Masons

[Rev Wayne]

what i'm saying is again based on your posts, a christian mason to the very least does not believed in exclusivism, as opposed to some christians who are very exclusivist.

I think you over-generalize. I used to do the same thing in regard to Masons before I met some who didn't fit the preconceived mold. Most of them I meet in my neck of the woods are ultra-conservative, which around here means they are practically Fundamentalist Christians. The Master of my own lodge told me, when I asked about a book besides the Bible being put on the altar, that he would never allow it as long as he was the master of his lodge, and that he knew several others who told him the same thing. Now you may easily say "that's not Masonic, then," but that doesn't change its being there, and this thinking coming from Masons. As an organization they are much less uniform than opposers would have you believe. So take it with a grain of salt when anyone tells you what "all Masons believe," as if one size fits all. It just ain't so.

And anyway, I'd expect a clear definition of exclusivism, that can be different things to different folks. Some people expand its true meaning to include a belief that we are to have nothing to do with anyone who is not Christian. I find that absurd, and I will stick with my own exclusivism, which simply says Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that I will follow Christ, teach Christ, and preach Christ as long as I live.

 

[Rev Wayne]

And now, lest I should have to endure the added charge of being evasive, a response to the latest list of charges:

Now you say it is no different than a more specific phrase of “the only begotten Son of the Father.” So are you trying to say that “the only begotten Son of the Father” is a generic term for "God?"

It’s called analogy, and you don't quite seem to have a handle on it.

“The only begotten Son of the Father” says “Jesus” to the Christian just as surely as “Grand Architect of the Universe” says “God” to the Mason.

But apparently “Grand Architect of the Universe” said “God” to Christians long before it did to Masons, since apparently no one has ever raised any objections to Calvin’s use of the phrase.

Is the god of the Hindu Mason or the Muslim or the Buddhist Mason the Sovereign Creator of the Universe?

That’s not a question Masonry addresses at all. Masonry only asks the candidate if they believe in a Supreme Being. The only thing stated further about this Supreme Being, Masonically speaking, is that He is Creator—which is easily deduced from a description as “Architect of the Universe.” So no matter if they are Hindu or Muslim or Christian or whatever else, no one professes, as a Mason, anything about God except that (1) He is Sovereign and (2) He is Creator.

So if someone tells you there is only one God, that this one God is Sovereign over all, and that this on God created all things, are you denying it is true? What we're talking about here is Masonic concepts, yet you keep bringing in things that go beyond what Masonry affirms, when you keep rattling on about Hindu or Muslim or all the others. Either there is one God who created all things, or there is not. I am not the judge in the court of the Lord, I'll leave that to Him and settle for being a witness.

Grand Lodges who have far more Masonic authority than you'll ever have say they make NO such distinction:

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

I think you were in too much haste to highlight, which caused a blind spot to everything else the quotation reveals. In this particular instance, you ignored this part:

Belief in one God is required of every initiate, but his conception of the Supreme Being is left to his own interpretation.

Just as I said, Freemasonry clearly recognizes that there are distinctions—and just as clearly states that those distinctions are left up to the individual. What’s so hard to see about that?

I'd really like to continue this if you were only willing to debate, but unfortunately you seem more eager to insult than to debate, per your usual pattern:

"Only in your feeble Masonic mind" . . . For a seminary trained 'Christian' pastor, you are making no sense here," "you try to dance between your double-talk," etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

And once again, you are beginning to move from debate to personal attack. I had hoped the layoff would bring about some improvement in that regard. Apparently it has not, and I will leave you to your cursing and muttering under your breath.

 

[O.F.F.]

I asked a simply yes or no question:

Is the god of the Hindu Mason or the Muslim or the Buddhist Mason the Sovereign Creator of the Universe?

The response I got:

That’s not a question Masonry addresses at all.

