Freemasons?

[cenimo]

EliasEmmanuel

From the books I've read, and things I've seen in the workplace (some ringknockers, though incompetent, moving up and up) the only conclusion I can draw is that a person cannot be a Christian and a mason..."ye cannot serve two masters"....

I can't think of the title of the book by Decker but there is another book titled Free from Freemasonry that is also quite an expose, to the point that a mason on a jury is suppossed to automatically vote not guilty if a mason is on trial.

 

Decker's book does a comparison between Christian theology and masonic theology, not even close.

 

 

[EliasEmmanuel]

Originally posted by cenimo
EliasEmmanuel

From the books I've read, and things I've seen in the workplace (some ringknockers, though incompetent, moving up and up) the only conclusion I can draw is that a person cannot be a Christian and a mason..."ye cannot serve two masters"....
I can't think of the title of the book by Decker but there is another book titled Free from Freemasonry that is also quite an expose, to the point that a mason on a jury is suppossed to automatically vote not guilty if a mason is on trial. 


Decker's book does a comparison between Christian theology and masonic theology, not even close.

 

Well, as I said in my previous post..... I'd never join the lodge, for theological reasons (the very ones you stated, for the most part). Just don't believe everything you read.

-Elias

 

[frandall]

Dear Squalid Wanderer,

Regarding Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma": Although this book has been cited as an authoritative source of information on Freemasonry, it is not. It gives a very good insight into the teachings and philosophies of Freemasonry, but it is in fact Pike's interpretation and views on Freemasonry and comparison of it with the philosopies and dogma of various religions. If you've not done so already, read the preface. You may be surprised at what Pike says.

Several years ago the TV evangelist John Ankenberg sent a letter to all of the 50 Grand Masters of masonic jurisdictions in the U.S., asking them to list the books they considered to be authoritative works on Freemasonry. Of the 25 GMs who replied, only four listed "Morals and Dogma"--only 8% of U.S. Grand Masters.

And a bit of history: Pike wrote "Morals and Dogma" for members of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, and for many years a copy of it was given to each new Scottish Rite Mason. But at the time he wrote, Scottish Rite Masons were only about 5% of all Masons. Thus, he did not write it for all Masons but a very small number of them.

 

[frandall]

Originally posted by The Squalid Wanderer
Dear Frederick,

I appreciate your disappointment concerning any misinformation that has been propagated in this discussion. Would you agree though that perhaps this is in part from the semi-secretive nature of Masonry?

Regardless, I am in no hurry, please take your time and respond when you feel comfortable.

Dear Squalid Wanderer,

Yes, I agree. We have been remiss in being very reticent in the past as to who and what we are. In the absence of knowledge, the fertile ground of ignorance enabled much misinformation, falsehoods, and outright lies to thrive. There are now many, many web sites that present valid, truthful information on Freemasonry--as are there many anti-Masonic web sites.

Actually, the only secrets we have are words and grips we use to identify a fellow Masons and certain parts (extremely small parts) of our rituals. As for being secretive, I understand that the Knights of Columbus are also very secretive, allowing nothing to said or reveal about their rituals to any persons outside of the order.

 

[seebs]

I think the reason people get freaked out is that if one of the "extremely small parts" of the rituals were the part where you invoked Satan's name, people might have fairly legitimate concerns; on the other hand, if the secret is that you know the blend of 11 herbs and spices used in KFC, well, more power to you.

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Frederick,

Thank you for responding. I am aware of the preface to Albert Pike's book. He does do justice though to the general character of Freemasonry, and it is the very nature of Freemasonry, and not concerns about devil worship or occultism, which I find unacceptable for a Christian to endorse.

Please, if you may, have a glance at the argument I was using and give me your impression of it.

 

[Jesusong]

I bought a tape awhile ago by Dr. Walter Martin titled "Dialogue on Freemasonry" which he interviews a former Mason in a mock debate style in which the former Mason defends the Lodge. The tape is available for listening online during the month of December at the link below.

http://www.waltermartin.org/realaudio.html

It's about an hour long. Listen to it and come back and share what you think about it.

 

[seebs]

Don't have any realaudio, but it's an interesting idea. FWIW, a friend of mine is a freemason, although I don't know much about it except that he can't do social stuff some evenings because he's got "Lodge". That's the extent of my exposure.

 

[frandall]

Originally posted by seebs
I think the reason people get freaked out is that if one of the "extremely small parts" of the rituals were the part where you invoked Satan's name, people might have fairly legitimate concerns; on the other hand, if the secret is that you know the blend of 11 herbs and spices used in KFC, well, more power to you.

Dear Seebs,

Please tell me as to where in our ritual we invoke the Satan's name. I must have missed that part in the several hundred meetings and ritual training sessions I 've attended over the last 20+ years. Better yet, please cite your source for making such a statement.

