The Masonic Concept of God

[Ellwood3]

Ellwood3 said (post #143):

The groups that have taken elements from Masonry are related in the same way borrowing (or stealing) blue paint and using it still makes the thing painted blue, even though the theft wasn't authorized.

Albion responded (post #150)

In other words, they're not related at all.

There's a thread running right now on the Lutheran forum that questions the use of a triangle and an eye in Lutheran and Catholic churches because some other groups that are not Lutheran or Catholic also use these symbols to represent something or other. Masonry also does. Are the Lutheran churches and Freemasonry therefore "related" organizations? Or is it more correct to say that two unrelated organizations use the same symbols and may not even assign the same meaning to them?


The issue here is about whether groups that have found something in common with the elements of Masonic symbols and/or practices can be said to be “related” to freemasonry. They take what they can use because a common element exists.


When wiccans and other neo-pagans use “SO MOTE IT BE” which they did get from freemasonry, it is because it fit them, like one might borrow a coat or pair of shoes that fits. The relationship between modern witchcraft and modern paganism has been recognized by the pagans and wiccans.


Can symbols have different meanings? Of course. Can different groups learn of something one has the other would like to have, and then use it in the same way?


Of course.



Like blue paint taken from one place put on another remains blue.

 

[Albion]

Albert Pike, along with Albert Mackey and Manly P. Hall, is among the foremost philosophers of Masonry.

But they only speak for themselves. This is important in Masonry--that each man develops his own character and values and is not pushed into someone else's mold. Of course those men stated their opinions and are more famous than I, but their "take" on Masonry is not more official than mine. You don't understand this because you haven't the knowledge of Masonry that Masons do and so are left to speculate and read hearsay.

It is commonly said among Masons, in dealing with Pike, that his ideas were just his own. They say he was just one man, whose ideas are no more or less important than any other.



In reality, Pike being a writer of freemasonry, his ideas were sent around the planet. He was an honorary member of many lodges around the world because his ideas resonated with others.

You can't say that. Pike was famous in his own (non-Masonic) right. For a comparison, consider Harry S Truman. He is revered in Masonic circles, but no one assumes that to be a Mason like Truman you have to be a Democrat or support his policies. Nor does anyone suggest such a thing. The same is the case with Pike. Besides, Pike CANNOT speak for Masonry because no one MAY speak officially for Masonry.

Albert Pike is the man who re-wrote the Scottish Rite.

I'm not a member of the Scottish Rite. 95% of Masons in Pike's day were not members of the Scottish Rite. Why are you characterizing them as followers of Pike, then?

Whether or not he is read by Masons, those who are in the Scottish Rite jump through his hoops.

I will await you proving even a smidgeon of proof of that. I'll patient, so bring it.

They say and do and follow his philosophy regardless of having read him or not.

and you know this...how?

Even those who are at the Entered Apprentice—the Blue Lodge’s first level—and who are in a lodge with the Scottish Rite, help pay the electric and other bills, and subsidize the teachings of Pike.

That doesn't even make sense, so again we see an uninformed non-member opining about things he doesn't even know.

 

[Albion]

Ellwood3 said (post #143):

The groups that have taken elements from Masonry are related in the same way borrowing (or stealing) blue paint and using it still makes the thing painted blue, even though the theft wasn't authorized.

Albion responded (post #150)

In other words, they're not related at all.

There's a thread running right now on the Lutheran forum that questions the use of a triangle and an eye in Lutheran and Catholic churches because some other groups that are not Lutheran or Catholic also use these symbols to represent something or other. Masonry also does. Are the Lutheran churches and Freemasonry therefore "related" organizations? Or is it more correct to say that two unrelated organizations use the same symbols and may not even assign the same meaning to them?


The issue here is about whether groups that have found something in common with the elements of Masonic symbols and/or practices can be said to be “related” to freemasonry. They take what they can use because a common element exists.

Untrue.

When wiccans and other neo-pagans use “SO MOTE IT BE” which they did get from freemasonry, it is because it fit them, like one might borrow a coat or pair of shoes that fits.

