Saturday, August 11, 2007

Rev. Dr. Charles Blanchard's reasons why Christians should not be Freemasons

I came across an address railing against Freemasonry delivered by a fundamentalist preacher over 110 years ago.

Dr. Blanchard wasn't just against secret societies. One of his most famous sermons, "The 20th Century Christian" (given at the turn of the 20th century), slammed drinking, dancing, card-playing, the theater, and "lodgism" while promoting Sunday blue laws and putting religion into public education and national politics.

The anti-Masonic speech is refreshing in that it doesn't cite "leading Masonic writers" such as Pike, Mackey, and Hall, nor does it dwell on conspiracy theories about dollar bills, the New World Order, the Taxil hoax or anti-Catholic vendettas.

It's just a nice, long, well-reasoned discourse on why Christians shouldn't be Freemasons.

The speech was given by Dr. Charles A. Blanchard, then president of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. It was delivered on August 7, 1895, to nearly 1,600 "Christian workers" from across the country, who had assembled in Northfield, Massachusetts, for a "Conference for Christian Workers" sponsored by evangelist Dwight L. Moody.

Here, according to Dr. Blanchard, is what is wrong with Freemasonry and why Christians shouldn't be Freemasons:
  • The Bible already contains all the instructions for life a man needs; therefore, no other organization or doctrine is needed.

  • A Christian is the "Light of the World," and the Church, not Freemasonry, decides what constitutes "morality."

  • "It is the duty of the Church to point out the evil, not only of some sin, but of all sin." Freemasonry is sin, and therefore, trying to save a Freemason here and there isn't right; all of Freemasonry should be dismantled. "It is better to reform or hang the wreckers than to save one wreck!", Blanchard says.

  • As a follow up to the above reason, he says to avoid Freemasons because most aren't Christians, and thus, are "a mighty factor of evil" against the Church.

  • Masonry and all secret societies are secretive, and "require members to disregard the example of Christ." He exclaims that "no man can be a secret society man and follow the example of Jesus Christ!"

  • Freemasonry tramples upon Christ's commands by hiding things.

  • Citing II Corinthians 6:14, Blanchard says that Freemasonry forces men to "have fellowship with unbelievers."

  • Freemasonry teaches immorality. He comes to this conclusion by saying that Masonic restrictions against having "illicit carnal intercourse" with a brother's female relatives implies that it's permissible to have illicit carnal knowledge with any woman not related to a Mason.

  • Masonic charity is "utterly un-Christian," in that it serves only Masons and their families.

  • Masonry denies God's plan of salvation. "This whole system is a plan to DO AWAY WITH THE ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST and to lead the poor sinner to trust man in the awful day of judgment, with no hope except what his miserable, paltry righteousness has been able to get for himself."

  • You "leave your Savior at the door" when you enter a Masonic temple, since the name of Jesus is not to be used in a lodge meeting.
if evangelical Christian ministers were preaching this kind of anti-Masonic rhetoric over a hundred years ago, why are so many of today's Freemasons also evangelical and fundamentalist Christians?

If you are both a Christian and a Freemason, I ask you how you justify being both, in light of Dr. Blanchard's sermon? Is he right? Wrong? Is it just his opinion or do you think he's speaking for Jesus and/or Christianity?

If he's right, then why are you a Freemason?

If he's wrong, then why are you a Christian?

Image: Rev. Charles A. Blanchard, President of Wheaton College (1882-1925). For more info on Blanchard and his Congregational religious beliefs, see this page at Wheaton's website.

| | | | | |


  1. If a Church or Minister has a teaching on Freemasonry that is critical of it, then that is not 'anti-masonic rhetoric'.

    Masonry is within it's right to say, or teach, in secret even, that Christianity is or is not compatible with Freemasonry.

    Please respect true religious freedom.

  2. The Bible already contains all the instructions for life a man needs; therefore, no other organization or doctrine is needed.

    Reminds me of the reason given for burning the library at Alexandria.

    From Wiki:
    Several historians told varying accounts of a Muslim army led by Amr ibn al 'Ass sacking the city in 645, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library, and received the response "...if what is written in them agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees, they are not desired. Destroy them therefore.", and thus burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers.[14]

    The article goes on to say that this is a legend and probably not the actual destruction. But the attitude is telling.

