The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

[Rev Wayne]

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

I was already here before you arrived, I had no need to "blast" in here or anywhere else. And there was no sleight of hand, no misrepresentation, and you most certainly have "busted" nothing, other than your coffer of reframes, which apparently is running on empty. The listings for the academy are drawn from their library, you're just spitting into the wind and mucking your own face in the process.

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.

YOU were the one making claims from an "argument of absence," that because the library itself has no disclaimer, that we are to take it as "tacit endorsement" of everything in the library, not me. Not only that, you came back with your own concocted "argument of absence," by trying (falsely) to claim that certain authors' works were absent from Asbury's seminary library. Man up and take the heat for your errors, and quit trying to pass the buck.

Do you really believe the readers are so naive to completely ignore such deception?

No I don't. Besides, I don't have to point it out, most of them are aware of your deceptions already.

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.

Nope, neither of those passages says one thing about drug abuse. What version are you using? Slewfoot must have slipped you a counterfeit on this one.

And surely a dyed-in-the-wool literalist like you isn't going to change his colors now, and try to address something that is not explicitly stated there? How was I to know you would undergo a metamorphosis and start acting like you think Scripture can be interpreted from anything other than a strict literalist bent?

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.

Wow, you were already o.f.f.-base beyond belief, but you just went off the map with this one. What my thesis advisor suggested for me to read concerning my thesis on the Kenosis hymn in Philippians 2:5-11, had absolutely nothing to do with the comments made in a totally separate paragraph about the authors mentioned in that separate context. My thesis had absolutely nothing to do with Christian Science, and certainly nothing to do with anything from the Jesus Seminar, nor did I indicate otherwise. You are doing your usual deconstruction of my posts, deliberately distorting things, just as you have done since day one every time you address anything I have had to say.

To set the record straight for the readers here, so they aren't deceived by your sleight of hand, what you have done is to condense two paragraphs together and try to make them into one context. It is false, misleading, and deliberate deception for you to do so. Here are my comments as they were presented:

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."

As anyone can see, I never said the first thing about whether one could find/not find Smith, Eddy, White, Borg, or Crossan's works in the Asbury library. Nor did I state, suggest, hint, or in any way imply that the thesis I spoke of had anything to do with any of those authors either.

In the first paragraph:

I was referring to a specific instance involving my thesis professor;
I was referring specifically to an incident at Asbury;
I addressed no specific authors by name;
I was addressing the thought that "a reading list is not an endorsement of opinion."

In the second paragraph:

I was referring to no specific incident;
I was referring to no specific institution, and even stated so, speaking of "Christian institutions--even conservative ones";
I WAS addressing specific authors, in the SECOND instance, and by name;
I was addressing the thought that it's not unusual for works of authors whose opinions are not necessarily in line with the institution itself to be found on their reading lists. And in that regard, and speaking of "conservative institutions"--PLURAL--the authors listed were excellent choices to illustrate the point, since no conservative thinker would endorse the opinions of a single one listed.

In other words, when you said that the idea that those works do not appear in Asbury's library was "IN MY OWN WORDS"--it was, plain and simple, totally untrue--as was your claim that those authors' works do not appear in the Asbury seminary library. And the comments as originally presented in my post prove it.

Take a vacation, take a break, take a snooze, take a hike, whatever it takes for you to get your thinking processes back in order, so that you can try to keep up, not slip up. Correcting your errors is becoming so tedious, that you never seem quite able to catch up with the flow of a conversation any more.

 

[O.F.F.]

As anyone can see, I never said the first thing about whether one could find/not find Smith, Eddy, White, Borg, or Crossan's works in the Asbury library. Nor did I state, suggest, hint, or in any way imply that the thesis I spoke of had anything to do with any of those authors either.

That's funny, folks can easily look back at each of my last 3 posts and see that I too never said the first thing about whether one could find/not find Smith, Eddy, White, Borg, or Crossan's works in the Asbury library. Nor did I state, suggest, hint, or in any way imply that the thesis you spoke of had anything to do with any of those authors either!

So your point can't be for any other reason than to try and mislead readers into thinking that I did. Pastor, just in case you didn't know, that's called being deliberately dishonest.

what you have done is to condense two paragraphs together and try to make them into one context.

That's NOT true! I was only referring to the first paragraph, and the context of the first paragraph ONLY, in which YOU said:

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.

Spin it however you wish, but I know what I was referring to – and the purpose for which I did – when I said what I said 3 posts ago.

In other words, when you said that the idea that those works do not appear in Asbury's library was "IN MY OWN WORDS"--it was, plain and simple, totally untrue--as was your claim that those authors' works do not appear in the Asbury seminary library.

You know perfectly well, and so do the readers, that I NEVER specified any particular works, nor did I state any specific authors, that may or may not appear in the Asbury seminary library! Like I've shown you THREE times now, I was merely referring to YOUR comment in the first paragraph as quoted above, period!

Take a vacation, take a break, take a snooze, take a hike, whatever it takes for you to get your thinking processes back in order

Take a bath, because right now you are reeking with the stench of deceit.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You're a strange bird to be whistling about "deceit." It did not escape my attention when the following details showed up:

From your post, #198:

Last edited by O.F.F.; 7th August 2010 at 11:43 AM

And then from my post, #199:

7th August 2010, 11:22 AM

In other words, the post was edited immediately AFTER I had already responded to it.

I really can't think of a reason that would happen, but one. One can only speculate what you may be hiding. Not that your current tirade was believable anyway. It's very much apparent that you removed SOMETHING from that post, and it's an easy guess you just removed the only clear indication that you WERE talking about both paragraphs, so you can pursue the current line of prevarications.

How do I know that? Because one of the antimasonic tactics that I have repeatedly exposed, is the bringing up of argunents that get refuted, followed by a certain amount of time away from the forum to let the discussion move in other directions, and then later return and re-introduce the matter as if the refutation never had taken place.

And your current one is a classic. This was all done once before on the "Can a Christian Be a Freemason?" thread, p. 92ff. The claim was made there concerning Masonic reading lists, it was shown there that the reading lists do not carry any such "tacit endorsement" as you claim, and the argument was shut down. During the course of the discussion, you had posted a citation from a website which carried a list of Masonic reading lists, along with comments in between the citations. Your post carried the words from that page word-for-word, yet without a single attribution.

When I responded that you had plagiarized it and had not given attribution, you immediately popped back with a "quote" from your post and a smartie-pants retort of " you can pretend that you saw otherwise, post what you think you saw, but apparently you missed the attribution." But the fact was, I had saved that page BEFORE you went back after my post and altered it, so I had the drop on you. Naturally, you never admitted to anything, as usual (you never do). But I still have BOTH versions of the webpage, the one without the attribution, and the one with the alteration and the time stamp showing the edit was done AFTER you had been caught.

Not the first time in that case either, I still haven't forgot about the plagiarized "insulin, not ice cream" post that you "borrowed" from Greg Koukl's "Stand to Reason" website word-for-word, again without attribution.

But the problem ought to be obvious to you concerning the current discussion. Since you were caught dead-to-rights, telling a bald-faced lie about it in the past, not once, but twice, why should I have any inclination to believe you have done otherwise, than to engage in the same deception once again? It "stands to reason" that two prior attempts at deception in the past, one of them several years ago, the other only this past April, show that you will remain unrepentant for the practice in the past, and will very likely employ the same tactics again in the future. It also means there is a better than even possibility, given the after-the-fact editing incident once again, that you did the same thing in this case as you did in the previous two. The only difference this time is, I didn't save the page, and do not have the original to compare, in the same manner as was proved in the other two incidents.

But thanks for illustrating for us once again, on a thread devoted to the subject, the sneaky, underhanded, deceptive, manipulative practices to which antimasons will stoop just to try to invent their own mud to sling.

To the readers: I do not lie, in both cases I have both the original version as posted, and the alteration and false claim of innocence after the fact. Not only that, I also have both pages from a similar incident engaged in by a close friend and associate of O.F.F.'s, also a member of his organization, in which he did exactly the same thing, posted without attribution, and altered after the fact, with a false claim of innocence. I can happily email these proofs to anyone interested in seeing incontrovertible proofs, rather than the false claims being perpetrated here by this deceiver, just PM me an address to send it to.

Sorry, o.f.f., I just don't believe you, with the track record of evidence to the contrary, and the telltale after-the-fact time signature showing more of the shenanigans very likely took place.

And as far as I am concerned, this discussion, and not only that, any further discussion with this more-than-once-proven liar who hypocritically keeps tossing around the "liar" label, here or anywhere else, is totally out of the question. I shake the dust o.f.f. my shoes and move on from this point, and avail myself of the "ignore" feature, figuring I can't possibly name any other individual more deserving of being ignored.

 

[O.F.F.]

In other words, the post was edited immediately AFTER I had already responded to it.

Apparently it did not occur to you that perhaps I was in the process of editing my post at the same time you were responding to it. But that doesn't matter, I stand on ALL my posts as they were finally made regardless of your cry-baby attitude resulting from your own deception.

I shake the dust o.f.f. my shoes and move on from this point, and avail myself of the "ignore" feature

Thank you, by all means please do, assuming you will actually avail yourself from engaging the chief confronter of your Masonic deceitfulness.

 

[Rev Wayne]

"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."

Well, I generally try to do that, and in this case I did so once again.

To all who may read the above, this is not just a kneejerk outburst, but a very well-considered and often contemplated response, given the vitriolic attacks that have come at me, totally unmerited, over and over and over and over and over and over, more than I care to enumerate.

I have no problem maintaining civil discourse with anyone who can do the same. But the problem with that in his case is, there is never a time when the intent from the start is to insult, needle, revile, misrepresent, lambaste, and excoriate not only my posts, but my person, in any manner in which he can do so.

I know the rules of the forum, and I know what will be the likely consequence of taking this action of calling a spade a spade. But being in obedience to the powers that be, does not always involve being in compliance with the rules that are in place. As Thoreau reminded us, this involves, not simply being in compliance with rules, but being willing to be in disobedience to the rules upon occasion, but in a civil manner, and being willing to bear the consequences of that disobedience, whatever they may be, in order to make a point that can hardly be made by simple compliance with rules.

Every single word of my previous post is true.

Apparently it did not occur to you that perhaps I was in the process of editing my post at the same time you were responding to it.

No, but it DID occur to me, and still DOES, that you posted at 2:30 am, and did not edit the post until after my post at 11:22. So no, I still don't buy any of your "perhapses." ESPECIALLY not an insistence that "perhaps" you "just happened" to be editing a post that you had let stand for several hours, or that you "just happened" to edit it ONLY after I had posted a rebuttal. Sorry, but I'm not buying any more suspensions of logic from you.

But that doesn't matter, I stand on ALL my posts

That's part of the problem right there, NOTHING matters to you, to the point that it doesn't matter to you to stoop to telling lies to cover up errors. You've just established too much of a pattern of it to be believable any more. There was the incident on this forum where you claimed to be quoting from a copy of a Hall work that you said you had "right in front of you," and when challenged on it, provided a link to a website with completely different reference pages. Then there's the one just this past April, where you were PROVEN to have gone back behind your exposed error, corrected it, and then lied about it, claiming it was there all along, and didn't have a clue I had saved the page to preserve the deliberate lie for what it truly was--even after I had TOLD you what I was going to do.

That's why THIS means absolutely nothing. . .

That's funny, folks can easily look back at each of my last 3 posts and see that I too never said the first thing about whether one could find/not find Smith, Eddy, White, Borg, or Crossan's works in the Asbury library.

. . .since you have been proven to be without any scruples that might prevent you from having done it in this case as well.

regardless of your cry-baby attitude resulting from your own deception.

