Freemasonry

You're welcome, Mike. Thanks for reminding me of the 2 Cor. 10 passage.

 

Marcia,

I don't even pretend to know or care that much about the Kabbalah. If you were to ask, you would find that generally speaking, most Masons don't either, and many of them never heard of it. It really has no foundation or connection in Masonry that any Masons I have spoken with seem to be able to determine, other than "Pike mentions it." But I do occasionally receive a daily mailing they send out, I was sent the web address by a friend as a "check it out" gesture, received it free for a couple of weeks, then when the freebies ran out, I declined to pick it up, deciding it wasn't worth paying for. I still stand by my estimation of it, which as I have just described is my own limited experience with it: it has nothing I find so objectionable as you seem to, occasionally I find it resonates with some matter of truth in my own experience, basically it's OK but nothing to write home about. Once in awhile, they do send another one, I suppose to keep it in my attention and entice me to buy, sometimes I read them and delete, sometimes just delete. One came the other day, and for some reason I kept it in my inbox--maybe I knew this moment was coming. I don't know if you'll agree or disagree, but it seems pretty benign stuff to me:

Now maybe that says something of truth to someone, but this one reminds me of a better one I already have in my collection, so it is not one I would be inclined to keep, and will be deleted. The quote I have that reminds me of this one was a comment made by Ralph Waldo Emerson after the visit of a house guest who was rather long-winded in praise of his own virtues:

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

]quote]Yes, Pike drew from any beliefs but he clearly finds no problem with most of them. He expresses a philosophy and belief system in M & D; he was not just writing randomly for the fun of it, after all.[/quote]

Did you read his statement in the preface? I would be interested to know, since he by his own admission, mingles "in the same sentences, his own words with theirs," exactly how you determine what is his "philosophy and belief system?" I've read through quite a bit of this book, and it seems to me that the only time I can truly determine that Pike is speaking, and not some quoted source, is when he gets away from the philosophy and back to Freemasonry, at which point there's not that much there to hurl accusations at. And he has clearly said the reader is perfectly free to agree/disagree with any or all of it, he considers himself no authority or expert on the subject. If Pike himself had had any idea at all that by pulling in all the elements he does in this tedious work, that he would have done the disservice to Freemasonry that its detractors have caused it to become, he certainly would have reconsidered their inclusion.

If Pike were to teach a course using this book, it would be either a philosophy of religion or a history of religions class, more likely the latter. Do you really think a 33rd degree Mason, commander over the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, would not know whether there were such a term as "Christian lodges?"

You think a worm doesn't know fruit when he sees it? (heh, heh)

I never suggested in any way that teaching is not important. My point was that the only thing you seem to be able to point to about Freemasons is your (erroneous, imo) evaluation of what you see Freemasonry teaching. But if the teaching is truly corrupt, then the end result in the person's life (the fruit) will also be corrupt. Jesus said as much, "A good tree produces good fruit, and a corrupt tree produces corrupt fruit." Paul indicates the same thing, "Do not be deceived: bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33). You simply cannot have an organization that is as evil as some people would portray it to be, producing the type of men Masonry produces. That's the biggest self-contradicting point in the entire antimasonic position. Each time someone makes the statement, "Well, I don't deny that there are good men, and men of character in the lodge" (which I have heard quite a few times), whether they realize it or not, they are contradicting their own position.

You need to realize that when I speak of fruit, I speak not of some simplified idea of behavior like "good manners" or any such resemblance, but of someone who exhibits the light of Christ in their person, their conduct, their words, their actions, basically in everything about them. Speaking from that basis, and a personal viewpoint, I can truly say that some of the finest exemplars of Christianity that I have ever seen--in whatever way you wish to define it, teaching, behavior, witness, or any other way--were also Masons. I'm speaking of people whose life and Christian witness stand out so strongly that you wonder what it is about them that gives their Christian spirituality that something extra. And suddenly one day you find a tidbit of information here, another bit here, and begin to put the pieces together until one day you have the puzzle complete--and the common denominator, without any question, without any other explanation possible, is that they were all Masons. Next factor in the information that these men were the pastors and Sunday School teachers that I had grown up with, and suddenly it became clear that the Christian foundation that had been laid all through my childhood had a Masonic connection as well.