  3. Oh this whole battle of Christianity vs. Masonry again!? *sigh* Alright, so be it.

    If he's right, then why are you a Freemason?

    I don't believe he is right, he has a very one sided argument. Just becuase you are a Christian doesn't mean you should cut yourself off from the rest of the world. As a Chrisitan, should you persecute non-Chrisitans? No, Christ didn't do such things. You CANNOT go to either extreme!

    If he's wrong, then why are you a Christian?

    I am a Christian. (Mormon, per se, we believe in Christ, just not as the "mainstream Christians" do, but thats for another day. Its funny becuase I get crap from both sides) As I had stated in an earlier post, "Balance in ALL things, brother." Masonry does not cover all the apsects of what I believe in: salvation, life after death, plan/goal of life, eternal marrage, ect. What masonry does cover is living a just and moral life. It has eternal truths that will lead to a better and happier life, but it does not go any further than that. I joined becuase I am always looking for self improvement. Masonry's goal is to: "Take a good man, and make him better." I also enjoy meeting others with open minds and able to think!

    Here is one of my favorite statements of what I believe in:
    Article of faith 13:
    We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul- We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

    See any conflicting beliefs in this? I don't. The scriptures say: "By their fruits ye shall know them." I see many good, honorable men all belonging to the fraternity. Not satan-worshipers or misled people. Many of our lodge members are active in their churches too.

    It sometimes seems that we need to have some sort of opposition to seem right and settle in our minds what we are doing is correct. Why can't we live by what we teach, ignore those who are closed-minded, and go on about our way? I believe we will be much happier that way.

    "Balance in all things, brother"

  4. Nice source Tommy. Lets use a source were anyone person can doctor the thing. I think I look under the masonic section of the site and say I was a famous mason. Good god.

  5. Nice question WS.

    I have been wrestling with my Christianity for a few years and have never seen Freemasonry as a substitute or a means to understand God or Jesus better. The wrestling match is not between Masonry and Christianity it is with the religion in general. One firm belief I have is the sovereignty of God and his unprovisional grace. I firmly trust that God can do anything he wants to and he doesn't need my morality to do it. According to the Christian faith Jesus holds the keys to life and death, I don't. So when a well meaning christian insists that my actions or inactions can get the attention of the Almighty, for better or worse, his or her logic puts mankind and God in a strangle hold. When does man control God or God control man? This is where the mystery of Jesus plays out. So if I trust that God is in control, as many of my faithful sojourners also vocalize, then my choices in life will end with God glorified and not me. This is supported throughout the christian VSL. It also resonates from the first question from the Westminster Catechism (a well used document that organizes many reformed christian faiths).

    Q: "What is the chief end of man?"
    A: "To glorify God and enjoy him forever."

    I am not a trained theologian or minister but when I think of that question, the examples of God's glory and how Jesus taught us to pray (Lords Prayer), the name of Jesus is not magic and will not get God's ear quicker than my Zoroastrian or Dervish brother. So the whole argument of prayer in Lodge is moot from Jesus' own words (assuming you believe the gospels are accurate.)

    Jesus also told us to care for Widows and Orphans as a good practice of religion. No modifiers or restrictions attached. So the pompous egotistical christian who thinks his or her charity is more righteous than an atheists is despicable. What is the argument here. My good works are better than yours? The whole premise of Christianity is about the work of Christ and not mine so why does it matter to God if my Wiccan neighbor drives the elderly atheist to serve soup to homeless muslims? Who is doing something wrong? It is my opinion that the Christian church has turned the practice of moral activity into a competition and that is sad!

    As for 'justifing' my belief that Jesus is God and sitting in Lodge I honestly don't need to do that before you, my christian brother or even our Great Architect. But the question is still a good one and the main reason I was convinced of the beauty of freemasonry was the "Making good men better" phrase compared to what Jesus said about serving two masters. Good is good and Bad is not. What is Bad, well that is a larger black hole.

    And the argument of 'yoking' oneself to an unbeliever, what hogwash. Why stop at Freemasonry and not include the military charges or legal contracts or even citizenship.

    God help us with our unbelief.

  6. Lets use a source were anyone person can doctor the thing.

    It's not enough to look at the words, you have to make an effort to understand the context.

