Heretical Content and/or Occult Interpretations Found in Freemasonry

[O.F.F.]

This thread is provided to show the exact opposite of the claims posted by the author of the two threads that share the title, "Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation of Masonry." Like the author of those threads indicated in his opening post, I too have placed absolutely no limitations upon this concerning the types of material I will post (except to obey the forum rules). In other words, I will NOT consider AT ALL the degree of authority accorded the sources I quote, the Masonic regularity of these sources, or the time frames from whence they came.

The purpose of my opponent, in his two threads, is to paint a Christian picture of Freemasonry, regardless of the sources he uses. My purpose for this thread, on the other hand, is to warn professing Christians who are considering whether to join the Masonic Order to ask themselves two questions as they review the information contained in this thread and compare it to what my opponent claims on his:

1) If the teachings of Freemasonry are opened, and welcomed, to be interpreted from such polarizing extremes as the Heretical/Occult on one end of the spectrum, to a Christian interpretation on the other end, would joining such an organization really honor Jesus Christ our Lord and give glory to God?

2) Secondly, knowing that these two extreme interpretations exist in Freemasonry, would the Holy Spirit actually lead a Christian into an organization whose teachings can be viewed both as Heterodox & Orthodox?

That said; let's begin with how Freemasonry defines God. As you view these quotes contrast them with the following passages of Scripture: Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5, Exodus 20:3, Psalm 96:5, Matthew 28:19, John 1:1-2, I Corinthians 10:19-21, II Corinthians 13:14, Philippians 2:6, Colossian 1:15-17.

Monotheism is the sole dogma of Freemasonry. Belief in one God is required of every initiate, but his conception of the Supreme Being is left to his own interpretation. Freemasonry is not concerned with theological distinctions. This is the basis of our universality.

Grand Lodge of Indiana, Indiana Monitor & Freemason's Guide, 1993 Edition, page 41

So what this is effectively saying is, that it does not matter how a Mason conceives God, because they are all basically one in the same, just referred to by different names. And the oneness of all concepts of deity is the basis for Masonic universality. What matters most is that the Mason professes belief in some form of deity by whatever name he wishes to call it. But it gets worse; check this out:

Men have to decide whether they want a God like the ancient Hebrew Yahweh, a partisan tribal god, with whom they can talk and argue and from whom they can hide if necessary, or a boundless, eternal, universal, undenominational, and international Divine Spirit so vastly removed from the speck called man, that he cannot be known, named or approached. So soon as man begins to laud his God and endow him with the most perfect human attributes such as justice, mercy, beneficence, etc. the Divine Essence is depreciated and despoiled... The Masonic test is a Supreme Being, and any qualification added is an innovation and distortion.

Coil’s Masonic Encyclopaedia pg. 516-517

“A Supreme Being” passes the Masonic test, because to become a Mason, any ol’ god with do.

The Mason must declare his faith in a Supreme Being before he may be initiated. But note that he is not required to say, then or ever, what God. He may name him as he will, think of him as he pleases; make him impersonal law or personal and anthropomorphic; Freemasonry cares not, God, Great Architect of the Universe, Grand Artificer, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge Above, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Shiva, or Great Geometer.

Carl H. Claudy, Introduction to Freemasonry, pg.110

This is pure heresy; and any genuine Christian can see this is a clear violation of the First Commandment.

You have learned that Freemasonry calls God, 'The Great Architect of the Universe" (G.A.O.T.U.). This is the Freemason's special name for God, because he is universal. He belongs to all men regardless of their religious persuasion. All wise men acknowledge His authority. In his private devotions a Mason will pray to Jehovah, Mohammed, Allah, Jesus or the Deity of his choice. In a Masonic Lodge, however, the Mason will find the name of his Deity within the G.A.O.T.U.

- Page 6, The Craft and Its Symbols by Allen E. Roberts

It should be quite evident by now, that the god of the Masonic Lodge is NOT the God of the Bible!

Masonry does not specify any God of any creed; she requires merely that you believe in some Deity, give him what name you will. A belief in God is essential to a Mason, but any God will do, so long as he is your God.

Carl H. Claudy, "Belief in God" in "A Master's Wages," Little Masonic Library, vol.4 Richmond: Macoy Publishing, 1977, pg.32

Notice how the following quote equates Jesus Christ, the Light of the World, to pagan gods, as if they are all one and the same light.

Light is the key which opens the door to our mysteries, and it is the same Light which 'shines in every letter of the Koran,' and is the Light of Mithra, who is the light of Ahura-Mazda. It is the same Light from which Moses shaded his eyes when it appeared to him in the bush, and the sign of a R(oyal) A(rch) is still made by an Arunta native of Australia when he returns from the final degree through which he passes in the mysterious ceremonies peculiar to that primitive people. It is that Light of which it is written in our Scriptures that 'the Light shineth in the Darkness and the Darkness comprehended it not.'

J. S. M. Ward 'Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods' pg. 61 & 62

If that’s not bad enough, this one is much worse. It declares the “Divinity of Self.”

Be still -and know - that I am God"'..'THAT I AM GOD'-the final recognition of the All in All, the unity of self with the Cosmos- the cognition of the Divinity OF THE SELF!

George H.Steinmetz, The Lost Word: Its hidden meaning 241-242

The God of the Bible is not the god of Freemasonry, and the Jesus Christ of the Bible is not unique according to Freemasonry.

All 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 belief was general that He was to be born of a virgin and suffer a painful death. The Hindus called him Krishna; the Chinese, Kioun-tse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhouvanai; the Egyptians, Horus; Plato, Love; the Scandinavians, Balder; the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram.

