you really need to contact them and let them know that their statement conflicts with some of their further elucidation upon it (if you really think it does—I do not), because there’s nothing I can do about it. SHEESH! If I didn’t know better, I'd think you suddenly traded places with your henchman W.D., who is famous for such circumlocuitousness.

So what, the story of King Solomon's Temple is found in the Bible too, but we both know that the Legend of Hiram Abif is intertwined with it by Freemasonry in order to create one big Masonic lie.

Ummmm….that would be “allegory,” not “lie.” It’s similar to parabolic stories, you know, one thing stands for another? It's no different than John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, which was not an actual story, but which powerfully illustrated many spiritual truths. And for Christian Masons, there is absolutely NO conflict here; in fact, many antimasons can even see that the interpretation, to a Christian, is a picture of Jesus. But being unfamiliar with how to go about such interpretations, they can’t quite get their heads around it, so they do the same as they do with all things they can’t get their heads around: they throw rocks at it and run.

The point is, Freemasonry quotes the Bible in its material out of contest to promote Masonic principles, NOT Christian ones. You are just deceiving yourself to think otherwise

You TOTALLY missed my point. I was simply stating the very provable fact that “Lion of the tribe of Judah,” even as it appears thus worded, has only one possible referent, that being Revelation 5:5, which is the only place it appears. And I further stated that with the accompanying phrase that completes that verse, “who has prevailed to open the seven seals,” only further SOLIDIFIES the point of origin. Therefore, I was absolutely correct in noting that there was only one possible SOURCE for it. The comments you made to the contrary had to do with the possibility of different INTERPRETATIONS of the PHRASE ITSELF—a very DIFFERENT proposition entirely from what I said.

Once again, you spin the things I say to suit your accusations. Whether you do so out of intention or simply out of ignorance, I find either one unacceptable. Either stick to what I’ve said or don’t refer to my comments at all.

Talk about self-contradiction, this comment goes against every previous statement you've ever made that "Freemasonry is NOT Christian, and never intends to be," or words to that effect. Make up you mind pastor -- this is Freemasonry, not Burger King -- you can't "have it your way" or both ways!

Surely you jest with this comical bluster? Just because I say Freemasonry is not Christian, does not negate its having been founded on Christian principles, nor does it negate the fact that many of the common expressions found in Masonry, have Christianity as their PROVABLE point of origin. “Lion of the tribe of Judah” is clearly one such expression, because there is no prior source to Masonry that can be shown from which it derives, save one, Revelation 5:5.

And as I clearly articulated for you already, that proof becomes MUCH MORE solidified when Masonic authors and Masonic materials contain the REST of the verse from Revelation 5:5, “who has prevailed to open the seven seals.”
From “A Memorial Service Program,” Texas:

"And one of the elders sayeth unto me: 'Rejoice ye and be exceedingly glad-behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed to open the book and to loosen the seven seals thereof,"

Henry Wilson Coil, Encyclopedia:

Revelation 5:5 reads: “Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the Book, and to loose the Seven Seals thereof.” I Samuel 17:37 uses the expression: “paw of the lion.” The Lion of the tribe of Judah is supposed to mean Christ and the allusion is said to refer to the doctrine of resurrection.

Mackey, Encyclopedia:

The expression is borrowed from the Apocalypse, (v. 5) “Behold, the Lion which is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.”

Masonic Bible, Master Mason edition:

The phrase in the Masonic ritual, “The lion of the tribe of Judah,” is Messianic and refers to Christ, the anointed of God and royal head of God’s Kingdom.

Missouri Lodge of Research, “Key Masonic Words and Phrases”:

Lion of the Tribe of Judah

The phrase in the Masonic ritual, "The lion of the tribe of Judah," is Messianic and refers to Christ, the anointed of God and royal head of God's Kingdom.

(In case you didn't notice, those last two are identical, so Missouri research lodge apparently got their definition from the Masonic Bible.)

You refuse to agree with Masonic authorities that the Bible is not solely THE "Volume of Sacred Law"

Take a look at it, Mike, you have it backwards. It would more accurately read "the VSL is not solely the Bible."


and you refuse to agree with them when they clearly intend NOT to "Christianize" Freemasonry.

I completely agree--especially when all I’m doing is pointing out the Christian ORIGIN of a SINGLE PHRASE in Freemasonry.

Your reading comprehension is at a nadir in recent posts. Are you sure you won’t reconsider taking those two months away?

So I guess you're just all alone by yourself as a Masonic authority in you OWN imaginations;

Nope, wrong again. Clearly they are YOURS, and equally clearly they have nothing to do with anything I’ve posted. That makes them either (1) your own misapprehensions, or (2) your own fabrications. Take your pick, those are the only two choices.

I challenge you to show us where Jesus Christ is specifically mentioned in or during any of the Blue Lodge rituals (1st, 2nd or 3rd degree ceremonies).

DONE. From the EA degree lectures:

The MOSAIC PAVEMENT is a representation of the
ground floor of King Solomon's Temple; the INDENTED TESSEL, that beautiful tessellated border, or skirting which surrounded it, and the BLAZING STAR, in the center, is commemorative of the star which appeared to guide the wise men of the east to the place of our Savior's nativity. (Masonic Manual and Monitorial Instructions, Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. Minnesota, 1998 revised ed.)
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
MOA said:
Ummmm….that would be “allegory,” not “lie.” It’s similar to parabolic stories, you know, one thing stands for another?

That's just a fancy way of trying to justify a LIE. In fact, many biblically ignorant Masons thinks that the story is truly from the Bible. In my opinion, it is a violation of Revelation 22:18-19.

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (emphasis added)

With the Hiramic Legend, up to a certain point, Freemasonry follows the biblical record by mentioning that Hiram helped King Solomon build the Temple (1 Kings 7:13–45 and 2 Chronicles 2:13–14; 4:16). The Lodge then departs from the biblical record by adding its lie about what actually occurred in order to create this fictitious story; thereby altering the Word of God making themselves guilty of violating Revelation 22:18-19.

