Freemasonry: Good, Bad, Indifferent

[JonC]

Good point, as I think my biggest concern on this is that it seems to draw too many Baptists into its nefarious web.

The problem is not the Freemasons recruiting Baptists (or other denominations, for that matter). There really is a tradition of history for many. It was not so long ago when a Masonic lodge was considered a "men's club" for church leadership. This, BTW, how the Knights of Columbus came to be (to encourage Catholics not to join Freemasonry).

I've found that most came to the lodge out of an interest in history. The lodge I belonged to had the apron of a US President in the lobby. Others came because it was a tradition in their family. A few, like me, just wanted to see what it was about (most of these dropped out after the EA, but some continued).

But yes, I agree with you. The Freemasons, Elks lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Odd Fellows, ect. is no place for a Christian.

Unfortunately, Christians often end up there because they take an interest in where so many churches fail - fellowship, community, and charity. Just look at this thread and consider how many times you read a Freemason speak of Baptists as Christians have addressed their brothers who are in the organization. Most Freemasons are charitable. Most anti-Mason Christians are not. And as you can often tell from my tone, I left the fraternity some time back .

 

[Yeshua1]

Just a little side note... Unless one is pointed out to you, why is it that you have never seen a Mason?... If you have ever been to certain parades you have... Remember those men that have those funny hats that drive those tiny cars... Those are Shriners, who are an off branch of the Masons... I am not implying that these organizations do not do good work to the benefit of their fellowmen, be that as it may they are still a secret society... Check out this parade... Brother Glen

I know them, as my father was one!

 

[JonC]

Just a little side note... Unless one is pointed out to you, why is it that you have never seen a Mason?... If you have ever been to certain parades you have... Remember those men that have those funny hats that drive those tiny cars... Those are Shriners, who are an off branch of the Masons... I am not implying that these organizations do not do good work to the benefit of their fellowmen, be that as it may they are still a secret society... Check out this parade... Brother Glen

That reminds me....I see they are remaking "It" to be released in September. I'm not sure that I'd like a Pennywise not played by Tim Curry, but I may have to check this one out.

 

[tyndale1946]

The problem is not the Freemasons recruiting Baptists (or other denominations, for that matter). There really is a tradition of history for many. It was not so long ago when a Masonic lodge was considered a "men's club" for church leadership. This, BTW, how the Knights of Columbus came to be (to encourage Catholics not to join Freemasonry).

I've found that most came to the lodge out of an interest in history. The lodge I belonged to had the apron of a US President in the lobby. Others came because it was a tradition in their family. A few, like me, just wanted to see what it was about (most of these dropped out after the EA, but some continued).

But yes, I agree with you. The Freemasons, Elks lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Odd Fellows, ect. is no place for a Christian.

Unfortunately, Christians often end up there because they take an interest in where so many churches fail - fellowship, community, and charity. Just look at this thread and consider how many times you read a Freemason speak of Baptists as Christians have addressed their brothers who are in the organization. Most Freemasons are charitable. Most anti-Mason Christians are not. And as you can often tell from my tone, I left the fraternity some time back .

Come on Jon!...You may have left the fraternity some time back but you still have that parade adrenalin running though your veins... Probably interrupted you as you were getting dressed for one in Tennessee... You know you're my buddy Jon... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Come on Jon!...You may have left the fraternity some time back but you still have that parade adrenalin running though your veins... Probably interrupted you as you were getting dressed for one in Tennessee... You know you're my buddy Jon... Brother Glen

You got me! Everybody loves a parade and what's a parade without a bunch of fezzes.

River Song - “Alright then I have questions, but number one is this: what, in the name of sanity, have you got on your head?”

Doctor - “It’s a fez. I wear a fez now. Fezzes are cool.”

 

[tyndale1946]

You got me! Everybody loves a parade and what's a parade without a bunch of fezzes.

River Song - “Alright then I have questions, but number one is this: what, in the name of sanity, have you got on your head?”

Doctor - “It’s a fez. I wear a fez now. Fezzes are cool.”

