The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

[Skip Sampson]

They are trying to find conspiracy where typically, none exists.

Nope, just fact-checking Masonic statements/claims and finding that many of them are erroneous. Cordially, Skip.

 

[O.F.F.]

Anti-Masons . . .

Jim, let me bring to your attention the following link, and ask that you take due notice thereof and govern yourself accordingly. Although it speaks to the use of "anti" in the context of Mormons, I trust the moderator would agree it also applies to the use of it when aimed at Masonic critics.

Use of "anti" All please read!!!!​

Having said that, I will give you reasonable time to edit your post. If not, I will have to report you to the moderators since it is offensive to me and other Masonic critics to be called an "anti-Mason." Perhaps you could use Masonic critics, like Wayne does, since we are anti-masonic, not "anti-Mason." There is a difference.

Thank you in advance for changing it.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Perhaps you could use Masonic critics, like Wayne does, since we are anti-masonic, not "anti-Mason." There is a difference.

Not that I don't appreciate the vote of confidence, but I can't take credit for that one. If I have used it at all, I'm sure it was simply echoing a usage that I noticed Randy Smith seems to have coined. Or at least, it was his preferred expression. I've been much more prone to use "accusers"--which I find the most accurate, though it is not necessarily the most well-received term either.

I have to admit, with the continual reversion to ad hominem tactics by the most vocal of our accusers on the forum lately, I have reverted to the use of "antimason" more and more of late, simply because it has had the most accurate application among all the choices that might be used. If accusers of Masonry do not wish to be called "antimasons," let them cease from exemplifying traits that are most aptly described by the term.

To paraphrase that paragon of simple wisdom, Forrest Gump: "Antimason is as antimason does," plain and simple.

While we're at it, I recall a recent discussion in which some of us were taking exception to references to Masonry as "Satanic." The response was one, to put it mildly, of hooting and derision. Seems to me, if you guys really take offense to this, a little quid pro quo wouldn't hurt.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Jim, let me bring to your attention the following link, and ask that you take due notice thereof and govern yourself accordingly. Although it speaks to the use of "anti" in the context of Mormons, I trust the moderator would agree it also applies to the use of it when aimed at Masonic critics.

Use of "anti" All please read!!!!​

Having said that, I will give you reasonable time to edit your post. If not, I will have to report you to the moderators since it is offensive to me and other Masonic critics to be called an "anti-Mason." Perhaps you could use Masonic critics, like Wayne does, since we are anti-masonic, not "anti-Mason." There is a difference.

Thank you in advance for changing it.

No problem! It was never my intention to offend, so from now on I will instead use "those who oppose, attack, criticize, condemn, or misrepresent Freemasons or Freemasonry". Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[Rev Wayne]

No problem! It was never my intention to offend, so from now on I will instead use "those who oppose, attack, criticize, condemn, or misrepresent Freemasons or Freemasonry". Thank you for pointing this out.

Now that you put it that way, sorta makes "anti" seem pretty benign, doesn't it?

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

It is a life goal to be truthful and honest. I was asked to abide by the Forum rules and to not offend by using "anti-" so I will no longer do so. I will use descriptions that are honest, truthful, and appropriate to the discussions. I just hope that I am afforded the same courtesy by those who oppose, attack, criticize, condemn, or misrepresent Freemasons or Freemasonry.

 

[O.F.F.]

It is a life goal to be truthful and honest. I was asked to abide by the Forum rules and to not offend by using "anti-" so I will no longer do so. I will use descriptions that are honest, truthful, and appropriate to the discussions. I just hope that I am afforded the same courtesy by those who oppose, attack, criticize, condemn, or misrepresent Freemasons or Freemasonry.

Sure, as long as you understand that we truthfully and honestly oppose, attack, criticize, and condemn the TEACHINGS of Freemasonry and not Masons as individuals. And, as long as you do not respond by misrepresenting such opposition, attack, criticism and condemnation, I think you will be okay.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Sure, as long as you understand that we truthfully and honestly oppose, attack, criticize, and condemn the TEACHINGS of Freemasonry and not Masons as individuals. And, as long as you do not respond by misrepresenting such opposition, attack, criticism and condemnation, I think you will be okay.

Quid pro quo.

 

[Rev Wayne]

It is a life goal to be truthful and honest. I was asked to abide by the Forum rules and to not offend by using "anti-" so I will no longer do so. I will use descriptions that are honest, truthful, and appropriate to the discussions. I just hope that I am afforded the same courtesy by those who oppose, attack, criticize, condemn, or misrepresent Freemasons or Freemasonry.

Seems to me this was a good point for some meaningful discussion to take place on a level of mutuality never before achieved on these threads. And yet, right at the point of reaching this level, the thread was abandoned.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Sure, as long as you understand that we truthfully and honestly oppose, attack, criticize, and condemn the TEACHINGS of Freemasonry and not Masons as individuals. And, as long as you do not respond by misrepresenting such opposition, attack, criticism and condemnation, I think you will be okay.

Well, as one who has received at your hand, imo, more misrepresentations of positions I have stated here on this forum, than by all others on this and all other forums combined, and as one who can cite enough specific instances to back it up, I find it incredulous that the boast of the first statement could even be claimed.