By the way, did you know that at the start of each obligation a candidate takes for a degree, he states, with his hand resting on the Holy Bible, "I, [name], in the presence of Almighty God and this worshipful Lodge, erected to Him and dedicated to the Saints John, do hereby amd hereon...?

Did you know that "worshipful," as used in a Masonic Lodge, is a continued usage of the old English term "worshypful," meaning respected or honored--like the practice of addressing judges and mayors as "your honor"?

Did you know that the Saints John referred to are St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist?

 

[Shane Roach]

The Blue Lodge, which is the fundamental starting point of Masonry, is an organization open to all who believe in one God. As such, a person need not be a Christian to join. The vow taken to be a Master Mason in the Blue Lodge has absolutely nothing in it to do with Satan, or that could be construed as such. After you have become a Master Mason, you can elect to join one two, or all three of the Scottish Rite, York Rite, or Shriners. Scottish Rite Masonry is very nearly as non-denominational and interreligious as Blue Lodge Masonry, and appears at least to me to be the one most popular in my area. York Rite is exclusively Christian. I am not a member of either of these yet. It used to be that to be a Shriner you had to complete all the requirements for either the York Rite or the Scottish Rite. I hear this has been changed and now you cah go straight to the Shrine.

I have no specific knowledge of any of these "upper levels" as they have been named here, but I know a lot of MAsons and I do not see them as people who would lightly take anti-Chistian vows. The only thing I could possibly say against Masonry is that it is rather superfluous. It is the model for many of the various men's organizations such as Lions Club and so forth. It appears to have deep and ancient roots, though how much of their claims are legitimate in going back to times of Solomon I have doubts.

The bottom line is this is just one of those silly debates like "Are role playing games evil?" No... They aren't. However, a person can indeed get caought up in them to an unhealthy extent. I think the same could easily apply to Freemasonry.

I have noticed several people asking for "authoritative" defenses of Freemasonry. You might try a simple search for Freemasonry websites affiliated with the actual organization........ It's really not difficult.

 

[frandall]

Originally posted by cenimo
The books written about Freemasonry that are writen by former Masons are quite an expose. If you can find one by Ed decker that is all the information you will ever need to know about the masons.

Please provide the title and author's name so I know which Decker book you are referring to.

I recommend you and others read "Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry" by S. Brent Morris and Art DeHoyo for some insight into folks such as Decker, Schnoebelen, et al. It is available to read on-line and is available in bookstores and Amazon.com. I'm sorry that I cannot give the URLs, but search for the title.

Originally posted by cenimo
In the long run the end goal of masonry is lucifer worship, but most masons don't find that out until the higher levels.

Hmmm. This is a lie that just won't die. As a 32rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason, I can tell you that the only reference to Lucifer is as he was originally known in myth--the bearer of light--and never as Satan, the Devil, or any evil entity. 

And if you cite the infamous quote by Pike as Supreme Pontiff of Freemasonry to Scottish Rite leaders as proof of lucifer worship, you are perpetuating a lie: (1) The quote was never said [Try to find an attribute for it; you won't find one] and (2) Pike never was, and there has never been, a "Supreme Pontiff of Freemasonry [Each Masonic jurisdiction is independent]. That scurrilous quote was created by Leo Taxil, a hoaxer and pronographer in a scheme to humiliate the Catholic Church in the 1800's by playing on the Church's loathing of Freemasonry.

Originally posted by cenimo
The masons omit saying Jesus in any of their prayers because the use of Jesus' name  (even as posted by frandall previously) may "offend" any non-Christian present. Perhaps these are the folks who brought on political correctness. Not allowing the use of Jesus in prayer tells me all I need to know. [/B]

It is my understanding that the use of "through Christ our Lord," "in Jesus' name," and such at the end of a prayer is customary and not mandatory (please correct me if I'm wrong--providing references). I expect its use is based on Christ saying, "No one comes to the Father but through me." Yes, there is no reference to Jesus Christ at the end of our prayers, but we do so to be neutral with regard to religion. I believe God hears our prayers and responds accordingly regardless of how we close them.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by frandall
Dear Seebs,

Please tell me as to where in our ritual we invoke the Satan's name. I must have missed that part in the several hundred meetings and ritual training sessions I 've attended over the last 20+ years. Better yet, please cite your source for making such a statement.

Er, you misread me. That was a pure hypothetical - as was the possibility that the secret is the 11 herbs & spices used in KFC. I have no idea what your secret is; I merely wished to point out that there *do* exist secrets which might reasonably worry people.

By the way, did you know that at the start of each obligation a candidate takes for a degree, he states, with his hand resting on the Holy Bible, "I, [name], in the presence of Almighty God and this worshipful Lodge, erected to Him and dedicated to the Saints John, do hereby amd hereon...?