And when they borrow Christian terminology--which they do--is that the Christian Church's fault? Does this make Wicca a version of Christianity? This is the ridiculous thinking you are asking us to accept as sensible.

 

[Ellwood3]

Ellwood3 said:

Here is the definition of the word "occult":
Occult | Define Occult at Dictionary.com


Albion said:

As for the word "occult," you have given me the dictionary definitions and there are eleven of them. Only the first is relevant to the notion that Masonry might have something to do with the occult. It reads as follows:

That's what opponents of Masonry are charging--not one of the other meanings, most of which are completely unrelated and/or benign.

And my answer? Masonry does NOT engage in magic, astrology, or promote or engage in anything that involves purportedly supernatural secrets or powers. The claim is totally false.




Dictionary definitions are not used in the way you describe. It is not only the first which applies. Any or all, even just one, or the last one, by definition, meets the definition of the word.


The primary meaning of the word, is “hidden.” That is why, in the example I gave above for fecal occult blood, the word “occult’ by definition, applies.



I said:


As a group that has secrets "disclosed or communicated only to the initiated" Freemasonry qualifies as occult on that basis alone. Here is another link:

Fecal occult blood test Definition - Tests and Procedures - Mayo Clinic

The word "hidden" is one definition of "occult." Blood hidden in a stool sample is occult because it is hidden.



The occult nature of Masonic groups and also related groups is partly in the way they are structured: the first level Entered Apprentice does not know what the second level Fellow-Craft is taught and the second level

Fellow-Craft does not know what the third level Master knows. What one Apprentice understands about the true nature of freemasonry may not be known to another. Even the actual purpose and motives of the organization is only progressively revealed to each in turn as oaths are taken and the person enters more deeply into the group.


And for the claim that freemasonry does not involve anything that involves purportedly supernatural secrets … there is a Gnostic element to Masonry that is precisely that.



The claim is that there are secrets to be revealed to the spiritually blind, which in Masonry, includes Christians among the blind.

 

[Albion]

Ellwood3 said:

Here is the definition of the word "occult":
Occult | Define Occult at Dictionary.com


Albion said:

As for the word "occult," you have given me the dictionary definitions and there are eleven of them. Only the first is relevant to the notion that Masonry might have something to do with the occult. It reads as follows:

That's what opponents of Masonry are charging--not one of the other meanings, most of which are completely unrelated and/or benign.

And my answer? Masonry does NOT engage in magic, astrology, or promote or engage in anything that involves purportedly supernatural secrets or powers. The claim is totally false.

Dictionary definitions are not used in the way you describe. It is not only the first which applies. Any or all, even just one, or the last one, by definition, meets the definition of the word.

So you are taking the usual and most common definition--the only religious one--off the table, even though the charge dealt with Masonry allegedly being religious?? Interesting. But you sure want the average reader to think of the first and only religious meaning when you compare Masonry with the occult, don't you?

The primary meaning of the word, is “hidden.”

It is not. You are now reduced to arguing with the dictionary in order to save a failed claim.

By the way, there is nothing sinister in keeping a confidence. That does not make anyone an occultist. You do it when you serve on a jury, when Catholic priests exercise the right to confidentiality over what is said in the Confessional booth, when the government makes some information top secret...and no one is calling them occultists or devil worshippers.

Well, you'd better get to something at least slightly credible or wrap this up.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Even if you actually imagine that every Masonic lodge drools over Pike at every meeting, he still only spoke for himself and that is understood by us all.

As noted earlier, that simply is not true. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

As noted earlier, that simply is not true. Cordially, Skip.

And how would you know what happens in lodge meetings? Because you have copies of some state organization's by laws?

 

[americanvet]

Albion,

Those without eyes will never see, those without ears will never hear.

To the readers,

Please don't confuse the inane ramblings of an anti mason over those of us that have actually participated in Freemasonry.
Unless of course you would trust someone that has read a book on a subject vs someone that had actually participated in the subject.

