The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

Skip Sampson said:

First, you'll note that while 'many' of the interpretations are called unsatisfactory, not all are. You have no idea if the writer was referring to the apron lecture or not.

Click to expand...

Skip Sampson said:

Second, you cannot blithely refer to the apron lecture as "NOT the true interpretation" because you simply do not know if that's the case or not. My view is that it isn't an interpretation, but a blunt statement.

Third, the AR quote notes clearly that without the second section discussion of the apron, the first section discussion is "barren and insignificant." Thus, the second section statement, since it is clear and concise, gives all the meaning we need to understand the purpose of the Masonic apron.

Fourth, only those with 'cultivated minds' would find the second section unsatisfactory, meaning darn few Masons ever would. I certainly do find them unsatisfactory, but not in the way the writer envisioned. And since I know Jesus, the Truth, I need not look into false religions to find any meaning at all. Unlike Masons.

Finally, the second section discussion is in near-perfect harmony with the first, in that it supports the Masonic view that the purity of life and conduct are all one needs to get to heaven. It's called salvation by works, and is a clear Masonic teaching. Cordially, Skip.

Click to expand...

Wow, so little to say, and yet so many words it takes to say it. Let's show where your problems lie:

First, the very characterization of "false religions" does not follow from the Masonic viewpoint. You know as well as I do, that when the "mysteries" are discussed in Masonry with any elaboration upon the rationale for considering them even being relative to Masonry in the first place, it is not with the idea that they are "false religions." Rather, it speaks of a core of truths that came down from the earliest times, with the "mysteries" as the means of their conveyance. Since the idea is predicated, not upon the religions themselves, but upon only a subsection of them, taking issue with them on the basis of the religions themselves is a questionable basis on which to proceed with such a criticism.

Second, since the idea has clearly been expounded upon by Masons that have been considered among the most knowledgeable, as a concept that derives from Christian thinking in the first place (primarily Augustine), it hardly seems to be a matter to criticize as a "Masonic error." They simply had read the same thing as expressed by Christian thinkers and were in agreement, and expounded upon the idea as they saw it relating to Masonry.

Third, by your own comments in your first point, you have no idea whether the writer was referring to the apron lecture or not either. So for you to tell me I can't know for sure, and then to proceed to discuss the matter from that point as though YOU can, and to blithely presume the author was NOT referring to the apron lecture, is not only hypocritical, it's totally disingenuous and incredulous.

Fourth, you have been shown repeatedly in the past, that the adoption of the practice of presenting the apron is directly modeled upon the early Christian church model of a three-step "initiation" into the faith, by which those seeking membership in the Christian church were taken through a three-step process, being first "seekers" or "inquirers," catechumenates, and then candidates. The culmination of the process led to baptism and the presentation of the white garment. The proclamation made at that point has wording that parallels the statement adopted for the presentation of the apron. Ahiman Rezon takes note of the Christian parallel, noting that "With a similar meaning, the same undefiled color has been preserved in the apron of the Free Mason."

No surprise when you observe the two statements together:

"Receive the white and undefiled garment, and produce it unspotted before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may obtain eternal life."

Click to expand...

by the lambskin, the Mason is, therefore, reminded of that purity of life and conduct which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the celestial Lodge above,

Click to expand...

• "White and undefiled garment" is paralleled by "lambskin" (already described earlier as white and undefiled)
• "produce it unspotted" is paralleled by "purity of life and conduct"
• "before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ" is paralleled by "the celestial lodge above" (not to mention, "before the Great Judgment" as stated in the earlier lecture)
• "that you may obtain eternal life" is paralleled by "so essentially necessary to his gaining admission"

Fifth, the notice of the parallel as I just described it from Ahiman Rezon, is adapted from statements by Mackey as found in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry under "apron." If you want to know the basis of Mackey's statements on the lambskin and its symbolism, he doesn't exactly make it a secret. Read under "lamb" in his encyclopedia, and you will find that Mackey never discusses the lamb and its symbolism without introducing Jesus Christ into the discussion.
But the hints at it are there even in Ahiman Rezon. "Thus, in the early ages of the Christian Church. . . with a similar meaning. . . has been preserved in the apron of the Free Mason" is certainly one allusion. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter into the joys of Thy Lord," a direct citation of the words of Jesus in the lecture itself, would be another.