Better a crier than a liar. Not that there's any crying going on here, just an advisable implementation of "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

In the words of the Who song, you get no more opportunity, because I "won't get fooled again."

Your ultimate burden of truth, Michael, is to God, and no one else. I've been as patient and as merciful about matters for as long as I can, and I have reached my limit; therefore I leave you with the God of all mercy, with Whom I'm sure you will fare better than you do with me, and I bid you adieu.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Back to the topic at hand. The typical appearance of the Hall quote is as follows:

Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity, an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect. . . it is necessary to establish the existence of these two separate and yet interdependent orders, the one visible and the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of free and accepted men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most august fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcanum arcanorum. . . In each generation only a few are accepted into the inner sanctuary of the work, but these are veritable princes of truth, and their sainted names shall be remembered in future age together with the seers and prophets of the elder world. . . . They are dwellers upon the threshold of the innermost, masters of that secret doctrine which forms the invisible foundation of every great theological and rational institution.

Manly P. Hall, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, Philosophical Research Society, Inc. 1984, p. 433

The removed portions tell us the problem, and show us a different story than the one the accusers try to paint:

Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity, an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect. Before it is possible to intelligently discuss the origin of the craft,it is necessary to establish the existence of these two separate and yet interdependent orders, the one visible and the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of free and accepted men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most august fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcanum arcanorum. Those Brethren who have essayed to write the history of their Craft have not included in their disquisitions the story of that truly secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic what the heart is to the body human. In each generation only a few are accepted into the inner sanctuary of the work, but these are veritable princes of truth, and their sainted names shall be remembered in future age together with the seers and prophets of the elder world. Though the great initiate-philosophers of Freemasonry can be counted upon one's fingers, yet their power is not to be measured by the achievements of ordinary men.They are dwellers upon the threshold of the innermost, masters of that secret doctrine which forms the invisible foundation of every great theological and rational institution.

You see, most people who cite this, generally do so in a context of trying to mischaracterize Masonry as secretive and up to no good, and to mischaracterize Masons as part of a "New Age" conspiracy. To do so, they found it necessary to remove the portions which contradict their claims, namely: (1) a reference to this being a discussion of "the ORIGIN of the craft"; (2) a reference to this as commenting upon "the history of their craft"; and (3) a reference to the men described as "masters of that secret doctrine" that says they can be "counted upon one's fingers." Kinda hard to make accusations of world domination stick when just a handful of men are said to be a part of it, don't you think?

It is even harder to make that kind of accusation stick when it is considered that Hall wrote the above lines in 1928, many many years before he ever became a Mason. Makes it pretty hard also to attribute any kind of Masonic authority to it. Also, since even then Hall was writing about the "history of the craft," that means he was writing about matters well before even that date, making claims of CURRENT "New Age conspiracies" by Masons even more of a stretch.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne,

Let's put the "New Age" conspiracy theory aside for a moment; because I personally don't get that – at all – from this quote of Hall's. Yet, even when you add back the "removed" portions as you did, there are some very obvious, glaring questions that come from this piece that you seem to be deliberately ignoring.

If "Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity, an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect," than who makes up this inner brotherhood of the elect that are being concealed?

Do you know of any competent Masonic authority at the highest levels within the fraternity that has flat-out refuted his or Pike's claim? Because as you know, Albert Pike did make a similar claim, and the Scottish Rite for whom he made it to has, to my knowledge, never denied it:

The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry. The whole body of the Royal and Sacerdotal Art was hidden so carefully, centuries since, in the High Degrees, as that it is even yet impossible to solve many of the enigmas which they contain. It is well enough for the mass of those called Masons, to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees; and whoso attempts to undeceive them will labor in vain, and without any true reward violate his obligations as an Adept.

Morals & Dogma, KNIGHT KADOSH, page 819

Is it not plausible that such an inner circle, Hall is referring to, is the same group of Adepts and Princes of Masonry that Pike is referring to? Or do you think they both just made this up for some interesting fantasy reading or to fuel the conspiracy theories of anti-masonry? Can you in any definitive way prove that this "inner brotherhood" does not really exist? Assuming they do exist, is it not possible for them to have been successful in maintaining their concealment from all brethren in the "outer court," who are not counted among them, all these centuries?

I would suspect, if such an inner circle within the fraternity does exist, you would have no clue until such time you reach a point in your Masonic work where you are lucky enough to be identified as being worthy to be considered an elect, and offered to join that inner brotherhood and/or replace one that may have died, who had gone this way before you. And, I might add, if you were to obtain such a "Masonic" honor, you would not divulge it to the general public, nor would you tell your fellow brethren in the "outer court" without, like Pike said, "violating your obligations as an Adept."

So again, who are these “few that are accepted into the inner sanctuary of the work?” What exactly is the "work" of the "inner sanctuary?" Is the philanthropic work of the "outer court" just a front for the "work" of the "inner sanctuary?" Who are these "veritable princes?" Who is this "secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic what the heart is to the body human?" If they are real, WHY DO THEY EXIST? Who are these "masters of that secret doctrine?" And moreover, what is this "SECRET DOCTRINE" that only they are privy to know?

If there is any truth to this, it is not a conspiracy theory, it is something that even you as an active Mason are not privy to, nor was I when I practiced Freemasonry. Perhaps neither of us have ever reached the point, or met the criteria to be counted among them. But to pretend that such an "inner circle" doesn't exist and simply argue that this is just another "New Age" conspiracy created by anti-masonry is simply not going to suffice. And, it most certainly is not going to answer the palpable questions I just posed to you.

Anti-masonry did not create this ("secret inner society") theory; it was created by Masons like Manly P. Hall, Albert Pike, J.D. Buck and George H. Steinmetz, just to name a few. And, I suspect, until someone from within this "secret inner society" decides to reveal the truth about it, we may never know what it's all about. What we do know is this, when Jesus returns all things will be revealed, to include the truth about Freemasonry, your involvement in it (inner circle or not) and whether it ever honored God.

 

[Rev Wayne]

If "Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity, an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect," than who makes up this inner brotherhood of the elect that are being concealed?

Broaden the scope even just a little bit, and you find Hall answers that very question himself. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to leave the paragraph to find it:

Those Brethren who have essayed to write the history of their Craft have not included in their disquisitions the story of that truly secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic what the heart is to the body human.In each generation only a few are accepted into the inner sanctuary of the work, but these are veritable princes of truth, and their sainted names shall be remembered in future age together with the seers and prophets of the elder world. Though the great initiate-philosophers of Freemasonry can be counted upon one's fingers, yet their power is not to be measured by the achievements of ordinary men. They are dwellers upon the threshold of the innermost, masters of that secret doctrine which forms the invisible foundation of every great theological and rational institution.

It's easy to see Hall was not speaking of world domination, nor was he speaking of an inner echelon conspiring evil. If he HAD thought so, he would not have been describing those he suggested as members, as "veritable princes of truth." Whether one agrees with him or disagrees with him is irrelevant to the overall question of "are the conspiracists correct?" He wasn't speaking of a unified group at all; heck, he wasn't even speaking of men who were all contemporaries in the first place, for he clearly prefaces his remarks with "in each generation. . ." It's kind of hard for someone who passed away in some previous generation, to be a part of some conspiracy in league with those who lived in different generations, don't you think? Yet he says the ones of whom he speaks "can be counted upon one's fingers." Kinda hard to be putting together a world domination team, too, consisting of ten or less men, who did not even live in the same generation, and most of whom, at the time Hall wrote this in 1929, were already dead, wouldn't you say?

Nor was Hall averse to misrepresentation in order to promote his high opinions of his views. He says, for instance:

Preston, Gould, Mackey, Oliver, and Pike—in fact, nearly every great historian of Freemasonry-have all admitted the possibility of the modern society being connected, indirectly at least, with the ancient Mysteries, and their descriptions of the modern society are prefaced by excerpts from ancient writings descriptive of primitive ceremonials. These eminent Masonic scholars have all recognized in the legend of Hiram Abiff an adaptation of the Osiris myth; nor do they deny that the major part of the symbolism of the craft is derived from the pagan institutions of antiquity when the gods were venerated in secret places with strange figures and appropriate rituals.

Bold claim to make, given what I know and what probably many Masons would know, about at least some of them.

Gould--most definitely did not. The word "Osiris," for example appears nowhere in his multi-volume history.
Mackey--did not. Carries articles in his Encyclopedia on both Hiram Abiff and Osiris, but the Hiram article does not mention Osiris, and the Osiris article does not mention Hiram.
Oliver--If he did, I have not been able to locate it.
Pike--no question he may have discussed that particular position. The question with Pike, though, is always "was he setting it forth as his declarative position?" In most such accusations against Pike, he was not.

That's three out of the five I can pretty well say, no, Hall was mistaken. That is especially true of Gould, whose history was the seminal work that is still referred to as the definitive and complete counter to fanciful ideas of Masonry having "ancient" origins. Pike I would have to see the context before I'd even dream of giving consent to his having "declared" it. Preston I've never been particularly interested in, and can't say one way or the other.

Do you know of any competent Masonic authority at the highest levels within the fraternity that has flat-out refuted his or Pike's claim? Because as you know, Albert Pike did make a similar claim, and the Scottish Rite for whom he made it to has, to my knowledge, never denied it.

Well, you just aren't reading enough, or you're looking in the wrong places. For instance, we could start with S. Brent Morris, 33° Scottish Rite, who addresses this very same Pike citation in "Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry?"

Anti-Masons would have us believe this passage is a public admission of the deceptions imposed on most Masons by the "leaders" of the Craft. Common sense is again thrown out the window. Why would such a damaging "secret" doctrine be printed in a widely available book? With hundreds of thousands of copies distributed, shouldn't some blue lodge Masons have caught on by now? Anyone, like Pike, is free to think he knows the true interpretation of Masonic symbolism, but it will remain his personal opinion. Only grand lodges have the authority to interpret the symbolism of the blue lodge, and they are not inclined to yield to any other power. (Found HERE: Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? )

From the same publication, same chapter, you can also get Morris's opinion on Manly P. Hall:

Manly Hall didn't become a Mason until 1954, so his 1923 book, Lost Keys of Freemasonry, represents the personal theories of a non-Mason. Further, Mr. Hall (who passed away in August 1990) was a self-avowed mystic and not a "leading authority" of Freemasonry. He was a promulgator of mystic and theosophical philosophies; his writings have not received official sanction by any Masonic bodies. The fact that he held the Thirty-third Degree and was respected by many Thirty-Third Degree Masons and even by the Supreme Councils 33° is no more significant than the fact that various Baptist, Anglican, or Methodist authors also hold or held that honor.

Or we could turn to Henry Wilson Coil:

Fate decided that Pike should enter the Scottish Rite only four years after he became a Mason and before he had time or occasion thoroughly to study the history of all branches of the Society and, so, he began his study from the upper levels without knowing much of the foundation. He evidently did not know until his later life that the Scottish Rite degrees were a part of that type of ritual which sprang up in France in 1737 and subsequent years but regarded it as Primitive Masonry which had come right on down from Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt and out of the Ancient Mysteries and Magism, which there held sway. He found books which said so and he never had any doubt about that theory. He regarded Craft Masonry as then known to be puerile, though he said it had a deeper meaning which was hidden from its superficial adepts, who were taught to be satisfied with trite explanations. He even asserted that Craft Masonry had been devised so as not only to hide its true meaning but to cause its members to think that they understood it. [Albert G.] Mackey encouraged him in those notions, for he, too, had been made a Mason only four years before he began writing books on the subject, in which he adopted the more sensational theories of mystery and symbolism. But Mackey changed his views as soon as the work of the British realistic school began to be felt. Pike did not waver; his work was nearly complete and too voluminous to be done over.

