Why Would a Pastor Condone Freemasonry

[O.F.F.]

Worm, you said:

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.

First of all, every lodge listed by Jacob as constituting the South recognizes every other state's jurisdiction as "regular" in the same way those [recognized] states and the Grand Lodge of England (the Mother of Freemasonry) ALL recognizes Prince Hall Mssonry as "regular." Therefore, it stands to reason, that the ONLY reason I was denied visitation and that they [the Southern states] still refuse to recognize Prince Hall Masonry as "regular" IS PURELY BASED ON RACE!

But, to your point, let's take it as given that change has occurred, and continues to happen, albeit slow as molasses. As the late great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "it appears America has overdosed on the tranquilizing pill of gradualism."

Yet the bottom line is that the admission of blacks into 'regular' Masonry, and the recognition of Prince Hall Masons in America is a recent phenomenon, with the first occurring in 1989. That's more than 200 years after Freemasonry came to this country, and more than 20 years after Jim Crow Laws ended with the Civil Rights Act of 1964! What's worse is the fact that it wasn't until July 14, 2001 that the 'white' Shriners finally recognized Prince Hall Shriners, despite the landmark US Supreme Court case of August 1929, which declared Prince Hall Masonry and its Shriners as legitimate!

Nevertheless, since Freemasonry has been in the business of Brotherly Love and "making good men better," why haven't Masons and their Grand Lodges been at the forefront of this change from the moment it begin in America? Why has integration, and recognition, in its lodges not developed at the same time as it has in American in general, and far in advance of it? As one Christian apologist once said:

Masons love to point out that lodges exist in free societies, as though the lodge preceded the freedom. In reality, the freedom existed first, the lodge followed.

When Masonry really exists in fact as it does in fiction, it will be at the lead on social and moral development. Until then, it's just a group of average men congratulating themselves on what great guys they are. – T.N. Sampson of Cornerstone Ministries

Secondly, for someone who claims not to be a Mason, you are very good at exercising their tactic of avoidance. You have yet to explain Freemasonry's acceptance of homosexuality relative to the Bible's strict position against it. Instead, you contract your own words, using Pike's Morals & Dogma to defend Masonic moral relativism, after telling us, in the earlier thread, not to take "what is fully intended as a subjective work and offering objective criticisms."

The first priority in reading any book, and one most people neglect to their own detriment, should be to read through the preface at least once to get a feel for the author's purpose in writing. Pike makes it clear he has entered most of what he includes in the book as "ancient theosophic and philosophic speculations." He makes it equally clear he has borrowed so much that he doesn't make any claim to being the "author."…But above all, he has laid his own work bare to whatever the reader wishes to make of it, says anyone is free to accept or reject anything therein. So you are in error from the outset, in taking what is fully intended as a subjective work and offering objective criticisms.

Remember Worm, you nor Freemasonry can have it both ways!

O.F.F.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by Jacob Webber:
Dr. Bob
Please present a webpage or ducment that we may read about it.
Please give me some links as well so that I may read them also.

http://www.watchman.org/cat95.htm#Freemasonry

http://www.watchman.org/

 

[O.F.F.]

Thanks bro. Major B,

For Corey's benefit, allow me to add the following:

There are two ways to define a cult. The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.

This kind of cult is usually manipulative, demanding total commitment and loyalty from its followers. Converts are usually cut off from all former associations, including their own families. Examples include, the Jim Jones Group, Branch Davidians, and more recently, the Heaven’s Gates.

The second way to define a cult is popular in evangelical Christian circles. From this perspective, a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds. -- The Christian Research Institute at www.equip.org

These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International,the Unity School of Christianity, and in this discussion, Freemasonry.

Most of these cults claim to be Christian, and even consider the Bible to be authoritative. But they manipulate the Scriptures to fit their own beliefs. Although they may claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may even use the same terminology Christians use, their definitions are vastly different.

O.F.F.

 

[O.F.F.]

Worm, while we wait on your defense of Masonic tolerance of homosexuality, you also said:

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?

Forgive me for answering a question with question, but if you are NOT a Mason, and have NEVER been a Mason, how do you claim to KNOW the "clear intention" of the Grand Lodge of Florida, when it said:

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

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

Unless you have personally interviewed the author(s) of the Lodge System of Masonic Education, I would assume like most people here, you would have to take this, and any other Grand Lodge statement for face value.

As such, I would be willing to guess that if we took a poll, most people in this forum would be honest to admit that from face value, this statement sounds a lot more like moral relativism and "whatever floats your boat" rather than "the idea that there are shared moral values within the wide diversity of religious systems." Particularly in light of the fact that they explicitly state such relativism as interpreted by the "individual conscience," not organizational or religious systems.

