The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

[Rev Wayne]

Back over to this thread again, are we? I can play this too, as long as you like, Mike. I had to ask myself why you would jump back over here if your story was true, as you claimed. It didn't take too much thought to come up with the answer. Here's what you said in your poor excuse for an excuse earlier:

It's been awhile, and as you said when I posted it the second time, I didn't think twice about it. But as I recall when I copied and pasted it the first time at CARM, I closed my email browser window, and remained on the other one I had opened for CARM. After noticing that I failed to capture the subject line, I simply typed it in to the best of my recollection; which I didn't even have to include in the first place.

You got you head so far up the commode you're getting bent out of shape over the mistake of typing in the preposition (concerning) instead of the adjective (considering) as though there is a material difference. I have nothing to hide, and can most certainly provide the original email I sent to both of them to prove it. But since YOU choose not only to be a big blockhead, but a huge jack-wagon too, YOU get the string of emails and see for yourself!

And here are the two email versions side by side once again, showing exactly why you are not to be believed:

RE: Considering Masonic Member in South Carolina
From: Barry Rickman <brickman1@sc.rr.com>
brickman1@sc.rr.com To: mcg1102@aol.com
Cc: ray marsh <scgrandlodge@juno.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 1, 2010 7:18 pm

From: Barry Rickman <brickman1@sc.rr.com>
Cc: ray marsh <scgrandlodge@juno.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 1, 2010 7:18 pm
Subject: RE: Concerning Masonic Membership in South Carolina

(1) This line appears in the first but not in the second: brickman1@sc.rr.com To: mcg1102@aol.com

(2) One says "Sent," the other says "Date."

(3) Your excuse says only, "After noticing that I failed to capture the subject line, I simply typed it in to the best of my recollection."

So okay, Mike, if you were telling the truth the second time around, then there's some real eerie things going on here: somehow you managed to copy and paste a piece which had the line "brickman1@sc.rr.com To: mcg1102@aol.com " IN THE MIDDLE; yet AFTER you copied it, that line mysteriously DISAPPEARED! Not only that, somehow "Date" got dropped, and "Sent" substituted in its place. Yet you treat the matter as if it were simply an omitted subject line??

This one is pretty simple: you altered the email to hide the pretense under which you presented it to the Grand Lodge; after two days of first trying to ignore it when you got nailed for it, then cutting and running to another thread to avoid it, you cooked up a lame excuse for what happened; and now your excuse has been exposed for the FRAUD it is, as well.

You've hard-lined it to the hilt in every occasion where you've been caught with anything before; this one is different, and I hope you're beginning to realize it. Before digging your hole any deeper than it already is, why not post an admission, and be done with it? I realize it's tough, because to admit to one deception in this, is to admit to several; but as the number of them continues to grow and they continue to be exposed, I'd say manning up would certainly be preferable to the alternative.

 

[Skip Sampson]

why not post an admission, and be done with it?

I'm not weighing in on the issue at hand because I don't follow the logic trails therein; however, it's a good piece of advice for all of us when errors are made. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I'm not weighing in on the issue at hand because I don't follow the logic trails therein; however, it's a good piece of advice for all of us when errors are made. Cordially, Skip.

Believe me, we're not talking about "errors" in this particular instance. If that's all this was, there would be no "logic" to pursuing it any further, and it would have died on the vine long ago.

The issue from my perspective is, after having charges of "deception" leveled at both me and Freemasonry for quite some time now, it chaps my cheeks to find someone deliberately engaging in the same while freely tossing the accusation around at everybody else, especially when it's someone who has also freely tossed around accusations of "hypocrisy."

Your silence up to this point has not gone unnoticed, and in fact I found it commendable given the situation. Personally, I'm not sure you're the best person for anyone to consult concerning "logic trails," given your recent attempt at describing the nature of the layout of material in Ahiman Rezon.

 

[O.F.F.]

...after two days of first trying to ignore it...

If that got your knickers in a knot, watch me ignore it from now on!

This one is pretty simple: you altered the email to hide the pretense under which you presented it to the Grand Lodge

I gave you an explanation, and you're not satisfied with it. So what, I don't give a hoot one way or another. The pretentiousness is on YOUR part. You got nailed for suggesting that ALL GODS ARE ONE AND THE SAME, and you are simply using this to try to avoid it. You're MAD at the fact that YOUR Grand Master (GM) contradicted your claim, and you cooked up this lame attempt in order to misconstrue what actually happened. Get over it; it's not going to change the facts.

