The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

[Rev Wayne]

Besides, unlike Wayne, you've never mentioned ever seeing any black Masons in the lodges you've attended in South Carolina. In fact, he has never seen any in the lodges he's attended there either; just supposedly at a golf tournament a few years ago. It would be sufficient proof to me to just see a few pictures of some in Masonic regalia on your Grand Lodge website, but none can be found there either.

Gee, I wonder why you failed to mention that I got confirmation of it in person by General Secretary Ray Marsh, when he responded to my email with a phone call? Perhaps that one was the only detail for which you couldn't invent an excuse? That's all you're doing when you try to deny that a golf tournament FOR MASONS ONLY would have only Masons in it. The only other possibility at ALL would be if they had been Prince Hall, and you yourself probably wouldn't even go that route, given your habit of hammering on the recognition issue at every occasion you think you can raise issues of racism.

You just don't like the fact that things are changing and one of your favorite weapons in your arsenal keeps misfiring.

 

[O.F.F.]

By your suggestion, Christians ought not to wear crosses as a Christian symbol, since it is not unique to Christianity, because by the same estimation you used concerning the apron symbolism, the cross would also be deemed "invalid" as a symbol strictly emblematic of Christ's resurrection.

. . .It's called imputed, I'm surprised that the pseudo-scholars continuing this non-issue have not heard of it.

It (the cross) is emblematic of His crucifixion, not His resurrection. I'm surprised that the pseudo-pastors have not heard of it.

 

[Rev Wayne]

It (the cross) is emblematic of His crucifixion, not His resurrection. I'm surprised that the pseudo-pastors have not heard of it.

I'm sure with a crucifix you might could make a point for it representing crucifixion. But the Protestant version is an EMPTY cross, and it symbolizes resurrection.

 

[O.F.F.]

I'm sure with a crucifix you might could make a point for it representing crucifixion. But the Protestant version is an EMPTY cross, and it symbolizes resurrection.

Sorry pastor, that might hold true for Catholics, but I AM a non-denominational Protestant. And, although you too are a Protestant, perhaps you confuse an EMPTY tomb for an empty cross.

This may serve to illustrate your point; that even Christian symbols can be viewed differently from the vantage point of different denominations; as can Masonic symbols be viewed differently from the vantage point of different jurisdictions around the world. However, unlike the syncretistic/polytheistic religion of Freemasonry, members of orthodox biblical Christianity (the true Body of Christ) may confuse its symbolism; and other non-doctrinal issues that we can vigorously debate without dividing over; but we have no doubt who it ultimately points to.

Unfortunately, Freemasonry cannot offer that same absolute assurance to its adherents.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Sorry pastor, that might hold true for Catholics, but I AM a non-denominational Protestant.

What you really need to do is make up your mind. In your prior post you had just stated:

It (the cross) is emblematic of His crucifixion, not His resurrection.

First you said it was emblematic of the crucifixion, but not the resurrection. What you're trying to say now I'm not really sure. Because what you said the first time was more akin to a Catholic viewpoint than a Protestant one--and yet you come back with a retort about being Protestant?


To tell you the truth, I don't think you even read what I said at all. You just picked up on one word in the whole thing, "Catholic," and assumed that the entirety of what I said was about the Catholic position. So here it is for you again, S-L-O-W-L-Y:

I'm sure with a crucifix you might could make a point for it representing crucifixion. . . .

We'll pause here long enough for you to see that THIS is the Catholic position. NOW let's put it alongside YOUR comment:

MIKE: It (the cross) is emblematic of His crucifixion
ME: I'm sure with a crucifix you might could make a point for it representing crucifixion. . . .

You said "emblematic of His crucifixion," I replied with the basic Catholic position. In essence, it doesn't look any different than what you said.

Now the rest of it:

But the Protestant version is an EMPTY cross, and it symbolizes resurrection.

And now, just for you, the spell-it-out version: THIS is the Protestant position, which I addressed in the second part of my statement to which you made the unintelligible response. I was contrasting the two. I was also using this to REFUTE your claim from your previous post.

I shall now place THESE two statements side by side so anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension can clearly see that I was refuting your claim:

MIKE: It (the cross) is emblematic of His crucifixion, not His resurrection. (emphasis added)
ME: But the Protestant version is an EMPTY cross, and it symbolizes resurrection.

Simple enough, isn't it, readers? Mike said the cross does NOT symbolize resurrection, I stated that it DOES, and reminded him that this is a basic Protestant position. Yet Mike replies in a manner calculated to make it appear as though I were ESPOUSING the Catholic position. Can anything be more deceptive? How could I have been any clearer, when I carefully laid out the CONTRAST between the two?

Now, can you please elaborate for our interested readers, just exactly which part of the statement you were taking exception to? Because the way you responded, it appears for all the world like you were taking the whole of what you quoted as one piece espousing one position, when in actuality I was contrasting two separate positions, and showing why the cross DOES symbolize resurrection. Are you now rejecting your statement only one post earlier, and admitting that it DOES symbolize resurrrection, in contrast to both your claim and the Catholic position?

