The Antimasonic Propaganda Machine

[Rev Wayne]

John Weldon and John Ankerburg are both highly regarded in the evangelical world. So is D. L. Moody, Jonathan Blanchard, Charles Blanchard, Alva McClain, Walter Martin, and Charles Finney; all of whom have taken positions against and have denounced the Masonic Lodge.

By whom? Your statement does not make it automatically so. Not that it makes any difference. The only difference I see that it makes is, now we understand them to be a couple of highly regarded liars, rather than just liars.

Jonathan Blanchard--His record speaks for itself. He made all sorts of claims about Freemasonry, Weldon and Ankerberg notched it up a bit with their claims about Blanchard, and yet it still remains he was not what he claimed to be as a Freemason. The work that is represented by Blanchard as quoted in the Ankerberg/Weldon work is not true Freemasonry at all. Read DeHoyos and Morris' Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry? and see it for yourself:



[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Rev. Blanchard's outdated book was actually an exposure of Cerneauism, an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s. Oaths of fealty and other references to the Cerneau "Supreme Council" appear repeatedly throughout Blanchard's exposure. [/font][font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These references would have raised red flags to competent researchers, but Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon conveniently ignored or misunderstood them.[/font]

Blanchard's claims were shown to be false from a biography written about him by Clyde S. Kilby, A Minority of One. He was not a Mason, much less a 33rd degree Mason, he was not even a Cerneau Mason, the biography shows him to have been a lifelong antimason.

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]

An overwhelming number of Christian denominations have condemned Freemasonry, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church of England, the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Synod Anglican Church of England, the Assemblies of God, the Church of the Nazarene, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Christian Reformed Church in America, the Evangelical Mennonite Church, the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Grace Brethren, Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America, The Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Baptist Union of Scotland, The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Presbyterian Church in America. Also, many prominent Christians have denounced the Lodge, including D. L. Moody, Jonathan Blanchard, Charles Blanchard, Alva McClain, Walter Martin, and Charles Finney.

FREEMASONRY AND THE CHRISTIAN By Eddy D. Field II and III[/font]

Nice try, but what you have attempted to do is to substitute denominations where you should be talking about Christians. The entire total membership of the denominations you have mentioned (excluding Roman Catholicism) does not even come close to the total number of Christians in the Southern Baptist Church, which has declared that membership in Masonry should be a matter of individual conscience.

And since you include Roman Catholics as Christians, you have proven your own double-mindedness, as you have made it abundantly clear in times past that you do not consider them true Christians because their theology doesn't meet your standards. That makes it less than honest for you now to include them in a list of churches that reject Freemasonry. As usual, your arguments are not based on truth, but you will simply use or refuse arguments on the sole criteria of whether it is convenient for you.

Many prominent Christians are also prominent academics who teach at prominent Christian seminaries and have written books about the biblical incompatibility of the religious cult called Freemasonry. They know the rules of the use of ellipses and would not be able to have their work published by the prominent Christian publishing companies that they use if they didn't follow them or misquoted anyone.

HORSE FEATHERS! The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge was published by Moody Press. Now why do you suppose an antimason would choose a publishing company that carries the name of a well-known evangelist who also was outspokenly anti-Freemasonry? Kinda makes it ten times or a hundred times more likely that they will publish him without question--which they obviously have done.

You forget that after the information came out about Blanchard's lies, they went back and "revised" all mention of his supposed "status" in Masonry out of the book. And they made no mention of the changes at all, which goes against another standard practice of publishing a list of errata in any subsequent edition of a book, detailing what editing changes were made and why. But that's small potatoes compared to (1) publishing false information, (2) removing it in a deceptive manner, and (3) continuing to publish claims based on the false material well after it was shown to be false.

Defend them if you will, but at least recognize that in doing so, you are offering willfull support to deliberate liars.

Do you think these denominations and their leaders would establish official position statements against an organization based on misinformation?

Not only do I think so, I know this is exactly what they have done. For one thing, they have no more understanding than you seem to have, that Freemasonry is a thoroughly symbolic system. All the accusations you will ever see against Freemasonry are based on a literalistic interpretation that Freemasonry has never offered as its position at all, hence they are all based on false premises from the very start.

I was a member myself of one of the denominations you mentioned, for a period of four years. Their entire mindset was "anti," on all sorts of issues. That's commendable to a point, but not a framework on which to base your entire theology. They are still fighting an anti-Calvinism battle that essentially ended decades ago. When I chose to point some of this out during a class on their polity, and asked why we should hold to antiquated expressions that automatically incite rebuttal, I was told by one student, "We have to be firm in our position against them, or else they'll think we're wimps." I think perhaps that was the point at which I seriously began to realize I was in the wrong place.

Members of the Philalethes Society have met and discussed the very issues of which you speak. The UGLE has discontinued the entire Jahbulon bit which was subjected to nonsensical attacks. Albert Pike over 150 years ago spearheaded an effort in which the rituals were changed so that they no longer reflected actual physical penalties, but were speaking of mental anguish and symbolic penalties--wording like "so may it be to my conscience should I ever violate these my solemn obligations."

The bottom-line is when Wayne, or anyone else for that matter, provides what they think is a "misquote" or a Masonic quote deemed as taken "out-of-context" folks can see that even after the additional information is supplied, it really doesn't change what was provided by the anti-masonic source in the first place.

That is simply untrue, and you are in the worst kind of abject denial that can be imagined, when the plain truth does not even pierce your armor-resistant hide. I may be against repeated posting, but I intend to expose this lie once again.
[/font]

 

[Rev Wayne]

I suppose, in a sense, the challenge has been made to something anybody, Mason or not, can see with ease if they look at antimason quotes of Masonic authors, placed side-by-side with the original material. In cases where antimasons have omitted materials from part of the quote, noted by ellipses, there is invariably an agenda. This agenda generally takes one of two directions: (1) it omits what the antimason does not wish readers to see; or (2) by the same kind of omission, a joining together of words is effected, that were not intended to be joined together as one thought, so that a totally different thought from the intent of the author appears to be expressed. This has been shown consistently and repeatedly, yet it continues to be denied by one who by his own admission has engaged in the same. I say by his own admission, because some time ago on these forums, Mike posted the following, among other similarly treated quotes:

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

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

So, Freemasonry does indeed have something to hide, that is far more diabolic than its “conceited interpreters” can see, even if such interpreters are among it members. What they have to hide is The Secret Doctrine!

Then, to bolster the claim, he quotes from Steinmetz, Freemasonry: Its Hidden Meaning:

It should be discovered that its symbology and allegory is as useful to CONCEAL that teaching from those who do not seek it out as to REVEAL it to him who, "of his own free will and accord," earnestly and prayerfully attempts to pierce the veil of mystery.

If the symbols can be consistently interpreted in this manner, throughout the three degrees, we have confirmed Freemasonry to be the reincarnation of the Ancient Mysteries of Egypt; we have rediscovered some part of the ancient teaching and have removed the veil of allegory from the Great Truth of the Universe.

And after that quote, he made the claim:

So, Christian Mason, deny it if you wish, but this thing called Freemasonry is not of God or our Lord Jesus Christ. It is anti-Christ and of the Devil.

There are three ellipses in the Hall quote. Let’s fill in the gaps and see if they are as insignificant as Mr. Gentry would have us believe:

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

The red print shows the omitted material from the quotes. Clearly the omissions were not done for the most common legitimate reason, for brevity—or else why even bother with the first omission, which is only one phrase anyway?



The other glaring point to be made about the omissions is, those who quote them find them in online sources, and simply cut and paste to whatever medium they are typing in. Does it not stand to reason that someone would just cut and paste the quote above in its entirety, rather than go to all the excess difficulty entailed by the extra cuts and clips necessary for omission? That alone makes it much more likely that if someone posts something like this in four separate parts, rather than just lift it with ease in one smooth clip, they must have something they mean to eliminate from view. The above portions in red are the omissions, the underlined portions are the most likely parts the antimason crowd does not want anyone to see. How can I say that? Because with the exception of two antimason websites among the dozens of them I found which contained this quote, they all had the exact same omissions in the exact same places.



But now to the reasons for the omissions. Think about the main objectives of both Hall as the original author, and the person or persons who concocted this puzzle with the missing pieces. The title of the piece by Hall is “Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins.” But those who critique the piece do so with the objective of showing current Masonic conspiracy. That is an anachronism, and an extreme one. The piece was originally written in 1929! So those who try to tie it in to a New World Order conspiracy as most do, are speaking of a supposed conspiracy that has not culminated even after 70 years.



