Masons

[Rev Wayne]

Now, where did you hear that I wanted to become a Freemason? Hmm? I don't recall posting here on this forum that I wanted to do so. Where did you hear about that?

I got the same treatment till I joined. He won't let up the pressure either, until you do. I actually accused the entire Ephesians5-11 forum moderating crew of secretly being Masons and parading as ex's, who use badgering as a means of turning people the opposite way and getting them to join the Lodge. It just seemed so strange that they didn't have a clue that their tactics were backfiring on them. We've had a lot of people join just on account of them. In fact, even though we don't recruit, they might be called one of the best recruiting arms of Freemasonry.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I think this is far more evil than it's hazing, racial dichotomy, or all the drinking and carousing that goes on from the Blue Lodge to the Shrine.

I can't speak for Shriners, and I can't speak for Prince Hall, and to be completely honest, I can't even speak for Freemasonry, except to say in my own experience, I have not seen nor heard of anything resembling "drinking and carousing" in the Lodge. In fact, nowhere even close.

But even though I can't speak for Masonry, it speaks for itself very well:

You are to act as becomes a moral and wise Man; particularly not to let your Family, Friends, and Neighbors know the Concerns of the Lodge, etc., but wisely to consult your own honour, and that of the Ancient Brotherhood, for Reasons not to be mention'd here. You must also consult your Health, by not continuing together too late, or too long from home, after Lodge Hours are past; and by avoiding of Gluttony or Drunkenness, that your Family be not neglected or injured, nor you disabled from working. (Indiana Monitor and Freemason's Guide, p. 33; Ahiman Rezon, p. 461; Book of Constitutions F. & A.M. of Illinois, p. 8; Masonic Code of Oregon and Manual of the Lodge, p. 111; California Masonic Code, p. 353; Wisconsin Masonic Code, Appendix, p. 88)

Sec. 266. Any Mason who shall keep what is commonly known as a liquor saloon, or attend to the bar of a liquor saloon, shall be deemed guilty of a Masonic offense, and upon conviction thereof by the tribunal having Jurisdiction in the case, shall be indefinitely suspended. (Masonic Code of Oregon and Manual of the Lodge, p. 113)

Unmasonic Conduct--Penalties by Trial
Section 3.60 Beside violation of Article VIII, Section 2.47, of the Constitution, the following specific acts shall be deemed unmasonic conduct and shall render the offender subject to discipline. . .
(n) To introduce or permit intoxicating liquors or beverages of any kind, in or about any Lodge rooms, hall or building owned or controlled by a Lodge, or in any rooms of jointly owned or leased property which are specifically designated to be used for Lodge purposes, or by any so-called Masonic body, or to be addicted to the intemperate and habitual use of intoxicating liquors or beverages, or to become drunken therefrom. (Masonic Code of Minnesota, p. 54-55)

Habitual intemperance is a grave offense; and where drunkenness was accompanied by quarrelsome and abusive conduct, vile language and the application of obscene epithets to fellow members of the Lodge, expulsion was warranted. (California Masonic Code, p. 278-279)

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

1.—Use of alcoholic beverages limited to the following basic policies:

a. Under no circumstances is alcohol to be used where the building management forbids it.

b. At no time is alcohol to be used in a Lodge room and will not be used as regular Lodge refreshments, but shall be reserved for very special occasions or ceremonies. Use is specifically restricted to designated social areas of the Lodge building. Excessive use will not be tolerated and the rule of good Masonic conduct must prevail.

c. At no time will alcohol be sold within the areas used by any Masonic Lodge. Sale of alcohol within any Masonically owned building will be strictly where proper permits are held and then only for commercial use.

d. No Masonic Lodge, club or any other organization basing its membership on the Masonic Fraternity will: (1) Hold a license to sell alcohol in a Masonic Lodge building, (2) Advertise or communicate in any manner, anything which alludes to, suggests or states specifically the use of any alcoholic beverages at any function, meeting or gathering of Masons from Lodges in the District of Columbia.

e. Where alcohol is forbidden by building management (Policy No. 1l, it is recommended that special permission be granted under Policy No. 2, when proper application is made to the governing Lodge's officers/trustees to hold a Table Lodge or other service where alcohol is anticipated.

Any breach of the above policies or interpretation so as to avoid the intent of them shall be considered sufficient to bring charges against any or all involved.

It is the intent of this edict to preserve the reputation of our Lodges, and to respect the desires of all of our members, as well as to maintain the respect we now hold in our community. The danger of the use of alcohol is the impropriety which can develop. By this edict may it be that such will in no case be tolerated.—James M. Burns, G.M., Proc. 1984, p. 53. (Masonic Code of the District of Columbia, “Miscellaneous Decisions,” Section 1)

Ruling of Appointive Officer – Just Cause. Failure of appointive officer to pay assessment due Lodge, or his presence in a Lodge meeting while intoxicated, are just causes for his removal from office by Worshipful Master. 1941, pg 55, 103. (Washington Masonic Code: Rulings and Decisions, p. 31)

Record of Criminal Court. Record of proof of convictions, fines, and jail sentences for unlawful possession of “intoxicating liquor and for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated,” justify charges of un-Masonic conduct. Decision Grand Master approved. 1924, pg 305, 412. (Washington Masonic Code: Rulings and Decisions, p. 63)

64.08 Leases Forbidden if Liquor to Be Sold.[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]A lodge is not permitted to lease property which it owns or controls to parties who are to use it in any manner for the sale or dispensing of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. (See also

Section 64.06). (Wisconsin Masonic Code, p. 46)

There's a lot more out there, but you get the picture. Every set of Grand Lodge constitutions and by-laws I have ever seen includes the Ancient Charges, among which is the first quote posted. And a lot of them have prohibitions on alcohol in the Lodge. Others have some allowances, usually for weaker drinks like wine or beer, but these are generally restricted to special occasions and/or strongly restricted and regulated in other ways.

Prince Hall Masonry seems very different, almost like they don't quite "get" Masonry. What you have described would more accurately fit as a picture of a college fraternity, complete with initiatory hazing and beer busts. I've been there too, I can tell you that's an extreme stretch from one to the other. [/FONT]

 

[Rev Wayne]

Typically, this "defense" only leads to more puzzles:

MASONS ACCUSED OF HAZING

FROM: ARLINGTON MORNING NEWS

From the article:

The 32-year old Arlington hair salon owner said the incident occurred while he and five other men were being inducted into the fraternal organization.

Now there's a definite difference in Prince Hall. We can only take in five at one time, it's a restriction that's basic in our lodges, it comes from the Ancient Charges, I think.

Darrick Staff, one of 17 members of the Lodge suspended pending an investigation . . .

There's those darned ellipses again! Let's take a look and see what was left off:

. . .denies Mr. Mitchell's allegations. "The hazing didn't take place. We are all mature people,"

Well, at least that's a bit clearer. This was not an incident sanctioned by the Grand Lodge at all.

He said the antics seemed more like a fraternity than a Masonic organization.

Gee, he had the same thought I did about it, that somebody confused "fraternity" with the kid stuff.

The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas retrieved the Thomas H. Routt Lodge's charter and suspended 17 members following the incident

Which goes to show, this was not Masonic behavior at all, not by Prince Hall standards. Posting this as "evidence" of the accusation is a bit deceptive, don't you think, in light of the FULL article?

And the other article:

To date, no charges have been preferred against anyone in relation to Wilder’s death. Until further autopsy studies are complete, it is unknown whether Wilder died of alcohol poisoning or something else.

Gee, someone dies of a beating and they speculate "alcohol poisoning or something else?" How does that compare with the other article and tales of the welts that were caused? And since he said he was gonna get plastered beforehand, what does that say about who would be responsible if it turned out to be alcohol poisoning?

An autopsy performed last month at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center was inconclusive, pending further studies, which are due back next week.

Again, a "beating" hardly seems likely in an "inconclusive" autopsy. In fact, I did not see one single mention anywhere of his body being beaten and bruised, only the stories of him predicting it beforehand. Everything else actually seems to suggest he wasn't beaten at all--"inconclusive" autopsy reports, speculation of "alcohol poisoning."

Marie Shaw, a Landstuhl spokeswoman, said preliminary findings show Wilder experienced a "sudden, unexpected death."

Once again, "sudden, unexpected" does not specifically describe a beating death.

After the ceremony, Donald Wilder went out clubbing, his mother said.

Now, how did that get in there? Does anybody besides me have trouble seeing a beating so bad someone dies from it, when they receive the beating and then go out clubbing?

 

[O.F.F.]