And since you don't seem to understand just how essential the resurrection is to the theology of the cross. I also offer the following cross-section of what various people have noted about the connection of the two:

It seems incredible that this emblem of shameful death is now worn by millions of Christians as a symbol of hope. We never see a gold electric chair or a platinum gas chamber hanging around someone's neck. Those symbols of painful death represent failure and defeat. But the cross is a symbol of triumph! It represents the one place in time when the Son of God, Jesus Christ, met all the requirements of a substitutionary sacrifice for man's sin, taking on Himself the sins of the whole world. And the symbolism doesn't end there, for He triumphed over that death through the resurrection. If the cross does not include the resurrection, it is an inadequate symbol. Christ's death and resurrection supply the true significance of the empty cross. (Tim LaHaye, Power of the Cross, 1998)

The cross is a symbol of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. (American Bible Society, from their website)

The simplest and most common Christian cross is the Latin cross. It may not have come into use until the 2nd or 3rd century. The empty cross, usually favored by Protestants, reminds Christians of the resurrection, while the crucifix, with the body of Jesus on it, favored by Catholic and Orthodox churches, is a reminder of Christ's sacrifice. (religionfacts.com)

“Only the resurrection transforms the cross from a symbol of despair to a symbol of hope.” (Adolph Harnack, "Raised With Christ: How the Resurrection Changes Everything," 2010)

The doctrine of the cross was the central truth in the early Church, confirmed and completed in the fact of the resurrection. (James Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, 1915)

Christian life means being human in the power of Christ's becoming human, being judged and pardoned in the power of the cross, living a new life in the power of the resurrection. No one of these is without the others. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics)

The cross and the resurrection cannot be separated for if there is no cross, there would be no resurrection, and if there is no resurrection, then the cross is meaningless. (Apolonio Latar, "The Relationship of the Cross and the Mass")

Reformed Churches are far more likely than Lutheran churches (or Anglican, and certainly Catholic) to be stripped bare. There are few images or statues. Typically, Reformed sanctuaries have a cross without the body of Jesus on it, symbolizing the resurrection, rather than a crucifix with the body of Jesus, symbolizing Christ's passion. (Ted Vial, Iliff Associate Professor of Theology, "Protestant Symbolism")

There are usually two sides to everything. The cross has two: a crucifixion side and a resurrection side. And Jesus had to endure one side to get to the other. But if He hadn’t endured, then we'd all still be left without a Savior and no forgiveness of our sins. (Joyce Meyer Ministries website)

You can try to duck and dodge around the issue all you want, the cross is most DEFINITELY a symbol of BOTH the crucifixion and the resurrection. I don't really give a tinker's darn WHICH system YOU profess, you most DEFINITELY got it wrong when you tried to deny that the cross symbolizes resurrection.

And not ONLY did you get it wrong, you did so BOASTINGLY, gloating as though you thought you were standing on something besides shifting sand.

I've said it before, I will say it again, you might try some other approach instead of your "I-will-automatically-contradict-whatever-a-Mason-says," it hasn't fared you very well at all.

Or maybe you just need to get over whatever the issue is that created the disdain that you have for pastors, which comes through loud and clear with nearly every post. Whoever the pastor was that got you soured on pastors, it wasn't me, because you were doing this from the beginning. Do the biblical route and go look him up, confront him with it, and get the matter settled before it eats you alive, man.

 

[O.F.F.]

Same ole Masonic apologetic tactic, just a different day; simply avoid the issue being discussed by stirring the subject O.F.F. topic. We were NOT talking about the cross until YOU brought it up in your futile attempt to defend the heretical teaching of the Masonic Apron Lecture. But I will address your "non-issue" one last time.

You can try to duck and dodge around the issue all you want, the cross is most DEFINITELY a symbol of BOTH the crucifixion and the resurrection.

That was NOT your position at the start. After all, what YOU DID SAY was:

... the cross ... a symbol strictly emblematic of Christ's resurrection. (emphasis added)

I never denied the fact that as a Christian, I see BOTH the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus as symbolized in the cross. And I certainly NEVER said it "strictly" represents the crucifixion. But as readers can see, you used that term in stressing that it ONLY represents resurrection. I 'personally' prefer to view it as symbolizing the former; and the EMPTY tomb as the latter.

That's my prerogative to do so; as is yours not to. After all, the cross was EMPTY when they took Him down and laid Him in a tomb for three days UNTIL He was resurrected. As for your list of quotes, all you showed was that we BOTH are correct. But you ignored my point that this may be one of those issues Christians can vigorously debate without dividing over.

Continue to split-hairs all you want; like you do with most issues discussed here. As I've said before, and I will say it again, you might try some other approach instead of your "I-will-automatically-contradict-whatever-an-ANTIMason-says," it hasn't fared you very well at all.

Or maybe you just need to get over whatever the issue is that created the disdain that you have for pastors, which comes through loud and clear with nearly every post. Whoever the pastor was that got you soured on pastors, it wasn't me, because you were doing this from the beginning.

The ONLY pseudo-pastors I have a disdain for are those that defend biblical heresy. Unfortunately, you bear the brunt of it, as it relates to Freemasonry, because you've been the one defending it from the very beginning; the moment you became a Mason in 2003.

Do the biblical route and go look him up, confront him with it, and get the matter settled before it eats you alive, man.

