Why Would a Pastor Condone Freemasonry

[frewtloop]

Vows were simply seen as serious business, and one's word as sacred and binding. You can find the OT fathers doing the same thing when making covenant agreements with one another, which was usually sealed by some sign, the most common of which was probably placing one's hand under the other's thigh. When I was little, we always did something similar with the motion of "cross my heart."

Besides, even within the one that was quoted, the admission is obvious that "I can't do this on my own," therefore the phrase is added that calls for divine aid in carrying out one's obligation:

So help me God and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.

The so-called "penalty" is not something that is ever intended to be taken literally, it simply points out how seriously the candidate takes his commitment. It does not say "binding myself under the penalty....," it says, "binding myself under no less a penalty..." The penalty suffered is inward, not literally carried out. Another place in the same ritual you quoted says something about being stuck by a sharp object, and states that it represents the sharp inner pain to mind and conscience that woud come with willful violation.

Trying to make literal that which is intended as symbolic is folly. Try that with Song of Solomon and you wind up with a bride with dove's eyes behind her veil, hair like a flock of goats, teeth like a flock of shorn sheep, a neck like the tower of David, and honey and milk under her tongue--all of which would cause the literalist to conclude that Solomon needed glasses.

TW

 

[Jacob Webber]

(One of the driving and most motivatiing forces behind one joining and remaining in the Lodge is the enormous political connections, favoritism, and the like. Some Masons, if they are honest, can tell you stories of how they or others have gotten out of traffic tickets, found jobs, received raises & promotions, gotten discounts in the marketplace, etc. all because of their leveraging the fact that they are Masons. I know this for a fact, because it has worked for me in the past.)

True enuff Mike when you have a friend you do wnat to look out for them like helping him kept his job and so forth. And if another mason wishes to give his brother a price break than that is there choice. I have heard but never seen stories about Masons getting out of tickets and what not. But I have seen Masons getting tickets for speeding. But it goes the same even more so for Pastors I know that have gotten a discount or Free items bacause they were a Pastor. And they have gotten out of speeding tickets because they were a pastor. And have kept their job when alot of people around them got laid off because they were a Pastor. The fact is that friends try to look out for each other as best they can wether it be by given them a discount or helping them keep there Job. As far as the Ticket I do not agree that they should be let off just because they are a Pastor or a Mason.

 

[O.F.F.]

The "Rev." Worm,

Welcome to the thread, that bears the title written with you in mind!

The penalty suffered is inward, not literally carried out.

Don't try to be so philosophical and melodramatic as you have communicated the chain of events in reverse order. When you entered the Lodge for the first time you were, "received on a point of a sharp instrument piercing your naked left breast, which was to teach you, that as this was a instrument of torture to your flesh, so should the recollection thereof be to your mind and conscience should you EVER reveal the secrets of Freemasonry unlawfully!"

At that moment, assuming you had no prior knowledge of Freemasonry and its penalties, you -- like most initiates -- would have thought that this meant real torture or even imminent death should you reveal the secrets of the Masonic order.

It wasn't until AFTER you took your obligation as an Entered Apprentice, and had this "torture" indelibly embedded on your mind by saying out loud that you would be willing to have "your throat cut across and your tongue torn out," that you were informed that "this penalty is not literal, but symbolic of what an honest man would rather undergo then to violate his solemn vow."

Again, assuming you had not known beforehand, you would have breathed a sigh of relief at this point given the assurance that the penalty is not to be taken seriously. But after having this so dramatically impressed while under blindfold, who's willing to take a chance to see if this is true and not to be fulfilled? I know plenty of former Masons who are not willing to take the risk. I'm a 'living' example that they aren't to be taken seriously, as I have revealed the secrets here and on our website. Or else either God is protecting me, or I haven't met my fate as of yet.

Given our ministry, I would gladly accept it as a martyr's death to the glory of God.

However, had you or any other Mason NOT been told it [the penalty] was merely symbolic, you and they along with the rest of us would have to assume it is to be taken literally. So, quit trying to mislead the members of this forum into thinking otherwise.

