Masons

[Drudgeon]

You err in demanding anecdotal evidence of members verses the actual teachings of the GL's. A member may hold an opinion; the GL is the teaching authority.

Sophistry is not going to work. You're stating that the Grand Lodges teach this authoritatively and that Masons are bound to it. That puts the onus on you to provide evidence of Masons who actively teach this. This puts the onus on you to provide evidence of Masons who have altered their religious beliefs because of pressure by Masonry. This puts the onus on you to provide evidence of Masons who take Masonry to be a religion to them and put their trust solely in Lodge membership. And since you have asserted that such is the case, the onus is on you to provide evidence that this problem is widespread, pervasive even.

In other words, I have no doubt that you can find 5 such people. Ten. Maybe even 100. Likewise, I can find 0.0001% of Christians who believe that the Trinity is not a Christian belief, I can find entire denominations who believe that water baptism is not necessary*, etc. I do not condemn an entire group, secular or religious, because of the beliefs of an infintesimal minority. If you're looking to correct religious errors, why waste time on a society that encourages all its members to be good and faithful stewards of their own beliefs? Why not go after large denominations that teach what you would consider doctrinal errors?

I'm still interested in knowing which of us would do better. Can you find more Masons that believe Freemasonry is the road to Heaven, or can I find more Southern Baptists who believe in rewards or "crowns" in Heaven?

*edited to add: I do not mean the debate over whether it is necessary for salviation. Rather, some denominations (e.g. The Salvation Army) do not practice water baptism, period.

 

[Albion]

Well, even if you qualify that by saying all monotheistic religions, that's still wrong, and it's still indifferentism.

No, it's not because there is no implication that all religions are the same or of equal worth or truth--that's what indifferentism means.

As for this Catholic man, I beleive what my religion tells me, and I submit to their wisdom.

And no one would tell you any different if you were to become a Mason. You'd probably say you couldn't join in defiance of the church's decrees about membership in Masonic lodges, but there are plenty of Catholics who do. No one in any lodge is telling them to change anything about their convictions.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, it's not because there is no implication that all religions are the same or of equal worth or truth--that's what indifferentism means.

See above, from Merriam Webster.

And no one would tell you any different if you were to become a Mason. You'd probably say you couldn't join in defiance of the church's decrees about membership in Masonic lodges, but there are plenty of Catholics who do. No one in any lodge is telling them to change anything about their convictions.

The Devil would not tell me any different, either. And I live my faith, regardless of what other "Catholics" do. It is anti-Catholic to join the Masons, whether you mean it that way or not.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Many Krishna followers (and other practitioners of Bhakti) are monotheists. The various devas and asuras are often considered manifestations of certain powers or functions of nature or the Godhead. There is only one God with a capital G the source of all and everything in traditional Vaishnavism. Indra, Soma, Varuna, etc... would be more like angels then God to use western terms. Check out the Bhagavad Gita for example. There is only one all embracing reality/ God in a Panentheistic sense in much of Vashnavite thought.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The Bhagavad Gita is an awesome book and I've found a lot of wisdom and guidance in it even though I'm a Christian. I see a lot of Christ in that text.

I would also note that I said Panentheistic rather than pantheistic. There is a subtle difference there:

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force), interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe​

 

[Albion]

Many Krishna followers (and other practitioners of Bhakti) are monotheists. The various devas and asuras are often considered manifestations of certain powers or functions of nature or the Godhead. There is only one God with a capital G the source of all and everything in traditional Vaishnavism. Indra, Soma, Varuna, etc... would be more like angels then God to use western terms. Check out the Bhagavad Gita for example. There is only one all embracing reality/ God in a Panentheistic sense in much of Vashnavite thought.

That was my guess, but thank you for explaining and clarifying a point that few of the rest of us know much about.

 

[southcountry]

The Eye of Providence is the God they are waiting for ( capstone). This is the stone the builders rejected, because it represents Gods throne and authority over all of creation, the pyramid itself is a representation of the outer court.

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

 

[Raimi Stranger]

The Eye of Providence is the God they are waiting for ( capstone). This is the stone the builders rejected, because it represents Gods throne and authority over all of creation, the pyramid itself is a representation of the outer court.