Oh Jon... I got you double... What you checking out clowns for?... I saw you hide that makeup case... You gotta get up pretty early to fool me... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Oh Jon... I got you double... What you checking out clowns for?... I saw you hide that makeup case... You gotta get up pretty early to fool me... Brother Glen

Nope. I've never liked those clowns (always reminded me of Ice Cream trucks and old guys handing out candy from vans.....don't know why). I'm in it for the cool golf carts that shoots smoke out of the top.

But....now that you mention it....why were you in the clown dressing room in the first place?

 

[tyndale1946]

Nope. I've never liked those clowns (always reminded me of Ice Cream trucks and old guys handing out candy from vans.....don't know why). I'm in it for the cool golf carts that shoots smoke out of the top.

But....now that you mention it....why were you in the clown dressing room in the first place?

I was just "clowning around"!... No doubt about it those Shriners had some cool wheels but when you've seen one fez you've seen them all... Brother Glen

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you literate? I am not defending the Masons any more than I would be defending Catholics if I were to say that they don't kill chickens on their altars.

I believe that Christianity and Freemasons do not jive, and that they are dangerous to the church. Where we disagree is that I also believe gullible Christians who believe anything they read is true as long as it makes them feel good about themselves and justifies what they want to say is right are just as dangerous.

You were a seminary student. If you defended your views in seminary with the sources and methods you defend your views here you would have never passed one course. It is intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant.,

What I did was tell you what Freemasonry says. I've given you proof that this is what they say. Your response should be "then they are much more dangerous in the church than my fiction allowed" but instead it's insults and false charges against me. This leads me to think that YOU are much more dangerous in the church than a Freemason could ever be. Dishonestly is NEVER justifiable even if it is on the right side of an argument.

There are men who have written exposes on Masonism that have just as much personal experience in it as you that take my side. Of course these men I guess are "illiterate" also and "intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant" and are writing "dishonestly" because they don't agree with you?!?! If insulting you and false charges against you is simply saying I don't buy your arguments and compare them to the same type of defensive techniques used by Catholics, well, I guess that is just too bad.

You are not the standard! Remember when I cited particular cases, you responded by saying, well, that must be a local fraternity thing AS THOUGH YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WAS NOT A LOCAL FRATERNITY THING AS WELL.
I did my research thorough and it went far beyond a mere local fraternity, far beyond Pike. I read multiple sources that went beyond my own personal experience. I went back to writings prior to 1950 all the way back to the early 1700's. There is the Halliwell's manuscript,(poem that traces masonary to Egypt and deeply religous nature of salvation by works) and Cooke's manuscript, and Albert Mackey's and several others (etc. Findel's History of Freemasony - who documents the deeply religious character of English Masons). The Masonic editions of the Bible prior to 1950 reflect much of this fabled history and Pike and others have no problems calling Masonism a "religion." I studied the history of the Knights Templars with the crusades. During this early period of time (1700-1950) there is remarkable agreement by almost all sources concerning how Masons viewed their own history and sources. However, just like Mormon's the Mason's in the last 75 years have been putting on new make up to make themselves more presentable. However, go back to the early 1800's at the time of Joseph Smith and read about Masonism (who incorporated Masonic rituals within Mormonism). Your view is a modern redaction that represents your own life experience that is at odds with others with equal equal experience. The claims of Masonism over the long haul reflect precisely what I have stated and there are ex-Masons with 25-30 years in Masonism that confirm it.

And yes, you are defending it, by generically admitting that it is not compatible to Christianity but then justifying it from nearly all the specific charges that would expose it for what it really is and why it is not compatible with Christianity. You would have us to believe that the continuous dispersal of Pike and Mackey as standard representations of Masonism are not standards at all but biased personal opinions. You would have us to believe the early editions of Mason Bibles with their massive historical contents of the roots and beleifs of masonism are all localized fraternal issues. Sorry, don't buy it!

Moreover, you entirely dismiss the intent and designs of the symbolisms by early Masons by saying that nowadays they are simply generic to be interpreted anyway anyone wants when in fact they did not originate with that kind of freedom. You inexcusably dismiss their ungodly oaths because of recent years they have changed but ignore the continuous history of the ungodly content of these oaths prior to the modern times. I guess they are just fraternal oddities also huh? You want to put a new face on Masonism because that is what Masonism had done in the past 50 years rather than look at is luciferian roots and self-admitted origin with paganism and its symbols that permeate histories by its self-admitted historians and permeate its editions of Bibles early than 1950. . Sorry don't buy it.