Kentucky Monitor, pp. XIV-XV, 5th-15th editions

But there’s more…

Therefore Masonry teaches that redemption and salvation are both the power and the responsibility of the individual Mason. Saviors like Hiram Abiff can and do show the way, but men must always follow and demonstrate, each for himself, his power to save himself, to build his own spiritual fabric in his own time and way. Every man in essence is his own savior and redeemer; for if he does not save himself, he will not be saved. The reader who succeeds in getting back to the real teachings of the masters, including Jesus of Nazareth, will find unanimity of thinking on this matter.

Lynn Perkins, The Meaning of Masonry, p. 95

Why stop there; here’s more:

The lion, from the earliest times of recorded history, has been a symbol of might and royalty. It was placed on the standard of the Tribe of Judah because it was the royal tribe of the Hebrew Nation. The Kings of Judah were, therefore, called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. This was one of the titles of King Solomon. This is the literal meaning of the term, but it also has a symbolic one. The Jewish idea of the Messiah was that of a mighty temporal king. He was designated the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, for it was from this tribe that all rulers came. The expression does not, of necessity, refer to Jesus of Nazareth, though the Christian Mason may so interpret the name if he desires. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah also describes the Messiah of the Jewish Mason or the mediator of some of the ancient religions of the East whose worshippers are Masons. Freedom of choice as to the application of these symbols is one of the reasons for the growth of Freemasonry over the centuries.

Grand Lodge of Florida, Mentor's Manual , page 24

And here another that sounds pretty much the same as the above:

The lion from most ancient times has been a symbol of might or royalty. It was blazoned upon the standard of the tribe of Judah, because it was the royal tribe. The kings of Judah were, therefore, each called Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and such was one of the titles of Solomon. Remembrance of this fact gives appropriateness to an expression employed at one point in our ceremonies which is otherwise obscure, not to say absurd. Such is the literal meaning of this phrase, but it also has a symbolical one. The Jewish idea of a Messiah was of a mighty temporal king. He was also designated as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah; in fact this title was regarded as peculiarly belonging to him. This expression does not, as many Masons suppose, necessarily have a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian Mason is privileged so to interpret it, if he likes, but the Jew has equal right to understand it as meaning his Messiah. Indeed, every great religion of the world has contained the conception in some form of a Mediator between God and man, a Redeemer who would raise mankind from the death of this life and the grave to an everlasting existence with God hereafter. The Mason who is a devotee of one of these religions, say, Buddhism, Brahmanism or Mohammedanism, is likewise entitled to construe this expression as referring to his own Mediator.

Oliver Day Street, Symbolism of the Three Degrees, pp. 154-155

Early I quoted George H.Steinmetz in his work, The Lost Word: Its hidden meaning. Remember, he was the Masonic author who declared “the cognition of the Divinity OF THE SELF!" Here’s what he had to say about Jesus in that same book, as he explains exactly what the word "Savior" means:

There have been numerous prototypes of the perfect man, forerunners of the perfected race which is to come. In some way, for some unexplainable reason, these prototypes came to be looked upon as "Saviors" rather than EXAMPLES.

The Lost Word Its Hidden Meaning, p. 124

It is of course true they are "saviors" in the sense that they exemplify what man CAN BE and what he is to BECOME, but they do not so much "save men" as to point the way to "salvation."

The Lost Word Its Hidden Meaning, p. 124-5

We may discover why brief but glorious glimpses of what MAN MAY BE have been vouchsafed by such saviors as Osiris, Krishna, Jesus and Hiram.

The Lost Word Its Hidden Meaning, p. 158

Masonry is UNIVERSAL and recognizes no CREEDS, taking truth wherever it is found. That Jesus, the man, lived is conceded by even a vast majority of non-Christian creeds, the Jew acknowledges him to have been a Great Teacher. Some Christian creeds declare him to have been "conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," others refuse this dogma, attribute to him no supernatural birth and claim he "achieved Christ-hood." Occult teaching largely agrees with this latter thesis and points to him as a "prototype" of the perfect man - the goal toward which the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE is evolving. We are here referring to the Master strictly in that sense - one who has Mastered himself in the fullest sense of the expression.

The Lost Word Its Hidden Meaning, p. 74

Wow, can you believe such heresy out of the mouths of Masons! My opponent I mentioned at the beginning defends Freemasonry as having the “underpinning of Christianity.” He is supposed to be a Christian pastor. I don’t know what Bible he reads, but mine says that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), that He is the only way to heaven (John 14:6), and that the name of Jesus is the only name whereby men may be saved (Acts 4:12).

Yet after reading what I’ve posted so far, how can any Christian, especially a pastor join or remain in an organization whose members have made these heretical claims? But stay tuned; this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have much, much more to share on this topic as time permits. Meanwhile, if you find similar infamous Masonic quotes that fall in the category of Heretical and/or Occult, please feel free to post them here in this thread; where we are collecting them for all to see.

 

[Rev Wayne]

This thread is provided to show the exact opposite of the claims posted by the author of the two threads that share the title, "Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation of Masonry." Like the author of those threads indicated in his opening post, I too have placed absolutely no limitations upon this concerning the types of material I will post (except to obey the forum rules). In other words, I will NOT consider AT ALL the degree of authority accorded the sources I quote, the Masonic regularity of these sources, or the time frames from whence they came.

The purpose of my opponent, in his two threads, is to paint a Christian picture of Freemasonry, regardless of the sources he uses.

Not true, and you know it. The purpose of the threads was to respond to a request from you that I post that material, just as I stated from the outset.

