Masons

[Rev Wayne]

The problem with the analogy is, it breaks down almost immediately. Math is not a religion, and nobody worships "math gods." Mathematicians come from a broad spectrum of people around the world, and thus they come from a variety of religions. Check your mathematician Grand Classroom websites and you will find that not a single one of them claims to be a religion. Moreover, if you ask, I am sure you will find that not a single mathematician you can find will witness that mathematics has become his religion for him.

Calling a building a temple is no signification of anything either. We do have a "temple of justice" in the U.S., and no one suggests that the Supreme Court rulings represent a religion.

But the real kicker is, the only reason these accusations have proliferated to begin with, is the blatantly false creations put out by the antimathematicians, intentionally mis-quoting mathematicians and spinning the remarks to make them say things that appear to confirm that math is a religion. These things have been shown in a thorough work by A. DeHoyos and B. Morris, "Is it True What They Say About Mathematics?" They clearly show where some of the most well-known mathematicians in the world have been mis-quoted and their work misrepresented, the chief method being the ellipsis, by which many of the figures in their equations are omitted, making the result of their formulations point in a direction they never intended. Go figure.
To make matters worse, there are a slew of antimathematician websites now completely devoted to spreading these lies, and making all sorts of unfounded accusations. I'm sure we're all familiar by now with the much-repeated accusation of satanism in the classroom, based on paranoid suspicions about the Devil's Triangle. This has not been helped by some unconnected references that get twisted around to make false accusations. For example, at freedictionary.com, the third definition of "demon" reads:

3. One who is extremely zealous, skillful, or diligent: worked away like a demon; a real demon at math.

The sad thing is, they have been able to convince quite a number of people that this represents some kind of reality among mathematicians. When we point out that this is nothing more than character assassination, they always give the standard reply:

"I'm antimathematics, not antimathematicians."

Also, the antimathematicians have a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of much of the content of mathematical discussion, particularly the sheepskin diploma, the common abacus, the working formulas, and other lectures. The main error they make, it seems, is in assuming that mathematicians all believe exactly the same, forgetting that some are Pythagoreans, some are Euclideans, etc. etc. And they also forget that no one mathematician speaks for all of mathematics.

Let's face it, when it comes to the antimathematicians and their accusations, the numbers just do not add up.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I hope this helps you better understand the dilemma faced by "Christian" Masons.

Well, I have to say that your "picture" is an eloquent one and of a type that I have a particular appreciation, but unfortunately I see that it doesn't really apply. And perhaps, that's what is at the bottom of all of this.

Let me see if I can measure up to the flow of your imagination..

A mathematician once said "2+2=4". But a man concerned that any statement of truth should be doubted proclaimed, "Ah, but you cannot know that. You can only speculate it. How do you know that you are not merely misperceiving?" An argument to truly prove the statement's worthiness ensued for quite a while when finally a logician heard of the situation and came to listen.

The logician was patient as he saw each making their arguments and others pitching in. He could see how the argument was not getting resolved but seem to be spreading and even becoming a political issue so as to put pressure on schools to disallow mathematicians from "spreading their foolishness".

All of this concerned the logician, because he had always presumed that everyone really just wanted to know real truth and not just to destroy what someone else believed to be real truth. So he contemplated how to resolve this issue.

He could quickly see how the mathematician had an undeniable logical argument in his favor that would dismiss the dispute entirely. But when he whispered the argument to someone standing near, he was surprised.

The man he had spoken to couldn't see what he thought was all too obvious to not see. The logicians argument was not defeated by any reasoning, but rather by the blindness of the one he had spoken to.

At first he thought that this wasn't really an issue, there are people who can see reasoning far better, so this man's opinion really isn't much of a test. But then it occurred to him, "what if those arguing wouldn't be able to see the obvious truth behind the issue either? After all, they haven't yet. Why would they necessarily believe what they hear from me if they can't see it already within the truth itself?"