But of course I am always one to give it a shot for the sake of trying to establish new ground for civil discourse. Keep in mind, however, that I will not be pulling any punches on this thread, which was created as a direct response to the deliberately falsified accusations that typified the first few pages of the thread. With that in mind, I invite you to read the post immediately following this one.

 

[Rev Wayne]

In days past on this thread, a good bit of attention was focused on a citation from Manly P. Hall, a man whose writings were, to say the least, pretty far "out there." In the past, the general take on Hall by Masons has been, "Well, there are Masons who are pretty far out, esoterically speaking--and then there's Manly Palmer Hall." In other words, he's the archetype of the "esotericism for esotericism's sake" writer if there ever was one. Hall is to esoteric Masonry what Bill Schnoebelen is to psychopathic antimasonry: its worst poster boy.

Yet the antimasonic crowd continues to try to endue him with credibility so that they may try to present his opinions as somehow "representative" of Masonry in general. Earlier in this thread one often-cited piece from Hall was used to point out one of the methods of antimasonic accusers, of quick proliferation of falsehoods by cut and paste. Rather than go through the whole argument once again, I simply refer you to the page where it first appeared and revealed as the false creation of idle minds that it truly is,

HERE

One of the principal points was, "arcanum arcanorum" as it appeared in the Hall piece, was mangled to become "arcannum arcandrum." This error was significant in revealing the errors and falsehoods of antimasonic accusers. At the time of the first mention, 17 pages were pulled up on a browser search for the mangled version of "arcannum arcandrum." Later on this same thread, after a couple of years had passed, a search pulled up 33 websites with the incorrect spelling. Now, with a similar amount of time gone by since that subsequent search, I tried it once more and was still finding hits after 8 pages (10 entries per page). When I entered the quote itself, I was still going after ten full pages.

So where did so many people come up with what began as an error? Simple: from the mindless, thoughtless, repeating of what they read elsewhere, the proliferation of which is made so much more convenient these days with the "MISinformation highway" at one's fingertips, exacerbated by that nasty little temptor, cut-and-paste. Some of them even speak of it incorrectly as "arcannum arcandrum" while citing it correctly from sources that actually post the 19th chapter of the work in which it originally appeared. Most of them, however, post the truncated version, with its falsifying ellipses and its infamous misspelling. Everyone loves a conspiracy; just don't bother them with "trifling" matters like the truth.

What I find interesting in the current round of truth-stretching, is the nature of some of the comments that surround the posting of this particular quote. For instance, on a forum site thread titled "Ananukion and Ananukia":

Q: my friend just told me Freemason divide into 2 clique: Ananukia & Ananukion

Ananukia: making New World Order to help all the human upgrade to 4D

Ananukion: making New World Order to control the human whom are not freemasonry,just like a slave

anyone know more about this??

To this initial question, one responder wrote:

A: Actually, I've never heard of this one at all. I put both words into Google and came up with zilch.

If only that piece of honesty had been the end of the matter.
Among the pages found, came this bizarre piece:

It is common that Freemasons consecrate their children to the lodge from birth, in fact the blood band is the normal way into Freemasonry. Specific trade or fortune as well as international relations can be a requirement, as well as a hunger for material food. Previous was only men aloud [sic], now when women are in business they are also most welcome in some Freemasonic orders and some orders are only for women.

When people are initialized [sic] into Freemasonry they voluntary make a pact with Satan, many are unaware of this pact and are kept in darkness as they joined for the benefit of money, honor and influence, or just do to curiosity, as they rise in degree within the Freemasonic ranks the truth will gradually be disclosed. . . .

young men and women travel the world on there [sic] own for the first time to learn the use of their new tricks, ways of communication and to service the mysterious arcannum arcandrum, A.·.A.·. (simply the mystery). (From tBlog - Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary )

Anyone for being "initialized?"

One person had this explanation for "arcannum arcandrum":

A.·., the mysterious arcannum arcandrum a magical and satanic order founded by Aleister Crowley (later head of the Freemasons) and George Cecil Jones . . . . (Freemansory and Conspiracy)

Wow, talk about making it up as you go along! Never mind that arcannum arcandrum is not an order at all, but an antimasonic error by someone who can't even retype what they see in front of them; and never mind that Crowley was never head of ANYTHING in Freemasonry; and never mind that there IS no such thing as "head of the Freemasons"; trivial matters such as truth never seem to be of as much importance as sounding the "warning."

But what I would call the most bizarre comment, came from someone who not only does not know the difference between "arcanum arcanorum" and "arcannum arcandrum," but actually offers an explanation of the distinction between the "two" terms:

Q: What is the meaning of: Arcannum Arcandrum?

Well, Arcanum Arcanorum is an aspiration, The Secret of Secrets, the Holiest of Holies, while Arcannum Arcandrum is a concoction, a phallasy [sic] of misinformation. Two rather different concepts. (From a question and response section below a YouTube video presentation about York Rite--a video in which, strangely, "arcanum arcanorum" is never mentioned--nor is "arcannum arcandrum." Talk about a "fallacy of misinformation!")