I can't speak for Shriners, and I can't speak for Prince Hall, and to be completely honest, I can't even speak for Freemasonry, except to say in my own experience, I have not seen nor heard of anything resembling "drinking and carousing" in the Lodge. In fact, nowhere even close.

But even though I can't speak for Masonry, it speaks for itself very well:

What Freemasonry says and what Freemasonry does are two different things. Prince Hall Grand Lodges have similar rules against drinking in a Lodge or a Shrine Temple. When I said "drinking and carousing" from the Blue Lodge to the Shrine, I meant during all the social functions and parties. And, you can deny it all you want and post as many Grand Lodge edicts against it you like, but you know darn well that not all, but many Masons, be they Prince Hall or non-Prince Hall and/or Shriners, party hard!

There's those darned ellipses again! Let's take a look and see what was left off:

I limited what I posted and added the ellipses in respect to the rules of this forum:

2.7 Copyright

You will not make posts that violate the copyrights of others. In general, this means that any quoted portion of any work must not exceed 20% of the total work.

And just so you know, I will continue to obey the rules of this forum when posting material from other sources. The use of ellipses will be a cue that there is more, and I will always provide a link to the full article or work I obtain from the Internet.

This was not an incident sanctioned by the Grand Lodge at all. . .Which goes to show, this was not Masonic behavior at all, not by Prince Hall standards. Posting this as "evidence" of the accusation is a bit deceptive, don't you think, in light of the FULL article?

What's deceitful is your accussation of deceit despite the fact that I clearly provided a link to the FULL article. Besides I never said, nor did I intend to imply that the practice of hazing is sanctioned by any Grand Lodge, including those of Prince Hall affiliation. I merely wanted to show that it not only occurred when I was an active Mason 25 years ago, but that it continues to take place today. But you said, very distinctly I might add:

If I had ever gotten any clue even in the very slightest that anything such as you described, might ever be a part of being a Mason, I would never have joined, and if I got any clue of such things even now that this is true of any more than an extreme fringe part of Masonry, I would be out in a heartbeat.

I have given you enough clues (a recent example from Texas, one from Germany, as well as my own experience) that this most certainly does happen, and Prince Hall Masonry is most certainly NOT an extreme fringe of Freemasonry. Yet I do not hear even the slightest hint that you are contemplating getting out of Masonry.

Instead I hear you rationalizing, as usual, in order to discount or disregard what you know to be the evils of Freemasonry. Obviously you are already much too ensnared by it to even live up to your own words.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I limited what I posted and added the ellipses in respect to the rules of this forum:

And I posted more of the article than you did, and yet I kept within the 20% rule as well. You know as well as I do that there are things in both the articles that do not fit the description you gave us and tell quite a different story. The part that came after the ellipsis was part of the "rest of the story" that you didn't tell. The fact that it goes against the grain of your claims, coupled with the fact that you chose to end in mid-sentence with an ellipsis, is very telling indeed, despite your protests.

It just seems that when accusers of Freemasonry quote the material of others, they never can quite seem to finish the sentences.

And, you can deny it all you want and post as many Grand Lodge edicts against it you like, but you know darn well that not all, but many Masons, be they Prince Hall or non-Prince Hall and/or Shriners, party hard

And you can deny it all you wish, but you know darn well too, that you cannot take something that is the exception and portray it as though it were the rule, without being challenged by those who know better.

The use of ellipses will be a cue that there is more

That was my whole point: there IS more, and that "more" in this case changed the entire flow of what was quoted.

I never said, nor did I intend to imply that the practice of hazing is sanctioned by any Grand Lodge, including those of Prince Hall affiliation. I merely wanted to show that it not only occurred when I was an active Mason 25 years ago, but that it continues to take place today.

The whole gist of your argument has been, reasons to leave Freemasonry, or not to get involved if you are not already. Therefore, the posting of such accusations is an attempt to paint a picture that justifies your claim of "what goes on in the Lodge." If you weren't trying to portray this as the norm, and therefore in some way part and parcel of what goes on, if not in all of Masonry, then at least in most of it, then what exactly were you trying to imply? Because if you are in general agreement with me that this is NOT the norm, and this is NOT sanctioned by any Grand Lodge you can name, then how exactly does that justify your idea that these are reasons to get out?

What's deceitful is your accussation of deceit despite the fact that I clearly provided a link to the FULL article.

So which is more deceitful: you posting the material you did with a link and pretending that's all there is, or me posting the part you chose to de-emphasize, and by doing so, reveal to the readers who may not have followed the link, that there is another side of the story which you chose to ignore?

I have given you enough clues (a recent example from Texas, one from Germany, as well as my own experience) that this most certainly does happen, and Prince Hall Masonry is most certainly NOT an extreme fringe of Freemasonry.

What you provided was, two isolated incidents, one of which was immediately followed up with suspensions by the Grand Lodge; and the other, if you follow the details given within the article, which does not even appear to have been anything more than people rushing to judgment based on things said beforehand--and which, if you believe the man's mother will tell the truth about her son, you have to discount the whole story?

Clearly in both cases, this was a case of the signs of the times, just plain out sensational journalism that tries to create its own story, with all the embellishment that one can find to beef it up.

And the other thing clear to see is, Prince Hall Masonry has some distinct problems they need to deal with, of some misguided and immature people who probably never were ready to be Lodge material in the first place (where were they first made a Mason? or not?) Anybody can see, whoever is engaging in this behavior clearly has not understood the idea of Freemasonry's "fraternity" status, and has substituted their own mistaken ideas of what a fraternity consists of--which in their case happens to be, college frat hazes and beer busts.

And THAT is not Freemasonry.

You were Prince Hall. Perhaps you had the same ideas when you came up?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Feedback:

A couple of friends have responded to personal query, friends whose combined time of membership in the Lodge is the equivalent to an average life span, have both assured me they have never seen or even heard of anything of the nature described in the posted articles, and in fact far from it. The most we have is some good-natured kidding about "riding the goat," a silly rumor that candidates are generally aware of before they ever join. One of these fellows assures me he has been in at least 1,000 Lodge meetings and not only never saw any trace of such brutality, but not even a touch of meanness.
As for the mention of your own personal experience re the "sharp instrument," my own experience was, to me i seemed to be neither sharp nor an instrument. It felt more like the person simply touched me with the end of his finger, it was that benign, and only the words told of any "sharp instrument."

The insistence I have seen all along, that the Prince Hall lodges are no different than others, appears to be an opinion that is greatly in error.

It's good to see, though, that the GM in the Texas situation was as quick to action as he was, to rein them in and restore order.

 

[amadeus72]

The insistence I have seen all along, that the Prince Hall lodges are no different than others, appears to be an opinion that is greatly in error.

Indeed. My Grand Lodge does not recognize PHA. I have several friends in PHA, and what they've described to me as their practices are about as far removed from regular Masonry as the Mormons are from the Southern Baptists.

There may be some good PHA Lodges out there, but just from what I've heard and read, PHA is not authentic Masonry.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As I said earlier, when anyone comes here or anywhere else I may be on the Internet in order to claim that Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity, I will be there to set the record straight.

Compatibility has been declared as the main interest in the minds of some accusers. So compatibility it is, then, but let the discussion be fair:

I. ACCEPT FREEMASONRY FOR WHAT IT IS BY ITS OWN DEFINITION


In the past, when declarations of compatibility have been made, the typical pattern has been (1) a Scripture quote, (2) a quote from ritual or other Masonic source, and (3) an automatic declaration of incompatibility.

That agenda has thus been unfair in its comparison, which has been more like comparing apples to bowling balls. Freemasonry has shown itself to be, and has declared itself to be, "a system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols." Literal comparisons are therefore of little or no value. Those who continually compare the literal to the symbolic without taking symbolic meaning into account, make it clear they have no intention of engaging in any sincere, honest debate on the issue.

Yet for the Christian Mason, this is the crux of the whole matter of compatibility, for the true compatibility of Freemasonry with Christianity, or for that matter with any other religion, is to be found in its symbols. The very fact that the overwhelming majority of Masons are also Christians (some estimates are as high as 95%), is evidence enough that many Christians have no problem interpreting the symbols of Freemasonry from a Christian perspective.

I wouldn't mind debating the issue of compatibility with anyone who will challenge it on that basis. But unfortunately, and inevitably, even when a debate begins from that starting point, compatibility eventually is denied by denying the validity of the symbolism, whether directly by challenge, or indirectly by insisting on literalist arguments.

The names are many in Masonry, eminent and well-known, who speak of Christian interpretations: Hutchinson, Preston, Oliver, Mackey, Pike, Wilmshurst, Macoy, and numerous others. By "Christian interpretations" it is not meant that they all interpret Masonry as strictly Christian; yet there are some who have declared it to be so, who are yet eminently respected Masons, and whose work is recommended reading in several jurisdictions.