Your problem is, you expect Freemasonry to be the Christian Church and to do things the same way if it does them at all. Masonry is different, its methods are different. What Christianity teaches directly, Masonry often teaches, but by symbol and allusion, since that is its declared nature.

Sixth, the section in which the quoted material under current discussion is found, is directly attributable to Mackey, because the material is found word for word in his encyclopedia, which is the source material for it. Therefore, it must be noted that the entire premise upon which your criticism of it is based, is a faulty one, because Mackey's theories of ancient origins, as we all know, were later repudiated by Mackey himself. And in fact, his repudiation is found in the same encyclopedia which is the source for the material under consideration.

Seventh, there is no basis upon which you can make any claim that these statements in Masonry are intended to teach that anything at all is "all one needs to get to heaven." Just because it says "purity of life and conduct" are "necessary," that does not immediately preclude any other necessity, nor is there anything to be found to that effect in anything you have cited. Plus, you have been shown repeatedly in the past that (1) "purity of life" derives from the Christian usage of that phrase, which has been very common in Christian literature--but more especially so during the time frame from which the Masonic usage derives; (2) "purity" even in the Christian and biblical understanding of the matter, is most certainly definable as necessary, given the proclamations found in these passages, and most emphatically in the third one listed:

Psalm 24:3-4--Who may ascend the hill of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart,

Matthew 5:8--Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Revelation 21:27--Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

and (3) the statement in the "badge of a Mason" is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a statement about "how one achieves salvation." Therefore, nothing that appears/does not appear therein, can be taken as a definitive Masonic statement about salvation, or be arbitrarily and improperly labeled as "works salvation" in the first place; nor, especially, can it be taken as "THE" definitive Masonic statement about salvation, as has been attempted by you and practically every antimason I could name.



Eighth and last, but not least, you continue this tirade upon an earlier-stated and faulty premise of your own. I refer, of course, to this:

Like SC, these GL’s do not leave the meaning open for interpretations such as you are attempting.

Click to expand...

Nor do they narrow it in the manner such as you are attempting by citing from other sources. If you wish to address SC, by all means address SC. But you did not, you cited from Florida, Nevada, and California, then immediately started in with proclamations directly behind those three citations, trying to portray these other GL's as "like SC." Clearly they are not. If you could have gotten those citations from SC, you would have. You could not, so you drew from elsewhere to try to apply their interpretations as though they are applicable here. They are not, each GL has its own bylaws and its own set of interpretations and lectures. SC does not have "loyal obedience to the laws of the craft" as the definition of "purity." You have falsely applied this from elsewhere and imposed it upon SC, when the thought is foreign to Ahiman Rezon.

I see your good friend and companion here has chosen to pick up on your faulty notion and expand it into even more ridiculous assertions of "Masonic imperative." There is no such notion in Masonry, and you guys know it even before you double-speak. After all, one of the most common premises upon which you build arguments, is the very fact that the symbolism of Freemasonry is NOT dogmatic, and can be openly interpreted by the individual. As often as you guys have pontificated in the past about that very issue, it's pretty lame by now to be trying to turn the tables over and start trying to pretend it's entirely the opposite, simply because you find it advantageous for a particular argument you wish to engage in now.

Not that I'm surprised, we've seen the flip-flops and inconsistencies like this one from day one.

I now understand more why Masons like Jim feel compelled by this Masonic imperative the desire to indicate his adherence to it when he stated earlier that:

"When I want Biblical Truth and the history of Christianity or Judaism, I read the Word of God that is the Bible." How much clearer do I have to be? And to answer Skip's question, I find quite a bit, actually. A short list would include learning and understanding the perspectives that pre-Christian and non-Christian people and cultures had. Learning about the history that pre-dates or is concurrent to Christianity. Broadening my knowledge about the world around me by understanding how others who are different from me see the world. Obviously, that is not exhaustive.

Click to expand...

All a matter of improper highlighting, of course. You embolden what you wish, in order to attempt to draw the reader's attention away from the rest. In this case, that includes the opening sentence, where Jim clearly told you:

"When I want Biblical Truth and the history of Christianity or Judaism, I read the Word of God that is the Bible."

Click to expand...

In fact, he was even quoting himself from an earlier post when he did so. As he said, how much clearer can he be? Yet you try to impose upon his comments a false representation of it to deceive the reader from actually understanding Jim at his word, in order to try to convince them that an interest in the history of other cultures and religions, somehow equates to an attempt to supplant biblical truth with something else. Jim, of course, has provided sufficient clarification on the point, and more than once, despite your attempts at derailment.