I'm sure I could find more, but since both of those are 33° Scottish Rite< I figured they would qualify in your estimation of who are/are not "experts."

Is it not plausible that such an inner circle, Hall is referring to, is the same group of Adepts and Princes of Masonry that Pike is referring to?

Well, since Hall definitely references within the context just cited, "veritable princes of Masonry," it's certainly plausible they were speaking of the same "group," if you will. But does it really matter? Because as you can see, even "competent Masonic authorities at the highest levels" are not too keen on either Pike OR Hall.

Or do you think they both just made this up for some interesting fantasy reading or to fuel the conspiracy theories of anti-masonry?

Oh, this is fanciful stuff for sure, and I can prove it. In fact, I HAVE proven it to you before, "Can a Christian Be a Freemason?" thread, p. 63. You were put to silence at the time, when I presented the information that proves this is pure imagination; just because you have forgotten it does not mean this nonsense was not already thoroughly refuted. But since you don't remember it, let's take a stroll down Memory Lane and enlighten you:

The real problem with the piece by Pike is the following line:

The whole body of the Royal and Sacerdotal Art was hidden so carefully, centuries since, in the High Degrees, as that it is even yet impossible to solve many of the enigmas which they contain.

In other words, the claim is, &#8220;these things were hidden centuries ago, and no one has figured out the puzzle yet.&#8221; This presents two insurmountable problems for the accusation of concealment:

(1) If no one has managed to &#8220;solve the enigmas&#8221; of these degrees yet, how then can the claim be made that those of the &#8220;higher&#8221; degrees are concealing them, or that someone has taken a vow to conceal that which no one knows the meaning of in the first place? That is completely absurd.

(2) The claim that they were hidden &#8220;centuries&#8221; earlier is an anachronistic claim and a logical impossibility. It is amazing that Pike himself would not know the history of derivation of the Scottish Rite degrees. The predecessor of the Rite as we know it today was &#8220;The Order of the Royal Secret,&#8221; established under the Constitutions of 1762. The Rite was not extended to 33 degrees until the Grand Constitutions of 1786.

Anyone with the least familiarity with Masonry will understand the logical disjunct immediately: How could those of the &#8220;higher degrees&#8221; have been concealing secrets from those of the Blue Degrees for &#8220;centuries,&#8221; when Blue Lodge Masonry, with a modern founding in 1717, predates the 33-degree Scottish Rite by 69 YEARS????

Let's face it: Hall's main gift was flowery, rhetorical, eloquent speech, which left people either puzzled or dazzled. Morris discounts any credence being lent to Hall due to (1) the fact that his writings greatly preceded his becoming a Mason, and (2) he was less an expert on Masonry than he was a mystic; and (3) none of his works had Masonic sanction. He tried to let imagination do for him what he would not allow legitimacy and credibility to do for him. I would have thought the fact that he attributes Masonry's origins to Atlantis, might have given you a clue to his propensities.

Pike? Well, in the particular citation offered, it's pretty clear he was off the mark by several centuries when he tried to claim that secrets were hidden for several centuries in an organization which at the time was not yet a century old.

What we do know is this, when Jesus returns all things will be revealed, to include the truth about Freemasonry, your involvement in it (inner circle or not) and whether it ever honored God.

Like I've already stated, when Jesus returns, judgment will be of individuals. My record and my conscience on the matter will be clear, for I will have honored God by being obedient to join it when He led me to do so. The only ones associated with Freemasonry in any way that God has presented me with any responsibility in any way, are the hardhead, diehard accusers who have no compunctions in violating the 9th commandment in a futile attempt to accuse Masons of violating the 1st. And I'm still working on those.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne,

While your insidious ways are duly noted, you have NOT really addressed any of my salient questions.

It's easy to see Hall was not speaking of world domination, nor was he speaking of an inner echelon conspiring evil.

Nor was I; rather I was simply asking if the "inner circle" he and Pike referred to actually exist within Freemasonry. But you wasted time and space to effectively say you have no clue as to the veracity of THEIR claims.

Well, you just aren't reading enough, or you're looking in the wrong places. For instance, we could start with S. Brent Morris, 33° Scottish Rite, who addresses this very same Pike citation in "Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry?"

You know as well as I do that S. Brent Morris CANNOT and DOES NOT speak for Freemasonry in general, nor is he a spokesperson for the Blue Lodge or the Scottish Rite. What you were challenged with, and apparently cannot find, is a Grand Lodge (Blue Degrees) or the Scottish Rite, or ANY OTHER COMPETENT MASONIC AUTHORITY (not an INDIVIDUAL'S OPINION) who refutes Hall or Pike's claim of a "secret inner society" within Freemasonry.

It's almost as if you are deliberately dancing around the issue in order to secure your place within it, should you be so lucky to some day be given the "honor" to be among them, by your vehement attempt to help cover it up.

Anyone with the least familiarity with Masonry will understand the logical disjunct immediately: How could those of the &#8220;higher degrees&#8221; have been concealing secrets from those of the Blue Degrees for &#8220;centuries,&#8221; when Blue Lodge Masonry, with a modern founding in 1717, predates the 33-degree Scottish Rite by 69 YEARS????

And any Adept in Masonry, as Pike & Hall point out, knows that this point holds NO merit, since they have already declared that it was NEVER intended for the "outer court" to know that they existed in the first place. It appears you are being deceived by the very thing they said you would be duped by all along.

But keep it up; with such determination to defend them, perhaps you will ultimately be selected as an "elect" among them.

 

[Rev Wayne]

While your insidious ways are duly noted, you have NOT really addressed any of my salient questions.

I'm waiting till you actually have some. "Salient" questions would be prominent and stand out. Yours, by contrast, are nothing but the same ole same ole same ole that you keep returning with after they have been long refuted, in the pretense that they never were refuted--or the hope that nobody noticed.

W: Anyone with the least familiarity with Masonry will understand the logical disjunct immediately: How could those of the &#8220;higher degrees&#8221; have been concealing secrets from those of the Blue Degrees for &#8220;centuries,&#8221; when Blue Lodge Masonry, with a modern founding in 1717, predates the 33-degree Scottish Rite by 69 YEARS????

M: And any Adept in Masonry, as Pike & Hall point out, knows that this point holds NO merit, since they have already declared that it was NEVER intended for the "outer court" to know that they existed in the first place.

And as anyone with half an ounce of reading comprehension would have been able to tell, the claim was proven to be false in the Pike citation, since his notion about "centuries" having passed based the entirety of it on a false premise from the outset; and in the Hall quote, he pointed out no such thing, you are attributing Pike's comments to both of them, a false attribution.

Pike published Morals and Dogma in 1871. In the book he clearly states:

The whole body of the Royal and Sacerdotal Art was hidden so carefully, centuries since, in the High Degrees, as that it is even yet impossible to solve many of the enigmas which they contain.

The "high degrees" he refers to are, of course, Scottish Rite, since that was the body he wrote M&D for. Scottish Rite was not even created until 1786. That is not even ONE century before Pike wrote this, much less CENTURIES SINCE.

Sorry, but you blew it on this one, you should have shut up when you had the opportunity, anything you say to try to refute the solid facts that make Pike's comments PURE FICTION, only makes your claims look even more ridiculous than they already were.

I can't believe your total lack of comprehension of the facts on this one. Even a child could do the math.

(1) The Blue Degrees are numbered 1st (EA), 2nd (FC), and 3rd (MM).

(2) The Scottish Rite degrees start their enumeration just after that, beginning with 4th.

(3) For Scottish Rite to have existed "centuries" before the date Pike made the remark, the "higher" degrees would have had an existence that preceded the lower, and the numbering would have gone 4-33 first, and then finished with 1-3.

(4) Scottish Rite degrees are called "appendant" degrees, that is, they are "appended," i.e., they come after that to which they are appended.

Therefore, what Albert Pike said is totally impossible, and your ill-founded bluster is illogical. You are not to be taken seriously. Tell your laughing guy he can drop the rofl act, because both you AND he know better than the ridiculous claims you are making.

You know as well as I do that S. Brent Morris CANNOT and DOES NOT speak for Freemasonry in general, nor is he a spokesperson for the Blue Lodge or the Scottish Rite. What you were challenged with, and apparently cannot find, is a Grand Lodge (Blue Degrees) or the Scottish Rite, or ANY OTHER COMPETENT MASONIC AUTHORITY (not an INDIVIDUAL'S OPINION) who refutes Hall or Pike's claim of a "secret inner society" within Freemasonry.

And you know that as a typical antimason, you are simply employing the same old double standard you always resort to when caught with your pants down. You also know that when you said "other competent Masonic authority," you were not speaking of an organizational body, because the way you stated it was"

Do you know of any competent Masonic authority at the highest levels within the fraternity that has flat-out refuted his or Pike's claim?

You were clearly speaking of persons in positions of authority who had attained the highest levels. And you know this BECAUSE you also know that THAT was exactly what you were addressing in the Pike quote: the "adepts," etc., those at the "highest levels within the fraternity." You're just trying to backtrack and put on another of your famous pretenses, to try to do damage control.

You know as well as I do, THAT was the reason I said we'd START with Morris. In other words, you ASKED for a "competent Masonic authority at the highest levels within the fraternity," and that was EXACTLY what you GOT. Just because you want to play Larry Kunk's Catch-22 game and try to up the ante every time somebody responds with exactly what you requested, does not mean I will play along.

Besides, what Morris presented were clear facts. For instance, the fact that Hall's works were never officially sanctioned by any body of Masonry, is a matter of record. The fact that Hall wrote Lost Keys of Freemasonry in 1923 but didn't become a Mason until 1954, is a matter of record. .

You also know as well as I do that I didn't JUST cite Morris, I ALSO cited Henry Wilson Coil, directly from his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. I ALSO know EXACTLY why you totally IGNORED the Coil quote. Why? Because you know also, just as I do, that you have cited Coil as an authority, not just once, but SEVERAL times in the past. In your own words:

I might add, some prominent Masonic authors would also disagree with Wayne on this. Here is one particular example: (and you proceed to quote Coil)--from this forum, "Can a Christian Be a Freemason?" p. 3, post 24)

The obvious question is: why do you cite Coil authoritatively, as a "prominent Masonic author," yet when I cite an even MORE prominent Masonic author, you try to dismiss it? TH answer is easy: antimason double standard.

In fact, one prominent Mason would argue. . . (and you proceed to cite Coil) (Thread About Masons, p. 17)

As your Masonic brother Henry Coil points out: (What do you people think about the Masonic Lodge?, p. 17)

This reminds me of the comments made by prominent Mason and Masonic author, Henry Coil (Is Freemasonry Compatible With Christianity?, p. 48)

They can study at their library. Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, 33rd degree, Henry Wilson Coil, 33rd degree, and Arthur Edward Waite are all recognized authorities by State Grand Lodges. (Pastor Harmon R. Taylor, in answer to his own question, "What can a Pastor Do?", enthusiastically embraced by you and posted by you with this entire sentence in bold highlights, "Freemasonry's Biggest Secret Revealed," p. 6--selected emphasis mine)

This makes Henry Coil's remarks all the more accurate and acceptable to Freemasonry: (Masonic Ritual Origins and Meanings, p. 35)

how dare you say that Freemasonry is not a religious organization when the institution itself says that it is. . .
Those are just a couple of examples, but what do Masonic writers have to say (and you proceed to quote Coil once again, thus adding his comments to a list of what "the institution itself says")

In this particular instance, I returned a comment of "Coil speaks only for himself and can in no wise be construed as &#8220;the institution.&#8221;

To which you replied: "What the Grand Lodges claim about the Masonic Order support Henry Coil, a well-respected 33 degree Mason, statement quoted earlier" (Does Anyone Know Anything about the Masonic "Religion?", p. 5)

Wow, not "what Henry Coil says supports what the GL's claim," but the other way around, "what the GL's claim about the order support Henry Coil!" That has Grand Lodges acquiescing to Henry Coil's statement, making his authority an even higher one than their own, by your words.

