Masons

[ZionKnight]

I never said he could. To do so would be to address Fatherhood of God in the spiritual sense, and if you will check my post, I clearly posted the best-known Masonic statement on the matter, and identified it as speaking of the Fatherhood of God only in the sense of God as creational “Father” of all humanity. Masonry’s statement does not go beyond that, it simply says we in our humanity are all created by the same “Almighty Parent.”

I also agreed earlier that spiritually speaking we are children of God by the New Birth through knowledge of Jesus Christ.

So for whatever reason you would do so, you are criticizing that which I have not stated and do not believe.

There are four distinct ideas of Fatherhood of God that are found expressed in Scripture. If you continue to address only one, you will not correctly understand Masonry or the Bible on the matter of the Fatherhood of God. I have found the following distinction helpful:






Yes, the image of the body as the temple of God is a correct one, and is a prominent image found in the symbolism of Masonry.

But we can’t forget the fact that Jesus still spoke in terms of the house of God as the house of God, and ran moneychangers out of the temple. And by His own words at the time He did so, He shows a broader concept of God’s house than you just expressed:

“Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations?’” (Mark 11:17)



I never made a direct comparison of the two, where were you? In the particular expression of the analogy I used, Masonry never even entered the house:

(QUOTE)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.(UNQUOTE)

But even so, I have to say, not all Christians look like they belong in the same house together. In fact, as an Arminian believer, I have to say, there are points in Calvinism that from an Arminian viewpoint appear to be diametrically opposite. By the view that has commonly been expressed here, that makes one position or the other a believer in a "false god." Some of us, however, have no problem accepting that the things that seem impossible to us are possible with God.

Oh, Rev, I'm not one to cross swords like that, I apologize if I seem too critical. Try not to consider me as one who is one who is striking out with torch and pitchfork in hand, but rather as one who is trying to hold the lamp close and squinting carefuly so as to 'reveal' the Mystery.

It was your mentioning Lewis' house as belief in God, that I misunderstood, it could be taken as belief in the God of christianity, but it could also mean belief in God..ahem..whoever He is.

As to the Fatherhood of God, I was trying to emphasize how we as christians, are exclusive. Even to the point that we claim that there is no other god beside or above our God, that any one trying to get to the gates of Heaven by any other way, is a theif and a robber. I realize that you incuded all this, but I am not sure that, bearing all this in mind, I could accept what has been given as the overall 'vision' of freemasory.

 

[amadeus72]

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.

Ah, ok. I meant "all new members of the Scottish Rite", as "A Bridge To Light" is a Scottish Rite text.

In the Southern Jurisdiction (and also in the Northern Jurisdiction), the Scottish Rite degrees are conferred at Reunions upon "classes" of candidates. Reunions generally last two weekends, and are held twice per year.

We usually begin on Friday evening, confer degrees until around 11 P.M., then begin early on Saturday morning, going up to the 18° by late afternoon. The next weekend we do the 19° - 32°. All petitioners to the Scottish Rite in both US Jurisdictions must apply for at least all the degrees up to the 14°, which, in the Southern Jurisdiction, means that each member will have a copy of the book before he goes home.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As to the Fatherhood of God, I was trying to emphasize how we as christians, are exclusive. Even to the point that we claim that there is no other god beside or above our God, that any one trying to get to the gates of Heaven by any other way, is a theif and a robber.

And on that point, it has been my own observation over the course of time, that we of the Christian faith have come full circle to the point that our exclusivity is no different than that of the first century Jews. Jesus took them to task for their proud claims of "Salvation is of the Jews," and sometimes it seems to me we are playing the peacock and strutting boldly where angels fear to tread and proclaiming the same thing with a different twist, "Salvation is of the Christians."

So I find myself questioning even the most basic tenets we cling to, just to see what the foundation does, will it "take a licking and keep on ticking," so to speak. Maybe we like to think we've got it all down pat better than the others, but history says differently. Of course, many of us justify ourselves by pointing out that much of that history was through the Catholic church, and we don't want to have anything to do with those ol' Catholics anyway, right? Never mind that out of our own ranks have come witch hunters, abortion doctor murderers, and cross burners and Jew-haters and Fred Phelps and lethargy in both pew and pulpit. It just seems to me that we are told that "God loved us while we were yet sinners" and nobody seems to have any concept that we should "go and do likewise." Or if they have any inclination to show that message of love at all, they insist that as a prerequisite we must make sure they all know that we are the privileged class, not them, and that they should never forget it, as the primary message.

And because of that, which is an atmosphere of automatic disdain of other faith systems, we have become less effective than we might otherwise be. I tend to believe the old adage that we catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and I have no problem with an organization that allows me to approach anyone from a different faith with an attitude of "Okay, we agree that we disagree on many things, but we can agree that there is one Creator who made all things, and that He is sovereign Lord of all, and be content to go no further than the things we hold in common, for the sake of providing the means by which we can come together for our mutual benefit and do what we can jointly to benefit our fellow man."

Yet we do that, and we are criticized for daring to do it with those who are not like us, those that the boo-birds tell us to shun and exclude. And the ones who thus criticize, do so on the basis of how they pick and choose little snippets from "God's Word" to justify it--all the while ignoring the incredible witness of the one whose name we bear as Chrisitians, who was roundly criticized for "eating with publicans and sinners," caught a bit of flak for daring to side with an adulteress about to be put to death, who was looked on with amazement by a woman at a well who couldn't believe a Jewish man would actually give her the time of day, who was chased out of the synagogue with the intent of putting Him to death because He dared to emphasize the fact that of all the people in OT times who had leprosy, the only one the prophet was sent to was Naaman the Syrian, and that of all the widows in Israel who needed help, the one to whom the prophet was sent was the Gentile widow at Zarephath.