The biblical context of Solomon's Temple predates the incarnate Christ. So I disagree that most "Christian" Masons perceive Hiram as Jesus. Masonic scholars and Grand Lodges interpret the Legend of Hiram as either teaching the immortality of the soul (which is the majority view) or teaching the resurrection of the body (a minority view), not a story about, or one that points to, Jesus Christ.

For example, the majority view of the immortality of the soul is held by Albert Mackey The Symbolism of Freemasonry, pg. 233–234, Carl Claudy Foreign Countries, pg. 11, 136, Joseph Fort Newton The Builders, pg. 262–263, the Grand Lodges of Louisiana The Louisiana Monitor, pg. 134, the Grand Lodge of Texas Monitor of the Lodge, pg. 78, the Grand Lodge of Washington Washington Monitor and Freemason's Guide, pg. 67, the Grand Lodge of Alberta, Canada Lodge Plan for Masonic Education: Mentor's Guide pg. 66, the Grand Lodge of New York The Standard Work and Lectures of Ancient Craft Masonry, pg. 222, and the Grand Lodge of California Mentor Program, pg. 106.

Examples of the minority view of resurrection would include Allen Roberts The Craft and Its Symbols, pg. 87, the Grand Lodge of Oklahoma Murrow Masonic Monitor, pg. 94, and the Grand Lodge of Missouri Missouri Cipher, pg. 114.

Masons (Christian and non-Christian) are told that the Legend of Hiram should not be taken lightly, for it is designed to impress upon their minds something far deeper than a mere drama play in the lodge room. The Grand Lodge of California states:

RAISING OF A CANDIDATE

Most people do not understand what being “Raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason” means. This Degree is the sublime climax of Symbolic Freemasonry. If you learn only that the living, dying and raising of a Master is a drama, designed to teach the virtues of fidelity, faith and fortitude, you have received only partial light and have seen nothing but a moral lesson. This Degree seeks to answer the age-old question put forth by Job - “If a man die, shall he live again?”

The Degree delves into the deepest recesses of man’s nature. While it leads the initiate into the Sanctum Sanctorum of the Temple, it probes into the Holy of Holies in his heart. As a whole, the Degree is symbolic of old age and by the wisdom of which we may enjoy the happy reflections consequent on a well-spent and properly directed life, and die in the sure knowledge of a glorious immortality.

Grand Lodge of California Mentor Program, pg. 106 (emphasis added)

And, Masonic scholar and author Allen Roberts writes:

The lessons found in the Legend of Hiram Abif reach to the roots of the soul and spirit. They are instilled in the heart forever. You were an active participant, so that these lessons would be deeply implanted, never to be lost.

The Craft and Its Symbols, pg. 81

Since Freemasonry emphasizes its non-Christian, non–sectarianism, who else could Hiram be, but Hiram? Hiram is such an important figure in the Masonic plan of salvation, that most Grand Lodges close the Master Mason ritual by boldly stating:

"Then let us imitate the good man [Hiram] 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 all–perfect, glorious and celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides." (emphasis added)

The Grand Lodge of Kentucky saw this "imitation" of, and "identification" with, Hiram (not Jesus) something so vitally important, that in the introductory section of their 1946 edition of their Masonic Monitor we can find:

All [antiquity] believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state or successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer, by whom the Evil Principle was to be overcome and the Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. . . . The Hindus called him Krishna; the Chinese, Kioun–tse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhou vanai; the Egyptians, Horus; Plato, Love; the Scandinavians, Balder; the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram.

Kentucky Monitor, 13th ed., 1946, pg. xv (emphasis added)

While it is true that current editions of the Kentucky Monitor, no longer contain this, it begs the question; Why was it included in the first place?

Furthermore there is sufficient evidence that suggest this Masonic "allegory" has similarities with the ancient pagan Mystery Religions have been noted by more than one Masonic scholar. For example, this has been shown by Albert Mackey in The Symbolism of Freemasonry pg. 39–44, 228–246, and by W.L. Wilmshurst in The Meaning of Masonry, pg. 170–216.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to read:

The presence in the modern Masonic system, of many of the emblems, symbols and allegories of the ancient Temples of Initiation, as well as certain rites performed therein, has persuaded the most learned among Masonic scholars to conclude that Masonry is of very ancient origin, and is, in some aspects, the modern successor of, and heir to, the sublime Mysteries of the Temple of Solomon, and of the Temples of India, Chaldea, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as well as the basic doctrine of the Essenes, Gnostics and other mystic Orders.

Monitor of the Lodge, Grand Lodge of Texas, pg. xiv. (emphasis added)

There's enough similarities with the ancient Mysteries, to arguably make Freemasonry a "modern Mystery Religion" and therefore, the spiritual descendant of the ancient Mystery Religions; even though there is no definitive historical evidence linking Freemasonry to them in any way with absolute certainty.

Nevertheless, this thing called "Freemasonry" is strange enough that discerning Christians should avoid it like a plague, while attractive enough for some to believe as Masonic scholar Henry W. Coil once said:

Freemasonry has a religious service to commit the body of a deceased brother to the dust whence it came and to speed the liberated spirit back to the Great Source of Light. Many Freemasons make this flight with no other guarantee of a safe landing than their belief in the religion of Freemasonry.

Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, pg. 512. (emphasis added)
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Revelation 22:18-19 refers only to the Apocalypse of John, not the thing that has become to be known as The Bible, as it didn't exist at the writing of those passages.

This ranks up there with the abuse if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in misapplication of self-referencing scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Revelation 22:18-19 refers only to the Apocalypse of John,

That's true.

not the thing that has become to be known as The Bible, as it didn't exist at the writing of those passages.

That's not.