Masonic authority Henry Wilson Coil also admits. . . (Freemasonry and Fundamentalism, p. 15)

You couldn't have stated it any more directly than that.

In his encyclopedia on Masonry, Masonic authority Henry Wilson Coil refers to . . . (This thread, p. 5)

Wow, there it is again, and on this very thread.

If one looks closely at the quotes, all that is proven by the initial post of this thread, and the quotes contained therein, is the fact the one of the most prolific Masonic authors of all time states that the Religion of Freemasonry is not a mainstream religion but, by his own definition, is religion nonetheless. For Coil in that same passage said. . . (This thread, p. 1)

Wow, "one of the most prolific Masonic authors of all time?" Such a wonderful attempt to aggrandize Coil's credentials; and yet, after you said that, and after adding on p. 5 the designation of "Masonic authority Henry Wilson Coil," by the time you reached p. 21 of the same thread, you totally IGNORED it when I cited him???

But you want to see the most glaring example of your duplicity? Take a look at the following three comments, in your own words, from the first five pages of this thread:

one of the most prolific Masonic authors of all time states that the Religion of Freemasonry is not a mainstream religion but, by his own definition, is religion nonetheless. For Coil in that same passage said: (p. 1)

After all, these are Masonic authorities, where YOU and Henry Coil are not. (p. 1)

In his encyclopedia on Masonry, Masonic authority Henry Wilson Coil refers to . . . (This thread, p. 5)

I don't see how anyone could be so confused that they can't keep up with Coil's authority, not only on the same thread, but even on the same page! First he's one of the most prolific Masonic authors "of all time," and by the end of the page he's "not a Masonic authority," but then again by p. 5 he's Masonic authority Henry Wilson Coil." And by p. 21, a citation from this "Masonic authority" who is "one of the most prolific Masonic authors of all time," gets totally IGNORED by you!

So which is it, Michael? And do, pray tell, enlighten us by posting a list of all of Coil's "prolific" works that earned him such high estimation from you.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Here are some citations, with response, from the O.F.F. website, the "Organization of Former Freemasons," from the article "Is Freemasonry a Religion?":

It is true that Masonry is not a religion, but it is Religion, a worship in which all good men may unite, that each may share the faith of all.
Joseph F. Newton, The Builders, pages 250-251

Strange material to find posted there, given the earlier statement right here by the founder of the organization himself:

You know as well as I do that S. Brent Morris CANNOT and DOES NOT speak for Freemasonry in general, nor is he a spokesperson for the Blue Lodge or the Scottish Rite.

Well, if S. Brent Morris, the founder of the Scottish Rite Research Society, and 33rd-degree Mason, one of the most published and most knowledgeable Masons of our time, has no right to speak for Masonry, then why allow articles on your website that treat Joseph F. Newton, whose only title I can vouch for with any certainty is "Reverend," as some kind of Masonic authority?

No, not by the definitions most people use. Religion, as the term is commonly used, implies several things: a plan of salvation or path by which one reaches the afterlife; a theology which attempts to define the nature of God; and the description of ways or practices by which a man or woman may need to communicate with God. Masonry does none of those things. . . . Have some Masonic writers said that Masonry is a religion? Yes, and again, it’s a matter of definition. If, as some writers have, you define religion as “man’s urge to venerate the beautiful, serve the good and see God in everything,” you can say that Masonry subscribes to a religion. But that, surely, is not in conflict with Christianity or any other faith. (emphasis added)
Jim Tresner, Conscience and the Craft by the Grand Lodge of New Mexico, 1992, pages 2-3

Notice the emphasis in this piece. Why put the only emphasis in the entire paragraph on that one line? Because it is the only line they want you to see. Notice how they totally bypass this line, which is very true, and very worthy of highlighting as well:

But that, surely, is not in conflict with Christianity or any other faith.

They want you to think they are quoting a Mason making a claim that Masonry ought to be designated a religion, in the same manner as the Christian religion, or any other religion, and use that as a wedge to accuse it of being contrary to Christianity. If Masonry is only uplifting tenets that may be described as "man's urge to venerate the beautiful, serve the good and see God in everything," then it is not really setting forth much of "a" religion at all. After all, let Masons mention Masonic charities (or anything putting Masonry in a good light, for that matter), and you will very quickly be told how paltry a notion that is to the accusers. Even though none of those things in itself is blameworthy, they still find reason to blame it for the simple fact that Masonry upholds it. One can only wonder why such a punitive response would be given to virtues that are upheld, not only by Christianity, but by practically any religion one could name.

Nor is it exactly clear why this line is not highlighted as well:

Religion, as the term is commonly used, implies several things: a plan of salvation or path by which one reaches the afterlife; a theology which attempts to define the nature of God; and the description of ways or practices by which a man or woman may need to communicate with God. Masonry does none of those things. . .

I notice too, that there is an ellipsis denoting omitted material. 999 times out of 1000, when dealing with antimasonic accusers, there is one sure-fire reason for an ellipsis: there is something there that they did not want the reader to see, and by antimasonic necessity it was deliberately cut out of what was quoted. This case is no exception, for Tresner continues from that point:

We offer no plan of salvation. With the exception of saying that He is a loving Father who desires only good for His children, we make no effort to describe the nature of God. And while we open and close our meetings with prayer, and we teach that no man should ever begin any important undertaking without first seeking the guidance of God, we never tell a man how he should pray or for what he should pray.
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Instead, we tell him that he must find the answers to these great questions in his own faith[/font][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'], in his church or synagogue or other house of worship. We urge men not to neglect their spiritual development and to be faithful in the practice of their religion. As the Grand Lodge of England wrote in "Freemasonry and Religion", "Freemasonry is far from indifferent to religion. Without interfering in religious practice, it expects each member to follow his own faith, and to place above all other duties his duty to God by whatever name He is known." Masonry itself makes only a simple religious demand on a man--he must believe that he has an immortal soul and he must believe in God. No atheist can be a Mason.[/font]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/font]

Now, really--a religion that will not offer a plan of salvation, will not spell out in great detail the nature of God, and will not tell a man how to pray or what to pray for? Not much of a religion of all, this nonchalant group we call Masonry. But the clearest statement is the one telling the Mason he finds these answers from his religion. That couldn't be any clearer in declaring to the Mason, "we are not your religion." No WONDER this got left out, it contradicts every claim the article tries to make. It also shows that the piece they is in total disagreement with every conclusion they deceptively used it to try to suggest it supported. A little slice and dice here, a highlight there to divert the reader away from what Tresner REALLY said, and they think they have pulled the hoodwink over the eyes of whoever reads their false creation.

Now look at what they DIDN'T quote from the Tresner article:

Does Masonry have a hidden religious agenda or practice, known only to "higher" Masons?
No, The religious position of Freemasonry is stated often and openly, and we've already mentioned it above. A Mason must believe in God, and he is actively encouraged to practice his individual faith. Masonry has no "god" of its own. Some anti-Masons have said that we are not allowed to mention the name of God in Lodge. That isn't true-- in fact that is one of the two meanings of the "G" in the square and compasses logo (the other meaning is "geometry"). It is true that we generally use some other term, "Grand Architect of the Universe" is most common, to refer to God. That is done only to avoid giving religious offense to anyone whose faith refers to God by another name. But the God to whom Masons pray is the God to whom all Christians pray.

To that, I can only add, the highlighted statement has already been confirmed by citations from my own jurisdiction's Ahiman Rezon, showing that "God" in the lodge is directly affirmed to be the God of the Bible, with references affirming this from both testaments. My challenge for anyone to show otherwise from Masonic ritual or manual, has gone unanswered.

The Master Mason learns that true Freemasonry gives to a man a well-spent life and assurance of a glorious immortality.
Carl Claudy, Foreign Countries, page 11

Totally sliced from any context other than the title and author? How is that a legitimate citation? Name me any author you care to name, who has written any work at all, whose authorial intent can be upheld in every instance in which his/her work is cited one sentence at a time. The simple truth is, you could make most of them say some things quite contrary to what they themselves would write or think.

But to the citation at hand: this totally ignores the rest of the chapter in which it appears. For instance, this can be found on p. 15:

This United States of ours has its ritual: its Declaration of Independence, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights. Doubtless the reader has read all of these; perhaps, in school, he memorized them, as the initiate must memorize Masonic ritual.

Clearly Claudy was writing to a U.S. Masonic audience, and the remarks thus are intended for U.S. Masons. He certainly could not automatically presume, if addressing those from any other country, that the reader "has read all these," meaning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

This is affirmed again on p. 17-18:

The candidate naturally puts his own interpretations upon a Masonic degree. The manner of his preparation for entrance to a lodge room may appeal to him as "unnecessary," perhaps as "funny." But unless he is a moron, he can hardly fail to appreciate the significance of his preparation when he has become an Entered Apprentice. Nor can he find humor in a reverent approach to the Altar on which lies the Holy Bible.

He has already indicated to whom he is speaking. Presuming that the Bible would be on the altar of a U.S. lodge, therefore, is a safe presumption.

We find further evidence of it on p. 35:

Upon our Altar lies a Book of the Law. In this country it is the Holy Bible; in other countries the Book of Faith of the religion there followed. The altar is thus mute testimony to all men that Freemasonry is founded and rests upon a Fatherhood of God.

Again, his audience is clear: he writes to Masons of the U.S. In the U.S., what he said is completely true: the Holy Bible rests on every Masonic altar.

So now what about the statement to which such exception was taken? Namely,

The Master Mason learns that true Freemasonry gives to a man a well-spent life and assurance of a glorious immortality.

Well, "true" Freemasonry means the Mason will follow the tenets to the best of his ability. In the U.S., many or most Masons are told to make the Holy Bible "the rule and guide of your faith" and to "follow the light you therein shall find." The founder of the O.F.F. organization is no exception, for he witnesses to being presented a Bible and told the same thing himself. And in fact, he himself states that "if he wanted to be the best Mason he could be," that he should follow that admonition, and began to read his Bible.

So since Claudy was clearly writing to U.S. Masons; and since he therefore was writing to Masons who have the Bible on the altar; and since a strong exhortation given to U.S. Masons is to make the Bible "the rule and guide of your faith"; and since a "True Freemason" will follow that exhortation;

There is absolutely nothing in what Claudy said in the statement quoted, which should give offense. Claudy was writing about Masons who seek to follow the Bible--if they are TRUE Masons--and if they ARE true Masons and DO follow the Bible and the light they find therein, then YES, they will find "a well-spent life and the assurance of a glorious immortality" are the result of having followed the light they found therein. For the light they therein find, will tell them "you must be born again" and "all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" and "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"--to mention just a FEW.
[FONT='Trebuchet MS','sans-serif'][/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']“Speculative, or [/font][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Freemasonry is so far interwoven with religion[/font][FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] as to lay us under obligations to pay that rational homage to the Deity which at once constitutes our duty and our happiness. It leads the contemplative mind to view with reverence and admiration the glorious works of creation, and inspires him with the most exalted ideas of the perfection of his divine Creator.”[/font] (from the FC degree)

[/font]

Again, separate comment from context and you can try anything you wish. Take what antimasonic accusers cite and trace it back to the source, and invariably you will find a context that speaks a different language from the accuser. This time we find, immediately following that which was cited:

In six days God created the heavens and the earth, and rested upon the seventh day; the seventh, therefore, our ancient brethren consecrated as a day of rest from their labors; thereby enjoying frequent opportunities to contemplate the glorious works of creation, and to adore their great Creator.