You know perfectly well that is what I've been doing with you for the past, what, 7 years! But I know it bothers you, because deep down you know I've been right all along. Yet your pride simply won't let you come to repentance. Let me suggest you get the matter settled with God before it eats you alive; or worse.

Meanwhile, let's get back on topic!

 

[Rev Wayne]

This may serve to illustrate your point; that even Christian symbols can be viewed differently from the vantage point of different denominations; as can Masonic symbols be viewed differently from the vantage point of different jurisdictions around the world.

Sorry, that was never my point at all. Masonry is apprehended by individuals, and each individual's right to his own personal viewpoint is affirmed. What one person will see in a symbol, another may not. But what one of them may see in a symbol is HIS understanding, and he has every right to that opinion. Masonry upholds that person's right to his interpretation.

You forget, as usual, that Masonry does not try to be a religion, and makes no effort to supplant whatever beliefs he may already have. It is fully understood and acknowledged wherever Masonry is found, that Masonry is not a religion, but around the world is constituted of men who hail from many different religions. It is a known fact that many of the religions around the world have, within their various systems, many of the same symbols. It is also a known fact that the meanings given to those symbols do not coincide into one unwavering interpretation, but rather, are interpreted differently from one system to the next.

I suppose it would be an easy thing for Masonry to have cast its lot among the religions, and thrown their hat into the ring and dogmatically set forth one unbending interpretation by which all its members must abide. But since it's NOT a religion, it did not do that, and wisely chose to permit individual freedom to prevail. Sort of like the way this nation was founded--although the end result has not always matched the vision of religious freedom as it was intended.

However, unlike the syncretistic/polytheistic religion of Freemasonry, members of orthodox biblical Christianity (the true Body of Christ) may confuse its symbolism; and other non-doctrinal issues that we can vigorously debate without dividing over; but we have no doubt who it ultimately points to.

Unfortunately, Freemasonry cannot offer that same absolute assurance to its adherents.

Nor does Freemasonry even make the attempt to engage in giving anyone "absolute assurance" on such matters, telling the Mason instead, "those are matters for your religion, not your fraternity." So since it's up to my religion, I interpret matters from the standpoint of the Christianity that I was raised upon, and has been my faith for life. So when I see a Lamb as a symbol of purity, I see Christ in the symbol; when I see white as a symbol of innocence, I see Christ in the symbol also, being the one in whose blood we are to wash our garments "white as snow"; when I see purity as a requirement for entry into heaven, I see the purity of Christ, my representative, who when I am asked for the correct pass, says, "He has it not, but I have it for him."

I don't know why it is you consider it "unfortunate" that Freemasonry can't offer me "absolute assurance," when the only place I could possibly ever find such a thing, is through the Lord Jesuc Christ. What I DO find unfortunate, is that there will be some Christians who were looking for "absolute assurance" in something other than Christ. As I pointed out in a sermon once, when that great day comes that we stand before Him, it will be "My Lord and my God" as Thomas proclaimed, not "my goodness and my faithfulness," not "my confirmation and my baptism," and certainly not "my family and my heritage."

As usual, you seem to think that there is something in Masonry inhereently wrong if it doesn't try to be the Christian Church or to usurp its purpose or its authority, when it takes a position of being open to men of all religions. You always try to characterize it as something being woefully neglected because Masonry isn't in the business of witnessing Christianity to those of other religions. It's almost like you try to presume a totally Christian viewpoint for Masonry, while loudly proclaiming out of the other side of your mouth that it can't be. And you especially try to pronouce some burden of guilt upon Christians in the lodge, for the same reason.

As soon as I meet men of other religions in any lodge I attend, I will be sure and keep your admonitions in mind, and make sure I avail myself of every opportunity of letting them know who I am and what I believe. The fact is, I can't be responsible for witnessing to men I have never met. That may be through words, but it may with equal probability happen through actions. But either way, there is an incontrovertible fact that remains: IF I ever encounter such men, have you NEVER considered, that had there never been anything called Masonry, the possibility of such a hypothetical encounter ever being possible in the FIRST place, would have been forever lost?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Same ole Masonic apologetic tactic, just a different day; simply avoid the issue being discussed by stirring the subject O.F.F. topic. We were NOT talking about the cross until YOU brought it up in your futile attempt to defend the heretical teaching of the Masonic Apron Lecture.

Yes, and the sidetrack started like this, from YOU:

It (the cross) is emblematic of His crucifixion, not His resurrection. I'm surprised that the pseudo-pastors have not heard of it.

And as we now know, because I DID choose to respond, the sidetrack you introduced with that post was a PSEUDO-claim in the first place. You may think you gain points by trying to paint a picture as though I were the one doing the side-tracking, but you were trying your flat-level BEST to steer this off-topic, probably with the intent all along of immediately making the accusation, the minute it got you in hot water as usual, as though I were the one who introduced it.

As for your list of quotes, all you showed was that we BOTH are correct

Well, GEE WHIZ, DUH, and WELL BLOW ME DOWN! What the heck did you THINK I meant when I stated:

You can try to duck and dodge around the issue all you want, the cross is most DEFINITELY a symbol of BOTH the crucifixion and the resurrection.

So thanks for repeating what I already stated.