This is NOT true, yet he goes on and addresses it on their behalf anyway:

Masonry only asks the candidate if they believe in a Supreme Being. The only thing stated further about this Supreme Being, Masonically speaking, is that He is Creator—which is easily deduced from a description as “Architect of the Universe.” So no matter if they are Hindu or Muslim or Christian or whatever else, no one professes, as a Mason, anything about God except that (1) He is Sovereign and (2) He is Creator.

So the "Rev" said all that, just to answer YES to my original question.

It is easily deduced from what he said, that since Masons (plural) are to believe in "a" Supreme Being (singular) regardless of their religious persuasion that "this Supreme Being" must be one in the same since they [Masons] all agree that He/It is Sovereign and Creator. In other words, Rev. Wayne clearly believes that the god of all the pagan religions are one in the same as the God of the Bible, since they all [Masons] believe "God" is one and both Sovereign and Creator.

So if someone tells you there is only one God, that this one God is Sovereign over all, and that this on God created all things, are you denying it is true? What we're talking about here is Masonic concepts, yet you keep bringing in things that go beyond what Masonry affirms, when you keep rattling on about Hindu or Muslim or all the others. Either there is one God who created all things, or there is not.

If the person telling me this is a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mason, or other pagan, YES I would deny it on the basis of their false view of "God." Although YOU may think so, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, and the G.A.O.T.U. are neither sovereign nor creator, they are ALL false gods! As a seminary-trained "Christian" pastor you should know that the Bible says that false gods are demons.

I am not the judge in the court of the Lord, I'll leave that to Him . . .

And, based upon His Word, He who is judge over all deems Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Masons, and all other pagans as IDOLATERS who will never see the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Rev Wayne]

In other words, Rev. Wayne clearly believes that the god of all the pagan religions are one in the same as the God of the Bible, since they all [Masons] believe "God" is one and both Sovereign and Creator.

Like a carnival ride, spin, spin, spin. But you're allowed to do that, I guess, it's your quarter.
Masons all come together in fraternal relationship, recognizing they have differences but willingly putting them aside for the sake of fellowship fraternally. The amazing thing is that people who differ in such degree can come together recognizing a common Creator and Sovereign and say, "This much we can agree on," and simply leave the rest to individual religious belief. I know of no other organization that accomplishes that.

No matter to what degree you wish to criticize it, or to what degree you try to ask Pharisaic questions designed to trap Masons into a corner where you can throw rocks without them simply walking away, that's the gist of it.

If the person telling me this is a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mason, or other pagan, YES I would deny it on the basis of their false view of "God."

Fine. But please do so on the basis of your Christianity and their professed faith, and leave the Masons out of it. They're not trying to convert anyone, nor are they trying to form their own religion and "win" people. They just come together in a fraternity of man and fellowship together and ultimately try to improve themselves and the world around them. Many of these men are some of our most dedicated and faithful church members, serving as Sunday School teachers, pastors, and a variety of positions in the church, and doing so faithfully and well. And somehow you wish to convince us that God has given you a ministry of calling them pagans, as you just did. Why don't you spend your time more productively and go out on the street and throw your rocks at some pimp or drug pusher?

And, based upon His Word, He who is judge over all deems Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Masons, and all other pagans as IDOLATERS who will never see the kingdom of heaven.

And with that one, I will simply direct you to Rules 2.1-2.3 for your consideration, reaffirm my full belief in and support of Rule 4.2, offer my apologies to the moderators for my own part in being in violation of rule 4.7 before this thread was relocated, and cease from further posting in a thread in which your continued attack mode style has been shown great lenience so far.

I hope you and others in your organization will find the peace you seek, but I can assure you it will never come at the expense of vilifying and condemning others, nor do I truly believe God ever called anyone to such a "ministry." Your actions and theirs are a sad testimony to the Savior and Lord we both profess, IMO.

I wish you no ill, but I will not continue to provide you with the opportunity to wish me ill either. With the current state of personal attacks, I will not continue this here or anywhere with you any further.