Did you know that "worshipful," as used in a Masonic Lodge, is a continued usage of the old English term "worshypful," meaning respected or honored--like the practice of addressing judges and mayors as "your honor"?

Did you know that the Saints John referred to are St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist?

I didn't, and arguably, I still don't, because I'm a purebred skeptic, and won't believe something just 'cuz I'm told.

The point here is not that I think you're bad people; I have generally assumed that freemasons are decent people like everyone else.

The point here is that, as long as there is a secret,
people cannot form an informed opinion about you, because the "secret" could be forswearing that oath you cite, which is thereafter taken in vain. As long as there is a secret, people will be able to invent possible things to fill in that gap which would be very bad; furthermore, they will tend to, because if it weren't a bad thing, *why would it be secret*?

Note that the same exact argument applies to the rumors that there's a secret book that only the Pope can read, in which we are variously told is found:
* Proof that Jesus never existed
* A secret gospel revealing things which the Pope uses to control the church
* Secrets of mind control, alien technology, and whatnot.

I personally don't even know whether there *is* any secret information only the Pope has - I'm just using this to show how secrecy is always interpreted in a negative light.

Not knowing what your secret is, I obviously can't comment - but you may as well resign yourself to people who believe it to be a Bad Thing which invalidates all the "good" stuff you can point to, because if it weren't Bad, why would you be keeping it a secret? ("Because we swore to" doesn't really answer this; why was it *originally* declared a secret?)

 

[frandall]

Dear Seebs,

Originally posted by seebs
Not knowing what your secret is, I obviously can't comment - but you may as well resign yourself to people who believe it to be a Bad Thing which invalidates all the "good" stuff you can point to, because if it weren't Bad, why would you be keeping it a secret? ("Because we swore to" doesn't really answer this; why was it *originally* declared a secret?)

Aye, there's the rub: In the absence of information and knowledge, many people think that what is kept secret (or private) must be bad because it is hidden. This is such a sad fact of life. The worse of it is that there are all too many persons who are more than willing to play the ignorance of others to make a dollar by selling so-called exposes of Freemasonry and giving anti-Masonic lectures.

I do hope that you're not such a skeptic that you would not believe the information and literature that is available from the Masonic Service Association of North America [8120 Fenton Street, Silver Spring. MD 20910-4785 Tel: (301) 588-4010  Fax: (301) 608-3457] (they also have a web site) and the many web sites maintained by Grand Lodges, Scottish Rite and York Rite jurisdictions, and many, many lodges.

The only secrets we have are the modes of recognition and certain very small portions of the ritual. If you search diligently enough, you can find these secrets in books and on the Internet. Granted, some of these secrets may not be necessary, but they have been an integral part of our Craft for over 300 years per the Landmarks of Freemasonry. At certain times and places in the past, keeping the secrets and keeping one's membership in the Craft secret was critical to avoid possibly fatal persecution for being a Freemason (as in Germany, Austria, and Holland during World War II). This need for secrecy exists in some areas of the world today.

What some people call secrecy in most cases is actually privacy. Any private group (which we are) has the right to conduct its meetings in private and not allow non-members to attend. So it is with Freemasons, Oddfellows,  Eagles, Moose, and other fraternal organizations--including the Knights of Columbus. 

 

[Shane Roach]

Regarding secrets, it is more than a little rude to assume that since someone doesn't want to tell you something th6at it is evil. It is rather common practice among both professionals and military folk (and obviously almost mandatory among folk in the Intelligence fields) to take and keep oaths of secrecy. Masonry is related to early professional organizations which would indeed make use of such things. The religious overtones of the organization are obviously largely a function of the times in which the people who founded the organization lived.

If there is to be some assumption made in this regard, I think the assumption is that anyone who assumes the worst just because they are not being told something and are unwilling to be a part of the process of being cleared to learn it is being presumptious and studiously unfair, not the other way around.

I was assured very early on that at any time if I had doubts about this or that thing being said that I need merely ask, and that if at any time I found something objectionable I could leave. I was also assured by a man I trusted that I would find nothing in the oathes that would offend my Christianity, and he proved to be worthy of that trust.

 

[seebs]

I'm enough of a skeptic to merely withhold judgement - my point is that there are a lot of reasons to keep "bad things" secret, and most people wouldn't see any reason to keep "good things" secret.

For instance, imagine that Catholics refused to tell anyone what oaths a priest must take when he is confirmed in his office (appointed? confirmed? inducted? I don't know the term of art.). This would make people *VERY* nervous, yes?

Essentially, it's one of those things where, not knowing what the secret is, people will tend to think the worst. I don't believe they're correct; I believe we should refrain from judgement when we don't know enough to be sure.