But the aims of the original and the aims of its critics are totally opposite: Hall declares his intent in the title, he is speaking of “origins,” not “destinations,” as the New World Order conspiracists are accusing. It is even more clear from the pieces that were censored: someone trying to point to the future and conspiratorial designs are going to have a hard time trying to prove it with historically-minded pieces about Masonic origins. Because of this, remarks like” the origin of the craft” and “the history of their craft” naturally had to go. Equally damaging was the comment about being able to count the great philosophers of Masonry “upon one’s fingers”—because if one were speaking of the future in making such a remark, how would they know that information beforehand?



But the amazing thing about this sort of false accusation is, the way it takes on a life of its own when the antimasons get hold of it. As I noted a bit earlier, there were literally dozens of antimason sites that pulled up on a search, even though I only entered three words from the quote, “mysterious arcanum arcanorum.”



But I found something far more interesting, and quite by accident. As I was sifting through the hits, I came across one that had grossly misspelled the Latin terms, rendering them “arcannum arcandrum.” In other words, with both words misspelled. Past history told me that if the error appeared on one website, it has a better than even chance to appear on another one. But I never dreamed what a new search would turn up, with the misspelling entered in place of the correct one. And so no one can accuse me of fabricated information, the links are included:



www.manusnigrum.com/

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/luciferquotes.html

http://www.geocities.com/levelwater/mathlies13.html

http://www.geocities.com/andoron/invisible.html

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/306295.shtml

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t16497.html

http://www.global-elite.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=249

http://www.iisusbog.com/pagee100.htm

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg89008.html

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=printpage;threadid=11814

http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/freemasonry_2.html

http://www.lakeeriebiblechurch.org/Exegesis/Revelation/pdf/Revelation2.pdf

http://www.google.com/search?q=mysterious+arcannum+arcandrum&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

www.global-conspiracies.com/freemasons.htm

http://global-elite.org/print.php?sid=249

http://www.canadiangrassroots.ca/sections.php?op=printpage&artid=3243

http://www.tagryggen.dk/show_article.php?num=78



And those are just the 17 hits I found. There were several links that went to news blogs and other sites with quick content turnover, so that they were no longer operable. But the line description on all of them had the same misspelling as those listed above.



That’s a frightening scenario, for two errors to be reduplicated that extensively. The spelling is no big deal, other than as a tracking device that becomes a travel log. Just goes to show that people are the same way about the internet as they are about newspapers, they tend to believe everything they see in print.

But the other error of simply posting an ellipsed quote without consulting the original is unheard of. You are right when you say "They know the rules of the use of ellipses." But they should also know the main rules of quotation, one of which is, quotation of secondary material is sub-standard practice, an effort should be made to obtain the original for a primary source quote instead.

The claim is made that these omissions do not change anything. That’s bogus—this one alone has been proven to be addressing a subject totally opposite of the one it is accused of. But then, Mike doesn’t seem to follow anyone else’s patterns on the matter, he made no claims of New World Order conspiracy, and said instead that they were guilty of Satanic worship, that Satanism was the “secret doctrine” spoken of.


That being the case, the claim is very easily refuted. One place that refutes it is the very sentence which he highlighted a portion of:



They are dwellers upon the threshold of the innermost, masters of that secret doctrine which forms the invisible foundation of every great theological and rational institution.



In his desire to emphasize that little phrase, he ignored the context that refutes the “Satanism” idea, that this is the foundation of “every great theological and rational institution.” The claim is absurd, unless one is willing to admit that Satanism is at the heart of all theology.



No, actually all that is being claimed is the same thing that Masons have claimed elsewhere, that at the heart of every religion is a common core of truth. Hall is no different—that is, if one reads the entire article:

Truth is eternal. The so-called revelations of Truth that come in different religions are actually but a re-emphasis of an ever-existing doctrine.

That is no different than others have said on the same subject. In Morals and Dogma, for instance, it is said even more clearly:

"That, in all times is the Christian religion, which to know and follow is the most sure and certain health, called according to that name, but not according to the thing itself, of which it is the name; for the thing itself, which is now called the Christian religion, really was known to the Ancients, nor was wanting at any time from the beginning of the human race, until the time when Christ came in the flesh; from whence the true religion, which had previously existed, began to be called Christian; and this in our days is the Christian religion, not as having been wanting in former times, but as having, in later times, received this name."

And that, my friend, is as the polar opposite of your accusations of Satanism. And a Mason no less eminent than Mr. Mackey says the same:

The very spirit of all of our lectures proves conclusively thatwhen they were formulated they were designed to teach pure trinitarian Christianity, and while the Jewish scriptures did forecast the intermediary of a Christos, as all the ancient heathen mysteries did also, yet Jesus Christ as shown and demonstrated in the writings of the New Testament, was not understood by the Jewish writers of the Old Testament, nor by but very few of that faith since. The first three degrees taken in connection with the Holy Royal Arch, as they have always been with our Brethren of England, certainly show pure Christianity, as taught throughout the writings of the New Testament scriptures. (Albert G. Mackey, History of Freemasonry, 1898)

And as you well know, this is only anecdotal, there are a mountain more of them, and abundantly more condemning in their implications.


Nor is what I’ve just described the only issue involved in this particular exchange, as you well know.

 

[O.F.F.]

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

First of all notice, even when shown in its full context, Hall speaks of Freemasonry just as what is said in the quotes with ellispes. There is no different interpretation either way.

Secondly, just because he titled his essay with "origins" doesn't automatically mean that everything he talks about is past tense. The best evidence of this is the fact that the author is speaking about Freemasonry in the present tense:

Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity. . . (Notice he said "is" NOT "was")

The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of free and accepted men. . . (Notice he said "is" NOT "was")

The invisible society is a secret and most august fraternity whose members are. . . (Notice he said "is" NOT "was", and "are" not "were")

Those Brethren who have essayed to write the history of their Craft have not included in their disquisitions the story of that truly secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic. . . (Notice he said "is" NOT "was")

In each generation only a few are accepted into the inner sanctuary of the work, but these are veritable princes of truth, and their sainted names shall be remembered in future age. . . (Notice he said "each generation" which implies perpetuation from one generation to next "as those brothers and fellows who have gone this way before them." Again he says, "these are" NOT "these were")

So, let the readers conclude what they will from Hall's quote. They don't need a fanatical Mason to interpret it for them.

 

[Rev Wayne]

just because he titled his essay with "origins" doesn't automatically mean that everything he talks about is past tense. The best evidence of this is the fact that the author is speaking about Freemasonry in the present tense:

Then written in 1929, he was talking about Masonry 76 years ago.

Freemasonry is a fraternity within a fraternity. . . (Notice he said "is" NOT "was")

And your point?

The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of free and accepted men. . . (Notice he said "is" NOT "was")

Never denied this either.

Those Brethren who have essayed to write the history of their Craft have not included in their disquisitions the story of that truly secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic. . . (Notice he said "is" NOT "was")

Yes, and his point was, these are the cream of the crop.

In each generation only a few are accepted into the inner sanctuary of the work, but theseare veritable princes of truth, and their sainted names shall be remembered in future age. . .

Dang! Done in by that same old habit of emphasizing the wrong parts. Did you really totally miss "princes of truth?"

(Notice he said "each generation" which implies perpetuation from one generation to next "as those brothers and fellows who have gone this way before them." Again he says, "these are" NOT "these were")

The last time I checked, those who "have gone this way before" were people who WERE.

So, let the readers conclude what they will from Hall's quote. They don't need a fanatical Mason to interpret it for them.

Well, I would think anything would be better than a lying antimason.

And as I already said, you will certainly be all over any statement to try to claim differently. But you have failed in your post to make one single statement that refutes anything I said.

Nor have you said anything that even hints at Satanism, which was the main point of your earlier claim. An empty one it is and remains.

And so far in your discussion, you have covered 2 or 3 paragraphs, of a discussion titled "Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins," which comes from a larger work titled, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy. Certainly in a discussion of how something came down from ancient times to the present-day, the present certainly does not go without mention. But the thrust is, how we arrived. The main thrust of the most common arguments drawn by antimasons from such a lecture, have to do with "where is this all headed?"

So once again you have struck out on relevance, having made neither your point about satanism, nor the normal antimason line on this quote, concerning a New World Order.



And you have no comment on the Ankerberg lie factory?

 

[Rev Wayne]

What Masons fail to realize is that, no matter how much you or Wayne or any other defender of the Masonic faith supply ALL the "missing" information omitted by the use of ellipses, you are not going to convince most people that anyone has lied about Freemasonry. As I pointed out, by 'filling in the blanks' all you and Wayne are doing is confirming what has already been determined in the first place without the added information.

And as I already pointed out, p. 6, post #51, they have made a total LIE out of what Pike originally had to say:

Masonic writings reject the God of the Bible.

Albert Pike writes: "If our conceptions of God are those of the ignorant, narrow minded, and vindictive Israelite…we feel that it is an affront and an indignity to [God]" (Morals and Dogma page 223).

http://www.staycatholic.com/freemasons.htm

Notice how this particular antimason has the same habit you do—highlight the part you want to emphasize to the exclusion of the rest. But the context clearly does him in, along with anyone else who will make the claim.