But that STILL doesn't mean we are BOTH correct, because there are still your own words that are the clearest refutation of your attempt to follow this up with this pretense:

It (the cross) is emblematic of His crucifixion, not His resurrection.

Tell me, how in the world do you try to PRETEND you did not say that the cross does NOT symbolize resurrection?????

So I state it's both, you state it's only one, and somehow we're "BOTH correct?" How do you figure you're "correct" in that statement when I provided a whole SLEW of citations that show your statement was TOTALLY FALSE--that the cross indeed CAN and DOES symbolize resurrection? That without resurrection, it would have no meaning at all?

If you truly don't like sidetracks, by all means, quit introducing them. But I would think you'd be more interested in presenting something truthful.

... the cross ... a symbol strictly emblematic of Christ's resurrection. (emphasis added)

I never denied the fact that as a Christian, I see BOTH the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus as symbolized in the cross.

Well, your own words refute you on that one, when you said "NOT the resurrection" in your initial comment on the point to me. So I take it then, that when you said "NOT the resurrection" what you ACTUALLY meant was "BOTH the crucifixion and the resurrection?" I would hope even YOU can see the totally self-contradiction you just made with that one.

And I certainly NEVER said it "strictly" represents the crucifixion.

Enough, Pinocchio, enough! What will you do when you need to blow your nose and can't reach the end of it?

That was NOT your position at the start. After all, what YOU DID SAY was:

... the cross ... a symbol strictly emblematic of Christ's resurrection. (emphasis added)

"Emphasis added," of course, meaning you are putting emphasis upon that which was never emphatic to begin with. And you forgot to mention, "ellipsed material omitted," because as usual, you omit what IS essential to my meaning, while attempting to re-present what I stated with your own spin to it. Here is the full statement as it appears on the previous page:

By your suggestion, Christians ought not to wear crosses as a Christian symbol, since it is not unique to Christianity, because by the same estimation you used concerning the apron symbolism, the cross would also be deemed "invalid" as a symbol strictly emblematic of Christ's resurrection. (no "emphasis added," just as originally stated)

I think the readers can see quite clearly, and they all know the reason your whole error started in the first place--that little button inside that automatically gets tripped every time I say anything at all, which puts you on automatic denial of whatever I said.

I think they can also see, that when I brought in that particular comment, it was by comparison and analogy. Therefore, for you to try to spin this to win points or whatever, by trying to mischaracterize it with a defense of "I certainly NEVER said it "strictly" represents the crucifixion," with the additional note (and false, of course) intimating that I myself DID say that.

I was drawing a comparison, and in the analogous use of a hypothetical situation, I was merely using an example of someone dogmatically doing the same thing you have been doing in regard to the apron lecture, pretending it is dogmatic and pretending it says what it does not. As a matter of fact, I was very direct in doing so, as anyone can see, because I CLEARLY said to YOU in MY "emphasis not added" original:

because by the same estimation you used concerning the apron symbolism. . .

Consequently, the example called for someone to be doing the same thing with the example I used. The "strictly" as I made reference to it, was in DIRECT correlation to what YOU were dogmatically doing with the apron symbolism. Hence, the person in the analogy was described as "strictly" interpreting the cross to mean resurrection. It could just as easily have been someone "strictly" interpreting the symbolism of the cross to mean redemption--or the love of God--or any of a number of themes which you in your tunnel vision exclusion of all but the two mentioned so far, never even considered. But just because I picked one in particular, and illustrated THAT one with the analogy to what YOU were doihg with the apron lecture--for you to then take that, and try to do what you tried to do with it, for no other purpose than playing the snake by trying to derail the analogy by disruption, as always--is really just unconscionable. And it is particularly reprehensible when it becomes clear that you have deliberately butchered my remarks by omitting the clearest points of my comments indicating that the analogy was illustrative of YOUR position.

But as readers can see, you used that term in stressing that it ONLY represents resurrection.

Readers are not as dumb as you suppose them to be, so you can't possibly expect to get away with this one. You are trying to present an analogy as a position statement, which is flawed enough in itself; but you are also trying to turn the main point of the analogy on its head, namely, that the "strictly" as used analogously in those comments, was in direct application to the position YOU took.

But since the topic of the thread has been--and since you so recently used the term in reference to yourself--the tactics of anti-Masons--it's interesting to note that you are only one post away from succeeding in accomplishing for your error on this page what you already accomplished for your most recent one before that: by utilizing the common antimason tactic of "turning the page." Often it occurs with a single poster, or sometimes two of them in tandem, posting several rapid-fire posts in order to get embarrassing moments, or other indiscretions, off the "front page," so to speak, by flipping the page number quickly in hopes that readers will not really go back and catch the exposure.

But not to worry, I'm always happy to assist. But I'll leave the entry that actually accomplishes the turn to someone else.

I will leave you with a pertinent challenge, too. Since you, sincerely or not, express a desire to get back on-topic, you might go back and look again at the posts where some articles of interest from the o.f.f. website were critiqued. Naturally I noticed it when there was never a response, and thought a simple reminder might open the opportunity for you to do so.