I apologize if I have given you reason to believe that I thought otherwise, that was not my intent. I have visited your website, I knew from there you were no novice. It's just that I have known "oppression," as you put it, many times over--but never from simply the printed word on a page, no matter what the source was. That was the main thing leading me to wonder, and to take the direction I took.

 

I still issue the same challenge: show me one place in Scripture where "teaching" is shown to be the clear meaning intended where the word "fruit" is used. Every place I have seen it that it does not indicate simply "fruit," it is used metaphorically to describe the inner dispositions ("spiritual fruits," Gal. 5:22), the character and/or behavior as influenced by God ("fruit unto holiness," Rom. 6:22), offspring ("the fruit of his loins," Acts 2:30), the product/end result of one's work ("the fruit of my labor," Phil. 1:22), or simply, praise to God ("the fruit of our lips giving thanks," Heb. 13:15).

Not once do I see where it applies to "teaching."

Not to belabor the point, just making it clear what I speak of when I refer to "fruit."

TW

 

The Worm,

That was said to Marcia, or course. I dont sense any "fear" in her posts at all. Only a desire to shed light on some things that are exceedingly dark. I see that as being something bible believers are supposed to do.

I believe things are becoming much clearer now.

Do you beleive buddhists, hindus, muslims, wiccans, pagans, etc have a chance to attain heaven while rejecting Christ until the moment they die?

The scriptures are our complete truth revelation from God...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work".

Obviously, that passage I just quoted shows that is does, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of others.

And God did not want one single bit of all that to be used as His truth standard, or else He would have included them in the scriptures that He personally(using men as His instruments of course) compliled for us to use as our truth standard.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Worm, the passage from the Kabbalah message you quoted does not seem particularly evil (I am not saying I agree with it) but that is the whole point - things like often have harmless or even good things in them. I made that point earlier where I talked about the occult quoting the Bible and using terms from the Bible. Edgar Cayce did this all the time but his teachings were totally contrary to the Bible; for example, he taught reincarnation, that Christ had reincarnated many times. Yet you can read a whole paragraph or sometimes more by him and think he's okay. No deception is greater than a mixture of lies and truth.

Pike is not just writing a book on various religious beliefs or teaching a course somewhere. He wrote this as the "Morals and Dogmas of the Ancient Accepted Rite of Scottish Freemasonry." He makes certain declarations in them. He rejects any one religion but makes statements of belief, as he does here in Ch. 30:

Without Christ, all this is useless. We can't be "more worthy of immoratlity" or increase "knowledge of the divine" without Christ. Whether he admits it or not, this view is very Gnostic and Kabbalistic; it's also New Age.

In the same chapter he says:

This is a spiritual view but is not Biblical. Anyone, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. can attain this through Masonry, according to Pike. It's that morality thing -- very moral but no Christ. That is probably one of the greatest deceptions of all.

One person who has parts of Pike's book on the site even calls the book, "Occult Magnum Opus-Political Manifesto of Freemasonry" and says it came before The Secret Doctrine (by Alice Bailey, disciple of occutlist Madama Blavatsky) and Mein Kampf. Personally, I would not want to advertise a book in that lineage! Good grief!

As far as what fruit means, the fruits of the Holy Spirit can only come from believers. So to speak of the fruits of non-Christians in those terms is impossible. But to speak of the fruits in another way is the way Jesus speaks of it in Matt 7.15-20. Jesus warns of false prophets in the very first verse. Fruits cannot just be behavior because we can't tell what a person believes always by their behavior. A false prophet or false teacher will have false teachings. If fruit was just behavior, as I mentioned earlier, then one would have to accept many non-Christiains as having good fruit. Even some people who seem to be Christians, doing things in God's name, casting demons out in Jesus'name, doing wonders in Jesus' name, will be cast out by Jesus, as he teaches in the passage right after this one, verses 21-23. So clearly, outward behavior is not always the indicator.

