The Dangers of Freemasonry

[ALX25]

The Dangers of Freemasonry

A very present danger for the church today:


Can a man be a Pastor of a Christian church and be a Freemason at the same time?



For some time now I have argued the spiritual compromise of any Christian man practicing the dark art of Freemasonry, I say dark art due to the fact that I was once a mason and can speak of JESUS delivering me from the spiritual darkness of Freemasonry, furthermore the term Freemasonry and any subject matter discussed in a christian forum such as Christianfourums.com or Carm.com is located in a sub-forum deemed Cults/Group or Unorthodox Theology. You would think that would be alarming to a mason to find out that the organization they belonged to was categorized as a Cult or Unorthodox Theology. Unfortunately it is ignored by the mason and eventually accepted, they explain “it’s no big deal “, “I don’t mind it”,

For the Christian it is a big deal , there is a reason for this title to this forum, and it’s to warn the readers you are entering a territory that is to be kept separate, because it’s not of the God of the Holy Bible and the biblical teachings of our Lord and savior JESUS Christ.

There are many attempted arguments that Freemasons try to convince the Christian reader ,specifically me an Ex-mason.

The position that some Masons hold is Masonry does not conflict with Christianity, they believe their involvement is of God, the God of the Holy Bible. The Masons do not think it’s odd that their Secret Society is of concern; they don’t think it’s odd that they belong to a brotherhood of men with any and all different gods of worship. Masons don’t think it’s strange that as being a professed Christian, they would refer to and address a man that heads the Secret Masonic Lodge as Worshipful Master. Imagine if you would a group of men standing in a lodge calling a man of flesh and blood and of sin, as you and I uttering the term Worshipful Master. A term reserved only for God Jesus Christ alone, and yet of no concern to the mason.

Is that Christian practice, Do you or I use Secret pass words or handshakes to enter a Church? Do you or I swear a Secret oath to not repeat anything we learn in Bible Study or from a Sunday Sermon to the public ? Did Jesus instruct his disciples to follow him and at the same time gain membership into a Secret Masonic Lodge with the hope of understanding him better? It is absurd to even ask any Christian these questions , however these few points are exactly what a Mason wants you and I to believe and to accept.

This is a real danger to you and I and any unsuspecting christian. The secret mason could be teaching sunday school to your family without anyone knowing his secret identity. Now on a larger platform, can a man be a Pastor of a Christian church and be a Freemason at the same time?

If the pastor of a Christian church is a member of a secret organization that is labeled a Cult, what would be some of the dangers for the unsuspecting church congregation ?

Who does he serve, knowingly or unknowingly and where does he lead the congregation?

What would be the spiritual condition of the church having a pastor as a Cult member?


The floor is yours Wayne.....
​

 

[Skip Sampson]

Another great issue is who one follows. The Christian is told to emulate Jesus Christ, his savior, while the Mason is told to emulate Hiram Abif, a fictional character created within Masonry. No man can serve two masters. Cordially, Skip.

 

[ALX25]

Another great issue is who one follows. The Christian is told to emulate Jesus Christ, his savior, while the Mason is told to emulate Hiram Abif, a fictional character created within Masonry. No man can serve two masters. Cordially, Skip.

That's exactly the point Skip, who does one follow, and a pastor leading a congregation with masonic instuctions in his back pocket and a bible in his hand creates a big issue, the pastor who ignores the word of God and continues to practice the dark craft of masonry is one thing, the unsuspecting congregation in the church is another.

 

[Crosssword]

IMHO Freemasons are the "bad guys" who are making sure that Bible Prophecies come true, by faithfully playing their role in their devotion to satan at the very highest levels.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Another great issue is who one follows. The Christian is told to emulate Jesus Christ, his savior, while the Mason is told to emulate Hiram Abif, a fictional character created within Masonry. No man can serve two masters.

Pretty disingenuous of you, since you are well aware that the Mason is never told to "follow" Hiram, nor is he told to emulate anything other than the positive qualities exhibited by Hiram's actions.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
One can make their own determinations in the matter:

Your virture, honor and reputation are concerned in supporting with dignity the characrer (sic) you now bear. Let no motive, therefore, make you swerve from your duty, violate your vows, or betray your trust; but be true and faithful, and imitate the example of that celebrated artist whom you have this evening represented. Thus you will render yourself deserving of the honor which we have conferred and merit the confidence that we have reposed. (SC GL, Ahiman Rezon, 2010, MM Charge, pg. 162)

The MM degree is an odd one for the Christian. He is supposed to learn that one will die, which he already knows; that there is a life after death, which he already knows and for which he is prepared; and that he is expected to act like a fictional character, instead of the real savior.