Sorry, but I can't go the route of ostracism and exclusion, I prefer engagement, and if the gifts and graces of God have any evidence in our lives as Christians, the light will shine and others will see it.

Am I making any sense? Probably not, it will be said of me pretty much the same as was said of the man who pointed out the senselessness of war in Mark Twain's "The War Prayer":

"It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said."

 

[ZionKnight]

And on that point, it has been my own observation over the course of time, that we of the Christian faith have come full circle to the point that our exclusivity is no different than that of the first century Jews. Jesus took them to task for their proud claims of "Salvation is of the Jews," and sometimes it seems to me we are playing the peacock and strutting boldly where angels fear to tread and proclaiming the same thing with a different twist, "Salvation is of the Christians."

So I find myself questioning even the most basic tenets we cling to, just to see what the foundation does, will it "take a licking and keep on ticking," so to speak. Maybe we like to think we've got it all down pat better than the others, but history says differently. Of course, many of us justify ourselves by pointing out that much of that history was through the Catholic church, and we don't want to have anything to do with those ol' Catholics anyway, right? Never mind that out of our own ranks have come witch hunters, abortion doctor murderers, and cross burners and Jew-haters and Fred Phelps and lethargy in both pew and pulpit. It just seems to me that we are told that "God loved us while we were yet sinners" and nobody seems to have any concept that we should "go and do likewise." Or if they have any inclination to show that message of love at all, they insist that as a prerequisite we must make sure they all know that we are the privileged class, not them, and that they should never forget it, as the primary message.

And because of that, which is an atmosphere of automatic disdain of other faith systems, we have become less effective than we might otherwise be. I tend to believe the old adage that we catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and I have no problem with an organization that allows me to approach anyone from a different faith with an attitude of "Okay, we agree that we disagree on many things, but we can agree that there is one Creator who made all things, and that He is sovereign Lord of all, and be content to go no further than the things we hold in common, for the sake of providing the means by which we can come together for our mutual benefit and do what we can jointly to benefit our fellow man."

Yet we do that, and we are criticized for daring to do it with those who are not like us, those that the boo-birds tell us to shun and exclude. And the ones who thus criticize, do so on the basis of how they pick and choose little snippets from "God's Word" to justify it--all the while ignoring the incredible witness of the one whose name we bear as Chrisitians, who was roundly criticized for "eating with publicans and sinners," caught a bit of flak for daring to side with an adulteress about to be put to death, who was looked on with amazement by a woman at a well who couldn't believe a Jewish man would actually give her the time of day, who was chased out of the synagogue with the intent of putting Him to death because He dared to emphasize the fact that of all the people in OT times who had leprosy, the only one the prophet was sent to was Naaman the Syrian, and that of all the widows in Israel who needed help, the one to whom the prophet was sent was the Gentile widow at Zarephath.

Sorry, but I can't go the route of ostracism and exclusion, I prefer engagement, and if the gifts and graces of God have any evidence in our lives as Christians, the light will shine and others will see it.

Am I making any sense? Probably not, it will be said of me pretty much the same as was said of the man who pointed out the senselessness of war in Mark Twain's "The War Prayer":

"It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said."

I think you're making sense. Let your light so shine... Love your neighbor.. and pretty much show Jesus to your 'brothers' in your actions and not your words.
Jesus, the Christ whose name we bear as christians, also told us not to think that He came to bring peace into the world, (not yet, at least,) but quite the opposite. He said that the world would hate us just like they hated Him. That, if we wanted to follow Him that we would have to take up our cross and 'follow suit'.

Those are just a few tid bits I like to pull out and crow. Here's another one: For this purpose was the Son of God made manifest; that He might desroy the works of the devil. and Even as he is, so are we in the world.
and The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to the pulling down of strongholds.

Let's say, you and I meet a Zoroastrian, (did I spell that right?) betweet the both of our posts, we can ask three questions:
1. can a Zoroastrian, get to heaven, being a Z guy? I'll leave you to answer that one.

2. should we love the Z guy? That one I will answer (I get to pick the easy ones... nah, nah.) Of course we should love our neighbor.

3. should we love, or accept the Z guy's Zism? I would say no, beacuse I still believe that there is evil forces at work trying to confuse Z guy from worshiping the one true God. But, I am curious as to how you would answer that.


and and and........WHAT in God's beautiful green earth, is a boo bird?

 

[Orontes]

Let's say, you and I meet a Zoroastrian, (did I spell that right?) betweet the both of our posts, we can ask three questions:
1. can a Zoroastrian, get to heaven, being a Z guy? I'll leave you to answer that one.

2. should we love the Z guy? That one I will answer (I get to pick the easy ones... nah, nah.) Of course we should love our neighbor.

3. should we love, or accept the Z guy's Zism? I would say no, beacuse I still believe that there is evil forces at work trying to confuse Z guy from worshiping the one true God. But, I am curious as to how you would answer that.


and and and........WHAT in God's beautiful green earth, is a boo bird?

Hello,

You spelt Zoroastrian correctly.

I think your questions are good ones. Perhaps one can note that all theological difference aside, pursuit of the good is its own reward. Further, insofar as a man sincerely seeks the good to the best of his understanding then it becomes problematic to condemn that same person outright for assuming a contrary theology: particularly if one holds that one cannot be held accountable for what they do not understand and that God is the embodiment of the good which includes notions of mercy.

I don't know what a boo bird is either.

 

[ZionKnight]

Ah ha! So you submit to our repertoire a fourth question:

4. Should we tell Z guy that he is going to hell if he doesn't turn to Jesus?

 

[Rev Wayne]

I think you're making sense. Let your light so shine... Love your neighbor.. and pretty much show Jesus to your 'brothers' in your actions and not your words.

Jesus, the Christ whose name we bear as christians, also told us not to think that He came to bring peace into the world, (not yet, at least,) but quite the opposite. He said that the world would hate us just like they hated Him. That, if we wanted to follow Him that we would have to take up our cross and 'follow suit'.