Unfortunately for our current antimasonic responders here, materials such as this have become the norm rather than the exception when it comes to antimasonic discourse. The evolution of the use of this particular quote reveals the explosion currently taking place in the spread of antimasonic conspiracy theories. Those who raise issues mainly out of concern for Christians in the lodge, due to needless fears they have been "deceived," are a drop in the bucket compared to those who love a conspiracy and quite willing disseminate untruth in the interest of "exposing" one that is alleged to be worldwide. Add to that the current economic downturn; a climate in which the middle class in America appears to be dwindling while the "rich get richer" and the poor simply get more numerous; and a political climate in which every politician, simply by virtue of being a politician, is automatically suspect as a conspirator; and you have a situation in which any group--but especially one about which it appears little is known--can quickly be adopted as the whipping boy for every fear generated by the times.

There's more, of course, enough for another post.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

I've stated it elsewhere using other words, and I stand behind my intention that claiming to separate the Freemason from Freemasonry is doing nothing more than hiding behind a smoke screen of diversion. I am a part of Freemasonry, and Freemasonry is a part of me, so an attack against Freemasonry is, by extension, a personal attack. But then that seems to be the prevailing tactic on so many Masonic-attacking discussions.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I'd like to return to a thought which I expressed at the outset of my previous post, that to set one of the worst examples of Masonry in general, Manly P. Hall, as a "poster-boy" of sorts, is a completely misguided attempt at the very outset. For one thing, Masons in general can in no wise be characterized as sharing Palmer's views. For another, Palmer wrote the most-criticized works that are the favorites of accusers, 25 to 30 years BEFORE he ever became a Mason. In fact, I have tried my best to find works by Hall written about Masonry AFTER becoming a Mason, in order to compare and see if there was any substantive difference, only to discover that he apparently wrote no more books about Masonry after he joined in 1953. Certainly there are works of his that get cited here and there with later dates than that; but when investigated, al of them turn out to be reprints of earlier works. I can't help but wonder if he stopped writing them after joining and finding out just how far off the mark he had been.

When we've pointed out to accusers the apparent lack of any qualification to write upon the subject at the time he wrote upon Masonry, our challenges have been met with belittlement and ridicule, or claims to be "ignoring" what Hall said, or to be "in denial." Well, it certainly was refreshing to find a piece written by contemporaries of Hall, who agree with the same sentiments we earlier expressed. Here are the comments of a Rosicrucian group to Hall's works, as well as his lectures. (Keep in mind, the citation to which I have alluded in these two posts, was later reprinted from chapter 19 of "Lectures on Ancient Philosophy," with the title "Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins." We have heard the opinions of Masons on his take on Masonry; now let's hear the opinions of Rosicrucians--not just any Rosicrucians, but Hall's contemporaries--on his ideas about Rosicrucianism as expressed not only in his books, but in the public and private lectures he gave.)

