Freemasonry: Good, Bad, Indifferent

I know them, as my father was one!

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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."

 

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.

 

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?

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

 

That is correct.

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

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.

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."

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.

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 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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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