Masons

[O.F.F.]

Pastor, you blatant dishonesty is appalling.

(1) It is not "anti-Christian." In fact, the majority of Masons by far are Christians.

You mean the majority in the USA, and just because someone says they are a Christian, doesn't mean they are. Like Christian pastors who wear Masonic Aprons, they do more "lip" service defending the Masonic Faith on discussion boards, rather than any real service to God. You cannot find ONE mainstream Christian denomination that has a position statement that supports Freemasonry. Why? Because most of them have postion statements AGAINST Freemasonry. They know it is anti-Christian. Heck, even this forum knows better and has appropriately set rules against it and tucked this topic away where it belongs in Unorthodox Theology!

(2) It is not "syncretistic." Syncretism is making a composite of two or more systems of belief . . .

Hindu Masons have their idea of God, which differs from the Buddhist Mason concept of God, which differs from the Muslim Mason's view of deity, which is diametrically opposed to the Christian concept of God, and no matter what an Apron wearing pastor says, Freemasonry has conveniently merges them all together into one composite deity -- a false god called G.A.O.T.U.

Nor does Masonry teach "universalism." Masonry does, however, speak of truths and principles that it considers to be universal in scope.

Duh, any educated person knows that what you just said is in fact teaching "universalism."

As for "authentic divine revelation," the Great Light of Masonry is the Holy Bible . . .

Only to the quote/unquote "Christian" Mason. For Masons of other religions the Great Light is THEIR religion's VOLUME OF SACRED LAW, not YOURS!

. . . It is the only sacred book quoted in any of the rituals . . .

And, if the Masonic Apron wearing pastor would provide examples in full Masonic context, folks will be able to see for themselves that in every example the Scripture quoted in Masonic ritual is taken completely out of its biblical context!

 

[amadeus72]

As for "higher degree masons" you've not done your homework there either. There are only three degrees in Freemasonry. That's all. York Rite and Scottish Rite (and a few others, but those are the most popular), grant additional degrees, but those are considered third degree. You did have to be a 32 or 33 degree Scottish Rite Freemason to join the Shriners. But, joining the Scottish rite pretty much means you are a 32 degree. You don't even have to get the 4th degree, 5th degree, or so on, before getting the 32 degree. You don't even have to get them in order.

This may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the Mother Jurisdiction, the degrees must be conferred in order, and the five mandatory degrees must be conferred in full form (4°, 14°, 18°, 30°, and 32°).

 

[Rev Wayne]

Pastor, you blatant dishonesty is appalling.

Wake up and smell the acrimony. I find your blatant accusation of “dishonesty” even more appalling, because my opinions are exactly as I have expressed them, and they are supported by exactly what I have quoted in support. Either agree the claims are true or show where they are not, there is no need for attempted character assassination.

just because someone says they are a Christian, doesn't mean they are.

You have my gratitude for your constant exemplification of that statement here on this forum. There's no way we could even begin to tell you what that means to us.

Like Christian pastors who wear Masonic Aprons, they do more "lip" service defending the Masonic Faith on discussion boards, rather than any real service to God.

Well, since you offer us such a fresh new perspective, and are apparently doing more than repetitive posting on discussion boards, perhaps you wouldn’t mind sharing with us what your “real” service to God is?

You cannot find ONE mainstream Christian denomination that has a position statement that supports Freemasonry. Why?

Because most of them are smart enough to know that “position statements” are not needed for that which is not a positional threat.

Heck, even this forum knows better and has appropriately set rules against it and tucked this topic away where it belongs in Unorthodox Theology!

I’m afraid you’ve lost me there. I can post to Christian topics with other Christians in the “Christians Only” section. And not only that, topics in UT were not placed there because they were “anti”-Christian; rather, because they do not reflect orthodoxy by the Nicene Creed standards. That only means they are non-Christian by an orthodox standard, not that they are automatically considered “anti”-Christian. In fact, I would guess that “unorthodox theology” was used as a title mainly to distinguish it from “non-Christian Religion,” because there would be inevitable cross-over otherwise on what are two separate issues.
I think where you make the error is in assuming that anything not considered Christian is automatically “anti”-Christian. I notice the Mormons were sent here too, but I would not consider them an “anti”-Christian group, because they view themselves as Christians. I’ve seen no Mormon declaring they are against themselves.