The fact of the matter is, since the penalty isn't to be taken seriously then the oath shouldn't be taken seriously at all. In other words, this is just another example of how the oath was rendered under false pretenses.

I said earlier, that the Masonic God (G.A.O.T.U.) is not The One True Living God of Holy Scripture. Therefore such an oath made before men at the “common” altar of Freemasonry is not before the God of the Bible. It is a vain and false oath, rendered to a false deity. Furthermore, if the penalties are not binding, then the oath is not binding.

The only folly in this whole discussion is that of the Masonic Order, which can clearly be seen through Christian glasses.

“Will you be O.F.F. or from?”

[ May 28, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: O.F.F. ]

 

[frewtloop]

The "Rev." Worm,

Exactly what is that supposed to mean?

At that moment, assuming you had no prior knowledge of Freemasonry and its penalties, you -- like most initiates -- would have thought that this meant real torture or even imminent death should you reveal the secrets of the Masonic order.

You seem to have me confused with someone else--that is, unless they have changed the rules and started admitting women.

And anyway, if what you said were true, wouldn't it make sense that most initiates would simply never come back? Actually, the word gets around, and guys pretty much understand that it is symbolic, a lot is learned before anyone ever joins. If you were honest, you'd admit that, instead of trying to paint a picture that simply doesn't exist, of guys going into this thing thinking "bed of roses," only to hear the obligation and go, "Oh my God, what have I done, entering this chamber of horrors?" The whole idea is ridiculous, especially as much accurate information as there is available about Masonry now--I speak of course, of the real picture of Masonry and not yours.

TW

(P.S.--Would it be helpful if I changed the nic to "the Woman?")

 

[O.F.F.]

Worm,

The whole idea is ridiculous, especially as much accurate information as there is available about Masonry now...

Your right, the Masonic Order and its oaths are just a big joke to laugh at.

Here you have an organization that requires you to take an oath to keep your word, yet turns around and tells you they won't keep there's by not fulfilling the penalty of the oath should one decide to break it. Doesn't that make sense? Of course not.

So, I agree it's a ridiculous farce!

Mike

[edit: avoid personal attacks]

[ May 29, 2004, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[frewtloop]

[edit]

Here you have an organization that requires you to take an oath to keep your word, yet turns around and tells you they won't keep there's by not fulfilling the penalty of the oath should one decide to break it. Doesn't that make sense? Of course not.

You are the one not making sense, are you sure you read the oath that was posted? The final lines:

To all of this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution to keep and perform the same without any equivocation, mental reservation, or secret evasion of mind whatever, binding myself under no less a penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots and buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty four hours, should I ever knowingly or willingly violate this my solemn oath or obligation as an Entered Apprentice Mason. So help me God and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.'

Who has the responsibility of carrying out the obligation or enforcing the penalty? I'd say "binding myself" puts it all on the initiate, a self-discipline toward fulfilling the thing pledged. How will that obligation be carried out, what will be the source of its strength? Seems to me that "so help me God" indicates the initiate will enlist divine aid in carrying this out.

TW

[ May 29, 2004, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[O.F.F.]

Worm, you said:

Who has the responsibility of carrying out the obligation or enforcing the penalty? I'd say "binding myself" puts it all on the initiate, a self-discipline toward fulfilling the thing pledged. How will that obligation be carried out, what will be the source of its strength? Seems to me that "so help me God" indicates the initiate will enlist divine aid in carrying this out.

Perhaps you are among a few overly zealot, devote Masons who are so in love with the fraternity that they would slit their own throats. And, maybe the false god (Demon of Freemasonry) will help you carry it out, but the God of the Bible would not inspire anyone to mutilate themselves or take their own life.

As for you changing your screename:

(P.S.--Would it be helpful if I changed the nic to "the Woman?")

That won't be necessary, since as your know there's a thing called "co-masonry", the "Eastern Stars," "Daughters of Isis" and the like, where woman are welcome to join. Besides, according to Masonic sources, you all should have enough "effeminate" guys welcomed on the men's side.