At least not as it is apparently meant to be understood. All the books of our Bible were in existence and were being used by the churches. Only the compilation of them under one cover as what we call "The Bible, " lit. The Book, wasn't done until later. Interestingly, only Revelation and a couple of the shorter epistles were what was undecided upon until the canonization of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
chaoschristian said:
Revelation 22:18-19 refers only to the Apocalypse of John, not the thing that has become to be known as The Bible, as it didn't exist at the writing of those passages.

Divine Revelation is not limited to the Book of Revelation. The word "Bible" may be a noun, but it's an understatement to call it a "thing." For all of Holy Scripture is the inspired Revelation of God. If you can’t add to the Book of Revelation, you can’t add, alter or remove any part of the Holy Bible.

God saw to it to place verses 22:18-19 at the end of the Book of Revelation, because is the end of the Bible -- the totality of His inspired Word. The Bible is a closed book. There will be no further revelation. God’s Word has a “divine copyright,” and Revelation 22:18-19 says don’t tamper with it or God will tamper with you.

Unless God is a liar, Freemasonry and those who support it will face the consequences for altering the biblical record, and for twisting so much of God's Word out of its intended context.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you believe that the canonization process is also divinely inspired?

I think it's an error to take a single passage out of context and extend it to an entire work that did not exist at the time of its writing.

The Bible is a convenience and a format. It is the error of our post-modern and post-literate culture to view scriptures (plural) as a single created entity.

While scriptures may be divinely inspired, 'The Bible' is a thing that was wholly created by man.

To view it otherwise, in my experience, leads to the unfortunate modern heresy of Bibliodaltry. Then you get things like people saying The Bible is "The Word of God" or even the most extreme witnessed here at CF, that the Bible is a part of the Holy Trinity (still trying to wrap my brain around that one.)
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
At least not as it is apparently meant to be understood. All the books of our Bible were in existence and were being used by the churches. Only the compilation of them under one cover as what we call "The Bible, " lit. The Book, wasn't done until later. Interestingly, only Revelation and a couple of the shorter epistles were what was undecided upon until the canonization of the Bible.

Depends on how you date the writings really. If you accept circa 70 AD for Revelation and up to about 200 AD for other works, and given that 'The Bible' didn't emerge to what, 4th Century, then I think it's a stretch that John intended that passage to cover all works of the modern accepted canon, which he could not have possibly known about.

And if one is to argue divine intent, then I simply ask for proof.

But this discussion probably has its own discussion thread elsewhere in the forum. Fascinating topic though.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Depends on how you date the writings really. If you accept circa 70 AD for Revelation and up to about 200 AD for other works,

Given that scenario, I suppose it makes sense. However, none of the books of the Bible WAS written at such a late date.

and given that 'The Bible' didn't emerge to what, 4th Century, then I think it's a stretch that John intended that passage to cover all works of the modern accepted canon, which he could not have possibly known about.

I didn't dispute that point, i.e., that this verse in Revelation does not mean "can't add to the scriptures," but instead means not adding to (John's) Revelation in particular. You're right about that.
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The whole point of this is to point out that OFF's reasoning isn't sound. His argument is based on a flawed overextension of the passages in question. Additionally he creates a false dichotomy between allegory/myth (they aren't the same, but good enough for now) and truth.

Yes, I too have encountered Masons who think that the Hiram Abiff tale is in scriptures (perhaps two only though). This is a common error among Christians, many of whom believe that many things are in scriptures that aren't there, point in case the entire Left Behind series; or folks who confuse Milton or Dante with scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God saw to it to place verses 22:18-19 at the end of the Book of Revelation, because is the end of the Bible -- the totality of His inspired Word.

The only reason this book appears at the end of the Bible is because men have made it so. But in a book dealing with the apocalypse, and which closes with the judgment, and then the consummation of all things with new heavens and new earth, what other logical place would they have put it?

As for the words in question, they were in place LONG before the canon of Scripture was put into place, thus long before this and the other books of the canon even BECAME the “totality of His inspired Word,” making your accusation nothing more than a huge anachronism.

Divine Revelation is not limited to the Book of Revelation.

I have yet to see anybody claim differently.

The word "Bible" may be a noun, but it's an understatement to call it a "thing."

Rather facetious of you to raise this point, when the context in which it was made clearly shows that it was not made in a way that was belittling or demeaning of the Word at all, don't you think?

For all of Holy Scripture is the inspired Revelation of God. If you can’t add to the Book of Revelation, you can’t add, alter or remove any part of the Holy Bible.

Nor has anyone disputed this point either. The REAL point is, the verses you cited do not establish your premise, since they were written by John in reference ONLY to what he wrote in Revelation.

We tend to forget, the Bible is not "a" book, it is MANY books--even as a child I was taught that there are 66 BOOKS in the Bible. This particular writing constitutes only one of those books. When John warned about the contents of "THIS book," he was referring only to Revelation.

In my opinion, it is a violation of Revelation 22:18-19.

Well, there’s nothing about the building of Solomon’s temple in Revelation. So there is no way any Mason could have been taking away or adding anything to Revelation with the story of the temple as it is found in Masonry. This is an absurd accusation.

Unless God is a liar, Freemasonry and those who support it will face the consequences for altering the biblical record, and for twisting so much of God's Word out of its intended context.

God is not the one who is lying about this.

In fact, if anyone were guilty of what you claim, it would be you. “Adding,” after all, is an attempt to make the Bible say more than it does, which is exactly what you are doing with this interpretation.

And I can’t help but wonder, how does someone who has been shown the error of this argument as many times as you have in the past, continue to try to press a false position in this manner?

In fact, many biblically ignorant Masons thinks that the story is truly from the Bible.

Funny thing, I’ve never met any of them. You’d think, that in four years, with a lot of time spent in intensive study of Masonry and in dialogue with Masons around the world; and three years as a member of the lodge, being a member at two (soon to be three, or four including York Rite) different lodges and visiting at many others, that somewhere along the line I would have had some kind of contact with someone who believes the entire account of the Hiram allegory is from the Bible. To date, I have not.