Hindu Masons have their idea of God, which differs from the Buddhist Mason concept of God, which differs from the Muslim Mason's view of deity, which is diametrically opposed to the Christian concept of God, and no matter what an Apron wearing pastor says, Freemasonry has conveniently merges them all together into one composite deity

The only thing “diametrically opposed” are your claims and your terms. You claim GAOTU is a composite and all Masons worship this one “composite.”

Yet in your post, you called some Masons “Hindu Masons.” That affirms that the two are separate things, and that one can be both Hindu and Mason. You called some Masons “Buddhist Masons.” That affirms that the two are separate things, and that one can be both Buddhist and Mason. You called some Masons “Muslim Masons.” That affirms that the two are separate things, and that one can be both Muslim and Mason. Christianity is no different, and Christian Masons are no different, we affirm the same thing you just affirmed about these three other groups, that Christianity and Masonry are two separate things, and one can be both Christian and Mason.

a false god called G.A.O.T.U.

For the umpteenth time, “GAOTU” is not a name, it is an attributive phrase. You will find Masonry just as readily referring to God simply as “God,” or “God Almighty,” or “Eternal Father,” or any of a number of similar attributive phrases that would be as commonly found in Christianity as it would in the lodge. But in typical selective accusation fashion, you pick the only one that looks “different” than Christianity. And you still miss the mark, because it is thoroughly Christian, it originates with John Calvin, who uses it in his Institutes of the Christian Religion to refer to Jesus Christ in His relation to the Creation.

My comment) Nor does Masonry teach "universalism." Masonry does, however, speak of truths and principles that it considers to be universal in scope.

Duh, any educated person knows that what you just said is in fact teaching "universalism."

Any person who knows even one whit about what Masonry says about “core truths” at the heart of all religions, knows that it is far removed in concept from universalism, the idea that “all people will be saved.” In fact, as a necessary corollary of such a belief about “core truths,” it implies that the vast majority of teachings in every religion are NOT universal. Your claim is, to put it mildly, bizarre.

(My Comment) As for "authentic divine revelation," the Great Light of Masonry is the Holy Bible . . .

Only to the quote/unquote "Christian" Mason.

Thank you for your acknowledgment, such as it is, that the determination of what each Mason believes is up to the individual.

For Masons of other religions the Great Light is THEIR religion's VOLUME OF SACRED LAW, not YOURS!

Well, since you are so bold in making the claim that you feel you have to shout, then perhaps you will avail yourself of the opportunity to be equally bold in defending it? Provide us with evidence, since you seem to think you have it, from Grand Lodge documents, declaring some other book besides the Bible to be “The Great Light of Masonry.” The term “VSL” applies to the individual candidate and the book of his faith, the term “Great Light of Masonry” does not, it is a term used exclusively as a description of the Holy Bible. (And in fact, in the UGLE, the term “Volume of Sacred Law” is an exclusive term as well, applied only to the Holy Bible.)

This ought to be interesting.

And, if the Masonic Apron wearing pastor would provide examples in full Masonic context, folks will be able to see for themselves that in every example the Scripture quoted in Masonic ritual is taken completely out of its biblical context!

“In every example?” I would think the smirk wearing accuser would know better.

For instance, as the candidate enters to the MM degree, he hears Psalm 133 being read in its entirety. The context of Psalm 133 (unless one wishes to address the idea of historical context, which is another issue entirely), is Psalm 133. Claiming that a quote of the entire context of Psalm 133 is using it “out of context” is ridiculous, for self-explanatory reasons. The only way your statement could be true would be if we spoke of the larger context of the Book of Psalms. But that, of course, would put you in an even more ridiculous position of claiming that we were out of line for not reading the other 149 Psalms along with #133.