Rather than sublime and profound, as Masons claim, I think the degree, if not Masonry itself, is just spiritual masturbation, in that it makes the practioner feel good spiritually while accomplishing nothing worthwhile. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Your virture, honor and reputation are concerned in supporting with dignity the characrer (sic) you now bear. Let no motive, therefore, make you swerve from your duty, violate your vows, or betray your trust; but be true and faithful, and imitate the example of that celebrated artist whom you have this evening represented. Thus you will render yourself deserving of the honor which we have conferred and merit the confidence that we have reposed. (SC GL, Ahiman Rezon, 2010, MM Charge, pg. 162)

The MM degree is an odd one for the Christian. He is supposed to learn that one will die, which he already knows; that there is a life after death, which he already knows and for which he is prepared; and that he is expected to act like a fictional character, instead of the real savior.

Funny how you always present only part of the picture. From the same degree, p. 149-50:

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

And, as usual, you forget the entrie system is symbolic. That "celebrated artist" is symbolic of that celebrated Savior we worship as Christians. You will even find it stated to be so in many places in Masonry. Your critique shows only (if it shows anything at all) that you don't understand the meaning of symbolic. Jesus spoke symbolically most of the time, critiquing His words for their literal meaning would be a foolish and fruitless gesture; for instance, it would be bizarre to say He taught cannibalism when He told the disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

But if we take your basic premise about Masonry and apply it in like manner, that would be the Christian equivalent that would result. It is ludicrous for anyone to think you can take that which is symbolic, apply it literally, and then criticize the result of such an entirely spurious approach.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
Your comments are simply untrue. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wayne:
Your comments are simply untrue. Cordially, Skip.

Your response is simply not a response, but a copout. Your criticisms of Freemasonry always exhibit the same error of forcing the literal upon the symbolic. This time around was no different, particularly in your comments about Hiram Abiff.

 

[RickardoHolmes]

Well, here we are again with another round of "Church vs Lodge"
Honestly, the whole topic is nothing short of reprehensible because I would never ever support a church or a religion or denomination or whatever that tried to maintain the legalism of telling me that I could not be involved in anything I wanted, including, but not limited to, freemasonry. I'd walk away.... From that church, not the lodge.
So Mote It Be.

 

[wpage]

Are the knights of columbus a evil group or the elks or moose. Why are some threatend by the Masons when the Bible and brotherhood are the core values.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Masons believe in "evil" stuff like the bortherhood of man and religious tolerance. How could that NOT be scary. I always find it odd that many of the people who go on and on about how evil the Masons are also happen to be fans of the American founding fathers many of whom were Masons themselves.

 

[O.F.F.]

And, ... the entrie system is symbolic.

Yes, for the sole purpose of allowing its adherents to substitute the symbol for whatever he images it to be; from the context of his personal religious persuasion.

That "celebrated artist" is symbolic of that celebrated Savior we worship as Christians.

But for the non-Christian that "celebrated artist" can be Krishna, Kioun-tse, Sosiosch, Dhouvanai, Horus, Balder, etc. or any other "messiah" figure of any of the world's religions:

All believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state or successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer, by whom the Evil Principle was to be overcome and the Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. The belief was general that He was to be born of a virgin and suffer a painful death. The Hindus called him Krishna; the Chinese, Kioun-tse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhouvanai; the Egyptians, Horus; Plato, Love; the Scandinavians, Balder; the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram. It is interesting that the "small hill west of Mount Moriah" has been identified as Golgotha, or Mount Calvary.

Grand Lodge of Kentucky Monitor, pp. XIV-XV, 5th-15th editions.

Freemasonry completely eliminates the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the sole Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). This should be problematic for any Christian, especially a seminary-trained, ordained pastor.

 

[ghendricks63]

But for the non-Christian that "celebrated artist" can be Krishna, Kioun-tse, Sosiosch, Dhouvanai, Horus, Balder, etc. or any other "messiah" figure of any of the world's religions:

Imagine...Christians not trying to deny other religions their rights.

We don't spread the gospel by squashing and tearing down...we spread it by simply sharing in love.

 

[O.F.F.]