 

(Do you beleive buddhists, hindus, muslims, wiccans, pagans, etc have a chance to attain heaven while rejecting Christ until the moment they die?)

I believe that God no matter what sin the person has committed other than rejecting the Holy Spirit will call anyone at any time wether they be hindu, muslim, wiccan, satanist what ever. But when they die that is it there chances are gone they have rejected the Holy Spirit and Christ for the Last time.

("Because to me, all truth is God's truth, and is not limited to just the Holy Bible or to Christian frameworks.")

I would agree to this because Creation itself is a witness to God. True Science is a witness to God.


("Although the Bible is my primary source on spiritual truth, I see nowhere in its pages where it claims to contain it all.")

The Bible tells us that all of Creatin is a Witness to Him. So this would be something out side of the Text of the Holy Bible that gives us Truthes about God's being and Design

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I suppose you'd better look up one of the others.

The word "complete" you find there is actually more related in meaning to the idea of being "fresh," or "freshly prepared," in other words, it assumes the man of God will read and study it daily and thus be freshly prepared and thoroughly equipped, for the work he must do. But most noticeable in the verse is that it speaks of the man being complete, not the Word containing everything there is of truth.

Strike one

TW

 

I fail to see any relevance of your response to the statement I made.

The Bible contains all sorts of truths, one of which is the book of Proverbs, which is filled with many one-line truths. I have all sorts of sayings collected from all sorts of places, which I consider to be statements, and some of them very powerful, of truth about all sorts of things, such as are found in Proverbs.

For instance:

"A man of words and not of deeds
Is like a garden full of weeds."--English Proverb
(COMPARE: "Faith without works is dead."--James 2:17)

"However nice the elbow may be, it cannot remove dirt from the eye."--African Proverb
(COMPARE: "God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose."--1 Cor. 12:18)

And not all such statements line up with Biblical truths such as I did with these--and yet they remain true. And because they are true, they are still God's truth, as God is the Creator of all that is and all that is true, He must by necessity be the Author of it as well.

It's a simple statement really, I am not making any kind of outlandish claims, particularly not anywhere close to whatever it is you were suggesting with your response.

TW

 

That does not change the fact that they are true. John spoke specifically of things that Jesus said and did. Are you therefore suggesting that things that Jesus said and did were not true? That doesn't seem like a very tenable position.

TW

 

Marcia,

I think I see where the problem lies. You seem to have omitted the previous chapter. But don't sweat it, that second link I posted to Morals & Dogma--the one on the antimasonic website?--seems to have omitted not only the preface, as I have already mentioned; they seem to have omitted chapter 29 in its entirety. I had to ask myself how that could happen, and the only answer I could come up with was: intentionally. Naturally, I felt an investigation was in order. I didn't have to read very far to find out why:

So begins the chapter. To "humility, patience, and self-denial" he adds, 'Charity, Generosity, and Clemency," then "Virtue, Truth, and Honor." oF the latter he says:

And it concludes:

TW

 

So, "very moral but no Christ" doesn't quite cut it with you. So now with my quote of the previous chapter, you have "very moral WITH Christ." Now, if you follow the typical pattern of all the antimasons, you will come up with something to suggest that "their" Christ is deficient, and therefore doesn't count.

Ah yes, the old "shuffle and deal again" trick, if you miss with one angle, try another, like "this other website had parts of Pike, and they associate it with all these names";

Therefore, because you choose to believe them, then somehow it becomes "guilt by association?" This attribution seems rather jumbled and confused.

You are correct, it would be impossible to speak of fruits of non-Christians. Pardon me, ma'am, your presuppositions are showing. You try to deny fruit in the lives of Masons only because you have made the erroneous conclusion beforehand that "no Masons are Christians." Listen to anyone knock the lodge long enough, and eventually it can always be seen that the issue was already settled beforehand, putting the cart before the horse. Without making the statement about Masons directly, the statement is yet made that "spiritual fruit can only come from Christians." Yet it is always implied by such a statement that "Masons are not believers." The entire argument is circular.