My purpose for this thread, on the other hand, is to warn professing Christians who are considering whether to join the Masonic Order to ask themselves two questions as they review the information contained in this thread and compare it to what my opponent claims on his

All well and good, but I would point out a couple of things for readers who may be unaware of the selectivity of the author of this thread.

I simply ask that the reader take a look at the offering as we have it here, and do some research of your own to see (1) just how often you find some of these names cited by Masons; (2) what Masons have to say about these men and/or their particular brand of Masonry; and (3) who is found quoting them most often.

For now, for each of the sources just cited, I will provide a bit of perspective for you:

Hall: Here is what S. Brent Morris & Art DeHoyos had to say about Hall in "Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry?"

Manly P. Hall, on the other hand, received so few recommendations that Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon omitted his standing from their list of Masonic "authorities." Yet Hall is also cited some twenty-five times. Hall's books are presented as the writings of a "33d Degree Mason. As noted earlier, Hall wrote the books used by Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon more than twenty-five years before he became a Mason. Wouldn't honesty, therefore, require them to inform their readers that these books were written before Mr. Hall had any personal knowledge of Masonry? Of course this would have lessened the impact of Hall's "far out" interpretations of Freemasonry.

I find this comment about "far out interpretations" by Hall, to be the general feeling among Masons. As mentioned, antimasons typically prefer citing Hall over some others for the very fact that his ideas ARE "far out," and for no other reason. It simply makes a handy tool that they can find in easy reach, and without very much effort on their part, inflict maximum damage among those of minimum information who don't know better. Yes, it does make a difference that Hall wrote these things long before he became a Mason. Yes, it does make a difference, that he was not included in the results of Ankerberg & Weldon's survey--and yet is one of the most often-cited sources in their publication.

Coil: Morris & DeHoyos noted the tendency of antimasons to quote Coil:

It is difficult to believe that Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon misunderstood all the articles which contradict their claims. Rather, the evidence suggests that they are "proof-texting" or selectively picking quotes here-and-there which appear to support their case. Thus, they quote Coil and other Masons only when they seem to support their case.

Claudy & Roberts: Basically, you will find the same little handful of quotes from these two authors cited over and over, copied & pasted from one antimasonic website to another. The comments by Claudy that are presented here, are not representative of what is found said in Masonry on the issues presented, as I will show in a separate post very shortly.

J.S.M. Ward: He was about as far out as Hall ever dreamed of being. "Freemasonry and the Ancient Gods?" Based on theories that have been totally debunked for over a century now, of early origins of Freemasonry. I entered "J.S.M. Ward" in a browser search and pulled only seven hits, most of which were only references in passing.

Perkins: Who? And as always, his comments are taken out of context and misrepresented--not that he's much of a legitimate mainstream choice anyway, with his "far out" ideas about reincarnation and other un-Masonic leanings.

Steinmetz: I have put the same challenge to Mike here that I have put to Masons, both in settings like this one taking on critics, as well as on Masonic sites, to find ANYWHERE in the wide wide world of sports that ANY mention is ever made of this man's credentials, or any indication of where he held his lodge membership, where he received his degrees, etc., with not one single response, ever. My suspicion is, this is a Manly P. Hall nom de plume, which would add even more works to his list of things written before becoming a Mason. One thing is for sure, the ideas and the language, if not the very writing style, are typical of Hall. Not to mention, that Hall "conveniently" wrote the foreword for one of Steinmetz's three publications.

"KY Monitor": Though Mike doesn't state it, this is the Pirtle comment which was so recently taken down on this very forum. The material in this instance does not belong to Ky. Monitor, nor to Pirtle, but to Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 277. And the first sentence ALWAYS gets omitted from the quote, despite the fact that Pirtle included it in that Monitor:

All antiquity solved the enigma of the existence of Evil, by supposing the existence of a Principle of Evil, of Demons, fallen Angels, an Ahriman, a Typhon, a Siva, a Lok, or a Satan, that, first falling themselves, and plunged in misery and darkness, tempted man to his fall, and brought sin into the world.

Pirtle was not even discussing any present situation, he was talking about ancient history, as was Pike. Read the same thing in context in M&D, and you will find that he was addressing a time BEFORE the Christian religion, and before there was any Temple in Israel. And if you follow the context in Pike further, you find the conclusion to which his discussion of this point was heading all along:

"When God resolved to create the human race," said Arius, "He made a Being that He called The WORD, The Son, Wisdom, to the end that this Being might give existence to men." This WORD is the Ormuzd of Zoroaster, the Ainsoph of the Kabalah, the Νο[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']ῦ[/font]ς of Plato and Philo, the Wisdom or Demiourgos of the Gnostics.

That is the True Word, the knowledge of which our ancient brethren sought as the priceless reward of their labors on the Holy Temple: the Word of Life, the Divine Reason, "in whom was Life, and that Life the Light of men"; "which long shone in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;" the Infinite Reason that is the Soul of Nature, immortal, of which the Word of this Degree reminds us; and to believe wherein and revere it, is the peculiar duty of every Mason.

"In the beginning," says the extract from some older work, with which John commences his Gospel, "was the Word, and the Word was near to God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was Life, and the life was the Light of man; and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not contain it."

But the error of Pirtle goes far beyond that. For one thing, he cites Pike without reference to him, and apparently without any hesitation. For another, he ADDS to Pike that which is NOT FOUND in Pike, namely:

"Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram."