You cannot possibly claim that this man has done anything other than make a blatant attempt to paint a lie that Pike was bigoted against Israelites.



But the context, already supplied in the earlier post, shows clearly that Pike was talking about Israelites of a time 19 centuries before Christ, and the comparison between any people of that day, Israelites or anyone else, and present-day, would result in the same estimation. Put into its context, and given the same benefits of highlighting the portions that in this case truly define the remark, he says nothing that even remotely resembles the bigotry that was insinuated:

If any one contents himself with
any lower image than his intellect is capable of grasping, then he
contents himself with that which is false to him, as well as false in
fact. If lower than he can reach, he must needs feel it to be false.
And if we, of the nineteenth century after Christ, adopt the con-
ceptions of the nineteenth century before Him;if our conceptions
of God are those of the ignorant, narrow-minded, and vindictive
Israelite; then we think worse of God, and have a lower, meaner,
and more limited view of His nature, than the faculties which He
has bestowed are capable of grasping. The highest view we can
form is nearest to the truth. If we acquiesce in any lower one,
we acquiesce in an untruth. We feel that it is an affront and an
indignity to Him, to conceive of Him as cruel, short-sighted, ca-
pricious, and unjust; as a jealous, an angry, a vindictive Being.
When we examine our conceptions of His character, if we can
conceive of a loftier, nobler, higher, more beneficent, glorious, and
magnificent character, then this latter is to us the true conception
of Deity; for nothing can be imagined more excellent than He. (P. 223)

Go ahead, Mike, tell me why you think this butchering of Pike’s remarks ought to be considered as, to quote you:

“confirming what has already been determined in the first place without the added information.”

Show me, Mike, lay it out “precept upon precept, line upon line,” and stake your claim, if indeed you think you can. None of this smokescreen fodder of making claims without ever touching upon a single word that was said. Show us from this quote and the significant omissions, that Ankerberg and Weldon and every other antimason who has quoted this same Pike piece in exactly the same way, meant to say exactly the same thing as Pike said in the original.



I really want to see this.






Another statement made on the websites mentioned was,

[Hall was honored by The Scottish Rite Journal, who called him ´The Illustrious Manly P. Hall´ in Sept, 1990, and further called him ´Masonry´s Greatest Philosopher´, saying "The world is a far better place because of Manly Palmer Hall, and we are better persons for having known him and his work"]

Not only can I not find the statement in the Sept. 1990 Scottish Rite Journal, I can't find it in any Scottish Rite Journal in the 1990's at all. That's not to say it isn't there, it certainly seems to be elusive though.

And it's typical antimason stuff, find a statement where Masonry lifts up anything at all, even Jesus, and then try their best to knock it down.

Or ignore it, as you just did Mackey in the last post:

The very spirit of all of our lectures proves conclusively that when they were formulated they were designed to teach pure trinitarian Christianity, and while the Jewish scriptures did forecast the intermediary of a Christos, as all the ancient heathen mysteries did also, yet Jesus Christ as shown and demonstrated in the writings of the New Testament, was not understood by the Jewish writers of the Old Testament, nor by but very few of that faith since. The first three degrees taken in connection with the Holy Royal Arch, as they have always been with our Brethren of England, certainly show pure Christianity, as taught throughout the writings of the New Testament scriptures. (Albert G. Mackey, History of Freemasonry, 1898)

 

[O.F.F.]

And you have no comment on the Ankerberg lie factory?

No, given the author of this thread, I reserve my comments to the Wayne Major LIE factory.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I've told you nothing but the truth, and thus I am your enemy?

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

As mentioned before, the Hall quote above was significant in more ways than one. For one thing, at the time it posted, I said the ellipses were a perfect match for practically every antimason website in town. You gave a vehement denial, and insisted:

One doesn’t have to click on anti-Masonic websites, they can click on pro-Masonic ones, or go directly to the Masonic sources written by prominent Masonic authors, to find this information.

And:

Now to your response to my post, your challenge about the use of ellipses is a futile attempt to cast doubt in the minds of the readers. Any of them can go directly to the full text of the sources I quoted from to see for themselves the context and the consistency of the author’s intended position supporting the points I made: Albert Pike’s Morals & Dogma, Manly P. Hall’s, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, and George Steinmetz, Freemasonry: Its Hidden Meaning.

Problem is, when you go to the hot link provided on Hall's title, there are no ellipses on the site. So naturally I challenged you on the matter, to show where the ellipses came from, either from you or from the antimason website you quoted from. You still insisted you had not quoted from an antimason site, that the words were your own, indicating that if you were telling the truth on the matter, then you had excised the words yourself, meaning you had created the false impression intentionally. Your words at the time were:

Before posting the Hall piece I did look at a few sources, including the original ariticle. In my view, the version I posted was accurate to the original. Your supplying what was omitted by the ellipses did NOT change my personal conclusion. That's why I ultimately responded with the full text of ALL three sources I used to make my point, so that anyone interested could draw their own informed conclusion.

Now had I not followed up on the links you provided, I may not have ever discovered it, but the fact is, one way or the other, without contradiction, you have told a flat-out, intentional, blatant LIE.

The link you provided on site led to the following:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2216/clsctexts/Rosicrucian_Masonic.htm

Go to that site and anyone can see for themselves that there are no ellipses in the original piece. So lie #1 is, you claimed to be "true to the original," and you were not.

But interesting thing, these bibliographic entries. The entry on the second link you posted, claiming "originals," was an original entry:

From Lectures on Ancient Philosophy—An Introduction to
the Study and Application of Rational Procedure:
[size=-1]The Hall Publishing Company, Los Angeles, First Edition 1929, pp 397-417[/size]

Now take note of the entry from the original quote:

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

One published by Hall Publishing, the other by Philosophical Research Society; One is first edition, the other is a 1984 reprint; one is 1929, the other is 1984; one lists pages 397-417, the other, listing only the page you quoted from, is 433--which is not even within the range of pages listed on the other.

Clearly the second link you posted, claiming it as the source from which you posted the first quote, is not the same link.

That being the case,

LIE #2 is prettty fundamental: you claim original source quoting, and are caught in your own lie, because you lied the second time around concerning where you got the first post.

You are a true credit to the antimason genre, purebred through and through, an Ankerbergian disciple if there ever was one.

Your credibility has been shot since that day with me, and you've known it ever since, so let's get real, shall we?


It's one matter to be accusing me of lying; it's quite another to be making the accusation when your own lying has been proven before. I've learned from experience that if one chooses to make an accusation of lying against someone, (1) they should not do so lightly, and (2) they had better make sure they have their facts straight and can back up the claim.

The facts are in on you. The entire matter is laid out for public record on this forum, the thread is "Thread About Masons," the first quote is page 35, post #322. The claim to original source quoting, with the link you claimed to be the same as the first quote, is p. 35, post #344.

But since I have been challenging from a standpoint of, "where are the evil Masons resulting from your claims?", I suppose proving you have lied one time before is not really enough to go on. But it certainly was not the first time on this forum. Once before the above incident, you made another false claim, and one that is provable. On the thread "Cbristianity and Freemasonry," I had made the comments, in response to a post of yours:

As for your "falses":

false concept of God--God is called "Grand Architect of the Universe," hence chiefly is understood as Creator. What about that concept is false, pray tell?

a false concept of the Word of God--In the lodge here, it resides on the altar, it is the "Volume of Sacred Law," its principles are there to conduct our lives by. Can you explain what is evil or false in following biblical principles?

a false concept of man's relationship to God--Masonry tries to encourage men to have that relationship, not to define it for them.

false plan of salvation--based, as best as I can tell, on a subordinate phrase in a sentence that is not addressing the question "how are we saved?"

And Baphomet is a lie, a part of the Taxil hoax;
And GAOTU is an invention of John Calvin, a well-known theologian, not an invention of Freemasonry;
And Lucifer (see post above) cannot be translated as both Satan and Jesus--which is where it leads if you want to go there;
And Jahbelon is not this composite deity as the common misunderstanding would have you believe;
And no matter what designs the dollar bill has on it, it wasn't even designed by Masons;

And when you come right down to it, the meaning of all you find within Freemasonry is to be interpreted symbolically, which all its detractors fail to add in to their calculations.

In reply, you boastfully claimed:

Quote:

And Baphomet is a lie, a part of the Taxil hoax; And no matter what designs the dollar bill has on it, it wasn't even designed by Masons;

I don't even know why you bring this up, it wasn't stated in any of my posts. To even imply that it was or that I hold to these views is disingenuous at best, and at worse dishonest. I nor the Order of Former Freemasons (O.F.F.), Ex-Masons for Jesus, or Ephesians 5:11, Inc. promote the Taxil hoax, or symbols on the dollar bill, or any other Masonic conspiracy theory. I would appreciate it if you would keep us out of that camp of opponents of Freemasonry. Our website and mission statement clearly point out that we are only concerned with the biblical incompatibility of the teachings of Freemasonry; and nothing else.