 

[ZionKnight]

Wrote a bunch of crap. He quoted Eliphas Levi. By that simple merit, he wrote a bunch of crap.

Same goes for Albert Pike.

ha! that's funny

Basically, anyone you can quote as "famous masonic authors", they wrote a bunch of misinformed crap, partly inspired by anti-freemasons who just made up stuff. And the fact that most of the people in the Victorian era were stupid or crazy.

even funnier!

Alison Crauss doesn't exist.

Alison Krauss is a country/bluegrass singer and fiddle player, born in 1971. Nothing related to Freemasonry.

WOW. It's Aleister Crowley. You obviously haven't read anything true on Freemasonry. He got in through a French Lodge, which as I've mentioned, aren't Masonic.

my humblest apologies, I must have had a total brain lapse! thanks for catching that.

Start with the basics: Freemasons for Dummies. Best book on Freemasonry written. The local library should have a copy, if you don't want to pay money.

I saw that, and it may come as no suprise to you, but I really thought about getting it. But, I have already made my conclusion on this matter, and you only help to solidify it.

The fact that you didn't know that shows you have NOT done your homework. They were created to have fun. The word "mystic shrine" was thrown in for fun. Honestly, the worst they do is get drunk, and occasionally end up in the hospital from falling off of something (say, the balcony at the hotel where the Shriner's convention was taking place). They base the code words and stuff off of 1001 Arabian Nights. They aren't ancient, they just tossed the word in for fun. That group does NOTHING but have fun and build hospitals for kids. Good stuff.

I just kept that in for how crazy it sounds.

As for "higher degree masons" you've not done your homework there either. There are only three degrees in Freemasonry. That's all. York Rite and Scottish Rite (and a few others, but those are the most popular), grant additional degrees, but those are considered third degree. You did have to be a 32 or 33 degree Scottish Rite Freemason to join the Shriners. But, joining the Scottish rite pretty much means you are a 32 degree. You don't even have to get the 4th degree, 5th degree, or so on, before getting the 32 degree. You don't even have to get them in order. The 33 degree is granted whenever they think you've done a good service to Freemasonry, the community, humanity, or some other good deed.

Ahem, By 'higher' I mean higher in number not in level, for example: 32>3, and just because they join the respective 'rite' doesn't mean that they have passed from being a mason to something else.

 

[ZionKnight]

But first a note about some things I’ve already noted, with a couple of related “coincidences” since that time. Earlier (p. 20, post #192) I posted this comment:

A correct understanding of Masonry is impossible without learning of its history and origins and understanding why it came to be as it is. Understanding the history of the lodge would be well nigh impossible, had it not been for the tendency in Masonry to preserve and protect the rituals and the symbols as they were handed down. For that reason, the small changes which have occurred over time are easily detectable when found, although most of the substantive changes occurred long enough ago that they are difficult to find in our day.

I ran across an interesting post from some time ago on CF that expresses, remarkably, that same sentiment I posted earlier:



That has been the main thrust of what has been presented so far, beginning at post #196 on p. 20, that much of the material subjected to criticism in the current state of Freemasonic debate, lends itself to easy criticism only because it is understood anachronistically: the times have changed, the rituals essentially have not.

Hmmmm, now that may be good ground that we can all stand on. But, you may need to elaborate on what has changed with the times.
....did I just ask Rev to elaborate? just kidding, rev.

 

[ZionKnight]

was prove doctrine by internal structural integrety & efficient interaction with other doctrines.
Knowing the attendant history, the story of the origins & editing of doctrines gives insight into the motives for misunderstandings &/or outright changes.

Page 8,
I thought I would bring this one back, because it fits into the disscussion again. It's pretty close to what I quoted Rev to say, except, what I get that he is saying, is that the editing and outright changes might give us insight to the imperfect and possibly......dark?..... origen of a way of thinking. That the history of the masons can't be properly viewed unless you shed their doctrinal light on it.