You want to dissect it, and neutralize the clear pagan historical roots and characterizations which its own writers and Bibles repeatedly define and describe as its real history. Sorry don't buy it!

 

[The Biblicist]

There are men who have written exposes on Masonism that have just as much personal experience in it as you that take my side. Of course these men I guess are "illiterate" also and "intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant" and are writing "dishonestly" because they don't agree with you?!?! If insulting you and false charges against you is simply saying I don't buy your arguments and compare them to the same type of defensive techniques used by Catholics, well, I guess that is just too bad.

You are not the standard! Remember when I cited particular cases, you responded by saying, well, that must be a local fraternity thing AS THOUGH YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WAS NOT A LOCAL FRATERNITY THING AS WELL.
I did my research thorough and it went far beyond a mere local fraternity, far beyond Pike. I read multiple sources that went beyond my own personal experience. I went back to writings prior to 1950 all the way back to the early 1700's. There is the Halliwell's manuscript,(poem that traces masonary to Egypt and deeply religous nature of salvation by works) and Cooke's manuscript, and Albert Mackey's and several others (etc. Findel's History of Freemasony - who documents the deeply religious character of English Masons). The Masonic editions of the Bible prior to 1950 reflect much of this fabled history and Pike and others have no problems calling Masonism a "religion." I studied the history of the Knights Templars with the crusades. During this early period of time (1700-1950) there is remarkable agreement by almost all sources concerning how Masons viewed their own history and sources. However, just like Mormon's the Mason's in the last 75 years have been putting on new make up to make themselves more presentable. However, go back to the early 1800's at the time of Joseph Smith and read about Masonism (who incorporated Masonic rituals within Mormonism). Your view is a modern redaction that represents your own life experience that is at odds with others with equal equal experience. The claims of Masonism over the long haul reflect precisely what I have stated and there are ex-Masons with 25-30 years in Masonism that confirm it.

And yes, you are defending it, by generically admitting that it is not compatible to Christianity but then justifying it from nearly all the specific charges that would expose it for what it really is and why it is not compatible with Christianity. You would have us to believe that the continuous dispersal of Pike and Mackey as standard representations of Masonism are not standards at all but biased personal opinions. You would have us to believe the early editions of Mason Bibles with their massive historical contents of the roots and beleifs of masonism are all localized fraternal issues. Sorry, don't buy it!

Moreover, you entirely dismiss the intent and designs of the symbolisms by early Masons by saying that nowadays they are simply generic to be interpreted anyway anyone wants when in fact they did not originate with that kind of freedom. You inexcusably dismiss their ungodly oaths because of recent years they have changed but ignore the continuous history of the ungodly content of these oaths prior to the modern times. I guess they are just fraternal oddities also huh? You want to put a new face on Masonism because that is what Masonism had done in the past 50 years rather than look at is luciferian roots and self-admitted origin with paganism and its symbols that permeate histories by its self-admitted historians and permeate its editions of Bibles early than 1950. . Sorry don't buy it.

You want to dissect it, and neutralize the clear pagan historical roots and characterizations which its own writers and Bibles repeatedly define and describe as its real history. Sorry don't buy it!

The documented history of Masonism in England/Scotland is deeply religious and almost inseparable from the Catholic Church and Reformation churches as Halliwell's poem clearly demonstrates. Halliwel's poem is a works for salvation type of Masonism that is inseparable from sacramental theology. Indeed, Halliwel's poem speaks of civil law enforcement against members who violate their craft.

To claim that Masonism is not a highly religious order is to ignore their earliest documented history.

Although, Findel and other Masonic historians admit they cannot document a clear historical line earlier than from the 9th century and that similarites between the ancient mystery religions cannot be proven, nevertheless, they promote the "legend" of Masonism from the time of Adam (Findel, pp. 32-44) to 1717. Findel and other's document the Mason's close relationship with the Roman Catholic church and building its church buildings in Europe. Rome's historical origin is with Babylon and the mystery religions. Probably one of the earliest most documented history of Masonism begins with the Knights Templars who are Roman Catholics.