So let it be known far and wide, Masonry finds a close fit with Christianity--I would even say its symbols find the most natural fit within the Christian faith than in any other. Challenges based on a truthful reckoning of Freemasonry as symbolic will not hold.

II. UNDERSTAND COMPATIBILITY FOR WHAT IT IS

All too often, compatibility of the meanings of the symbols of Masonry is rejected because the meanings are not an exact duplicate of Christian theological definitions. Rejection on this basis is rejection on the grounds that Freemasonry is not Christian--a ridiculous proposition, since Freemasonry does not proclaim to be exclusively Christian in the first place. But it is also a rejection on false grounds, because "compatible" was never intended to mean "identical." Two basic definitions of compatible:

(1) able to exist and perform in harmonious or agreeable combination;

(2) capable of being used with or connected to other devices or components without modification.

The word itself comes from the Latin root, compati, meaning "to suffer or endure together" (Com = with, pati = suffer). By derivation it has changed from a meaning of "suffer" to become "work" or "perform" or "function," together.

The second is more applicable to machinery, and more specifically, to computer technology, but the idea is still the same. For instance, the mouse and monitor I have on this computer are made by eMachines, but the processor itself is a Dell; yet when I plugged them in and turned it on, both of them worked without modification and without any problems, because they are compatible.

No one has to look very far to understand just how well Freemasonry has worked in harmonious, agreeable relationship with Christian faith. It was birthed in a Christian nation, its principles are founded on the Holy Bible, and "harmony" is one of its watchwords. The symbols, correctly understood and interpreted, are more natural from a Christian viewpoint than from any other. The clear harmony between the two systems has served them both well for what will soon be three centuries. Thus the relationship has far outlasted most other human relationships and institutions where such cooperation is necessary.

 

[O.F.F.]

In the past, when declarations of compatibility have been made, the typical pattern has been (1) a Scripture quote, (2) a quote from ritual or other Masonic source, and (3) an automatic declaration of incompatibility.

That agenda has thus been unfair in its comparison, which has been more like comparing apples to bowling balls. Freemasonry has shown itself to be, and has declared itself to be, "a system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols." Literal comparisons are therefore of little or no value.

There is a reason for quoting rituals and monitors. They are produced by the highest authorities in Freemasonry the individual Grand Lodges for each state, province, or geographic area. Therefore, if you want to know what Freemasonry teaches its members there is no better source then their rituals and monitors. Then you can compare what it teaches to what the Bible teaches. If their teaching is different from what the Bible teaches, then it proves biblical, and therefore Christian, incompatibility.

For example, Freemasonry makes literal statements about God. Therefore, Freemasonry has a theology. By definition theology means "a word about God" formed from the Greek words "theos" (God) and "logos" (word). So, one can compare what Freemasonry says about God to what the Bible says about God and if what they say is not the same you can claim this Masonic teaching is incompatible with Christianity.

The first clue to Masonic incompatibility with Christianity is the fact that Freemasonry requires its members to profess belief in "a" Supreme Being, not "the" Supreme Being. This is a literal fact within Freemasonry, not symbolism. Since it requires belief in any form of Deity to become a member, if it were compatible with Christianity it would demand belief in the One True Living, Triune God as defined in the Bible; God the Father, .God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit. Yet, to the institution of Freemasonry, it does not matter what god its members choose to believe in. Therefore, even if it is true that "95% of Masons claim to be Christians," which has NOT been proven, it can be Krishna, Allah, Jesus, Brahman, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, the Sun, Moon, and Stars or even Satan if one believes him to be God.

Secondly, and here is the real crux of the matter, in light of the above, the Masonic Lodge gives to its initiates an all–encompassing Masonic Deity to satisfy all of its members in a generic sense of the word "God" calling it the Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU). Although Freemasonry allows its initiates their individual deities as a prerequisite to membership, corporately, institutionally, and to Wayne's point symbolically for that matter, Freemasonry has a "Deity" within which all these individual deities may be acknowledged (GAOTU). In Masonic ritual, GAOTU is described and addressed as "Most Holy and Glorious Lord God! The Great Architect of the Universe."

Therefore, when Christians, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, Unitarians, Mormons etc. are gathered in the Masonic Lodge for ritual, they all combine to pray to GAOTU. And as has been shown here before, these prayers are not limited to mere prayers of invocation, but include prayers for santification. Because of this practice in ritual, Masonic authors are able to make the following claim:

In his private devotions a man may petition God or Jehovah, Allah or Buddha, Mohammed or Jesus; he may call upon the God of Israel or the Great First Cause. In the Masonic Lodge he hears humble petition to the Great Architect of the Universe, finding his own deity under that name.

Carl H. Claudy, Introduction to Freemasonry Washington, D.C.: The Temple Publishers, 1959, vol. 1, pg. 37

Some Masonic apologists, including Rev. Wayne, have criticized Christian apologists who make an issue of the phrase GAOTU, stating that John Calvin used the phrase to describe God. Though this may be true, the issue is the content of the phrase when used, not the phrase itself. John Calvin obviously defined "Great Architect" very differently from that of Freemasonry. His was and is the One True and Living God who exists eternally as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Freemasonry's god is able to include within himself Vishnu, Brahman, the Great First Cause, Jesus, Allah and any other deity a man may profess belief in.

This is just one example of Freemasonry's incompatibility with Christianity, yet we have, and I am willing to discuss others. But, for Masons claiming to follow Christ, this presents a contradiction to the teachings of the Master and His apostles.

 

[amadeus72]

The first clue to Masonic incompatibility with Christianity is the fact that Freemasonry requires its members to profess belief in "a" Supreme Being, not "the" Supreme Being. This is a literal fact within Freemasonry, not symbolism. Since it requires belief in any form of Deity to become a member, if it were compatible with Christianity it would demand belief in the One True Living, Triune God as defined in the Bible; God the Father, .God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit. Yet, to the institution of Freemasonry, it does not matter what god its members choose to believe in. Therefore, even if it is true that "95% of Masons claim to be Christians," which has NOT been proven, it can be Krishna, Allah, Jesus, Brahman, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, the Sun, Moon, and Stars or even Satan if one believes him to be God.

Secondly, and here is the real crux of the matter, in light of the above, the Masonic Lodge gives to its initiates an all–encompassing Masonic Deity to satisfy all of its members in a generic sense of the word "God" calling it the Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU). Although Freemasonry allows its initiates their individual deities as a prerequisite to membership, corporately, institutionally, and to Wayne's point symbolically for that matter, Freemasonry has a "Deity" within which all these individual deities may be acknowledged (GAOTU). In Masonic ritual, GAOTU is described and addressed as "Most Holy and Glorious Lord God! The Great Architect of the Universe."

Therefore, when Christians, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, Unitarians, Mormons etc. are gathered in the Masonic Lodge for ritual, they all combine to pray to GAOTU. And as has been shown here before, these prayers are not limited to mere prayers of invocation, but include prayers for santification... Freemasonry's god is able to include within himself Vishnu, Brahman, the Great First Cause, Jesus, Allah and any other deity a man may profess belief in.

This is just one example of Freemasonry's incompatibility with Christianity, yet we have, and I am willing to discuss others. But, for Masons claiming to follow Christ, this presents a contradiction to the teachings of the Master and His apostles.

Do you also believe then that Boy Scouts of America are incompatible with Christianity? After all, BSA has the same prerequisites: belief in a Supreme Being, which is not explicitly defined, and non-Christians are admitted providing they meet this requirement.

The same may be said of the Knights of Pythias, Oddfellows, Eagles, Loyal Order of Moose, Fraternal Order of Police, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elk, and Greek Letter Societies. Is your criticism of Masonry only, or do you level it against all these other organizations as well?

 

[buddy mack]

Do you also believe then that Boy Scouts of America are incompatible with Christianity? After all, BSA has the same prerequisites: belief in a Supreme Being, which is not explicitly defined, and non-Christians are admitted providing they meet this requirement.

The same may be said of the Knights of Pythias, Oddfellows, Eagles, Loyal Order of Moose, Fraternal Order of Police, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elk, and Greek Letter Societies. Is your criticism of Masonry only, or do you level it against all these other organizations as well?

I was at a none-religious meeting where prayers where given, and all but one ended in, "the Name, amen." the last prayer ended with a guy saying, "in jesus name, amen."
This was the only prayer i said at the end of the prayer. "amen." too.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I was at a none-religious meeting where prayers where given, and all but one ended in, "the Name, amen." the last prayer ended with a guy saying, "in jesus name, amen."
This was the only prayer i said at the end of the prayer. "amen." too.