The logician was suddenly thrown into a whole new world for him. He had always been so very careful to ensure that he knew all there was to know about how to build concepts into clearly well founded thought, but now he was faced with a different challenge. Now he was faced with the challenge of getting anyone to actually see truth regardless of who might be saying it or if anyone at all. He was for a moment, lost.

The logicians habitually deductive mind compelled him over and over to simply say this or that and, "it will all be made clear." But he wondered why saying anything among people in a passionate battle would do anything more than just increase their passion and at least one side against him and perhaps both if nether could see him as being right.

For him the question stopped being "which is the truth for people to believe?" and became, "how can people be persuaded to see the truth regardless of what that truth might turn out to be?"

But he was no expert at persuasion of people. He had always ignored the effort to persuade, in favor of the effort to be certain that he was right himself. He suddenly felt quite alone as he watched the arguments of not only that first statement but so many like it being thrown into the fire of political debate where deceivers clearly reign.

But not being the type to simply give up on what appeared to be a totally hopeless endeavor, he began to analyze what it is that actually causes people to do what they do. He thought that perhaps he might be able to quite logically and precisely piece together a solid plan for peace.
.
.
.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

.
.
.

His eyes were slowly opened to so very much that had always surrounded him but he had never seen. Every day he felt even more alone. All he wanted to do was to help resolve the conflict, but now he felt that to resolve even that one contest was linked into all things involving man's struggle on Earth. He asked himself time and time again, "what is it that compels men so?" and "By what means could anyone ever truly know reality if it wasn't clear to them already?"

It took him quite a while to come up with even the slightest thought that seemed to have true value in his endeavor. He had seen how men could be persuaded by quite a variety of deceptions and tricks. But with each, he couldn't let go of the thought that if the endeavor was to gain a knowledge of reality, then anything using deception was going to have to be short lived and thus probably not the best path to take.

Eventually after a very long struggle with every kind of thought he had ever heard or known and few that he was certain were new to the Earth, he found himself seeing something that seemed so simple and yet also seemed to be the very essence of finding reality. "But would anyone listen to even that?", he wondered.

One day while listening to one of the arguers of the day, he privately asked, "Do you really want to know the real truth, or is it more important to show the other man to be wrong?" He received the reply, "I already know what is right, I just can't get that idiot to see reason." The logician said no more. He could see the passion was going to keep the man blind even if the man's argument was accurate. He didn't want to add to the temptations of passionate blindness. So he retreated.

He would ask one now and then, that same kind of question. Almost always he would get the same kind of reply. But then one day, he found someone who answered a little differently; "I don't know what is true, I just wish they would stop arguing." With that, he felt something inside him, a sense of hope. He felt compelled to stay with that one person and ponder her passive prayer.

"Is knowing the real truth important to you?" he later asked. She said, "well yeah, I suppose, but I don't know what difference it makes, no one really knows what is true." He felt a little offended to be met by such an assertion considering how well established his logic had always been. But he was not easily upset after seeing so much blindness all around him for so long now.

"But if someone really did happen to know any real truth, would you prefer to believe what he had to say, or would you be happy believing something wrong?" She said, "Well, sure, if I knew that he was right, but I can't imagine that. People are always proven to be wrong eventually." “But do you want the truth is the only question that counts.” He replied. He watched her as she pondered whether it really mattered at all.

The logician had never met anyone who seem to not actually care whether they knew the real truth or not and felt a little uneasy with the thought of very many of such people around. He thought to himself, “Well if no one cares what is real and what isn’t then what is real is going to respond rather badly to their ignorance, because it isn’t going to go away just because they don’t care." But something had become solid in him amidst the clouds.

He realized that there was a separation to be made; a separation of those who actually cared what was true and those who cared more for anything else, because certainly the greater concern would always keep the others in darkness.

So next time he wandered through those arguing, he had but one question in mind, “Do you actually care what is or isn’t true?” And that one question became the foundation of what he felt was the true path to ever discovering truth.