This is usually the point in a thread where the anti mason becomes so enraged that they will say something in order to get the thread shut down. One only has to look at the many closed threads in this forum to get a picture of how they do this.
The anti mason gets so enraged since they can't argue effectively against what they haven't participated in. One could read every GL document from around the globe, yet still not understand fully.

As my brothers and I have stated prior on this forum, if you really want to know something, message us. American Vet has been through York rite, I've been through Scottish rite, Albion is a knowledgeable brother. Circuitrider has a unique perspective as a minister and a mason.

Many of you have messaged me over my time here and have learned many new concepts of masonry. Without the clutter and sabotage of an anti mason.

Yep I am a big fan of the York Rite. As a matter of fact was I invited to join the York Rite Sovereign College last month.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Even if you actually imagine that every Masonic lodge drools over Pike at every meeting, he still only spoke for himself and that is understood by us all.

As noted earlier, that simply is not true.

If you will note your first comment above, it begins with a conditional phrase, with the 'factual' statement coming last. The conditional phrase needs no comment, being a hypothetical, while the second part has been shown to be false elsewhere, as I pointed out.


Non-Scottish Rite Masons may think that Pike spoke for himself, but SR Masons know that is untrue, unless they've never bothered to read SR documentation, which is always a possibility. Since you are not a Scottish Rite Mason, I'd suggest you let others handle the heavy lifting on that matter.

btw, here are two quotes from Blue Lodge Masons that you may find illuminating:

The editor has not found sufficient grounds to differ from Brother Albert Pike, that whom there was never a more profound student of the arcana of our Order, ... (The Spirit of Masonry, Kentucky Monitor, 16th edition, ca. 1979)

That article was larded with references to M&D, showing Pike's influence on some Blue Lodge authorities. It was removed at some point after the 16th edition once the critics of Freemasonry started quoting from it.

(Pike) even asserted that Craft Masonry had been devised so as not only to hide its true meaning but to cause its members to think that they understood it. (Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, pg. 475)

Such is the man behind the SR degrees. Maybe that is why the 32nd degree is humbly entitled Master (or Sublime Prince) of the Royal Secret, and awarded after a weekend of sitting in a chair watching stage plays. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

But they only speak for themselves. This is important in Masonry--that each man develops his own character and values and is not pushed into someone else's mold.

That's not quite true, as in the Master Mason charge, you were told to emulate Hiram Abif. Here's how the Kentucky GL phrases it:

Your virtue, honor, and reputation are concerned in supporting with dignity the character 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 represented. Thus you will render yourself deserving of the honor which we have conferred, and merit the confidence that we have reposed. (Ritual, undated but current, pgs. 216 - 217)

The same is the case with Pike. Besides, Pike CANNOT speak for Masonry because no one MAY speak officially for Masonry.

Again, somewhat untrue. You guys speak for Masonry all the time. In truth, only the GL can speak 'officially' in their respective jurisdictions, though many Masons do not like what they have to say. Since the Scottish Rite officially acknowledges Albert Pike as the source of their rituals, and thus their philosophy and teachings, one can factually say that, in that context, Pike did speak for the Scottish Rite.

I will await you proving even a smidgeon of proof of that.

Read my post #155 for all the 'smidgeons' you need. I wouldn't call it 'jumping through the hoop,' but since SR Masons are learning Pike's philosophy as they watch the degrees, I'd say Ellwood3 had the essentials correct.

So you want me to know that I am a follower of false gods even though you know that I, a Mason, have never read or heard read or written that paragraph above entitled "Sublime Princes....etc.?" But you don't think I should consider it personal?

On the micro level, your point is well-taken. But consider this: The Scottish Rite is a Masonic institution; thus, what it teaches falls under the broad category of Freemasonry. If it taught something completely outrageous, don't you think that would affect Blue Lodge Masonry as well? Ellwood3 is also correct on his assessment about 'anti-Mason' versus 'anti-Masonry.' Speaking as an expert on the subject, I am anti-Masonry, for the religious teachings of the institution are unChristian. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Please don't confuse the inane ramblings of an anti mason over those of us that have actually participated in Freemasonry.