 

[Rev Wayne]

This is just the old "I'm going to pretend I don't understand the nature of analogy" game that Michael plays when he has nothing of any substance to come back with. So in the interest of getting this back on-topic, though I'm sure he is more interested right now in APPEARING to be interested in getting back to the topic than he is in actualy GETTING there:

Since the analogy has been thoroughly refuted, and since Michael, although begrudgingly and with every attempt to make someone else appear to be to blame for his errors rather than admit them, now acknowledges that the cross can and does symbolize resurrection:

Then obviously the point I made still holds as well, that Masonry cannot be accused of "heresy" or whatever else it is Mike tries to accuse it of, simply because the symbols of Masonry can be interpreted differently by those of religions other than Christianity. Those interpretations, after all, are NOT the interpretations of MASONRY, NOR are they the interpretations of CHRISTIAN Masons. They are the interpretations of those who are members of other religions, interpreting them just as they were intended, according to their own religious beliefs.

It has never been considered a valid argument to accuse a Christian of heresy for having within the Christian system a cross, based on the notion that because the ankh cross of Egypt is interpreted differently, that would make the Christian guilty of a heinous and horrendous atrocity. So neither does the accusation stick when it is made against a Christian Mason on the contention that, because the "lamb" reference that the Christian takes to mean Christ, has some other signification to some Mason of some other religion, that the Christian Mason is guilty of the trumped-up accusation the accusers raise.

That kind of accusation is absurd, preposterous, ridiculous, bizarre, and extreme. And believe me, even at that, I am understating just how far out in left field this illogic goes.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Do the biblical route and go look him up, confront him with it, and get the matter settled before it eats you alive, man.
​

You know perfectly well that is what I've been doing with you for the past, what, 7 years!

I've never met you in person anywhere at any time, so no, you have not followed any biblical instruction such as is given in Matthew 18. Just one more false claim from you, once again. Besides, I haven't done you any wrong for you to have a grievance about, all I have done disagree with you about Christians joining the lodge.

And I see no instructions in Matthew 18, "If your brother sins against you, lambaste and lampoon him with the most degrading and derogatory remarks you can think of, in public."

No, my version of it says "go and tell him his fault between you and him alone."

So get real, your vitriolic condemnations don't even come close to what I was referring to.

Unfortunately, you bear the brunt of it, as it relates to Freemasonry, because you've been the one defending it from the very beginning; the moment you became a Mason in 2003.

Just one more fact you can't seem to keep straight. Perhaps all you really needed is a visual aid. From the presentation page of the Bible I was given:

​

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Could you explain that a bit more? Your going-in concept on the Apron lecture was that

How did Adolf gain that condition in the few moments before his demise? Cordially, Skip.

Were he to be truly saved by Grace through Christ, that is the condition he would appear to be in when standing at judgment before God. Salvation doesn't make the man a non-sinner, it makes him sinless in the eyes of God.

Skip, so now please tell me your answer to "Let us suppose that Adolf Hitler, just in his last dying breath in his bunker, called upon Jesus to save him. Would you expect to see him in heaven given [Jim's] comments above?"

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Same ole Masonic apologetic tactic, just a different day; simply avoid the issue being discussed by stirring the subject O.F.F. topic. We were NOT talking about the cross until YOU brought it up in your futile attempt to defend the heretical teaching of the Masonic Apron Lecture. But I will address your "non-issue" one last time.

Same ole Masonic Attacker tactic, just different day; simply avoid the issue being discussed by stirring the subject off topic. We were NOT talking about heretical teaching until YOU brought it up in your futile attempt to divert the discussion away from the topic of the symbolism and various interpretations of the Masonic Apron Lecture. And I will not address your "non-issue" because it is irrelevant to the discussion which you diverted.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Did you notice, Jim, how quickly the pages started rolling, and with nothing of any substance being said? That is always done with intention, but not the intention the reader may think. No, it's not done to take things off-topic, it is a diversion. It did not happen until I posted the discussion of the articles from the o.f.f. site. And it did not slow down until the material was essentially buried at least two pages back.

But at least the diversion has served one purpose, it lets me know the remarks were spot-on, and they had no comeback. I'd have to figure the real kicker was with Mike's disavowal of any connection with the nonsense that is the warp and woof of most antimason sites (dollar conspiracy, "New World Order," etc.)--while at the same time posting a link to one of the worst of such sites (cuttingedge).

Apparently Mike is no different than any of those accusers, and his disavowal of some of the more spurious claims, is made in lip service only. Or maybe he just doesn't want to discuss articles from his organization's website. That would still place him in the same illustrious company of the left field variety of accusers, who all think they can post whatever they wish, ostensibly in the name of Christ, and with impunity.

 

[O.F.F.]

To whom it may concern:

As I mentioned, about two weeks ago, 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. My plate will be pretty full, so it could be weeks or even months before I return; if I ever do at all.

Besides, I realize not much is being accomplished here. Masons have their views on the issues, and those who oppose Freemasonry have theirs. Again, I'm beginning to agree with what one Christian minister (now Ex-Mason for Jesus) 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 few that visit this site.

That said, you all take care and in the meantime, I'll keep praying for you.

Sincerely,
O.F.F.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I bid you well, but I'm not really sold on your speeches. I can't even count how many times you've said the same or similar, and you're always back around. And it's just a bit too convenient timing for you to come in here with guns blazing, forget to look for cowpies and step right in one with "the cross does not symbolize resurrection," try to save face by trying to turn it around and point it at me, and then, failing that, suddenly "remember" the fact that "oh yeah, that's right, I'm supposed to be posting less like I announced a couple of weeks ago, so I'll just pick now to bow out."