Many if asked, simply stated whatever crossed their mind without directly answering him, but in doing so, he could see who really cared and who didn’t. So without the need to really argue, he wandered about finding those who “loved truth” even though they didn’t know what the truth might be. He found that they were a few in every place he looked, in every church of every type, on every street, in every business, and it seemed there was no place where at least one person didn't truly love actual truth regardless of what other people insisted on.

So he began to ask more of only those people who cared not for how to get others to believe them, but how they could learn for themselves. He felt overwhelmed with the number of things that he could now tell them due to his long journey. But he felt that to emphasis the simplicity of the path was far more important than declaring any particular truth beyond that.

So he said to them, “Regardless of what religion in which you have faith, regardless of what doctrine you see as truth, no matter where you find truth, hold Truth itself in the highest regard and seek to be with it in all that you do.” He added, “Keep yourself humble before reality, fore deception is so very easy to befall you even when no other is trying to cast it. Do not tempt yourself into passionate argument when you hear what you believe to be untrue lest you bring ignorance upon yourself. Forgive those who cannot see as you see, for if you cannot give them sight, then by what good do you measure your speech? Urge them only that they seek real truth and love it above all else. Seek not to dispel the darkness except by means of the light of the path itself; Love the Truth.”

One day when many had gathered around this friend of truth, the logician found that original mathematician still arguing his case for “2+2=4”. The man said, “So you agree with me, right?” Another man quickly spoke up with exasperation, “But you can’t really know that.” The logician lowered his head with a sigh wondering if there was truly anything that these people could ever truly hear. Then he looked up at the mathematician, “I do not disagree with you and I do not disagree with him. But I see that you do not know why you are right nor does he see why he is right. If you cannot see why you absolutely must be right, then why don’t you? Ask yourself, ‘WHY am I right?’ And then ask again, ‘Why is my explanation beyond question? And then ask again of that explanation’ and if you cannot answer these things, then you have nothing to say but to name what you see as right within the realm that you can see it to be right. I can see why it is that you are right, yet you cannot, else you would have said it long ago, thus it is there to be known and yet you argue rather than seek it. Ask yourself ‘Why this thing must be true?’ if you are going to insist that it is.

MY sheep are not those who know that they are right of this group or that, but only those who seek to also know WHY they must be right beyond doubt and those although are many in many different lands and many different beliefs, are one on the narrow path to Truth.

“So you agree that I am right?” the mathematician said with a sign of pride in his face.

“** Sigh **”

 

[Harlin]

Equally creative! "May I ask?" (Hee hee, you guys are a riot)

What?, no sense of humor? that really is too bad.

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[Rev Wayne]

No sense of humor? Are you kidding?

Hey, what's with that pink upside-down cross anyway, doesn't the inversion of it indicate something satanic? Now, that really IS too bad.

 

[O.F.F.]

LOL good post, very creative. I had a good chuckle. May I ask, what were your reasons for leaving Freemasonry?

God Bless,

Harlin

Thanks Harlin, but as you can see from the responses since, it wasn't good enough to appeal to the hearts of stubborn Masons. As for why I left the Masonic Lodge, click on the following link:

My Masonic Testimony

God bless you too my sister!

<><

 

[Rev Wayne]

God bless you too my sister!

LOL! The humor never stops, does it?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Well, the entire argument against the Mason's seems to be no more than semantics and false witnessing.

If the Mason doesn't call something by the same label as someone else, then they are deemed as Satan worshippers. If you ask the person what the similarities in Satanism and Masonry is, they discover that they actually know nothing of Satanism even if they do know anything about Masonry.

What it all seems to boil down to is those who worship labels verses those who worship concepts or principles.

For example, the argument concerning "The Architect of the Universe" versus "The Holy Trinity";

If one claims that the 2 must be different, then they are really claiming that the architect of the universe must NOT be the Holy Trinity. So if the Holy Trinity is not the architect, then who is?

Obviously the Masons are just calling the architect by the label of "Architect of the Universe". The Trinitarian is actually supposed to believe that the Holy Trinity IS that SAME architect of the universe regardless of what label is being used. But when they argue, they directly imply that the Holy Trinity could not be any "Architect of the Universe."