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Satan will likely believe this when he rules this earth and all men worship him -Rev 13:3-4 - but it is not the case that he is God and Christ - and God has said He will PROVE it by Satan's [involuntary] death as a man - Ezekiel 28- but only after Satan's confession in the Jerusalem temple claiming he is God, confessing his blasphemy as God intends -2Thess 2:4- this is why God allows the delusion of mass religion of sinners - 2Thess 2 ... mass religion of sinners, as distinct from Christian saints of Jesus [Jude 1:14], is divided because of this since Satan would not so easily offer unity worldwide if men agreed with, say, scripture of God or insisted that all priests be not sinners but baptised of the spirit into one Truth of God ...

equally there is unity of religion in the upper echelons of the pyramid, an extreme from of 'Gnoticism' which regards Satan as a contender as God of all men , not a created being who dies as a man because God troubles to prove to him that he is no god at all ...Ezekiel 28 ...since they believe what Jesus prophesied about Satan being worshipped by almost all men ,but that he will not die , this religion is compatible with the outright Satanism of some , so it is unsurprising that for now the system encompasses any religious belief , it does nothing in a hurry and wishes not to offend anyone until it has world power unchallenged by any but the couple of thousand or so saints of God [who wield no power but Love]

and that is why Satan's pyramid fails, inequality...

so this is perhaps one of the most telling lines in the bible to those who think they can rise above others fast by joining the pyramid scheme :-

Ezekiel 28:9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.

“All men are created equal but some are more equal than others…”

- a reference to George Orwell's allegorical illustration of pyramidal tyranny of mankind by use of force of arms of 'elite' leaders pitting mankind against mankind and changing the laws for their power to master and enslave all - pictured elaborately in 'Animal Farm'

 

[Skip Sampson]

You're stating that the Grand Lodges teach this authoritatively and that Masons are bound to it.

Not quite true. Here's what I said:

The key issue is this: does Freemasonry promise salvation to Freemasons? Based on the statements of ritual and other GL documentation, it clearly does. The specific KY GL comment does indeed point to a god that rewards on merits and this, in conjunction with the Masonic teaching of the spiritual temple, does show that the object of the Mason is self-improvement which will make him acceptable to God. That is the essence of Masonic salvific lessons.

You will note that I said that the GL teaches the concept, not that the individual Mason is bound to it. I do however, believe that Freemasonry expects it members to conform to its teachings, and that the entire concept of the spiritual temple strongly relays the GL teaching that a man must make himself worthy for god to come and dwell within him. This, of course, directly contradicts the Biblical view.

That puts the onus on you to provide evidence of Masons who actively teach this. ... who have altered their religious beliefs because of pressure by Masonry. ... Masons who take Masonry to be a religion to them and put their trust solely in Lodge membership. ... provide evidence that this problem is widespread, pervasive even.

Well, no, it doesn't. Since you didn't get my position correct in the first place, your follow-on assessents are similarly wrong. Poison fruit of the poisoned tree, so to speak. All I have to show is that the KY GL teaches the view that I have stated, and I will do so shortly. Whether Masons accept their GL's teachings is immaterial; the GL's authority in such matters is not dependent upon such acceptance. My view is that few Masons even know what the GL teaches, and rely instead on anecdotal generalities they hear in the lodge.

If you're looking to correct religious errors, why waste time on a society that encourages all its members to be good and faithful stewards of their own beliefs?

Because that society pays lip service to the beliefs of their members while teaching something quite different in their rituals and training documents. So it's not a waste of time; rather, it's shining a light.

Why not go after large denominations that teach what you would consider doctrinal errors?

What makes you think I don't?

Can you find more Masons that believe Freemasonry is the road to Heaven, or can I find more Southern Baptists who believe in rewards or "crowns" in Heaven?

Since the SBC has about 16 million members, vs 1.4 million Freemasons in the U.S., you'd probably have better luck. But as noted before, whether a Mason accepts the GL teaching or not has no bearing on the teaching itself.

Rather, some denominations (e.g. The Salvation Army) do not practice water baptism, period.