The Rosicrucian Forum
August, 1937, Vol. VIII. No. 1
H. Spencer Lewis, Imperator

Page 3
Manly Hall and Rosicrucianism
Because of the many questions that have been submitted to the Forum in the past month regarding the lectures and claims set forth in the advertising and circular matter issued by Mr. Manly P. Hall of Los Angeles, we feel that it is only fair to our readers to privately make this following statement and answer their specific questions.
Mr. Hall for many years has been touring the United States as a public lecturer, sometimes following his public free appearance on the platform with private classes at very high tuitional fees.　 It is not what he is doing or what he pretends to teach that interests us, for such lecturers and self-appointed teachers have come and gone by the score in the past twenty years.　 Nearly every one of them has taken opportunity, as has Mr. Hall, to make derogatory remarks regarding the integrity, the stability, the honesty and the authenticity of AMORC [Ancient Mystical Order Rosæ Crucis--RW].　 Yet nearly all of them have passed by the way and have gone into oblivion, and their highly featured programs and plans have completely failed, while AMORC has continued to exist and to grow.
Sometimes we think that the deliberate and exuberant criticisms of AMORC made by these traveling lecturers have done much to make AMORC better known and to redound to our credit inasmuch as persons in the audience, hearing an unknown organization belittled and besmattered with mud during lecture after lecture, decide that perhaps a little investigation should be made, or that perhaps they are unacquainted with something they should know about.　 And so much of this criticism has resulted in individuals making inquiries about AMORC and finally discovering that bias and prejudice alone were responsible for the unfair and untrue remarks that had been made.　 In such cases, of course, the individuals lose all faith in everything that is claimed and said by the lecturer, and their confidence and trust is directed toward our organization instead.
However, all of that is beside the question.　 We are not accusing Mr. Hall of being a serious or an important enemy of AMORC, and most certainly we cannot classify him as a friend.
But when Mr. Hall advertises widely that he is going to lecture on "The Secret Rites, Rituals and Teachings of the Rosicrucians and Freemasons," or "The Mystical Elements of Freemasonry," or "The Secret Brotherhood of the Rosicrucians," and on Bacon and Shakespeare and similar subjects, thousands of our members and many more thousands of friends of our members and still more thousands of sincere seekers begin to ask a few pertinent questions.　 First of all, they ask, "Is Mr. Hall a member of the recognized Rosicrucian Brotherhood and a member of the Freemasonic Fraternity, and is he a recognized authority on the lives of Bacon and Shakespeare ?"
So far as the authentic and recognized Rosicrucian Order is concerned, we can definitely say that he is not known in Europe or in America as a member of the AMORC or any other branch of the recognized Rosicrucian activities throughout the world, nor has he ever been such a member.　 As to whether or not he is a Freemason, I am not qualified to say, although it is seriously questioned by those who are capable of making certain tests [Note: Hall did not become a Mason until 1953, 16 years after this article--RW].　 But that is entirely beside the point of my present argument.　 As for my knowledge about the lives of Bacon and Shakespeare, from things I have read that he has written, he evidently knows less about Bacon than anyone I have ever known who claimed to be ready and prepared to speak or lecture on the subject.
Mr. Hall has written some books with titles which lead the reader to think that he is going to find many secrets revealed.　 Mr. Hall still has the old-fashioned and strange idea that "Christian Rosenkreutz" founded, established, invented or created the Rosicrucian Fraternity and first introduced it into Germany.　 And he has many other ideas about Rosicrucianism that are just as strange as that.　 He presents an interesting program in his circular matter and he certainly awakens the interest of a sincere seeker who has never heard of him before, and all are agreed that during the course of his lectures he expresses some ideas in such superlative and flowery language that one is not quite sure what he means;　 but as for revealing any secrets or telling the average seeker anything he does not know that will lead him to a real path of development and unfoldment, I have yet to hear of any real investigator who would endorse him as either a lecturer or a teacher.
Now I trust that none of our members are going to think that Mr. Hall is injuring the AMORC organization and that that is why we are making these remarks of a critical nature.　 Our members have asked what we knew of him and what we thought of him and I am trying to be frank and yet conservative.　 We have never lifted a finger of protest against the many erroneous statements Mr. Hall has made, although on occasions some of our members who could not remain reticent and silent during his unfair diatribes against AMORC have listened to his speeches and protested.　
Mr. Hall and a hundred more like him making the same statements across the country could not do any real serious injury to AMORC unless they went far enough to indulge in incriminating charges which they happily evade doing.　 But we do not like to have our members and their friends go to the Manly Hall lectures and spend even a small admission fee or the carfare or gasoline to journey to the lecture and get a seat inside, if they are expecting any real knowledge or any real help.　 If they are seeking some form of entertainment, or want to study a man who is volubly lecturing on a subject of which he knows nothing, then Manly Hall proves quite satisfying and perhaps not at all disappointing.
Remember that when a public lecturer cannot identify himself with an authentic and recognized organization that is promoting the subjects upon which he lectures, you may look with suspicion upon the authoritativeness of his discourse.　 Freelance speakers do not go out and lecture in behalf of the teachings or postulations or activities of some philosophical or other school and do so freely and of their own accord, unless they have books for sale or some means of commercializing their activities, and that is precisely what Mr. Hall is doing, and I hope that no persons will be deceived into thinking that they are receiving any help in their studies with AMORC by attending his lectures.　 Otherwise Mr. Hall has our complete permission to continue his talks on Bacon, Shakespeare, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, and what not.
One of his subjects is claimed to be a revelation that black magic still exists in the modern world.　 When any individual pretends to lecture on such a theme with sincerity, he must be either self-deceived or is attempting to deceive his audience.　 Furthermore, by claiming that black magic ever existed, let alone existing in the present day, he is contributing to the fear complexes, the sufferings, the anguish, and the heartaches of many individuals who do not understand.　 It is this phase of the work of Mr. Hall that we greatly regret and wholly condemn.

　

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
Your speculation aside, the fact that some GL's refer their members to Palmer's works for more information on the Craft justify their use in criticism of Freemasonry. I'd provide some of these instances, but I'm away from my library. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

the fact that some GL's refer their members to Palmer's works for more information on the Craft justify their use in criticism of Freemasonry.

Oh come on, not the reading list = endorsement fantasy again? I guess you hadn't noticed they sometimes include the works of those from pseudo- and fringe Masonic groups.

The criticism is not justified anyway if, like similar comments raised in the past, this is simply referring to a reading list, because a reading list is not an endorsement of opinion. It is a referral to a list of works which is likely to have a wide variety of opinions. We always got the same sort of lists in the various educational institutions I have attended. My thesis advisor suggested several authors and works for me to consider reading, which were not in the campus library, because in a conservative institution like Asbury, they naturally encouraged the conservative perspective and had a tendency to steer their acquisitions in the same direction. But he wasn't endorsing any contrary opinion to the direction of my thesis, he was merely suggesting that the conclusions of a thesis which had considered no contrary opinions, would be nowhere near as viable as conclusions which had held up when compared to other opinions.

Masonry is no different, in fact it's pretty well-known for encouraging its members to think for themselves rather than cloning a bunch of yes-men. It's not surprising that even far-out-there writers like Hall might publish something that could find its way onto a Masonic reading list. But then, it's not surprising for Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy or Ellen G. White or Marcus Borg or Dominic Crossan to have their works included on a reading list at many Christian institutions--even conservative ones--depending on the course being taken, simply "for more information."

And nothing you just said changes the fact that Hall apparently wrote every book he wrote on Masonry, as an outsider. Even the accusers of Masonry give tactit admission to the problem with that one, when they try to bolster the credentials of every imagined "authority" they try to set forth. That's why you have the false claims made about the credentials of people like Crowley, Shaw, Blanchard, Hall, etc. etc., so that before the accuser even begins to write, he can give the appearance of speaking with as much authority as the illusion will allow. Let's face it, it sells more books. That's why, also, you have websites like the one I came across during the course of checking out this particular subject, where someone was claiming that Albert Pike had received "over 130 degrees in Masonry," as though the more degrees you claimed for him, the more you could use Morals and Dogma and the falsified Taxil documents to build a case against Masonry.