That's right, there is absolutely nothing said in the original about Hiram being a "savior for Masons." That's Pirtle getting carried away, and WAY too far. Nor was the phrase "Christians, Jesus" in Pike's original either, for he was talking about pre-Christian religions and the redeemer motif as found in each. Redeemer motifs had their culmination in Christ, and Pike gives every indication he was well aware of it. Naturally he would not have made the huge gaffe of adding Jesus to a list of pre-Christian redeemer motifs. Nor would he have added Hiram Abiff, for Hiram is later than any of them, and though a real character in the Bible, is an allegorical figure in Masonry.

Pirtle was aware of it, too, for he parrots Pike in the Ky. Monitor, in tracing the idea of "light," to follow it to the Gospel of John:

Thi s belief of primitive man in the fall of mankind from the Kingdom of Light and restoration to bliss through a Redeemer is also inseparably connected with the belief in original creation through the spoken Word of the Supreme Deity. God spoke the Word and the Word created the world and the creatures therein. Only by this all-powerful, omnipotent Word could * * * be raised from Death to immortality[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']! [/font]This legend of the Master Mason’s Word is rooted among the very oldest beliefs of mankind. The pastor of your church will tell you that, viewed historically and critically, the Fourth Gospel of St. John is an entirely different kind of document from those of the first three Gospels.

Another point Mike would never share with you, is the source from which Pirtle draws his commentary. It comes from his own book, Lost Word of Freemasonry. In that book, this same commentary that Mike cited appears there on p. 183, in the final pages of the final chapter of the book, as he draws together his conclusions for the book. That makes it significant indeed, that the final chapter is titled, "Hiram Rises as Christ." In it, as stated, we find the same quotation, and in it we also find the same pattern as in the KY Monitor, and as noted in Pike's original comments-- they all lead to the Gospel of John.

And Pirtle's conclusion to the matter?

What does this signify and where does it lead the Mason who is willing to dwell on such things and perhaps pursue them further? The answer to this question is that it signifies that the Secret of Masonry, that WORD too often lost, is the Secret of Christ realized in the heart of the Mason, and that from beginning to end, our "peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols," has never had another object, than to direct us, with eyes uplifted, to the bright Morning Star, whose rising brings peace and salvation to those who sit in tribulation and the shadow of death.

But the glaring part about it being posted here again is: Mike has already been told about this, thus he already KNOWS his claim is false; yet he posts it here again ANYWAY.

Why would a professing Christian, asking Christians to consider the various Scriptures that he cites in his opening, deliberately post that which he has already been SHOWN is false, not just on THIS forum, but on a forum where he previously posted as well, if his concern is for the truth of the Bible?

The answer is simple: Either the PROFESSION is not what he believes it to be, or his CLAIMS are not what he professes THEM to be, or BOTH.

Sadly, this fares no better than his partner Skip, who has self-destructed with claims about pictures, while ignoring the unanimous weight of quoted sources that tell a different story; and who began his comments on that particular thread, by citing a source which totally refuted his claims.

Now Mike has done the same, by citing Pirtle, whose conclusions run totally contrary to his own.

 

[ALX25]

The Scottish Rite Third-Degree Master Mason oath​

(emphasis added) This commits the oath-taker to commit murder, if necessary:
I do promise and swear upon the Holy Bible never to reveal where I have received this degree . . . and in failure of this I consent to have my body opened perpendicularly and to be exposed for eight hours in the open air, so that the venomous flies may eat my entrails, my head to be cut off and put on the highest pinnacle of the world, and I will always be ready to inflict the same punishment on those who shall disclose this degree and break this obligation. So may God help and maintain me. Amen.​

I've never heard a prayer like this in the Holy Bible, never has JESUS taught his disciples or any man to pray like this, but one thing is obviously clear the act to commit murder.

Not very Christ like, not christian at all, what kind of organization would have a man commit such a horrific oath to memory..

But the best part is Masonry claims to instruct man in Morality..

Masonry is not of God , and their own Masonic oaths that they teach men to swear proves it..

 

[O.F.F.]

I simply ask that the reader take a look at the offering as we have it here, and do some research of your own to see (1) just how often you find some of these names cited by Masons; (2) what Masons have to say about these men and/or their particular brand of Masonry; and (3) who is found quoting them most often.

And as they do their own research, I simply ask the readers to see (1) just how often you find these Masonic authors names on the books carried in Grand Lodge libraries; (2) what Masons, who share their brand of Masonry, have to say about these issues; (3) what prominent Christian leaders or denominations support Freemasonry; and (4) if you are a true Christian, after doing such research, would you still join the Masonic Order and feel no compromise to your faith and walk with Jesus Christ?

Of course, those who oppose Freemasonry on biblical grounds are going to quote that which supports such opposition. As Christian apologists, that's what should be expected. And YOU, a Masonic apologist, are expected to quote the exact opposite—duh!

Therefore, it should not surprise any Christian reader that a Mason would come here and cite what other Masons have to say in defense of Freemasonry. "Rev" Wayne, a Masonic pastor, is a high degree Mason (a Knight). S. Brent Morris and Art DeHoyos are also high degree Masons; they are both 33 degree Masons. Certainly Masons are going to defend Freemasonry, especially those who hold the higher degrees within the Order.

If Wayne really had a case, he would be citing Christian sources whose leaders and/or denominations have official position statements that fully support Freemasonry and fully support Christian involvement in it. But he can't because no such source exist; NOT even in his own denomination of the United Methodist Church. Surely, if Freemasonry was so compatitable with biblical Christianity, and have so much Christian underpinnings, he should be able to find a noteworthy Christian leader or denomination that can back it up.