The Army has a somewhat nuanced view of baptism. Since it does not relate to salvation, I have no problem with it, though I don't agree with it. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

the sword, pointing to a naked heart, demonstrates that justice will sooner or later overtake us; and although our thoughts, words, and actions may be hidden from the eyes of man, yet that all-seeing eye, 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. (KY Ritual, ca 2000, pg. 240)

"Will reward us according to our merits" affirms a known biblical truth, stated most often by none other than Jesus:

But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. (Matt. 6:3-4)

But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. (Matt. 6:17-18)

He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward. (Matt. 10:40-42)

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. (Matt. 16:27)

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matt. 25:31-46)

And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. (Rev. 22:12)

Make the temple perfect by your morality and character, as developed under Masonic instruction, and you will become a fit place for God to dwell in

Not what it says. Nowhere does the statement you referred to suggest that morality and character are prerequisite to the indwelling of the Spirit. It simply says the temple will be made fit, witn no indication of before or after:

All the labor you have expended and all the efforts you have put forth in the development of your character have been to the end that you might attain the wisdom to know the will of God concerning you and to make of yourself a temple fit for the indwelling of the Most High.

This compares favorably with 1 Thess. 4:3-7

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.

Also, 1 Cor. 6:18-20

Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Seems to me Paul is saying, "know the will of God concerning you, and live in such a way that the temple of your body is a fit place for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit."

Not only that, had you been paying attention, you might have recognized the source of the phrasing as exhibited in the piece you cited:

In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. (1 Thess. 5:18)

The phrasing of the statement was no accident. The person who wrote those words about "the will of God concerning you" was a person familiar with the words of KJV scripture.

Also:

Notice:
1. How the GL refers back to Egyptian beliefs, and not Christian, in their initial treatment of the subject. The symbol is specifically credited to the god Osiris, who is the Egyptian king and judge of the dead.

Same ole same ole. Masonry's detractors have a long-standing habit of taking that which is not representative of Masonry in general and trying to portray it as though it were. Fact is, that kind of opinion probably has Christianity as its source and not Masonry. The same kinds of opinions have been expressed for quite some time in the work of scholars trying to debunk Christianity. You don't have to look far to find theories that nothing Jesus taught was original, and that nothing the Jews taught was original either, but rather was derived from Egyptian influence during the centuries they spent there in captivity.

But that thinking is not representative of Christianity, nor is it representative of Masonry either. It just happens to be an opinion found here and there in small pockets in both systems.

 

[Albion]

"Will reward us according to our merits" affirms a known biblical truth, stated most often by none other than Jesus:

But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. (Matt. 6:3-4)

But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting, but to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. (Matt. 6:17-18)

He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward. And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward. (Matt. 10:40-42)

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. (Matt. 16:27)

It's true.

Skip Sampson misunderstands the Christian teaching about rewards and punishments, and Rev. Wayne (an ordained Methodist minister) is quite right. Sampson appears to be one of the many who misunderstand Justification by Faith and wrongly assume that it precludes heavenly rewards. It does not.

On the other hand, this is also a good teaching opportunity because it's a perfect illustration of the nature of most anti-Masonic postings and lectures. The speaker is expressing his own theology, then comparing it to something in Masonry, and proclaiming that it is incompatible with Christianity. In reality, it is incompatible only with the speaker's own religious ideas (which he, of course, considers to be the only true way of understanding Christian doctrine).

 

[Rev Wayne]

It's true.

Skip Sampson misunderstands the Christian teaching about rewards and punishments, and Rev. Wayne (an ordained Methodist minister) is quite right. Sampson appears to be one of the many who misunderstand Justification by Faith and wrongly assume that it precludes heavenly rewards. It does not.

On the other hand, this is also a good teaching opportunity because it's a perfect illustration of the nature of most anti-Masonic postings and lectures. The speaker is expressing his own theology, then comparing it to something in Masonry, and proclaiming that it is incompatible with Christianity. In reality, it is incompatible only with the speaker's own religious ideas (which he, of course, considers to be the only true way of understanding Christian doctrine).

Good points. In addition, I would point out the structure of Freemasonry and why there is no basis for the presupposition behind Skip's post. Grand Lodges are the authoritative bodies in Masonry. Material from one GL's Monitor have no automatic connection with any other GL--especially when it is material that is basically speculative as this monitor quote appears to be; and even more especially when the lecture it is cited from is clearly labeled as this one is, as an optional lecture.

Taking the material of one Grand Lodge, particularly when the material hardly qualifies as something representative of all Masonry, and using it to criticize all of Masonry, is like singling out some singular belief found in the Catholic Church (or any denomination) and criticizing all of Christendom for it. It is a critique without foundation or merit.