I hope I’m not hearing you correctly, because it sounded to me like you just took the comments from the first paragraph and pitted them against the second? Are we, then, not to try to work toward peace, simply because Jesus said these words? Does not Romans 12:18 tell us, “as much as lies within you, live peaceably with all people?” Does not Hebrews 12:!4 tell us “Follow peace with all people. . . ?” And yes, I agree, as He said, the world will hate us, but that hatred is basically because we identify with Him. Taking up our cross and following Him is not a contrast to what I stated, but the embodiment of it, living the principles already stated, which you reiterated, “let your light so shine,” “love your neighbor,” etc. etc. You make it sound as though you would have us go out and intentionally pursue things that would make us hated.

But I’m only describing what it sounded like to read the contrast as it was posted, which may or may not be what you intended.

Those are just a few tid bits I like to pull out and crow. Here's another one: For this purpose was the Son of God made manifest; that He might desroy the works of the devil. and Even as he is, so are we in the world.
and The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to the pulling down of strongholds.

A strange collection of scriptures. Let me dissect for a moment, if I may:

For this purpose was the Son of God made manifest; that He might desroy the works of the devil.
1 John 3:8

Even as he is, so are we in the world.
1 John 4:17

The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to the pulling down of strongholds.
2 Corinthians 10:4

Again I find myself questioning whether I could possibly be hearing you right. You sound as though you are saying:

“Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil; and because we are “as He is” in the world, we should do the same; and we have weapons which are effective in doing this work of destroying the works of the devil.”

At least, that’s what I draw from the stringing together of these verses from three separate contexts. Perhaps that’s valid scriptural exegesis for you, but I can’t go there with you. The first reference from 1 John 3:8 was giving instruction on how to differentiate between good and evil actions of others, and recognizing the source of each. (The verse actually begins “He who sins is of the devil.”) The second reference from 1 John 4:17 was in a section specifically focused on love—love has been perfected, giving us boldness in the day of judgment, because we are as He is in this world, and anyone who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. The third from 2 Cor. 10:4 comes from a section in which Paul is defending his apostleship and authority to admonish the Corinthians, and apparently someone has suggested that his righteous indignation toward them springs from carnality rather than from any authority given from God.

So to me, it seems an incredibly strange thing to pull these verses together in piecemeal fashion and try to make a statement for Christian belligerence. At least, that’s how I take the comments, since they were posted as a counter to my own comments about showing a true Christian witness by our gifts and graces rather than slamming other faiths as the way to witness.

As for your questions:

can a Zoroastrian, get to heaven, being a Z guy? I'll leave you to answer that one.

I can only answer the same way that Jesus answered when Peter came to Him with a question of “Lord, what about this man?” Our Lord replied to Him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you. You follow me.”

In other words, the ultimate question of another’s salvation or anything else for that matter, isn’t up to us. I cannot tell you what God will decide about another man’s eternal soul, those things are up to God alone. All I can do is follow Him and point the way to Christ.

Apparently you chose to answer #2, so we come to the third:

should we love, or accept the Z guy's Zism?

Strange question. Where in anything I have posted did you get the idea that by accepting the “Z guy” in a fraternal relationship, I was suggesting we also accept his “Zism?” That’s not what Masonry is about by any means, it’s about coming together in spite of our differences, not coming together in an attempt to reconcile them.

and and and........WHAT in God's beautiful green earth, is a boo bird?

And what, I might ask in return, is “God’s beautiful green earth?” (It is, after all, bluish in appearance to those on the outside looking in.)

 

[O.F.F.]

Rev. Wayne,

Since Jesus said of Himself, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), and commanded us to "therefore go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), as Christians aren't we obligated to not only evangelize, but in doing so to also inform those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the eternal consequences of their rejection of Him, whether they are Masons or not?

These are the very words of Jesus:

John 3:18

Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Or do we simply let them die uninformed about the consequences of their decision against Christ?

 

[ZionKnight]

I hope I’m not hearing you correctly, because it sounded to me like you just took the comments from the first paragraph and pitted them against the second? Are we, then, not to try to work toward peace, simply because Jesus said these words? Does not Romans 12:18 tell us, “as much as lies within you, live peaceably with all people?” Does not Hebrews 12:!4 tell us “Follow peace with all people. . . ?” And yes, I agree, as He said, the world will hate us, but that hatred is basically because we identify with Him. Taking up our cross and following Him is not a contrast to what I stated, but the embodiment of it, living the principles already stated, which you reiterated, “let your light so shine,” “love your neighbor,” etc. etc. You make it sound as though you would have us go out and intentionally pursue things that would make us hated.

Well, you did hear,uh, read me right... It is one of those Devine paradoxes, He tells us to live peaceably with others, but warns us that we won't get the same treatment in return. And, that's the point I am trying to make: World peace is an impossibility so long as the father if lies still roars about as he does. If our Master, Jesus didn't come to bring peace just yet, then how could we?

A strange collection of scriptures. Let me dissect for a moment, if I may:

For this purpose was the Son of God made manifest; that He might desroy the works of the devil.
1 John 3:8

Even as he is, so are we in the world.
1 John 4:17

The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to the pulling down of strongholds.
2 Corinthians 10:4

Again I find myself questioning whether I could possibly be hearing you right. You sound as though you are saying:

“Jesus was manifested to destroy the works of the devil; and because we are “as He is” in the world, we should do the same; and we have weapons which are effective in doing this work of destroying the works of the devil.”

That's exactly what I am saying, Remember Isaiah, 28:9,10? It says that God teaches us Precept upon Precept, Line upon Line, here a little, and there a little. If you are suggesting that one cannot group scriptures together that pertain to the same subject, then I suppose it is my turn to do a double take.