All of the accusation concerning Satanism and other gods seems to boil down to the fact that the accuser simply doesn't know anything about those things he is claiming to be the same as that with which the Mason concerns himself.

If I ask a Christian what a god is, I find that he doesn't really know but typically responds with, "there is only one." If I ask him who THE GOD is, he simply says, "The Creator", as if that actually answered the question.

I can't claim that the Mason actually knows what he is worshipping, but I can clearly see that a very large part of Christianity doesn't know what they are worshipping and because of that, they accuse others even though their Lord specifically instructed to not do that.

It is a little hard for an actual Christian to blame someone else of being a Satanist without betraying his own Lord. And especially when he doesn't even know what a Satanist actually is.

It seems that if a Christian is going to accuse a Mason or anyone else, he should come up with more than mere semantical differences in their terms and false witnessing to similarities between things of which he has no knowledge. Knowing what Masons do would not be enough to proclaim that they are doing what someone else does unless you truly know that someone else. From what I can gather on these threads, the accusers know neither.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Thanks Harlin, but as you can see from the responses since, it wasn't good enough to appeal to the hearts of stubborn Masons.

All of which, apparently, was designed to draw attention away from the lack of any real response to what posted concerning Hutchinson's Spirit of Masonry:

You have yet to produce the Grand Lodge documents to support your assertion.

Evidently you weren't paying attention. Let's do this again:

The important design of the degree is to symbolize the great doctrines of the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul; and hence it has been remarked by a learned writer of our order, that the Master Mason represents a man saved from the grave of iniquity, and raised to the faith of salvation.

(1947 Ed. Ahiman Rezon, pages 141-2)​

Those words, or most of them, are reproduced in the monitors of several states.
(“An Open Letter to a Christian Mason,” at ephesians5-11.org)

AHIMAN REZON--Grand Lodge documentation. "It has been remarked by a learned writer of our order" is the statement by Mackey. That "learned author" is Hutchinson, and the source of the remark is The Spirit of Masonry by Hutchinson.

This is beyond dispute because the statement Mackey made after attributing it to "a learned writer of our order," is a WORD-FOR-WORD citation of the statement as it appears in The Spirit of Masonry.

The antimasons of ephesians5-11.org cited the source for you, it was listed as the Indiana Monitor, dated 1947. It was added in the article at eph-5-11, that

"Those words, or most of them, are reproduced in the monitors of several states."

I was willing to take their word for it. Apparently you believe they are lying.

And that is not an isolated statement on the matter. For example, in an article titled "Masonic Rituals for the Blue Lodge," the same material from Mackey is posted, with the following remarks:

The text used is derived from the writings of Albert G. Mackey, whose Manual of the Lodge (1862) is the basis of Ahiman Rezon, the Monitor of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina. Numerous Grand Lodges have repeated Mackey's teaching:

I don't know how many you may determine "numerous" to be, but it sounds to me like quite a few. But then, of course, antimasons have been known to lie in order to make their case appear stronger than it actually is. Perhaps they were simply lying about it here as well.

I don't have to post a quote from every Grand Lodge Monitor to make this case. You guys have been claiming this to be widespread in Masonry from the word go. So I will leave it to you to determine the truth of the matter:

Does Mackey's statement in Ahiman Rezon appear in "numerous" Grand Lodge official publications--which would establish what I have already shown;

OR

Have antimason articles been overstating the matter when declaring how many official Masonic publications contain the content of Mackey's remarks--exposing them as liars?

 

[O.F.F.]