The bottom-line, before I proceed as expressed in the opening post, is that YOU share a similar interpretation of Masonry as Hutchinson, Wilmshurst, Oliver, Whymper, and others, which Freemasonry freely allows. Yet when other Masons have gone on record with diametrically opposing views, which Freemasonry also welcomes them to have; YOU discount them as if they aren't even your Masonic brethren; equally entitled as you are to hold any view they want concerning Masonry.

All the emblems, forms and ceremonies of Masonry are symbolical of great primitive truths, which each one is at liberty to interpret in accordance with his own faith.

Albert Pike, Magnum Opus, XVIII.5

That's is precisely why YOUR Masonic double-standard won't fly here!

Yes, it does make a difference that Hall wrote these things long before he became a Mason.

No it doesn't make a difference, for two very good reasons. (1) Because his work can be found among recommended reading material in Grand Lodge libraries; and (2) NO Grand Lodge has made an official statement refuting any of Hall's Masonic claims.

Perkins: Who?

The same one you were defending not too long ago, but apparently only when it suits your purpose.

Rather, the evidence suggests that they are "proof-texting" or selectively picking quotes here-and-there which appear to support their case.

This is precisely what you are engaged in to support your position. YOU deliberately ignore the heretical teachings found “in Masonry” in favor of what you mine from the sources you quote that reinforce your interpretation. But as soon as Masonic dissenters do the same thing, YOU cry "proof-texting." Sorry pastor, but you can shove your Masonic double-standards up your Masonic apron; because as the opening post indicates, if it can be found "in Masonry" it's all fair game.

But to prove your cherry-picking tactic, let me show the readers how you did it with Pirtle's work, The Lost Word of Freemasonry.

In that book, this same commentary that Mike cited appears there on p. 183, in the final pages of the final chapter of the book, as he draws together his conclusions for the book.

First of all, there is much to be said "IN MASONRY" about the "Lost Word" of the 3rd degree ritual. So stay tuned for more on that issue; because it is certainly not what Wayne or other Masons would have you believe. But what Wayne is trying to suggest, from the quote he posted, is that the Lost Word in Masonry is actually Jesus Christ.

What are the implications of such a conclusion? If a professing Christian truly had Christ when he first entered the lodge, why would he have to "find" Him in Masonry? More importantly, can a genuine Christian really ever say with a straight face that "the Word who became flesh" was ever LOST? But apparently that is what Pirtle and Wayne would have you believe.

But here is the part(s) Wayne conveniently ignored. Take a look at the following link to the table of contents of Pirtle's work:

Table of Contents to The Lost Word of Freemasonry

As you can see from such chapter headings as The Secret Tradition, The Jewish Cabala, The Great Logos, Magic in Names, etc., it must be filled with all sorts of heretical teachings and philosophy. I do not personally have the book, but readers can click on any one of the chapter headings there, and read the nonsense collected in each. You'll find things discussed like Krishna Christ, Balder, Osiris, Diana and other pagan gods; as well as astrology and the Zodiac signs. Additionally, you'll find that the author cites many of the authors I quoted in the opening post; like Carl Claudy and others like WAITE, who is one I haven’t even got to yet! But Wayne claims these men are not worthy Masonic authorities. Apparently Pirtle and others beg to differ.

But despite all that, Pirtle's final conclusion rest in the final sentence in the final chapter of this book:

The Word not only DWELLS in the risen Mason but he, too, becomes that WORD of LIFE and LIGHT. (emphasis Pirtle's not mine)

The phase, "the risen Mason" comes from the culmination of the 3rd degree ritual, when the candidate is "raised from a dead level to a living perpendicular" to the degree of Master Mason. But here's the point, Pirtle is saying that "the risen Mason" regardless of his religious background or beliefs, because Masonry accepts men and makes them Masons from all who believe in any ol' Supreme Being of choice, BECOMES Jesus Christ, the WORD of LIFE; Himself. What heresy, yet of course Wayne knew it when he saw it, but was hoping it would not be found and used against him.

So again, as you can see, Wayne deliberately cherry-picked a quote to support his position at the expense of Pirtle's actual, final conclusion. Why would a professing Christian pastor deliberately post that which he already KNEW to be false, if he is concern about telling the truth about anything; including Freemasonry?

The answer is simple: Either the PROFESSION is not what he believes it to be, or his CLAIMS are not what he professes THEM to be, or BOTH.

 

[O.F.F.]

While I intend to post Masonic heresy concerning how they view the Holy Bible, since my opponent entered this thread referring to "The Lost Word in Freemasonry," I will address it for a moment. When I was introduced to the Lost Word during the 18th degree as a Mason, we were told the initials I.N.R.I. My natural thought came from my Christian understanding of these letters to mean "Jesus, King of the Jews" as nailed to the top of the cross of Christ (Matthew 27:36-37).

But while as a Mason, I was free to hold that view; upon further investigation it had other interpretations:

Of course, the first reaction of a reader with an elementary acquaintance with the Bible is to give a Christian interpretation to the acronym: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum, the inscription on the cross.