“We have all been taught that Freemasonry regards no man because of his worldly honors … Nor does Freemasonry regard men because of their race, color, religion, ethnic origins, or their sexual orientation--it is only essential that a man be good and true. To be a good Mason, it simply does not matter if a man is black or white, Hispanic or Asian, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or Hindu, gay or straight.” (emphasis added)

Philalethes (Freemasonry's think-tank), June 2002

And,

"The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man are two of the fundamental truths upon which our civilization is built. Freemasonry encompasses both but emphasizes the brotherhood of man through the practice of brotherly love, relief, and truth. Brotherly love, in the Masonic sense, is more than the congenial bond of good will and understanding that exists between close friends. It is, rather, genuine tolerance and charity toward all men which affords a basis for mutual respect between men in spite of the diverse, backgrounds, creeds, ideals, and code of conduct." (emphasis added)

The Grand Lodge of the State of Nevada, Freemasonry - A Way Of Life

This, of course, all speaks to the moral relativism in Freemasonry, which is another contradiction to biblical Christianity:

“ Masonry teaches the practice of all good morals, leaving the interpretation of right and wrong to the individual conscience.” (emphasis added)

Grand Lodge of Florida, Lodge System of Masonic Education, Bk 1, pg. 7

O.F.F.

 

[Jacob Webber]

(Again, assuming you had not known beforehand, you would have breathed a sigh of relief at this point given the assurance that the penalty is not to be taken seriously. But after having this so dramatically impressed while under blindfold, who's willing to take a chance to see if this is true and not to be fulfilled?)

Mike you could have just asked if you had studied it before hand you would have already know the answer.

(However, had you or any other Mason NOT been told it [the penalty] was merely symbolic, you and they along with the rest of us would have to assume it is to be taken literally. So, quit trying to mislead the members of this forum into thinking otherwise.)
Well I for one would not have taken it literally because there are you and others out there like you who have not been kill as you put it. But that is the whole reason you the explaination of the Obligation to let you know they are symbolic.

(I said earlier, that the Masonic God (G.A.O.T.U.) is not The One True Living God of Holy Scripture. )

Mike the God in the ritual is YHWH if you do not think YHWH is God than that is up to you. And as I said earlier the sbc said Freemasonry says God in the Threefold aspect of the Trinity. So again if you do not believe in YHWH in the Threefold aspect of the Trinity that is fine it is your choice. But to be a mason you do not have to believe in YHWH. Althou Jews, Muslims and Christians believe in YHWH only Christians believe in YHWH in the Threefold aspect of the Trinity.

 

[Johnv]

I'm not sure what the arguement is. Is it because freemasonery is a secret society, or is it because they're ecuminical?

I can understand the secret society concern, but the concerns about ecuminism are a bit overblown. By that reckoning, one should also refrain from membership in the Boy Scouts, Little League, and Alcoholics Anonymous.

 

[frewtloop]

That won't be necessary, since as your know there's a thing called "co-masonry", the "Eastern Stars," "Daughters of Isis" and the like, where woman are welcome to join.

Sorry, but even if there are any of those near me, I have no idea who or where they are. And besides, you had it all neatly sewed up that I was a Freemason, and not only that, a pastor, not a co-mason, Eastern Star, or Daughter of Isis. But you seem to have a knack for starting your posts off by making the person the issue, and going from there wherever the wind blows. Guess the fact you ignored the rest of my post simply means there is no counter for it. And so far every limb you've gone out one has added further proof to what I've already said: "Trying to make literal that which is intended as symbolic is folly." And that folly shows up strongest in the argument, "Perhaps you are among a few overly zealot, devote Masons who are so in love with the fraternity that they would slit their own throats." Or did you forget, it's not literal?

And thank you for the string of quotes, they describe things pretty accurately, if you learn to highlight the proper parts:

Nor does Freemasonry regard men because of their race, color, religion, ethnic origins, or their sexual orientation...It is, rather, genuine tolerance and charity toward all men which affords a basis for mutual respect between men in spite of the diverse, backgrounds, creeds, ideals, and code of conduct

In other words, you just posted quotes that affirm Freemasonry is (1) not racially biased,(2) not a religion, and (3) genuine in their practice of charity. You do ok, you're just a bit o.f.f. in your emphasis.