There it is by Albert Mackey, and &#8220;reproduced in the monitors of several states.&#8221; And it&#8217;s Hutchinson&#8217;s opinion, quoted directly from &#8220;The Spirit of Freemasonry.&#8221;

Now note:

Of all the Masonic writers of the 18th century, Hutchinson was undoubtedly the most learned.

http://www.tranexp.hr/primjeri_NeuroTran_recenica_10_engcro_8.html

Mackey cites a &#8220;learned writer,&#8221; he is further identified as Hutchinson. But follow this further:

It appears Wayne's own source calls into question the Hutchinson Theory, which he is trying so deligently to use to defend Freemasonry, so I ask:

Does the Hutchinsonian theory have no credibility, which is what I am about to show;

OR

Have Masonic Pastors overstated the matter when declaring how many official Masonic publications contain the content of Hutchinson's remarks--exposing them as liars to suggest that, since so many do, such a theory is valid in the defense of Freemasonry?

The theory advanced by Brother William Hutchinson as to the origin and the progress of Freemasonry, in his treatise, first published in the year 1775 and entitled The Spirit of Masonry, is so complicated and sometimes apparently so contradictory in its statements, as to require, for a due comprehension of his views, not only a careful perusal, but even an exhaustive study of the work alluded to.

http://www.tranexp.hr/primjeri_NeuroTran_recenica_10_engcro_8.html [Tue Oct 07 10:31:54 2003]

It goes on to say:

While, therefore, it is plain that the opinion of Hutchinson is in opposition to that of all other Masonic writers, it is equally evident that it contradicts all the well-established facts of history.

http://www.tranexp.hr/primjeri_NeuroTran_recenica_10_engcro_8.html [Tue Oct 07 11:48:44 2003]

Like Freemasonry itself, if he ignores HIStory how can his theory have any credibility?

The Hutchinsonian theory may indeed be regarded as especially and exclusively his own.

http://www.tranexp.hr/primjeri_NeuroTran_recenica_10_engcro_8.html [Tue Oct 07 12:05:18 2003]

This is exactly what I stressed earlier, about a Mason's opinion, but you can see how Wayne tried to dismiss this in his last post.

It is therefore worthy of consideration and review, rather in reference to the novelty of his ideas than in respect to anything of great value in the pseudo-historical statements that he has advanced.

http://www.tranexp.hr/primjeri_NeuroTran_recenica_10_engcro_8.html [Tue Oct 07 12:08:43 2003]

If a theory has no real value than why should we waste our time listening to what anyone has to say about it? More importantly, what does it say about the allegiance to Jesus of a Mason who would use a false theory to prove compatibility with the Christian faith for which he's a pastor?

 

[Rev Wayne]

It goes on to say:

That's just "it," you don't even know who or what you're quoting, what you've cited is a translation website. It doesn't even list any English titles. Don't just post links, let's cite our sources. Who is the venerable Masonic author who penned these words? I'd like some verification that this is truly Masonic opinion, otherwise I will simply accept all the Grand Lodge sources who still see Hutchinson as a knowledgeable source for this information.

 

[O.F.F.]

That's just "it," you don't even know who or what you're quoting . . . I'd like some verification that this is truly Masonic opinion, otherwise I will simply accept all the Grand Lodge sources who still see Hutchinson as a knowledgeable source for this information.

You're the one who used this source to begin with. Therefore, you MUST have known who or what you were quoting, and thought it was a credible source, Masonic or otherwise.

Rev. Wayne[/B]]

There it is by Albert Mackey, and “reproduced in the monitors of several states.” And it’s Hutchinson’s opinion, quoted directly from “The Spirit of Freemasonry.”

Now note:

Of all the Masonic writers of the 18th century, Hutchinson was undoubtedly the most learned.

http://www.tranexp.hr/primjeri_Neuro..._engcro_8.html

Mackey cites a “learned writer,” he is further identified as Hutchinson. But follow this further:

All you are doing now is further damage to your own credibility.

 

[Rev Wayne]

All you are doing now is further damage to your own credibility.

But I know what it is, Michael. How about a little credibility of your own, now?

you MUST have known who or what you were quoting, and thought it was a credible source, Masonic or otherwise.

I did, and I know it was. My point is, you do not. You simply plugged in the first thing you found on a web search. And it's obvious you don't know who it is, or you would have fired it back immediately, would you not, rather than try to point it back at me?