These also are a matter of public record, from page 14 of the thread, posts #137 & 138. Yet less than a month later you posted these words and a link to the page:

14th May, 2004 at 07:37 AMMay 14, 2004 07:37 AM

Paper trail: The dollar decoded

April 22, 2004: 6:34 PM EDT
By David Futrelle, MONEY Magazine

Some of the esoteric (and not so esoteric) knowledge contained within:

The one-eyed pyramid The surreal seeing pyramid on the back of the dollar bill combines two Masonic symbols: the Eye of Providence in a Radiant Triangle and a truncated pyramid. On the bill, the triangle containing the eye visually completes the pyramid, suggesting that the new nation would be completed with an assist from an all-seeing God...To learn more, and "finding meaning on your dollar bill"

Mike Gentry
Founder of O.F.F.

So despite your indignance at being correctly accused of what you obviously have supported by such posts, the public record once again speaks for itself.

But wait--there's more. You claimed in that same post not to have ever lent any support to the Baphomet lie or any other part of the Taxil hoax. Yet on this very thread, a few days ago, you also prove by your own posts that that was a lie also:

Lévi considered the Baphomet to be a depiction of the absolute in symbolic form. His treatment of the Baphomet Mythos is best seen in his illustration of the Baphomet shown below, which he used as a front piece to one of his many books. According to the author Michael Howard, he [Lévi] based the illustration on a Gargoyle that appears on a building owned by the Templars; the Commandry of Saint Bris le Vineux.

"The Gargoyle is in the form of a bearded horned figure with pendulous female breasts, wings and cloven feet. It sits in a crossed-legged position which resembles statues of the Celtic stag god, Cernnunnus or the Horned One, found in Gaul (France) before the Roman occupation."

The Occult Conspiracy
by Michael Howard

. . . Not commonly know, is that Eliphas Lévi was the first to separate the pentagram into good and evil applications.

Lévi considered the Baphomet to be a depiction of the absolute in symbolic form. His treatment of the Baphomet Mythos is best seen in his illustration of the Baphomet shown below, which he used as a front piece to one of his many books. According to the author Michael Howard, he [Lévi] based the illustration on a Gargoyle that appears on a building owned by the Templars; the Commandry of Saint Bris le Vineux.





Eliphas Lévi On The Baphomet

According to the controversial author, Nesta Webster, Eliphas Lévi held the conviction that not only did the Templars adore the Baphomet but anyone embracing the Occult sciences did also. . .

"Let us declare for the edification of the vulgar....and for the greater glory of the Church which has persecuted the Templars, burned the magicians and excommunicated the Freemasons, etc., let us say boldly and loudly, that all the initiates of the occult sciences... have adored do and always will adore that which is signified by this frightful symbol [The Sabbatic Goat]. Yes, in our profound conviction, the Grand Masters of the order of The Templars adored Baphomet and caused him to be adored by their initiates."

Secret Societies and Subversive Movements
Nesta H. Webster
1924 by The Christian Book Club

. . .Eliphas Lévi died on May 31st, 1875 and his books remain in print well over 100 years after his death. It is however, his illustrative representation of Baphomet that found its way into Waite's Tarot deck as the Devil card and has in the process added another page to the Baphomet Mythos and perhaps added to demonizing something that may have had a more innocent interpretation. -- Stephen A. Dafoe, Masonic Author, speaker, Knight Templar, Past Master and Shriner

Now surely you won't try to claim you never posted this on the thread "Is Freemasonry Compatible With Christianity?" on March 19, p. 51, post #503? Nor would you claim that you didn't add the following either, would you?

Readers please note, while I haven’t done a complete search among the Masonic libraries listed above, you are certainly free to do so, and I encourage you to search among others you might find on the Internet. What you will find is that Grand Lodges are recommending these authors and others that are, or were, involved in the Satanic activity I stated before (Witchcraft, Tarots, Black Magic, Kabbalism, Divination, Astrology, and every other esoteric mysticism under the Sun).

So, by your objection to being "included in that camp," either you or any organization you belong to, you have demonstrated your awareness that the entire Taxil hoax, including the Baphomet lie which was part of it, was a complete fabrication. It was completely concocted by Taxil as a deliberate hoax perpetrated on various individuals, and was fully and publicly admitted to by him, which is a matter of public record. And you have demonstrated more than once, on this forum and elsewhere, that you have had FULL KNOWLEDGE of the hoax and the circumstances surrounding it.

Yet even though you claim no connection to it or support of it, you still somehow make that kind of post, and those kinds of accusations, based FULLY on DELIBERATE LIES? Then by doing so, you have included yourself in their lies, for anyone who "loveth and believeth a lie" is included in Scripture with those who are liars.

I guess the thing that disturbs me the most about your continued posting to me, is your continued use of terms toward me like "lies" and "hypocrisy"--and your seeming unawareness and even indifference to the fact that while you have employed those terms toward me falsely, you have engaged in a pattern of lies and thus hypocrisy, which clearly indicates the applicability of the terms to actions of your own. To me, that is the most unimaginable form of gall, to accuse someone of lying while knowingly and willfully engaging in a pattern of deliberate lying yourself. And it automatically raises the question, that since these are only incidents that we know about and can prove, what undiscovered examples of it may have gone by undetected?

And I suppose you would probably have us believe that it is "coincidence" or "irrelevant" that shortly after these issues were first addressed to you privately, you were suddenly dropped from the list of moderators at the emfj forum board--a move obviously calculated to limit any fallout that might occur?

I have no desire to shame you publicly, that is not the intent of posting these things. If that had been my intent, then it would not have taken me as long as it has before posting the proof of the nature of your claims publicly. I have raised these issues with you privately, I have approached it with semi-exposure on another forum ("semi" in the sense that it has far less traffic than say, this forum), and have so far seen nothing but abject, flat-footed denial of the obvious. I sincerely hope you will see the gravity of your actions, and the direction that your continued persistence in these things will take you. Yes, it's serious, but it's something with an easy remedy of sincere repentance--to God, not to me or anybody else.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne, when I said:

Before posting the Hall piece I did look at a few sources, including the original ariticle. In my view, the version I posted was accurate to the original. Your supplying what was omitted by the ellipses did NOT change my personal conclusion. That's why I ultimately responded with the full text of ALL three sources I used to make my point, so that anyone interested could draw their own informed conclusion.

I meant then, and I state again now, that with or without ellipses, Hall's points remain unchanged and readers can see for themselves. I never said that my sources contained ellipses, you misread what I said and have now ran with it as some sort of lie, when it is you fabricating a lie by twisting my words in creating your own.

One published by Hall Publishing, the other by Philosophical Research Society; One is first edition, the other is a 1984 reprint; one is 1929, the other is 1984; one lists pages 397-417, the other, listing only the page you quoted from, is 433--which is not even within the range of pages listed on the other.

Clearly the second link you posted, claiming it as the source from which you posted the first quote, is not the same link.

That being the case,

LIE #2 is prettty fundamental: you claim original source quoting, and are caught in your own lie, because you lied the second time around concerning where you got the first post.

When I said "original source" I meant that it came from Manly Hall, and that is true regardless of which edition you choose. Hall Publishing and the Philosophical Research Society were both founded by Manly P. Hall. You're simply trying to pull a technicality to say I lied when I didn't, so again you are lying about me instead.

As for the Baphomet post, I got it from Stephen Dafoe's Masonic web site, I was simply providing informatioh from Masons about the issue in the context of where that thread was at the time. Regarding the post about the symbols on the dollar bill, it is true that many of them just so happen to be Masonic symbols. That is not a promotion, it is simply stating a matter of fact.

In either case, two posts hardly constitute promoting Masonic conspiracy theories. Anyone who has visited our web site, or has read most of my posts here, or elsewhere on the topic of Freemasonry, or have heard me on Christian radio or have seen me on Christian television will concur that my primary contention, and that of our ministry, has always been the biblical incompatibility of Freemasonry.

You can try to say otherwise, mislead the readers of this thread and attempt to destroy my character all you want. But, I know that I state the truth and God's does too! He also knows that you are the compromising pastor who dishonors him with your friendship with a "man-made" world system wearing a minister's "cloth" and an unholy, unrighteous, "works based" Masonic Apron at the same time.

If you would only understand how foolish you look, not only to the saints on this forum and everywhere else you try to convince Christians to accept your religious cult, but more importantly in the sight of Almighty God you would shrink in embarrassment. Yet hopefully, in doing so you might humble yourself to God and repent. But, instead you are so spiritually blind that you can't even see beyond your own pridefully egotistical arrogance.