Imagine...Christians not trying to deny other religions their rights.

We don't spread the gospel by squashing and tearing down...we spread it by simply sharing in love.

Agreed; but no one is denying anyone of their rights to worship however they please; nor are we squashing or tearing down their beliefs. But we should not lose sight of the fact, that in spreading the gospel in love, it means at some point we must help them recognize the true Messiah; rather than allow them to be denied heaven, because they sought the wrong one.

Giving credence to their false gods doesn't help them at all to embrace the truth.

 

[ghendricks63]

Agreed; but no one is denying anyone of their rights to worship however they please; nor are we squashing or tearing down their beliefs. But we should not lose sight of the fact, that in spreading the gospel in love, it means at some point we must help them recognize the true Messiah; rather than allow them to be denied heaven, because they sought the wrong one.

Giving credence to their false gods doesn't help them at all to embrace the truth.

No one is required (as I understand it) to give allegience to or credence to any false gods. The fact that the masons choose to allow individuals of those false faiths to participate does not in any way imply that a Christian is required to believe in them. In fact, from my reading I have been able to determine that they encourage all their members to be active in the religion of their choice.

I am just not yet seeing how they are the monsters you keep portraying them as.

 

[O.F.F.]

No one is required (as I understand it) to give allegience to or credence to any false gods. The fact that the masons choose to allow individuals of those false faiths to participate does not in any way imply that a Christian is required to believe in them.

Where in my post(s) did you get the notion that I implicitly or explicitly said a Mason, who professes to be a Christian, is "required" to give credence to false gods or believe in them? You asked me earlier to refrain from what you perceived as misrepresenting your views. With all due respect, I would appreciate it if you would give me the same courtesy.

In fact, from my reading I have been able to determine that they encourage all their members to be active in the religion of their choice.

As a professing Christian, do you honestly not see how encouraging its members to be active in the religion of their choice, gives tacit credence to those that are false?

Let me ask you this; earlier you said you believe what Jesus says in John 14:6. Therefore, if you personally do not believe that false religions are worthy of belief, since Christ is the only way to God, then why would you encourage anyone to remain active in them, or even think that it is okay for Masons to do so? Likewise, given the eternal consequence of remaining on a wrong path to God, why would a Bible-believing Christian join or persist in an organization that would encourage its non-Christian members to stay on a wrong path to the Father?

Either Jesus is who He claimed to be, or He is not. If He is, then help me understand the logic of encouraging anyone to pursue another way?

I am just not yet seeing how they are the monsters you keep portraying them as.

Again, I ask you not to mischaracterize my position. Please do not confuse my judgment of ones beliefs as judgment of the individual. Masons (believers and non-believers alike) are people—human beings made in the likeness and image of God. And "people" should be loved and respected, as much we love ourselves—regardless of their beliefs—and therefore be viewed separately from their "beliefs."

Diverse thinking, ideas and beliefs, on the other hand, must be carefully evaluated and analyzed based upon their truth-claims. In the end, logic tells us that we should be intolerant of ideas that are confused or contradictory. While at the same time we can be tolerant of the people (Mason and non-Mason alike) who hold these beliefs.

In other words, Masons are not monsters because as an institution they hold diverse religious expression (social pluralism) within it; but when it encourages its adherents to remain active in the religion of their choice, it implies that all religions lead to God (religious pluralism); which is biblically monstrous.

 

[ghendricks63]

Where in my post(s) did you get the notion that I implicitly or explicitly said a Mason, who professes to be a Christian, is "required" to give credence to false gods or believe in them? You asked me earlier to refrain from what you perceived as misrepresenting your views. With all due respect, I would appreciate it if you would give me the same courtesy.



As a professing Christian, do you honestly not see how encouraging its members to be active in the religion of their choice, gives tacit credence to those that are false?

Let me ask you this; earlier you said you believe what Jesus says in John 14:6. Therefore, if you personally do not believe that false religions are worthy of belief, since Christ is the only way to God, then why would you encourage anyone to remain active in them, or even think that it is okay for Masons to do so? Likewise, given the eternal consequence of remaining on a wrong path to God, why would a Bible-believing Christian join or persist in an organization that would encourage its non-Christian members to stay on a wrong path to the Father?

Either Jesus is who He claimed to be, or He is not. If He is, then help me understand the logic of encouraging anyone to pursue another way?