I realize it's tough, because to try to admit you never suggested that all gods are one and the same after the evidence shown in your posts proves that you did, and that your GM contradicted your claim that Freemasonry doesn't accept all faiths because his email to me proves that he did, is to admit to TWO LIES. And you got the audacity to tell someone they violated the ninth commandment, while you clearly violate it along with the first. I'd say manning up that you are wrong would certainly be preferable to the alternative of being viewed as both a LIAR and a HERETIC! And until you do that perception is not going to go away.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I gave you an explanation, and you're not satisfied with it

.

No, that implies that I rejected your response on some personal level. I rejected it because your answer conflicts with the evidence. Your explanation was, that you simply forgot to include the subject line when you copied & pasted. The original looked like this:

RE: Considering Masonic Member in South Carolina
From: Barry Rickman <brickman1@sc.rr.com>
brickman1@sc.rr.com To: mcg1102@aol.com
Cc: ray marsh <scgrandlodge@juno.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 1, 2010 7:18 pm

That means it should have come out looking like this, given the appearance of the original, coupled with your explanation that you simply filled the line in after the fact:

From: Barry Rickman <brickman1@sc.rr.com>
brickman1@sc.rr.com To: mcg1102@aol.com
Cc: ray marsh <scgrandlodge@juno.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 1, 2010 7:18 pm
Subject: RE: Concerning Masonic Membership in South Carolina

Instead, it came out looking like this, with a line missing and a word changed, in addition to the changes in the line you claimed to have filled in after the fact:

From: Barry Rickman <brickman1@sc.rr.com>
Cc: ray marsh <scgrandlodge@juno.com>
Sent: Fri, Jan 1, 2010 7:18 pm
Subject: RE: Concerning Masonic Membership in South Carolina

So no, the explanation you gave does not fit what you presented. Certainly, if your story had been true, simply leaving off the top line of a copy and paste could plausibly have happened.

But lines do not disappear from the middle of copy and paste. Nor do words change in copy and paste. Since you said nothing about any changes to the rest of the copied and pasted material, we're left with no explanation for the other changes. If there had been other alterations, naturally you would have given those explanations at the time you offered this as an explanation for why this line was changed.

Since you did not, and since we MUST reconcile your explantion with the fact that there are other changes evident, the ONLY conclusion that makes any sense, is (1) that you were not forthcoming with the real explanation; (2) that the changes were likely made for some other reason than the one you offered; and (3) that you are still deliberately trying to conceal whatever those reasons were.

And like I said, since the evidence does not fit the claim, something is fishy about the whole deal. And I still say, the most plausible explanation for the whole scenario, is the one I've already presented.

Every indication points to a trail of continued deception and denial on your part. And no, I won't be dropping it any time soon, unless you choose to come clean. You're the one that has to live with it, not me.

You're MAD at the fact that YOUR Grand Master (GM) contradicted your claim, and you cooked up this lame attempt in order to misconstrue what actually happened

.

Are you serious, dude? I "cooked up" two different versions of the same email? No, all I did was examine them both, and discovered the discrepancies that got you nailed.

And how do you figure this has anything to do with any claim, when it's not the claim part of the email that has been the focus here? Focusing on the claim and the response has been your little ball of wax, not mine, and is designed only to try to deflect the real issue of your deception, both in how you approached this with the GM, and in the way you reported it bothe here and at CARM. The part you're trying to hide is not the claim, it's the double-header email.

How do you expect to put up a smokescreen that will cover THAT up?

Why don't you tell us, Michael: if your excuse is supposed to be considered to have any merit--that you simply left off the subject line, and typed it in "as best as you recalled it":

HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE OF A FULL-LINE OMISSION AND ANOTHER ALTERATION FOUND IN ANOTHER LINE IN THE SAME EMAIL?

I don't think the readers here are as dumb as you are presuming, that they can't see through your subterfuge.

 

[O.F.F.]

HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE OF A FULL-LINE OMISSION AND ANOTHER ALTERATION FOUND IN ANOTHER LINE IN THE SAME EMAIL?

Obviously it hasn't occurred to you why that line was missing when I initially posted it on the CARM site.

I don't think the readers here are as dumb as you are presuming,

Not at all; but if by now you haven't figured out why that line was omitted the first time, yet forgotten to be removed the second time, then I do presume that you are.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Obviously it hasn't occurred to you why that line was missing when I initially posted it on the CARM site.