 

[ZionKnight]

Does that mean that you've quit posting here, rev?
I still have a lot of new questions that are not designed to attack, but rather to clarify. For example: I learned from Amadeus, that ther are two distinct rites of masonry, the scottish, and the york. My question is, what is the distinction? And, I learned from other forums a little more about the 'morality plays' and Mr. Pike's book, Morals and Dogma, are these mandatory in all lodges or just the scottish rites?

 

[ZionKnight]

And you have hit the nail square on the head with your summary notation that "Who is He?" is the ultimate question. But that is not a question Masonry tries to answer for any man. Masonry is content to bring the man to the porch, and then allow him to enter the house by the door of his choice. In that regard, I find Masonry to be very much like an analogy of a house offered by C.S. Lewis in his preface to Mere Christianity. He described belief in God as a house, with a great hall in which many people are gathered. Some people are still in the hall, some have chosen a door off the hallway through which they enter. And there are rules that apply to the whole house, that one cannot be critical of others in their choice of which doors to enter.

Masonry provides for me a great boost and an encouragement to my faith, but it is not my faith, nor does it try to be. It chooses no man's path for him, and yet it still points out the fact that there is a path, that there is a Creator who designed that path, and that we have an ultimate duty to seek the Creator, and walk the path with Him as our guide. I have no doubt that even if I were ever to stray from the path of Christian faith--which I do not see happening--and yet remained in the lodge, I would not get very far away from the "house," because Masonry would continue serving that function of bringing me back to the porch.

Sorry it took me so long to reply, everytime I tried to go to CF, it kept telling me that it could not find the server, whatever that means.
I went back to my own copy of Mere Christianity, and re-read what you alluded to. By the way, C. S. Lewis is my role model, I am an aspiring writer and I am the equivalent of a shade tree mechanic in philosiphy and theology, (does that make me a front-porch theologian?) I can only hope that I can be in the place where God (Jahovah, Jesus, Parakleete,) can use me to reach the world like that. I am sure that you were only using him as a reference, but I thought it needful to point out that his 'house' was filled with the many denominations of one faith, christianity. The rest of the world would, by reason of logic, be down the street.

 

[hybrid]

I think you over-generalize. I used to do the same thing in regard to Masons before I met some who didn't fit the preconceived mold. Most of them I meet in my neck of the woods are ultra-conservative, which around here means they are practically Fundamentalist Christians. The Master of my own lodge told me, when I asked about a book besides the Bible being put on the altar, that he would never allow it as long as he was the master of his lodge, and that he knew several others who told him the same thing. Now you may easily say "that's not Masonic, then," but that doesn't change its being there, and this thinking coming from Masons. As an organization they are much less uniform than opposers would have you believe. So take it with a grain of salt when anyone tells you what "all Masons believe," as if one size fits all. It just ain't so.

i don't mean to put your beliefs in a box, though genaralization has its merits too. it does simplify say the bone of contention, so to speak.

way i see it, if OFF will have his way, christians ought to fraternalize exclusively with fellow believers only.

but to you, what's wrong with praying to god in one room with a muslim, jew and buddhist(calling each to his own of course), drink a couple of lites and talk about taking over the world.(=

And anyway, I'd expect a clear definition of exclusivism, that can be different things to different folks. Some people expand its true meaning to include a belief that we are to have nothing to do with anyone who is not Christian. I find that absurd, and I will stick with my own exclusivism, which simply says Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that I will follow Christ, teach Christ, and preach Christ as long as I live.

exclusivism in its extreme form is a belief that attached itself to a system of beliefs. exclusivism is the belief that one's system of belief is the right belief and therefore any other beliefs outside his church or denomination are false and all other gods of all other religions are false gods.