What a coincidence. At our Lodge meeting last night, there were three separate prayers, one was a form prayer that was read by someone at the beginning, another was a similar form prayer at the conclusion, and the other was an extemporaneous prayer offered during the meeting after prayer requests were taken. The prayer was concluded "in the name of Christ we pray, Amen."

But there the similarities end, because I said "Amen" at the end of all three, having no inward hesitation or mental reservation about who I or anyone else was praying to.

 

[Rev Wayne]

There is a reason for quoting rituals and monitors. They are produced by the highest authorities in Freemasonry the individual Grand Lodges for each state, province, or geographic area.

No one has argued against “quoting rituals and monitors.” And for once at least, we have an acknowledgment that the Grand Lodges are the authorities in Freemasonry. That is a good starting point, but keep in mind their authority extends only within each Grand Lodge jurisdiction. For most of them in the U.S., that means simply “within the geographical boundaries of each state”—for most of them were established and formed along the same boundaries as those of the individual states. The main exception would be the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia.

There are differences from one Grand Lodge jurisdiction to another. Most of them are very similar on most points of Masonry, but with some there are very distinct differences. For instance, in most jurisdictions, the “Blue Degrees,” the first three degrees of Masonry, are derived from York Rite Masonry. In Louisiana, there are some districts (10 if memory serves correctly) that have rituals that are derived from Scottish Rite and as a result are very different. Another decided difference exists in Pennsylvania, where there is neither a written ritual nor a “cipher” (or book of coded symbols) for the rituals, and all is transmitted orally.

One typical tactic of Masonry’s critics has been to use the differences to their advantage. For instance, there is a quote which commonly shows up from the Kentucky monitor, written by Henry Pirtle, describing the Savior motif as found in various religious traditions, in which the unfortunate wording Mr. Pirtle chose in his description was that Hiram Abiff was “a Savior for Masons.” Hiram Abiff as described in the third or Master Mason degree, is no more a “savior for Masons” than the Pied Piper is a savior for Hamlin. Yet this quote has been cited again and again as “proof” of incompatibility of Freemasonry with Christianity. The fact is, understood correctly, that is, symbolically, Hiram Abiff is easily seen by the Christian Mason as a depiction of Christ and the Resurrection—so easily so, in fact, that even Masonry’s critics have described the third degree as a “Masonic baptism,” despite its having no water in its symbolism whatsoever. (The Pirtle quote in the Kentucky Monitor, incidentally, still gets cited by Masonry’s critics despite its having been discontinued as a part of their Monitor some years ago.)

If their teaching is different from what the Bible teaches, then it proves biblical, and therefore Christian, incompatibility.

Agreed. But the problem arises when the “case” that is presented is in error, either claiming more than it proves, or making claims based on false premises and hence false claims. The most monumental error made in this regard is the failure (1) to take into account the symbology, and/or (2) to take into account the history behind the statements/symbols being criticized.

For example, Freemasonry makes literal statements about God. Therefore, Freemasonry has a theology. By definition theology means "a word about God" formed from the Greek words "theos" (God) and "logos" (word).

Why certainly. But all monotheistic religions have a word about “God.” The main factor separating among the various religions is the point at which this “word” begins to differentiate. Masonry does not have a “word about God” beyond the point of differentiation. Their only “words about God” actually amount to two: (1) God is Creator, a “word about God” that is common to all monotheistic religions; and (2) God is Sovereign over all He has created, another “word about God” that is common to all monotheistic religions. Call that theology if you wish, but by no means is it “a” theology in terms of being a theology in and of itself in contradistinction to other systems of theology. It is more akin to a “common denominator” of basic religious beliefs, to use a mathematical rather than a theological term, since “generic” seems to give critics the heebie-jeebies.

So, one can compare what Freemasonry says about God to what the Bible says about God and if what they say is not the same you can claim this Masonic teaching is incompatible with Christianity.

No argument here, you may "claim" what you wish, we certainly have a point of agreement. However, critics take this discussion beyond where Masonry confines its understanding about God. Masonry defines two "words about God" as already stated, God is Creator, God is Sovereign. If those two statements, taken as they are and nothing added (as the critics are wont to do in their criticisms), there is absolutely nothing of incompatibility in either of them in comparison to Christianity, because as Christians we affirm both these things. If someone challenges, “But Christianity states that Jesus is Creator,” then they have taken it beyond what Masonry chooses to define. If the Moslem challenges that Allah is Creator, then they have taken it beyond what Masonry chooses to define.

The first clue to Masonic incompatibility with Christianity is the fact that Freemasonry requires its members to profess belief in "a" Supreme Being, not "the" Supreme Being.

A distinction without a difference. Masonry does not proclaim "a," Masonry says "a" to leave the "the" up to the individual. By reason of the definition already supplied for “incompatible,” the accusation is incorrect. Even philosophers have debated upon the idea of one Supreme Being, and defined Him as such. Go to websites like Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, www.carm.org, and you will find many of the various arguments that have been used. Paley’s idea of a “Watchmaker” is one version of the teleological argument, or one which in our times has been bandied about in debate with evolutionists as “Intelligent Design” or ID, which points to the ultimate existence of one great Designer. There is another argument that things are all based upon cause and effect, probably first developed by Anselm, which posits the ultimate existence of a Being who is defined as the “Uncaused Cause.” Thomas Aquinas refined this cosmological argument into an “argument from motion,” and defined God as the “Unmoved Mover.”

The fact is, none of these arguments uses a single term that is specifically Christian in reference to the God they ultimately point to, mainly because the point of such arguments is to provide a rationale for belief in God, not for belief in the Christian faith. Yet every one of them was developed by Christian thinkers, and every one of them remains popular and well-used and cited by Christian organizations like the one above, and are well-known to a large proportion of those who profess the Christian faith. So it should be no problem accepting the idea of God being defined in terms of the ultimate Builder, and thus being referred to as the “Great Architect of the Universe,” which is basically all that Freemasonry does (And the term itself was coined, apparently, by another great Christian thinker, John Calvin, a term he uses quite often in his Institutes when he speaks of Creation or of God as Creator).

Freemasonry does not try to establish a theology for any religious institution or theological system. It simply states, and requires of those who join, the belief that there is a “Supreme Being,” or a “Great Architect,” or an “Uncaused Cause,” or an “Unmoved Mover,” or an “Intelligent Designer.” Trying to help the critic who cannot see the simplicity and plainness of what is stated in Freemasonry on this point, has been the greatest mystery the fraternity has tried to solve. Trying to fathom how anyone, Christian or otherwise, can see this simple two-fold description of God (as Creator and Sovereign) as somehow “incompatible” has been a close second.

if it were compatible with Christianity it would demand belief in the One True Living, Triune God as defined in the Bible; God the Father, .God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit.

Again, we return to the basic definition of “compatibility.” What is described in the above statement is something that is identical, not something that is compatible. Now certainly, to most Christian Masons, that compatibility will be expressed in personal beliefs that are identical, that is, Trinitarian in nature. But let’s not confuse “identical” with “compatible,” not even for a moment. If we lose sight of what the meaning of “compatibility” is, then we lose sight of the entire argument. No one is claiming for Freemasonry that its expressions are identical with those of Christian faith; what is being claimed is, that the symbols of Freemasonry, when interpreted by Christian Masons in full view of their Christian faith, are not incompatible with that faith. Those who claim otherwise, for the most part, usually (1) confuse “compatible” with “identical,” (2) misinterpret the symbols, or (3) base their claims on theology or “words about God” that go beyond what Freemasonry affirms.

Yet, to the institution of Freemasonry, it does not matter what god its members choose to believe in.

In one sense, the above statement is true: the individual is the one who chooses, not the Lodge. The only reason Masonry even asks that members affirm believe in one Supreme Being, is the emphasis Masonry places upon morality and moral teaching. Every monotheistic religion has a basic code of morality, and in comparison they are very similar in their basic affirmations: don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, love God and neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, show your love for God and neighbor in acts of charity and kindness. “Against such things there is no law,” Scripture tells us. And as already pointed out, Freemasonry is “a system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.”

 

[Rev Wayne]

Therefore, even if it is true that "95% of Masons claim to be Christians," which has NOT been proven, it can be Krishna, Allah, Jesus, Brahman, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, the Sun, Moon, and Stars or even Satan if one believes him to be God.