 

[ZionKnight]

I'm sure all of you who are still reading this thread have heard the old adadge: History is written by the successors. How true that saying used to be! But, now even that isn't true these days. It's more like this: History is written by anyone with a pen and a PHD!

I still believe that, and it proves to be the most difficult barrier in my understanding of Freemasonry, I can find a number of versions to to the accounts mentioned in this thread, each having their own twist to it. The question then begs to be asked, Who do you believe?

The only accounts of history that I cannot deny, is His story, of course. But, that is only because His word has been proven to me time and time again, by experience, and by His interaction with me. It is the doctrine in the Bible, that great light, proven, held true, that confirms the authenticity of the historical facts. To put it bluntly, and to quote an old southern baptist motto: God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Hmmmm, now that may be good ground that we can all stand on. But, you may need to elaborate on what has changed with the times.

Now, some of the history of the church I understand, and a considerable amount less of the history of the Masons I understand, but history was actually my worst subject.

But when someone asks me to elaborate on how the times have changed since the Middle Ages, well that's a little too broad even for me. If by that you mean Freemasonry, I will take it as a friendly jest, since I covered that rather vouminously.

All I intended by my statement was, that ours is such a totally different world from theirs that it's easy to see why people today have problems with Masonry over medieval things that the people of that time would not have given a second thought. Conversely, if we shared our views of those things with people of that time, they would be appalled that we could conceive such strange notions. Like "so mote it be," for instance. It was so much akin to a simple "amen," they'd be surprised anyone would criticize it. Add to that the concept of "lucifer" to mean "satan," the idea that a pentacle would have demonic connotations to it--or even the bizarre concept that Freemasonry and Christianity could have compatibility problems.

It's pretty close to what I quoted Rev to say, except, what I get that he is saying, is that the editing and outright changes might give us insight to the imperfect and possibly......dark?..... origen of a way of thinking. That the history of the masons can't be properly viewed unless you shed their doctrinal light on it.

Sounds like you didn't "get" me at all. Allow me to re-frame your re-frame:

The history of the Masons cannot be properly understood apart from a historical consideration of their thoroughly Christian roots. That history once understood, and once the present mischaracterization of the remaining vestiges of that history has been carefully elucidated, there is little to accuse and by attrition, little or nothing left to debate.

I still believe that, and it proves to be the most difficult barrier in my understanding of Freemasonry, I can find a number of versions to to the accounts mentioned in this thread, each having their own twist to it. The question then begs to be asked, Who do you believe?

Welcome to the battleground, my friend, and godspeed in sorting it all out for yourself. I only trust that my much speaking has been more light than heat. Generally the best barometer I have for that is the collection of PM comments (or lack thereof) received from those not in the debate, but who express appreciation for remarks brought out here and there. If that gauge is as reliable as in times past, then I trust this effort is definitely on the right track, at least for the first and second installments.

The third one will be the most troublesome. Exposure was never a big-ticket item for those with hidden agendas. Once the light strikes the little imps, they wince and howl in pain, and lash out at anyone around them, especially at the one who peeled back the covers.

 

[ZionKnight]

But when someone asks me to elaborate on how the times have changed since the Middle Ages, well that's a little too broad even for me. If by that you mean Freemasonry, I will take it as a friendly jest, since I covered that rather vouminously.

I guess instead of asking you to elaborate, I should have asked you to be specific, or to help me understand clearly what you meant. But, I think you did that anyway.

All I intended by my statement was, that ours is such a totally different world from theirs that it's easy to see why people today have problems with Masonry over medieval things that the people of that time would not have given a second thought. Conversely, if we shared our views of those things with people of that time, they would be appalled that we could conceive such strange notions. Like "so mote it be," for instance. It was so much akin to a simple "amen," they'd be surprised anyone would criticize it. Add to that the concept of "lucifer" to mean "satan," the idea that a pentacle would have demonic connotations to it--or even the bizarre concept that Freemasonry and Christianity could have compatibility problems.