A six-day Creation with a seventh-day rest or sabbath, is a construct that is peculiar to the Bible. Once again, the witness is directly attributable to the God of the Bible. If it wasn't clear enough from that paragraph following the one cited, the very next paragraphs after that are even clearer: a description of the building of the temple, with Scriptural foundation for it, complete with the specific biblical references in which the story is found.

Apparently the accusers in this instance are trying to make a molehill out of the mountain of evidence revealing this to be the God of the Bible.

The whole article is only more of the same when it comes to antimasonry: half-quotes, sliced-and-diced quotes, out-of-context quotes, with accompanying spins.

 

[O.F.F.]

"Upon our Altar lies a Book of the Law. In this country it is the Holy Bible; in other countries the Book of Faith of the religion there followed. The altar is thus mute testimony to all men that Freemasonry is founded and rests upon a Fatherhood of God."

Again, his audience is clear: he writes to Masons of the U.S.

You talk against anti-masonry for highlighting points in quotes they choose to emphasize, but apparently it's okay when you do it. Sorry pastor, but even a 5th grader can clearly see your double-standard, and they can see too that Claudy's audience includes, not only U.S. Masons, but all Masons from all religions, all faiths, and all men. It is also implied by his statement that all gods must be the same, since in the context of speaking about all religions he unites them under the singular "Fatherhood of God."

"The Master Mason learns that true Freemasonry gives to a man a well-spent life and assurance of a glorious immortality."

Well, "true" Freemasonry means the Mason will follow the tenets to the best of his ability.

Sorry pastor, but even a baby Christian can clearly see your duplicity in this comment. "True" Christians KNOW that ONLY through Christ is a man given the assurance of a glorious immortality.

This is NOT a tenet or teaching in Freemasonry and you know it! Your very own "Masonic Template" analogy refutes this claim. And anyone, especially a pastor, who would go on record declaring that it is FREEMASONRY, rather than JESUS CHRIST that gives the assurance of a glorious immortality, is no Christian at all.

 

[Rev Wayne]

"Upon our Altar lies a Book of the Law. In this country it is the Holy Bible; in other countries the Book of Faith of the religion there followed. The altar is thus mute testimony to all men that Freemasonry is founded and rests upon a Fatherhood of God."

Again, his audience is clear: he writes to Masons of the U.S.

You talk against anti-masonry for highlighting points in quotes they choose to emphasize, but apparently it's okay when you do it.

It is when what I highlight shows your errors. And in this case, your error is glaring. He addresses this from the viewpoint of U.S. Masonry. If not, then why does he state the matter as "in OTHER countries," which you have helpfully highlighted for us? In "this country," it is the Bible; in "other countries," the book of faith of the religion "THERE" followed. Grand Lodges are not uniform in what they do or how they do it, they are autonomous. "One-size-fits-all" does not work, no matter which way you try to skew comments to try to make your mantra fit.

But with no other content from any other holy book but the Bible, IN THE RITUAL--which you have often specified as the REAL content of Masonry--I think any other book on the altar goes against the grain of what is contained in the rituals. But then, I am not responsible for, nor liable to, what other GL's do in other countries. I can only account for my own, which has the Bible on the altar, and which has content within its manual giving solid witness to the God of the Bible.

Sorry pastor, but even a 5th grader can clearly see your double-standard, and they can see too that Claudy's audience includes, not only U.S. Masons, but all Masons from all religions, all faiths, and all men.

Sorry, but it does NOT. And you have unwittingly highlighted yet another OBVIOUS reason that shows it:

In this country it is the Holy Bible; in other countries the Book of Faith of the religion there followed.

You see that, right? In the part you did NOT highlight, it's "THIS" country; and in the part you highlighted, it's "OTHER" countries. If he was addressing them ALL, as you FALSELY claim, then why would he be referring to anybody as "OTHER???" His delineation between "us" as opposed to "them," and "this" country as opposed to "other" countries is only further illustration of what I've already stated: Claudy is addressing U.S. Masons.

Anyone can see, that no amount of highlighting from either of us will change this obvious fact. The only reason I highlighted it was so YOU could see it. And despite your highlighting of the opposite side of the above sentence, it is STILL obvious that "other countries" only proves the same thing I just said. You simply have not changed one whit the fact that Claudy addresses U.S. Masons, that he speaks of the Bible being on "our" altars, or altars "in this country," and that anything said in regard to lodges anywhere else, he explicitly says it is "other countries."

Once again, clearly he is speaking from a viewpoint of this country, and addressing those Masons who are of "THIS country."

Maybe the problem is, trying to view it from a fifth-grade mentality caused you to miss the obvious.

Perhaps you can try to back up this false claim by telling us, exactly what country other than the U.S. could a Mason be from and be able to receive the following statement as applying to him?

This United States of ours has its ritual: its Declaration of Independence, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights. Doubtless the reader has read all of these; perhaps, in school, he memorized them, as the initiate must memorize Masonic ritual.

"United States of OURS?" Who else COULD he be talking to in those terms? Who is "the reader" who "DOUBTLESS" has read all of these U.S. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS "in school???"

Do you know any other country that teaches the U.S. government's founding documents at the level described--to the point there is little doubt the reader would be familiar enough with them to the point of memorization?

But there is even more reason to reject your false claim, and it is found in the paragraph immediately following the one above:

The foreignerinvestigating our institutions for the first time could hardly become a good American merely by such memorization. The highest tribunal in all the world, the Supreme Court, has to interpret to us our own Constitution, and not yet have any legislators come to the end of the meanings of those liberties for which wedeclared when this country first lifted up its head among the nations of the world, and cried the birth cry.

Claudy draws his reader in by the point of view of "inclusion," evidenced by all the "us" and "we" comments; but he equally clearly refers to those NOT of this country in non-inclusive language. The most obvious incidence of it is right here, where anyone other than U.S. citizens are referred to as "the foreigner."

Sorry, but your claim calls for a total suspension of even the bare amount of common sense it takes to grasp the obvious. The details in that one example alone would be enough to show exactly who is his presumed audience. But the same thing is true of many other details that can be seen throughout the book.

"Nor can he find humor in a reverent approach to the Altar on which lies the Holy Bible."
"Upon our Altar lies a Book of the Law. In this country it is the Holy Bible."

It is also implied by his statement that all gods must be the same, since in the context of speaking about all religions he unites them under the singular "Fatherhood of God."

Even if that WERE the implication, you have been the staunchest of all who have ever stated it, that no individual speaks for all of Masonry, and that Carl Claudy's opinions are merely his own.

Anyone can see, this is not describing a one-size-fits-all, but an individual understanding. What you claim it "implies" is impossible, since Claudy clearly stated,

The candidate naturally puts his own interpretations upon a Masonic degree.

Masonry is not a "one size fits all" organization demanding uniformity of belief among its members. That's one of the clearest indications it is not a religion. I can think of no religion that tells its members that matters of salvation, matters of theology about God, and matters of how we communicate with God are left up "to your own religion." Kinda obvious, don't you think, that an organization telling you such matters are up to "your religion," has pretty much stated that whoever "your religion" is, it ain't us?

Sorry pastor, but even a baby Christian can clearly see your duplicity in this comment. "True" Christians KNOW that ONLY through Christ is a man given the assurance of a glorious immortality.

Sorry, layman, but I said nothing to the contrary. Maybe if you'd elevate your thinking a little bit, and try to rise above the thinking of babies and fifth-graders, you could see the obvious also.

But thank you for illustrating the obvious from my comments, which was, if a Mason follows the Bible to the best of his ability, it will lead him to Christ. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." The Mason, therefore, who TRULY makes the Bible the rule and guide of his faith, and TRULY is obedient in "following ALL the light he therein shall find," will find Christ. If he does not, then it means that either he has not TRULY made it the rule and guide of his faith, or he has not been diligent to follow ALL the light that he found therein, for the light of Christ TRULY shines from all its pages.

Not that any Mason in this country would have to be told to follow that light to find Christ. For most of them, that would be like following the light to find the One they already knew--since most Masons ARE Christians. And that would be more true of Masons in this country than in perhaps any other location you could name.

This is NOT a tenet or teaching in Freemasonry and you know it! Your very own "Masonic Template" analogy refutes this claim.

You might have saved your breath on this one. I never set it forth as a "tenet or teaching in Freemasonry" in the first place. I simply stated that the Mason who TRULY takes the Bible as the rule and guide of his faith, and who TRULY follows all the light he finds therein, will find the assurance of a glorious immortality. And the reason I can be confident in stating so is, that anyone who TRULY follows the light he finds therein, follows the light of Christ which shines from every page, and "therein he cannot materially err."

And anyone, especially a pastor, who would go on record declaring that it is FREEMASONRY, rather than JESUS CHRIST that gives the assurance of a glorious immortality, is no Christian at all.

Wow! I sure am glad I never "went on record" saying anything as STUPID as you try to convince the readers I said!

Sorry, Mike, the readers here are NOT stupid, as you obviously assume. I think they are capable of understanding that when I say a Mason TRULY makes the Bible the rule and guide of his faith, and when he TRULY follows ALL the light he finds therein, that includes the clear witness in the Law and the Prophets, and in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles--in other words, in ALL the Scripture--to the Lord Jesus Christ. And NO, I did NOT say, that he makes "Freemasonry" the rule and guide of his faith, NOR did I say that he follows all the light he therein shall find "in Freemasonry"----I clearly and unequivocally said this about the BIBLE.

So I would appreciate it very much if you would let ME say what I'm saying, and quit trying to create false accusations with your reframes and intentional butchering of my comments.

That's pretty much all you've done with every comment I've made on the thread, and it's all you continue to do--substitute your false reframes for my statements, and your false spins for every quote of every Masonic author whose work you claim to have read.

P.S.--By the way, have you ever come up with that list yet, of Coil's "prolific" works?

 

[O.F.F.]

My, my, my... where or where do I begin? Let me begin as Steven Covey once said in one of his great works, "begin with the end in mind."

Be advised, as much as your duplicity draws me into correcting your deceitfulness, I am about to start a new job that will not allow me the luxury of frequenting these forums as much as I have in the past. And as one minister in our order once said, these forums can be the most wasteful of time and effort in leading men out of the Masonic Lodge, particularly when it comes to the most hard-hearted, stubborn of the bunch, as the infamous Rev. Wayne Majors has proven to be.

That said, don't look for me to respond to your reply to this post anytime soon; if I ever decide to do so at all. And, by all means for the record, do NOT even flatter yourself into thinking that "He can't handle the heat," or that "the Masonic accusers failed in their arguments and fled for the hills," or any other like excuse you use to feed your overzealous ego with; to convince yourself that your "last" word means the "anti's" have lost the battle. The battle is not ours, it's the Lords! And He defeated Freemasonry on the Cross at the same time He defeated all other sin and factions that disguise themselves to honor Him, and Him alone.

Now to some of the things you mentioned in your last post. When I busted you on your double-standard when it comes to highlighting quotes from Masonic authors, you said, your highlights show my errors. Yet that truly NEVER has been the case. In fact in this case, like all others, MY HIGHLIGHTS PROVE YOUR ERRORS ARE GLARING. He (Claudy) addresses ALL Masons, U.S. and otherwise. After all, are you so blind you missed the title of his book? If he were only addressing U.S. Masonry, why would he name it "Foreign Countries?" But I bet you were hoping the readers wouldn't even notice that fact.