But of course none of the works by any of the authors they try to use, could be used at all by the accusers without giving them a little "help" by slicing out the parts that make it obvious why they don't work. In the Hall case in this instance, it was done by slicing out a couple of comments Hall wrote indicating that the piece was dealing with the "history of the craft." Kinda hard to "justify" a treatise about Hall and Masonry being part of a "New World Order" conspiracy of world domination during our time, when Hall was writing in the 1920's--and even then, was writing about Masonic history up to that point. Nope, you don't find that many historians intent on world domination. And even if you did, they would not be attempting that domination with the historical works they wrote.

 

[O.F.F.]

The criticism is not justified anyway if, like similar comments raised in the past, this is simply referring to a reading list, because a reading list is not an endorsement of opinion. It is a referral to a list of works which is likely to have a wide variety of opinions. We always got the same sort of lists in the various educational institutions I have attended. My thesis advisor suggested several authors and works for me to consider reading, which were not in the campus library, because in a conservative institution like Asbury, they naturally encouraged the conservative perspective and had a tendency to steer their acquisitions in the same direction. But he wasn't endorsing any contrary opinion to the direction of my thesis, he was merely suggesting that the conclusions of a thesis which had considered no contrary opinions, would be nowhere near as viable as conclusions which had held up when compared to other opinions.

Masonry is no different...

Nice try, but this holds no weight unless you are trying to claim that Freemasonry is equivalent to a theological seminary. I doubt you want to go down that path, knowing that if you do, it would come too close to inferring that Masonry is a religion, which is what seminaries are designed for.

Besides, you are also making a comparison to books NOT found in your seminary library, as opposed to Skip's point where Hall's work CAN be found in virtually every Masonic library. Furthermore, Masonry makes no distinction of the Masonic material they implicitly endorse. Nor do they make any suggestion that the conclusions of one "Masonic theory," which had considered no contrary opinion(s), would be nowhere near as viable as conclusions which had held up when compared to other "Masonic opinions." That makes a huge difference in disproving a tacit endorsement of them all.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Nice try, but this holds no weight unless you are trying to claim that Freemasonry is equivalent to a theological seminary. I doubt you want to go down that path, knowing that if you do, it would come too close to inferring that Masonry is a religion, which is what seminaries are designed for.

Where did you get the logic on this one, a crackerjack box? I don't have a clue why your first statement follows from anything I said. Maybe you could explain it for us?

For the record, readers, it's called analogy, and Michael shows no more comprehension of the use of them, than he has shown in the past. The comparison being made, of course, is not between a seminary and a lodge, but between the similar practice of including on a recommended reading list that which one does not necessarily endorse. And in that regard, the practice is the same.

But it's okay, we know you know that, we've seen before what happens when smoke gets shoveled--it dissipates and the one engaging in it is left with nothing to show for the effort--if indeed it can even be called "effort."

Besides, you are also making a comparison to books NOT found in your seminary library, as opposed to Skip's point where Hall's work CAN be found in virtually every Masonic library.

I am? This is certainly news to me. For the record, let's check out your "facts." The authors to whom I compared were:

Marcus J. Borg, Dominic Crossan, Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, and Mary Baker Eddy.

And the most obvious place to check these out and see if they are in the B.L. Fisher library at Asbury Seminary? Why, the seminary online catalog listings, of course:

BS2585.52 .B67 2009
Conversations with Scripture : the Gospel of Mark
Borg, Marcus J.
2 copies available at Seminary, Kentucky and Seminary, FLA

BS2650.52 .B67 2009
The first Paul : reclaiming the radical visionary behind the Church's conservative icon 1st ed.
Borg, Marcus J.
1 copy available at Seminary, Kentucky in
Main Collection

These are from the total listing available, 21 in all, by Marcus J. Borg. Strike one.

BR115.P7 C755 2007
God and empire : Jesus against Rome, then and now 1st ed.
Crossan, John Dominic.
1 copy available at Seminary, Kentucky in
Main Collection

BS2506.3 .C76 2004
In search of Paul : how Jesus's Apostle opposed Rome's empire with God's kingdom : a new vision of Paul's words & world 1st ed.
Crossan, John Dominic.
1 copy available at Seminary, Kentucky in
Main Collection

These are from a total listing of 24 titles available at the seminary by Crossan. Strike two.

BX8623 1986
Book of Mormon
Smith, Joseph, 1805-1844.
http:// scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents
5 copies available at Seminary, Kentucky, Kinlaw Library, Kentucky, and Seminary, FLA

BX8629 .P5 1990z
Pearl of Great Price
Smith, Joseph, 1805-1844.
1 copy available at Seminary, Kentucky in
Main Collection

These are two of the 79 listings the search pulled. Not all of the Joseph Smiths were the same, but these two should be sufficient to prove their availability. Strike three.