    I pointed out that Wiki mentioned that it was just a legend; this was more than most sites that actually had the quote presented as fact.

    However the *real* point was not Wiki at all; the real point is that some people - mainly those of fundamentalist leanings in any religion - often portray an attitude of "if it's not in my Holy Scripture, then there's no point in knowing anything about it."

    If Rev. Blanchard's reasoning were taken to an extreme, there would be no schools (why teach subjects that aren't in the Bible?), no education, and no growth or progressive thinking. In history class, a period like that was called the Dark Ages.

  7. No Tommy the point is that anyone person can doctor that source you used. So before you run around asking about someone else's sources check your own.

    And that's the real point Tommy.


  8. It's not enough to look at the words, you have to make an effort to understand the context.

    That's a good concept also. So if it's a lie if understand the context it's okay to lie. Well I'll go to Wiki now and lie as long as people understand the context it's okay.

  9. Concerning each of Blanchard's points, as bulleted:

    1. By this logic, no one should bother attending Wheaton College, nor any other, for that matter. The Bible nowhere claims that it precludes other instruction—personal spiritual revelation, parental admonitions, philosophical debate, academic learning, scientific research, modern-day prophecy, or fraternal education—as an aid to life.

    2. “The Church”? Which Church? Besides the obvious problems with this position, the Freemason’s morality is really an aid that backs up the teaching of the kind of morality that most churches teach, but in a non-sectarian setting. We need to remember that grand lodge Freemasonry arose after centuries of religious warfare in England, which made it difficult to trust in the morality taught by the churches. These days, we still need a non-sectarian setting to spread morality.

    3. How very circular of you, Dr. Blanchard. And just how is Freemasonry a sin?

    4. Actually, unless one adopts an unreasonably narrow or highly circular definition of “Christian,” Freemasons in the United States by an overwhelming margin are mostly Christians.

    5. Actually, Jesus taught that there were mysteries within the religion that he taught, mysteries that were not to be shared with the world at large; see Matthew 13:10-11 (parallel passages: Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10). During the 40-day ministry of Jesus, between the Resurrection and Ascension, Jesus taught much “pertaining to the kingdom of God,” none of which is recorded in the Bible as we have it today (Acts 1:3). The apostle Paul spoke repeatedly of the mysteries of God (see any good biblical concordance, under the entries for “mystery / mysteries” for passages in at least five letters of Paul). If Dr. Blanchard did not know the mysteries of godliness—well, that is truly unfortunate. From a different angle: it can be argued that Freemasonry really is not a secret society at all; a truly secret society keeps its very existence secret (like the Mafia or some intelligence agencies); Freemasonry keeps some information secret, but in this sense is akin to corporate boards of directors, professional sports teams, and many a good debate squad.

    6. See the previous point.

    7. We do not know the specific situations to which Paul was responding. This scripture might well refer to Christians avoiding the entering of binding associations such as marriage with non-Christians. It also probably means not participating in events that violate Christian standards; different people have different ideas about what that means, but it would certainly mean avoiding pagan worship, events where illicit drugs are prominent, events where fornication or pornographic activity is central, and so forth. As it happens, the activities of Masonic lodges do not fall under any of these categories. Taking Dr. Blanchard’s very narrow interpretation of this scripture would mean that Christians would not rent from non-Christian landlords, work in commercial business with non-Christians, would not serve in the armed forces with non-Christians, would not even live in the same country and share the burdens (‘yoke’) of citizenship with non-Christians; this is an awfully heavy burden to sustain on a single verse of scripture—not to mention a highly snotty, bigoted, and intensely un-American position to take.

    8. False. The Masonic restrictions are a minimum, not a maximum.

    9. False again. Masonic charity—especially if one considers the Shriner’s hospitals, the Scottish Rite language clinics, the York Rite eye clinics, and what my local lodge does for a certain kindergarten I know of—extend more to non-Masons than to Masons.

    10. Most false of all. Masonry teaches men to be minded towards the Eternal World, but offers no plan of salvation whatsoever. It teaches us to be good, yes—and if that is sinful in anyone’s eyes, they are beyond rational discussion.