Not true, on at least one count. It is one of the Landmarks of the order, and one of the “Ancient Charges,” which are found in every Masonic Code/Manual of every jurisidiction, that one may not be “an irreligious libertine or a stupid atheist.” Occasionally a claim arises that someone who worships Satan as their “supreme being” has been able to be involved in Masonry, but I have yet to see such a claim that could be substantiated. Such claims are generally of a sensational nature, and are made only by those already devoted to denigrating Freemasonry to the fullest extent they can, even to the point of fabricating their accusations a la Ankerberg & Weldon, or of fudging on their Masonic “experience,” which was usually in one of the many forms of pseudo-Masonry as in the case of Blanchard, or in falsely claiming credentials far beyond their Masonic involvment, as in the case of Jim Shaw. These prevarications serve only to inflame the antimasonic spirit that these accusers have already “established” by their own creation. It sells plenty of books for them, which unfortunately has engendered an entire new breed of imitators. Fortunately, the imitators do not appear to be nearly as creative as the originals, and are mostly experts at cut and paste reproductions. Hopefully the eventual demise of the “founding fathers of fomented frenetic farcical fabrications of Freemasonry” will cut off the fuel supply and the new breed will die on the vine of starvation.
As for the claim that the 95% figure for Christian Masons "has not been proven," it hasn't been disproven either. With an estimate of about 5 milllion Masons worldwide, the number of Masons in English-speaking countries alone makes a whopping majority, since the predominant faith of English-speaking nations is Christianity. Besides, critics' double standard of what constitutes Christian faith become more exacting and demanding when the question is asked of Christian Masons.

As for the other names mentioned, the question is invalid and irrelevant as concerns "compatibility," each of them extending as they do, beyond what Masonry chooses to define about God.

Freemasonry has a "Deity" within which all these individual deities may be acknowledged (GAOTU). In Masonic ritual, GAOTU is described and addressed as "Most Holy and Glorious Lord God! The Great Architect of the Universe."

This ground has already been covered and re-covered, to the point of redundancy. (It was covered earlier in this thread as well). GAOTU is not “a god,” it is not a “name,” it is not “God,” it is not a “conglomeration,” it is not a “composite,” it is none of these or similar forms of accusation. It is simply a neutral phrase, one which is non-specific, it is the Masonic equivalent of the simple English word “god,” which is used far and wide as a reference to the Creator, as a reference to the Triune God of Christianity, as a reference to “Allah,” or to any other conception one wishes to use to simply say “God.” GAOTU is no different a term than Anselm’s Uncaused Cause, no different than Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover, no different than Paley’s Watchmaker, no different than the Intelligent Designer of today’s creationists. By that term the Christian Mason may refer to the Triune God with no contradiction and no incompatibility, because the phrase only says that God is Architect of the Universe, which He certainly is. By that term a Mason of any other faith may refer to his own God with no contradiction and no incompatibility, because within his own belief system, he also affirms that God is Creator of the universe. There is no requirement in Masonry that any Mason believe in God in terms that contradict the beliefs of his own religion. Affirming that God is a Grand Architect does not contradict Christian faith.
Typically, the critics of Masonry will counter, “But it certainly does, because it does not specifically state that God is Triune, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” But the accusation, again, goes beyond what Masonry affirms about God, and what Masonry affirms about God, even as expressed in “Grand Architect of the Universe,” is not contradictory to Christian faith, nor is it “incompatible.” Granted, it is not a full affirmation of all that is true of God as expressed in the Christian faith—but then, it doesn’t claim to be, nor was it ever intended to be—nor is it incompatible, because all that it DOES affirm about God is also affirmed in the Christian faith. The arguments against this are circular, and tend to revolve around a false apprehension of Masonry as a full-blown system of theology—which it also is not, and was never intended to be.

Therefore, when Christians, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, Unitarians, Mormons etc. are gathered in the Masonic Lodge for ritual, they all combine to pray to GAOTU.

Been there, done that with this one also. Prayer takes place in the heart, the Christian Mason will pray to the Triune God in his heart. In my own lodge, we only use “Architect” if it appears in form prayers to open or close the lodge, or during ritual. But we also have an open prayer or free prayer that comes during open business sessions of the lodge, and requests are received for the known sick among all those present. These prayers are regularly prayed as the one praying sees fit, and are just as regularly ended “in the name of Christ we pray.”

And as has been shown here before, these prayers are not limited to mere prayers of invocation, but include prayers for santification.

The specific prayer you mention is the prayer for a candidate in the EA degree, the first degree of Masonry. The mention of “sanctification” is a prayer that he may be “sanctified by the pure principles of Masonry, that he may be better enabled to display the beauties of Thy holiness.”

(1) The principles of Masonry are principles founded on the Holy Bible. There is not a principle that has been established in Masonry, nor is there a recitation of any sacred book, that did not come from the Bible. So if the objection is based on the idea that it is ill-founded because founded on Masonic principles, then ultimately the charge is that it is ill-founded because it is founded on the Bible. I daresay if the accusers were to consider their accusations in light of what they are ultimately claiming, they would think twice before making such claims.

(2) It is a prayer that the petitioner “may” be sanctified thusly, and its purpose is stated as, “that he may be better enabled to display. . .” The assumption is that there is one who is the Enabler, and it is to God the Enabler that the prayer is made, and it is a request that His enabling will be made available to this candidate.

(3) ”Sanctified” simply means “set apart” for God’s use. In the OT, from which most of the principles of Masonry were developed, utensils that were to be used in the Temple were first “sanctified,” that is, set apart to be from that point on strictly for use within the Temple and for Temple purposes.

I for one have no problem with praying for a candidate of Masonry to be set apart by God for His use, or of being “enabled” by OT moral principles to “better display” God’s holiness. As a Christian, the prayer speaks to me of being the “light of the world” that Jesus has said we are, and are to be.

But the fact is, that may not be what the ritual or the prayer has to say to someone of some other faith. It is not my place, or Masonry’s place, to dictate to that person what he has to see and interpret in the words of the EA ritual, nor in the prayer either. Nor is it Masonry's place to dictate to me as a Christian what I shall see in the interpretation of the ritual. That is for the individual, and if the individual sees incompatibility within the prayer as he is in the process of enacting the ritual, he has every right and every freedom to say at that point, “Enough, I will proceed no further.” Nothing in Masonry is forced upon anyone, I was given every assurance at all points before and during the process of each degree, that if anything was amiss to me as I interpreted it by my faith, that I should not proceed further, but should stop at that point. It is clearly up to the individual.

As for the individual of another faith, Masonry is designed to be individualized to every single candidate who goes through the degrees. So much so that, even though in the U.S. every Lodge has the Holy Bible on the altar because Christianity is the predominant religion of the land, any individual has the right to have the book of his faith, according to his own choice, to be placed on the altar alongside the Holy Bible, for the duration of that degree, so that he may be obligated upon the book of his own faith. All sorts of accusations arise from this simple common courtesy to those who profess other faiths. But it does no sacrilege to the faith of the Christian, for he has taken his obligation on the Holy Bible, the book of his own faith. Nor is any requirement incumbent upon the Christian in regard to this other candidate’s choice of books on which to be obligated, other than, along with all the members of the lodge, to allow this candidate to exercise his own individual freedom of religious choice. Nor does it do any sacrilege to the Holy Bible, which remains central upon the altar, the same position it occupied when the Lodge was opened, a position which, if not established as the Lodge is opened, that meeting is not considered “regular,” in other words, not a legally and properly constituted meeting of Masons. Nor does any other book go on top of the Bible, nor does it replace the Bible, nor in any other way take a position of preferment over the Bible, for in U.S. Lodges the Bible is the Great Light of Masonry and the Book that resides upon the altar. Nor does it do any sacrilege to the candidate or to his faith, for he is obligated upon the sacred book of his own choice.

Those who argue against the practice are arguing against a practice which is designed to establish the principle of freedom of religious choice. This principle is one of the bedrock foundations of our constitution and our national heritage. To criticize the practice is to criticize the principles upon which our nation was established. How it can be justified is anybody’s guess, and is one of the many mysteries with which Masons have to deal.

John Calvin obviously defined "Great Architect" very differently from that of Freemasonry. His was and is the One True and Living God who exists eternally as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Yes, he certainly did. And every Christian Mason has the same freedom to define the phrase however he chooses. But to say that John Calvin defined the term “differently” is to say that he went beyond the simple affirmations of Masonry, which are two, but may be expressed together as one in the phrase “Sovereign Creator.” In going beyond those, naturally Calvin used the term "Architect" to express the Triune Christian God. Masonry does not, but the Christian Mason can, and does. The person who originally chose the term “Architect” may or may not have been familiar with Calvin’s use of the term. In all likelihood, it was simply chosen because of its affinity with the Mason’s trade—a fact made all the more likely when Masonic history is considered.