 

[Rev Wayne]

No idea, I take it?

The language is Hrvatski (Croatian) and the source is Albert Mackey's History of Freemasonry.

There was one small clue:

There it is by Albert Mackey, and “reproduced in the monitors of several states.” And it’s Hutchinson’s opinion, quoted directly from “The Spirit of Freemasonry.”

Now note:


Quote:
Of all the Masonic writers of the 18th century, Hutchinson was undoubtedly the most learned.

http://www.tranexp.hr/primjeri_Neuro..._engcro_8.html
Mackey cites a “learned writer,” he is further identified as Hutchinson. But follow this further:

I cited Mackey both before and after the quote. Mackey is the one who in the original portion cited called Hutchinson "the most learned" of 18th century Masonic writers, and Mackey who also made the same statement in the Hrvatski translation.

But back to the point. Your first quote. . .

The theory advanced by Brother William Hutchinson as to the origin and the progress of Freemasonry, in his treatise, first published in the year 1775 and entitled The Spirit of Masonry, is so complicated and sometimes apparently so contradictory in its statements, as to require, for a due comprehension of his views, not only a careful perusal, but even an exhaustive study of the work alluded to.

. . .says nothing in any declarative way. It says it is "complicated" and "apparently contradictory" to the point that careful and even exhaustive study is required to understand him.

And I agree. Having my own copy of Hutchinson, I can vouch for the fact that he is a hard read and takes more than the usual effort to read with complete comprehension. But that's hardly accusatory, I could say the same thing about Herman Melville (try reading Billy Budd).

While, therefore, it is plain that the opinion of Hutchinson is in opposition to that of all other Masonic writers, it is equally evident that it contradicts all the well-established facts of history.

First, it must be established what is the opinion of "all other Masonic writers."

Secondly, it must be established whether Mackey means by "all other Masonic writers," those of Hutchinson's day, or those of Mackey's. History of Freemasonry, after all, was written over a century after Spirit of Masonry.

(A corollary of this one that must also be ascertained, would naturally be, "Would establishing one or the other make any substantial difference?")

Thirdly, it must be established whether Mackey's statement that Hutchinson "contradicts all other Masonic writers" is accurate.

Fourthly, it must be established whether Mackey's claim that Hutchinson's work "contradicts all the established facts of history" is accurate.

Fifthly, it must be determined whether the remarks of Mackey as cited from the Croatian site, represent Mackey's views overall, or whether they are out of context as presented.

I will take these one at a time:

(1) Masonic writers are an independent lot, and it was true even in Mackey's day, though perhaps truer now, that Mackey's claim of Hutchinson going against "all" other Masonic writers, simply cannot be sustained. There is no one Masonic opinion of "all Masonic writers."

(2) If Hutchinson's work is evaluated in comparison with that of his contemporaries, his is very much a consensus opinion among Masons of the period. For instance, if we are talking of Masonic writers of Hutchinson's time, Preston's Monitor (1760) was criticized by some for its tendency toward Christian interpretation in some places, as was Webb's of the same time frame. Hardie's Monitor (1818) contains the later-omitted reference to Jesus Christ in the Lambskin Apron lecture:

The Lambskin has in all ages been considered as an emblem of innocence and peace. The Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, will grant to those who put their trust in Him, His peace. He, therefore, who wears the lambskin as a badge of Masonry, is reminded of that purity of life and conversation, which it is absolutely necessary for them to observe, who expect to be admitted into the Grand Lodge above.

(3) Since it cannot be established that Hutchinson wrote in contradiction to "all the Masonic writers" of his day, then we turn to the writers of Mackey's day. Here we find a broader range of Masonic opinion on practically all matters, particularly as it relates to more esoteric and philosophic speculations. Perhaps it was this trend to which Mackey referred. In fact, Pike and Mackey were the two leading Masonic writers of Mackey's day, and both were known for their speculations about all sorts of things.
But Mackey's specific claim that this was the case with "all the Masonic writers" of the time, it is far from accurate. It may certainly be noted, however, that they were not as numerous as in Hutchinson's time.