What I thought you might have meant was that the nature of freemasonry has changed over the years. That the intentions of the founders of the fraternity, (simply to create, as Abaddon put it, a union identification card,) and those who joined later, during the age of enlightenment. The educated fellows who wanted to search out the 'tabboo' subjects without persecution. And, now from what I gather from the posts here, to the organization that it is: A quasi-religious (am I permited to say that? I am aware of all the explanations that it is religious but not a religion,) fraternity that hopes to bring all people together in spite of the differences of their backgrounds. To 'borrow' from one of the accusations geared towards freemasonry, E pluribus Unim < (I don't have a dollar with me, I'm not sure I spelled it right.)

Sounds like you didn't "get" me at all. Allow me to re-frame your re-frame:

The history of the Masons cannot be properly understood apart from a historical consideration of their thoroughly Christian roots. That history once understood, and once the present mischaracterization of the remaining vestiges of that history has been carefully elucidated, there is little to accuse and by attrition, little or nothing left to debate.

That's very close to saying 'freemasons are essentially christian', which, as I understand it, would be quite un-mason like.

Welcome to the battleground, my friend, and godspeed in sorting it all out for yourself. I only trust that my much speaking has been more light than heat. Generally the best barometer I have for that is the collection of PM comments (or lack thereof) received from those not in the debate, but who express appreciation for remarks brought out here and there. If that gauge is as reliable as in times past, then I trust this effort is definitely on the right track, at least for the first and second installments.

The third one will be the most troublesome. Exposure was never a big-ticket item for those with hidden agendas. Once the light strikes the little imps, they wince and howl in pain, and lash out at anyone around them, especially at the one who peeled back the covers.

I am not one to PM, but I will post here that you have been very helpful in bringing light to the contraversy.
I hope that you will be patient with my constant 'teetering' in opinions.

 

[Rev Wayne]

That's very close to saying 'freemasons are essentially christian', which, as I understand it, would be quite un-mason like.

We'll try again, there's only one basic premise:

Freemasonry's roots are "essentially" Christian. That is the first and the main premise I've set forth.

The only other premise I have had any interest in setting forth is corollary to that one:

The accusations against Masonry fail to take those roots into consideration.

And that's it. The problem is, that failure is at the heart of practically all their false accusations.

 

[ZionKnight]

I have an idea: since Bill Clinton brought disgrace upon the presidential office with his escapades, let's vilify every president who ever lived and denounce the office forever.

What? No takers? I must say, I expected as much--after all, Bill Clinton is not the U.S. Presidency.

Haven't we been doing that since Nixon?

 

[ZionKnight]

No. Christianity is not a faith about ethics and morailty.

Christianity is a faith which believes in a God who saves unethical immoral people who HATE Him.

Ethics and morality are NOT a path to salvation; they are the result of salvation.

What Jesus taught was that God's REAL ethics ("Be ye Holy as I AM Holy") are WAAAAAAAY out of reach. Jesus was not the Kantian that modern theology has turned him into: just because He taught us to live perfectly does NOT therefore imply that we are capable of living perfectly. His teaching, in fact, is the exact opposite. The Rich Young Ruler (self-righteous little prick) came to Jesus and claimed that he had done everythign to fulfill the law. But Jesus saw his evil heart and said, "Oh yeah? You think you've fulfilled the law? Try this on for size: go and sell everything, give it to the poor and follow me."

Pace the silly Marxists who think that Jesus is advocating socialism here, Jesus is actually exposing the particular evil that this man had hidden deep in his heart, and telling him, "Pal, no matter how hard you try not to be, you're still a sinner!"

No. Christianity is not a faith about ethics and morailty.

This quote summs up the rest of page 8, I quoted the whole thing because of the masonic doctrine that teaches the universality of major morals and ethics throughout humanity in every religion.

And, some oaf continues to babble.