The original operative Masons were organized into one of the many trade guilds. These guilds were the people who supplied the actors for medieval “morality plays,” a popular dramatic form of the time, and one which was essentially religious in nature. Each guild would have its own play, and would provide its own cast of actors. The typical format and design of the plays was to illustrate moral truth by the use of symbolism, and the tools and common usages of each trade were incorporated into the play. With that history in mind, a description of God as “Architect” becomes even clearer than before. So also do the lectures of Masonry’s apron, its working tools, its square and compasses, the trowel, the plumb, the level—all were incorporated into the symbolic illustration of moral principles, and all of them have been preserved and remain essentially unchanged even to this day.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Freemasonry's god is able to include within himself Vishnu, Brahman, the Great First Cause, Jesus, Allah and any other deity a man may profess belief in.

I’m sorry, but this claim has ceased to speak of Freemasonry. Freemasonry establishes nothing about such specific terms, those are left up to the individual Mason. The one mentioned here that comes the closest is “the Great First Cause,” but I have never heard of a religion that exercises that term in relation to its “name” for God, that’s a new one on me. The “Great First Cause” is really an expression of Anselm’s Cosmological Argument, which developed from Christian thinking, but nevertheless is more of a neutral philosophical term that may easily speak of “God” without necessarily asserting one faith system over any other.

And I have to assume that God is big enough and wise enough to allow whomever He wishes to speak of Him in terms descriptive of His essential Being, without any affirmation or denial being a part of the description, without said description carrying within it any necessity of establishing by its use any import of individual faith systems, or one’s eternal destiny, or any such thing. How else could anyone from any other system ever come to know the True and Living God, without the faith and knowledge of whom is eternal loss, if the very mention of the terms common to their own current knowledge of His attributes, is considered anathema and the person greeted with condemnatory language? What kind of Christianity is being professed which makes its adherents unapproachable? Thank the one True and Living God for the descriptions I find of Him as one who is the “one God and Father of all,” who has “made of one blood” all who live upon the earth, declaring that He is knowable and “not far from every one of us,” the One in Whom we all “live, and move, and have our being.”

And thank God for His Son Jesus Christ, Author and Finisher of our faith as Christians, who died and gave Himself for us, and rose again, and “ever lives to make intercession for us.” Thank God that He has, through His Son, provided, not a God who cannot be apprehended or who pushes everyone away according to the whims of mistaken men, but who has declared, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself.” It is our duty as the carriers of His light to be a welcome lighthouse leading out of stormy and treacherous waters, to be a part of that drawing, not an interrogator's blinding beam to weaken, frighten, and intimidate.

 

[O.F.F.]

And I have to assume that God is big enough and wise enough to allow whomever He wishes to speak of Him in terms descriptive of His essential Being, without any affirmation or denial being a part of the description, without said description carrying within it any necessity of establishing by its use any import of individual faith systems, or one’s eternal destiny, or any such thing. How else could anyone from any other system ever come to know the True and Living God, without the faith and knowledge of whom is eternal loss, if the very mention of the terms common to their own current knowledge of His attributes, is considered anathema and the person greeted with condemnatory language?

The issue is not the attributes of God; it is about who Masons of all faiths systems view as God. Freemasonry teaches that all gods are one in the same, hence the common term or phrase used to identify all as one -- GAOTU. However, the god of the Hindu Mason, Muslim Mason, or Buddhist Mason, etc. is NOT the Triune God of the Bible no matter how much they believe their god is Creator and Sovereign; they do NOT have His attributes. From God's perspective biblically Vishnu, Allah, Brahman, etc. are as detestable as Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Baal and Molech or any other false god (1 Kings 11:4-10).

As Christians, we are supposed to tolerate and respect individuals, regardless of their beliefs. We should look for opportunities to share our faith in the hope to lead them to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. We tolerate people of different faiths as we live together within the same communities, work together as fellow employees, meet in the public square as citizens together in a friendly and cooperative way, and even participating in social fellowship as friends and neighbors. But we should never tolerate false concepts of God.

Biblically, God does not tolerate false concept of Him, and warns us not to tolerate it as well. By design, Freemasonry tolerates and encourages the worship of false gods at the same time "Christian" Masons worship the Triune God of the Bible under the canopy term GAOTU, which only applies to Him. As a result, whether they want to accept it or not, Christians who participate in Freemasonry violate the First Commandment (Exodus 20:2-4, Deuteronomy 6:5).

It is one of the Landmarks of the order, and one of the “Ancient Charges,” which are found in every Masonic Code/Manual of every jurisidiction, that one may not be “an irreligious libertine or a stupid atheist.”

This requisite facilitates the Masonic notion that all gods are one in the same, just referred to by different names.

GAOTU is not “a god,” it is not a “name,” it is not “God,” it is not a “conglomeration,” it is not a “composite,” it is none of these or similar forms of accusation. It is simply a neutral phrase, one which is non-specific, it is the Masonic equivalent of the simple English word “god,” which is used far and wide as a reference to the Creator, as a reference to the Triune God of Christianity, as a reference to “Allah,” or to any other conception one wishes to use to simply say “God.”

As you should know, Allah and any other false concept of God is NOT the Triune God of Christianity and therefore NOT the Creator!

The principles of Masonry are principles founded on the Holy Bible. . .As for the individual of another faith, Masonry is designed to be individualized to every single candidate who goes through the degrees.

These are contradicting statements. The principles of the Bible lead to Jesus Christ, not the interpretation that reinforces another faith. If you are limiting your point to the moral principles that are common to all faiths, then it stands to reason that the principles of Freemasonry are founded on universalism, not the Holy Bible.

So much so that, even though in the U.S. every Lodge has the Holy Bible on the altar because Christianity is the predominant religion of the land, any individual has the right to have the book of his faith, according to his own choice, to be placed on the altar alongside the Holy Bible, for the duration of that degree, so that he may be obligated upon the book of his own faith.

This is not true, according to another Ancient Landmark of the Masonic Order:

It is a Landmark, that a "Book of the 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.

This landmark helps to further imply that "God" is the same regardless of the religion the Mason comes from. Additionally, having another Volume of Sacred Law (VSL), or "Book of the Law" of a different faith is not limited to the conferring of degrees for the purpose of taking ones obligation. As you can see from the following, some lodges have a variety of VSLs upon their altars anytime the lodges are opened. In fact the Shriners, another Masonic body, have the Bible, the Koran and the Veda on its altar at all times when in session.

If the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible are to be taken as seperate Volumes, there are no fewer than seven sets of Holy Writings in use in the Lodges of the East, in the band of countries stretching from Israel to New Zealand. These are:

1. The Bible (Old Testament) for Hebrews.
2. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) for Christians.
3. The Dhammapadra for the Mahay-ana Sect of Buddhists.
4. The Gita for Hindus.
5. The Granth Sahib for Sikhs.
6. The Koran for Muslims.
7. The Zend Avesta for Parsees and Zoroastrians.

All of these Sacred Books Allude to a Supreme Deity. . .Lodge Singapore No. 7178 (E.C.) has all seven volumes always on the Altar, of which six are open. . .The Grand Lodge of India has six Sacred Books upon the Altar, with five open. . .Since there are no Buddhist Masons in India, the Dhammapadra is omitted. . .Constituant Lodges under the Grand Lodge of India follow the same proceedure. Lodges under other Grand Lodges but residing in India place the Bible on the Altar and, uaually, the other Sacred Books representing the faith of their members.

From the Beehive State Trestleboard, Feb. 1996.,
by Roy L. Demming, S.W., Utah Research Lodge

 

[O.F.F.]

Defenders of the Masonic Faith often try to escape the accusation that the Craft is a religion by saying that it offers no way of salvation:

Since Freemasonry is not a religion, and does not think of itself as a religion, it does not make pronouncements on the specifics of salvation any more than the U.S. Congress or the Boy Scouts of America.

Fundamentalism & Freemasonry, pg. 174

But Freemasonry makes assertions about salvation, the Lodge is interested in the relationship of man to God, and in the redemption of its members. Later on I will show that it even makes assertions that deceased Masons have gone to heaven.

Sometimes Masons, due to ignorance or lack of discernment, do not recognize the salvation teachings of the Lodge. Let's consider the following Masonic lessons that specifically refer to life after death:

The Lamb has in all ages been deemed an emblem of innocence. He, therefore, who wears the Lambskin, as a badge of Masonry, is thereby continually reminded of that purity of life and rectitude of conduct which is essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the Celestial Lodge abovewhere the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides.

Murrow Masonic Monitor. Grand Lodge of Oklahoma, reprinted 1988, pg. 37

Here we have a sacred Masonic object (the Lambskin Apron) that, when worn, reminds the Mason of the purity of life and conduct which is essential to gaining admission into heaven. As an institution, Freemasonry implies that if a Mason, whether he be Hindu, Buddhist, Unitarian, Muslim or whatever, leads a pure life he will enter heaven. Biblically, however, only those who believe in Christ will enter heaven. Works follow conversion, which is brought about by God through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8–10).