At least, that’s what I draw from the stringing together of these verses from three separate contexts. Perhaps that’s valid scriptural exegesis for you, but I can’t go there with you. The first reference from 1 John 3:8 was giving instruction on how to differentiate between good and evil actions of others, and recognizing the source of each. (The verse actually begins “He who sins is of the devil.”) The second reference from 1 John 4:17 was in a section specifically focused on love—love has been perfected, giving us boldness in the day of judgment, because we are as He is in this world, and anyone who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. The third from 2 Cor. 10:4 comes from a section in which Paul is defending his apostleship and authority to admonish the Corinthians, and apparently someone has suggested that his righteous indignation toward them springs from carnality rather than from any authority given from God.

So to me, it seems an incredibly strange thing to pull these verses together in piecemeal fashion and try to make a statement for Christian belligerence. At least, that’s how I take the comments, since they were posted as a counter to my own comments about showing a true Christian witness by our gifts and graces rather than slamming other faiths as the way to witness.

The word also states that we, (the christians,) are the body of Christ. (the Annointed one) It would stand to reason that the 'body' performs the will of the 'Head'. And, what is the ultimate will of God? John 3:16, 1 John 3:8, that we would be reconciled to Him through Jesus, for ever and ever.....Amen. Jesus also said that greater works then what He showed them, would we do if we believed on Him. I think it not blasphemous to be in Christ and be as He is, and do as He did...to be crucified with Him so that He may live in me. That includes wrestling against principalities and powers and dark rulers in high places.
He that commiteth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (because the devil introdused sin to the universe, and helped to bring it into this world through the first man, Adam, aa well as all the sickness, fears, pains, and trouble that are the symptoms of sin,).. for this purpose was the Son of God (the last Adam,) manifested (made tangible, seeable, knowable,) that He might destroy the works of the Devil (sin, and the effects thereof).

As for your questions:

I can only answer the same way that Jesus answered when Peter came to Him with a question of “Lord, what about this man?” Our Lord replied to Him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you. You follow me.”

In other words, the ultimate question of another’s salvation or anything else for that matter, isn’t up to us. I cannot tell you what God will decide about another man’s eternal soul, those things are up to God alone. All I can do is follow Him and point the way to Christ.

I know that you know that He was talking about John, and it was about his future here, not in heaven.

Strange question. Where in anything I have posted did you get the idea that by accepting the “Z guy” in a fraternal relationship, I was suggesting we also accept his “Zism?” That’s not what Masonry is about by any means, it’s about coming together in spite of our differences, not coming together in an attempt to reconcile them.

I am sorry, rev, I just keep getting that impression from all of the masonic teachings that I have read so far, maybe I will get it eventually.

And what, I might ask in return, is “God’s beautiful green earth?” (It is, after all, bluish in appearance to those on the outside looking in.)

Oh, now that's funny. but........WHAT'S A BOO-BIRD?


> > > > < Illumination of a smilie!

 

[ZionKnight]

Hey! I got the quote thing right! Yea me.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Well, you did hear,uh, read me right... It is one of those Devine paradoxes, He tells us to live peaceably with others, but warns us that we won't get the same treatment in return. And, that's the point I am trying to make: World peace is an impossibility so long as the father if lies still roars about as he does. If our Master, Jesus didn't come to bring peace just yet, then how could we?

That still doesn&#8217;t excuse us from living in peace with others &#8220;as much as lies within us,&#8221; in other words, to the extent to which we are able, which was all that was asked by that admonition to begin with. For me, part of that extent to which I am able, is to enjoy fraternal relationship with those who may or may not be of one mind religiously, and thus &#8220;conciliate true friendship among those who might, otherwise, have remained at a perpetual distance.&#8221;

I can do so without surrendering one iota of my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If you cannot, then fine, the lodge is not the place for you, let me be the first to urge you not to join with such reservations. But allow me the freedom in the Lord Jesus Christ to understand His will for me and follow where He leads.

Besides, I think you get the wrong idea from Jesus' comment. So far I've quoted several verses concerning our being admonished to live in peace with all people, and verses showing that Jesus desires peace for us also. Can you find nothing but the one isolated verse to bolster your claims?

"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. Not as the world gives do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27)

"Salt is good, but if the salt loses its flavor, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace with one another." (Mark 9:50)

"Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 4:6-7)

Remember Isaiah, 28:9,10? It says that God teaches us Precept upon Precept, Line upon Line, here a little, and there a little.

A strange place to appeal for support. Once again, you have quoted scripture that has nothing to do with your claims. The passage in Isaiah you just quoted refers to a group of men who were drunk and began ridiculing the prophet with gibberish resembling baby-talk. In fact, many interpreters say the difficulty in translation of the Hebrew in these verses is intentional, that their mockery is intentional nonsense without meaning, which is what they take the words of the prophet to be. In the Hebrew it involves simple repetition of sounds, which has been compared to rhyming baby sounds, much like our own English description of "goo-goo dah-dah." It has absolutely nothing to do with grouping together of scriptures.

If you are suggesting that one cannot group scriptures together that pertain to the same subject, then I suppose it is my turn to do a double take.

I don&#8217;t think you read my post at all. Clearly your grouping involved three verses that covered three very disparate, disjointed, and disconnected pieces of scripture. You can&#8217;t go from Jesus destroying the works of the devil and connect a verse to it about us being encouraged to love others, and then one about Paul defending his apostleship and totally miss the fact they are not connected.

Jesus destroying the works of the devil &#8800; encouragements to love one another.

I think it not blasphemous to be in Christ and be as He is, and do as He did...to be crucified with Him so that He may live in me. That includes wrestling against principalities and powers and dark rulers in high places.

You tried to say that because Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, we are to be like Him and do likewise. The Bible simply does not connect those two thoughts, there are 28 verses in between the ones that you (mis)quoted as though they belong side by side. The first one said Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, the second said we are to be like Jesus in this world by loving others.