BX6941 .S41 1994
Science and health with key to the Scriptures
Eddy, Mary Baker, 1821-1910.
3 copies available at Seminary, Kentucky, Kinlaw Library, Kentucky, and Seminary, FLA

BX6941 .A4 1925
Prose works other than Science and health
Eddy, Mary Baker, 1821-1910.
1 copy available at Seminary, Kentucky in
Main Collection

These are two of 26 hits pulled. Some are repeats, so there are not 26 works by Eddy in their library, but how many is irrelevant since your claim was that there weren't ANY. Strike four.

BX6193.W5 D62 1988
Documents available from the Ellen G. White estate
Ellen G. White Estate, inc.
1 copy available at Seminary, Kentucky in
Archives / Special Collection

BT886 .W54
The integrity of the sanctuary truth : a group of Ellen G. White statements made in 1905, 1906, and 1907 regarding Elder A.F. Ballenger's teachings
White, Ellen Gould (Harmon, 1827-1915.
1 copy available at Seminary, Kentucky in
Main Collection

http://libcat.asburyseminary.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/57/49/?user_id=ACWEB

Well, you came closer on this one: these were the only two listed. But again, either one of them is all that was really needed to prove you spoke without the least bit of knowledge about what you were claiming. Strike five.

You have been shown to be completely wrong with your claim on this one, in every specific instance.

My suggestion to you: go back to the drawing board and find another method of engaging this subject than the ridiculous approach afforded by flat denials and off-the-cuff comments.

The truth would be a good place to start.

Furthermore, Masonry makes no distinction of the Masonic material they implicitly endorse. Nor do they make any suggestion that the conclusions of one "Masonic theory," which had considered no contrary opinion(s), would be nowhere near as viable as conclusions which had held up when compared to other "Masonic opinions." That makes a huge difference in disproving a tacit endorsement of them all.

Not only do you have a short fuse, but a shorter memory to boot! You've been this route before, remember? And you were soundly refuted then, just as you are about to be refuted once again, by taking notice of the disclaimers which commonly appear on the same page with Masonic reading lists. The following statement, for example appears on the reading list provided by the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, and is typical of what any Grand Lodge says in regard to its reading lists:

This book list for the recommended reading is composed of books that the committee feels have the potential to provide Masonic Knowledge to the readers, but even more significant will stimulate the reader to think.

Please note that the appearance of these books on the recommended list is not to be taken as an endorsement by the committee of either the authors or the contents. Indeed there are books, or parts thereof, on this list with which probably all members of the committee would find fault.

It is the firm belief of the members of the Committee that all books read should stimulate the reader to think and, thus, books that appear here and with which you may disagree, are recommended for that purpose.

Many thousands of books concerning Freemasonry have been written during the past 300 years, with additional titles published every month. This list merely scratches the surface and is not intended to confine the reader to these titles alone. Where the participant has found a work that he feels worthy, the Committee would appreciate his comments regarding possible future inclusion.

Source: Pennsylvania Academy of Masonic Knowledge, found online HERE:
http://[/FONT


http://www.pagrandlodge.org/programs/academy/booklist.html

I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think that a seminary library would not have the works of the people mentioned. All one has to do to see the importance and the relevance of informing oneself on these matters, is to take a look around this or any other good Christian forum (remember CARM?) and see the thread titles in various sections where these matters are being discussed at great length by the laymen that the seminary student will be serving.

You've been at this way too long, apparently. You're repeating yourself, you're resorting to flat-out prevarications, and you're making claims like the five-point example above, which have absolutely no basis in fact.

You've certainly cut down on your involvement with these things on forums like this one. Maybe it's about time you really considered getting out of it entirely. What possible purpose can there be in coming here and making false claims about information that can be verified or refuted by anyone with a KB and a browser, and who is willing to run down a couple of links? Does it matter to you at all to consider, that what you just did reflects, not on just you, but on anyone associated with the o.f.f.-t.h.e.-m.a.r.k. website you founded? What will your colleagues in your organization think when they are faced with the realization that their founder doesn't mind making deliberately false, unfounded, unresearched claims? And since this thread is about antimasonic tactics, and since one of those tactics I have repeatedly exposed here and elsewhere, is the practice of turning conversations back to already-refuted arguments by simply lifting and repeating them across lines of time and thread topics: how will that fare with your organization's members also, when they begin to realize just how precisely you have modeled that exact practice with this current post here (it was presented and refuted before, on the "Can a Christian Be a Freemason?" thread, only a few short months ago, pp. 91ff)?

Your posts exhibit an ever-widening credibility gap.

 

[O.F.F.]

I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think that a seminary library would not have the works of the people mentioned.

Apparently your dementia must be kicking in again. It came from your very own words in your previous post.

My thesis advisor suggested several authors and works for me to consider reading, which were not in the campus library, because in a conservative institution like Asbury, they naturally encouraged the conservative perspective and had a tendency to steer their acquisitions in the same direction.

Therefore, I assumed that the books you were referring to that were recommended by your thesis advisor weren't in your seminary library when I said:

Besides, you are also making a comparison to books NOT found in your seminary library, as opposed to Skip's point where Hall's work CAN be found in virtually every Masonic library.

Now let's move on...

...resorting to flat-out prevarications...