However, an examination of various rituals of the 18th degree in different places and times, reveals a wide range of Masonic interpretations, such as:

Igne Natura Renovatur Integra
(Nature is completely renewed by fire)

Ignis Natura Renovat Integram
(Fire completely renews nature)

Ignem Natura Regenerando Integrat
(By regeneration, nature maintains the integrity of fire)

In Nobilis Regnat Iehovah (or Iesus)
(Jehovah (or Jesus) reigns among noble men)

Iesus Nascente Ram Innovatur
(Ascending Jesus renews the branch)

Igne Nitrum Roris Invenitor
(By fire salt is extracted from dew)

Insignia Naturae Ratio Illustrat
(Reason illuminates the nature’s symbols)

Inter Nos Regnat Indulgentia
(Among us reigns goodness)

Intra Nobis Regnum Iehova
(The Kingdom of God is within us)

Iustum Necare Reges Impios
(It is just to kill impious kings)

Iustitia Nunc Reget Imperia
(Justice now reigns empires)

In Neci Renascor Integer
(In death one is reborn intact and pure)

... Still another explanation is given by Albert Pike in his Magnum Opus: the four letters are initials of the words Infinity, Nature, Reason and Immortality.

... The existence of so many and diverse explanations, formulated by different Masonic writers in the course of time, demonstrates that the literal or Biblical explanation is certainly insufficient and probably erroneous within the Masonic context. (emphasis added)

AN ESOTERIC VIEW OF THE ROSE-CROIX DEGREE by R.W.Bro. LEON ZELDIS

By the way, Albert Pike's Magnum Opus was the book loaned to me to explain the various degrees when I was "elevated to the 32nd degree" (Prince of the Royal Secret). So despite my initial reaction to the Lost Word, apparently my interpretation of it was wrong from the start.

 

[O.F.F.]

Here's more on this mysterious Masonic "Word."

The Lost Word

In the search for “That Which Was Lost,” we are not actually searching for a particular word. Our search is a symbol for our “feeling of loss” or “exile” from the Source of Life. What we are searching for is Divine Truth, which should be the ultimate goal of all men and Masons.

... The utterance of the Word is also closely connected with the idea of Light, and therefore knowledge. Having the power of speech is perhaps the noblest attribute of man, because he can communicate his thoughts to his fellows. Thus, The Word has been carried down through the ages as synonymous with every manifestation of Divine Power and Truth. We must always search diligently for truth, and never permit prejudice, passions, or conflicts of interest, to hinder us in our search. We must keep our minds open to receiving truth from any source. Thus, Masons are devoted to freedom of thought, speech and action. In our Craft Lodges, we have but a substitute for the True Word. Each person must ultimately seek out and find the True Word for himself, through his own individual efforts (emphasis added).

Grand Lodge of California

 

[ALX25]

Oath of a Shriner

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Candidates for induction into the Shriners are greeted by a High Priest, who says:[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]“By the existence of Allah and the creed of Mohammed; by the legendary sanctity of our Tabernacle at Mecca, we greet you.” [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The inductees then swear on the Bible and the Koran, in the name of Mohammed, and invoke Masonry's usual gruesome penalties upon themselves:[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]“I do hereby, upon this Bible, and on the mysterious legend of the Koran, and its dedication to the Mohammedan faith, promise and swear and vow … that I will never reveal any secret part or portion whatsoever of the ceremonies … and now upon this sacred book, by the sincerity of a Moslem's oath I here register this irrevocable vow … in willful violation whereof may I incur the fearful penalty of having my eyeballs pierced to the center with a three-edged blade, my feet flayed and I be forced to walk the hot sands upon the sterile shores of the Red Sea until the flaming sun shall strike me with livid plague, and may Allah, the god of Arab, Moslem and Mohammedan, the god of our fathers, support me to the entire fulfillment of the same. Amen. Amen. Amen." [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]With this oath, Christians swear on the Koran, and declare Allah to be “the god of our fathers.” From the perspective of Christianity and Islam alike, Shriners take the name of God in vain, and mock both faiths.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Excerpt from The Origins and Influence of Masonry[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]by Lee Penn, SCP Journal Vol. 25:2-25:3 2001[/FONT]

Candidate (christians) swears oath on Bible and Koran in the name of mohhammad, again Masonry presenting a false god and false prophet to a candidate proving the God of the Holy Bible is equated to a False god.






Oath of Knight Templar

IN the degree of Templar and Knight of Malta, as found in the seventh edition of "Light on Masonry," page 182, in a lecture in which the candidate is giving an account of what he had passed through, he says:

"I then took the cup (the upper part of the human skull) in my hand, and repeated, after the Grand Commander, the following obligation:


'This pure wine I now take in testimony of my belief in the

mortality of the body and the immortality of the soul--and

may this libation appear as a witness against me both here

and hereafter-and as the sins of the world were laid upon

the head of the Savior, so may all the sins committed by

the person whose skull this was be heaped upon my head in addition to my own, should I ever, knowingly or willfully, violate or transgress any obligation that I have heretofore taken, take at this time, or shall at any future period take, in relation to any degree of Masonry or order of Knighthood.


So help me God?'"


Also known as " the Sealed Obligation"


The candidate drinks wine out of a human skull with the taking of an obligation on to himself , that under penalty would suffer double damnation...

Not christ like and more cult like and yes tought and practiced in Masonry.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

The Scottish Rite Third-Degree Master Mason oath​

(emphasis added) This commits the oath-taker to commit murder, if necessary:
I do promise and swear upon the Holy Bible never to reveal where I have received this degree . . . and in failure of this I consent to have my body opened perpendicularly and to be exposed for eight hours in the open air, so that the venomous flies may eat my entrails, my head to be cut off and put on the highest pinnacle of the world, and I will always be ready to inflict the same punishment on those who shall disclose this degree and break this obligation. So may God help and maintain me. Amen.​

I've never heard a prayer like this in the Holy Bible, never has JESUS taught his disciples or any man to pray like this, but one thing is obviously clear the act to commit murder.

Not very Christ like, not christian at all, what kind of organization would have a man commit such a horrific oath to memory..