The bottomline is not whether such statement of morality is compatible with the diversity of religious systems, but whether it's consistent with biblical Christianity. And, it is clearly not. For the Bible teaches moral absolutes, not moral relativism.

O.F.F.

[ May 29, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: O.F.F. ]

 

[Marcia]

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

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

Not only is this statement unbiblical, but it's contradictory. Morals are based on what is declared right and wrong, but if it's left to the "individual conscience" to interpret what is right or wrong, then there is no standard for right or wrong or for morals.

Freemasonry tries to have it all ways -- talks about God, morals, uses religious language, refers to "sacred texts,: but claims not to be a religion; they say the are for brotherhood but have traditionally limited their membership to the "freeborn" and excluded even freeborn people who had slave ancestors; they are for brotherhood but exclude (unless it's changed recently) disabled people from joining; they say they are not a secret society but their books refer to secrets and people take oaths not to divulge them (as has been clearly shown in this thread and others); they refer to the Lion of Judah but have excluded Jesus from Masonic texts and prayers; they talk about morals but say the individual decides the interpretation of right or wrong.

They are just one big contradiction that cannot stand on truth because they are a house of cards.

Another characteristic of a cult -- a cult holds back information on some of their teachings until the person is ready for them or deemed worthy to receive them.

 

[frewtloop]

Freemasonry fits into the later category as a Christian-based cult.

Nobody worried so much about "cults" until the published work of Walter Martin on the subject. Nobody worried about the coming of the year 2000 until somebody realized that computers had been designed without taking the need for four-digit years into consideration. The things we focus attention upon tend to gain a greater strength. I find it significant that Dr. Martin did not list Freemasonry as a cult. But it stands out even more that they do not even consider themselves a religion at all. So for someone to cast such religion-founded accusations at them at all, they must first mis-characterize them to begin with. Any group who will teach moral principles will inevitably bump up against someone who wants to challenge them on religious grounds, since the moral cannot help but touch on the religious.

TW

 

[frewtloop]

Another characteristic of a cult -- a cult holds back information on some of their teachings until the person is ready for them or deemed worthy to receive them.

Then Christianity fits this characteristic, based on Jesus' remark, "I have other things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," and Paul and Peter's remarks about giving people milk because they aren't ready for strong meat.

TW

 

[frewtloop]

Secondly, for someone who claims not to be a Mason, you are very good at exercising their tactic of avoidance. You have yet to explain Freemasonry's acceptance of homosexuality relative to the Bible's strict position against it. Instead, you contract your own words, using Pike's Morals & Dogma to defend Masonic moral relativism, after telling us, in the earlier thread, not to take "what is fully intended as a subjective work and offering objective criticisms."

But of course, you have little room to address this, avoiding as you do any true response to what I posted.

[no personal attacks - please]

you contract your own words, using Pike's Morals & Dogma to defend Masonic moral relativism, after telling us, in the earlier thread, not to take "what is fully intended as a subjective work and offering objective criticisms."

Well, let's look at your argument for a moment. The criticisms that were offered agaainst Pike were not for his quotations of Masonic material, but for his inclusion of all the philosophic material and the variety of other religions he quoted from. I have not seen the "Masonic Ten Commandments" anywhere else but from Pike, so I assume it is his material. Even if it is not, it is material that would obviously have come from a Masonic source. Therefore, the use of it is still valid.

Again, you show by this criticism, coming from one of the preeminent Pike-quoters among us, your inconsistency in the use of material to go with the flow of your arguments. First you quote Pike in an argument against me, now you quote me to support your argument. So who's really trying to "have it both ways?"

[ May 29, 2004, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Dan Todd ]

 

[O.F.F.]

Worm,

You are sadly mistaken when you said:

Nobody worried so much about "cults" until the published work of Walter Martin on the subject. ... I find it significant that Dr. Martin did not list Freemasonry as a cult.

My inclination to resign from the Masonic Order was confirmed by a video series entitled, "What goes on behind the closed doors of the Masonic Lodge." It is a series where the late Dr. Martin debated against a 32 degree Mason about the biblical incompatibility of Freemasonry. Jack Harris, a former Worshipful Master, is also featured in this series and illustrates portions of Masonic ritual.

In fact, not only would Dr. Martin consider Freemasonry a cult, in this series he called it "biblical nonsense!" If you'd like, I would gladly send you a copy of the video tape to see for yourself.

O.F.F.

 

[frewtloop]

There are two ways to define a cult. The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.
This kind of cult is usually manipulative, demanding total commitment and loyalty from its followers. Converts are usually cut off from all former associations, including their own families. Examples include, the Jim Jones Group, Branch Davidians, and more recently, the Heaven’s Gates.