(4) It is not entirely apparent what Mackey means by "all the established facts of history." It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to determine that it is an extreme exaggeration. By the remark Mackey must have intended Masonic history, and not "all" history. And apparently he meant the history of speculation concerning Masonry's origins. But certain details of that "history" were later shown not to be accurate, and Mackey's opinions changed. I will address this in the next point:

(5) Mackey's remarks are not so much "out of context" as they are achronistic. The cited webpage quotes Mackey's History of Freemasonry, and certainly expresses his espoused positions of that time. However, those views were to change, and in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Mackey printed a retraction of his views of Masonry as ancient, and from that point his interpretations of Masonry and of Masonic symbolism, tended more towards Christian interpretation. His statement:

ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY

Years ago in writing an article on this subject under the impressions made upon me by the fascinating theories of Doctor Oliver, though I never completely accepted his views, 1 was led to place the organization of Freemasonry, as it now exists, at the building of Solomon's Temple. Many years of subsequent research have led me greatly to modify the views I had previously held.

Although I do not rank myself among those modern iconoclasts who refuse credence to every document whose authenticity, if admitted, would give to the Order a birth anterior to the beginning of the last century, I confess that I cannot find any incontrovertible evidence that would trace Freemasonry, as now organized, beyond the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages. In this point of view I speak of it only as an architectural brotherhood, distinguished by signs, by words, and by brotherly ties which have not been essentially changed, and by symbols and legends which have only been developed and extended, while the association has undergone a transformation from an operative art to a speculative science.

Besides, even when Mackey DID believe in roots of Masonry before the Middle Ages, what was he actually saying? Under his comments on "Antediluvian Masonry" in his Encyclopedia, we get a clearer picture:

"We may safely assume," he says, "that whatever had for its object and end an inducement to the practice of that morality which is founded on the love of God, may be identified with primitive Freemasonry."

Wow, "ancient Freemasonry?" It seems a broad description, not to mention a stretch of the imagination, to suggest that anything that may be defined as "morality founded on the love of God," also qualifies as "Freemasonry." Certainly it has that aspect also, but there is a lot more to be considered in the definition.

In fact, there have been some who have spoken of Masons of the period between Hutchinson's time and Mackey's, as a time when "christianization" of Masonry took place. Others view it as a time when Masons were trying to recapture what the state of Masonry was in the beginning. The fact is, the trail leads from being less Christian (explicitly, at least) to thoroughly Christian, the farther back one goes. And many, like Haywood, assert that before Anderson's Constitutions of 1723, Masonry was Christian at its modern inception in 1717, and in all times prior to that date:

The Regius Manuscript is the only one of all the versions to be written in meter, and may have been composed by a priest, if one may judge by certain internal evidences, though the point is disputed. There are some 800 lines in the poem, the strictly Masonic portion coming to an end at line 576, after which begins what Hughan calls a "sermonette" on moral duties, in which there is quite a Roman Catholic vein with references to "the sins seven", "the sweet lady" (referring to the Virgin) and to holy water. There is no such specific Mariolatry in any other version of the Old Charges, though the great majority of them express loyalty to "Holy Church" and all of them, until Anderson's familiar version, are specifically Christian, so far as religion is concerned.

(H.L. Haywood, The Builder, September 1923, "The Old Charges and What They Mean to Us")

All things considered, but most especially the retraction published by Mackey, and it is easy to see why an assertion that Mackey's comments in History of Freemasonry qualify as a rejection of Hutchinson's position, is invalid and anachronistic. He later espoused the same kinds of views which he criticized in the earlier History.

The same may be said of his supposed rejection of the opinions of Dr. Oliver, whom he repeatedly cites as authoritative in his Encyclopedia.

 

[JasonV]

Looks like the US Marines are fighting the same battle as Freemasons:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/14/D8LD0V300.html

 

[Abbadon]

Err... Not quite. If comparisons with freemasonry were to be made with this, Toys for Tots would have said "OK, we'll accept the Jesus doll" and given it to a kid that wanted a Jesus doll. They would have then done the same for a Vishnu doll.