But the best part is Masonry claims to instruct man in Morality..

Masonry is not of God , and their own Masonic oaths that they teach men to swear proves it..

Sigh. Here we go again, dredging up refuted topics. It has been shown time and again that the penalties of the various Masonic obligations are symbolic in nature to instill the seriousness of the promise that the Mason is making. It is fact that the penalties have never been carried out to those who have broken their promises to the fraternity (with the single possible exception being the Morgan Affair.) But of course, this topic has already been beaten to death here and elsewhere.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Sorry to disappoint you, Alex, but the main parts you try to emphasize in the York Rite, do not accord with what I experienced here. For one thing, what you encased in red, does not even appear there. But then, this is always the case with such accusations. And one part of the red-highlighted portion couldn't even possibly be a part of the ritual, for obvious reasons to anyone who has been a part of it.

As for the stuff about the Shrine, I am not a Shriner and have no wish to be one, and do not even pretend to speak to that issue at all. There are a lot of Masons, and their number is increasing, who are disillusioned with the Shrine, for quite a number of reasons.

And as I've stated before, I still consider it wrong to make accusations that are generalized about "Freemasonry," when addressing a concordant body that is not common to all Freemasonry. Likewise with a post like this one, addressing two concordant bodies of Freemasonry in the attempt to associate them all in one lump. Only half what you posted even addresses anything I've had any connection with, and not all of what you stated even then, was actually a part of York Rite as taken here.

 

[Skip Sampson]

It has been shown time and again that the penalties of the various Masonic obligations are symbolic in nature to instill the seriousness of the promise that the Mason is making.

You are correct in that, but the issue is far larger. Jesus told us in Matt 5:33-37 that we should let our 'yes' be 'yes' when swearing, and that should be the guide we follow. But Masonry insists on far more, as you know. Moreover, the candidate has no inkling into what he'll be swearing to so he's unfairly trapped.

The real issue here is that the obligation and oaths of Masonic degrees directly violate one of Jesus' directions to his followers. It is another example of why I hold that there are no Christians in Masonry, for no Christian could participate in such an organization with policies and actions such as we see by their obligations and oaths. Cordially, Skip.

 

[drstevej]

Sigh. Here we go again, dredging up refuted topics. It has been shown time and again that the penalties of the various Masonic obligations are symbolic in nature to instill the seriousness of the promise that the Mason is making. It is fact that the penalties have never been carried out to those who have broken their promises to the fraternity (with the single possible exception being the Morgan Affair.) But of course, this topic has already been beaten to death here and elsewhere.

So a symbol of something they would never imagine doing is a statement of how serious they view this?

Something about your explanation that rings hollow.

 

[Rev Wayne]

So a symbol of something they would never imagine doing is a statement of how serious they view this?

Something about your explanation that rings hollow.

I don't think so. For example:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race,

Do you think Paul was truly stating this in a literal sense. I'd hardly think so, from a man who wrote the beautiful aspirations to know Christ and the power of His resurrection, as he expressed to the Phillipians.

The "I could wish" is the pivotal phrase, of course. Hodge says of the verse, "The expression is evidently hypothetical and conditional, 'I could wish, were the thing allowable, possible, or proper.'"

But one thing is for sure, the hyperbolic expression was designed to emphasize just how strongly he felt about his countrymen, and he was trying by just such an expression to convey those feelings to his readers.

So no, I don't find it "hollow" to speak of something one would never imagine doing, as a means of conveying the seriousness of what they are saying.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You are correct in that, but the issue is far larger. Jesus told us in Matt 5:33-37 that we should let our 'yes' be 'yes' when swearing, and that should be the guide we follow. But Masonry insists on far more, as you know. Moreover, the candidate has no inkling into what he'll be swearing to so he's unfairly trapped.

The real issue here is that the obligation and oaths of Masonic degrees directly violate one of Jesus' directions to his followers. It is another example of why I hold that there are no Christians in Masonry, for no Christian could participate in such an organization with policies and actions such as we see by their obligations and oaths.

Once again, I am underwhelmed by your biblical understanding. The point Jesus was making was a direct condemnation to the Pharisees of their frivolity in taking oaths. Oaths were not "forbidden," for we find Paul taking oaths in the book of Acts, we find Jesus replying after being put under oath by the high priest, and we even find God swearing an oath to Himself, "because He could swear to none greater." The point is and always was, in both OT and NT, do not take oaths in any frivolous manner, because it is not a light matter--which is exactly the idea Masonry seeks to convey.

Can't help but notice that you generalize this in regard to "Masonry," when I'm sure you're fully aware that there are significant segments of Masonry which no longer employ any of the symbolic "penalties." Seems you can't resist the same antimasonic tendency that so many others succumb to, of feeling you just absolutely have to put the worst possible face you can on every mention of it, no matter how much information you have to the contrary.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Once again, I am underwhelmed by your biblical understanding.

So underwhelmed that you didn't bother to read my post. My comment was not directed at taking oaths; rather it was the personal standard Jesus set for us in taking them. Masonry forces the candidate to violate those standards, as I've noted, and self-proclaimed Christians like yourself do so as well.

there are significant segments of Masonry which no longer employ any of the symbolic "penalties."

I certainly wouldn't call that a significant segment. Most keep them intact. Cordially, Skip.

 

[O.F.F.]

The point is and always was, in both OT and NT, do not take oaths in any frivolous manner, because it is not a light matter

To take an oath that candidates are (1) unfairly trapped into taking; (2) in which the penalty is not to be taken seriously; and (3) in most cases candidates have no idea as to what they'll be swearing to; is, in fact, taking an oath in a frivolous manner. So to your point, you and every other Mason violates Scripture regarding the issue of oath taking.