Yet discerning saints need not worry about your weak attempts to mislead them, they can read the short book in its entirety by clicking "here"and find that your claims are far from the truth of the author's intent for writing it in the first place, and the audience to whom he wrote it. For example, in part from chapter 30, he explains this notion of "Foreign Countries."

I'll let readers check it out on their own, but suffice to say that in Claudy's Masonic view, the meaning of "Foreign Countries" is a symbol that can range in interpretation from geographic regions of the world in which Freemasonry is practiced, to Freemasonry itself as "the first "foreign country" in which the initiate will travel," to such things as "the foreign countries of philosophy, of jurisprudence, of history. No Freemason is really worthy of the name who does not understand something of how his new land is governed, of what it stands for and why."

With the author's definition in mind, there is NO WAY Wayne could be accurate in his estimation that this could only be limited to the realm of the United States of America!

In his reference to "other countries the Book of Faith of the religion there followed," you said:

He addresses this from the viewpoint of U.S. Masonry. If not, then why does he state the matter as "in OTHER countries," which you have helpfully highlighted for us?

Obviously you just jumped to page 35, where you said you found this, and totally ignored chapter 1 where he said:

All that there is in Freemasonry, which can be set down in words on a page, leaves out completely the spirit of the Order.

And what exactly is the "spirit of the Order?" In a word, "universalism;" as he goes on to declare:

If we depended on words or ideas alone, the fraternity would not make a universal appeal to all men, since no man has it given to him to appeal to the minds of all other men. But Freemasonry expresses truths which are universal; it expresses them in a universal language, universally understood by all men without words. That language is the language of the symbol, and the symbol is universally understood because it is the means of communication between spirits, souls, hearts.

Only a Masonic fool would try to argue that all this talk about the universality of Freemasonry was restricted to Masons in the U.S.

I am not responsible for, nor liable to, what other GL's do in other countries. I can only account for my own, which has the Bible on the altar

But Claudy already addressed this in chapter 2, yet again in your duplicity, you deliberately ignored it with your cherry picking, selective gleaning; a classic fallacy incorporated by Masonic apologists.

There are lodge members who will say that all of Freemasonry which any man needs to know is found in the degrees. So are there those who say that all any man needs to know of God or religion is found in the Great Light which rests upon our holy Altar. But be not discouraged by these, nor put faith in the vision of any guide; the only eyes with which any man may truly see are his own; the only faith which is truly valuable to any man is his own. Every man needs an educator in Holy Writ to expound for him the hidden truths which are in the Great Light.

Again, this speaks to the "universality" he talked about in chapter 1. Since Freemasonry welcomes and accepts all faiths, as your very own Grand Master of South Carolina has attested to, the Great Light that rest on a Masonic altar is relative to the predominant faith of the country in which it rest. This is underscored by the term Holy Writ, that Claudy uses, which by definition is NOT limited to the Holy Bible:

Religious texts, also known as scripture, are the texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred, or of central importance to their religious tradition. Many religions and spiritual movements believe that their sacred texts are divinely or supernaturally inspired.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_writ

But then you start to go on the deep end when you sided with Claudy on this:

Perhaps you can try to back up this false claim by telling us, exactly what country other than the U.S. could a Mason be from and be able to receive the following statement as applying to him?

"This United States of ours has its ritual: its Declaration of Independence, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights. Doubtless the reader has read all of these; perhaps, in school, he memorized them, as the initiate must memorize Masonic ritual." -- Claudy

"United States of OURS?" Who else COULD he be talking to in those terms? Who is "the reader" who "DOUBTLESS" has read all of these U.S. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS "in school???"

Do you know any other country that teaches the U.S. government's founding documents at the level described--to the point there is little doubt the reader would be familiar enough with them to the point of memorization?

Not sure if you were 'required' to actually memorize any of those documents in order to pass any grade in school, and I trust this was NOT a requirement for you to graduate from Asbury Theological Seminary. Also, I doubt that kids in America today have to memorize it either. Mine certainly didn't. And while I agree that these are three of the most important documents that define who we are as citizens of these great United States, I think you and Claudy are overstating the point here. But an even better question for you is, where on earth did he, or YOU, get the idea that either of these U.S. documents are a RITUAL, when by definition nothing could be further from the truth:

Main Entry: Ritual
Function: noun
Date: 1649
1 : the established form for a ceremony; specifically : the order of words prescribed for a religious ceremony
2 a : ritual observance; specifically : a system of rites b : a ceremonial act or action c : an act or series of acts regularly repeated in a set precise manner

Webster's Online (emphasis added)

But it does makes for a good laugh for a Masonic author to draw such a ridiculous analogy.

O.F.F. -- It is also implied by his statement that all gods must be the same, since in the context of speaking about all religions he unites them under the singular "Fatherhood of God."

Wayne -- Even if that WERE the implication, you have been the staunchest of all who have ever stated it, that no individual speaks for all of Masonry, and that Carl Claudy's opinions are merely his own.

NO SIR and YOU know it! It is a Masonic RULE that no individual speaks for all of Masonry, NOT mine. And since it IS A RULE SET BY FREEMASONRY, why on earth are you using Carl Claudy's opinions to support your own? That's okay, no need to answer, it's just another classic example of the double-standard used by Masonic defenders.

Anyone can see, this is not describing a one-size-fits-all, but an individual understanding. What you claim it "implies" is impossible, since Claudy clearly stated,

"The candidate naturally puts his own interpretations upon a Masonic degree."

Masonry is not a "one size fits all" organization demanding uniformity of belief among its members.

This is more in line with your very own "Masonic Template" analogy, which as I stated earlier simply refutes your claim that the "one size fits all" of U.S. Masonry is the Masonic body Claudy is addressing or referring to. But you knew that when you posted the misrepresentation of his intended audience.

. . .if a Mason follows the Bible to the best of his ability, it will lead him to Christ.

"If a Mason follows?" My you have a vivid, but limited imagination! In my case, not only did it lead me closer to Christ, it made me realize that Freemasonry was teaching the very heresy you now defend. So my reaction was to get out! In the case of Claudy, based upon his book, I confidently think he would answer your point with, 'not if they are from "Foreign Countries" practicing Masonry with another Holy Writ as their Book of the Law (Volume of Sacred Law a.k.a. VSL) or "Great Light" from their country's religion.'

That's pretty much all you've done with every comment I've made on the thread, and it's all you continue to do--substitute your false reframes for my statements, and your false spins for every quote of every Masonic author whose work you claim to have read.

And that's pretty funny, because as readers can see, that is precisely what you've done with every one of my comments. But no sweat, it's just another example of the double-standard of those who attempt to defend the indefensible.

P.S.

By the way, whatever happened to:

I shake the dust o.f.f. my shoes and move on from this point, and avail myself of the "ignore" feature

Again, there is no need to answer. Anyone who has followed our debates over the years knows that "Wayne's ego, must avail him to have the last word, no matter what the circumstances." So go for it, because I won't be here for awhile. And since no one else is here, you can play with yourself all you want; and I trust you'll get the gratification that you seek.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Dude, you're getting loose as a goose in a noose. You should have left off comment when you were merely behind, rather than continue getting behinder. Let's cut to the chase, and let me show you what the PRIMARY problem is with Foreign Countries:

Our ancient progenitors thought of the world as a flat plain; even as recently as the times in which our Great Light was written, there were "the four corners of the earth," and he was a bold mariner indeed who set sail for and discovered the New World. . .

The world was flat. It had corners. It had a sky. In the sky were stars; lamps. Our ancient brethren, in erecting a house, especially a house to be used for assembly and worship, made it the shape they considered the earth to be. Perhaps because of some dim perception of the beauty to be found in variety, perhaps because there are so many examples of greater length than breadth in nature. . .trees, rivers, many lakes, mountain ranges, valleys. . .it became a part of their belief to conceive of the earth as an "oblong square."

Well, that's certainly "revealing." We have the oblong square reference in Masonry because Masons in olden times, "in the times when our Great Light was written," conceived of the earth that way?

Do you know just how bizarre a claim that is? Speculative Masonry, for which no historical evidence exists any earlier than medieval times, is claimed by Claudy to have the "oblong square" reference because of what "our ancient brethren" thought the earth was shaped like. Since there were no Masons around back when the Bible was written, where on earth did Claudy get such a strange notion? Most Masons today know better, and so should you.

After all, are you so blind you missed the title of his book? If he were only addressing U.S. Masonry, why would he name it "Foreign Countries?"[/quote]

Are you so uncomprehending, that you ask this question seriously? I would think anyone who had read the book would know what an asinine question that truly is. Oh, that's right, you don't really read this stuff, you just browse it for accusations to invent. So since you haven't actually read this to get the meaning of the title, let's just let Claudy explain it for you:

It is not within the doors of other lodges than his own that he will find the boundary line and the guide posts of those truly Masonic "foreign countries" to which he has been given the passport by his brethren. He will find the gateways to those lands in the library, in the study club, in books and magazines, and, most and best of all, in the quiet hour alone, when what he has read and learned comes back to him to be pondered over and thought through.
The "foreign country" of symbolism has engaged the thoughtful and serious consideration of hundreds of Masonic students, as has that of the history of our Order. Not to visit them both; aye, not to make oneself a citizen of them both, is to refuse the privileges one has sought and labored to obtain. One asks for a petition, prays one's friend to take it to his lodge, knocks on the door, takes obligations, works to learn and finally receives the Master's Degree. One receives it, struggles for it, hopes for it. . .why? That one may travel in the far lands and receive the reward there awaiting. . .
Then why hesitate? Why wait? Why put off? Why allow others to pass on and gain, while one stands, the gate open, the new land beckoning, and all the Masonic world to see?
That is the symbolism of the "foreign countries". . .that is the meaning of the phrase which once meant, to operative Masons, exactly what it says. To the Freemason who reads it aright, it is a clarion call to action, to study, to an earnest pressing forward. . . (p. 147)

Gee, that sure doesn't sound like any literal "foreign countries" I ever heard of. If he's NOT talking about "the doors of other lodges than his own," then he CAN'T be speaking of LITERAL "foreign countries," which would NECESSARILY involve "doors of other lodges than his own."
If he is finding the "gateways to those lands" in the places he says: "library, study club, books and magazines, and quiet hour alone," then he CERTAINLY isn't talking about LITERAL foreign countries. No, he makes it very clear he is talking about "the foreign country of SYMBOLISM." This "foreign country" he speaks of in symbol, he explains as "a clarion call to action, to study, to an earnest pressing forward."

The clearest indication that he is NOT speaking of LITERAL foreign countries as you would have us believe, is when he tells us that the phrase "ONCE meant, to operative Masons, exactly what it says."

But "TO THE FREEMASON WHO READS IT ARIGHT," it has this different, symbolic, meaning. That would be equally clear for the antimason who does NOT read it aright and thus MISSES the true meaning of it.

Again, this speaks to the "universality" he talked about in chapter 1.

Great, you're finally beginning to come around--though I doubt you really realize what you're affirming when you say this. But since you have so willingly decided that Claudy's comments are to be taken in a universal sense, the following statements by him are particularly interesting as a result:

(1) "This United States of ours has its ritual: its Declaration of Independence, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights."

So, Claudy meant this in a universal sense, did he? So every Mason in the world lives in the U.S., and has three documents so designated as these are?