Again, I ask you not to mischaracterize my position. Please do not confuse my judgment of ones beliefs as judgment of the individual. Masons (believers and non-believers alike) are people—human beings made in the likeness and image of God. And "people" should be loved and respected, as much we love ourselves—regardless of their beliefs—and therefore be viewed separately from their "beliefs."

Diverse thinking, ideas and beliefs, on the other hand, must be carefully evaluated and analyzed based upon their truth-claims. In the end, logic tells us that we should be intolerant of ideas that are confused or contradictory. While at the same time we can be tolerant of the people (Mason and non-Mason alike) who hold these beliefs.

In other words, Masons are not monsters because as an institution they hold diverse religious expression (social pluralism) within it; but when it encourages its adherents to remain active in the religion of their choice, it implies that all religions lead to God (religious pluralism); which is biblically monstrous.

Nah...I think I am done with you. Your twisting and distorting our exchanges is beyond what I am willing to tolerate.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Freemasonry completely eliminates the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the sole Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). This should be problematic for any Christian, especially a seminary-trained, ordained pastor.

I'll tell you what should be problematic: posting spurious materials even after you have been advised of the nature of it, many times over, in past discussions. I find it hard to believe, as many times as you've had this rug pulled out from under you, that you would come back and stand on it once again.

First of all, the discussion itself is talking about the Savior motif as it is found in many other religions. Far from being something considered blameworthy, it is a fact acknowledged far and wide by Christian researchers and scholars. In fact, any Christian who has a problem understanding that the Savior motif was common to many religions, really doesn't understand the Bible very well at all. Any such Christan needs to go back and revisit the birth narrative of Matthew, and the account of PERSIAN wise men coming to see the Christ child. Funny how Masonry's critics have no problem accepting Zoroastrians following their astrological calculations with a special child in view, but go bonkers at the mere suggestion that the motif was common to other religions as well. After all, if you look at the list, isn't it clear that these wise men were searching for "Sosiosch," but accepted that Jesus was the right one when they found Him?

The quote is from Albert Pike, who was not discussing "Masonry" per se, but was addressing Scottish Rite. More specifically, he was discussing the 18th degree of Scottish Rite. And the FULL quote is found in Pike's Morals and Dogma, p. 277:

All antiquity solved the enigma of the existence of Evil, by supposing the existence of a Principle of Evil, of Demons, fallen Angels, an Ahriman, a Typhon, a Siva, a Lok, or a Satan, that, first falling themselves, and plunged in misery and darkness, tempted man to his fall, and brought sin into the world. All believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state or successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer, by whom the Evil Principle was to be overcome, and the Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. The belief was general, that He was to be born of a Virgin, and suffer a painful death. The Indians called him Chrishna; the Chinese, Kioun-tse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhouvanai; the Egyptians, Har-Oeri; Plato, Love; and the Scandinavians, Balder.

The key word, of course, I highlighted, which is "antiquity." The discussion is about pre-Christian religions of antiquity. It therefore has no reference to either Christianity or Masonry. Pirtle, quite simply, misappropriated it--which is not really surprising when it comes to quoting Pike, whether it be Mason or antimason.

The other key point of the quote has to do with what is NOT there:

"the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram."

Henry Pirtle has butchered both the content and the intent of what he has cited from Pike. By inserting these two into the list in the comments by Pike, he has the quote making the absurd proclamation that we may include among the list of pre-Christian religions with a savior motif, both Freemasonry and Christianity, which is not only anachronisitic, but pure farce.

Add to that the significant fact, that the quote you cited is merely from Pirtle's prefatory remarks, and all you really have here is an overblown antimasonic hyperventilation. Not only that, because when you consider that Pike's comments in the 18th degree Scottish Rite, from which this derives, are part of a progressive discourse that takes an argument and builds upon it to a chapter-ending climax, we do well to consider just what conclusions he makes with the remarks as a whole:

Man is once more taught to look upward to his God. No longer to a God hid in impenetrable mystery, and infinitely remote from human sympathy, emerging only at intervals from the darkness to smite and crush humanity: but a God, good, kind, beneficent, and merciful: a rather, loving the creatures He has made, with a love immeasurable and exhaustless; Who feels for us, and sympathizes with us, and sends us pain and want and disaster only that they may serve to develop in us the virtues and excellences that befit us to live with Him hereafter.
Jesus of Nazareth, the "Son of man," is the expounder of the new Law of Love. He calls to Him the humble, the poor, the Pariahs of the world. The first sentence that He pronounces blesses the world, and announces the new gospel: "Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted." He pours the oil of consolation and peace upon every crushed and bleeding heart. Every sufferer is His proselyte. He shares their sorrows, and sympathizes with all their afflictions.
He raises up the sinner and the Samaritan woman, and teaches them to hope for forgiveness. He pardons the woman taken in adultery. He selects his disciples not among the Pharisees or the Philosophers, but among the low and humble, even of the fishermen of Galilee. He heals the sick and feeds the poor. He lives among the destitute and the friendless. "Suffer little children," He said, "to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven! Blessed are the humble-minded, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven; the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth; the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; the pure in heart, for they shall see
God; the peace-maker, for they shall be called the children of God! First be reconciled to they brother, and then come and offer thy gift at the altar. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away! Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you; and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you! All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also unto them; for this is the law and the Prophets! He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me. A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another: as I have loved you, that ye also love one another: by this shall all know that ye are My disciples. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friend."
The Gospel of Love He sealed with His life. The cruelty of the Jewish Priesthood, the ignorant ferocity of the mob, and the Roman indifference to barbarian blood, nailed Him to the cross, and He expired uttering blessings upon humanity.
Dying thus, He bequeathed His teachings to man as an inestimable inheritance. Perverted and corrupted, they have served as a basis for many creeds, and been even made the warrant for in-tolerance and persecution. We here teach them in their purity. They are our Masonry; for to them good men of all creeds can subscribe.
That God is good and merciful, and loves and sympathizes with the creatures He has made; that His finger is visible in all the movements of the moral, intellectual, and material universe; that we are His children, the objects of His paternal care and regard; that all men are our brothers, whose wants we are to supply, their errors to pardon, their opinions to tolerate, their injuries to forgive; that man has an immortal soul, a free will, a right to freedom of thought and action; that all men are equal in God's sight; that we best serve God by humility, meekness, gentleness, kindness, and the other virtues which the lowly can practise as well as the lofty; this is "the new Law," the "WORD," for which the world had waited and pined so long; and every true Knight of the Rose will revere the memory of Him who taught it, and look indulgently even on those who assign to Him a character far above his own conceptions or belief, even to the extent of deeming Him Divine. (p. 309-10)

Maybe you just need a break, since you clearly are sticking your foot back into the same cowpies you were stepping into three years ago.

I too am done with wasting my time with anyone who masquerades as a pseudo-intellectual “Christian,” but hasn't the spiritual backbone to demonstrate they can withstand a well-reasoned intellectual debate.

The obvious reply to that one is, from what I just addressed above, that we have yet to see any "well-reasoned intellectual debate" on your part.

 

[O.F.F.]

The obvious reply to that one is, from what I just addressed above, that we have yet to see any "well-reasoned intellectual debate" on your part.

Given the obvious number of flaws in what you just presented, you actually have the audacity to think that you've presented a well-reasoned intellectual debate? You are sadly and pitifully mistaken.

First of all, the discussion itself is talking about the Savior motif as it is found in many other religions. Far from being something considered blameworthy, it is a fact acknowledged far and wide by Christian researchers and scholars.

Just because the motif is an acknowledged fact among world religions doesn't exonerate Masonry from denying the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. While the emphasis of a symbolic motif is stressed throughout the teachings of Freemasonry, nowhere in Masonry does it teach that Jesus Christ is the only true Savior to mankind. The reason being is because they've used the acknowledged fact in order to establish the symbol of the motif (Hiram Abiff) so that its adherents can substitute it for the motif from any religion they wish to choose—and you know it! Therefore, my point stands and remains solid.

Funny how Masonry's critics have no problem accepting Zoroastrians following their astrological calculations with a special child in view, but go bonkers at the mere suggestion that the motif was common to other religions as well.

No, what's even more strange is for a professing Christian pastor to give credence to Zoroastrian beliefs as the means that led them to discover the newly born true Savior, rather than attributing it to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

After all, if you look at the list, isn't it clear that these wise men were searching for "Sosiosch," but accepted that Jesus was the right one when they found Him?

Pastor, are you serious? Do you even think about what you say before you post it? Is that what you were taught in seminary? And you have the nerve to say that others don't understand the Bible very well at all. What do you mean "if you look at the list, isn't it clear?" If you look at the Bible it is abundantly clear who they were looking for:

Matthew 2:1-2

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

Had they been following their Zoroastrian beliefs and astrological calculations to find "Sosiosch," they would have asked, "Where is Sosiosh the one who has been born son of Zoroaster? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

The key word, of course, I highlighted, which is "antiquity." The discussion is about pre-Christian religions of antiquity.