Not at all; but if by now you haven't figured out why that line was omitted the first time, yet forgotten to be removed the second time, then I do presume that you are.

This just gets better and better. First you copied and pasted the whole thing, but simply missed the subject line and added it later; now you didn't just copy and paste, you omitted it entirely. No telling WHAT you'll be telling us next.

And even the story you tell NOW doesn't account for all the changes made.

You were probably better off when you were simply ignoring it. At least then, all you had were conflicting emails. Now you've got conflicting stories to boot.

But I take back what I said to Skippy about him being the king of humor, I believe it's clear by now you've got him beat. I think my personal favorite was the "adjectival definition of considering," unwittingly making yourself a member.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Something I never could quite figure out about antimasonry: how is it they can make such blanket denials, and fight tooth and nail, just to deny the biblical foundation upon which Freemasonry is built? A classic example of it recently came to my attention while searching for something else.

It has often been denied that Hiram Abif, the character in the Master Mason degree drama, is biblical in origin. One example of such denial occurred not too long ago here at CF, where it was stated:

Hiram Abiff is not Biblical although there was a King of Tyre (which was an evil place) named Hiram who sent stonemasons and carpenters to build palaces for David and Solomon.

Notice how, in typical fashion, the attempt is made to paint this with as wide a brush as possible, noting that Tyre "was an evil place," as though that should add to the criticism--in spite of the fact that it was King Solomon who had dealings with the King of Tyre, not Masons--and despite the fact that this is not something Masons concocted, but part of the biblical story. And what I notice about this, too, is that the poster does not even ackowledge the character who is portrayed in the drama, despite the fact that he is mentioned in the accounts where Solomon contracts with the King of Tyre for the work to be done on/in the Temple.

There is another, even MORE puzzling denial, found on the emfj/Ephesians5-11 website, titled "Hiram":

The name Hiram Abiff is not found in Scripture. Yet, the Masonic account of Hiram is often said to be based upon the Holy Bible. In the Master Mason degree, in that portion of the ritual known as the Legend of the Third Degree, there are three central characters. The story line is set around the building of Solomon&#8217;s temple. The characters, King Solomon, Hiram - the King of Tyre and Hiram Abiff are all taken from the Scriptural account of the temple building. King Solomon and Hiram King of Tyre are mentioned many times in the Scriptures, such as in 1 Kings 5. About the closest the Scriptures come to Hiram Abiff is Huram-Abi which is found in 2 Chronicles 2:13 in the NAS and NIV translations. Huram is a variant of Hiram. In the KJV translation of the verse, the name Hiram is found. The KJV uses both Huram (2 Chron 2:3) and Hiram (1 Kings 5) to identify Hiram the King of Tyre. The KJV translation of 2 Chron 2:13 does not contain -abi, but rather "Huram my father&#8217;s." The Hebrew word from which the KJV "father&#8217;s" was translated is "&#8216;ab," according to the Hebrew Dictionary found in Strong&#8217;s Concordance. Strong&#8217;s entry for the word &#8216;ab (H1) indicates that it can also mean father-less, as the son of a widow would be. The entry for H1 also mentions "Abi-." Studying the various translations along with a Hebrew dictionary allows us to see how Freemasonry may have settled on the name Hiram Abi-ff, also sometimes spelled Abif.

Here the author of this article first denies that this character is found in Scripture, then proceeds to describe in great detail the character's name, and the variations of it, and then, to top this irony off majestically, even cites one of the very verses where he appears (2 Chronicles 2:13).

I find this appalling that people cannot even admit to what is right under their noses even as they read the Scripture, despite being able to do tap dances around it. Sure, consider it a given that the story of Hiram as related in the third degree, is not a part of the biblical account, but Freemasonry makes no pretense that it is. It is allegorical, and teaches a lesson, and the lesson it teaches is not antithetical to Christian teaching.

But that's not what the objection states here anyway. The stated objection in this article clearly says that he is "not found in Scripture," and then proceeds to try to leverage that as somehow being contrary to Masonry's statements about its teachings having their foundation in the Bible.

I find this kind of rhetoric to be like fluff in a hurricane, totally without merit, and totally disregarding points found in both the biblical accounts and the Hiram legend.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Going on the old adage that "silence implies consent," I take it the accusers of Freemasonry realize the truth of what I just posted, and have no response?