(2) "Nor can he find humor in a reverent approach to the Altar on which lies the Holy Bible."

Okay, by your estimation, Claudy is speaking universally. Therefore, this is a universal statement, that the Holy Bible lies on the altar. Very interesting, coming from you. But with the Holy Bible on every altar, it sorta takes away one of your biggest complaints.

(3) "Upon our Altar lies a Book of the Law. In this country it is the Holy Bible."

Okay, since he speaks universally, he speaks these things for everyone. The only question remaining to be asked, then, is what country does he mean when he says "this country?" Since he speaks universally, it really doesn't matter, it would be true of all of them. But just in case that doesn't convince you, just refer back to number (1), where he speaks of "the United States of ours," and does so universally, which means all nations are the United States--according to your "explanation" of it for us.

See what three-ring circus logic comes from this when you take your claim and play it to the hilt?

Not sure if you were 'required' to actually memorize any of those documents in order to pass any grade in school, and I trust this was NOT a requirement for you to graduate from Asbury Theological Seminary. Also, I doubt that kids in America today have to memorize it either. Mine certainly didn't. And while I agree that these are three of the most important documents that define who we are as citizens of these great United States, I think you and Claudy are overstating the point here.

Get a life, dude. Did you just totally forget--or come to think of it, did you even know--that Claudy wrote Foreign Countries all the way back in 1942? One thing you can be sure of, things that were taught in the schools back then were far different from the curriculum you'd find today. There were probably even places where the Bible was still taught in some schools, back at that date. So get off your soapbox about irrelevancies about what your kids or kids in America don't learn about these documents, your comments are anachronistic in relation to the time during which Claudy wrote this, and totally inapplicable as a criticism of anything Claudy said.

But an even better question for you is, where on earth did he, or YOU, get the idea that either of these U.S. documents are a RITUAL, when by definition nothing could be further from the truth:

I'll tell you what's bizarre: where on earth did you get the totally o.f.f.-the-wall idea that I had any idea any U.S. document was a "ritual?" You think just because I post a quote, I buy into everything in it word for word? That sure would get interesting, if we applied it to all YOUR quotes.

As for CLAUDY'S idea that it is, he wrote what he wanted to, it doesn't mean it has to be swallowed whole as you seem to believe. In fact, there's quite a LOT I disagree with from Claudy, particularly the "ancient Masonry" theory he quite transparently espouses. Since that's pretty clearly where he draws the whole "universality" line, the very premise upon which he makes the claim, being a false one, invalidates his whole conclusion. It is a standard point of argument, that valid conclusions may not be established from faulty premises. So on that note, your whole citation and use of material from the book is invalidated also.

In the case of Claudy, based upon his book, I confidently think he would answer your point with, 'not if they are from "Foreign Countries" practicing Masonry with another Holy Writ as their Book of the Law (Volume of Sacred Law a.k.a. VSL) or "Great Light" from their country's religion.'

Wait a minute. I thought you were loudly proclaiming just a bit earlier in this same post, that Masonry is "universal." Yet you just now acknowledged that the claim of "universality" cannot be true, by acknowledging that lodges "in foreign countries" do not use the Holy Bible. Therefore your claim does not hold up. If it is "universal" as you claim, then why is the "Great Light" not the same? Once again, you engage in total self-contradiction.

But that's not the only problem with the above quote from you. You spoke of what Claudy would say, "based upon his book," but I find quite a different story, "based upon his book." Observe:

Our ancient progenitors thought of the world as a flat plain; even as recently as the times in which our Great Light was written, there were "the four corners of the earth," and he was a bold mariner indeed who set sail for and discovered the New World;

So, Claudy speaks of "OUR" Great Light, and the time in which it was written. In doing so, he cites from it a mention of "the four corners of the earth." This is a direct reference to Isaiah 11:12, " And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." So since he speaks "universally," then the Great Light has to be the Holy Bible. And this is "based upon his book."


But this is all another of your tangents anyway. The real problem in the article from the website had to do with a lot more than just Claudy. As usual, when you have nothing you can counter with as a whole, you seize one part and try to make it the whole issue, in order to distract attention away from your errors elsewhere.

Which reminds me: have you come up with that list of the "prolific" Coil's many wonderful writings?

 

[Rev Wayne]

There is one glaring problem with your whole spiel on Claudy that you seem to forget. Here is your comment, from a previous page:

You know as well as I do that S. Brent Morris CANNOT and DOES NOT speak for Freemasonry in general, nor is he a spokesperson for the Blue Lodge or the Scottish Rite.

So why are you pretending Claudy qualifies as some kind of spokesperson or authority on Masonry, when you adamantly denied that S. Brent Morris is? You know as well as I do, the reason you give for it no matter who the person is: "No one person speaks for Freemasonry."

So put all the eggs you wish into the Claudy basket. When the bottom falls out, you will have nothing left. As far as I'm concerned, that happened the minute it became clear that Claudy was basing the claim of Masonry's universality on matters concerning "our ancient brethren." Now, let me make it clear, that no matter what you think one way or the other on matters of Masonic universality, it is NOT established by theories of ancient origins of Masonry, which were effectively refuted long ago with the publishing of Gould's History of Freemasonry.

(1) Since those claims are spurious;
(2) Since those claims are the basis of Claudy's claims;
(3) Claudy's claims do not follow from the premises upon which he has built them.

Now if you'd like to try to re-shuffle, introduce some author who also makes the same claims, but on some other basis (one that is not automatically its own refutation), be my guest.

But you need to know, before you consider pursuing this further, just what you're getting into with Claudy. On the subject of "universality," apparently you did not catch this little jewel from the same book:

When we say of Masonry that it is universal we mean the word literally; it is of the universe, not merely of the world.

Wow, really? I put "universal" into a browser dictionary search, and the very first definition of the very first hit was:

1.Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide

But let's pursue his discussion a bit further:

If it were possible for an inhabitant of Mars to make and use a telescope which would enable him to see plainly a square mile of the surface of the earth, and if we knew it and desired, by drawing upon that square mile a symbol, to communicate with the inhabitants of Mars. . .

Shades of Bill Schnoebelen! I guess our guys have an occasional eccentric notion, as surely as the antimasonic crowd have theirs. Isn't it odd, though, how those are the ones that get singled out and falsely portrayed as the norm, rather than being honest enough to stick with mainstream Masonry? Instead, they run to Hall and his fanciful ideas of Atlantis, Pike and his preoccupation with every religious belief you could name, and Claudy with his men from Mars.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The king of the self-contradiction strikes again: and in the very same post, at that.

First you make comments like:

I bet you were hoping the readers wouldn't even notice. . .
I'll let readers check it out on their own. . .
And that's pretty funny, because as readers can see. . .

But then you come to a different conclusion by the end of the post.

And since no one else is here,

But it's okay, I have a very good explanation for what happened. At the start of your post, yes, there were readers here. But as they read more and more of the vitriolic spitefulness and self-promotion and hateful rhetoric that always characterize your posts, they slowly vacated the thread one by one, like the people throwing the rocks while Jesus wrote in the sand.

I ask the readers' forgiveness for my part in once again allowing you to dictate the tone of the debate. I promise, for their sake, to make every effort to do my part from this point forward to stick to the topic at hand and not allow the emotional spewing to cause me to respond in kind, which solves nothing.

It IS a fact that there are definite characteristics and patterns that are observable in the diatribes of every Masonic accuser. I will continue to outline and illustrate the more obvious ones. By that I intend, those which most greatly tend toward the self-nullification of their own arguments. Since we have had one of those accusers here on the forum; and since he happens also to be the founder of an organization devoted to this "cause"; and since the several articles on the organization's website devoted to attacking Freemasonry are a matter of public record; it seemed more than appropriate to take a more direct tack than has been taken in the past, and deal more directly and specifically with some of the content from that site, rather than engage in a debate where both of us critique or defend the work of others among his peers.

I say that out of a certain hard-earned respect that still holds sway even in the midst of some hard-as-nails confrontation. It occurred to me that by dealing with the matter in this way, a lot of the more ridiculous stuff that is the norm with many other antimasonic accusers, the "way out there" type of trying to "paint it ugly as you can," may be avoided. To Mike's credit, there are certain hot-button issues with many antimasonic ranters, which over the course of time, he has begun to realize are the product of overzealous vindictiveness and over-imagination. Therefore, as far as I am able to determine from what Mike now leaves out of discussions, we no longer find Pike quotes that were generated by the Taxil hoax, or Masonic dollar conspiracy nonsense, and even accusations of "satanism" have been put on the back burner. (However, that doesn't keep him from pulling them out again "in a spot," or from posting testimonies like that of Jack Harris, stating that Satan is the "god of Freemasonry.")

Clearly much ground has been gained, even though the majority of the topics left alone were done so out of motives more akin to face-saving than to actually backing off the hype. From the very outset of the thread, every effort has been made to derail the topic. The most common method has been character assassination; but in addition, there have been sidetracks--or, the use of tactics like the most recent one, of microscoping one particular facet of what has been presented, trying to make the part appear to be the whole, in an attempt to divert attention away from the more damaging parts of the critique. The effect has been one of making it appear that the article that was the subject of this particular critique, was all about Carl Claudy. If the reader was not paying careful attention, they probably missed the fact that the more relevant material of my critique of the article, was where I pointed out the deliberate omission by ellipsis and/or selective quoting, of some of Jim Tresner's more pertinent comments from his article.

But the most recent debate did at least illustrate, in living color right before us, not just one but several antimasonic debating tactics:

· The already-mentioned use of ellipsis to engage in selectively deciding what the reader will be presented with, and what will be omitted so they do not see it.
· The practice of "microscoping" (some call it "turning the telescope around"), i.e., taking a part and making it appear to be the whole by isolating it and hammering on it to distract readers from the larger picture--a larger picture which is almost invariably one which is more damaging to their arguments.
· Always trying to "paint the picture ugly," as I refer to it; or as the old cliche has it, "putting the worst possible face on it." I've had more accusations of "lying" and "deceit" and "hypocrisy" thrown at me debates with our resident accuser of Masonry, than in all other instances in my entire life, combined. I think the rationale of this accuser is, "why call it 'you are mistaken' when you have the opportunity to call it 'you're lying?'"
· The use of any logical fallacy they can latch onto; in the recent discussion the apparent favorite was reductio ad absurdum, the attempt to try to make a debating opponent's argument appear absurd, and thereby attempt to dismiss the whole.
· Resorting to ad hominem when all else fails, or when their argument has the props knocked out from under it, in an effort to either close threads or bait opponents into firing back in kind, at which point they will usually use the report button.
· Attempted dismissals like the one in the most recent post, to try to diminish any returns for a debating opponent; in this case, the sudden vanishing of the readers to which he had appealed for the entire post, in order to pretend no one could possibly be reading anything in his absence.

All of these are pure distraction and nothing more. I will be the first to admit that in times past I have often allowed the distractions to disrupt and dislodge the effort and the intent of the thread. However, in some more lucid moments, they have become, rather than the distraction they were intended to be, the catalyst that has spurred matters to higher levels, producing a clarity of presentation that might not have been possible otherwise. With that said, and with that kind of clarity as a goal, I will proceed with the intended purpose of examining more of the articles from the "Order of Former Freemasons" website, despite the indications given by the site's founder that an absence of some length is imminent on his part. I do so, because this at least affords me an opportunity to say what I have to say without the constant interruption by cheap shots that are mainly designed to distract me from the task.