TW

 

[Gina B]

O.F.F.
Are you attempting to threaten or scare TW?
Whatever it is you're trying to do, I suggest you back off of making personal remarks as you have thus far to her, or to any other poster.
Stick with the topic and with posting in a Christian manner please.
Gina

 

[O.F.F.]

Gina,

Please show me where have I attemted to threaten or scare TW? I do not wish this thread to deviate from the topic at hand to "The Worm," who by the way is a him, not a her.

His manner of writing from the moment he landed on this board has revealed to me who he really is. He has lied in his profile about being a baptist, when he is actually a UMC minister from South Carolina pretending to be someone else.

It's bad enough that he is a pastor who covers his 'collar' with a Masonic Apron, but it is just as worse when he defrauds this forum as he continues to compromise the gospel with Masonic lies.

However, to your point, I will back off before this gets out of hand. But, I just wanted to let him know in subtle ways that I know who he is, and that he is only fooling himself. To you and the rest of the board members I warn, don't let him fool you.

O.F.F.

 

[frewtloop]

I do not wish this thread to deviate from the topic at hand to "The Worm," who by the way is a him, not a her.

If this statement is true, why bother to post any of the rest that followed?

I just wanted to let him to know in subtle ways that I know who he is,

You're about as subtle as a Mack truck.

Well, I wasn't planning on posting any links just yet, as my webpage is pretty much in its infancy, but since you insist on this absurdity, you may go to http://www.freewebs.com/anti-anti-masonicstufff/page2.htm and take a little peek at me. I had not included one in my profile since there was not a picture of me anywhere on the web that I know of. And this one is only temporary, I'm not only a bit shy but pretty cautious about this internet stuff and privacy issues. And I'm very new at doing webpages and such, so feel free to snicker at the amateurish nature of what is there so far. Sorry you don't seem willing to let me be who I am, but I guess it sort of goes with the territory, so no hard feelings.

TW (Lynn73)

 

[O.F.F.]

To All,

I sent The Worm a private message that I hope will resolve this matter. If I am wrong in my assumptions, I will issue a full public apology to The Worm and the members of this forum.

In the meantime, I will refrain from any further posting, and wait The Worm's response to my private message.

I apologize now, for any inconvenience this has caused members of this board.

Sincerely,

Mike

 

[Gina B]

Thank you TW. Concerns like these should be handled this way, privately. If you truly think someone is here with a deceitful intent the moderators may be notified via pm.
Don't feel as if you're not supposed to post at all.

Now, back to the subject of Freemasonry everyone.
Gina

 

[O.F.F.]

O.K. then, so back to the topic of Freemasonry!

Regarding my posted quotes about Freemasonry condoning homosexuality among its members, as well as its stated acceptance of moral relativism, Worm responded:

...you just posted quotes that affirm Freemasonry is (1) not racially biased,(2) not a religion, and (3) genuine in their practice of charity.

There have been enough posts here, and on the other thread that was recently closed, that clearly demonstrate that what Freemasonry says is often not what it practices. As God is my witness, I have personally experienced Masonic racism when, as a Mason, I tried to exercise Landmark 14 -- "the right of visitation" -- and was denied for no other reason than my race as an African-American.

It's been proven that Freemasonry is a false religion, and is arguably a "cult" as well. And, no amount of genuine charity can make up for it's biblical heresy and moral relativism.

Would you, or any Mason present, care to respond to the emphasis of moral relativism in the Masonic quotes I provided, or should we assume the fact you ignored them in your previous reply means there is no excuse for them?