For example, the majority view of the immortality of the soul is held by Albert Mackey The Symbolism of Freemasonry, pg. 233–234, Carl Claudy Foreign Countries, pg. 11, 136, Joseph Fort Newton The Builders, pg. 262–263, the Grand Lodges of Louisiana The Louisiana Monitor, pg. 134, the Grand Lodge of Texas Monitor of the Lodge, pg. 78, the Grand Lodge of Washington Washington Monitor and Freemason's Guide, pg. 67, the Grand Lodge of Alberta, Canada Lodge Plan for Masonic Education: Mentor's Guide pg. 66, and the Grand Lodge of New York The Standard Work and Lectures of Ancient Craft Masonry, pg. 222.

Examples of the minority view of resurrection would include Allen Roberts The Craft and Its Symbols, pg. 87, the Grand Lodge of Oklahoma Murrow Masonic Monitor, pg. 94, and the Grand Lodge of Missouri Missouri Cipher, pg. 114.
Are you sure about all this? I mean, as soon as I saw it, I questioned it, and decided to do a quick check, and the very first person whose opinion I checked, I found this:

It has been well said that "Freemasonry is the Science of Morality, veiled in Allegory, and illustrated by Symbols." We personally do not claim for Freemasonry the title of a science, but we do insist that it comprehends all true philosophy. Its fundamental principle is a belief in God, without which there can be neither morality or philosophy. The second principle taught in Masonry is the immortality of the soul ; and the third principle is the resurrection of the body. These constitute the philosophy of Freemasonry. It is upon these principles that all the ancient religions were founded. (Mackey, History of Freemasonry, p. 1757)
I checked Mackey mainly because I thought you were wrong about him. Turns out you were.

The second place I looked was in Gould’s History of Freemasonry, and although he does not make the statement as directly as Mackey, it is still clear that he also sees both being taught by Masonry. In describing a form of the ritual from pre-1717 times, he states:

It will be seen that the leading idea is still that of a betrayal, death, and resurrection, although the hero is not a semi-fictitious personage like Hiram. (p. 231)

You also seem to forget Hutchinson, who states:

“Our Order is a positive contradiction to Judaic blindness and infidelity, and testifies our faith concerning the resurrection of the body." (Spirit of Masonry, p. 164)

You also negelected to bring in Hardie’s New Freemason’s Monitor:

This order is, therefore, a positive contradiction of those, who know not God, and gives the most irrefragable proof of the resurrection of the body. (p. 158)

But the most glaring point I noticed, since you have in the past consistently turned to South Carolina’s Ahiman Rezon at every possible opportunity to use it as a jab at me (yes, Michael, it’s been that obvious), was the omission of it in this particular accusation. I couldn’t help but wonder why; but it didn’t take long to see EXACTLY why. From the second section of the third lecture, MM degree, p. 145-46 (2003 edition):

The second section of this lecture is of pre-eminent importance. It recites the legend or historical tradition on which the degree is founded; a legend whose symbolic interpretation testifies to our faith in the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul, while it exemplifies a rare instance of virtue, fortitude, and integrity. (Emphasis added)

It’s the same here as in Mackey’s history: Mackey supports BOTH interpretations, not just one, as you claim.

From Florida’s Masonic Monitor, Master Mason lecture, p. 108:

We are further reminded that though these frail bodies must die and return to dust, we may indulge the hope that through the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, our disembodied spirits shall be raised and be carried to realms of bliss, there to remain in God’s paradise forever.

Though the phrase “disembodied spirits” might seem to separate this from the interpretation of resurrection of the body, which is more typical Masonically, still the lecture at this point teaches resurrection. But the idea that this would still be resurrection of the body is unmistakably exemplified in the “faith in the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah,” who was so raised.

And yet another:

Thus we close the explanation of the emblems upon the solemn thought of death, which, without revelation, is dark and gloomy; but we are constantly revived by the 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 the Resurrection our bodies will rise and become as incorruptible as our souls. (Thornburgh’s Manual of the Lodge, p. 62, one of the more typical to be found. The same version, word for word, appears also in the Masonic Manual of Alabama.)

From the Indiana Monitor and Freemason’s Guide, p. 95:

The second section of the Master Mason degree which follows, commonly called the “second section,” is of pre-eminent importance. It recites the legend or historical tradition on which the degree is founded—a legend whose symbolic interpretation testifies our faith in the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul, while it exemplifies a rare instance of virtue, fortitude, and integrity.

New York’s Lodge System of Masonic Education, Booklet 4, lists the interpretation of the MM as a man in later life, adds that it may also be interpreted as a drama of the immortality of the soul, and then says:

For my own part, I shall suggest to you another interpretation, equally lawful, based on the fact that at the center of the Degree is a dying and a Raising again. That this is the meaning most generally adopted by the Craft is shown by our habits of language; we say that a man is initiated Entered Apprentice, passed to the Degree of Fellow Craft, and raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason; by this it appears that it is the Raising that most Masons have found at the center of this conferral of this Sublime Degree. (p. 5)

Apparently the LSME disagrees with you, it is the raising, interpreted as resurrection, that is at the heart of the degree.

I don’t really believe you did any kind of comprehensive evaluation of what you just claimed, you apparently just did some quote-mining to dig up a few things, and threw the lot together—otherwise, you would not miss something so obvious. Teaching of the “resurrection of the body” has been well-established in Masonry for quite some time, and though I can’t claim that my analysis as presented is comprehensive in scope, my hunch is that this is not the “minority position” you portray it to be—ESPECIALLY when (1) your claims about Mackey have been shown to be in error; (2) LSME manuals describe resurrection as being at the heart of the degree, and signified in the very language of “raising”; and (3) manuals speak of the second section of the MM lecture as being of “pre-eminent importance,” citing the “historical tradition upon which the degree is founded.”
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Furthermore there is sufficient evidence that suggest this Masonic "allegory" has similarities with the ancient pagan Mystery Religions have been noted by more than one Masonic scholar. For example, this has been shown by Albert Mackey in The Symbolism of Freemasonry pg. 39–44, 228–246, and by W.L. Wilmshurst in The Meaning of Masonry, pg. 170–216.
First let me correct some faulty notions that are evident in some things you have stated.