As for your other comments, there is no "Masonic imperative." The Mason is told he is free to accept or reject whatever opinion he chooses, and that interpretation is his right as an individual. This is particularly true, and adamantly reinforced by statements from every Grand Lodge you could name, when it comes to matters of religious opinion. In fact, most of them use the statements from the Masonic Service Association, or some portion or variation thereof. Their simplest point on the matter, and the simplest to comprehend, is:

Masonry believes in religious freedom and that the relationship between the individual and God is personal, private, and sacred.

Click to expand...

The statement that you and Skip seek to impose upon Masons, is one which would meet with disagreement from the huge majority of Masons, whether then, when Mackey stated it, or now. This is simply one of those opinions formerly held by some Masons, that the craft was of ancient origins; it is also one of those which was formerly held by Mackey as well, but which remained unedited even after his written repudiation of his earlier theories. And it has become one of those statements which remain even in current publications, mainly because of Masonry's tendency to preserve, reluctance to change, and infrequency of editing. Or perhaps it is not viewed as significant enough to worry about, since Masons clearly do not take explanatory lectures as some "Masonic imperative."

And if this is an example of what you got left when it comes to antimasonic objections, you have a pitiful arsenal indeed. Not that you ever had a formidable one to begin with.

O.F.F. said:

You've been warned previously about the use of this term. Consider it "flaming" as was duly reported to the moderators. I will wait until after YOU have been duly dealt with for this infraction before I respond to your most recent posts. Meanwhile, I trust Skip will handle you quite well with his reply.

Click to expand...

Let's just hope he can do so without whining like our current responder. Or did it occur to you the remark was not made to you in the first place?

Besides, I have not been "warned." The only ones who can give out warnings here are moderators, not antimasons.

Meanwhile, look up "hypocrite" in your dictionary and write "I am a hypocrite" 500 times before I will respond to you. The reason? Because of the vicious, abusive, disgusting, hateful manner you have ALWAYS used in discussing anything at all with me. For example:

• TAKE YOUR CHALLENGE AND SHOVE-IT UP YOUR MASONIC APRON!
• YOU are supposedly a seminary-trained pastor, YOU are obviously either too biblically ignorant or too biblically disobedient to even give a damn
• PSEUDO "rev Wayne"
• Satanic Fool
• Apostate, Unrepented, Insensitive, Heretic
• pawn of Satan's
• Fraud Preacher!
• "If you had eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart toward God"
• "the gospel of Jesus Christ; to which you claim to have been called"
• "Rev. Wayne Spreads LIES; and he's a Disgrace to the Cloth!"
• "he is being used by Satan as a pseudo-pastor to compromise the Body of Christ and undermine the gospel.”
• "the pseudo-"Rev" Wayne"
• "how pathetic you are as a "phony" preacher, a degrace to the Christian faith"
• "fraud behind a pulpit"
• "you are an agent for the devil, hiding behind a "Reverend's collar" waiting your turn to be exalted among the Prince of Darkness as a Sage and Prince of Masonry."
• "you prey upon the weak and less discerning Christians to whom you can lead astray to be ravenously devoured by your Master---the Devil himself."
• "a PASTOR who proclaims the truth with a vicious LIE"

Believe me, readers, that's only a microcosm compared to the entirety of such things coming from this poster. Kinda makes the current complaint sound not only like whining, but hypocritical whining--ESPECIALLY since the current comment was not even made to the one complaining. And naturally, the above list did not occur in a single post, nor in a single thread, nor even in a single year. These are the repeated and unending belittling insults that have continued to this day, despite the numerous times he has received warnings and suspensions for it, and despite repeatedly being told how offensive it truly is.

So how is it that one who would engage in this disturbing and enless binge of vile garbage can pretend to be offended on such a slight, infinitesimal by comparison, as "I'm antimasonic, not antimason?" More to the point, with that list of garbage that has come here from his fingers, how can he even make the claim to begin with, since the insults are truly ANTIMASON insults, and not "antimasonic" ones?


And I mean it, too, when I say that the ones that bother me most are the ones raving at the calling placed upon my life by the Holy Spirit, which borders on, if not constitutes, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Anyone who would do such a thing need not try to convince me they get offended by whether a word contains a little "ic" on the end of it or not, because they give abundant evidence they are beyond being offended by anything they or anyone else says at all.