Shane's word, in this, means a fair bit to me - I don't agree with Shane on all that many things, but I have no doubts that he is sincere in his faith, and I don't think he's dishonest. Still, it's sort of hard to avoid playing the game, and thinking "what kinds of things would be worth keeping a secret here".

I do appreciate that you guys are trying to be forthcoming; I am not so much telling you *I* don't trust you as trying to explain to you how suspicious the phrase "just a little bit of a ritual" sounds, and thus why people are skeptical.

For an example of how a rumor about a ritual can be horribly destructive, even when false, look into the "blood libel", various forms of which have been around for centuries, in which it is claimed that Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children ritually. A very detailed and lurid variant on this recently got published in a Saudi newspaper, and it's *terrifying*. Not terrifying because I think there is the slightest chance that it's true; terrifying because there are people who could believe it.

 

[frandall]

Dear Seebs,

I reread your post where you mentioned invoking the name of Satan, and I see that I erred in my reply by jumping on you a little hard in the first paragraph. You were citing a hypothetical situation which I misread. I am sorry for doing so. Please forgive.

 

[seebs]

Nothing to forgive, friend. It was pretty clear there was a misunderstanding, so I did my best to reread your post as though you'd understood me.

Have fun, and don't let people get you down too much if they declare that, because you're a mason, you're not *really* a Christian. In the end, it's between you and God, and nobody else's business.

 

[frandall]

Originally posted by DEVILSTOMPER777
Greetings all!
Got a question for today: "Is it true that the Vatican has ok'd Catholics to be Freemasons?" I know in the past you would excommunicated for joining,but how bout today & why or why not?

The following is the text of a letter from the Office of the Archdiocesan Tribunal, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, dated September 15, 2000, to the Masonic Service Bureau of North America:

Thank you for your inquiry of September 11, 2000 directed to Cardinal Mahoney, on whose behalf I am replying. The question is "whether a practicing Catholic may join a Masonic Lodge."

Unfortunately, the matter is too complex for a straightforward "yes" or "no" answer. But at least for Catholics in the United States, I believe the answer is probably yes. Permit me to explain this qualified response.

Your letter states that a member's "allegiance to one God is all we require." To the extent that this is an accurate statement of the organization's beliefs and teachings, and that its activities are humanitarian and charitable in nature, there is no reason to prevent a practicing Catholic from joining.

Past history, of course, has muddied the waters because earlier church law (prior to November 27, 1983) specifically named Masonic groups as a forbidden society (canon 2335, 1917 Code). The dialogues between Catholic and Masonic representatives in the years since the Second Vatican Council were generally very positive and yet did not resolve questions or concerns raised in certain parts of the world. As a result, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome issued a statement one day before the new Code of Canon Law took effect (November 26, 1983), in which it held that since Masonic principles were still contrary to the teachings of the Church, Catholics would commit a grave sin in belonging to Masonic associations and so could not receive Holy Communion.

Because this declaration has not been superseded by any further official statements, the question keeps recurring about its interpretation and application. There is no agreement among the experts in church law who have considered the matter. Consequently one can only judge the individual circumstances in light of the principles that clearly do apply. These principles are set forth in canons 1374 and 1364 of the 1983 Code, which forbid a Catholic from joining "an association which plots against the Church" and impose penalties for heresy under certain conditions. If "a particular Masonic lodge truly promoted heretical teaching or conspired against the interests of the Church" (Ronny E. Jenkins, "The Evolution of the Church's Prohibition Against Catholic Membership in Freemasonry," The Jurist, 56 (1996), pg 735,) then a Catholic would be bound to avoid membership.

The reason, then, I answer 'probably yes' is because I am unaware of any ideology or practice by the local lodges that challenges or subverts the doctrine and interests of the Catholic Church. In the previous paragraph, I have cited the article which best presents the current state of the question. The 1974 newspaper clipping that you enclosed with your letter probably refers to a letter written by Cardinal Seper, then in charge of the same doctrinal congregation mentioned above, which was addressed to certain bishops. In this letter one can see the movement at that time from a blanket prohibition to the application of a case-by-case judgment whether a group did in fact conspire against the Church. The history of the development of the Church's current law suggests that this case-by-case approach is what canon 1374 on forbidden associations intends.

Please forgive this lengthy reply, but a shorter one would not do justice to those inquirers who are aware that the matter is still controversial. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn more about it myself, and I close by asking God's blessing on your well-known endeavors to relieve human suffering and assist the needy.

Rev. Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J.C.L. Judicial Vicar

 

[frandall]

Originally posted by seebs
Have fun, and don't let people get you down too much if they declare that, because you're a mason, you're not *really* a Christian. In the end, it's between you and God, and nobody else's business.

Uh, oh. Watch out, seebs. You just espoused a Masonic principle.

 

 

[ancientofdays33]

Look into the vatician documents around 1983.
You will see no change in the cannon but a change in the tolerance here in the US.
OOPs