Let me remind you, Corey, Bill and all other Masons who come here claiming to be Christians, while participating in this worldly system called Freemasonry:

James 4:4

You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

1 John 2:15

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

 

[Rev Wayne]

When I said "original source" I meant that it came from Manly Hall, and that is true regardless of which edition you choose. Hall Publishing and the Philosophical Research Society were both founded by Manly P. Hall. You're simply trying to pull a technicality to say I lied when I didn't, so again you are lying about me instead.

Which explains absolutely nothing about why the missing portions to begin with. But discerning readers know it for what it is when it fits a pattern, as that piece clearly does, whether butchered by you or someone else.
The only reason you ever claimed it was from an original source, was because I had immediately raised the suggestion that because it matched the quote as it appears on antimason sites, it was 99% likely you quoted it from one of them. As a matter of fact, I knwo which one it most likely was, since it is the only site I have ever found that includes the 1984 date.

(I won't repost it here, but the context of both posts clearly reveals that your claim about "original source" means exactly what I have shown it to be--a claim that the link in the second post was the same place you obtained the quote in the first post--which is solidly and irrefutably untrue.)

I meant then, and I state again now, that with or without ellipses, Hall's points remain unchanged and readers can see for themselves.

Hall's point never had anything to do with the omission. The omission was done to remove the mention in Hall's text that indicated his focus was mainly historical. You have not refuted the point at any time, mainly because you can't. It speaks for itself.

When I said "original source" I meant that it came from Manly Hall, and that is true regardless of which edition you choose. Hall Publishing and the Philosophical Research Society were both founded by Manly P. Hall. You're simply trying to pull a technicality to say I lied when I didn't, so again you are lying about me instead.

No, you posted it once with one bibliographic entry, and when it was criticized, you switched to the other one, because you knew the first one was not an original source--and by that time you had already stuck your foot in your mouth by loudly proclaiming it was from the "original."

You are fogetting, the posting of the link to the second site clearly reveals that you lied. You posted the second link, clearly claiming: "Here, go look for yourself, you will see I quoted this from the original." But when I got there, I found a totally different bibliographic entry that made it clear you were lying. The fact is, you got careless, either thinking no one would be that thorough, or simply being blind to the differences.

As for the Baphomet post, I got it from Stephen Dafoe's Masonic web site, I was simply providing informatioh from Masons about the issue in the context of where that thread was at the time.

Didn't you read my post? Where you got it and what it said have nothing to do with my point. The FACT is, the information is false, and you will not find it presented on Stephen Dafoe's site as a matter of "information about Masonry." It is thoroughly excoriated and repudiated, just as it should be.

And had it not been for your convenient practice of ellipsis, this would have been clear to everyone when you quoted it. Your post read:

According to the controversial author, Nesta Webster, Eliphas Lévi held the conviction that not only did the Templars adore the Baphomet but anyone embracing the Occult sciences did also. . .

"Let us declare for the edification of the vulgar....and for the greater glory of the Church which has persecuted the Templars, burned the magicians and excommunicated the Freemasons, etc., let us say boldly and loudly, that all the initiates of the occult sciences... have adored do and always will adore that which is signified by this frightful symbol [The Sabbatic Goat]. Yes, in our profound conviction, the Grand Masters of the order of The Templars adored Baphomet and caused him to be adored by their initiates."

The original once again:

According to the controversial author, Nesta Webster, Eliphas Lévi held the conviction that not only did the Templars adore the Baphomet but anyone embracing the Occult sciences did also. We see this in an alleged quote of his own words taken from the works of Nesta Webster, who may well have taken it out of context as so many such writers are want to do. Note the … usage which we have dealt with on another page. A common tactic for misquoting:

"Let us declare for the edification of the vulgar....and for the greater glory of the Church which has persecuted the Templars, burned the magicians and excommunicated the Freemasons, etc., let us say boldly and loudly, that all the initiates of the occult sciences... have adored do and always will adore that which is signified by this frightful symbol [The Sabbatic Goat]. Yes, in our profound conviction, the Grand Masters of the order of The Templars adored Baphomet and caused him to be adored by their initiates."

Gee, Mike, you seem to be stepping in deeper with each new attempt to cover your tracks. At least the ellipses this time, except for the first one of course, were not yours.

But you seem to have totally ignored Mr. Dafoe's comments that this is an "alleged" quote, you ignored the fact that he said it was out of context, and you ignored the GLARING and unmistakable statement about the use of ellipses for the purpose of intentionally mis-quoting!!

Never mind that, you didn't really "ignore" anything at all. You purposely ellipsed out the parts of the quote that thoroughly refute its having anything to do with truth at all.

Don't take my word for it, folks, it's right there in all its splendor at http://www.templarhistory.com/levi.html

In either case, two posts hardly constitute promoting Masonic conspiracy theories. Anyone who has visited our web site, or has read most of my posts here, or elsewhere on the topic of Freemasonry, or have heard me on Christian radio or have seen me on Christian television will concur that my primary contention, and that of our ministry, has always been the biblical incompatibility of Freemasonry.

Mike! Hey, Michael!

Over here, buddy, in this corner. We're talking about methods, not "primary contentions." You can contend all you wish, but how should you contend for the Gospel?

"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8)

Quite an illustrious group you've associated yourself with. The point is, if you will use this book of the Law and beat Masons over the head with it, better keep your own house in order, keep your nose clean, drop the dishonesty, which is not "lawful use," that is, it's bad methodology to use the tactics you are using. And clearly you know better. Your efforts at self-justification are wasted on me. I've always seen your tactics for what they are, remember? And sadly, they continue even now.

You can try to say otherwise, mislead the readers of this thread and attempt to destroy my character all you want.

I haven't misled anyone, I've simply posted the truth about your actions, just as you have exhibited them. The only person destroying your character is you, I have concealed the matter on this forum up until now, when your latest attack labeling me a liar was posted. It was simply one straw too many, and don't think for a minute I enjoy it, or that I will let you deceive the readers of this forum any more than you have already attempted thus far.

It didn't escape my attention that the intensity and fervency of your posts went up a few notches the minute I posted my intention to start posting an exposee of antimason lying. The fact is, from that point you and I both knew where this was potentially headed.

I know that I state the truth and God's does too!

Well, God certainly knows what we all do, and our intentions as well, of that you can be certain. The question is, how can you not be fearful and/or penitent?

He also knows that you are the compromising pastor who dishonors him with your friendship with a "man-made" world system wearing a minister's "cloth" and an unholy, unrighteous, "works based" Masonic Apron at the same time.

Well, I have to ask Him for His mercy and grace just to make it through every day. My salvation is dependent upon what He has already done, not upon anything I may have done or yet attempt to do. If you wish to call that a "works-based" concept of salvation, you may, but you must first destroy all meaning of the words. You really need to lighten up. You have stated in your own testimony that you knew when you were a member of the Lodge that the Lodge was not in any way understood by you as your religion, and you have testified that you were indeed a Christian while in the Lodge, even though you were in that dread class of deceivers, the "higher degrees." Seems to me you have a double standard when it comes to talking to Masons about Lodge membership compared to talking about your own experience in the Lodge.

Perhaps that explains why you have the current double standard you employ, accusing Masons of satanism and all kinds of dastardly other accusations, simply because they belong to a group that engages in charitable actions; and excusing yourself from any of the same calumny when offering your testimony. The whole thing about receiving the Albert Pike book at completion of the 32nd degree, for instance, is still your old pat monologue about "the higher degrees" and their attempts to "deceive" the newer Masons--in spite of the fact that at the time you received the book, you were, to follow the trail of your common accusation, "one of them."

If you would only understand how foolish you look, not only to the saints on this forum and everywhere else you try to convince Christians to accept your religious cult

I haven't tried to convince anyone else of anything except your own duplicity, hiding a pack of lies behind a Christian banner, the same as so many other antimasons. And as many times as you have violated forum rules by promoting your lying accusations here, don't deepen your already exposed hypocrisy any further with this accusation.

And I have yet to understand what it is about your exposed lies that makes me look foolish.

James 4:4

You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

Nothing wrong with offering scriptural exhortations to one another, I welcome them at all times. And I offer one back for your consideration, the completion of the section from which the verse from 1 Timothy was quoted earlier:

knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

I stand by all I have declared on this matter. It is a matter of public record, as I already stated, so how could I do otherwise?

(1) You posted a quote and declared it came from a 1984 publication;
(2) You later posted a link to the original document, and claimed it was where your post came from--yet it was from 1929, the page numbers listed had it ending 16 pages before the page number listed in the first citation, and they listed two different publishers.

And you claim now that you weren't lying by claiming the second was the source of your post?

Have you forgotten, or have you simply never heard or read or understood, the law of mutual exclusion?