Try selling your snowshoes a little farther north, we've had too many 90-degree+ days this summer to be interested.

In the meantime, to the following.....

Masonry believes in religious freedom and that the relationship between the individual and God is personal, private, and sacred.

Click to expand...

........I will add:

California: Masonry acknowledges the existence of God, but Masonry does not tell a person which religion he should practice or how he should practice it. That is a function of his house of worship, not his fraternity.
Florida: "Freemasonry neither interferes with religion or politics. Freemasonry strives to teach a man the duty he owes to his God, his neighbor, and himself."
Illinois: "Masonry is not a religion, nor is it designed or intended to replace (or substitute for) religion in its members' lives. We do not require that members belong to a church, but they may belong to any church they wish. We do ask, however, that each prospective member state that he believes in a Supreme Being. Masonry seeks only to unite men for the purpose of brotherhood, not religion."
Iowa: "A Mason worships in his own fashion according to his own religious faith whether he be Christian, Jew or Moslem, Protestant or Roman Catholic, Buddhist or Hindu, but free of regimentation by society or the state."
Michigan: "No one has the right to tell another person what he or she must think or believe. Each man and woman has an absolute right to intellectual, spiritual, economic, and political freedom. This is a right given by God, not by man.

Minnesota: What got us here is our shared values, and shared values are what keep us involved. We’re not going to tell you what your political leanings ought to be, and we’re not going to tell you how to worship God, as you see Him. We may differ therefore on the finer points of our politics and theology."
Missouri: "Masonry believes in religious freedom and that the relationship between the individual and God is personal, private and sacred."

Ohio: Like most organizations, one will get out of Freemasonry what he is able to put into it. However, membership in Freemasonry is not meant in any way to interfere with an individual's commitment to his faith, family, or occupation. Freemasonry is not and never can be a replacement for these important institutions, but rather it is a positive environment that reminds every Mason of his duty to God, his community, his family and himself.
Texas: "No one is asked to express a particular belief about God, for this is the privilege of each individual and is not infringed by our Fraternity."
Prince Hall New Mexico: 　 No one is asked to express a particular belief about God, for this is the privilege of each individual and is not infringed by our Fraternity.

This 17 point list makes YOU the hypocrite!

Click to expand...

Really? Do, pray tell, enlighten us as to how "I" become the hypocrite simply by pointing out for the readers your pattern of insulting me, with the sole purpose of exposing your double standard?

and you got the nerve to tell me I'm whining.

Click to expand...

And the list is the proof. The point was, anybody who would employ the expressions on that list, then turn around and complain about "antimasonic, not antimason," is engaging in pure-T whining, it's as simple as that. And that was my only point with the list. It's not the only list you've managed to engender, either:

• You accused me of “changing” a dictionary definition from a link someone else posted. That accusation was proven false.
• You claimed you have “never said that Masons will go to hell.” That accusation was also proven false, by your own words.
• You claimed that nowhere in Masonry is any Mason told to believe in the Bible or any part of it. This was shown to be a false claim, again, by your own words.
• You offered a supposed citation of a well-known Pike quote, “Masonry, like all other religions,” accompanied by an insistence that the “all other” was the key point of the sentence. That “quote” was shown to have been falsified.
• You attacked the idea of referring to the Bible as a symbol, calling it “ridicule.” That accusation was shown to be false, by citing from several Christian sources which ALSO refer to it as a symbol.
• You tried to claim that I address Masonry as I do solely because “most of my livelihood” comes from Masons, adding that “90-95% of Methodists are Masons.” This was refuted by showing that even if every Mason in the U.S. were a Methodist, they would still constitute only one person out of every five people in U.S. Methodist churches.
• You quoted material ruminating on something about Dionysius, and falsely tried to attribute it to SC by placing it alongside a citation from Ahiman Rezon.
• You went off on a bender about the “ancient mysteries,” trying to attribute it to paganism, all the while ignoring the fact that all the Masonic authors you cited, were unanimous in attributing the line of descent to Christianity, with Augustine as the precedent.
• You cited materials which listed opinions from pseudo-Masonry and tried to pass it off as “Masonic” quotes. In doing so, you also plagiarized quite a substantial amount of material.
• Then, after you had been caught in the very act, you tried to cover it up by editing the post and lying about it, claiming the attribution had been there all along.
• You posted material which you tried to use to make a claim of Hinduism being found in rituals in India, a claim which was refuted by citing from the GL of India website showing that their rituals reference the Bible as the “Great Light” of Masonry, same as ours do, along with other comparable citations.
• You tried to make the same claim for “Muslim countries”’; but you never came across with a source for your claims on this one, despite it being repeatedly requested of you.
• You tried to claim that the biblical references I posted from our monitor, did not actually derive from the Bible. This I refuted by posting the materials side by side with the biblical references, so you could easily see the comparison.
• You tried to claim that Bible references to chapter and verse never appear in Masonic rituals and monitorial materials. This I easily refuted by quoting more extensively and including some of the longer references I had omitted originally, along with the scriptural references just as they appear in Ahiman Rezon.
• You tried to claim that every member of emfj was also a member of O.F.F., and pontificated on the point so loudly and often that Duane Washum, motivated by the sheer distaste of permitting you to claim any connection with him at all, felt compelled to make a rare visit here just to refute your claim.