Sure it does, and I haven&#8217;t disputed it at all. But that does not include scriptures encouraging us to love one another, and by doing so, being &#8220;as He is in the world.&#8221; 1 John 4:17 encourages us to be like Jesus in our love for others, not to be like Jesus in our wrestling. Your inclusion of it was a misapplication of what the verse was intended to say, plain and simple.

If you would make a point about Jesus destroying the works of the devil, then do so with the verse where you find it. But you mistakenly apply it to a verse encouraging us to love one another&#8212;it should be easy to see just how far apart the two contexts are.

Jesus also said that greater works then what He showed them, would we do if we believed on Him.

Well, I hope you don&#8217;t think it means our works will be somehow qualitatively greater than His. The word in the Greek is expressive of quantity and simply means we will do more works than He did while upon this earth. That&#8217;s not surprising, considering there are more of us and we&#8217;ve had nearly 2000 years.

I am sorry, rev, I just keep getting that impression from all of the masonic teachings that I have read so far

Not surprising in the least that you would do so. Masons, after all, emphasize points of agreement, not disagreement. God knows there are enough people out there already emphasizing dissension and discord. But Masons, though unified, are unified in charitable purpose, not in religious conformity.

WHAT'S A BOO-BIRD?

A bird (usually a dodo or a birdbrain) that has nothing better than to boo for the sake of booing. Thank God they are small in number.

 

[ZionKnight]

That still doesn’t excuse us from living in peace with others “as much as lies within us,” in other words, to the extent to which we are able, which was all that was asked by that admonition to begin with. For me, part of that extent to which I am able, is to enjoy fraternal relationship with those who may or may not be of one mind religiously, and thus “conciliate true friendship among those who might, otherwise, have remained at a perpetual distance.”
I can do so without surrendering one iota of my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. If you cannot, then fine, the lodge is not the place for you, let me be the first to urge you not to join with such reservations. But allow me the freedom in the Lord Jesus Christ to understand His will for me and follow where He leads.
Besides, I think you get the wrong idea from Jesus' comment. So far I've quoted several verses concerning our being admonished to live in peace with all people, and verses showing that Jesus desires peace for us also. Can you find nothing but the one isolated verse to bolster your claims?
"Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. Not as the world gives do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27)
"Salt is good, but if the salt loses its flavor, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace with one another." (Mark 9:50)
"Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Phil. 4:6-7)

I guess I should have ended my statement of the impossiblity of world peace, just yet, with the necessity of our living with, and displaying that supernatural Peace that can come only from Jesus, as a fruit of the Spirit. But you did that aldready for me, and quite effectively at that.

A strange place to appeal for support. Once again, you have quoted scripture that has nothing to do with your claims. The passage in Isaiah you just quoted refers to a group of men who were drunk and began ridiculing the prophet with gibberish resembling baby-talk. In fact, many interpreters say the difficulty in translation of the Hebrew in these verses is intentional, that their mockery is intentional nonsense without meaning, which is what they take the words of the prophet to be. In the Hebrew it involves simple repetition of sounds, which has been compared to rhyming baby sounds, much like our own English description of "goo-goo dah-dah." It has absolutely nothing to do with grouping together of scriptures.

Now this one is where I totaly have to dissagree with you on.
First, He was pointing out the error of the priesthood and prophets in that they were consuming strong drink and it was distorting thier vision and judgment. That they erred themselves out of the way, and into uncleanliness.
THEN, He asks: Who is left to teach knowledge? Who is left to make to undestand doctrine? His answer, (the NKJV lists these also as questions,) To babes and sucklings.
THEN, He explains how He teaches, Precept upon precept, (tsav, from tsavah, to mean mandate.) Line upon Line, (quav, to mean measuring cord or line.)
So, lierately translated: Mandate upon Mandate, Rule upon Rule, a little here, a little there.
The stammering lips refers to the outpouring at the upper room during the pentacost. It was even quoted in the new testament to mean speaking in tongues. (but, that's another tread.)

I don’t think you read my post at all. Clearly your grouping involved three verses that covered three very disparate, disjointed, and disconnected pieces of scripture. You can’t go from Jesus destroying the works of the devil and connect a verse to it about us being encouraged to love others, and then one about Paul defending his apostleship and totally miss the fact they are not connected.

Jesus destroying the works of the devil &#8800; encouragements to love one another.


You tried to say that because Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, we are to be like Him and do likewise. The Bible simply does not connect those two thoughts, there are 28 verses in between the ones that you (mis)quoted as though they belong side by side. The first one said Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, the second said we are to be like Jesus in this world by loving others.

I think that what you are saying is that, when Paul wrote "the weapons of OUR warfare are not carnal....." that it was only Apostolic epuipment, that us layfolk don't have to war against the enemy, and yes, that it was just Paul defending his motivations.
But, then even Paul wrote "be ye followers of me as I follow Christ," or something like that. And, I just don't know how to respond to the idea that that scripture doesn't apply to us. Why would God tell us to put on His armor if we weren't supposed to go to war? (eph, 6:1)
Why would Paul encourage Timothy to be a good soldier and not to be mindful of the things of this world?
And, God is Love, read the whole book of 1John, it declares how that dwelling in His Love effectively leaves no room for any of the works of the devil, (sin, hate, fear, etc.). when I read it again, I have to say walking in DEVINE LOVE, ( not just any kind of love,) = destroying the works of the devil. It may help you to understand where I am comming from if I make a few statments designed to clarify.
1. Our battle is not ours, it is the Lord's. But the reason that we aren't just raptured up the moment we accept Jesus, is that we have a job to do. That is where the Body of Christ reference comes in. It is just the same in a worldly army, the private holding the gun and running into the thick of it may not know or care anything about the war he is fighting in, just that he was ordered to fight and that is enough for him. Translation: It is God's battle, but He handed us His armor and His Sword, and is letting us help.
2. We westle not with flesh and blood.... the battle that we now have the priveledge to fight in, is not against man. Mankind and their eternal lives is what we are fighting for. Who we are fighting is the agents of Darkness, or the devil and all his. As well as against false doctrines that pollute the Gospel that God has already laid out for us. (I'll beat you to the punch and state that no I am not the one who determines which doctrines are false, we have the Word for that.)
3.The battle field is not a carnal one either, in that it is in our minds individually and in the teachings and preachings collectively. As well as that it is a spiritual battle and must be fought in the Spirit. That's where the 'In Christ,' scripture comes in, the difference being illustrated in the story of the sons of Sceva; Paul, the demon knew and would have had to adhere to, but these men were just going through the motions, they it could reek havoc with.