Since they are on a previous page, let me reiterate them here. Speaking of Freemasonry's:

...mutual respect between men in spite of the diverse, backgrounds, creeds, ideals, and code of conduct." (emphasis added)

The Grand Lodge of the State of Nevada, Freemasonry - A Way Of Life

Again, its condoning of homosexuality:

To be a good Mason, it simply does not matter if a man is black or white, Hispanic or Asian, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or Hindu, gay or straight.” (emphasis added)

Philalethes (Freemasonry's think-tank), June 2002

And, what I think is the worst of all:

“Masonry teaches the practice of all good morals, leaving the interpretation of right and wrong to the individual conscience.” (emphasis added)

Grand Lodge of Florida, Lodge System of Masonic Education, Bk 1, pg. 7

Comments, anyone?

 

[frewtloop]

As God is my witness, I have personally experienced Masonic racism when, as a Mason, I tried to exercise Landmark 14 -- "the right of visitation" -- and was denied for no other reason than my race as an African-American.

I think the key phrase here is "as a Mason." As an African-American, if that means you tried to exercise Landmark 14, you were denied because of Prince Hall affiliation. While there are some lodges which still would not allow "the right of visitation" on that basis, it is my understanding that the barriers you describe have very much come down, and the others are soon to follow. Racism is no different within Freemasonry than it is anywhere else, the roots don't disappear overnight.

Would you, or any Mason present, care to respond to the emphasis of moral relativism in the Masonic quotes I provided, or should we assume the fact you ignored them in your previous reply means there is no excuse for them?

Perhaps you would do well to define "moral relativism," and you would do even better to point out where you have shown it to be so in Freemasonry. If you're referring to the remark, "Masonry teaches the practice of all good morals, leaving the interpretation of right and wrong to the individual conscience," then you're mistaken to say I ignored it. It would be more accurate to say it is so o.f.f. the mark, it was not really worth a reply, but since you insist--I can see by the wording of the statement why you took it as you did, but I can see by the statement itself that the writer of it had no "relativism" as you try to define it in mind at all. As you have repeated many times before, "moral" is not a term that is exclusive at all. When I made comments earlier about a person exhibiting Christian fruits, you tried to recast what I said as a statement about morals instead, and suggested that upright, moral behavior was not a good indicator of Christianity because non-Christians may be moral without being Christian. So if you truly believe that, it is inconsistent of you to now attack the idea of Freemasonry being moral, or of morality being somehow sub-Christian, rather than extra-Christian, which is how you have already portrayed it to be per your earlier argument. To be frank, your positions are chameleonic and conveniently reframed and retailored to be suited to whichever argument you happen to be involved in at the moment.

A comparison that is probably in order, is the U.S. judicial system, which has been extricably linked to Judaeo-Christian values by having its infra-structure founded on the same basic building blocks, namely the 10 Commandments. Despite recent attempts to dislodge and separate the legal system from their religious moorings, they remain forever founded there in moral principle. I'm sure you have no problem agreeing that the country was founded on biblical principles, whether you would call them "Christian" per se or not. Yet for some reason you can't make the same acknowledgment when it comes to Freemasonry, even though the moral principles it sets forth were founded on the Holy Scriptures. They are cited again and again in Masonry, whether it be Masonic authors, rituals, or whatever other form you choose to criticize. The initiate is assured that there will be nothing in the oaths taken to conflict with "religious or political opinions, be they what they may," and unless they are mistakenly viewed with a literal interpretation, that assurance is true as stated. Since you are fond of quotes:

Masonry has its decalogue, which is a law to its Initiates. These are its Ten Commandments:

I. God is the Eternal, Omnipotent, Immutable WISDOM and Supreme INTELLIGENCE and Exhaustless Love.
Thou shalt adore, revere, and love Him !
Thou shalt honour Him by practising the virtues!

II. Thy religion shall be, to do good because it is a pleasure to thee, and not merely because it is a duty.
That thou mayest become the friend of the wise man, thou shalt obey his precepts !
Thy soul is immortal ! Thou shalt do nothing to degrade it !

III. Thou shalt unceasingly war against vice!
Thou shalt not do unto others that which thou wouldst not wish them to do unto thee !
Thou shalt be submissive to thy fortunes, and keep burning the light of wisdom !

IV. Thou shalt honour thy parents !
Thou shalt pay respect and homage to the aged!
Thou shalt instruct the young!
Thou shalt protect and defend infancy and innocence !