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
No, it's more a matter that your post condemns itself due to its internal logical faults.

I am curious why you would demand that someone react to your posts, though. Are you that insecure? Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

No, it's more a matter that your post condemns itself due to its internal logical faults.

Such as? I'm curious why you can't seem to point any out? Most people who throw rocks generally do have a target. Not that it would help, since you never seem to hit it anyway.

I am curious why you would demand that someone react to your posts, though. Are you that insecure?

Demand? I can't imagine why anyone would be so hypersensitive they would interpret a simple query as "demanding." I was just curious why the thin-skinned bunch suddenly had nothing to say to something that ordinarily would send them into conniptions.

Nor is it immediately clear why you bothered responding, since you obviously had nothing to say.

 

[O.F.F.]

Nor is it immediately clear why you bothered responding, since you obviously had nothing to say.

What's abundantly clear is that you ALWAYS seem to have something to say, yet it amounts to saying nothing at all; because it's nothing but a bunch of Masonic LIES.

 

[Rev Wayne]

a bunch of Masonic LIES.

(1) Are you referring to anything just posted? and (2) If so, could you be more specific?

 

[Rev Wayne]

All this time, and still not able to tell us what it was you considered "lies?" Must have just been the usual spouting, unless perhaps you meant what had most recently posted:

Hiram Abiff is not Biblical although there was a King of Tyre (which was an evil place) named Hiram who sent stonemasons and carpenters to build palaces for David and Solomon.

Notice how, in typical fashion, the attempt is made to paint this with as wide a brush as possible, noting that Tyre "was an evil place," as though that should add to the criticism--in spite of the fact that it was King Solomon who had dealings with the King of Tyre, not Masons--and despite the fact that this is not something Masons concocted, but part of the biblical story. And what I notice about this, too, is that the poster does not even ackowledge the character who is portrayed in the drama, despite the fact that he is mentioned in the accounts where Solomon contracts with the King of Tyre for the work to be done on/in the Temple.

There is another, even MORE puzzling denial, found on the emfj/Ephesians5-11 website, titled "Hiram":

The name Hiram Abiff is not found in Scripture. Yet, the Masonic account of Hiram is often said to be based upon the Holy Bible. In the Master Mason degree, in that portion of the ritual known as the Legend of the Third Degree, there are three central characters. The story line is set around the building of Solomon’s temple. The characters, King Solomon, Hiram - the King of Tyre and Hiram Abiff are all taken from the Scriptural account of the temple building. King Solomon and Hiram King of Tyre are mentioned many times in the Scriptures, such as in 1 Kings 5. About the closest the Scriptures come to Hiram Abiff is Huram-Abi which is found in 2 Chronicles 2:13 in the NAS and NIV translations. Huram is a variant of Hiram. In the KJV translation of the verse, the name Hiram is found. The KJV uses both Huram (2 Chron 2:3) and Hiram (1 Kings 5) to identify Hiram the King of Tyre. The KJV translation of 2 Chron 2:13 does not contain -abi, but rather "Huram my father’s." The Hebrew word from which the KJV "father’s" was translated is "‘ab," according to the Hebrew Dictionary found in Strong’s Concordance. Strong’s entry for the word ‘ab (H1) indicates that it can also mean father-less, as the son of a widow would be. The entry for H1 also mentions "Abi-." Studying the various translations along with a Hebrew dictionary allows us to see how Freemasonry may have settled on the name Hiram Abi-ff, also sometimes spelled Abif.

Here the author of this article first denies that this character is found in Scripture, then proceeds to describe in great detail the character's name, and the variations of it, and then, to top this irony off majestically, even cites one of the very verses where he appears (2 Chronicles 2:13).

I find this appalling that people cannot even admit to what is right under their noses even as they read the Scripture, despite being able to do tap dances around it. Sure, consider it a given that the story of Hiram as related in the third degree, is not a part of the biblical account, but Freemasonry makes no pretense that it is. It is allegorical, and teaches a lesson, and the lesson it teaches is not antithetical to Christian teaching.

But that's not what the objection states here anyway. The stated objection in this article clearly says that he is "not found in Scripture," and then proceeds to try to leverage that as somehow being contrary to Masonry's statements about its teachings having their foundation in the Bible.

I find this kind of rhetoric to be like fluff in a hurricane, totally without merit, and totally disregarding points found in both the biblical accounts and the Hiram legend.