Since Christ is the only way to heaven (John 14:6), Freemasonry blunders as it applies the lesson of the Apron to those who reject Christ, and contradicts Christian teaching on the subject of salvation. Thus, Freemasonry's lesson of the Lambskin Apron is a false teaching and a heretical lesson. It undermines the Gospel of Jesus Christ and, in effect, denies the sufficiency of the Cross of Christ by applying this lesson to believers and non-believers alike.

Another teaching on salvation is the lesson of the Common Gavel:

The Common Gavel is an instrument made use of by operative Masons to break off the rough and superfluous parts of stones, the better to fit them for the builder's use; but we, as Free and Accepted Masons, are taught to make use of it for the more noble and glorious purpose of divesting our hearts and consciences of all the vices and superfluities of life; thereby fitting our minds as living stones, for that spiritual building, that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Official Cipher. Grand Lodge of New Hampshire, third printing, 1987, pg. 20

This lesson presents further theological problems for the Lodge, and when we interpret it we see that the Lodge is not asserting what its initiates consider true for themselves. Instead, the Lodge is asserting what it, as an institution, considers true for all Masons.

The Common Gavel lesson explains a way of salvation, the specifics of salvation, and again our Lord Jesus is nowhere to be found. Consider the use of "thereby" ("thereby fitting our minds as living stones...") in the above quotation. This is an adverb and serves grammatically to make the "divesting [of Masons'] hearts and consciences of all the vices and superfluities of life" necessary for them to be fit for heaven!

Suppose I were to say, "Today I went to Home Depot to purchase mortar and bricks, thereby enabling me to build a brick wall." In this statement the adverb "thereby" signals to us that in order to fulfill my goal of building a brick wall, it was necessary that I purchase mortar and bricks. So, how do Masons get to heaven? According to the institution of Freemasonry, by "divesting our hearts and consciences of the vices and superfluities of life."

Furthermore, the Lodge applies this lesson to those who both reject and accept the biblical Christ. The two biblical verses alluded to in this Masonic lesson are 1 Peter 2:5 "You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" and 2 Corinthians 5:1 "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

In these verses, belief in Christ must first occur if anyone is to become a living stone and possess the hope of that spiritual building not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Freemasonry has ripped two Christ–centered passages from their biblical contexts in the name of Masonic non–sectarianism. Christians are the living stones and the holy priesthood, offering up spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5), NOT Masons. In the 2 Corinthians passage, the pronouns "our" (specifically in the Greek) and "we" (implied in the Greek verb) do not signify all people, but only those who know and have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Note also that the introductions to both of these letters are specifically addressed to believers (2 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1–2), yet Freemasonry applies this to believers in false gods as well.

Another teaching on salvation comes from the third degree:

In Youth, as Entered Apprentices, we ought industriously to occupy our minds in the attainment of useful knowledge; in Man hood, as Fellow Crafts, we should apply our knowledge to the discharge of our respective duties to God, our neighbor, and ourselves; so that, in Age, as Master Masons, we may enjoy the happy reflection consequent on a well–spent life, and die in the hope of a glorious immortality.

Florida Masonic Monitor. The Grand Lodge of Florida, 1992, pg. 119

In this quote, the phrase "so that" signals a resultant clause. Dying in the hope of "a glorious immortality" is the result of doing all that precedes these three words in this lecture. Thus, this is similar to the lesson of the Common Gavel. It tells Masons how to be saved by asserting what a man must do (good works) to earn it. And again, it tell this to both believers and non-believers.

More lessons from rituals and monitors regarding salvation:

The Covering of a Lodge is no less than the clouded canopy, or star–decked heaven, where all good Freemasons hope at last to arrive. . .Missouri Cipher. Grand Lodge of Missouri, 1993, pg. 55

By the Rough Ashlar [stone] we are reminded of our rude and imperfect state by nature; by the Perfect Ashlar, of that state of perfection at which we hope to arrive. . .Ibid., pg. 57

Yet that ALL–SEEING EYE [an emblem for GAOTU] Whom the sun, moon and stars obey, and under whose watchful care even comets perform their stupendous revolutions, pervades the inmost recesses of the human heart, and will reward us according to our merits. . .Monitor of the Lodge of Texas, reprinted 1992, pg. 90

Finally, as promised earlier, let me show the assertions the Lodge makes that deceased Masons have gone to heaven. It is a common practice of every Lodge to perform Masonic funeral services and memorial services for deceased members. Given the teachings of Freemasonry that have been shared so far in this post, we should not be surprised to find statements in Masonic funeral and memorial services to the effect that a deceased brother, whether he be Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Unitarian or Christian, etc. is in the Celestial Lodge above.

The following are quotations from funeral and memorial services of 14 Grand Lodges:

1. Most Glorious God . . . after our departure hence in peace and Thy favor, we may be received into Thine everlasting kingdom, and there join in union with our friend.

Florida Masonic Monitor, pg. 205, this can also be found in the Masonic Manual of the Grand Lodge of Georgia, 1983, pg. 161, and in the Masonic Memorial and Funeral Services of the Grand Lodge of Indiana, 1976, pg. 1

2. He [deceased] has passed out of the love of human hearts to a higher, better love; out of the dim lights of the lodge on earth to the brighter, glorious Lodge above.

Louisiana Masonic Monitor, Grand Lodge of Louisiana pg. 177–178

3. . . . we have the assurance that Thou hast taken to Thyself his soul . . . Masons believe sincerely that when life on earth comes to a close, the soul is translated from the imperfections of this mortal sphere to that all–perfect glorious and celestial Lodge above.

Maine Masonic Text Book, Grand Lodge of Maine 1992, pg. 104 & 105

4. We commit the body of our brother to the kindly embrace of mother earth . . . but his spirit has winged its flight to that blissful Lodge which will remain open during the endless ages of eternity.

Washington Monitor and Freemason's Guide, Grand Lodge of Washington pg. 143, this can also be found in Oregon's Standard Manual, Grand Lodge of Oregon 1991, pg. 49

5. We firmly believe our Brother has but heard the invitation – come thou blessed, inherit the kingdom prepared for you.

Official Monitor and Ceremonies. Grand Lodge of New Mexico, 1992, pg. 212

6. Farewell, brother! Our faith, our hope, our assurance is that we shall meet again around that celestial altar, where with songs of praise we unite to hail the Supreme Grand Master.

Blue Lodge Text–Book, Grand Lodge of Mississippi 1978, pg. 73

7. . . . life on earth is but a phase of that abounding and eternal life which we share with thee [God].

Masonic Trestle Board, Grand Lodge of Massachusetts pg. 118

8. In memory of our departed brethren, I deposit these white flowers, emblematical of that pure life to which they have been called.

Grand Lodge of Oklahoma, Murrow Masonic Monitor, pg. 156

9. Unto Almighty God we commend the soul of our departed Brother; we commit his body to the ground; . . . earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in the sure and certain hope of the resurrection unto eternal life.

North Dakota Monitor, Grand Lodge of North Dakota pp. 240–241

10. Let us express our respect and esteem for these Brethren who have laid down their working tools of life and have been admitted with that the Temple of the Celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe presides.

Annual Memorial Service, Grand Lodge of Connecticut, vol. 1

11. As we mourn the departure of our Brother from the circle of our Fraternity, we believe that he has entered into a higher Brotherhood, to find rest from earthly labors and refreshment from earthly cares.

Grand Lodge of Texas, Monitor of the Lodge, pg. 217

On what authority do Grand Lodges have the audacity to make the claim that deceased Masons have ascended to the Celestial Lodge above? After close examination of their rituals and monitors, there can only be one answer – a system of works righteousness and salvation apart from Christ as taught in the ritualistic structure of Freemasonry.

So, in conclusion, we have seen that Freemasonry takes men of different religions, initiates them into its spiritual fold in the name of GAOTU, provides for them a way of salvation and, declares that its deceased members have entered the Celestial Lodge above (heaven). Since belief in Christ is absolutely necessary for one to be saved, and the God of the Bible is the only Soveriegn Creator, yet Freemasonry teaches something different regarding these two subjects, it will therefore always be incompatible with the Christian faith.

As a result, Christians should have nothing to do with Freemasonry because its teachings violate, assault and undermine the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And, the Body of Christ should educate itself regarding its heretical teachings and take a stand against it.