Talk about resorting to flat-out prevarications, I was distinctly referring to the tacit endorsements of material found in Masonic libraries. Yet Wayne, in his deception, tries to refute the claim by positioning the Grand Lodge of PA's Academy of Masonic Knowledge as it's library, rather than the "certification program" for which it was designed for. I say again, it is NOT a Masonic library, which we were discussing in the previous post, it is a "certification program" designed for Pennsylvania Masons who join their academy. But Wayne knew the difference between an academy and library when he posted the misrepresentation of it.

Having pointed that out, if anyone clicks here they will see the first page to their CIRCULATING LIBRARY where NO SUCH disclaimer exist, which Wayne was trying to use from a completely different place on their website. Furthermore, if anyone clicks here they will go the "rules & regulations" page for this very same CIRCULATING LIBRARY and still NOT find a disclaimer of any kind, let alone the one Wayne has falsely tried to deceive readers with.

Palmer wrote the most-criticized works that are the favorites of accusers, 25 to 30 years BEFORE he ever became a Mason. In fact, I have tried my best to find works by Hall written about Masonry AFTER becoming a Mason, in order to compare and see if there was any substantive difference, only to discover that he apparently wrote no more books about Masonry after he joined in 1953. Certainly there are works of his that get cited here and there with later dates than that; but when investigated, al of them turn out to be reprints of earlier works. I can't help but wonder if he stopped writing them after joining and finding out just how far off the mark he had been.

That's your opinion, for which you are entitled to; yet one could just as easily speculate that he felt his work was complete, and he had no desire to write on the topic anymore. Moreover, it didn't stop him from ultimately being conferred the honorary title of "33° degree Mason." And, apparently the Grand Lodge of PA, which you chose to use as an example, completely disagrees with you.

Notice in this "rules & regulations" section, if you click on the link "For the Newly Made Mason" you will find Manly Palmer Hall's The Lost Keys of Freemasonry; with the endorsement of "A short work for those who wish esoteric insight into the Craft." Or if you click on the link "Philosophy and Teachings" you will not only find that same work by Manly P. Hall, but you will also find listed his work entitled, "Secret Teachings of All Ages" which is about "an encyclopedic outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Cabalistic and Rosicrucian symbolic philosophy: An interpretation of the secret teachings concealed within the rituals, allegories and mysteries throughout the ages."

But if that's not enough, there too you will find Hall's work entitled, "Reincarnation." Since no such disclaimer exist in this Grand Lodge's CIRCULATING LIBRARY it simply reinforces my earlier point of its tacit approval and endorsement of the readings contained therein. And, trust me, there are a lot more weird work listed there than the likes of Manly P. Hall. But even if he wrote these books long before he ever became a Mason, it obviously doesn't matter, because his work has been accepted as valid Masonic reading material by the Grand Lodge of PA, and I trust you can find his work listed in other Grand Lodge libraries as well.

So Wayne, if you won't consider getting out of the Lodge, maybe it's about time you really considered getting out of these forums entirely. What possible purpose can there be in coming here and making false claims about information that can be easily verified and refuted by anyone with a computer and a browser, who is willing to click on a couple of links?

Does it even matter to you at all to consider, that what you just did reflects, not only on YOU, but on anyone associated with Freemasonry, as well as the leadership of the United Methodist Church, which you are a member? What will your colleagues in your denomination think when they are faced with the realization that one of their own pastors doesn't mind making deliberately false, unfounded, unsubstantiated claims? How will that fare with your denomination's members also, when they begin to realize just how precisely you have modeled the practice of deceit?

It's bad enough that you lost credibility the moment you stepped into a Masonic Lodge, but your posts since then have proven to be an ever-increasing reinforcement of this fact.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You seem to think that the mere compilation of books on the subject of Freemasonry, constitutes "tacit endorsement" of the whole. But in fact, in any compilation of any books on any subject, particularly one over which there is as much disagreement as there is over the subject of Masonry, there are bound to be differences of opinion. And it is about as ludicrous a suggestion as you could possibly make to try to claim that the simple inclusion of the variety of viewpoints that are inevitable in a library running to over 70,000 volumes, must necessarily be considered a blanket endorsement of them all.

Notice in this section, if you click on the link "For the Newly Made Mason" you will find Manly Palmer Hall's The Lost Keys of Freemasonry; with the endorsement of "A short work for those who wish esoteric insight into the Craft." Or if you click on the link "Philosophy and Teachings" you will not only find that same work by Manly P. Hall, but you will also find listed his work entitled, "Secret Teachings of All Ages" which is about "an encyclopedic outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Cabalistic and Rosicrucian symbolic philosophy: An interpretation of the secret teachings concealed within the rituals, allegories and mysteries throughout the ages."

That's rich, but okay, let's "notice" these things.

the endorsement of "A short work for those who wish esoteric insight into the Craft."

How is a work provided "FOR THOSE WHO WISH esoteric insight" an "endorsement?" It's simply a source provided out of recognition of the fact that there are some who are of that opinion and might find it a matter of interest.

"Secret Teachings of All Ages" which is about "an encyclopedic outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Cabalistic and Rosicrucian symbolic philosophy: An interpretation of the secret teachings concealed within the rituals, allegories and mysteries throughout the ages."

Guess you missed that part about it being "an interpretation." That would be almost funny, if it weren't for your constant insistences to me in the past labeling anything I present as "merely" my interpretation. That which you insist on belittling and criticizing when addressing me, you apparently do not even consider worth mentioning when the same description is applied to someone else?