As an organization they are much less uniform than opposers would have you believe. So take it with a grain of salt when anyone tells you what "all Masons believe," as if one size fits all. It just ain't so.

yes of course, but undenibly, whatever it is that binds all masons is naturaly masonic in nature, whatever that could be.


.

 

[amadeus72]

I still have a lot of new questions that are not designed to attack, but rather to clarify. For example: I learned from Amadeus, that ther are two distinct rites of masonry, the scottish, and the york. My question is, what is the distinction?

The earliest known Masonic document is called the Regius Manuscript, and describes a Masonic gathering at York, England in the tenth century. As modern Masonry developed, the system began to be referred to as "York Rite" to denote it's possibly apocryphal origins. Originally, the York Rite consisted only of the three degrees that are now known as "Blue Lodge", but several more new degrees were added to the sysem beginning in the 1720's. The degrees of the York Rite are divided as follows:

SYMBOLIC (BLUE) LODGE

Entered Apprentice
Fellow Craft
Master Mason

CHAPTER OF ROYAL ARCH MASONS

Mark Master
Past Master
Most Excellent Master
Royal Arch Mason

COUNCIL OF CRYPTIC MASONS

Royal Master
Select Master

COMMANDERY OF KNIGHTS TEMPLAR

Order of the Red Cross
Order of Knights of Malta
Order of Knights Templar

The degrees of the Lodge, Chapter, and Council are opened to any man of good character who meets the preliminary requirements. The Chivalric Orders, however, only admit Christians.

The Scottish Rite is a different system of Masonry that originated in France under the name "Rite of Perfection". This Rite was based on the legend that modern Masonry descended from the Knights Templar. According to the legend, fugitive Templars fled to Scotland and aided Robert the Bruce against the English invaders at the Battle of Bannockburn. In recognition of their service, Robert created, and conferred upon them, the Order of St. Andrew. The legend goes on to say that the Templars, who were expert craftsmen, joined the local masonic guilds and eventually went underground, continuing their organization in secret to escape persecution. They supposedly built Rosslyn Chapel.

This French Rite of Perfection consisted of 25 degrees, but eventually went defunct. In 1801, a group of 11 York Rite Masons in Charleston, South Carolina combined these 25 degrees with an additional 8 degrees taken from the French Philosophical Rite, and created a new system of 33 degrees. They called the new Rite "Scottish" due to the degrees' central legend about Scottish Templars, and organized the first Supreme Council of the 33° of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Masonry.

And, I learned from other forums a little more about the 'morality plays' and Mr. Pike's book, Morals and Dogma, are these mandatory in all lodges or just the scottish rites?

"Morals and Dogma" has never been mandatory anywhere, although, up until the late 1960's, it was given as a gift to all new Scottish Rite members in the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States. Today, the book given to new members is "A Bridge To Light" by Dr. Rex Hutchens.

Pike's "Morals and Dogma" is a combination of both a history book and a philosophy text. It could be argued that it belongs much more in a university classroom than in a Masonic Lodge, although I find it unfortunate that it's not widely read anymore. In it, Pike attempts to trace the evolution of philosophical thought concerning both morality and religious dogma, from the earliest man to the present. It was written specifically for Scottish Rite Masons who hold membership in the Southern Jurisdiction of the USA, but can be appreciated by anyone of at least average intelligence who wants to study it.

The book is divided into 32 chapters, each representing one of the 32 primary degrees of the Scottish Rite (the 33° is honorary). However, as often as not, the writing found within has nothing to do with the degree ceremony that the chapter corresponds to, so it could be read in the same manner as any other book on philosophy, like Kant, Plato, or Hume.

 

[amadeus72]

yes of course, but undenibly, whatever it is that binds all masons is naturaly masonic in nature, whatever that could be.

These things are not, however, exclusively Masonic. The Boy Scouts, for example, open and close meetings in prayer just like Masonic Lodges do, but do not require Boy Scouts to be Christian. If Mr. Gentry's comments about a "generic God" are true about Masonry, then obviously they must hold for Boy Scouts too, which of course is absurd.