 

[drstevej]

A wish is not an oath.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Spin, spin, spin. My, the circles y'all go in to make denials.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

So a symbol of something they would never imagine doing is a statement of how serious they view this?

Something about your explanation that rings hollow.

Only if the Masonic obligations are taken literally. So much of Freemasonry is symbolic and allegorical, and the penalties of the oaths are perfect examples, serving as one of the many lessons of morality that Freemasonry teaches.

 

[Rev Wayne]

To take an oath that candidates are (1) unfairly trapped into taking; (2) in which the penalty is not to be taken seriously; and (3) in most cases candidates have no idea as to what they'll be swearing to; is, in fact, taking an oath in a frivolous manner.

(1) unfairly trapped into taking

"Trapped?" Where on earth did you get that idea? I had Masons INSISTING, when I was considering joining, that if I had any reason whatsoever that made me feel uncomfortable with joining, I should not join. I had Masons INSISTING that if I had motives for joining that were not in line with the highest ideals of the fraternity, I should not join. I had Masons INSISTING that if anything in my Christian beliefs caused any concern about Masonry, I should not join.

Besides, how can something that you can freely leave at any time you choose, be a "trap?" You yourself, in fact, are a perfect example of this, because you left quite some time ago, without retribution or any such thing. In fact, you've testified in the past, that you still have friendly relations with some of your former brethren. Your characterization of this simply makes no sense.

(2) in which the penalty is not to be taken seriously;

And well it shouldn't, it's the obligation on which Masonry places the emphasis. The symbolic penalties are only to remind the Mason of the seriousness of the obligation, not the seriousness of the penalties. That's perfectly in line with what Christ said should be the attitude toward oaths.

(3) in most cases candidates have no idea as to what they'll be swearing to

Really? Can you please present the survey you took on that one, along with the results, and give us an idea of the approach you used to be able to poll "most Masons" in order to be able to make this claim?

Masons I have spoken with about these things, all testify to having had an understanding long beforehand, that the penalties of the obligations are symbolic only.

And it's my understanding that any candidate who objects to anything, even during the obligation, is free to ask that he not continue, and at that point would be conducted out of the lodgeroom back to the preparation room, and the degree would be considered incomplete.

 

[ALX25]

(1) unfairly trapped into taking

"Trapped?" Where on earth did you get that idea? I had Masons INSISTING, when I was considering joining, that if I had any reason whatsoever that made me feel uncomfortable with joining, I should not join. I had Masons INSISTING that if I had motives for joining that were not in line with the highest ideals of the fraternity, I should not join. I had Masons INSISTING that if anything in my Christian beliefs caused any concern about Masonry, I should not join.

Besides, how can something that you can freely leave at any time you choose, be a "trap?" You yourself, in fact, are a perfect example of this, because you left quite some time ago, without retribution or any such thing. In fact, you've testified in the past, that you still have friendly relations with some of your former brethren. Your characterization of this simply makes no sense.

(2) in which the penalty is not to be taken seriously;

And well it shouldn't, it's the obligation on which Masonry places the emphasis. The symbolic penalties are only to remind the Mason of the seriousness of the obligation, not the seriousness of the penalties. That's perfectly in line with what Christ said should be the attitude toward oaths.

(3) in most cases candidates have no idea as to what they'll be swearing to

Really? Can you please present the survey you took on that one, along with the results, and give us an idea of the approach you used to be able to poll "most Masons" in order to be able to make this claim?

Masons I have spoken with about these things, all testify to having had an understanding long beforehand, that the penalties of the obligations are symbolic only.

And it's my understanding that any candidate who objects to anything, even during the obligation, is free to ask that he not continue, and at that point would be conducted out of the lodgeroom back to the preparation room, and the degree would be considered incomplete.

That's the problem Masonry does not take the God of the Holy Bible's word seriously

Proverbs 18:20-21 (Amplified Bible)


20A man's [moral] self shall be filled with the fruit of his mouth; and with the consequence of his words he must be satisfied [whether good or evil].

21Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and they who indulge in it shall eat the fruit of it [for death or life].(A)


To the Masons its a matter of being symbolic, to a christian its Gods word explained as a warning, " DEATH and LIFE are in the power of the tongue". Thats why Masonry opens its doors to the candidate with such a vile intention of leading a man astray from the God of the Holy Bible, the masonic objective is clear from the start, the oath is the complete opposite of a spoken blessing but rather the memorization of a taught oath that speaks DEATH or a curse.

Masonry go's to great lengthes to ensure that the candidate studies, memorizes and is able to recite the oath(s) one on one help from other masons , group studies and practice to read the oath, and of course random recitles for senior masons to determine how well the candidate has memorized the oath, all to ensure the candidate is capable to recite with his class at the Raising. That's how important it is in masonry. So it's not just some simple symbolic refrence with little or no ramifications, the consequences are of a spiritual nature.

There's nothing Christ like about the masonic oath , it's simply demonic forces from the Kingdom of Darkness under instruction of Satan that would see great joy hearing an unsuspecting man of God or babe in christ speak such a vile oath.... Classic demonic teachings of Masonry, in no way shape or form could any one here argue differently.


The same vile satanic tounge that spoke to Eve in the Garden of Eden is the same tounge that teaches masons to lead other men into masonry with a oath of "secrecy" and "death" . The out come the FALL of MAN, the seperation of man and ultimately the destruction of man.