 

[Abbadon]

As Christians, we are supposed to tolerate and respect individuals, regardless of their beliefs. We should look for opportunities to share our faith in the hope to lead them to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. We tolerate people of different faiths as we live together within the same communities, work together as fellow employees, meet in the public square as citizens together in a friendly and cooperative way, and even participating in social fellowship as friends and neighbors.

Gee, that's kind of the purpose of the lodge, from my understanding.

By design, Freemasonry tolerates and encourages the worship of false gods at the same time "Christian" Masons worship the Triune God of the Bible under the canopy term GAOTU, which only applies to Him.

Uhhh, guess what. Despite how much you say G.A.O.T.U. is a seperate deity, it's not any specific deity. It's like the word "God." That could (and usually does in the west) refer to the Christian God, but Hindus will use the term to refer to Brahman, Muslims Allah, and so on. So, I guess we shouldn't worship "God" because the Muslims and Hindus do to? I guess we shouldn't worship "The Christ" because some new-agers do.

It is one of the Landmarks of the order, and one of the “Ancient Charges,” which are found in every Masonic Code/Manual of every jurisidiction, that one may not be “an irreligious libertine or a stupid atheist.”

This requisite facilitates the Masonic notion that all gods are one in the same, just referred to by different names.

How in the world did you get "this says all gods are the same" out of "Masons cannot be atheists"...? You must have trouble sitting right now. Would you like an ice pack to sit on? An inflatable doughnut?

GAOTU is not “a god,” it is not a “name,” it is not “God,” it is not a “conglomeration,” it is not a “composite,” it is none of these or similar forms of accusation. It is simply a neutral phrase, one which is non-specific, it is the Masonic equivalent of the simple English word “god,” which is used far and wide as a reference to the Creator, as a reference to the Triune God of Christianity, as a reference to “Allah,” or to any other conception one wishes to use to simply say “God.”

As you should know, Allah and any other false concept of God is NOT the Triune God of Christianity and therefore NOT the Creator!

Nothing here contradictory. We worship God, some Muslims refer to Allah as "God," particularly when dealing with non-Muslims. The word "God" and the acronym G.A.O.T.U. are the same thing.

These are contradicting statements. The principles of the Bible lead to Jesus Christ, not the interpretation that reinforces another faith. If you are limiting your point to the moral principles that are common to all faiths, then it stands to reason that the principles of Freemasonry are founded on universalism, not the Holy Bible.

WOW! Well, I guess after that bit about "not an atheist = all gods are the same", you're loosened up a bit.
Acknowledging that the basic intent of many non-Christian religions is "treat other people alright" is not the same as universalism.

So much so that, even though in the U.S. every Lodge has the Holy Bible on the altar because Christianity is the predominant religion of the land, any individual has the right to have the book of his faith, according to his own choice, to be placed on the altar alongside the Holy Bible, for the duration of that degree, so that he may be obligated upon the book of his own faith.

This is not true, according to another Ancient Landmark of the Masonic Order:

It is a Landmark, that a "Book of the 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.

Rev said: "The US, being predominently Christian, uses Bibles. If a person isn't a Christian, then they'll use the book of thier faith."

The landmark said: "Use the book the person believes is holy."

Not contradictory. The US, being predominently Christian, believes the Bible is holy, and US lodges use it. The Landmark says that the book that the members consider holy will be used. Get it?

This landmark helps to further imply that "God" is the same regardless of the religion the Mason comes from.

Man, if you can keep this up, you oughta be in the circus. "See the human magician's hat!"

The lodge is just acknowledging the fact that many non-Christian religions do not find the Bible holy.

As you can see from the following, some lodges have a variety of VSLs upon their altars anytime the lodges are opened. In fact the Shriners, another Masonic body, have the Bible, the Koran and the Veda on its altar at all times when in session.

Occam's Razor would say that they figure Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are going to join, so they might as well get ready.

If the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible are to be taken as seperate Volumes, there are no fewer than seven sets of Holy Writings in use in the Lodges of the East, in the band of countries stretching from Israel to New Zealand. These are:
1. The Bible (Old Testament) for Hebrews.
2. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) for Christians.
3. The Dhammapadra for the Mahay-ana Sect of Buddhists.
4. The Gita for Hindus.
5. The Granth Sahib for Sikhs.
6. The Koran for Muslims.
7. The Zend Avesta for Parsees and Zoroastrians.
All of these Sacred Books Allude to a Supreme Deity. . .Lodge Singapore No. 7178 (E.C.) has all seven volumes always on the Altar, of which six are open. . .The Grand Lodge of India has six Sacred Books upon the Altar, with five open. . .Since there are no Buddhist Masons in India, the Dhammapadra is omitted. . .Constituant Lodges under the Grand Lodge of India follow the same proceedure. Lodges under other Grand Lodges but residing in India place the Bible on the Altar and, uaually, the other Sacred Books representing the faith of their members.

From the Beehive State Trestleboard, Feb. 1996.,
by Roy L. Demming, S.W., Utah Research Lodge

So, the masons realize that there are people in the areas mentioned ("from Israel to New Zealand") that don't find the Bible holy, but instead find the other books sacred? They're evil for realizing "well, golly, other religions use different books!"

 

[O.F.F.]

We worship God, some Muslims refer to Allah as "God," particularly when dealing with non-Muslims. The word "God" and the acronym G.A.O.T.U. are the same thing.

Thanks Abbadon, you help to make my point. That's just it, the meaning you pour into the word "God" or that Muslims pour into the word "Allah" or that Masons pour into the acronym G.A.O.T.U. is NOT the same meaning the Holy Bible makes about "God." For example, you say they are all the same, but they are not. Muslims declare by the Koran that God (Allah) has no son. The Holy Bible declares that Jesus is the son of God. God can't have a son and not have a son at the same time. Therefore, it stands to reason, that "Allah" and the One True Living God are different Gods and not the same.

By the same token, Freemasonry says the G.A.O.T.U. can refer to any Mason's concept of God. God, that is, the One True Living God cannot be who He is (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and be all other concepts of God at the same time. Therefore, G.A.O.T.U. as defined by Freemasonry is NOT the God of the Bible. G.A.O.T.U. as the meaning is pour into it by the Masonic Lodge is a false deity when compared to who "God" really is.

I hope this is helpful for your understanding.

 

[Rev Wayne]

By the same token, Freemasonry says the G.A.O.T.U. can refer to any Mason's concept of God. God, that is, the One True Living God cannot be who He is (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and be all other concepts of God at the same time. Therefore, G.A.O.T.U. as defined by Freemasonry is NOT the God of the Bible. G.A.O.T.U. as the meaning is pour into it by the Masonic Lodge is a false deity when compared to who "God" really is.

You may as well argue that a Christian cannot say "God" without speaking of a "false deity." After all, "God" can be "anyone's concept of God," as you put it, and often is in English-speaking countries, as used by those of other faiths.

The accusation that it refers to a "false god" is in error, it is simply a neutral generic term just like the term "god" which you just used generically, but which you would also use in another context to refer to the Christian God. You did, after all, mention the "One True and Living God." That means you used it in that instance to refer to the triune God of Christianity. Yet you also spoke of a "false god." And yet you see no conflict of meaning in using the same term for the True God that you use for a "false god?"

Surely you contradict yourself, because

--GAOTU is exactly the same, it is not a name, just the same as the word "god";

--the term "god," by your estimation of the term "GAOTU," is a term that "can refer to any concept of God."

Perhaps you have not considered where GAOTU comes from?

Indiana Mentor’s Manual, on the Master Mason degree: "The Compass is peculiarly dedicated to this degree."

Oxford English Dictionary, on compass: "an instrument for taking measurements and describing circles. "

Paradise Lost, Milton, vii:224: "In His hand He took the golden Compasses prepared ... to circumscribe This Universe."

Dante, Divine Comedy: "He that with turning compass drew the world's confines."

A 13th century painting in the Austrian National Library depicts God holding a compass to circumscribe heaven & earth.

A William Blake painting titled “The Ancient of Days” also depicts God with compass in hand.

Grand Architect entered Freemasonry by way of James Anderson’s Book of Constitutions of 1723. Anderson was a graduate of Marischal College, University of Aberdeen, Scotland. The primary task of the University of Aberdeen at the time Anderson attended there was to train men for Christian ministry. During that same time frame of the early 1700’s, that training would have been based on the teachings of John Calvin in his Institutes of Religion. In the Institutes, Calvin refers to God as “Architect of the Universe” numerous times, and even more often refers to the handiwork of God as the “Architecture of the Universe.”

Thus this phrase used in reference to our Creator, like so much else found in Masonry, is based upon historical Christian terminology and usage, not only in theology, but in literature and art as well.

I hope this is helpful for your understanding.