So it should be no great surprise that Masonism and its symoblisms are similar to ancient pagan mystery religions as is much of Romanism's symbols and doctrines. Findel and others admit to the Babylonian connection in their "legend" history of Masonism. Interestingly, Findel argues that Masonism cannot be traced to any particular ancient mystery religion because he believes Masonism has a "global" origin. He is right! The Biblical account of the fall of Babel global dispersion is the origin of all mystery religions. Rome is nothing more than a "Christianized" version of Babylonian Mystery Religion and Masonism is just another "Christianized" form of the same, and so it should be no surprise the earliest "documented" history have them inseparable from each other as the 9th century halliwel's poem clearly shows.

And yes, I fully understand the difference they make between "documented" history of Masonism and its "legend" history. It amounts to about the same thing as the exception clause placed on Pike's work. Nevertheless, the "legend" history permeates the wider publications of Masonism and is presented as factual even though it is qualified as "can't be proven."

 

[JonC]

You are not the standard! Remember when I cited particular cases, you responded by saying, well, that must be a local fraternity thing... Sorry don't buy it!

Yes, you did cite particular cases, but no, my response was not that it must be a local fraternity thing. My response was to provide documentation from Freemason literature and references from lodges that disproved what your cherry picked secondary commentaries stated. I am amazed that you cannot see what you have done here, and my comment was that you would have never made it out of college if this were your typical method of research (to take particular commentary and opinion while disregarding the thing being interpreted).

The Freemasons offer degrees. Each degree is to be interpreted “as the mason sees fit” – they are NEVER “taught”. Meetings consist of a business meeting once a month (old business, new business, finances, ect.) and when they confer degrees. A conferred degree is the play itself – with no commentary or interpretation or teaching offered. It is up to the individual to apply the principles how he sees fit to his life. This is the WHOLE point of the fraternity. If you can’t grasp this part then you can’t understand Freemasonry enough to have an opinion.

There are books upon books like Morals and Dogma, or MacKay’s interpretations, interpreting the degrees differently. What makes you believe Pike’s interpretation is the “official” interpretation when the comments of the Grand Lodge in the introduction specifically states it is only Pike’s ideas for the member to take or leave?

You pick and choose “particular cases” that suit what you want to be said and disregard the rest, to include any source documentation that actually comes from the Fraternity itself (your evidence is subjective and secondary). That’s my complaint, not that Freemasonry is good but that your method dishonest and dangerous to the church.

AND you keep saying "sorry, I don't buy it" as if everything is subject to your purchase. I'm not asking you to buy anything. I am telling you what you could have easily learned for yourself had you taken the time to source the source rather than get involved in all the conspiracy. And I even provided the sources for you - in Morals and Dogma it specifically tells the Mason that the book would have been better had Pike written less and borrowed more, and that every Mason was free to disregard whatever they saw as unsound. Yet you "don't buy" that part of the book. Sounds like you prefer to remain in fantasy regardless of your credibility than examine these fraternities for their true danger in the church.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jon and I are obviously not going to agree on this. Hence, I guess we will have to agree to disagree agreeably. Others who are seeking the truth on this issue, I advise you to read their histories for yourself and see for yourself if they do not promote the "legend" of Masonism as factual in spite of historical disclaimers. Look at the earliest documents and see for yourself if there is not a clear religous connection between Masonism and Romanism in its earliest history.

 

[The Biblicist]

My response was to provide documentation

All Mason historians provide a "disclaimer" with regard to what they can and cannot document historically. However, they all treat the "legend" history as though it were factual (after giving a disclaimer). The disclaimer is nothing but a safety valve, that then gives them licence to promote the legend without fear of being charged with the obvious - pagan origin. It does not keep them from giving it out to every new mason for over 75 years. I wonder why?

AND you keep saying "sorry, I don't buy it" as if everything is subject to your purchase. I'm not asking you to buy anything.

It is a very common colloquial expression and you know precisely what it means so get off your high horse intellectualism.