Not surprising in the least that you would do so. Masons, after all, emphasize points of agreement, not disagreement. God knows there are enough people out there already emphasizing dissension and discord. But Masons, though unified, are unified in charitable purpose, not in religious conformity.

There may have been a time where God 'winked' at the vast number of ways man has changed the Glory of the Creator into something created. But, not any more, (acts 17:30).

 

[Rev Wayne]

Now this one is where I totaly have to dissagree with you on.

It&#8217;s not exactly &#8220;me&#8221; you&#8217;re disagreeing with, you have chosen to take on a couple of the pre-eminent scholars of the Hebrew language, Keil and Delitzsch:

Isaiah 28:9-10

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10. "Whom then would he teach knowledge? And to whom make preaching intelligible? To those weaned from the milk? To those removed from the breast? For precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, a little here, a little there!"</SPAN> They sneer at the prophet, that intolerable moralist. They are of age, and free; and he does not need to bring knowledge to them (da'ath as in Isa 11:9), or make them understand the proclamation. They know of old to what he would lead. Are they little children that have just been weaned (on the constructives, see Isa 9:2; 5:11; 30:18; Ges. &#167;114, 1), and who must let themselves be tutored? For the things he preaches are nothing but endless petty teazings. The short words (ts&#226;v, as in Hos 5:11), together with the diminutive z&#170;`eeyr(OT:2191) (equivalent to the Arabic sugayyir, mean, from sag&#238;r, small), are intended to throw ridicule upon the smallness and vexatious character of the prophet's interminable and uninterrupted chidings, as l (= `l (OT:5921), 'l(OT:413); comp. l&#170; yaacap(OT:3254), Isa 26:15) implies that they are; just as the philosophers in Acts 17:18call Paul a spermolo'gos(NT:4691), a collector of seeds, i.e., a dealer in trifles. And in the repetition of the short words we may hear the heavy babbling language of the drunken scoffers.

</SPAN>Botterweck and Ringgren (TDOT, Vol. XII, p. 563) compare it to the efforts of a teacher trying to teach a child the alphabet, in this case being the letters tzadi and qoph, adding that &#8220;Others renounce any attempt at a comprehensible translation and understand it as the babbling of a drunk.&#8221;

At any rate, it is clear that the comment is made in reference to babbling or incomprehensible speech, whether in reference to a drunk, a baby, or even a drunk baby. There is scriptural support in Isaiah 18:2 for this interpretation of the redoubled form of qaw, where qaw-qaw is translated in that context as &#8220;a nation of strange speech.&#8221;

And, I just don't know how to respond to the idea that that scripture doesn't apply to us.

Nice try at a reframe, but that is not what I said at all. To clarify once more for you:

The two scriptures quoted back to back from First John are addressing two different issues. My point was, the two scriptures do not join together in the manner in which you joined them. No claim was made on the application of the verses separately, just that your joining them together was a misapplication.

Beyond this, on both this issues, you may continue your argument, but don&#8217;t expect me to join you. Your extensive efforts at defending your scriptural muddling have become a sidetrack unto themselves.

Apparently you have nothing of further relevance to the topic?

I must say, I've found an interesting section in Lewis' Mere Christianity worthy of mention. He discusses the four "cardinal virtues" of prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude, a four-part emphasis which is quite prominent in the blue degrees of Freemasonry. Would it be a surprise to some people if it turned out that he had been a Freemason? It certainly wouldn't surprise me, his reasoning and open-minded consideration of things certainly do come across in a similar fashion.

 

[O.F.F.]

Just in case you missed it, I'll post my question again. I hope you are not ignoring me.

Rev. Wayne,

Since Jesus said of Himself, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), and commanded us to "therefore go and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), as Christians aren't we obligated to not only evangelize, but in doing so to also inform those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the eternal consequences of their rejection of Him, whether they are Masons or not?

These are the very words of Jesus:

John 3:18

Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Or do we simply let them die uninformed about the consequences of their decision against Christ?

 

[Rev Wayne]

.

 

[O.F.F.]

So what happened Rev. Wayne? Cat got you tongue, or did you suffer the penalty of the !st Degree Obligation, or are you just ignoring my question? Or perhaps you plan to get to it eventually?

Until then, let me address something else you said.

Masons, after all, emphasize points of agreement, not disagreement.

Since the religious teachings are so different among the various religions from where Masons globally come, with some even diametrically opposed to one another, doesn't common sense tell us that it does make a difference? The differences are critical to ones eternal destiny! Therefore, to ignore the differences simply for peace and friendship goes against the command of Jesus to go and make disciples of all nations, NOT Masons of all nations.

But Masons, though unified, are unified in charitable purpose, not in religious conformity.