(1) Similarities do not automatically signify derivation.

(2) There is no discernible trail or link that connects them at all.

(3) Any link that is described between the two is generally defined in terms of Augustine's comments on the matter, particularly in Wilmshurst's analysis, and to automatically label it "pagan" suggests that you either misunderstood it, or didn't read it at all.

Sorry, but I’m not buying anything you’re selling with this, particularly with Wilmshurst, who actually falls within the same line of thinking as Hutchinson and Dr. Oliver, both of whose opinions have been viewed by many Masons as too exclusively Christian in interpretation. Did you even bother to read the material in pages 170-216? I mean, you toss page numbers out here as if it proves something, but you offer little other than your comment that your claim is supposedly verified there. The fact is, Wilmshurst not only views Masonry as Christian in its interpretation, he goes FAR beyond what Hutchinson and Oliver have claimed, to make this profoundly unusual assessment of it:

Christianity came not to destroy, but to fulfill and expand. That fulfillment and expansion were consequent upon an event of cosmic importance which we speak of as The Incarnation. By that event something had happened affecting the very fabric of our planet and every item of the human family. What that something was and the nature of the change it wrought is too great and deep a theme to develop now, but, to illustrate it by Masonic symbolism, it was an event which is the equivalent of, and is represented by, the transference of the Sacred Symbol of the Grand Geometrician of the Universe from the ceiling of the Lodge, where it is located in the elementary grades of the Craft, to the floor, where it is found in the Royal Arch Degree surrounded with flaming lights and every circumstance of reverence and sanctity. How many Masons are there in the Order to-day who recognize that, in this piece of symbolism, Masonry is giving affirmation and ocular testimony to precisely the same fact as the churchman affirms when he recites in his Creed the words "He came down from heaven, and was incarnate and was made man?"

By a tacit and quite unwarranted convention the members of the Craft avoid mention in their Lodges of the Christian Master and confine their scriptural readings and references almost exclusively to the Old Testament, the motive being no doubt due to a desire to observe the injunction as to refraining from religious discussion and to prevent offence on the part of brethren who may not be of the Christian faith. The motive is an entirely misguided one and is negated by the fact that the "greater light" upon which every member is obligated, and to which his earnest attention is recommended from the moment of his admission to the Order, is not only the Old Testament, but the volume of the Sacred Law in its entirety. The New Testament is as essential to his instruction as the Old, not merely because of its moral teaching, but in virtue of its constituting the record of the Mysteries in their supreme form and historic culmination. The Gospels themselves, like the Masonic degrees, are a record of preparation and illumination, leading up to the ordeal of death, followed by a raising from the dead and the attainment of Mastership, and they exhibit the process of initiation carried to the highest conceivable degree of attainment. The New Testament is full of passages in Masonic terminology and there is not a little irony in the failure by modern Masons to recognize its supreme importance and relevancy to their Lodge proceedings and in the fact that in so doing they may be likening themselves to those builders of whom it is written that they rejected the chief Corner Stone. They would learn further that the Grand Master and Exemplar of Masonry, Hiram Abiff, is but a figure of the Great Master and Exemplar and Saviour of the world, the Divine Architect by whom all things were made, without whom is nothing that hath been made, and whose life is the light of men. If, in the words of the Masonic hymn
"Hiram the architect
Did all the Craft direct
How they should build,"

it is equally true that the protagonist of the Christian Scriptures also taught universal humanity "how they should build" and reconstruct their own fallen nature, and that the method of such building is one which involves the cross as its working tool and one which culminates in a death and a raising from the dead. And, of those who attain their initiation and mastership by that method, is it not further written there that they become of the household of God and built into a spiritual temple not made with hands, but eternal and in the heavens and of which "Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple builded for an habitation of God?"
(Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, 206-08)

To clear vision, Christian and Masonic doctrine are identical in intention though different in method. The one says "Via Crucis"; the other "Via Lucis"; yet the two ways are but one way. The former teaches through the ear; the latter through the eye and by identifying the aspirant with the doctrine by passing him personally and dramatically through symbolic rites which he is expected to translate from ceremonial form into subjective experience. As Patristic literature shows, the primitive method of the Christian Church was not that which now obtains, under which the religious offices and teaching are administered to the whole public alike and in a way implying a common level of doctrine for all and uniform power of comprehension by every member of the congrega­tion. It was, on the other hand, a graduated method of instruction and identical with the Masonic system of degrees conferred by reason of advancing merit and ability. To cite one of the most instructive of early Christian treatises (Dionysius : On the Eccle­siastical Hierarchy), with which every Masonic student should familiarize himself, it will be found that admission to the early Church was by three ceremonial degrees exactly corresponding in intention with those of Masonry. "The most holy initiation of the Mystic Rites has as its first Godly purpose the holy cleansing of the initiated; and as second, the enlightening instruction of the purified; and finally and as the completion of the former, the perfecting of those instructed in the science of their appropriate instructions. The order of the Ministers in the first class cleanses the initiated through the Mystic Rites; in the second, conducts the purified to light; and, in the last and highest, makes perfect those who have participated in the Divine Light by the scientific contemplations of the illuminations con­templated." This brief passage alone suffices to show that originally membership of the Christian Church involved a sequence of three initiatory rites identical in intention with those of the Craft to-day. The names given to those who had qualified in those Rites were respectively Catechumens, Leiturgoi, and Priests or Presbyters; which in turn are identifiable with our Entered Apprentices, Fellow Crafts and Master Masons. Their first degree was that of a rebirth and purification of the heart; their second related to the illumination of the intelligence; and their third to a total death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness, in which the candidate died with Christ on the cross, as with us he is made to imitate the death of Hiram, and was raised to that higher order of life which is Mastership. (Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, 209-11)