 

[JonC]

Correction , @The Biblicist , (just so that others are clear):

The_Biblicist and I do agree that Christians should not belong to Freemasonry. I think we also believe that they should not belong to secret societies and Masonic type of organizations in general (FOP, Elks, Odd Fellows, ect.). So we do have some common ground.

Our difference is twofold. First, of course, is that his description of Freemasonry is foreign to my experience. This automatically puts us at odds on the topic. But second, and more importantly, is the literature of Freemasonry. The_Biblicist used Albert PIke's "Morals and Dogma" to show what Freemasonry taught. The only "official" part of the book, however, is in the introduction (the disclaimer The_Biblicist suggests be ignored). It tells the reader that the book is the ideas of Pike alone, even criticizes the book, and states the individual Mason is free to disregard anything he deems unsound. I know the stance of Freemasonry is in the disclaimer, but The_Biiblicist and others seem to believe it is in a few select commentaries. So we are not discussing this from common ground.

That said, I also believe that a Christian who is a Freemason is no less a Christian than one who is not. I am critical of Freemasonry, but I am also critical of what I would consider gullible research. I believe Freemasonry a danger to the local church, but I believe the methodology of some "anti-Masons" are just as dangerous. Both are wrong and both serve do divide.

The church needs to stay the church and needs to remain in the gospel of Christ rather than involving herself in secular humanistic attempts to improve mankind or in conspiracy gossip to combat those attempts.

 

[JonC]

It is a very common colloquial expression and you know precisely what it means so get off your high horse intellectualism.

I didn't intend to offend (just playing with the very common colloquial expression). I know you were saying that you did not believe the Freemason statements because the sources you found claimed otherwise. And I realize that you had a choice of two options. You simply chose the one you thought more probable. I'm saying that you chose wrong and may want to revisit the choice.

 

[The Biblicist]

Correction , @The Biblicist , (just so that others are clear):

The_Biblicist and I do agree that Christians should not belong to Freemasonry. I think we also believe that they should not belong to secret societies and Masonic type of organizations in general (FOP, Elks, Odd Fellows, ect.). So we do have some common ground.

That is correct.

Our difference is twofold. First, of course, is that his description of Freemasonry is foreign to my experience.

You are not the only ex-Mason who has written about his experience and those who have published their experience disagree with your interpretation.

This automatically puts us at odds on the topic. But second, and more importantly, is the literature of Freemasonry. The_Biblicist used Albert PIke's "Morals and Dogma" to show what Freemasonry taught. The only "official" part of the book, however, is in the introduction (the disclaimer The_Biblicist suggests be ignored). It tells the reader that the book is the ideas of Pike alone, even criticizes the book, and states the individual Mason is free to disregard anything he deems unsound.

It is naive to think that Pike's view is restricted to Pike since he was a Sovereign Grand Master over the complete Southern district over 30 years and head of the council. I have also listed Findel and others who also ascribe to the "legend" history. There are other Mason Historians who admit that there were others within Masonism that held to Pike's view both in England and America.

I know the stance of Freemasonry is in the disclaimer, but The_Biiblicist and others seem to believe it is in a few select commentaries. So we are not discussing this from common ground.

There is a vast difference in giving a disclaimer as a denial that Pike's "legend" views are the views of Masonism, and giving it to protect yourself against the obvious fact that Pike's views cannot be historically documented as fact. If Masonism really denied Pike's views they would not promote his book as essential to every new member for over 75 years. However, if they are really believe the "legend" history but protecting themselves against historians who would challenge them to document it, then that is another story. The fact is the legend history permeates Masonic literature in spite of "disclaimers."

That said, I also believe that a Christian who is a Freemason is no less a Christian than one who is not.

Never denied some are not true Christans and never asserted that all are Christians. I did assert that I had three deacons who were Masons and never implied or said they were lost.

I am critical of Freemasonry, but I am also critical of what I would consider gullible research. I believe Freemasonry a danger to the local church, but I believe the methodology of some "anti-Masons" are just as dangerous. Both are wrong and both serve do divide.

Agreed! However, they have much more that is contrary to Christ and it can be found in their literature and not just in restricted areas.

The church needs to stay the church and needs to remain in the gospel of Christ rather than involving herself in secular humanistic attempts to improve mankind or in conspiracy gossip to combat those attempts.