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne, quit blowing smoke, you're gonna start a fire in here.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wayne, quit blowing smoke, you're gonna start a fire in here.

The old saying is, "where there is smoke, there IS fire."

And another old saying is, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Besides, I'm not the one cooking up all the nonsense.


[sign]If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck. . .[/sign]

 

[Rev Wayne]

Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. . . .So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters astray.
(Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 104-105)

Pretty simple, right? No big deal. But speaking of hiding, what was Ankerberg hiding when he left out part of the quote? Take a look:

Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it. So God Himself incapacitates many men, by color-blindness, to distinguish colors, and leads the masses away from the highest Truth, giving them the power to attain only so much of it as it is profitable to them to know. Every age has had a religion suited to its capacity.

The Teachers, even of Christianity, are, in general, the most ignorant of the true meaning of that which they teach. There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible. To most who read it, it is as incomprehensible as the Sohar. So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters astray.

Well, the things that don't come through in Ankerberg's ellipsed version are actually many:

--God Himself incapacitates people, letting them know only so much as is profitable for them to know;
--Teachers of Christianity are generally the most ignorant of what they teach;
--The Bible is a book of which little is known;
--Most people who read the Bible find it pretty incomprehensible.

But the easiest thing of all to see is: a direct correlation is drawn from the difficulty of understanding the Bible, to the difficulty of understanding Masonry's system of symbolism.

And notice that the conceal-ER that he speaks of is not the Mason, much less one of any specific degree, e.g. a 32nd or 33rd as this often gets portrayed. No, a concealment is not being perpetrated by Masons, as Ankerberg and others would have us think--rather, the conceal-ER in this case is Masonry itself. In other words, he is only remarking on the difficulty of interpreting symbols, which can often render quite different answers, depending on the inherent meaning the individual may see, from viewpoints that can vary widely from one culture to another.

The statement is simply being made, to put it in a sentence, "Masonry is as difficult to understand as the Bible."

Now, in anticipation of the defense, it will probably be said, "But it doesn't change what was said, it says Masonry has secrets."

Well, that kind of response can only be made if someone is keeping it in drydock and paying no attention to context. And the spin put on it is always the key element. From meta-religion.com, for instance:

Did you hear these key words from Pike? Masonry is a religion after all, after the order of the Satanic Mysteries, the equally Satanic Hermetic Philosophy, and Alchemy! Masonry conceals its secrets from the brethren in the outer visible society, no matter their rank; only the Elect in the inner invisible society ever know the truth. The poor brethren in the visible society are spoon-fed "false explanations and misinterpretations" of its symbols" -- for what reason? -- those poor guys in the visible society "deserve only to be mislead".

Now look at the portion I highlighted. Even though Pike was stating a very different matter, that Masonry is inherently difficult to interpret, the spin they put on it clearly tries to implicate the "elect" in this concealment, even making it sound worse by calling it "spoon-fed."

Antimasons don't have to lie directly to get false information out; all they have to do is spoon-feed the public, offering only as much of the information as will work to their advantage, and slicing out the filler material in between that gives the clearer picture.

This kind of tactic is devious, insidious, and intentionally deceiving.

 

[cwebber]

Truth is not the cause of Anit-Masonic folks they as its been proven, shown that their material is from clandestian Masonic gruops they proclaim it to be of regular Freemaosnry. And go about devoering the weak Christian brothers as a Lion goes about feasting on the sick and lame.

It is sad to see my Christian Brothers act this way. To use what they know is False and incorrect. What has been proven by research that Weldon and Ankerburg knowing used false information to bare FALSE WITENESS against their Christian Brothers.

And here we have two more Christian Brothers who have fallen for the lies that Satan as put out to keep strife between Christians.

I pray Mike and Thad that one day you will see the Truth and actually study Freemasonry for yourself and not that someone elses blatant lies for Truth such as you have done.

I pray for you my Brothers in Christ that the blinders that Satan has on you will be lifted.

In Christ
Corey

 

[O.F.F.]

Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it. So God Himself incapacitates many men, by color-blindness, to distinguish colors, and leads the masses away from the highest Truth, giving them the power to attain only so much of it as it is profitable to them to know. Every age has had a religion suited to its capacity.

The Teachers, even of Christianity, are, in general, the most ignorant of the true meaning of that which they teach. There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible. To most who read it, it is as incomprehensible as the Sohar. So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters astray.

(Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 104-105)

Well, the things that don't come through in Ankerberg's ellipsed version are actually many:

--God Himself incapacitates people, letting them know only so much as is profitable for them to know;
--Teachers of Christianity are generally the most ignorant of what they teach;
--The Bible is a book of which little is known;
--Most people who read the Bible find it pretty incomprehensible.

But the easiest thing of all to see is: a direct correlation is drawn from the difficulty of understanding the Bible, to the difficulty of understanding Masonry's system of symbolism.

And notice that the conceal-ER that he speaks of is not the Mason, much less one of any specific degree, e.g. a 32nd or 33rd as this often gets portrayed. No, a concealment is not being perpetrated by Masons, as Ankerberg and others would have us think--rather, the conceal-ER in this case is Masonry itself. In other words, he is only remarking on the difficulty of interpreting symbols, which can often render quite different answers, depending on the inherent meaning the individual may see, from viewpoints that can vary widely from one culture to another.

The statement is simply being made, to put it in a sentence, "Masonry is as difficult to understand as the Bible."

This is so ridiculous it's a "crock of bull!" First of all, the Bible is only difficult to understand by non-believers as a result of their disbelief and for some "babies in Christ" due to their carnality as new saints. Yes, God deliberately blinds the understanding of His Word to some people, because it is not meant for those who will never come to know him due to their own sinfully stubborn will. However, those who will come to know Him and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, God will reveal His Word to them and it will be interpreted to them by the Holy Spirit. Several passages come to mind that help explain this:

Matthew 13:9-14

9He who has ears, let him hear." 10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" 11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:

"Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

1 Corinthians 2:9-11

9However, as it is written:

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" — 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

John 14:23-26

23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. 25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26

26"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

John 16:12-14

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

2 Peter 1:19-21

19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, for you to take part of a statement to draw a conclusion about the entire statement makes you guilty of the very thing you accuse opposers of the Masonic faith. You list things that you claim don't come through in Ankerberg's ellipsed version and summarize them as being the point Pike is making by his entire statement. How can you ignore the fact that he says:

1. Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect.

2. Masonry uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled.

Morals & Dogma was written by a Mason (Albert Pike) for Masons, not the general public. Since his intended audience are Masons, it stands to reason that the Adepts, Sages, and the Elect he refers to must be Masons too. Masonry is an institution made up of men. An institution in and of itself can't "conceal" or do anything; as if it had a mind of its own. What they do, is done by the people who operate in them. In this case, they are Masons.

By the same token, Marriage is an institution, but marriage in and of itself can't produce a loving, lasting relationship; only the couple involved can make that happen with a lifetime commitment to work at it. Therefore Masons, not Masonry, are the ones who use false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled.

This is further explained by Pike later in his book where he states very clearly that:

The symbols of the wise always become the idols of the ignorant multitude. What the chiefs of the [Masonic] Order really believe and taught, is indicated to the Adepts by the hints contained in the high Degrees of Free-Masonry, and by the symbols which only the Adepts understand.

The Blue Degrees [the first 3 degrees of Freemasonry] are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry.

Morals & Dogma, pg. 818 [emphasis added]

Now, going back to Pike's earlier quote Wayne used above; if you look at the very next paragraph he gives an example of how Blue Lodge initiates are duped:

To the Circle inclosing the central point, and itself traced between two parallel lines, a figure purely Kabalistic, these persons [Masons] have added the superimposed Bible, and even reared on that the ladder with three or nine rounds, and then given a vapid interpretation of the whole, so profoundly absurd as actually to excite admiration.

Morals and Dogma, p. 105 (emphasis added)

What is he talking about here? He is referring to the following symbolism and explanation, but as you'll see, not only was the Bible superimposed, but so are two saints:

OUR ANCIENT BRETHREN DEDICATED their Lodges to King Solomon, because he was our first Most Excellent Grand Master; but modern Masons dedicate theirs to St. John the Baptist, and St. John the Evangelist, who were two eminent patrons of Masonry; and since their time, there is represented, in every regular and well-governed Lodge, a certain point within a circle, embordered by two perpendicular parallel lines, representing St. John the Baptist and St.John the Evangelist; and upon the top rests the Holy Scriptures. The point represents the individual brother; the circle is the boundary line of duty, beyond which he is never to suffer his prejudices or passions to betray him. In going around this circle, he necessarily touches upon these two lines, as well as the Holy Scriptures; and while a Mason keeps himself thus circumscribed within these due bounds, it is impossible that he should materially err.