It's interesting to see how often you contradict yourself during these debates, and you don't even realize it. As I quoted from you above, earlier you said, "First of all, the discussion itself is talking about the Savior motif as it is found in many other religions." Now, seconds later, you say, "The discussion is about pre-Christian religions of antiquity." If you want maintain any amount of credibility, and have a "well-reasoned intellectual debate," you need to make up your mind pastor, as to what is actually being discussed in the material presented.

Given the fact that the bulk of the quote is referring to a list of Savior motifs, coupled with your critique of Henry Pirtle's addition to it; Savior motifs is obviously what the discussion is about. That being the case, the operative word(s) is Mediator or Redeemer; not "antiquity." Nice try, but your sleight of hand trick failed once again.

The other key point of the quote has to do with what is NOT there:
"the Christians, Jesus; Masons, Hiram."

"Christians, Jesus" is there, so of course you meant what's missing is "Masons, Hiram." But so what, that's not the issue; the fact is, it appears in the official document of the Grand of Kentucky for 11 editions of its monitor. Not sure how often they wrote a new edition, but eleven of them may very well have been a span of a decade or two. Therefore, the question is, why did in it appear there in the first place, and be reprinted in it for so long? Apparently they wanted Masons to understand who their real savior is; namely Hiram Abiff, rather than Jesus Christ.

Finally, one of the biggest flaws in your argument is this:

Not only that, because when you consider that Pike's comments in the 18th degree Scottish Rite, from which this derives, are part of a progressive discourse that takes an argument and builds upon it to a chapter-ending climax, we do well to consider just what conclusions he makes with the remarks as a whole:

You quote a statement on page 277, and expect readers to believe an absurd notion that the point Pike was making in it was addressed some 33 pages later; without taking into consideration, at all, what he said during the previous 33 page discourse. Anyone with even an ounce of understanding of literary context can see that makes no sense at all.

What you ignore there, we find Pike giving credence to Chrishna, the Hindoo Redeemer; and he says the first Masonic Legislator was Buddha; he also declares the Phœnician Cosmogony, like all others in Asia, was the Word of God; plus he says the doctrines of Ancient Sabeism being the faith of Hiram the King and his namesake the Artist, are of interest to all Masons; he calls the Chinese Lao-Tseu the mother of the Universe; he then proclaims Isis as the most exalted of the Deities; he gives credence to the Hindu Vedas' deity, Brahma; as well as giving credence to the Egyptian gods Amu_n and Osiris along with a host of other pagan gods; not to mention his support of the Kabalah, as well as the doctrines of Zoroaster.

To ignore such discourse and jump 33 pages later to an area where he sounds more "Christian" and call it his conclusions as a whole is not only deceptive and blatantly false, it's totally ridiculous! Especially when you consider his actual conclusion, which follows afterward:

O, ye Initiates, ye whose ears are purified, receive this in your souls, as a mystery never to be lost! Reveal it to no Profane! Keep and contain it within yourselves, as an incorruptible treasure, not like gold or silver, but more precious than everything besides; for it is the knowledge of the Great Cause, of Nature, and of that which is born of both. And if you meet an Initiate, be-siege him with your prayers, that he conceal from you no new mysteries that he may know, and rest not until you have obtained them! For me, although I was initiated in the Great Mysteries by Moses, the Friend of God, yet, having seen Jeremiah, I recognized him not only as an Initiate, but as a Hierophant; and I follow his school.

We, like him, recognize all Initiates as our Brothers. We belong to no one creed or school. In all religions there is a basis of Truth; in all there is pure Morality. All that teach the cardinal tenets of Masonry we respect; all teachers and reformers of mankind we admire and revere.

Masonry also has her mission to perform. With her traditions reaching back to the earliest times, and her symbols dating further back than even the monumental history of Egypt extends, she invites all men of all religions to enlist under her banners and to war against evil, ignorance, and wrong. You are now her knight, and to her service your sword is consecrated. May you prove a worthy soldier in a worthy cause!

Moral & Dogma, page 311

I find it hard to believe, as many times as you've had this rug pulled out from under you, that you would come back and try to stand on it once again.