Page 9 introduces to the thread the Jesuits, and their relation to the illuminati. As well as the mormons and their relation to the freemasons. And, out of all my babbling, a pretty good poem is birthed.

Page 10 introduces O.F.F., and, while I strongly disagree with his methods of debate, I do tend to agree with the content (devoid of all the hatefull connotations,) however, after much thought devoted less to the actual subject, and more to reasons for our concern of the actual subject, I have come to an ambiguis conclusion. When Jesus was brought to Pilot, the roman took it upon himself to inform the Lord of all creation that he had the power to stay the execution, if Jesus would just cooperate. Jesus replied him with something to this effect: "Pilot, God knew you before there was time, all the 'power' you have is because of Him, I am King over creatures whose power you can't even fathom. If I wanted, I could command them to lay this place to waste. But, I don't, because I love you, and I love my Father, I do this in obedience to Him. You can't change anything that God doesn't want changed until He sees fit to change it. I'm not here this time to destroy the world, I am here to bear witness to the Truth." To which, was Pilot's famous question, 'what is the truth?' < No, I am not quoting scripture, and it is not an official 'exegis', I'm simply telling the story in my own words to illustrate my point.
I don't think that O.F.F., or me, or anyone else is going to fully 'reveal' to the public what is present in this organization, until God sees fit for it to be revealed. There may be a reason for that. In any case, I'm sure that won't stop them from trying. Even though, like with Pilot, the only One with the Answer is staring us right in the face.

 

[O.F.F.]

We'll try again, there's only one basic premise:

Freemasonry's roots are "essentially" Christian. That is the first and the main premise I've set forth.

The only other premise I have had any interest in setting forth is corollary to that one:

The accusations against Masonry fail to take those roots into consideration.

And that's it.

Freemasonry admits men of all religions, therefore it is "essentially" NON-Christian! Any pastor who says otherwise is either deliberately deceiving others, or trying to convince them in order to soothe his own conscience.

To imply that the Masonic Order is 'Christian' because its "roots" are Christian, is like saying 'world' is Christian because its "roots" are in Christ who created it. This is ridiculous, because the bible teaches that the 'world,' while created by God, it is NOT of God.

John 18:36

36Then Jesus answered, "I am not an earthly king. If I were, my followers would have fought when I was arrested by the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world."

1 John 2:16

16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

John 17:14

14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.

So don't let a desparate pastor, who would like Christ to ultimately accept his Masonic affiliation to fool you.

 

[O.F.F.]

We'll try again, there's only one basic premise:

Freemasonry's roots are "essentially" Christian. That is the first and the main premise I've set forth.

The only other premise I have had any interest in setting forth is corollary to that one:

The accusations against Masonry fail to take those roots into consideration.

And that's it.

Freemasonry admits men of all religions, therefore it is "essentially" NON-Christian! Any pastor who says otherwise is either deliberately deceiving others, or trying to convince them in order to soothe his own conscience.

To imply that the Masonic Order is 'Christian' because its "roots" are Christian, is like saying the 'world' is Christian because its "roots" are in Christ who created it. This is ridiculous, because the bible teaches that the 'world,' while created by God, it is NOT of God.

John 18:36

36Then Jesus answered, "I am not an earthly king. If I were, my followers would have fought when I was arrested by the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world."

1 John 2:16

16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

John 17:14

14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.

So don't let a desparate pastor, who would like Christ to ultimately accept his Masonic affiliation to fool you.

 

[Rev Wayne]

To imply that the Masonic Order is 'Christian' because its "roots" are Christian, is like saying the 'world' is Christian because its "roots" are in Christ who created it.

Where do you see me saying &#8220;the Masonic Order is Christian?&#8221; Point it out for me, Michael, word for word.


I&#8217;ll make it easy, here it is again:

We'll try again, there's only one basic premise:

Freemasonry's roots are "essentially" Christian. That is the first and the main premise I've set forth.

The only other premise I have had any interest in setting forth is corollary to that one:

The accusations against Masonry fail to take those roots into consideration.