I beg to differ with your interpretation. Not only do I disagree, I think Jesus does too. I don't know what your translational preference is, I have a couple I like, but try to use a variety generally. The one I happened to pick up at the moment I saw this post was the New Living Translation, which has it this way:

Don't take my word for it, look at the highlighted portions where Jesus Himself says the fruit is identified in a person by what they do. (And I tend to prefer "actions" over "behavior," as in "actions speak louder than words.")

And believe me, I do take the advice given. There are many "Christians" who have people fooled, who proclaim their message to be from God, when it is a message of hate and exclusion, based on interpreting the things of God the way they want to see them. The antimason website at E-511 ranks among the worst I've seen at it, using rudeness, sarcasm, and belligerence to put forth a "Christian" message. You say you've visited, have you never noticed there are only a handful of them? From what I've heard, they are more effective in pushing people toward the lodge after folks see their behavior (oops---"actions").

TW

 

Worm,

In response to this passage of scripture...

...you bolded the "man of God" and also brought up your view of the word "complete" to give your spin on the passage.

We do not interpret scripture based upon a view of one word, or by bolding something that we like.(although I also "bold", so I'm not necesarrily against bolding)

We interpret scripture by comparing scripture with scripture, and allowing scripture to explain itself.

In light of the whole of scripture we can come to no other conclusion than that Gods scriptures...the 66 books called the old and new testaments...are our God given "truth standard" to use to judge doctrines, practices, beliefs, "gospels", religious systems, etc.

That is what God means when He tells us that with the scriptures we are complete, and thoroughly equipped for the work of God.

God bless,

Mike

 

If by this "E-511" site you mean the "Ephesians 5-11" site, I have no problem with that site at all. I believe they are doing a fine work.

But...I have never gone to the discussion board. I actually didnt know they had one. If the mods there have been "rude", then maybe they should try some other mods. I've just found the information on the rest of the site to be very helpful.

Mike

 

I have tried to post 5 times but it's not working. This is a test post.

 

To the Worm: (part 1)
The NLT is good but not as accurate as the NASB. Anyway, here's one commentary on the passage:

This is commenting on the passage as speaking of doctrine. After all, the word is actually "fruits" so we take it in context. What would the fruits of a prophet be? It would be teachings and behavior. You can't leave out teachings because behavior does not tell all, as I pointed out earlier several times.

As far as your post on the vision of the cross: I am not impressed by extra-biblical visions. Even mentioning the cross means nothing as we see from what the passage says and what it leaves out. The passage you quoted ends: "He suffered upon it, because He consorted with and taught the poor and lowly, and found His disciples among the fishermen of Galilee and the despised publicans. His life was one of Humility, Patience, and Self-denial."

That is not why Jesus suffered on the cross -- it was not because he consorted with the poor and lowly. He suffered on the cross because he willingly laid down his life to atone for sins. The passage leaves that out and that is the heart of the gospel. These words could be Edgar Cayce or Matthew Fox (a New Ager) talking. In fact, Fox is a good example. He even has a book, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, in which he talks about Christ all over the place and about his death, but he does not believe in atonement for man's sins or that Jesus is the only way to God. So here we find the same noble sounding homage to Christ but leaving out the gospel, again. Often New Agers and others like them will talk about Christ on the cross but they redefine it to mean something else, such as a symbol of crucifying our illusions so that we awake to our divine nature (this is actually taught by Unity in their Metaphysical Bible Dictionary).
I myself, as an astrologer, wrote a 3 part article once on Jesus. I talked about the cross and even his 2nd coming. But it was all in terms of New Age philosophy, and I put my own meaning into it based on my New Age worldview.

 

To Worm, part 2:
As I said earlier, referring to Jesus, even the cross, means nothing if the atonement for sins is left out, and Jesus as the only Savior is left out. There's no shed blood for sins. In fact, it says, "The Cross, sanctified by the blood of the holy ones who have died upon it." Who are the holy ones? The cross was sanctified by the blood of "holy ones?" They are not the ones who atoned for sin. If this group includes Jesus, it reduces him to the level of whoever they are talking about here. In fact,having passages like this is worse than nothing because it can sound so religious and good and thus make people either think it's compatible with Christianity, or that it is Christianity, when it is neither.