And no, this is not an attempt to get "the last word." How could I possibly hope to have that in my possession as long as you have it under lock and key? Really, as long as you're around, the "last" word is the equivalent of the "lost" word, it just can't be found. I'm just not one to give any ground when none is being given. And as always, I certainly invite response from anyone.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I began this current round on this thread with a look at an article posted on the ex-Masons blog site at O.F.F. I now continue by looking at another article from the January archive of the same blog, "Freemasonry 101."

What stands out to me about this particular article is, that unlike many antimasonic articles, loaded for bear with as many citations as possible, and building them up to sound as authoritative as possible by attributing the content as many times as possible to "33rd degree Masons": this article as it appears on their blog, really has only one citation:

“It was the single object of all the ancient rites and mysteries practiced in the very bosom of pagan darkness, …to teach the immortality of the soul. This is still the great design of the third degree of Masonry. This is the scope and aim of its ritual. The Master Mason represents man, when youth, manhood, old age, and life itself have passed away as fleeting shadows, yet raised from the grave of iniquity, and quickened into another and better existence. By its legend and all its ritual, it is implied that we have been redeemed from the death of sin and the sepulchre of pollution.”
Source; Ahiman Rezon, page 141, Grand Lodge of South Carolina

The first thing I notice is straight from "Antimasonry 101." The number one tactic engaged in by antimasonic accusers is glaringly present right from the start: the ellipsis that occurs before they even managed to quote the first sentence. With antimasonic accusers, you can be CERTAIN, there is something there they didn't want the reader to see, either because it refutes their argument entirely, or because it puts Masonry in a positive light, which they are determined not to do. So first, let's post the entire quote, but with its entire context that was sliced out of the original:

It was the single object of all the ancient rites and mysteries practiced in the very bosom of pagan darkness, shining as a solitary beacon in all that surrounding gloom, and cheering the philosopher in his weary pilgrimage of life, to teach the immortality of the soul. This is still the great design of the third degree of Masonry. This is the scope and aim of its ritual. The Master Mason represents man, when youth, manhood, old age, and life itself have passed away as fleeting shadows, yet raised from the grave of iniquity, and quickened into another and better existence. By its legend and all Its ritual, it is implied that we have been redeemed from the death of sin and the sepulchre of pollution. “The ceremonies and the lecture,” as a distinguished writer has observed, “beautifully illustrate this all-engrossing subject, and the conclusion we arrive at Is, that youth, properly directed, leads the life of man, regulated by morality, faith, and justice, will he rewarded at its closing hour by the prospect of eternal bliss.” (Bold print highlights the omitted portion)

Now here's the deal, in explaining why this was omitted: if you read this the way it reads WITHOUT the omitted portion, it makes it appear that "the ancient rites and mysteries" of which it speaks, are PART AND PARCEL of "the very bosom of pagan darkness." That's what this whole deception has been about, since the very first time it was ever concocted. They want to make it sound like Masonry got this idea of being "redeemed from the death of sin and the sepulchre of pollution" from a source associated with "pagan darkness!" But as anyone can see from the FULL citation of the paragraph, "the ancient rites and mysteries" of which it speaks, were a CONTRAST to the "bosom of pagan darkness" in which they were practiced. The clearest indication of it? THE OMITTED PORTION, of course, which tells us that the ancient rites and mysteries were "shining as a solitary beacon in all that surrounding gloom, and cheering the philosopher in his weary pilgrimage of life." One need not agree nor disagree with what the statement SAYS in positive affirmation of the "ancient mysteries," to see that it does NOT say that the ancient mysteries were a PART of that "pagan darkness."

But as always, there's more. The following part of what was just cited is not original, but derives from another source:

The Master Mason represents man, when youth, manhood, old age, and life itself have passed away as fleeting shadows, yet raised from the grave of iniquity, and quickened into another and better existence. By its legend and all Its ritual, it is implied that we have been redeemed from the death of sin and the sepulchre of pollution.

Here is the quote from the original, complete with some of the surrounding context that accompanies it:

[

In order that mankind might be preserved from this deplorable estate of darkness and destruction, and as the old law was dead and become rottenness, a new doctrine and new precepts were wanting to give the key to salvation, in the language of which we might touch the ear of an offended Deity, and bring forth hope for eternity. True religion was fled; "Those who sought her through the wisdom of the ancients were not able to raise her; she eluded the grasp, and their polluted hands were stretched forth in vain for her restoration." Those who sought her by the old law were frustrated, for Death had stepped between, and Corruption defiled the embrace;" Sin had beset her steps, and the vices of the world had overwhelmed her.

The great Father of All, commiserating the miseries of the world, sent his only Son, who was innocence itself, to teach the doctrine of salvation; by whom man was raised from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; from the tomb of corruption unto the chambers of hope; from the darkness of despair to the celestial beams of faith; and not only working for us this redemption, but making with us the covenant of regeneration, - whence we are become the children of the Divinity, and inheritors of the realms of heaven.

We Masons, describing the deplorable estate of religion under the Jewish law, speak in figures. "Her tomb was in the rubbish and filth cast forth of the temple, and Acacia wove its branches over her monument;" a?a??a being the Greek word for innocence, or being free from sin; implying that the sins and corruptions of the old law and devotees of the Jewish altar, had hid religion from those who sought her, and she was only to be found where innocence survived, and under the banner of the divine Lamb, and as to ourselves professing that we were to be distinguished by our Acacy, or as true Acacians in our religious faith and tenets.

The acquisition of the doctrine of redemption is expressed in the typical character of Euramen, (???aµe?, inveni,) and by the applications of that name with Masons it is implied, that we have discovered the knowledge of God and his salvation, and have been redeemed from the death of sin and the sepulchre of pollution and unrighteousness. Thus the Master Mason represents a man, under the, Christian doctrine, saved from the grave of iniquity and raised to the faith of salvation. As the great testimonial that we are risen from the state of corruption, we bear the emblem of the Holy Trinity, as the insignia of our vows and of the origin of the Master's order. (William Hutchinson, "The Spirit of Masonry"--The portion from which the cited piece in Ahiman Rezon is derived, is in bold print)

Hutchinson, as anyone can see, had no reservations in declaring Masonry to be of Christian content and bearing. The " deplorable estate of darkness and destruction" is, of course, a reference to the state of original sin. As one who is aware of the source of this quote, and as one who is a member of a jurisdiction where, imo, it presents no problem to the Christian in the lodge, this quote is a non-issue.

(1) For one thing, the illusion it attempts to create by the intentional ellipsis, is totally false. Far from being typified as deriving from "pagan darkness," the portrayal is a positive one, setting it in CONTRAST to "pagan darkness," "shining as a solitary beacon" in the midst of it.

(2) The citation is modeled upon a Christian original. As a Christian, and as one who is aware of the source of the cited material, and thus being assured this was NOT derived from some "pagan" source, but from a fully Christian statement, I do not see it as a problem.

(3) All the statement says is that it is "implied." Is that statement true? Apparently the Former Masons blog would have us believe otherwise. But I object to their conclusion, primarily because of the source from which they chose to lift this citation. In South Carolina jurisdiction, from the Master Mason degree material found in Ahiman Rezon--in other words, from the SAME EXACT SOURCE from which this is lifted--we also find even STRONGER implications:

The small hill near Mount Moriah can be clearly identified by the most convincing analogies as being no other than Mount Calvary. Thus Mount Calvary was a small hill; it was situated in a westerly direction from the Temple, and near Mount Moriah; It was on the direct road from Jerusalem to Joppa, and is thus the very spot wiser. A weary brother, traveling on the road, would find It convenient to sit down to test and refresh himself; it was outside the gate of the Temple; and lastly, there are several caves, or clefts in the rocks, In the neighborhood, one of which, it will be remembered, was, subsequently to the time of this tradition, used as the sepulchre of our Lord. The Christian Mason will readily perceive the peculiar character of the symbolism which this identification of the spot on which the great truth of the resurrection was unfolded in both systems—the Masonic and the Christian—must suggest. (Ahiman Rezon 2003, p. 149-50)

Notice that the entire reference, though clearly referring to Christ, does not do so declaratively. And even though the closing statement equates the doctrine of the resurrection of both "the Masonic and the Christian"--it does not do so declaratively. But it DOES say that it MUST "suggest" these things. Going back to the statement from earlier in the MM material, and cited on the Former Masons blog:

"it is implied that we have been redeemed from the death of sin and the sepulchre of pollution"

And it states the truth of the matter, for it has not been stated declaratively, for that is not the manner of Masonry, which alludes and symbolizes rather than teaching directly. This then is an implied reference to the Christian scheme of salvation, and not to any other. And there's more:

It Is hardly necessary to say that the letter G, wherever spoken of in Masonry as a symbol, is merely a modern substitution for the Hebrew letter yod,~, which was the Initial of Jehovah, the tetragammaton, and, therefore, constantly used as a symbol of Deity. (Ahiman Rezon 2003, p. 151)

This one is certainly declarative, and tells us that "WHEREVER SPOKEN OF IN MASONRY AS A SYMBOL," the letter "G" is a reference to Jehovah. That places this within the realm of biblical affirmations of who God is; and that, coupled with the reference also equating the idea of resurrection in both Masonry and Christianity, gives firm affirmation that the God of the Bible--both testaments--is the God of SC Masonry.

The challenge has been presented, and I present it once again: show me anywhere in South Carolina's Ahiman Rezon, which is the book of constitutions for the Grand Lodge of SC, that God is incontrovertibly declared to be any other god than the God of the Bible, and I will post a retraction. As it stands, since it is incontrovertibly shown, from the MM section of our manual, that the God of the Bible is affirmed, I stand on record in saying this presents no conflict nor challenge to my Christian faith.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

O.F.F.: I wish you well in your new endeavors. Believe it or not, you will be missed. While I may not agree with your assertions, accusations, misrepresentations, and attacks on Freemasonry, you do bring a needed perspective to these discussions.


Wayne: I commend your devotion to digging in deep and standing firm to defend what is otherwise continually misrepresented and misunderstood about Freemasonry. Don't waver!

Back on topic: It is clearly evident that there exist multiple interpretations of the writings and symbolism in Freemasonry. It's just that Masonic Attackers typically refuse to accept that, only interpreting literal readings. I posted in another thread what I consider to be an excellent description of the the "why" and the "what" of the symbolism in Freemasonry and how it can mean very different things to different people. Of course, to understand the far-reaching scope of Freemasonry, you first have to accept that premise, which Masonic Attackers typically do not.

For that matter, most Masonic Attackers can't even keep on topic, because to them, a topic in Freemasonry is simply a moving target that they constantly shift from one direction to another, diverting attention away from the original topic. This too is evident not only on this forum but all over Masonic Attacking sites.

I hope that others will chime in here and keep these topics alive!

 

[Skip Sampson]

Jim:
You are assuming all Masonic teachings are symbolic. That is not so. Many are blunt statements of 'fact' whose meaning is perfectly clear in a literal sense. Consult the apron lecture, for example.

Wayne: wrt to Hutchinson, you are accusing your GL of quoting authors without attribution and altering their meaning in the process. You are correct in this; the AR also quotes Omar Kayyam without attribution on pg. 146 (2010 edition). Nice practice, don't you think?

As to the difference, the AR is authoritative; Hutchinson is not. Thus, the change is pretty significant in that it shows where the GL's true views are. FYI, the quotes from the AR are on pg. 142 of the 2010 edition.

As to the implication, one might wonder just how "we" (meaning Masons) were "redeemed from the death of sin and the sepulchre of pollution." Since Jesus is nowhere identified as the only means by which that can occur, it must be the Blue Lodge ritual that has accomplished that transition, a view completely supported by the EA degree, and FC and MM as well. An interesting view to teach those interested in joining Freemasonry. Cordially, Skip.