The documented history of Masonism in England and in Europe is inseparable tied to Roman Catholicism and they are deeply religous. The earliest documentation, which is a poem calls for civil authorities to prosecute Masons who are unfaithful "to their craft." The same poem openly promotes works for salvation and sacramentalism salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know you were saying that you did not believe the Freemason statements because the sources you found claimed otherwise.

It is not a matter about recognizing their disclaimer, it is a matter of interpreting their disclaimer. I fully acknowledged that I was totally aware of that disclaimer. Earlier writers also made the same disclaimer and they give a clear reason - they cannot document the "legend" history. However, that does not mean they don't believe in the "legend" history. They do believe in it and that is precisely why they continued distributing his book which is the clearest defense of the "legend" history to all new members for over 75 years.

To be clear, if one does believe in the "legend" history they are acknowledging that Masonism and its symbolism have a clear origin with Babylonianism and a luciferian origin. I clearly believe the "legend" history is their true religious origin.

I mistakenly dated the halliwel manuscript to the 9th century when in fact it is dated 1390.

 

[The Biblicist]

• I have now exceed my previous 20 minutes in the past 25 years dealing with this subject. I will leave the subject for others.

 

[JonC]

It is not a matter about recognizing their disclaimer, it is a matter of interpreting their disclaimer. I fully acknowledged that I was totally aware of that disclaimer. Earlier writers also made the same disclaimer and they give a clear reason - they cannot document the "legend" history. However, that does not mean they don't believe in the "legend" history. They do believe in it and that is precisely why they continued distributing his book which is the clearest defense of the "legend" history to all new members for over 75 years.

To be clear, if one does believe in the "legend" history they are acknowledging that Masonism and its symbolism have a clear origin with Babylonianism and a luciferian origin. I clearly believe the "legend" history is their true religious origin.

I mistakenly dated the halliwel manuscript to the 9th century when in fact it is dated 1390.

Pike did develop a history where it originated with Babylonianism (and he did use “luciferian” but not to mean “satanic”, although he was IMHO very mystic in his views). Woven into Pike’s interpretation is also a desire to see honor and status returned to the South (he interpreted the degrees not only into his mystic philosophy but also into what he felt as a major blow in the South’s defeat). But, as the official Masonic part says, that’s just Pike’s own ideas which can be easily and freely discarded.

Here again is the problem of interpreting things according to what we would see as “normal” as opposed to the “shrouded in mystery” nonsense of Pike. We would naturally associate “luciferian” as referring to Satan (where, having read Morals and Dogma, I’m sure you are aware Pike is referring to “light” in terms of “knowledge”….and yes, a Gnostic type of knowledge). But even had Pike stated that Satan was his god (he didn't, of course) it would not have changed the fact that it is but his opinion.

The more accepted history of the Masons (the one actually in the highest degrees) is that the Freemasons originated with the building of Solomon’s Temple with the joining of Jewish craftsmen and the craftsmen of king Tyre. This is also fiction and used, like everything else, as symbolic (the degree itself claims no one knows its origin).

The most common history provided by the Grand Lodges is that the Freemasons originated when a stone mason's guild died out as auxiliary members (the affluent, philosophers, ect.) gained prominence and the guild became obsolete. They reached back and created a framework of rituals and philosophy based on the traditions of these early guilds (they took the symbolism and what they knew of the guild).

The only history that Freemasons agree upon is that no one knows for certain where they started. No “official” history has the fraternity originating earlier than the late 16th century.

Remember, for every “Albert Pike” there are hundreds of other interpretations just as representative of Freemasonry stating another interpretation. We can't go through cherry picking which interpretation or commentary we want to be right. This is dishonest. We have to take the official statements of any organization, not secondary writings. This is integrity 101.

And Christianity 101 tells the believer not to be involved in these things. The Christian should not be yoked to these types of organizations AND the Christian should not be engaged in these types of conspiracy ideas.

 

[Bro. James]

Decide for yourself--good advice--after some serious digging and comparision to The Word of God--the only authority on Truth. "Let God be found True, and every man a liar."

Thank-you for the input.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James