Also, the other passage you have says:

Sounds noble but it is not Christian. This is Gnostic. It is the dichotomy between the spiritual and material and the "divine in man" above the "human." The phrase "the divine in man" sounds like the divine spark in every man, which is a Gnostic belief. The Bible speaks of the conflict between our sin nature (sometimes referred to as flesh) and our "new man in Christ," but does not teach a dichotomy between the spiritual and material or a "divine in man" vs. human. This teaching of spiritual vs. material is also New Age. I have on page 6 of my article, "God in the Mirror" (to which I've posted a link below)

If you read my article, "God in the Mirror: Evil, Sin, and Salvation" you'll see this same Gnostic idea in other New Age beliefs going back a ways. It's at God in the Mirror

 

To Worm, part 3 (last part):
In the same chapter you quoted from, ch. 29, it says:

Here's the ladder again. The "mystic ladder" by which the Mason's soul "ascends" back home to "its origins." This is saying that the soul came from God (emanation from God) and ascends back through secret teachings. We keep running into this Gnostic stuff. The Sohar mentioned above is the Zohar, the sacred text of the Kabbalah. And here we have Pike teaching this - he's not just rambling on about some philosophy. It's Gnostic liberation of the divine soul.

There are many Christs in the world -- the Gnostic Christ, the New Age Christ, the Mormon Christ, Fox's Cosmic Christ, the Jehovah Witnesses' Christ, the Christ of Unity, etc. The only true Christ is the Christ of the Bible who shed his blood to atone for the sins of man, who bodily resurrected, and who is the only way to God.

There is no need for Adepts or ladders or "Royal Secrets."

 

True. The only problem is, since you put it on that basis, you forget that at the time Paul wrote these words, the canon was not complete. So obviously if Paul was writing to Timothy what you suggest, that Timothy was going to be furnished with all the teaching of all the truth of the Word, and this was what it meant to be "complete," then I'm afraid Paul missed it by about 30 years and perhaps half a dozen books, depending on whose count you go by, which were not even written yet.
I'm afraid this is the point at which your interpretation fails.

Strike two

TW

 

Nothing was ever said about "rambling." In most of what Pike has to say in the entire book, it is merely the inclusion of others' work with his own words included, even in the same sentences, as he says. In the old days, that was fine, in our times we call it plagiarism. He has no bibliography, no page of citations, no citations by page, with no way to know what's his, what's not. And despite your protests, the entire discussions that you question are all compilations of other material that Pike put together as background material. And once again I will state it, it was stated by the author himself: 50% or better of the material is not even his; his preface says he claims no authority for it; he leaves it up to the reader to choose what to accept from it. It's kind of hard for you to make something authoritative that was written only for the U.S. Southern Jurisdiction, was openly declared not to be an assertion of masonic beliefs, has not been made authoritative by any masonic body that anyone can think of, and has not been read by most Masons--many of whom could hardly tell you the least thing about Pike. We can discuss Pike as long as you wish, but it's kind of like shoveling smoke if we're doing this to determine anything about Masonic beliefs.

TW

 

As predicted, first it's "Jesus is lieft out," then when He's not left out, it's "this Jesus isn't good enough." And all you are doing is picking it apart by deconstructing it and attacking it from angles that were never intended. Your comment, "That is not why Jesus suffered on the cross -- it was not because he consorted with the poor and lowly," does not address any point that was made at all. Where, pray tell, do you see in the material, "This is why Jesus suffered on the cross?" That is a misrepresentation of what is said, reading into a passage something that is not there. Your error comes in wishing for Masonry to be something it never was and was never intended to be: Christian in form and content, doctrine and expression. Strange requirements for a group that meets fraternally and makes no claims to even be a religion.

Pike was a churchman, he was Presbyterian in faith. As for his book, I've said enough, I'll let someone else have a turn:

There you have it, everything I've been saying already and then some.