    11. This is entirely Dr. Blanchard’s own construction of the situation. I am a committed Christian: I served as a Christian missionary in Asia for two years at my own expense; I help local missionaries to spread the Christian faith in my own community; currently I teach Sunday School to adults in my local congregation. [Peace out, Brother Ephraim.] I no more ‘leave my Savior at the door’ of my lodge than I leave my heart or my brain. However, I have agreed to leave discussion of sectarian religion outside the lodge room. This is the price of living in a pluralistic republic—the kind that the authors of the Constitution had in mind, incidentally. This is a practice that should be emulated by people in many areas of public life, including the political debate, the corporate meeting, and the sports arena.

    I am both a Christian and a Freemason. Dr. Blanchard was just plain wrong, and spoke just his own opinion. You ask, “if he’s wrong, why are you a Christian?”, to which I answer: because this man’s Christianity seems to me to be in many ways different from the Christianity of Jesus the Christ.

  10. The Lambskin apron each mason gets is proof that masonry has a plan of salvation.

    Every jurisdiction in the U.S. teaches the same thing, with only a slight variation in wording. Further, recognizing that Mackey's encyclopedias of Freemasonry, regardless of edition or revision, address the symbolism of all of Freemasonry, except, of course, for clandestine lodges, and this is found in those editions: "The lamb has always been considered as an appropriate emblem of innocence. And hence we are taught, in the ritual of the First Degree, that "by the lambskin, the Mason is reminded of that purity of life and rectitude of conduct, which is so essentially necessary to his gaining admission into the Celestial Lodge above, where the Supreme Architect of the Universe forever presides." ('Mackey's Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Vol. 1', page 96)

    It must be nice to know that Jesus is no better then Alah in the religion fo the lodge. And that all roads lead to Lodge above. So don't give me that crap Marky Mark.

  11. To me:

    Read carefully, the lambskin apron is a sybol of the purity of life and rectitude of conduct for gaining admission, etc.

    Are you suggesting that purity of life and rectitude of conduct are *not* necessary?

    And as one individual has for their signature block, (paraphraised), self improvement, charity, religious tolerance, Masonry, it's not for everyone.

    Traveling Man

  12. Hey "Brother Mark" (A brother in more than one way.) I enjoyed your comments and see that we agree (I wonder why :) )

    A point I did forget to cover which you did: "There is a time and place for everything." We don't discuss religion in lodge becuase it is not going to accomplish anything pertaining to the lodge business. Just as you wouldn't argue or discuss religion at a PTA meeting or at a business meeting.

    The Lambskin is a SYMBOL that reminds us to be pure and upright. I believe and would definatly hope heaven would be a pure and honest place. Mackey isn't saying we need the lambskin to enter heaven, just reminds us to be pure and clean. Besides, I don't need a apron to be a good person, I will do it nonetheless to anyone, yes, including you.

    P.S. mark, where in asia did you serve your mission? I will be going on mine soon enough. email me sometime.


  13. To brother Ephraim, who writes of his Mormon faith:

    << We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men........ >>

    As this blog so frequently serves as a venue of Masonic enlightenment, perhaps it's only fitting that it should also serve as a venue for some Mormon enlightenment as well:

    On September 11, 1857, just short of 150 years ago, a large number Mormons murdered a large number of American pioneers, possibly including some members of my own family.

    In the spring of 1857, a wagon train carrying several families from northern Arkansas, set out for better prospects in California. Unfortunately, as they traveled the "Old Spanish Trail" through Utah Territory, the adult men and women of the wagon train, along with all their children older than 6, were coldly and deliberately murdered by Mormon followers of Brigham Young.

    The Mormons initially induced a band of Paiute Indians to attack the settlers, but the wagons formed an effective defensive circle which repelled the Indian attack. After a brief siege, Mormons rode into the defensive circle under a flag of "truce," and told the settlers that they'd escort them safely out of the territory, if they'd surrender their weapons and leave without further resistance.

    With few other options, and no way of enduring a long siege, the members of the wagon train placed their trust in their Mormon "rescuers," and handed over their weapons. The Mormons then separated them into groups of men, women, and children, and began marching them through the desert.

    By design, the first group was led a bit faster than the second, and the second a bit faster than the third, so that a distance of a few hundred yards eventually separated the groups. Then, on a signal given by the Mormon leaders, the Mormons opened fire and murdered more than 120 unarmed men, women, and children.