 

[Drudgeon]

The Army has a somewhat nuanced view of baptism. Since it does not relate to salvation, I have no problem with it, though I don't agree with it. Cordially, Skip.

As I am well acquainted with Southern Baptist soteriology, I understand what you are saying here, and respect your stance as consistent with the flavor of Christianity you espouse. Were I to use the tactics of an anti-Mason, however, I might ask you what else Jesus commanded his followers to do that you have no problem with people disregarding.

Anti-Masonry is a case study in confirmation bias.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Took me till now to notice Kentucky on your location tag. Guess that explains Skip going to the KY quotes. Don't know how eager he'll be to jump back on SC, we got a Southern Baptist GM who has provided some ready response to the anti camp. Don't know if you caught my remarks on it here:

Wardens' Workshop

 

[Drudgeon]

Excellent work! Kudos to your GM!

 

[Ecclectic79]

I know this is an ancient thread. I haven't read completely from front to back of it but I'll keep this short if I'm repeating what's already been said.

If you want to know what Masonry is read some of the books by Manley P Hall or Albert Pike. As of right now also there are probably at least 100 hours of tape recorded lectures given by Manley P Hall readily available on YouTube. From there understanding what Christians have a problem with shouldn't be that difficult to figure out.

 

[Albion]

I know this is an ancient thread. I haven't read completely from front to back of it but I'll keep this short if I'm repeating what's already been said.

If you want to know what Masonry is read some of the books by Manley P Hall or Albert Pike. As of right now also there are probably at least 100 hours of tape recorded lectures given by Manley P Hall readily available on YouTube. From there understanding what Christians have a problem with shouldn't be that difficult to figure out.

Except that both spoke for themselves and do not define Masonry. There are also a lot of phony quotes attributed to both of these men from a bygone era.

Imagine what philosophy, economic theory, or social standards would seem to be if we made statements from 19th century commentators our be-all and end-all?

 

[Albion]

I know this is an ancient thread. I haven't read completely from front to back of it but I'll keep this short if I'm repeating what's already been said.

If you want to know what Masonry is read some of the books by Manley P Hall or Albert Pike. As of right now also there are probably at least 100 hours of tape recorded lectures given by Manley P Hall readily available on YouTube. From there understanding what Christians have a problem with shouldn't be that difficult to figure out.

Except that both spoke for themselves and do not define Masonry. There are also a lot of phony quotes attributed to both of these men from a bygone era.

Imagine what philosophy, economic theory, or social standards would seem to be if we made statements from 19th century commentators our be-all and end-all?

 

[Ecclectic79]

Except that both spoke for themselves and do not define Masonry. There are also a lot of phony quotes attributed to both of these men from a bygone era.

Imagine what philosophy, economic theory, or social standards would seem to be if we made statements from 19th century commentators our be-all and end-all?

Well, they speak for the 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite. Almost anyone I've talked to 32nd Degree and down would agree that for most Masons it is strictly a charitable organization and social club. At the very minimum you have Theosophy and New Age generated from that interior doctrine. Many people would also add Fabian Socialism, Secular Humanism, the strangeness of how Aldus Huxley so-called 'Darwin's Bulldog' was not a materialist by any means but was rather for setting the stage in having it taught in every public school that evolutionary progress is what under-girds everything from the physical world to the spiritual.

That leads to the prime 'dog whistle' that hits most people - ie. apotheosis. We have a painting 'The Apotheosis of George Washington' inside the dome of the US capitol building. Apotheosis is rising to godhood, in essence its akin to New Age ascension via gnosis. There are also 72 stars around George Washington's apotheosis. I really doubt you personally, I really doubt the overwhelming majority of ground level up through 32nd degree Masons, are into playing with Solomon keys. It's just that someone did apparently have them in mind while commemorating our nation's first president.

 

[Drudgeon]

Somewhere, quite possibly in a thread since deleted, I mentioned the tactic of shifting the goalposts. Here, in two posts, we have "Masons believe" which, when contradicted becomes "Well, 33rd Degree Masons believe".

Masonic Authors and their Backgrounds

Read the above if you're interested in the real Masonic take on Hall, Pike, and any other Masonic author.

I'm also curious why some anti-Masons think it's ok to come in and announce "I haven't read what's been said, but I have this stone to cast whether my reasons for casting it have been debunked or not."