I think Rev. Wayne is what they call the outer ring, these folks have no clue as to what is going on in the inner circle. This is why you see him defend his masonic ties to the hilt!, all he ever witnesses is the solidarity of brotherhood, raising funds for the wonderful institutions such as shriners hospitals for children, and a host of many other well documented charities. This is why the Inner circle loves guys like Rev. Wayne and other Christians such as Ghendricks63 they are completely deceived by the outer circle and refuse to accept the reality and truth that an inner circle exist. These in the outer circle will never rise up the ladder to positions of higher knowledge and enlightenment, because the inner circle knows who that at the top of this organization, and the final secret revealed, if you were to climb the ladder of masonry is Lucifer is the light, but they know the outer circle would never worship satan so they (the outer circle)are used simply to hide behind. This is the dark truth behind masonry, neither one of these guys will understand it because they can't fathem the deception
"Inner circle" is and always has been a deception in itself, created by the accusers of Masonry, who unwittingly illustrate the very thing that is actually being stated. I will illustrate, by citing from the sources commonly appealed to in making the accusation:
The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry. (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, p. 819)
That's where the accusation usually stops. But the further context from that very point, is its surest refutation:
The whole body of the Royal and Sacerdotal Art was hidden so carefully, centuries since, in the High Degrees, as that it is even yet impossible to solve many of the enigmas which they contain. It is well enough for the mass of those called Masons, to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees; and whoso attempts to undeceive them will labor in vain, and without any true reward violate his obligations as an Adept. Masonry is the veritable Sphinx, buried to the head in the sands heaped round it by the ages.
Albert Pike simply had ideas about Masonry that were not true. He wrote Morals and Dogma in 1871. U.S. Scottish Rite Masonry had its inception in the U.S. in the early 1800's. In fact, Scottish Rite ANYWHERE did not exist until the latter 1700's (1769 is the date that comes to mind). That means Albert Pike was claiming an antiquity for Scottish Rite, when he speaks of it having hidden things within it "centuries since," that was never true in reality. The fact is, he claimed "centuries" of existence for an organization that was not yet a century old at the time he wrote the words.
Let's look at another example from this same author:
"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 mislead; to conceal the Truth, which it calls light, and draw them away from it." (Ibid., p. 105)
This is where the accusers usually stop the quote. Just for the sake of example, this is where cuttingedge website stops; but then they go back to it after adding a couple of comments about it, to pick up this line:
"So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets and intentionally leads conceited interpreters astray."
The piecemeal way in which this is done, tells me they are completely aware that the accusation is bogus, because they have, by separating these two--while to all appearances giving the impression that one continues right behind the other--created the illusion that this is ALL Pike said. Yet, for someone willing to compare it with the source, we find a different story:
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. There is no sight under the sun more pitiful and ludicrous at once, than the spectacle of the Prestons and the Webbs, not to mention the later incarnations of Dullness and Commonplace, undertaking to "explain" the old symbols of Masonry, and adding to and "improving" them, or inventing new ones.
Interesting to see, that Pike was actually saying it is GOD who prevents us from seeing "higher truth." Interesting, too, that if the authors of that website did not understand this, then they reveal themselves to be the ones Pike spoke of when he said, "Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it." More than likely, though, since they deliberately omitted the very material that refutes their argument, they were very much aware, they DID understand it, and thus fall in that latter category Pike mentioned, of those who pervert the truth.
Besides, when you consider that practically every lodge in the U.S. uses one adaptation or another of Webb's Monitor, the very fact that Pike speaks so adamantly against it is the surest sign that what we now have in Masonry probably is not a reflection of anything from Pike anyway.
And finally, there is this piece that gets cited from Manly P. Hall:
"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 [defined as 'of majestic dignity, grandeur'] fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcannum arcandrum [defined as 'a secret, a mystery']." [Hall, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, p. 433]
The first sign that something is amiss is the very source credited, "Lectures on ANCIENT Philosophy." Masonry is not "ancient." Its inception has been proven to be no earlier than late medieval period. The second clue that suggests a problem, is the ellipsis, which when used by Masonic accusers, almost always indicates something significant--and usually something which refutes the rest--has been purposely omitted. Here is a fuller representation of it:
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 portions in black show passages that accusers typically cite, the portions in red are all indicative of portions omitted by accusers. Isn't it interesting that all the red portions contain material that refutes the claim itself? In the first instance, it is clear that Hall is discussing the ORIGIN of the craft. THAT must be taken under consideration to understand what he is saying about the rest. In the second, he speaks of the HISTORY of the craft, not some structure in Masonry of the present (and he wrote this in 1929, placing the "history" even FARTHER back). In the third, he is elaborating upon just who is meant by the "secret society" of which he speaks, and he states that they "can be counted upon one's fingers."
So what we have is this: Hall is writing of the HISTORY of the craft; he is singling out for genuine praise the accomplishments of a FEW over the "achievements of ordinary men"; he states they are few in number, because they can be "counted upon one's fingers"; and he calls them "veritable princes of the truth." Hardly the basis for an accusation of some "secret organization" working behind the scenes wreaking some ungodly havoc, don't you think? Especially since it appears that the men of whom he speaks are all apparently dead and gone? But that's not all: consider that Hall wrote this decades before he ever became a Mason (1929 is the publishing date, he became a Mason in 1953). That's hardly a basis for declaring the existence of a secret "inner circle."
This gets even more bizarre when you look at all the other stuff that antimasons try to allege in their usual attempts to associate every unimaginable evil against Freemasonry. Before the cuttingedge page (which I mentiond above) concludes, they make declarations about Kessinger Publishing Co. They make the statement:
To verify this fact even further, we encourage you to go to the publishing and distribution house of Invisible Freemasonry, Kessinger's Freemasonry and Occult Publishing; Kessinger's publishes all the old, formerly very secret Masonic books of the Invisible Society.
Sure, Kessinger's publishes old books, but claiming it to be exclusively about Freemasonry is a false accusation. It never was a "distribution house of Freemasonry," that is the false conclusion of accusers. They give the address for the company, then add:
we encourage you to peruse the subjects they have listed at the very bottom of their Home Page, noting the extremely Satanic, anti-Christian subjects of which the Invisible Fraternity is comprised! We have noted a few of these subjects below as Kessinger's has listed them
Among these are "astral body," "crystal gazing," "fortune telling," "astrology," "phallicism," "serpent worship," etc.
None of these, of course, has anything to do with Freemasonry. Kessinger is simply a company that publishes a lot of old books on a variety of subjects.
And in fact, the company actually no longer exists as an independent company. They have become a part of amazon.com, which is where the kessinger link takes anyone who clicks on it these days.
There are other ways this gets presented, but these, I feel, cover the basics, and are prime illustrations of why you simply can't get your information about Freemasonry from its accusers. The entire lot of them seem to be so sold on the idea of accusing, that they are far less interested in presenting facts as they are in making sure that what they present sounds as dastardly as they can make it out to be--even to the point of falsifying it completely.