As a former Mason, I can testify that this is simply NOT true. Masons do not gather together solely for charitable purposes. Philanthropy is just a small fraction of what they do. Whether the &#8220;Rev&#8221; wants to believe it or not, his denial does not change the facts. The fact is, Masons do unify under religious conformity to the religious doctrines of the Masonic Order, which are:

1. Belief in &#8220;a&#8221; (singular, common, generic) Supreme Being who Masons call G.A.O.T.U.

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

The letter G to which your attention was directed on your passage hither, has a still greater and more significant meaning. It is the initial and sacred name of God (singular), before whom all Masons (regardless of their religious persuasion), from the youngest Entered Apprentice who stands in the Northeast corner of the Lodge, to the Worshipful master who resides in the East, should most humbly, reverently, and devoutly bow. (emphasis added)

- Pages 18 & 19, Fellow Craft Degree, State of Nevada Ritual, Circa 1986

2. Prayer for the &#8220;sanctification&#8221; of every initiate regardless of their religious beliefs, petitioned to this one deity called G.A.O.T.U.

Vouchsafe Thine aid, Almighty Father of the Universe, to this our present convention, and grant that this candidate for Masonry may dedicate and devote his life to Thy service, and become a true and faithful brother among us. Endue him with a competency of Thy Divine Wisdom, that, by the influence of the pure principles of' our Fraternity, he may be better enabled to display the beauties of holiness, to the honor of Thy Holy Name. Amen. Response from the Craft, - "So mote it be."

Page 5, New York Masonic Monitor

3. Belief in life after death or the immortality of the soul.

Raised - What is the significance of this term?

A. When a candidate has received the Third Degree, he is said to have been "raised" to the Sublime Degree of a Master Mason. Literally, this refers to a portion of the ceremony; but more significantly, it refers symbolically to the resurrection, which is exemplified as the object of the degree. See Resurrection.

&#8216;Questions and Answers&#8217; section of the Heirloom Masonic Bible p. 55

4. Belief that any Mason&#8217;s religious writings is the Volume of Sacred Law and the revealed will of God, even if it is not the Bible.

It is a Landmark, that a "Book of the Law" (or VSL = Volume of Scared Law) shall constitute an indispensable part of the furniture of every Lodge. I say advisedly, a Book of the Law, because it is not absolutely required that the Bible be used. The "Book of the Law" is that volume which, by the religion of the country, is believed to contain the revealed will of the Grand Architect of the universe (G.A.O.T.U.). (emphasis added)

Jurisprudence of Freemasonry by Albert G. Mackey

5. Conformity to a non-water &#8220;baptism&#8221; of sorts, called the Hiramic Legend, where each candidate is encouraged to imitate (try to be like, NOT Christ but) a false, generic &#8220;savior&#8221; their Grand Master, Hiram Abiff. And they are taught to identify with his [Hiram's, NOT Christ's] death, burial and resurrection when they are &#8220;raised&#8221; at the end of the ceremony of the Third Degree.

Then, finally my brethren, let us imitate our Grand Master, Hiram Abiff, in his virtuous conduct, his unfeigned piety to God, and his inflexible fidelity to his trust; that, like him, we may welcome the grim tyrant, Death, and receive him as a kind messenger sent by our Supreme Grand Master, to translate us from this imperfect to that all-perfect, glorious, and celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides.

- Pages 24 & 25, Master Mason Degree, State of Nevada Ritual, Circa 1986

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.

Ahiman Rezon or Book of Constitutions, pp. 141-2, 1965 ed.

Resurrection - Does Freemasonry teach that the body shall be raised and given eternal existence.

A. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body to a future and eternal life constitutes an essential dogma of the religious faith of Freemasonry. The requirement for adherence to this doctrine holds equal rank with the demand for belief in Deity and in the immortality of the soul. It is more authoritatively inculcated in the symbolism of the Third Degree than is possible by any dogmatic creed. Throughout the ritualisms, symbolisms, legends, and lectures of the Order, these doctrines are affirmed.

&#8216;Questions and Answers&#8217; section of the Heirloom Masonic Bible previously referred to p. 55

To learn more details about the Masonic Baptism click here.

So again, as anyone can clearly see, to say that Masons don&#8217;t unify under religious conformity is simply not true. Not to conform to these religious Masonic doctrines would constitute &#8220;clandestine&#8221; or irregularity, which simply means it would not be considered Freemasonry at all.

As a result of these essential Masonic doctrines Freemasonry has, in effect, created its own religion by requiring conformity to these religious doctrines for the sole purpose of &#8220;enjoying fraternal relationship with those who may or may not be of one mind religiously.&#8221; By these Masonic doctrines, however, Freemasonry makes Masons "of one mind religiously" by the "essential dogma of the religious faith of Freemasonry." From a biblical perspective, such conformity by a Christian is at best a compromise of our faith, and at worse apostasy.

Wayne used the word "conciliate" earlier. Another word for &#8220;conciliate&#8221; is &#8220;reconcile.&#8221; As Christians we have been given the Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:11-19), and are obligated to urge unbelievers to be reconciled to God thru faith in Jesus Christ. Yet rather than talking about establishing true friendships with unbelievers in order to provide this message of reconciliation regarding the true gospel, we have a &#8220;Christian&#8221; pastor here who prefers to promote and defend a false religion, and its false gospel under the guise to &#8220;conciliate true friendship among those who might otherwise, have remained at a perpetual distance.&#8221;

Instead of recognizing the fact that unbelievers will be separated, and remain at a perpetual distance from God throughout eternity, Masons who claim to be Christians have chosen to ignore God&#8217;s Word regarding the only way to be saved:

Acts 4:12

Salvation is found in no one else [but Jesus Christ], for there is no other name under heaven given to men by whom we must be saved. [emphasis added]

What&#8217;s more, whether they are Masons who stand behind a pulpit or not, they ignore the very words of Jesus himself who said:

John 3:36

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

 

[ZionKnight]

I went to the link, O.F.F., and found it to be very long. My neck hurts now. But I found a particular statement that the author made, (all of it was indeed sobering, and if at least half of it was true in all lodges, then there is no more need for sufficient evidence that FM is not only a religion, but one very contrary to the foundations of christian doctrine,) that I would like to quote here because we have seen it often in this thread:

When you attempt to quote passages to Masons, from the writtings of highly reccomended Masonic writers such as Albert G. Mackey, Albert Pike, Henry Wilson Coil, and others reguarding their statement that Freemasonry is, indeed, a religion, for example, the lock-step response almost always seems to be "None of those writtings have been officially recognized by any grand lodges, therefore, any statments from such publications are nothing more than the writers' own personal oppinions.