But even more ludicrous are these comments by you:

But if that's not enough, there too you will find Hall's work entitled, "Reincarnation." Since no such disclaimer exist in this Grand Lodge's CIRCULATING LIBRARY it simply reinforces my earlier point of its tacit approval and endorsement of the readings contained therein.

There's the point of your departure from anything resembling reason, when you state, "Since no such disclaimer exists. . ." Simply put, you are engaging an argument from absence, which is one of the most common of all logical fallacies. The classic analogy on that one is that Jesus has no problem with drug abuse because He never mentioned it. Arguments from absence are meaningless, and prove nothing.

And, trust me, there are a lot more weird work listed there than the likes of Manly P. Hall.

Oh, there are some WEIRD ones, all right. For example, look in "Miscellaneous" and you will find:

Secret Societies of America's Elite - Steven Sora
An expose of the dark and critical role secret societies play within the ruling families in America.
Secret Societies - Philip Gardiner
An investigative look into what the world's secret societies are really up to in today's world.
Let There Be Light: A Study in Anti-Masonry - Alphonse Cerza
An overview of the different forms that Anti-Masonry can take.
The Unexplained: Secret Societies - Author: A&E Television
Time: approx. 50 min. Description: Detractors & defenders discuss the conspiracies associated with Freemasonry & The Skull & Crossbones Society of Yale University.

So by your claims with this, you would have us believe that the GL-PA "endorses" an opinion that "secret societies play a dark and critical role within the ruling families in America?" Steven Sora makes all sorts of untenable claims in the book, among them being, an attempt to link Masons to the JFK assassination, which has nothing of any substance to support it at all. But you would have us believe the ridiculous assertion that by including this book in the library listings, GL-PA is guilty of "tacit endorsement" of such an idea?

Or you would have us believe that GL-PA "endorses" a supposed exposee of "what the world's secret societies are really up to in today's world?"

After all, your own words concerning the inclusion of Hall's works, were that it constituted "tacit approval and endorsement of the readings contained therein." Seems to me, if "Masonry" can be taken as "endorsing" these matters, simply by their inclusion on one Grand Lodge library listing, you're wasting your breath here: they have already, by your strange logic, "endorsed" anti-Masonic positions!

Do you see where your suspension of logic leads the readers here? No, the fact is, the link you provided clearly does NOT prove any kind of "endorsement" of the sources included.

It is simply a library, which includes all SORTS of opinions in regard to Masonry, made available to Pennsylvania Masons for them to read a wide variety of materials in regard to the subject. Your claim cannot be sustained, that this constitutes a "tacit endorsement," for the simple fact that no one can "endorse," in blanket fashion, a collection which includes opinions that are in diametric opposition to anything in Masonry--which is clear from a simple examination of the volumes included, by following the links on the page.

Like I stated already, you've been at this too long. First you try to sell us on a false claim about what does/does not appear in a library that anyone can check out online; and now you go beyond your initial claim about Masonic reading lists, to try to sell us on the even more absurd notion that a library with antimasonic works included in it constitutes a "tacit endorsement" of them.

And since you like arguments from absence: are we to take your total lack of any defense concerning your false claims about materials that apppear/do not appear in Asbury's library, as a "tacit admission" that you just made it up?

Not that we have to, since the online listings have already shown you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. It would just make things a lot easier for all of us if you could just give a simple acknowledgment once in a while, that you have submitted claims that were not based on the least shred of information.

 

[O.F.F.]

It is simply a library, which includes all SORTS of opinions in regard to Masonry, made available to Pennsylvania Masons for them to read a wide variety of materials in regard to the subject. Your claim cannot be sustained, that this constitutes a "tacit endorsement," for the simple fact that no one can "endorse," in blanket fashion, a collection which includes opinions that are in diametric opposition to anything in Masonry--which is clear from a simple examination of the volumes included, by following the links on the page.

Nice SLEIGHT OF HAND, but it's not going to work. You blasted in here adamantly posting a DISCLAIMER from their Grand Lodge Masonic ACADEMY as if it applied to their LIBRARY, and when thoroughly busted on the misrepresentation, you come back with a litany of points trying NOW to make an "argument from absence" of any disclaimer, in order to accuse me of the same fallacy. Do you really believe the readers are so naive to completely ignore such deception?

The classic analogy on that one is that Jesus has no problem with drug abuse because He never mentioned it.

Poor example, especially from someone who is supposed to have been seminary-trained, and therefore should know his Bible. But when I read passages like, Ephesians 5:18 or 1 Corinthians 6:19, my Bible tells me that He (Jesus the Living Word) would indeed have a problem with drug abuse.

And since you like arguments from absence: are we to take your total lack of any defense concerning your false claims about materials that apppear/do not appear in Asbury's library, as a "tacit admission" that you just made it up?

No, as I stated before, and the readers can clearly see in the beginning of my last post, IT CAME FROM YOUR VERY OWN WORDS:

My thesis advisor suggested several authors and works for me to consider reading, which were not in the campus library, because in a conservative institution like Asbury, they naturally encouraged the conservative perspective and had a tendency to steer their acquisitions in the same direction.

But since you like arguments from absence: are we to take your total lack of any acknowledgement of this fact, as a "tacit admission" that you never said it in the first place?