Nor is Masonry the only adult fraternal order with this particular stance. Practically all of them hold the same views, with the exception of Knights of Columbus, who require all men who apply for membership to be Roman Catholics.

But the Elks, Eagles, Fraternal Order of Police, Knights of Pythias, etc., etc., all admit those who believe in God without prejudice regarding their personal religious beliefs.

 

[buddy mack]

Hey guys,
Not sure where this goes but I like to come in here and read a lot so I posted it here (PLEASE send me a private message is it has been moved!!) ...

OK.. here goes my question:

What is the deal with The Masons? Who are they? Are they considered Christians? Is this a Cult? Can you "get out" of this fraternity?

Thanks!

You can't have mason without dixion and i think it is at 33 and1/3 degree north, but i could be wrong. However there is a group of men who call themself Masons and they meet in secret or sacret meeting houses. The best known of these secret or sacret meeting houses is located in Roswell New Mexico.

 

[ZionKnight]

I was just about to ask about the degrees, but it seems that you have already answered it. I assume that the concept of degrees is universal among the masons? And, it seems that the only thing else universal among the masons is the 'Fatherhood of God, Brotherhood of man' doctirne that the rev, so elequently and elaborately, laid out to us. I hope to comment on it, later however.

 

[amadeus72]

I assume that the concept of degrees is universal among the masons?

Yes, but degrees are sometimes misunderstood by non-Masons, so I'll try to elaborate.

Masonic initiation is divided into three degrees for the sake of convenience. This is a tradition carried forth from the medieval guilds, who used two degrees (Apprentice and Journeyman), with a third Master's degree (which denoted a Journeyman of the first class).

Modern Masonry maintains this system of three degrees. The First Degree introduces the candidate to Masonic symbolism, the Second Degree concerns the new sciences that were in vogue during the Enlightenment, as well as additional speculation on ethics and morality, and the Third Degree recounts the central Masonic legends.

Pretty early on, beginning around 1720, it was noticed that these degree initiation ceremonies did not quite do justice to their contents. For example, the Greek philosophers had a mystical concept of numbers in general, and in particular, geometry and algebra. The Third Degree ritual brings this to the candidate's attention, but there's only so much you can fit into an hour-and-a-half ceremony, so it isn't elaborated on in depth, but just mentioned in passing before moving on to something else.

Additional degrees were then composed for the purpose of correcting this problem. For example, today, in the Scottish Rite, the 12° is called Master Architect, and the entire ceremony concerns the ancients' ideas concerning geometry, algebra, and architecture.

This is the same with all of the so-called "higher degrees". They really don't add anything new to the Masonic system, but they elaborate on the ideas brought forth during the first three degrees. This is also what is meant when we tell new members that the "higher degrees" cannot make them more of a Mason than they already are, but they can make them better Masons.

Degrees do not confer rank of any kind, but simply membership status. One becomes a full member of the Lodge by receiving the third, or Master Mason, degree. All Master Masons in good standing may then receive the "higher degrees" of the York and/or Scottish Rites if they so desire.

In most jurisdictions, it takes about two months to go from being a non-Mason to a Master Mason, as most Grand Lodges require a minimum 28 day period between degrees. Once one becomes a Master Mason, there is no minimal waiting time for the additional york or Scottish Rite degrees, and he may apply for, and receive them, whenever it's convenient.

And, it seems that the only thing else universal among the masons is the 'Fatherhood of God, Brotherhood of man' doctirne that the rev, so elequently and elaborately, laid out to us.

Actually, there's quite a bit that's universal among Masons, but this is possibly the one that's the most abstract. By proclaiming this, we aren't saying that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot are our brothers. We are simply stating an ideal, i.e., this is the way it should be. We should consider the human race one family, and treat each other accordingly. Of course, humanity has a long way to go before it reaches that point, if it ever does. But regardless, we believe we should at least try, and in doing so, we can be fairly sure that we do not violate the laws of morality and lovingkindness.