Grand Lodge of Kentucky, Kentucky Monitor, p.48, 49

The Grand Lodge of Tennessee is almost identical, except the opening paragraph:

Our ancient brethren dedicated their Lodges to King Solomon; but since the introduction of Christianity, they are dedicated to the memory of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist in all Christian countries.

Tennessee Craftsman, p. 29, 30

And, from Rev. Wayne's South Carolina Monitor, Ahimon Rezon, p.99-102 we learn:

The point within a circle is an interesting and important symbol in Free Masonry, but it has been so debased in the interpretation of it given in the modern lectures that the sooner that interpretation is forgotten by the Masonic student, the better will it be. The symbol is really a beautiful but somewhat abstruse allusion to the old sun-worship.

The two parallel lines, which in the modern lectures are said to represent St. John the Baptist and St, John the Evangelist, really allude to particular periods in the sun's annual course. At two particular points in this course the sun is found on the zodiacal signs Cancer and Capricorn, which are distinguished as the summer and winter solstice. When the sun is in these points, he has reached respectively his greatest northern and southern limit. These points, if we suppose the circle to represent the sun's annual course, will be indicated by the point where the parallel lines touch the circle. But the days when the sun reaches these points are the 21st of June and the 22d of December, and this will account for their subsequent application to the two Saints John, whose anniversaries the *Church has placed near those days. [*Catholicism. Note by this author]

So the true interpretation of the point within the circle is the same as that of the Master and Wardens of a Lodge. The reference to the symbolism of the world and the Lodge is preserved in both. The Master and Wardens are symbols of the sun - the Lodge, of the universe or the world; the point also is the symbol of the same sun, and the surrounding circle of the universe, while the two parallel lines really point, not to two saints, but to the two northern and southern limits of the sun's course." [emphasis mine]

But Pike said that these Blue Lodge interpretations are "vapid" and "so profoundly absurd as actually to excite admiration." In other words, Masons might get excited when they hear this lecture, and "Christian" Masons in particular may hone in on the biblical reference to a couple of saints, but Pike -- who is considered an expert on Freemasonry -- says that its real meaning is "purely Kabalistic."

"Esoteric organizations such as Freemasonry are implicit rather than explicit in their use of Kabbalah; that is, while they don’t openly teach from the Kabbalah (most Masons don’t even know what it is), their symbols and esoteric doctrine are steeped in its mystical teachings." -- Carl Teichrib [emphasis added]

Carl Teichrib is a researcher and writer on world religions and the impact of globalization on Christianity

So, according to Albert Pike, one of the great leaders of the Masonic Order, a Sage and Adept Mason himself, declares that Masons in the lower Blue Lodge degrees have been deliberately deceived by false interpretations of the symbolism reserved for those who deligently seek after their true meaning as an Adept. In his futile quest to prove some sort of anti-masonic propaganda, Wayne and other Masons here fail to realize that they have been duped by the very organization they try to defend.

How satanic and diabolical can an organization be, when it purposefully superimposes Christian interpretations as a front to cover-up mystical teachings that have nothing to do with the Bible? And to think, some Christians and even Christian pastors fall for it.

 

[Rev Wayne]

and for some "babies in Christ" due to their carnality as new saints.

Gee, you almost slid the main point past everybody unnoticed. Or come to think of it, it probably was unnoticed--by you.



1 Corinthians 3:2--"I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able"



Yes, they were carnal, but that doesn't change the fact that they were still Christians. And the reason they were carnal?---they were "babes." Peter has more to say on that matter:



"As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious."--1 Peter 2:2-3



So these "babes" receive instruction to be fed by the Word so that they can grow. Now to Hebrews 5:12-13:



For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.



So now we come to the prospect that one who has already grown past the milk stage, may yet find that the process can be reversed if one stops feeding on the Word that helped him grow, and he is back to the milk stage, and once again “unskilled in the Word.”



So one’s ability to comprehend truth is clearly NOT a static thing. Just in these few verses, which are not all the Bible has to say on the matter, you can see that one may grow, or one may wither. I would even take it a step further and say that there is no such thing as standing still. We are either progressing on the path, or we are malingering.



And not all of it is due to being “babes” in Christ. Even someone with knowledge that should be considered beyond the “babe” stage may yet have spiritual truths beyond his comprehension. Jesus told His disciples, just before He was about to go to the Cross and then take His departure from them,



“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12)



And even the Christian who is “of full age,” to use the Scriptural analogy, still has spiritual truths that are beyond him, because “Now we see through a glass, darkly, but then, face to face.” And we all know that “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” So the ultimate spiritual truths of the things that are to be, are things which we have yet to learn, and cannot lift the veil and see now. But even so, there are some who have been privileged to do so, like Paul’s vision of being “carried up to the third heaven,” or John’s being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.”



Therefore I submit that your whole pretext (or perhaps even pretense) is preposterous.

As for the rest of your post, all I can assume is that you have early-onset Alzheimer’s, as that argument was thoroughly refuted several pages ago on this very thread. It went something like this:



(1) I found a statement on the BC/Yukon Grand Lodge webpage that declared that Mackey in later life had retracted his earlier theories about ancient origins for Freemasonry. I posted it here, but you declared it was not good enough.



(2) So I found a neutral party, Edmund Mazet, who in “Esotericism and Freemasonry” declared that Freemasonry was Christian at its origin in the Middle Age trade guilds, and the esoteric elements were layered on later. You declared that this also was not good enough for you.



(3) So I found one of your favorite Masonic authors to quote, Henry Wilson Coil, who himself had written a statement declaring the very same thing. Yet, even though you had always laid special claim to how “eminent an authority” Coil was, yet even this was not good enough for you. And very shortly thereafter, you made the statement:

I want to read the retraction from Mackey's own words

, not yours or some other Masonic writer. If you CAN show me this I will acknowledge it publicly with an apology. Otherwise, I will stick to my position that no such retraction was EVER made to my knowledge.

So, always being quite willing to oblige, and to go the extra mile, I kept pursuing my reading until I finally stumbled across a brief comment by Mackey in his Encyclopedia that he had made such a retraction, and in parentheses he referred the reader to the topic of “Antiquity of Freemasonry.” Within that article, he stated that he had changed his views, and made the following statement about it, which clearly refutes your attempts now to use this again as a representation of anything to do with Freemasonry:

I cannot find any incontrovertible evidence that would trace Masonry, as now organized, beyond the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages.

Even though I had assured you beforehand that no apology was necessary if the information turned up, you still insisted on doing so, of your own volition. At that point, the matter was settled, and eventually discussion of such nonsense was, thankfully, abandoned.



Yet now, in typical fashion as I have seen you do with other thoroughly refuted arguments, you wait for a few pages of the thread to go by, you assume the memory of it has been long left behind (or perhaps you just have selective amnesia or early-onset Alzheimer’s), and you come back here as though nothing had happened on the matter, and begin posting the same refuted arguments AGAIN????



To make things worse, this comes even after you had also been shown and quoted the evidence from an earlier version of Ahiman Rezon, of the same piece you posted, showing that in the original, there was none of the “ancient origin” speculation that is found later, particularly in the Mackey version of it found LATER in his revision of the Ahiman Rezon.



But this is typical. And since you have such an interest in going back and revisiting already settled arguments that you have lost, let’s revisit another, one which was left not quite as settled, since at the time an objection was raised which, though I discounted it as a minimal propostion, you seemed to feel it had raised enough doubt to sufficiently counter the point.



The one I speak of is the old lambskin lecture debate which you have been so fond of in the past, though refuted on it many times. The familiar quote from it:

The lambskin has in all ages been considered as an emblem of innocence and peace. The Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, will grant to those who put their trust in Him, His peace. He, therefore, who wears the lambskin as a badge of Masonry, is reminded of that purity of life and conversation, which it is absolutely necessary for them to observe, who expect to be admitted into the Grand Lodge above.

Oh, my, did I say “familiar?” Sorry about that, part of this quote is clearly not familiar, certainly not to you. But I took the liberty of highlighting in bold the portions that have never been included in what you quote, which is a version that resulted after the original lecture was changed, as much of Masonry has been changed since 1717, to remove the Christian references and elements from it. And you have to admit, “Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world” is about as Christian as it gets.



But I just remembered: I was challenged the last time I posted this, that this was not an earlier version—though no real rationale for the objection was offered. Which is why this time, I have highlighted another word in the ritual, which in the later “revised” edition does not appear either. Instead, in the later version of it, we find the word “conduct.” To show my own rationale for highlighting this as yet one more part of the original, I refer you to quotes of a verse in Scripture, as found in the original King James Bible, and as found in the New King James Bible:

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (KJV)

Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (NKJV)

One thing we know about language is that words and their meanings are not static, they are flowing. Over the course of time, practically any word you can name will move in one direction or the other on a number of different scales. One scale is pejoration vs. amelioration (strengthening vs. weakening). Another scale by which they are measured is generalization vs. specificity. It is this characteristic that is operative in the change of this word. Over time, the word “conversation,” which originally referred to all sorts of behaviors (which we now refer to as “conduct”), and came instead to refer to only one of those behaviors, our speaking. It may be described as either a more specific meaning in its newer usage, or just as easily it may be referred to as more pejorative, since words that strengthen do tend to become more specific in meaning.