Let's face it, you're just factually-challenged, and it's only one incident in a long and ever-increasing number of them. And this list is the proof of that--along with, of course, the various discussions in which these things happened, right here on this forum.

Are you so spiritually blind that you cannot see the statement you posted, "...we’re not going to tell you how to worship God, as you see Him," implies that all God's are one in the same?

Click to expand...

Actually, the expression is "one AND the same," but I'm sure we all get your intention. The statement is neutral, it makes no such implication. How do you get around the fundamental fact that "as YOU see Him" automatically implies a DIFFERENCE? Sorry, but "God as I see Him" when taken into consideration in a discussion of "God as you see Him" does not automatically entail what you are claiming. All that can be taken as "automatically implied" is, that we both agree there is only one God, but do not necessarily agree on who that is. No matter how "YOU" see HIM or how "I" see HIM, the HIM is still God.

I mean, how else are you going to state that, other than to say "Him?" What do you suggest I do to revise it to suit your suggestion, which you seem to think is necessary to maintain separate ideas about God:

"We're not going to tell you how to worship God, as you see them?"

I do understand the point you are trying to make, and the idea you are trying to preserve; I just do not agree that the statement, as worded, carries the implication you claim it does.

Perhaps, if you can set aside for a moment your propensity to accuse, you could offer us some solution by which we may resolve this tension you seem to find in the statement as worded? If it truly does present a problem as stated, it would be much more helpful if you would present us with a solution rather than an indictment.

Any true saint can see that such a statement is anti-Christian.

Click to expand...

No, any "true saint," or anyone else for that matter, can see that there is really no other way of discussing the matter without resorting to illogical or non-factual alternative expressions. And there are many "true saints" who do not agree with you, and consider this simply another area in which we exercise the principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I certainly wouldn't want those of other religions to refer to me as having a belief in "gods"; therefore, I do not treat them in that manner either. Nor would I wish to have them accuse my ideas of God as "wrong"; therefore in discussions which potentially involve their participation, I do not employ ideas in such discussion that I would not wish to be employed in addressing me. It's one of the most judicious applications of the Golden Rule you will find anywhere. There are FAR more Christians than you apparently are aware, who have no problem discussing matters of "God" with individuals of other faiths on an equal footing basis, in which neither addresses the other as "wrong," nor does either one consider the other inferior, but debate the matter free from emotion or dogmatism, on the basis of what each person believes.
But Freemasonry goes even beyond that mere platform of debate, to show the world that men can, despite differences of culture, background, ethnicity, and religion, come together in mutual cooperation to achieve commendable results for the benefit of mankind. And that I find to be a unique and remarkable outcome.

So anyone who promotes the false RELIGION of Freemasonry is just that; and I will refer to you as such from now on, especially if you insist on calling those who oppose Freemasonry "anti-Masons."

Click to expand...

Gee, I'd be wise to jump on this opportunity, provided that this means you will leave off the usual insults. I tend to think, coming from you, anything would be a welcome change to anyone whom you had been in the habit of referring to with terms like "Satanic fool," "pawn of satan," etc.