 

[Rev Wayne]

but to you, what's wrong with praying to god in one room with a muslim, jew and buddhist(calling each to his own of course), drink a couple of lites and talk about taking over the world.

Never came close to anything resembling that. Prayers in the ritual are form prayers, and religion-neutral. Prayers other than those are mostly prayers to open the meeting or close it. It’s not much different than what Congress does to open session. But I see no one clamoring about Christians who would run for public office, or about how Christians in public office should have nothing to do with the prayers to open congressional sessions. I see no one clamoring about the Boy Scouts or about civic organizations or anyone else who prays by the same kind of format. A couple of years ago I had the privilege of being on a school district advisory board charged with allocation of federal funds in the amount of $3 million for our district alone. The first meeting I attended, we had prayer before we started, committing our actions to God. I had no idea who these people were, I had been invited to be a member of the board and I responded. But I sure was glad to see they were committing their time to God first, rather than not.

As far as “drinking a couple of lites,” I’ve never seen alcohol in the lodge at all.

And “taking over the world?” You’ve been reading too many conspiratorially-minded antimasons. They’re the only ones who have any need to believe such a farce.

exclusivism is the belief that one's system of belief is the right belief and therefore any other beliefs outside his church or denomination are false and all other gods of all other religions are false gods.

And apparently you missed my answer, even though you quoted it:

I will stick with my own exclusivism, which simply says Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that I will follow Christ, teach Christ, and preach Christ as long as I live.

If you have a problem with what I believe exclusively in that regard, please state your problem and give us a reason.

undenibly, whatever it is that binds all masons is naturaly masonic in nature, whatever that could be.

I could be mistaken, but I think we’ve already stated it:

Belief in a Supreme Being;
Belief in an afterlife;
3 cardinal tenets of brotherly love, relief, and truth.

All else is corollary, some of which may be “Masonic” and some not.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Today, the book given to new members is "A Bridge To Light" by Dr. Rex Hutchens.

Nobody gave me one, so this is not true everywhere, apparently. Would you happen to know any more details about that?

I do have a copy of A Bridge to Light, but I got it online. The only book I was given was the Holy Bible, Master Mason edition, presented to all candidates in our jurisdiction at raising.

Actually, there's quite a bit that's universal among Masons, but this is possibly the one that's the most abstract. By proclaiming this, we aren't saying that Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot are our brothers. We are simply stating an ideal, i.e., this is the way it should be. We should consider the human race one family, and treat each other accordingly. Of course, humanity has a long way to go before it reaches that point, if it ever does. But regardless, we believe we should at least try, and in doing so, we can be fairly sure that we do not violate the laws of morality and lovingkindness.

Good words, and I certainly would not disagree with them. By the "we" I take it you are a brother Mason and I greet you as such. But my own read of the most common Masonic statement on the matter (already quoted), is that the "brotherhood of man" is an expression of what is, and not merely what should be. But the expression is devoid of theological or moral content, even though it is an expression found, as already shown, at various points in scripture. The connection is as Paul describes it in Acts 17, that everyone on earth has been "made of one blood." We easily see that in familial relations and our nearer kin, but we find it harder to view all those on the earth as our "extended family." But by the biblical accounts that is what we are, whether it is taken back to Adam as the father of the race, or to Noah as the one from whom all the race after the flood are descended.

To my own thinking, Jesus affirmed the same thing, most directly in the story of the Good Samaritan. He does so again, though a bit more indirectly, in Matthew 25, in the description of the separation of sheep and goats at the end of the age. The basis of the separation was, "If you have done it unto the least these my brethren, you have done it unto me." These were not Jesus' literal brothers He was speaking of; nor were they "spiritual brethren" simply by virtue of their being poor and thus needing help; nor would it seem likely that in speaking of those were poor and in need of help, that Jesus would have excluded all others to limit His meaning to only those residing in Israel; instead, He seems to use "brethren" in the sense of being fellow humans. Thus, of the four distinct uses of "brethren" that may be found in Scripture, three of them are logically impossible or improbable, and the use of "brethren" by Jesus in Matthew 25 finds the best fit in the fourth, the common bond of humanity.