But nice of you to bow out in typical fashion, with one more inconsistency, first calling posting here a "luxury," then turning around and labeling it a "waste of time."

But no hard feelings, I do wish you well on your venture, and our prayers are with you. And my prayers have been answered, I've said for some time that what you needed to keep you occupied was a real job, rather than the titular head of an organization that even you have referred to in the past as a "one-man army."

Do drop in when you have an opportunity, though, I was really hoping for some kind of response to the points raised about the o.f.f. website articles.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

Besides, I realize not much is being accomplished here. Masons have their views on the issues, and those who oppose Freemasonry have theirs. Again, I'm beginning to agree with what one Christian minister (now Ex-Mason for Jesus) 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 few that visit this site.

O.F.F., I respectfully have to disagree. Quite a lot has been accomplished, because multiple viewpoints have been shown, and the readers hopefully have gained some insights into both camps. That said, on one hand, I commend your dedication to your cause, however that is also precisely what bothers me the most here. By your own admission, you are here with an agenda, while I am not. Though you may disagree with that, I can say with honesty that I participate here simply because I have read several accusations about Freemasonry that I believe to be either misleading or incorrect based upon my understanding and experience.

I wish you the best in your new job.

 

[O.F.F.]

Let me make a few final comments before I depart.

By your own admission, you are here with an agenda, while I am not. Though you may disagree with that, I can say with honesty that I participate here simply because I have read several accusations about Freemasonry that I believe to be either misleading or incorrect based upon my understanding and experience.

Jim, first I want to thank you for the well wishes for my new job.

Secondly, you may disagree with this, but given what you just said, if you really think about it, we both share the same agenda: we participate here simply because of what we feel about Freemasonry based upon our understanding and experience; and because of what we believe posted by our opposition to be either misleading or incorrect. For example:

...rather than the titular head of an organization that even you have referred to in the past as a "one-man army."

Your colleague states here a bold-faced lie! I have NEVER referred to O.F.F. as a one-man-army. It would make me a liar to do that knowing that we have a rather lengthy roster of membership that is growing on a regular basis, to prove it. Not to mention the fact that, as far as we (O.F.F.) are concern, every Ex-Mason for Jesus is also a member of O.F.F. whether they have been formally recognized as such or not.

Just because they don't chose to come here and completely waste their time with the likes of a pseudo-pastor named Wayne, doesn't mean the 'army' doesn't exist. But before he comes back with something like, "then why don't you share the roster with us so we know it's true," he knows emphatically I would NEVER divulge the number, nor the privacy of the members of our Order. As for this:

Do drop in when you have an opportunity, though, I was really hoping for some kind of response to the points raised about the o.f.f. website articles.

You know perfectly well, as many times as you've tried, I will NEVER let you make me or O.F.F. the subject of your antimasonic ridicule by joining you in that discussion; despite your privilege to post whatever you choose. But obviously you limit yourself to just the articles on our website, and forget or ignore a critical point shown there on another page. And since you are so fond of leveraging the disclaimers cited in the work of Masonic authors of biblical heresy; I'll simply leverage ours:

Our Disclaimer

The views expressed on the websites to which we have provided links, or in the articles featured here, and all other information contained on this website, are not necessarily held by members of The Order of Former Freemasons (O.F.F.), or its sponsors. As always, use Biblical discernment as you read, and be led by the Holy Spirit as you respond.

Order of Former Freemasons

 

[Rev Wayne]

Let me make a few final comments before I depart.

Boy, if only THAT were true!

...rather than the titular head of an organization that even you have referred to in the past as a "one-man army."

Your colleague states here a bold-faced lie! I have NEVER referred to O.F.F. as a one-man-army. It would make me a liar to do that knowing that we have a rather lengthy roster of membership that is growing on a regular basis, to prove it.

"PROVE" it? As many times as you've refused to disclose the number of members in O.F.F., how does the fact that you have a roster (supposing it were even true) prove ANYTHING?

But back to your denial: never make ill-advised statements like this one to someone who never throws anything away. This one actually goes back a little ways, so far in fact, that it originates from the days before I began archiving every discussion. So I have not been able to locate the original. In fact, it may have occurred on another forum than this one, since the earliest mention of it I can find is from October 2003, only a little over a month after I joined here.

But one thing is for sure, it was a humdinger of a remark, even for you with your huge repertoire of regrettable posts. So much so, in fact, that it received repeat mention not just once, but several times, and not just by me. As for the original, I will give a look for it in my EMFJ archive, but if it does not appear there, then it's one of those whose original will just be chalked up to the sands of time.