And that's it. The problem is, that failure is at the heart of practically all their false accusations.

This is the original just as I posted it. The word roots was even highlighted for the main purpose of stating clearly that I was only addressing Masonry&#8217;s history and origins.

It's easy for anyone who reads what I posted to see that I made no such claim as you have suggested.

Your continued personal attacks ("desperate pastor," etc.) are duly noted. You make it eminently clear that your obsession is with me, and not with Freemasonry. And in this case your obsession has led you into irrationality, if you truly believe your current accusation to be accurate, which it isn't.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I really couldn't figure out how anyone could misconstrue plain English so badly, until it became apparent that this is only a smokescreen to draw attention away from direct questions recently addressed to you. To make sure such diversion does not achieve its purpose, I will ask you once again. You have posted in the past the following quote from Masonic Code on prayer in open lodge:

A Mason offering prayer in the Lodge may pray to his God--observing his own conception of Deity. . . . None should take umbrage because he addresses his prayer to his own conception of Deity. He must use prayer in the Ritual in all ritualistic ceremonies. Any other prayer is out of order in such ceremonies.

Masonic Code of Alabama, p. 141-2, 1963

But the full quote is:

13.8. SECTARIANISM — A Mason offering prayer in the Lodge may pray to his God observing his own conception of Deity. It is therefore proper and in accordance with Masonic law and tenets for a Mason who believes in the Christ or Jesus to offer prayer in the Lodge in His Name. None should take umbrage because he addresses his prayer to his own conception of Deity. He must use prayer in the Ritual in all ritualistic ceremonies. Any other prayer is out of order in such ceremonies.
Masonic Code of Alabama, p. 141

You have effectively removed from the Alabama Masonic Code a direct statement that prayer to Jesus Christ in the lodge is “in accordance with Masonic law and tenets.” The question is, if we are accused of “removing the name of Jesus from the lodge,” and you have felt so strongly against it, why is it suddenly okay for you to do what you have accused us of doing for so long, by removing the statement as you quoted it?

Why on earth have you abandoned the concern for truth that you once professed, and resorted to pursuing accusations which are, in essence, falsely created? Why would you try to profess a stand for truth on the one hand, then turn around and show your disdain for it on the other?

 

[cwebber]

You know what I find interesting is the Anti-Masonic Folk will quote all of these Masonic Code books and Monitors. And they will not quote of course the full passage.

You ask them how do they get this information they say they have Monitors from different Grand Lodges in PDF.

Yet when you ask on several occassions for a copy of the Monitor in PDF so that you may read for yourself you get some excuse as to why they can not get it to you.

My guess is that just like all Opressors they only want you to see what they want you to see.

They want you to know the truth (little t) according to their will and not the Truth (Big T) according to God's Infallable Word the Holy Bible.

I feel for these gentlemen when they face God at the Great White Throne Judgement as they wil have must to answer for in hendering the cause of Christ by attacking their Christian Brothern.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Yet when you ask on several occassions for a copy of the Monitor in PDF so that you may read for yourself you get some excuse as to why they can not get it to you.

And the primary reason is, send them your bucks first.

 

[cwebber]

And the primary reason is, send them your bucks first.

I could understand if you were asking for a CD as it cost money but according to them they have already converted the monitor to PDF. Emails do not cost a dime and they could post it on their websites so everyone could download it.

So proffit does seem to be a factory.

Kinda reminds you of the Merchants in the Temple when Jesus laid the Holy Smack Down on them. They were willing to sell you Redemption (Doves for sacrifice) but they were not willing to give it to you freely. Good thing Jesus does not follow their rules He gave himself freely.

 

[Abbadon]

Free stuff.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/index.htm

Granted, I'm pro-freemasonry, but here's the stuff. Another reason why the anti-masons don't distribute it: they'd look foolish if they didn't misquote and distort the stuff. If someone could get ahold of the entire thing, and read stuff in context, then people would know "wow, those anti-masonic dudes don't know what they're talking about."