 

[hybrid]

And apparently you missed my answer, even though you quoted it:

If you have a problem with what I believe exclusively in that regard, please state your problem and give us a reason.

no, i did not missed it. i only responded to your inquiry as to what exclusivism means to me.

but if you feel i need to comment on your post:

I will stick with my own exclusivism, which simply says Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that I will follow Christ, teach Christ, and preach Christ as long as I live.

i don't have a problem with it. i don't even think it's exclusivist. i don't have a problem with mason or anything masonic. though i do have a problem with exclusivists, but don't tell our ex-mason friends, i'll deny it.



.

 

[ZionKnight]

I went back to my own copy of Mere Christianity, and re-read what you alluded to. I am sure that you were only using him as a reference, but I thought it needful to point out that his 'house' was filled with the many denominations of one faith, christianity. The rest of the world would, by reason of logic, be down the street.

At first, I wrote that just being a little silly. Then, I thought a little more about the subject, and realized that there was a lot more to that then I first thought.
Since you've read Mere Christianity, Rev, you might remember that Lewis addresses the Fatherhood of God, breifly. He explained the difference between 'created' sonship and 'begotten' Son. How that He, through Jesus, created man in his image, much like we would make a statue or poem about ourself, only on a devine level. But Jesus is the Only begotten Son of the Father. He explained that (without the tampering of science,) cow begets cow, frog begets frog, human begets human, etc.. In that same logic, God would only naturaly beget God. (John 1)
Here is the difference between how all creation can call God Father, (man, angels, donkeys, demons, rocks, stars, time, etc.) and how those who have been crucified with christ, and have mortified the flesh by the Spirit and have 'put on Christ', those who are 'in Christ' can call Him Abba, Father in a whole new way.
A buddhist mason cannot call Him Father any way near the way that a christian can. And, this is where I go back to my joke, we are exclusivists, in the way that you mentioned, not just anyone can go boldly before the Throne, the house of God is for his people, in fact, He made US His house. No one serving another god can lay hold to that privilege. Our 'brotherhood' is very exclusive and the Master of the Kingdom cannot accept any one comming in from 'another way'.

 

[ZionKnight]

Master Mason edition? Hmmmm.

I read (well skimmed over,) the Morals and Dogma book online. Let me see if I got what would be generaly accepted Ideology from Mr. Pike, bearing in mind the many disclaimers given by the masons here, in other forums, and even at the beggining of the book itself.
It seems that Pike listed a vast number of religions and faith systems, (I doubt that he list them all, but it looks like he sure tried,) and tried to find a common denominator. He suggests that all religions came from one 'first religion', that all gods are shadows (so to speak,) of the One True Creator (whoever He is,). I get the impression that he claims that the 'splintering' of religions happened after the flood known as Noah's flood. Probobly at the tower of Babel, but I don't know that for sure, I only skimmed through it. That ultimately, nearly all peoples hold that 'light' and 'nature' are the best descriptions that they could find to explain God. That, while the Invisible Supreme One is not those things that He created, they do serve to 'point' us to Him.

That's all I got, so far. Am I close? If not please clarify, I know that all masons do not hold all of his doctrines to be true, but I don't have access to the other book, and, if those things mentioned are agreeable, then we have a point of reference to work from. If not, then I will keep trying to find one.

 

[amadeus72]

Nobody gave me one, so this is not true everywhere, apparently. Would you happen to know any more details about that?

It would depend on where you hold membership. It is given as a gift by Statute in the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States. If you're in the Northern Jurisdiction, Canada, or the UK, the book is not used (as they do not use the Pike ritual).