In the more recently printed KJV Bibles, you will find that the word “conversation” is generally footnoted, and in the footnote it offers the alternative word “conduct.” Because the fact is, “conversation” in the sense of “conduct” is an archaism nobody uses any more.



Now consider this lambskin lecture once again. My statement was that the version with the included line about the “Lamb of God” is from an earlier form of the ritual. You claim it is not. Yet, by its inclusion also of an archaic word, used exactly as we know the word to have been used in a time which predates the modern versions of the lambskin ritual, adds further corroboration to what I have already shared about the quote. Clearly, it uses a word in a valid archaic fashion, and the most likely indication and inference to be drawn from it, is that this is truly an archaic version of the ritual, essentially unchanged from the original, save for the excision of a Christ reference, and the modernization of a word which in later years had become archaic. The Ahiman Rezon of Mackey was about 1851 and contains the revision. Another version of Ahiman Rezon printed by Daniel Sickles in 1868 also contains the revised word “conduct.” Mackey revised Dalcho’s version, whether he used the 1807 or Dalcho’s 1822 revision is uncertain. Sickles, however, used Dermott’s 1772 version of Ahiman Rezon.



A significant point to note is that both Mackey and Sickles have practically the same modern version that continues to this day, both of them with the word “conduct.” Both of them also omit the “Lamb of God” line. That would seem to place the earlier version quoted above, somewhere before the year 1772.



It would be interesting at this point to know at what time the word “conversation” made the shift to become rendered more commonly as “conduct.” If we have any language or word specialists, perhaps they could be of assistance, and maybe we can find a closer approximation for the dating of that little piece of ritual. It comes, by the way, from Macoy’s Dictionary of Freemasonry, in which he uses a variety of older sources, some of which I fear may even be unavailable to us now. I think perhaps there are Masons who would recognize the names he cites, but in his definitions, he only tacks on a last name at the end of the line, making most of them a mystery to me.



I caught the word in reading through the piece again, which I did not catch when I first obtained Macoy’s book, because of a paper I wrote in an English course I took on the history of the English language. The paper was based on a book which dealt specifically with the KJV and the archaisms it contains. That word was one of a list I compiled which detailed some of the shifts and the exact nature of each. This is one of those wonderful times when I can look back and see that there truly was something of value in all that required stuff I had to take.

 

[Rev Wayne]

From another O.F.F.ian, bosom buddy of CF's resident O.F.F.ian:

Two dead giveaways of a losing position are 1) unanswered rebuttals and 2) attempting to change the subject.

And so far:

(1) The rebuttal has gone unanswered, and:

(2) The last response amounted to mainly an attempt to change the subject, which was a specific quote by a specific author, to pull in all sorts of other things, certainly related to Masonry, but not related to the quote that was addressed.

And once again we see the two-pronged tongue in full splendor. The statement was made:

How can you ignore the fact that he says:

1. Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect.

2. Masonry uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled.

And then you turn right around and say:

An institution in and of itself can't "conceal" or do anything; as if it had a mind of its own. What they do, is done by the people who operate in them. In this case, they are Masons.

How can you ignore the fact that he says:

1. Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect.
2. Masonry uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled.

He didn't say "Masons," he said Masonry, and that is exactly what he meant. Since he said the Bible is as hard to understand and hidden in its interpretations, to even those who try to teach it, will you also claim that the Bible's teachers are deliberately trying to give false interpretations, or that those who are not yet skilled in the Word have been deceived by those who are "adept" in its use?

His meaning clearly is that Masonry and its symbols are difficult to understand, perhaps the only thing he might be accusable of is going overboard a bit in his descriptions of those who do not understand, it seems to be a huge indiscretion to speak thus of a group to which he certainly belonged at some point.

Granted, by his wording of the matter the question is almost automatic, "Is he saying upper level Masons are actively involved in deceiving initiates?"

But the answer clearly is "no." Why? Context, as always. His discussion of the Bible and the difficulty of understanding it also, clearly indicate he is speaking of the thing interpreted, and not its interpreters.

I should think you would consider it a disservice to your organization and to antimasons everywhere, to continue to allow them to look foolish by supporting this falsely based interpretation.

You objected to the comparison with Scriptures indicating God "intentionally" blinds also,

"because it is not meant for those who will never come to know him due to their own sinfully stubborn will. However, those who will come to know Him and accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, God will reveal His Word to them and it will be interpreted to them by the Holy Spirit."

What you fail to see in making that statement is, Pike has said pretty much the same thing, within the context of his remarks about the Bible and Christianity:

Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it.

I see no difference between "sinfully stubborn will" and being "unworthy or unable to receive it." The Bible tells us that "the natural man does not receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he receive them, for they are spiritually discerned."

Just as there are those who come into church and who read the Bible and yet are unconverted and go about things from an improper understanding, I think Pike is saying the same thing can happen in Masonry, and that the symbolism of Masonry has a built-in safeguard, if you will, of being impenetrable to those who should not be able to understand it.

And when that happens in Masonry, it is generally in the blue degrees, and probably most often after the EA, or so I gather from the discussions I have read of the matter. But occasionally there are those who make it much farther, even up to the "upper" degrees, and yet who have not a true understanding of Masonry. These, unfortunately, drop out later, and by the abundant accumulation of wrongly understood Masonic information, they twist it to cause unbelievable havoc with their false accusations.

 

[O.F.F.]

Don't flatter yourself Rev. Just because someone doesn't respond to a post doesn't mean anyone has won anything. Besides, why should anyone argue with a stubborn fool, when the Bible tells us not to?

Masonry uses false explanations and misinterpretations. . .He didn't say "Masons," he said Masonry, and that is exactly what he meant.

I don't care what you say, or what you think he meant, Masonry can't explain Masonry, only Masons and Ex-Masons can. But, I'm finished talking to you, Corey and Bill on the subject.

Proverbs 26:4-5

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

I've done the latter verse long enough with you guys. I now choose to take heed to the former verse.

 

[cwebber]

Mike

If it can be proven that the information that lead you to believe Freemasonry was an evil organization were False, that being Ankerburg and Weldons study on Freemasonry on which your testimoney resides that after watching the John Ankerburg Show you were lead to believe Freemaosnry is evil.

If the Information in which they presented to you is False what would you do? Would you still declare Freemaosnry Evil?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Don't flatter yourself Rev. Just because someone doesn't respond to a post doesn't mean anyone has won anything.

I didn't even know there was a contest. But if you tell me what the prize is, I'll see if it's worth the obvious cost of having to endure repeatedly refuted arguments.

Besides, why should anyone argue with a stubborn fool, when the Bible tells us not to?

Well, I do it mainly because the stubborn fool keeps posting.

I don't care what you say, or what you think he meant, Masonry can't explain Masonry, only Masons and Ex-Masons can. But, I'm finished talking to you, Corey and Bill on the subject.

It's called personification, Mike, it's a common literary device, and one that is very commonly found in Scripture, particularly the poetic passages. Kinda like "Your rod and your staff, they comfort me." Now, I've never had a rod or a staff to come and try to comfort me personally, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna start interpreting the Scripture any differently. Probably I'll continue to see this as saying that the rod and the staff (which themselves are even then figurative) of God are a comfort to me, because in the hands of my Shepherd (figurative again) they are instruments designed for my care and protection.

But with no better understanding of personification and other figurative language, you leave me wondering what kind of conniptions you're going to have when you get around to reading Psalm 85:10, and discover that "Mercy and truth have met together, righteousness and peace have kissed, truth shall spring out of the earth, and righteousness shall look down from heaven." Lord knows, that's just a little bit more than a dyed-in-the-wool, true-blue literalist can handle.

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

I've done the latter verse long enough with you guys. I now choose to take heed to the former verse.

And as you can see by the folly of your reasoning pointed out just above, I have chosen the latter course.

Your response sounds just like the little kid who invariably used to throw a temper tantrum, pick up all his toys and go home. Am I to take it by your symbolic wave that you intend this as a sign-O.F.F.?

Funny thing, though, he always came back.

 

[Rev Wayne]

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

I've done the latter verse long enough with you guys. I now choose to take heed to the former verse.

I should think that someone who shows such a comfortable familiarity with using the Scripture to insult people, would have far worse things to worry about than attacking service-minded fraternities.

So I for one will not deter you from your declared intention of abandoning further comment, in the hope that when the lightning bolts come, you will be a safe distance away.