But I haven't "insisted" on anything at all. I have simply employed the term as I see it. However, I do see, in retrospect, that I have erred in one particular. Not all who criticize Masonry can be correctly considered "antimason." I used the term loosely when I commented about "practically every antimason I could name." I should have limited the remark to the two who have been our most common company on this forum. And even then, it really applies to Skip only when he sees an argument going down the tube. So my apologies to the accusers of Masonry to whom this particular term did not apply.



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

First of all, I doubt that you have the power to revise what the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has said, nor can you revise what any Grand Lodge has to say, including your own of South Carolina.

Click to expand...

I haven't revised anything at all. I've simply pointed out that the Minnesota statement does not imply what YOU have tried to impose upon it. God IS one, and "God as you see HIM" affirms the concept of monotheism. Again, I put the question back to you (and I notice you STILL have provided no better solution): how else could they have worded this to alleviate your imaginary difficulty? I guarantee you, had they said "God as you see THEM," we'd still be fielding the accusations that would have arisen from THAT one. God is One, Michael. Until you can prove otherwise and thus provide some support for why you seem to think they should have expressed this differently, if I were you, I'd get off this ridiculous inquisitionally-minded line of questioning before the fallout begins to make your accusation look any more absurd than it already does.

But back to your point, of course "as YOU see Him" automatically implies a DIFFERENCE, yet Freemasonry doesn't make any distinction.

Click to expand...

And why should it? Freemasonry has been consistent every place else in declaring it is not a religion, and that it does not make any attempt to be anyone's religion, and that religious opinions are not its milieu, that it leaves those up to the individual. Therefore, to make a distinction after everywhere declaring it does not, would be an inconsistency that you guys would have been all over from day one. What Masonry does affirm, however, is that there is one God who created all things. Therefore, to employ the phrase "God as you see Him" is to be consistent with everything they have already stated about what they do/do not affirm. "God as you see Him" (in the singular--which I presume is what you're having difficulty grasping here) simply affirms what Masonry already says everywhere else: (1) it affirms monotheism--that there is only one God (which is affirmed by the use of the singular); and (2) it reaffirms the fact that Masonry leaves such opinions up to the individual, and does not make the ultimate determination of who that has to be, by affirming that it is not as Masonry determines, but "God as YOU see Him."

God is one, though the concepts/definable attributes/names employed by the various religions, are different. What is it about that, that you can't quite get your head around?

Can you please tell us which God you are talking about; when you say the HIM is still God? Is it the one from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity or what? Or is it simply all of them, which is what YOU, Jim and Freemasonry are implying?

Click to expand...

God is God, period. So when I say "the Him is still God," I am referring to God, who is above and before and separate from ALL human distinctions/descriptions ABOUT God. Naturally as a Christian I affirm that God is the God of the Bible. Jim has been equally clear in affirming his belief in the Christian God. Masonry has been equally clear in affirming, "We do not make that decision for any individual." You are trying to make who God IS dependent upon the various human concepts God, which is completely ludicrous.

I cannot suggest that you revise what the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has said, but I do suggest that seminary-trained Christian pastors avoid joining an organization that requires belief in one Supreme Deity, but never really specifies who that one Supreme Being is.

Click to expand...

Then my suggestion to you is that you start tightening up your ship to maintain a little more consistency, and do three things: (1) start preaching from the same soapbox and start lambasting the Boy Scouts, who do exactly the same thing with their own understanding and proclamation of "who God is"; and (2) start preaching from that same soapbox, to all Christians who employ the English word "God," because by using that word, you and any other Christian who uses it is employing a generic word which opens the door for anyone of any other religion to use their own default concept of who that is, making the use of the word "God" just as heinous a practice as that which you are going to such great lengths to falsely superimpose upon Freemasonry; and (3) try to broaden your reading a little more, and get used to the idea that even in Christian thinking, when such expressions are used, it's stated pretty much the same way.

Especially if that organization has clearly stated that they accept all monotheistic faiths, and that the basis for making no theological distinctions is for their universality.

Click to expand...

That's just it, that's not what they do. They accept MEN from all faiths, and the principles Masonry teaches are universally applicable, no matter which religion a man may profess. Masonry's universality is in ITS application of its principles TO any religion; NOT the application of the beliefs of religions to MASONRY. You've got it reversed. Once again you are trying to impose upon Masonry that which you wish it to say, rather than understanding it for what it says.

For a follower of Jesus Christ to join such an organization it comes much too close to violating the First Commandment. Therefore he should avoid doing so at all cost; by never joining in the first place or by resigning if he already has.