However, if you're in the Southern Jurisdiction and didn't get one, you can call the Secretary of your Scottish Rite Temple and let him know, he'll get a new one for you.

 

[amadeus72]

Master Mason edition? Hmmmm.

Master Mason editions are King James Versions with the Master Mason symbol on the cover, and a concordance in the back which references biblical verses to different parts of Masonic ritual.

I read (well skimmed over,) the Morals and Dogma book online. Let me see if I got what would be generaly accepted Ideology from Mr. Pike, bearing in mind the many disclaimers given by the masons here, in other forums, and even at the beggining of the book itself.
It seems that Pike listed a vast number of religions and faith systems, (I doubt that he list them all, but it looks like he sure tried,) and tried to find a common denominator. He suggests that all religions came from one 'first religion', that all gods are shadows (so to speak,) of the One True Creator (whoever He is,). I get the impression that he claims that the 'splintering' of religions happened after the flood known as Noah's flood. Probobly at the tower of Babel, but I don't know that for sure, I only skimmed through it.

I'm not sure that he tried ti find a common denominator as much as he was trying to trace the history of moral philosophy and religious dogma in themselves. Therefore, naturally, he uses a lot of comparative religion in his book.

As for religion becoming splintered after Noah and Babel, this probably wasn't Pike's opinion. Pike was nominally a Christian, but seems to have been much more of a "Jeffersonian Christian", bordering on a Deist. Some of his writings indicate that he didn't take many things in the Bible literally, including the story of the Flood and Babel Tower.

He wrote several non-Masonic books on philosophy and history, including "Lectures On The Indo-Aryans" and "Lectures On the Irano-Aryans" where he seems to have come to the conclusion that monotheism began with the ancient Aryans who composed the earliest Vedas, but was eventually corrupted into paganism with the advent of Hinduism. He then claimed that Zoroastrianism preserved the original monotheistic thought, but added a type of dualism that influenced Christianity (apparently, Pike considered Satan to be the Christian version of Ahriman, the demon who opposes Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism). Pike believed the link between Christianity and Zoroastrianism could be found in the Gospel of Matthew, where it is shown that the first people who recognized Christ were not only Gentiles, but Magi (the Zoroastrian priestly caste).

That ultimately, nearly all peoples hold that 'light' and 'nature' are the best descriptions that they could find to explain God. That, while the Invisible Supreme One is not those things that He created, they do serve to 'point' us to Him.

That's all I got, so far. Am I close? If not please clarify, I know that all masons do not hold all of his doctrines to be true, but I don't have access to the other book, and, if those things mentioned are agreeable, then we have a point of reference to work from. If not, then I will keep trying to find one.

As mentioned, Pike was more of a Thomas Jefferson Christian than an "orthodox" one, and shared many of those views with the Deists. Although he never actually came right out and said it (because he considered himself a philosopher and historian, rather than a theologian), I think it would be fair to place Pike in the category of a Unitarian Universalist (he was nominally an Episcopalian, but his personal beliefs were much closer to UU). I say this with one qualification, however: Pike is always clear that he believes that God has a trinitarian nature, which the original Unitarians denied.

 

[Rev Wayne]

It would depend on where you hold membership. It is given as a gift by Statute in the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States. If you're in the Northern Jurisdiction, Canada, or the UK, the book is not used (as they do not use the Pike ritual).

However, if you're in the Southern Jurisdiction and didn't get one, you can call the Secretary of your Scottish Rite Temple and let him know, he'll get a new one for you.

Actually, as one who has not progressed beyond MM, I would not be due one anyway. But I think a correction is in order to your statement that "every new member" receives one, since actually they are not presented until the 14th degree.
Of course, for someone going the one-day route, that might be different, but most of the Masons I know are critical of that procedure anyway.

Cordially,
The Rev