V. Thou shalt cherish thy wife and thy children!
Thou shalt love thy country, and obey its laws!

VI. Thy friend shall be to thee a second self !
Misfortune shall not estrange thee from him !
Thou shalt do for his memory whatever thou wouldst do for him, if he were living!

VII. Thou shalt avoid and flee from insincere friendships !
Thou shalt in everything refrain from excess.
Thou shalt fear to be the cause of a stain on thy memory!

VIII. Thou shalt allow no passions to become thy master !
Thou shalt make the passions of others profitable lessons to thyself!
Thou shalt be indulgent to error !

IX. Thou shalt hear much: Thou shalt speak little: Thou shalt act well !
Thou shalt forget injuries!
Thou shalt render good for evil !
Thou shalt not misuse either thy strength or thy superiority !

X. Thou shalt study to know men; that thereby thou mayest learn to know thyself !
Thou shalt ever seek after virtue !
Thou shalt be just!
Thou shalt avoid idleness !

But the great commandment of Masonry is this: "A new commandment give I unto you: that ye love one another! He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, remaineth still in the darkness."

Such are the moral duties of a Mason.(M&D, p. 17-18)

I will ask you, if you can, to point out which of these things expresses a principle that is contrary to a scriptural position.

You may also point out to me what the whole issue is with "relativism" in relation to these, when Christianity has had no problem for centuries now in acknowledging that other moral systems, such as the Code of Hammurapi, express in principle basically the same ideas.

In other words, if you still don't quite follow, please explain for us how you get "moral relativism" to suggest "whatever floats your boat" from a quote that was clearly intended to address only the idea that there are shared moral values even within the wide diversity of religious systems that exist?

 

[Jacob Webber]

(I tried to exercise Landmark 14 -- "the right of visitation" -- and was denied for no other reason than my race as an African-American.)

Mike you belonged to a unrecongnized lodge in that state. IF you were a Prince Hall in Virgina you would have been able to visit because it is acknowledged by the Grnad Lodge of that state. I believe you said you were a PH in NC right I may be mistaken but I thought that is what you said earlier. And by the way there are other clandestain lodges out there that are not PH Masons some of the Rosicruciana are not acknowledged as Masonic bodies by Grand Lodges and they have white members so do not try to turn it into a race issue. It is not due to the color of your skin it is due to you lodge is not acknowledged as a Masonic body by the Grand Lodge of that state. Currently in NC there are dicussions on acknowloging the Prince Hall Masons as is the Grand Lodge of Alabama. Virgina already acknowledges the Prince Hall Masons and it is below the Mason Dixon Line.

U.S. Southern States
United States Southern states history, events in the South, and information on the Southern states.


The U.S. Southern States or The South is perhaps the most distinctive region of the United States having its own uniquely Southern historical prespective, Southern customs and Southern cuisine. There is some overlap with The Southwest and the Mid-Atlantic States.

The South is nicknamed Dixie. A song by that title was written by an Ohio minstrel show composer, Daniel Decatur Emmett, first published by Phillip Werlein in New Orleans in 1859.


States always considered part of the South are:

Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia


As I told you before Brothern from my Lodge when they went to the yearly Grand Lodge meeting said that there were Africain AMericans in the meeting as well. So either they lied or you did not know about intergraded Lodges in Tennessee.

(It's been proven that Freemasonry is a false religion, and is arguably a "cult" as well. And, no amount of genuine charity can make up for it's biblical heresy and moral relativism.)

It has not been proven but is your opnion.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I teach courses both in comparitive religions and major cults. Freemasonry fits into the later category as a Christian-based cult.

There are solid definitions of cults (we've covered them many times on this forum) and what distinguishes them from orthodox Christian religion.

Not opinion. Fact.

 

[Jacob Webber]

Dr. Bob
Please present a webpage or ducment that we may read about it.

(There are solid definitions of cults (we've covered them many times on this forum) and what distinguishes them from orthodox Christian religion.)

Please give me some links as well so that I may read them also.