To answer that, he then quotes a grand lodge, but I'll leave that to be read by any one interested.

I'll resume my own disscusions in my next post, I just wanted to point that out before such a side-step is used.

 

[ZionKnight]

It’s not exactly “me” you’re disagreeing with, you have chosen to take on a couple of the pre-eminent scholars of the Hebrew language, Keil and Delitzsch:


</SPAN>Botterweck and Ringgren (TDOT, Vol. XII, p. 563) compare it to the efforts of a teacher trying to teach a child the alphabet, in this case being the letters tzadi and qoph, adding that “Others renounce any attempt at a comprehensible translation and understand it as the babbling of a drunk.”

At any rate, it is clear that the comment is made in reference to babbling or incomprehensible speech, whether in reference to a drunk, a baby, or even a drunk baby. There is scriptural support in Isaiah 18:2 for this interpretation of the redoubled form of qaw, where qaw-qaw is translated in that context as “a nation of strange speech.”



Nice try at a reframe, but that is not what I said at all. To clarify once more for you:

The two scriptures quoted back to back from First John are addressing two different issues. My point was, the two scriptures do not join together in the manner in which you joined them. No claim was made on the application of the verses separately, just that your joining them together was a misapplication.

Beyond this, on both this issues, you may continue your argument, but don’t expect me to join you. Your extensive efforts at defending your scriptural muddling have become a sidetrack unto themselves.

Apparently you have nothing of further relevance to the topic?

I must say, I've found an interesting section in Lewis' Mere Christianity worthy of mention. He discusses the four "cardinal virtues" of prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude, a four-part emphasis which is quite prominent in the blue degrees of Freemasonry. Would it be a surprise to some people if it turned out that he had been a Freemason? It certainly wouldn't surprise me, his reasoning and open-minded consideration of things certainly do come across in a similar fashion.

I agree with you that continuing to debate whether the ability to bring together a number of scriptures from various passages, provided that those passages given and the conclusion made are in total agreement with the entirety of the Word of God can be doctrinally sound or not. < Is that a reframe? Or just a summary?
However, I just cannot fight the desire to get just one more word in. Read hebrews chapter 1, the entire chapter is quotes from various passages throughout the Bible, many of them, one could use the same logic that was used in the rev's post, and say 'that scripture does not fit there, it is pertaining to something else altogether.

Now, after some thought, especially after you mentioned C. S. Lewis again, I realized that maybe a large reason for our difference in the approach of the subject of this thread: whether or not an informed christian can be a Freemason as well. It could be the vast difference of our (yours and mine in particular,) aproach to the doctrines of the Bible. While I am very fond of John Wesley, I have many doctrinal dissagreements with what has now become the Methodist denomination. Maybe if I looked at it from a more anglican perspective, I could justify my ivolvement with an organization that practices such rituals as their own version of Baptism.

 

[Rev Wayne]

However, I just cannot fight the desire to get just one more word in. Read hebrews chapter 1, the entire chapter is quotes from various passages throughout the Bible, many of them, one could use the same logic that was used in the rev's post, and say 'that scripture does not fit there, it is pertaining to something else altogether.

The difference being, of course, there is logical progression and there is explanation in between. Put them together in your fashion and they read:

“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son. Let all the angels of God worship Him. Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail. Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool. Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?”

It actually doesn't come out sounding out of the ordinary at all, at least until you get to the last two sentences. Put those two together and it ends up sounding like God's enemies are ministering spirits to those who will inherit salvation.

In other words, it is proof positive that had the writer of Hebrews connected the verses in exactly the same manner as you did, he would have had at least one instance in which he would have presented a misconstruction of meaning just the same as you did. Thanks for the enlightening example.

I realized that maybe a large reason for our difference in the approach of the subject of this thread: whether or not an informed christian can be a Freemason as well.

Perhaps. But I'm finding more and more that the large reason for differences with ex-Masons is that they never were informed Masons. And because of that, when the first accusation came up against the lodge, they had no true understanding of Masonry to put it up against. And with no understanding of Masonry as symbolic, their standard for judging the accusation against it was deficient.

All any of them ever had to do was conduct a little research on their own. I have done so, and have found that practically all of the points at which Freemasonry is accused, involve words or phrases derived from Christian origins, or from Christian content in the rituals which was since removed. The ones that do not, were created by antimasons who first made the assumption that their false accusations were accurate, and followed that error with a worse one, the assumption that since they felt they had "proved" some kind of case against Freemasonry, it was okay to adopt a Machiavellian stance and create their own accusations by slice and dice and spot quoting and various other methods of distortion.

Maybe if I looked at it from a more anglican perspective, I could justify my ivolvement with an organization that practices such rituals as their own version of Baptism.

So what exactly then is "your version" of baptism?

 

[amadeus72]

Perhaps. But I'm finding more and more that the large reason for differences with ex-Masons is that they never were informed Masons. And because of that, when the first accusation came up against the lodge, they had no true understanding of Masonry to put it up against. And with no understanding of Masonry as symbolic, their standard for judging the accusation against it was deficient.

My friend, I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Mr. Gentry's posts, wherein he endlessly quotes Masonic monitors without apprently the slightest idea of what they're trying to say, is a good example.