Wilmshurst follows Augustine in asserting that there was only one true religion taught since the beginning, and that its culmination is found in the Christian religion. Wilmshurst states the case more strongly than any Mason I have read, even Hutchinson and Oliver, when he makes the profound assessment that if Masons do not see the direct connection to Christianity, they may be guilty of rejecting the Cornerstone. Thus he makes the bold statement:

Neither the Ancient Mysteries nor Modem Masonry, their descendant, therefore, can be rightly viewed without reference to their relation to the Christian evangel, into which the pre-Christian schools became assumed. The line of succession and evolution from the former to the latter is direct and organic. (p. 209)

Strange—how did you manage to make the statement you just did in regard to Wilmshurst, without knowing the conclusion to which he meticulously and emphatically carries it? He clearly states that the mysteries cannot be considered without taking into account their relationship with BOTH Christianity and Freemasonry. His is the strongest case I have found made by any Mason at any time, for a direct link between Christianity and Masonry. Yet, apparently, you simply looked at the chapter title, "Freemasonry in Relation to the Ancient Mysteries," and from that point made your own presumptions rather than read the content. It would take too much stretching of the imagination to actually think you could have missed this.

But it would be even more of a stretch in light of the fact that you have seen this very same material presented at the ex-Mason forum, where I presented the same thing to Larry Kunk and Duane Washum.

It just seems to me that you could not POSSIBLY have read this material to even get the least understanding of what it says, or you would not have been mentioning it here at all.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here's another Mason taking Scripture out of its intended context:

MOA said:
The REAL point is, the verses you cited do not establish your premise, since they were written by John in reference ONLY to what he wrote in Revelation.

We tend to forget, the Bible is not "a" book, it is MANY books--even as a child I was taught that there are 66 BOOKS in the Bible. This particular writing constitutes only one of those books. When John warned about the contents of "THIS book," he was referring only to Revelation.

However, a well-respected commentator says differently:

Commentaries: John Wesley's Notes

Revelation 22:18-19

I testify to every one, etc. - From the fullness of his heart, the apostle utters this testimony, this weighty admonition, not only to the churches of Asia, but to all who should ever hear this book. He that adds, all the plagues shall be added to him; he that takes from it, all the blessings shall be taken from him; and, doubtless, this guilt is incurred by all those who lay hindrances in the way of the faithful, which prevent them from hearing their Lord's "I come," and answering, "Come, Lord Jesus." This may likewise be considered as an awful sanction, given to the whole New Testament; in like manner as Moses guarded the law, Deuteronomy 4:2, and Deuteronomy 12:32; and as God himself did, Malachi 4:4, in closing the canon of the Old Testament. (emphasis added)

Do you believe that Scripture is indivisibly God' s Word? Does it then make sense that He would permit adding to, or removing any part of it?

Do you believe God, who is Himself Truth and only speaks the truth, has inspired all of Holy Scripture in order to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge? Does it then make sense that He would permit adding to, or removing any part of His divine revelation?

Do you believe that the person and work of Jesus Christ are the central focus of the entire Bible, or just the Book of Revelation? Does it then make sense that He would permit adding to, or removing any part of it?

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is Scripture's Divine Author who authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its full meaning, and that the natural man is unable to discern spiritually the biblical message apart from the Holy Spirit? Does it then make sense that He would permit adding to, or removing any part of it?

Furthermore, it stands to reason, that whatever the Bible affirms in its totality, God affirms completely. And what the Bible affirms (or denies), it affirms (or denies) with the very authority of God. Christ Himself confirmed the divine authority of Old Testament Scripture on numerous occasions (Matt. 5:17-18; Luke 24:44; John 10:34-35). And what He confirmed as to the divine authority of the Old Testament, He promised also for the New Testament (John 14:16; 16:13). Therefore, it doesn't make sense that God would allow the alteration of 65 books of the Bible, but not the one Book of Revelation.

Finally, do you declare that biblical truth is both objective and absolute? If so, then it would stand to reason that statements made about Scripture are true only if they represent matters as they actually occurred, but are false if they misrepresents the facts. Such misrepresentation would, therefore, be a violation of Revelation 22:18-19.

Since the Hiramic Legend is a deviation of what actually occurred in the biblical record, Freemasonry stands guilty, and faces the consequences of violating God's Word. After reading this, any sincere bible-believing Christian that truly loves God, yet happens to be a Mason, should find himself resigning from and renouncing his Lodge membership immediately. Those that do are more than welcome to join our (Order of Former Freemasons) fellowship.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
72
SC
Visit site
✟21,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe that the person and work of Jesus Christ are the central focus of the entire Bible, or just the Book of Revelation? Does it then make sense that He would permit adding to, or removing any part of it?

One last response, and then I shall simply ignore this accusation for the inanity that it truly is. First, from A.T. Robertson:

22:18 {I testify} (\Eg“ martur“\). Commentators disagree keenly about the words in verses 18,19. Charles rejects them as an interpolation and out of harmony with the rest of the book. Beckwith takes them to be John's own warning, drawn from De 4:2 "to every man that heareth" (\panti t“i akouonti\, dative of the articular present active participle of \akou“\, which compare 1:3). Swete properly holds these verses to be from Jesus
himself, still bearing solemn witness to this book, with warning against wilful perversion of its teachings. {If any man shall add} (\ean tis epithˆi\). Condition of the third class with \ean\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \epitithˆmi\, with \epi\ added with \auta\, as also in the conclusion \epithˆsei ep'
auton\ (future active). This warning is directed against perversions of this book, not about the New Testament or the Bible as a whole, though it may be true there also. Surely no warning was more needed when we consider the treatment accorded the Apocalypse, so that Dr. Robert South said that the Apocalypse either found one crazy or left him so.