This is not entirely a secular construct, I daresay when you speak of cult, the majority of Christians will think of these type groups before they will think of the ones in your more narrow "Christian" definition.
And the control issue is interesting, thinking of a group exerting their control over people by telling them that every member of their group is "free to believe as he chooses."

a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds.

Interesting--a Fundamentalist espousing definitions that include words like "ecumenical."

Forgive me for answering a question with question, but if you are NOT a Mason, and have NEVER been a Mason, how do you claim to KNOW the "clear intention" of the Grand Lodge of Florida

I don't profess to know any such thing. The statement is, if you interpret it as you do, internally inconsistent. To say they teach "all good morals," and then to suggest they contradict it by saying they teach what you suggest, is ludicrous. Therefore it has to read, (although I will agree it could have been stated better to avoid your confusion), as a statement reflective of Masonry's inclusive stance, intended to express the idea that they do not see any one system as the one true expression of morality exclusive of all others. I think your tendency to make them a religion causes your misread, which would also explain why you have problems with "individual conscience" as it finds expression in Masonry.

I see our friend Marcia has returned, why don't you challenge her on the grounds of "never having been a Mason," or "never having interviewed the author" of the things she quotes? More of your double standard? Must be a man's world after all. But of course, you're only interested in the racism angle, never mind the sexism. And don't throw the co-Masonry thing at me, you know as well as I do they're not recognized.

TW

 

[frewtloop]

My inclination to resign from the Masonic Order was confirmed by a video series entitled, "What goes on behind the closed doors of the Masonic Lodge." It is a series where the late Dr. Martin debated against a 32 degree Mason about the biblical incompatibility of Freemasonry. Jack Harris, a former Worshipful Master, is also featured in this series and illustrates portions of Masonic ritual.

I don't know what you think I meant, but by "published work" I meant "Kingdom of the Cults[," in which neither the original nor subsequent revisions mention Freemasonry.

 

[O.F.F.]

Worm, who were you talking to when you said:

Again, you show by this criticism, coming from one of the preeminent Pike-quoters among us, your inconsistency in the use of material to go with the flow of your arguments. First you quote Pike in an argument against me, now you quote me to support your argument. So who's really trying to "have it both ways?"

Obviously it was me, but where on this board, or anywhere else for that matter, have I used Pike in an argument against YOU? Please show me as I do not recall, but even if I did, it was YOU and Masons who think like you, who said that we shouldn't use Pike's work to criticize Freemasonry, NOT ME.

I have no problem using Pike to criticize the Lodge, especially since the highest authorities of the Masonic Order -- Grand Lodges -- love to quote him in their literature to support their cause. So it can only be YOU -- and them -- who are trying to have it both ways, which is a classic case of hypocrisy if I've ever saw one.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia posted:

Another characteristic of a cult -- a cult holds back information on some of their teachings until the person is ready for them or deemed worthy to receive them.
--------------------------------------------------

The Worm posted:
Then Christianity fits this characteristic, based on Jesus' remark, "I have other things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now," and Paul and Peter's remarks about giving people milk because they aren't ready for strong meat.

Yes, this was about Jesus' death and resurrection. That was not a teaching or secret in the sense that a cult withholds information, but it was future event that Jesus would disclose to them later. That is not the same thing as men deciding to withhold secret teachings.

Jn 18.20:

Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret."

 

[frewtloop]

while we wait on your defense of Masonic tolerance of homosexuality

So basically, it comes to another of your inconsistencies, going to great lengths to show why the lodge is not Christian, and now trying to criticize them on grounds of Christian Fundamentalist viewpoints. (Trying to have it both ways again, in other words.)

Masonry comes together as a fraternity, the typical affirmation is "Fatherhood of God, Brotherhood of Man." One would think that you would know better, considering the dehumanizing of your own people that took place with the implementing of legislation declaring them to be "two-fifths human." There is a brotherhood in which all share as created human beings, and anyone who professes to be a homosexual is accepted on that basis. Not to do so, while making such an affirmation, would be to dehumanize, not by legislation, but by the more insidious evil of silent declaration.

TW

 

[frewtloop]

Yes, this was about Jesus' death and resurrection. That was not a teaching or secret in the sense that a cult withholds information, but it was future event that Jesus would disclose to them later. That is not the same thing as men deciding to withhold secret teachings.

Okay, you covered one base. Will you totally ignore the other as though it wasn't posted?

TW

 

[O.F.F.]

Worm, you said:

Interesting--a Fundamentalist espousing definitions that include words like "ecumenical."

How do you know me to be a "Fundamentalist?" Where have I stated this, or are you assuming again?