However, one thing is for sure: you DID make the remark, and I have the posts that prove it. And unlike your CLAIM of proof, I'm quite willing to post them. Most of these, with one notable exception, are posts made by me in which I refer back to the original discussion in which you made the "army of one" comment:

ME: It is a simple recognition that the numbers (or lack of them) of men who support your position would go a long ways toward verifying your claims that (1) this phenomenon of men leaving for Jesus is a reality as you claim, and (2) that significant numbers of said leavers feel as strongly as you do and are actively involved in this "ministry" with you. There are simply a lot of facts that do not bear your witness out--the most glaring one being, that you continue to hedge your bets when anybody brings this subject up, a strong indication that somebody struck a nerve. And perhaps you are growing in numbers--I notice that you have moved from commenting on the power of "an army of one" to "the power of 12 ordinary men to change the world." (4/3/2004, "Christianity and Freemasonry," post #139)

ME: Yes, it occurred, but it didn't stick. For one thing, I have never seen any indication anywhere at anytime that there were "thousands" of you at all. In fact, some of us had a hunch there were at best a handful, and when we challenged you on the issue of O.F.F. membership, you got all defensive and made comments about an "army of one," confirming (we felt) our suspicions. (2/10.04, "Freemasonry and Witchcraft," post #631)

ME: But in searching for antimasons, on- or off-line, they are a very scarce breed indeed. For the most part you find a website here and there, with the founder and at best half a dozen others on each. And what happened to your original assertion of "multitude of thousands of Ex-Masons for Jesus"--"Ex-Masons for Jesus," of course, being essentially an internet organization, implying that the ones you spoke of are on-line? Now that’s a sidestep worthy of your infamous "one-man army" dodge! (2/10/04, "Freemasonry and Witchcraft," post #634)

D. Charles Pyle: You mean you don't know who Minister Hatchett is? He gave glowing reviews of your one-to-three man OFFian army and more or less claimed to be one of your own. (1/26/04, " Freemasonry and Witchcraft," post #462)

ME: Man, talk about a statement being O.F.F.! Try it again but omit "great" and "error" and "hundreds." And for my part, you can omit "Order" or you can substitute for it the word "Odor." Like DCP, I too have dealt with this laughable group. When they were challenged recently about puffed-up estimations of membership, they bristled and got defensive with comments about being "an army of one," which is more in line with their true membership than the "Hundreds" you suggest (In fact, if you are a member, then my total just increased to 3). (10/26/03, "Freemasonry and Witchcraft," post #342)

The comment in this one, that "they" were challenged, makes it hopeful that perhaps that discussion may still be located in conversations from the EMFJ board. But one thing is for sure, it happened, as the "army of one" or "one-man army" references clearly indicate. The statement is also attested to by D. Charles Pyle, who posted here as "DCP."

So, as is usually the case when your blustery denials are investigated, you are found to be telling the "bold-faced lie" that you try to accuse others of.

as far as we (O.F.F.) are concern, every Ex-Mason for Jesus is also a member of O.F.F. whether they have been formally recognized as such or not.

Wow, I can't wait to email Duane Washum my congratulations upon his induction into O.F.F. I'm sure he'll be so tickled about this he'll throw a party and invite all of us to come.

he knows emphatically I would NEVER divulge the number, nor the privacy of the members of our Order.

Funny thing, that "roster" you speak of. Even funnier, is your pretense that disclosing the number of members in your organization would somehow be tantamount to a "violation of privacy." To show just HOW ridiculous that is: anyone among our readers, I have to assume, would be very well acquainted with the heightened measures of privacy protection that have been implemented, particularly in our hospitals, and especially since 9-11. If I know someone who goes by the name of "Margie," for instance, I can't get the time of day from hospital personnel manning the information desk, to even find out what room they're in, unless I can tell them "Margaret" or whatever name they have on the registration printout. Yet I have engaged in casual conversation with those same people during less busy moments, and upon mention that the hospital was currently full, asked what the hospital's capacity was, and received a ready response. Since you would be divulging no personal information in doing so, what possible motive could you have for not revealing the number, other than sparing your own embarrassment if the total is particularly low: you know, like one to three? (And just in case you DO have a lucid moment and decide to give us a number? Please try to restrain yourself and avoid the temptation to try to boost your numbers by including emfj members who have never joined your "club." We are, after all, speaking of O.F.F., not emfj. You won't fool readers into thinking the two are synonymous, it's well-known history that you are not really in emfj's good graces.)

Seems you have a real sticky problem with projection, a natural defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms can be okay, but not when they put you in the position of denying things that are verifiable to the contrary. Defense mechanisms are described as:

unconscious psychological strategies brought into play by various entities to cope with reality and to maintain self-image. Healthy persons normally use different defenses throughout life. An ego defense mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behavior such that the physical and/or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of the Ego Defense Mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety, social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope. (From Wikipedia, footnoting Encyclopedia Britannica)

Boy, did they hit the nail on the head with THAT one. But check out Encyclopedia Britannica on projection:

Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.

Naturally as a Christian, you would be "against" lying. So the only way you can engage in it yourself is to project it onto me so that I become the "threat from the external world." But that last line really nails it down for me in understanding why I get so many accusations of being "deceptive" or "dishonest" just because I express an opinion with which you disagree. In order to escape from the "situation with which you cannot cope," i.e., being hard put for a response when confronted with the truth, you become angry; and then, threatened by your own angry feelings, accuse ME of harboring such thoughts.

Of course, the part about it being a mechanism to protect the ego, has always been more than obvious.