As a 33rd degree SR Mason, and selected at a young age at that, Simpleman25 could have easily rebutted my arguments had such a rebuttal been possible. Instead he misdirects, a tactic which I had noted earlier.

Unless of course you would trust someone that has read a book on a subject vs someone that had actually participated in the subject.

When the book is the formal rituals of the group under discussion, published by the group itself, I'd say such commentary is well-worth consideration as factual. Besides, if I'm wrong, I'm sure you guys will jump in with both feet, which you certainly should do if that ever happens. Your silence merely shows that my commentary is correct.

This is usually the point in a thread where the anti mason becomes so enraged that they will say something in order to get the thread shut down. One only has to look at the many closed threads in this forum to get a picture of how they do this.

It's a recent tactic by the Masons on this forum to bombard the moderators with perceived slights and rule violations on our part in hopes of getting our posts removed. It's a lot easier than having to factually respond to what I say. I guess I should be honored that Simpleman25 thinks I have so much power over this site that I can shut down any thread I want merely by posting something. Personally, I think that any Masonic threads that were shut down probably had more folks involved in the death than just me.

The anti mason gets so enraged since they can't argue effectively against what they haven't participated in. One could read every GL document from around the globe, yet still not understand fully.

But they can understand enough to form proper conclusions, as I have done. Feel free to point out my specific mistakes, should you find any.

As my brothers and I have stated prior on this forum, if you really want to know something, message us. ... Many of you have messaged me over my time here and have learned many new concepts of masonry. Without the clutter and sabotage of an anti mason.

I'd suggest those doing so use the open forum; otherwise, you'll never get the straight scoop. Masons like to control the message and they really don't like others disputing what they say. Once you've had both sides, you can make up your mind for yourself. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

That's not quite true, as in the Master Mason charge, you were told to emulate Hiram Abif.

To emulate him in the pursuit of wisdom, etc., not in reaching a conclusion about God.

Here's how the Kentucky GL phrases it:

I don't live in Kentucky.

Again, somewhat untrue. You guys speak for Masonry all the time.

No, we tell you what Masonry is like. We have no authority--nor do we pretend to have it--to say that we are the official representative of Masonry, the Grand Lodge, or anything of the sort. Albert Pike, however, is presented by folks like you as the definitive, official spokesman for Masonry, although he was no more than we in that regard.

 

[circuitrider]

Non-Scottish Rite Masons may think that Pike spoke for himself, but SR Masons know that is untrue, unless they've never bothered to read SR documentation, which is always a possibility. Since you are not a Scottish Rite Mason, I'd suggest you let others handle the heavy lifting on that matter.

Baloney Skip. I am a Scottish Rite Mason (32nd Degree KCCH). There are even places in the Scottish Rite ritual that quite clearly contradict Pike's own viewpoints.

Pike wrote for himself. Pike's writings aren't authoritative in the Scottish Rite any more than any individuals musings about Freemasonry are authoritative.

Time and time again you make the unbelievable claim that Masons who have received the degrees of the Scottish Rite (or other degrees) have been deceived while you, who has never received a Scottish Rite degree, know all about the "true" intent of the organization.

You claim that those who don't hold the Scottish Rite degrees don't have the truth yet every Mason knows that the highest office in Masonry with the greatest authority is the Grand Master of Masons in their jurisdiction some of which have never received the Scottish Rite degrees.

This obsession with Scottish Rite all goes back to the numbering system for the degrees. Simply because the degrees are numbered through 33 suddenly non-Masons make the assumption that the 33rd degree is more important than the Master Mason degree or the York Rite degrees which aren't numbered, totally missing the point that the numbering system is internal to the Scottish Rite and says nothing about the relative importance of degrees in other Masonic systems or rites outside the Scottish Rite.

This constant comparing of apples to oranges makes no sense Masonically or otherwise.