Notice that Robertson rejects the idea of interpolation; He affirms the opinion of those who consider these the words of Jesus Himself (I wholeheartedly agree); He affirms the severity of the warning itself in what it says;

YET he still concludes that “This warning is directed against perversions of this book, not about the New Testament or the Bible as a whole, though it may be true there also.,” which is exactly what I have been saying. The whole wild gamut of imaginative and speculative offerings that people have put together and called “interpretations” of Revelation, have borne out the truth of John’s warning and have illustrated the great need for it, as Robertson pointed out.

Your quote from Wesley is duly noted, but you need to remember, Wesley has often been criticized with the observation that “Wesley was a preacher, not a theologian.” That comes from Dr. R.J. Gore, our theology professor at Erskine, an Associate Reformed Presbyterian who was also well-versed in Wesley and Wesleyan theology. I found the remark to be true in many cases, and certainly this is one of them. You have to remember the context: Wesley is a product of the Reformation, which was a return to a Word which had been largely removed from the common people. Views toward that Word were at a peak of protective interest, and scholars from that general time frame ALL seem to gravitate toward that interpretation of Rev. 22:18-19. Wesley is one who might have been expected to go against the grain with this, why he did not is a mystery. He was one who highly prized using our powers of reason in the task of interpretation. Doubtless if he were alive today and aware of this disagreement, which does not ever seem to have been a point of contention in his day, he would certainly see the absurdity of his own claim that the apostle John spoke “out of the fullness of his heart” about things that were not even yet in existence, like the Christian canon.

If you have further comments on this, address them to someone else and put me on record as fully supporting the quotation provided from A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures.

And I do not say that in any flippant or insulting or dismissive way. I say it because what you are claiming does not even have application to Masonry or the allegory of the MM degree. Your claim is:

Since the Hiramic Legend is a deviation of what actually occurred in the biblical record, Freemasonry stands guilty, and faces the consequences of violating God's Word.

This is simply not true. 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.

(Did you miss Wilmshurst's comment above?: Hiram Abiff is but a figure . . . .)

The Masonic Bible, Master Mason edition that I own, has a glossary, some question and answer material, and a few other items of Masonic nature—in the front and back materials. The Bible itself as it appears within those covers is the King James Version of the Bible, and is no different than any other KJV Bible. The legend of the third degree has not affected one way or the other what Masonry recognizes as the Holy Bible, New Testament and Old Testament, as it resides on its altars. The Bible that resides there, and the Bible that is widely presented to Master Masons, is the KJV Bible.

Now, if Masonry were presenting the Hiram legend as though it were Scripture, and claiming it to be so, and publicizing such claims, even making them official by Grand Lodge seal indicating this was an official position of Masonry, that the third degree was now to be considered a part of the Christian canon of Scripture—then, and ONLY then—you might have a point. But as it is, they have not done so, nor do you have any REAL case for it at all.

So much for your accusation of “adding to” or “taking away from” the Bible. Clearly, with a third degree legend that has been in Masonry for over two centuries, if they were trying to add to or take away from the Bible and what it says, they would have gotten around to it by now, by inclusion of the ritual and what it portrays, in some manner in which they claim it as Scripture. But to date, they have not done anything anywhere near it, and in fact, the accusation itself is ludicrous on its very face, because Masonry CLEARLY delineates between what is Masonic ritual and what is the content of the Bible.

If you’d like a REAL example of what John was warning about, look no further than the original Scofield Bible, in which Cyrus Scofield interposed his own notes in between portions of Scripture, and then published the whole without any kind of distinguishing marks by which anyone could discern one from the other.

And if Martin Luther could have had his way about it, he would have removed the epistle of James from the NT canon, because in his opinion, it was a “rather strawy epistle.” That may be a natural sentiment, coming from one whose bedrock stance was “justification by faith,” and who saw James’ words “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

But Luther never made such an attempt, nor has Masonry attempted anything of the sort.

If any O.F.F. ex-Mason is reading this, and sees the absurdity of the claims made by the leader of this organization, and wishes to renounce, I'm sure you can see the wisdom in such a move. And if any ex-Mason is reading this, and is not a member of O.F.F., I mean really--does THIS sound like an organization that has anything worth saying?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe that Scripture is indivisibly God' s Word? Does it then make sense that He would permit adding to, or removing any part of it?

No. However the verse in Revelation that is often cited, does NOT refer to anything but that book alone.


Since the Hiramic Legend is a deviation of what actually occurred in the biblical record, Freemasonry stands guilty, and faces the consequences of violating God's Word.

Not unless it is presented as a continuation, alteration, addition, or supplement to Scripture--which it is NOT.

After reading this, any sincere bible-believing Christian that truly loves God, yet happens to be a Mason, should find himself resigning from and renouncing his Lodge membership immediately.

For myself, you've failed to make your case.

At no time did any false gods who allegedly are worshipped in Masonry get identified, there was no answer about oath taking, and you plainly ran when asked several times to back up the claim that there are Masonic symbols that are incompatible with Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

Well, what have we here? A Mason, who is supposed to be a "Christian" pastor deliberately making false claims. Please show us dear reverend, where in your 3rd Degree Ritual do they explain that the events of Hiram Abif as depicted in this degree are NOT the biblical account. Or perhaps your fellow Masons here can share where this is found in the 3rd Degree Rituals of their jurisdiction.

My Prince Hall ritual of North Carolina states the exact same thing as the Nevada ritual of a non-Prince Hall lodge. Readers note, after a candidate for the 3rd degree completes the ritual and reenactment of the circumstances surrounding the death of Hiram Abif, this is the explanation of what they endured.

Although it is rather lengthy, I have to post this section of the degree in its entirety over 2 posts, 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.

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

MASTER MASON LECTURE:

WM: *

Lecturer: Sacred history informs us that it was determined in the councils of infinite wisdom that a Temple should be founded at Jerusalem, which should be erected to God, and dedicated to His Holy Name. The high honor and distinguished privilege of performing this sacred service was denied to David, King of Israel, because, as the Scriptures inform us, he had made great wars and shed blood abundantly. From the same sacred source we learn that the God of Israel had promised David that out of his loins he should raise up seed to serve Him. This divine and memorable promise was afterward fulfilled in the person of Solomon, and in the splendid and unexampled career of his prosperity.