And since you are so fond of leveraging the disclaimers cited in the work of Masonic authors

I does not need "leverage" when I have truth. Pike disclaims his work for obvious historical reasons, which you well know, because it has come up more than once in past discussions. The statement on the O.F.F. site is hardly comparable, because though Pike DISCUSSES all sorts of things, he does not dogmatically proclaim it, but leaves it up to the reader. You, however, do just the opposite, and dogmatically proclaim practically every word that comes from you.

I'll simply leverage ours:

Just one more example of the duplicity of trying to have it both ways. You give lip service to denouncing that preface on every occasion in which it has been presented; yet you turn right around and avail yourself of the same privilege by creating a nice, convenient one of your own.

So are we to take it, then, that the articles posted on your website are meaningless, that you do not endorse a single thing any one of them says? Then why post them in the first place?

Pike had good reasons to do so, practically the entire bulk of the "ancient origins" theories plugged in his magnum opus had just been completely discounted by the work of Masonic historians just prior to publishing. For him, it was either let all the work go to waste, or post the disclaimer and let the reader make up his/her own mind.

So what's your excuse? Will you take the same route, and admit that your notions have also been thoroughly refuted, and therefore a disclaimer is in order? Or do you make the disclaimer because "50% or better of the content is not your own," and you post it to avoid charges of plagiarism? (Come to think of it, past history suggests we certainly can't put plagiarism past you.)

I think we already ascertained it actually, in the comments above: yours is a move calculated to "provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope." And there is at least one glaring exception to your claim of non-endorsement per your disclaimer: you have in the past, more than once, expressed your affinity with John Ankerberg's positions. Therefore you cannot beg off with a disclaimer when you provide a link to Ankerberg's website, because your acceptance has already been verbalized. So tell me, why do you post a link to his site on a "resources" page, if you do not expect your readers to consider this a further resource agreeing with your opinions, and click the link? And how does the fact that he is a proven liar (see Morris & De Hoyos, "Is it True What They Say about Freemaonsry?") accord with your views and those of your website? Or doesn't the fact that you brazenly posted the false claim you just posted here, give solid evidence that you post the link to Ankerberg's site because the two of you are like peas in a pod?

Believe me, I rejoice when I see the prospect of you posting less on these boards, but not for the reasons you may think. What affects one Christian affects us all, and it's difficult to watch when you make choices like the one you just made in regard to this statement made by you.

Watching you post is like watching a guy running blindfolded through a cow pasture: he may get lucky for awhile, but you know that eventually the inevitable is going to catch up with him. I used to try to be gracious enough to at least give you the benefit of the doubt, and just attribute incidents like this one to a poor memory. But when you do it over and over and over, sooner or later one has to recognize the obvious, that there is nothing to which you would not stoop to save face in incidents like this one, and that false claims like this one, no matter how vehemently the denials are made, are being done deliberately and not accidentally. There comes a time when, once the hand of grace has been refused enough times to show someone will remain recalcitrant, to "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of antimasonic darkness, but rather expose them."

It has happened enough times that I can only conclude that God chose to wink at it for awhile, but now this job that will entail more of your time being spent elsewhere, is God's way of taking you out of commission on this issue before you bring further embarrassment upon the Savior you profess to serve, in whose name you have founded this "ministry," and upon your fellow Christians.

Receive this blessing as the gift God intends. Give yourself some time for reflection. Life is too short for spending on spiteful personal vendettas.

 

[O.F.F.]

You call this post proof of anything I ever said in the past? You are SO FULL OF IT it's pathetic. Only an idiot would say:

...never make ill-advised statements like this one to someone who never throws anything away.

And then swallow his foot with:

I have not been able to locate the original.

If you "never" throw anything away, you have a huge problem buddy. Not only do you lie about others, you were just caught lying about yourself!!!

However, one thing is for sure: you DID make the remark, and I have the posts that prove it. And unlike your CLAIM of proof, I'm quite willing to post them. Most of these, with one notable exception, are posts made by me

Again you're showing your foolishness pastor; not only are most of the quotes YOU posted were made by you (and none by me), ALL (but one) OF THEM WERE MADE BY YOU!!! And you REALLY expect readers to think those are the "posts that prove it," that's so laughable.

As many times as you've refused to disclose the number of members in O.F.F., how does the fact that you have a roster (supposing it were even true) prove ANYTHING?

As many times as you just quoted yourself with posts starting with ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, and none by yours truly, how does that PROVE ANYTHING? Evidently, whatever remark I supposedly made, which you can't seem to find, it is obvious with what you quoted you took whatever was said out-of-context. So, until you scour the ends of the earth to find it, I guess you can't PROVE that you didn't!!!

Unless of course, you actually DO have it and KNOW that you've taken it out-of-context, and simply made up this nonsense, which doesn't prove a thing.

As for the original, I will give a look for it in my EMFJ archive, but if it does not appear there, then it's one of those whose original will just be chalked up to the sands of time.

Chalk it up silly preacher, and since you are so full of it, I suggest you take this male bovine excrement and bury it in the sands of time before you choke on it.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

O.F.F., I find it ironic that you chastise Freemasonry as being so anti-Christian while puffing yourself up as such a good and knowledgeable Christian, yet you continually spew such garbage as this. It really does nothing to support or give credibility to the walk you claim to be walking.