As a Mason who is both in the York Rite and the Scottish Rite I find it laughable that you consider the 32nd or 33rd degree higher than the Order of the Temple in the York Rite simply because a number was attached to the degree name. Even the former system of requiring that you either be a 32nd Degree Mason or a Knight Templar to join the Shrine shows that Freemasons view both rites as equal. The Scottish Rite is not some extra powerful rite for elite Freemasons at any degree.

So, it is also just plain wrong to assume that Scottish Rite Masons of any degree have higher authority in Masonry than Masons in other rites or the Grand Lodge and its Grand Master.

I don't know if you just don't understand or are just purposefully obtuse in order to denigrate Freemasonry, though I think likely the latter.

 

[Skip Sampson]

To emulate him in the pursuit of wisdom, etc., not in reaching a conclusion about God.

Here's what you originally said:

This is important in Masonry--that each man develops his own character and values and is not pushed into someone else's mold.

As I pointed out, and you just confirmed, the Master Mason is told to emulate Hiram Abif's character. Thus your original statement is untrue.

I don't live in Kentucky.

Irrelevant, as your GL's rituals have the same charge as do Kentucky and the other GLs whose rituals I own. If you will identify your jurisdiction, I'll see if I have the direct quote for you.

Albert Pike, however, is presented by folks like you as the definitive, official spokesman for Masonry, although he was no more than we in that regard.

No, I think he was quite a bit more than the Masons on this forum in speaking for Freemasonry. Personally, I don't think I've ever presented him in the light you describe, nor have many people who actually know Pike and his life. I think he's more appropriate in SR discussions specifically than in Masonic discussions in general. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

There are even places in the Scottish Rite ritual that quite clearly contradict Pike's own viewpoints.

Irrelevant.

Pike wrote for himself. Pike's writings aren't authoritative in the Scottish Rite any more than any individuals musings about Freemasonry are authoritative.

That is untrue. I'd recommend you consult my post #155 for details. But if you haven't the time, here are the bullets: Pike wrote the rituals that are in use today; Pike wrote M&D which are lectures behind the rituals; M&D was given by the SR/SJ to every SR Mason until 1974; Rex Hutchens wrote A Bridge to Light which related Pike's views in M&D to the degrees themselves and that book is given to new SR/SJ Masons; the SR/SJ in many places have highlighted Pikes importance and his official contributions to their group.

Time and time again you make the unbelievable claim that Masons who have received the degrees of the Scottish Rite (or other degrees) have been deceived while you, who has never received a Scottish Rite degree, know all about the "true" intent of the organization.

Where have I made such claims?

You claim that those who don't hold the Scottish Rite degrees don't have the truth...

Where have I made that claim? I've pointed out that Pike held that view, but I don't recall ever stating that for myself. Please document your complaint.

every Mason knows that the highest office in Masonry with the greatest authority is the Grand Master of Masons in their jurisdiction some of which have never received the Scottish Rite degrees.

I've in many places pointed out the supremacy of the GL in their specific jurisdictions. I guess you missed such commentary.

This obsession with Scottish Rite all goes back to the numbering system for the degrees. Simply because the degrees are numbered through 33 suddenly non-Masons make the assumption that the 33rd degree is more important than the Master Mason degree or the York Rite degrees which aren't numbered, totally missing the point that the numbering system is internal to the Scottish Rite and says nothing about the relative importance of degrees in other Masonic systems or rites outside the Scottish Rite.

I've made no such assumption. You might better direct that thought to Simpleman25, who, when asked if he was a Mason, immediately identified himself as a 33rd SR Mason, and a young one at that, instead of simply declaring himself a Master Mason. His response speaks volumes on that subject.

As a Mason who is both in the York Rite and the Scottish Rite I find it laughable that you consider the 32nd or 33rd degree higher than the Order of the Temple in the York Rite simply because a number was attached to the degree name.

I've never made that claim.

The Scottish Rite is not some extra powerful rite for elite Freemasons at any degree.

Never said it was. I think it's far sillier than that, and anyone making such a claim merely shows his ignorance.

So, it is also just plain wrong to assume that Scottish Rite Masons of any degree have higher authority in Masonry than Masons in other rites or the Grand Lodge and its Grand Master.