Click to expand...

How so? If I am free in my interpretation, to understand "God" to be the Christian God, the God of the Bible, then that is the ONLY concept of God I find valid. Since that is the only one I find valid, and thus the only God I affirm, exactly how have I "violated the first commandment?" I haven't put any other gods ahead of Him, and it's ridiculous for anyone to claim it to be so.


But just to give an example--and believe me, there THOUSANDS of examples out there that could also be pointed to--take a look at C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.　 The first chapter in the second section is titled "The Rival Conceptions of God."

In case you missed it, that's "The Rival Conceptions of God."　 In other words, "God as they see him."　 (I would point out, too, that this is EXACTLY the same thing Jim already pointed out, that the statement you choose to try to vilify, is a statement, NOT about "who God is," but of CONCEPTIONS of God.)
　
My, my, didn't C.S. Lewis know any better?　 Shouldn't he have been aware (according to you, anyway) that he was "violating the first commandment?"　
　
I think you're just like the guy whose ship just sank, and grabbing for anything you think will float.

I was recently sent this message:

Can you just get back to the topic of the thread, and stop being a jackass!!!!

Click to expand...

More recently (post #246 this thread, to be specific), the same poster has again reiterated the same desire:

Meanwhile, let's get back on topic!

Click to expand...

For once, I agree.

So, Michael, maybe you can share with us, just what sort of tactics from the antimasonic propaganda machine have YOU observed?

What's absurd is a seminary-trained "Christian" pastor's notion that since "God is One," it's seems to be okay to him, as well as his fraternity, to accept the idea that Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Ra, Brahma the Creator and Shiva, or any other "monotheistic" concept of THE Supreme Being is biblically sound.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about "biblically sound?" Tell me, show me, point out from my post where you THINK you saw any such thing, because I said nothing of the sort.

After all, it sounds like you actually want readers to believe that as long as any religion is monotheistic, there is no such thing as a false god among THEM.

Click to expand...

Sounds more like you want the readers to believe that someone here has said something worthy of slam-dunking, when really all we've stated is, "Masonry does not pick one's religion or beliefs for them." The real puzzle is, considering the point you keep belaboring for no reason, why it is that you seem to think that a "false god" is somehow still a god, when in reality it is no god at all. There is only one God, a "false god" sure ain't Him.

A better question is, if the concepts/definable attributes/names employed by the various religions are different regarding THE ONE GOD, why can't YOU, a professed seminary-trained "Christian" pastor, can't quite get your head around the fact that that implies that every concept of a monotheistic deity is ONE AND THE SAME, but employed by various religions under different names.

Click to expand...

Because it DOESN'T, that's why. One of the very reasons those religions HAVE "different names" is, their concepts of God are different. For that very reason, they CANNOT be "one and the same." You seem to be talking in circles. And you seem to be implying that only Christians can have correct concepts of God, when in reality there are MANY shared concepts about God that are the same even among the many religions--omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence being among them. Even members of other religions can have correct concepts about God, and even members of the Christian faith can have incorrect concepts about God. In fact, I am in a position to discover just how true this is. You'd be surprised how many of those incorrect concepts get reinforced by "the Bible says so," too.

And, it is completely ludicrous for a genuine Christian NOT to see that to support such a notion violates the First Commandment.

Click to expand...

I have affirmed only that (1) adherents of other religions have different concepts of God than we as Christians do; and (2) that my idea of who this one God is, is that He is the God of the Bible. The first affirmation is simple fact; the second is personal testimony, and one which you yourself affirm. Now how do you propose to show us that this "violates the first commandment?"

I have not read this work, but knowing C.S. Lewis as I do,

Click to expand...

Gee, how silly of me to pick someone who is a personal acquaintance of yours. What was I thinking?

I trust he was NOT trying to say -- or imply -- that all concepts of God are one and the same

Click to expand...

My point exactly! Now if we can just bring you around so you can open your eyes and see, that for ANYONE to say "other religions have other concepts of God" or even to say "God as you see Him" is NOT saying "all concepts of God are one and the same." In fact, such statements do not say anything "about" God at all, since they do not expound on what those concepts might be, so for you to infer from such a statement that "all concepts of God are one and the same" has absolutely no foundation.