As for the use of the term Ecumenical:

1 : worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application 2 a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

This is certainly an appropriate use of the term in the context which I used it, which was with respect to essential Christian doctrine that bind Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Messianic Jews, Lutherans, non-denominational Protestants (like myself) and the like, together as one Body in Christ.

Sorry, but members of the Masonic faith don't fall into this category, as they are a cult by definition.

O.F.F.

 

[frewtloop]

Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret."

This was an event-specific answer as well, Jesus was being questioned by the High Priest and accused of teaching things antithetical to Judaism. To take that and apply it to the separate context at issue, is no different than what I did with my own answer. No one-way streets.

TW

 

[frewtloop]

How do you know me to be a "Fundamentalist?" Where have I stated this, or are you assuming again?

Well, other than the strict literalist interpretive framework you abide by, which is, generally speaking, a dead giveaway, there is the matter of your own words:

These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International,the Unity School of Christianity, and in this discussion, Freemasonry.

 

[Jacob Webber]

(they say the are for brotherhood but have traditionally limited their membership to the "freeborn" and excluded even freeborn people who had slave ancestors; they are for brotherhood but exclude (unless it's changed recently) disabled people from joining

Ok first freeborn, lets look at that for a minute this did not pretain to Africain Americains as Mike would lead you to believe. It pertained to those who were in servise to the Lords of England who they and there family were in dept to. Since they had no say in there own life they were not freeborn and they were WHITE.
Prince Hall was a Black man Free born and He was made a Mason in a Military Lodge I believe I would have to look it up again to be sure.


(they say they are not a secret society but their books refer to secrets and people take oaths not to divulge them (as has been clearly shown in this thread and others); they refer to the Lion of Judah but have excluded Jesus from Masonic texts and prayers; they talk about morals but say the individual decides the interpretation of right or wrong.)

Yes we have secrets if you goto your local libary you can read them all just as I did before joining. If you did your research you would know that the signs of recoginition were used just like the early Christian forefathers used them becuase they were being hunted down and killed. They used these sign to tell who was a Mason so they could besafe just as the Christian Forfathers did. Now the rituals are used to teach a lesson basicly using a play to teach. First you are tauch about charity, to give freely as it was given to you. Second you are thought Brotherly Love to help anyone in need. Third you are taught Charity, Brotherly Love and to stand by your word that if you say you will do something you will such as not reviel any other Brother and family who are being hunted down because He is a Mason even at the cost of your life.

(The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.)

Well this one is easily refutted as the Master of the Lodge can not make any one do anything on His own without the Lodge members voting on it.


(The second way to define a cult is popular in evangelical Christian circles. From this perspective, a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds)

Freemasonry does not try to bring religions together just men. Its teachings are that of which most men agree Charity, Brotherly Love to help, aid and assit all. Freemasonry ask that you feel accountable to a Supreme Being it does not have to be my Supreme Being who is Jesus Christ. IT does not allow religion and politics to be discussed in open lodge because conflict that happen even between Christian Brothers over issue like Once Saved always saved some Baptist and Methudist disagree with salvation being forever. If these two subjects were allowed to go on in open lodge no widows or childern would receive foods or housing.

Freemasonry seems to have alot of Judaism and Christian teachings in it. To both the Judaism and the Christian the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is Jesus Christ wether the jew accepts Christ or not does not stop Him from being the Messiah. Just as Jews, Muslims and Christians Worship YHWH again Christians see YHWH in the Threefold aspect of the Trinty which I might add the SBC said Freemasonry teaches. Just because the Jew and the Muslim do not see YHWH in the Trinty does not make YHWH anyless of a God.


Magor B
I read the page you supplied but it does not really show anything it basicly says we consider it a cult but does not go into detail as to why. But thanks for the link anyway. If you have more I will gladly read them.

 

[Jacob Webber]

I have a problem with a statement John Ankleburg made: He said anyone who believes in Allah believes in a False god. I was watching his show and He was talking to a converted Muslim who lived in New York big guy who I found was very informative needless to say I like the Big Fella he a good person. For some reason Ankleburg seems to think YHWH is less of a God when a Muslim call Him God. If someone does not see the full aspects of God it does not make God any less I do not understand how someone can say just because a person does not see God in the Threefold aspect of the Trinty some how they have the power to reduce God it is not possible. And how does this make an Arimaic Christian feel when they are told that they worship a false God because they use the Word Allah. Allah means YHWH. Just because someone does not see Him in the Threefold aspect of the Trinty does not stop Him from Being God. Now granted Ankleburg may have been in the Heat of the moment and did not mean it that way. But I am sure it made alot of people mad.