Again, I've never made that claim.

Not sure where you are getting all these strawmen, but accusing me of actions that are not mine and complaining about positions I've not taken doesn't really improve your credibility. Let's deal with what I've actually said, not with what you think I may have said. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Simpleman25]

As a 33rd degree SR Mason, and selected at a young age at that, Simpleman25 could have easily rebutted my arguments had such a rebuttal been possible. Instead he misdirects, a tactic which I had noted earlier.When the book is the formal rituals of the group under discussion, published by the group itself, I'd say such commentary is well-worth consideration as factual. Besides, if I'm wrong, I'm sure you guys will jump in with both feet, which you certainly should do if that ever happens. Your silence merely shows that my commentary is correct.It's a recent tactic by the Masons on this forum to bombard the moderators with perceived slights and rule violations on our part in hopes of getting our posts removed. It's a lot easier than having to factually respond to what I say. I guess I should be honored that Simpleman25 thinks I have so much power over this site that I can shut down any thread I want merely by posting something. Personally, I think that any Masonic threads that were shut down probably had more folks involved in the death than just me.But they can understand enough to form proper conclusions, as I have done. Feel free to point out my specific mistakes, should you find any.I'd suggest those doing so use the open forum; otherwise, you'll never get the straight scoop. Masons like to control the message and they really don't like others disputing what they say. Once you've had both sides, you can make up your mind for yourself. Cordially, Skip.

There are too many errors in your latest post to give all of them notice. Especially due to them being erroneous.

The fact that the majority of what you state is due to lack of personal knowledge is an issue you will never fully address. Take my lodge as an example. The GL states one thing, yet we do another and have for decades. Masons on this forum know exactly how we can accomplish this. A few have even said that they don't like that we do, they understand HOW we accomplish it. You don't, and never will because you are not a Mason.

As far as people who message me getting both sides, well again you couldn't be more wrong. I inform them of anti mason sites to visit. Then to come back with questions.

As far as alerting mods, I can only recall doing that twice. When rules were being broken. Namely when someone claims a group of people aren't Christians based on their own twisted interpretations.

Of course there was the time i alerted mods to my own breaking of the rules.

 

[Simpleman25]

You'd think that one would get tired of being wrong so often. SMH


I've never began a conversation concerning freemasonry with stating that I'm a 33rd degree Mason. I did bring it up since it was relevant to the conversation.

 

[Albion]

Here's what you originally said:

This is important in Masonry--that each man develops his own character and values and is not pushed into someone else's mold."

As I pointed out, and you just confirmed, the Master Mason is told to emulate Hiram Abif's character. Thus your original statement is untrue..

Skip, this beautifully illustrates why you are not interested in answers and why it's pointless to explain anything to you.

AS WE ALL CAN SEE, I said that "each man develops his own character and values and is not pushed into someone else's mold," to which you then replied, "you just confirmed, the Master Mason is told to emulate Hiram Abif's character."

Uh no, I did not say or "confirm" that we are told to emulate Hiram Abif. I said exactly the opposite--that in Masonry, each of us Masons develops HIS OWN character and values and is NOT pushed into SOMEONE ELSE's mold.

 

[Simpleman25]

Albion,

When we first met on here you stated it was a bad idea to discuss anything with skip since he is so one sided.

Even though I've debated him for some time now, I'm beginning to see how fruitless this is with him. Even when shown where he was wrong, he refuses to admit it. Yet he claims we are the arrogant ones.

 

[Albion]

Albion,

When we first met on here you stated it was a bad idea to discuss anything with skip since he is so one sided.

Even though I've debated him for some time now, I'm beginning to see how fruitless this is with him. Even when shown where he was wrong, he refuses to admit it. Yet he claims we are the arrogant ones.

And I too have succumbed to his dares and misstatements. You almost feel that you have to answer back when someone turns what you say completely around, repeats something that has already been shown to be false, or replies that you said something when you did not. At first you think he might have misunderstood, and so you're willing to patiently try again, but..

Well, we know better now.

Thanks, brother.