Nor does the Minnesota GL try to say any such thing when they speak of "God as you see Him." They are saying no different than C.S. Lewis was saying when he spoke of "rival conceptions of God." It's pretty straightforward, in fact, that "God as you see Him" is not speaking of "God as I see Him."

All you're doing is playing semantics, while I am trying to keep you straight on the reality of the matter, that regardless of your opinion or anyone else's, you cannot change the fact that there is only one God. All you're really doing is boo-hooing because Masonry said "we don't decide for the individual who God has to be," rather than YOUR preferred wording of "we don't tell you which god to pick." In reality, there is only one God. You yourself acknowledge it every time you speak of a "false god," because a false god is not God.

By the way, Minnesota GL has this to say on their website:

Click to expand...

I think I can do better than that. I mean, Grand Lodge websites are certainly one place one may look for information, but they don't trump the information in Grand Lodge Monitors.

From the Minnesota Masonic Monitor, p. 15, "Masonry and Religion":

Masonry does not profess to be a religion, although it is obviously religious in character. It also does not pretend to take the place of religion, nor serve as a substitute for the religious beliefs of its members.
Freemasonry will open its doors to all men regardless of their religious conviction, the essential requirements in this regard being an avowed belief in God and expected punishment for vice and reward for virtue. (See the first Ancient Landmark in the Grand Lodge Constitution, Section C2.03 (1) That belief in the Supreme Being, "The Great Architect of the Universe," who will punish vice and reward virtue, is an indispensable prerequisite to admission to Masonry.)

Click to expand...

That's "God," not "Gods"; "Great Architect," not "Architects"; and "Supreme Being," not "Beings."

From p. 20, EA degree:

There are three great duties, which, as a Mason, you are charged to inculcate to God, your neighbor, and yourself. To GOD, in never mentioning His name, but with that reverential awe which is due from a creature to his Creator; to implore His aid in all your laudable undertakings, and to esteem him as the chief good; to your NEIGHBOR, in acting upon the square, and doing unto him as you wish he should do unto you; and to YOURSELF, in avoiding all irregularity and intemperance, which may impair your faculties, or debase the dignity of your profession. A zealous attachment to these duties will insure public and private esteem.

Click to expand...

That's "God," not "Gods." And that's "Creator," not "Creators." You'd have to be blind or an idiot to think that's not monotheist.

But if you want their most definitive, and the most pertinent statement to the point currently addressed here, then turn to p. 16, "MINNESOTA'S OFFICIAL POSITION," subheading "The Supreme Being":

Masons believe that there is one God and that people employ many different ways to seek and to express what they know of God. Masons primarily uses the appellation, "Grand Architect of the Universe," and other non-sectarian titles, to address Deity. In this way, persons of different faiths may join together in prayer, concentrating on God rather than on differences among themselves. Masonry believes in religious freedom and that the relationship between the individual and God is personal, private, and sacred.

Click to expand...

If you bother to check, I think you'll find that this matches the statement found at the website of the Masonic Service Association of North America, as do the statements of most Grand Lodges on the matter. Moreover, look on p. 15 of the Minnesota Monitor in the paragraph which prefaces the statements in this section, and you will find the following leadoff paragraph:

The National Masonic Information Center proposes the following statement concerning Freemasonry and religion and is encouraging Grand Lodges throughout the United States to adopt this statement so that they will have a common position regarding this religious issue.

Click to expand...

Next time you want to speak extemporaneously of such things, you might want to confine your remarks to something you're at least a tiny bit familiar. Or at least consult their official publications before trying to substitute their website information for their official statements.

Says a lot about Christians who pretend to know something about Minnesota Masonry.

Skip Sampson said:

Look up the definition of henotheism. Too, Mormons refer to 'God' in singular while still believing in many of them floating around. Cordially, Skip.

Click to expand...

Look up Henny Youngman and you'll find a comedian. Which is a profession you might consider, given the laughable response. Surely you aren't suggesting that the statement was, in some intentional way, drawn up and adopted with a Mormon view of henotheism in mind?

Is that the best you can do--make irrelevant comments about Mormons, even after having the definitive statement from Minnesota put right in front of your eyes? What part of "Masons believe in one God" did you not get?

But since you seem to think you have some kind of point somewhere, I could always revise the statement to read, "You'd have to be blind or an idiot or a Mormon to think that's not monotheist." And since you don't seem to think it is either, that leaves me wondering which of the three categories you come in under.