 

[JasonV]

Err... Not quite. If comparisons with freemasonry were to be made with this, Toys for Tots would have said "OK, we'll accept the Jesus doll" and given it to a kid that wanted a Jesus doll. They would have then done the same for a Vishnu doll.

You're not a Mason. Jesus has no place in the Lodge, nor should a Jesus doll have any place in the Toys for Tots program.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Jesus has no place in the Lodge

I disagree. Those of us who are Christians have Jesus dwelling in our hearts by faith. Jesus goes in with us.

The Alabama Masonic Code takes it even further than that:

13.8. SECTARIANISM &#8212; A Mason offering prayer in the Lodge may pray to his God observing his own conception of Deity. It is therefore proper and in accordance with Masonic law and tenets for a Mason who believes in the Christ or Jesus to offer prayer in the Lodge in His Name. None should take umbrage because he addresses his prayer to his own conception of Deity. He must use prayer in the Ritual in all ritualistic ceremonies. Any other prayer is out of order in such ceremonies.

But I would never say that because of this, "they are not Masons." In my own lodge, Jesus has a place. Rarely do we have a meeting without Jesus mentioned, because we regularly end prayers "in Jesus' name."

But that's not all:

Monitor of the Grand Lodge of Ozklahoma:
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Scottish Rite ceremony held on Maundy Thursday:
My Brethren, this is the anniversary of that Last Supper of which Jesus of Nazareth partook with His humble disciples, after which He was betrayed and crucified.

Who, of any creed, can picture to himself, unmoved, that noble and sweet countenance, which never looked on anything in anger, pale with agony, and streaming with tears? His back was torn by the lash, His brow pierced by the thorns. He suffered, willingly, until it seemed, even to Him, that His God and Father had forsaken Him.

And yet, even then, bruised, hanged upon a cross, betrayed by one He loved, suffering and, for a moment, questioning, He still calls down not curses by blessings and a prayer for forgiveness upon those who had so treated Him.

Scottish Rite 18th degree:
Wherein they [older forms of religion] were deficient [Masonry] found in the New Law of Love, preached by Jesus of Nazareth, and which He sealed with His blood

North Carolina Lodge Manual:
The Holy Bible is given us as the rule and guide of faith . . . the Bible is the light which enlightens the path of our duty to God.

Louisiana Masonic Monitor:
However they may differ in creed or theology, all good men are agreed that within the covers of the Holy Bible are found those principles of morality which lay the foundation upon which to build a righteous life. . . . It is the one volume which has lived in the hearts of the people, molding and shaping their destinies; and it leads the way to Him who is the Light of the world.

Masonic Manual of the Grand Lodge of Georgia:
I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord. He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.

 

[JasonV]

I disagree. Those of us who are Christians have Jesus dwelling in our hearts by faith. Jesus goes in with us.

That's fine.

But I would never say that because of this, "they are not Masons." In my own lodge, Jesus has a place. Rarely do we have a meeting without Jesus mentioned, because we regularly end prayers "in Jesus' name."

That defeats the purpose of not discussing religion or politics in the Lodge.

Anything outside of the Blue Lodge is not Freemasonry, and therefore I could care less.

And I would like to see the Bible removed from the Altar and see a blank VSL instead. But that's me.

 

[Rev Wayne]

That defeats the purpose of not discussing religion or politics in the Lodge.

Not really. Praying a prayer in Jesus' name is not "discussing religion." Whether in open lodge or in refreshment, I have yet to hear discussions over religion or politics.

Anything outside of the Blue Lodge is not Freemasonry, and therefore I could care less.

I'm not sure what this is based on, but I can't think of a Mason I've ever met who would agree with this.

And I would like to see the Bible removed from the Altar and see a blank VSL instead. But that's me.

At least you're aware we have the Bible there (and that is true of every Grand Lodge in this country). Some people seem to think differently.