After David had been gathered to his fathers, and the last honor paid to his memory, Solomon wielded the sceptre of Israel, peace reigned within her borders, and the Children of Israel looked forward with peculiar satisfaction for the display of that wisdom which was destined to astonish and amaze the world.

In the second month of the fourth year of his reign, Solomon commenced the erection of this edifice, the curious workmanship of which was calculated to excite the wonder and admiration of all succeeding ages. It was located on Mount Moriah, near the place where Abraham was about to offer up his son Isaac, and where David met and appeased the destroying angel that was visible over the threshing floor of Ornan, the Jebusite.

About that time, King Solomon received a congratulatory letter from Hiram, King of Tyre, offering him every assistance in his power, and manifesting a strong desire to participate in the high honors then clustering around the Throne of Israel. Thus was the building progressing, with the assistance of Hiram, King of Tyre, and under the immediate supervision of our ancient operative Grand Master Hiram Abif, and was well nigh completed when several of the Craft, in an attempt to extort from Grand Master Hiram Abif the secrets of a Master Mason, became his assassins, and for a short period the building was impeded in its progress.

You, my brother, have this evening represented that cunning workman who fell a martyr to his integrity and inflexible fidelity.

His death was premeditated by fifteen Fellow Crafts who, seeing the Temple about to be completed and being desirous of obtaining the secrets of a Master Mason, whereby they could travel in foreign countries and receive wages as such, entered into the horrid conspiracy of extorting them from our Grand Master Hiram Abif or taking his life. But, reflecting on the atrocity of their intentions and being stricken with horror, twelve of them recanted; the other three, however, persisted in their murderous designs.

It was the usual custom of this great and good man, at high twelve, when the craft were called from labor to refreshment, to enter into the Sanctum Sanctorum or Holy of Holies, there to offer up his adorations to Deity, and to draw his designs on the trestle-board. The three Fellow Crafts who persisted in their murderous design, knowing that to be his usual custom, placed themselves at the south, west and east gates of the Temple and there awaited his return.

On the day of his death, having fulfilled his usual custom, he attempted to retire by the south gate, where he was accosted by Jubela, who thrice demanded of him the secrets of a Master Mason, and on being refused, gave him a blow with a twenty-four inch gauge across the throat, upon which he fled and attempted to pass out at the west gate where he was accosted by Jubelo, who in like mind, thrice demanded of him the secrets of a Master Mason, and on being refused, gave him a blow with a square upon his breast, upon which he fled and attempted to make his escape out at the east gate, where he was assaulted by Jubelum, who in like manner thrice demanded of him the secrets of a Master Mason, and on being thrice refused, gave him a violent blow with a setting maul oh his forehead, which felled him dead on the spot.

They then buried the body in the rubbish of the Temple until low twelve, or twelve at midnight, when they met by agreement and carried it in a due west course from the Temple to the brow of a hill, where they buried it in a grave dug six feet deep east and west and six feet perpendicular, at the head of which they planted a sprig of acacia, that the place might be known should occasion ever require it, and made their exit.

The following day our Grand Master Hiram Abif was missing. His absence was detected by there being no designs drawn on the Trestle-board.

King Solomon being informed of this supposed him to be indisposed, and ordered strict search to be made for him throughout the several apartments of the Temple to see if he could be found. Strict search was made but he could not be found. King Solomon then feared that some fearful accident had befallen him.

The twelve Fellow Crafts, who had recanted from their murderous design, presented themselves before King Solomon, clothed in white gloves and aprons, in token of their innocence, confessed their premeditated guilt and implored his pardon.

King Solomon then ordered a roll of the workmen to be called and upon roll-call there were three Fellow Crafts missing, namely Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum.

King Solomon then ordered them to divide themselves into parts of three and three travel east, three west, three north and three south in pursuit of the ruffians.

The twelve departed and those who traveled a due west course from the Temple went until they met with a way-faring man of whom they inquired if he had seen any strangers pass that way, who informed them that he had, three, who from their appearance were workmen from the Temple, seeking a passage to Ethiopia, but not having obtained one, returned back into the country.

They returned and brought this information to King Solomon, who ordered them to divide as before and travel as before, with the positive injunction to find the criminals, and as positive assurance that if they did not, they would be deemed the murderers, and should suffer for their enormous crime.

They traveled as before and as those who pursued a due west course from the Temple were returning, one of their number becoming more weary than the rest, sat down at the brow of a hill to rest and refresh himself, and on arising he accidentally caught hold of a sprig of acacia, which easily giving way, excited his curiosity, and while they were meditating over the singularity of the occasion, they heard three frightful exclamations issuing from the clefts of the adjacent rocks. The first was the voice of Jubela, exclaiming O, that my throat had been cut across, my tongue torn out, and with my body buried in the sands of the sea at low-water mark, ere I have been accessory to the death of so great and good a man as our Grand Master Hiram Abif. The second was the voice of Jubelo, exclaiming, O, that my left breast had been torn open, my heart and vitals taken thence, and with my body given as a prey to the vultures of the air, ere I have been accessory to the death of so great and good a man as our Grand Master Hiram Abif; and the third was the voice of Jubelum, exclaiming more horribly than the rest, it was I who gave the fatal blow, it was I who killed him. O, that my body had been severed in twain, by bowels taken thence, and with my body burned to ashes and the ashes thereof scatter to the four winds of Heaven, ere I have been guilty of the death of so great and good a man as our Grand Master Hiram Abif.

Whereupon they rushed in, seized, bound, and took them before King Solomon, who order them taken without the gates of the city and there executed according to their several imprecations in the clefts of the rocks. They were accordingly executed.

King Solomon then ordered the Fellow Crafts to go in search of the body of our Grand Master Hiram Abif, and if found, to observe whether the Master’s Word or a key to it could be found on or about it.

--To be continued in my next post--
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.