    Only 17 children who were thought to be too young to remember what happened were spared, and those were "adopted" into Mormon families. The Mormons stripped their victims of their clothing, robbed them of their money and valuables, divided their cattle and horses among the Indians, and hastily buried their bodies in shallow graves, which were scavenged by wild animals, thereby littering the surrounding desert with their bones.

    To be fair, the "Mountain Meadows Massacre" as it's commonly known, allegedly was conducted without the "approval" of Brigham Young, but after Young was informed about it, he blamed it on the Indians, and covertly did everything in his power to protect the Mormons perpetrators.

    In a nutshell, he tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug, and with a philosophy espoused by the majority of Masons today, he remarked about the murders: "The more you stir a manure pile, the worse it stinks."

    And so, members of the Mormon church, who officially believe in "being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men," deliberately duped, murdered, and robbed entire families of unarmed American pioneers, then attempted to blame their deeds on Indians they'd ostensibly befriended.

    Mormonism reflects a great deal of Masonic influence, which neither group is particularly proud to mention today, but the obvious similarities remain in both form and function. From the secrecy, to the blood oaths, the "excommunications" and/or "expulsions," and the required conformity to authority, Mormonism is largely just Masonry incarnated as a pseudo-religion.

    Don't get me wrong, many Mormons are good and decent people, just as many Masons are, and like Masonry, the Mormon church has made valuable contributions to humanity through numerous philanthropic endeavors. That doesn't change history, however, and those who truly seek "balance in all things, brother," must acknowledge and take responsibility for the bad, as well as the good.

    Stirring a manure pile does indeed make it stink temporarily, but it also disperses it in such a way that it can become a benefit, rather than a detriment.

    That's perhaps worth remembering.

  14. In response to the Annonymous poster above:

    My only familiarity with the events of 1857 comes from the History Channel.

    In fairness, almost all organized religions have blood on their hands.

    The one exception I take to your post is the use of the "blood oaths" canard in respect to Masonry. (Not being a Mormon, I don't know if there is or is not a parrallel.)

    If you read any purported exposure of these "oaths" you will find that nowhere does a Mason ever promise to *inflict* the awful penalties mentioned.

    I have been told that the penalties refer to the torment of concience any good man would feel after betraying his word.


  15. Yes, I will agree with you that the mountain meadows massacre was a nasty bit. I've done alot of research on it and I will share what I do know.

    It was a bad time for the church in general, alot of persecution and ect. The overall feeling of the time was an uptight caution.

    The massacre itself was not ordered by the church, but more of a band of soldiers who happened to be part of the church. (this may be argued but there is not proof of it whatsoever, again shady time.) They just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and let the panic get to them.

    Like all well regulated institutions, you will have some faulty people in it. But it is NOT about the people, but what the institution stands for and what it teaches. Masonry, church, ect.


  16. Responses to three of those who responded to my (very long) comment:

    To the poster designated “me”:

    First, shame on you for making fun of my name, and for your entirely undeserved sense of familiarity. Here’s a tip for you: juvenile comments do not give you any credibility points, even if -- especially if -- you actually happen to be technically a juvenile.

    Second, Mackey’s comment means that innocence and rectitude of conduct are necessary conditions for salvation, not sufficient ones. (Are you actually disagreeing with that?)

    Thirdly, certainly there is no Masonic teaching whatsoever that even remotely has the meaning that “Jesus is no better than Allah in the religion of the lodge.” There is so much wrong with that statement from a Masonic viewpoint that it is hard to know where to begin, but here goes: (a) there is no ‘religion of the lodge,’ any more than there is a religion of the Boy Scouts, the U.S. Senate, or a college football league, although prayers are often offered at the gatherings of each; (b) Masonry declares itself not competent to rule on questions of the relative truth or value of different specific religions, and so simply takes no position on Jesus, relative to Allah or anybody else—which is perfectly appropriate, even mandatory, for a non-sectarian organization; (c) the fact that the lodge says it will treat people of all religions equally is in no way a statement that all religions are equally true, or that all conceptions of the Supreme Being are equally valid; these statements are entirely different. It would be convenient for anti-Masons if Masonry taught the things that you say Masonry does—but Masonry does not teach these things.

    Fourth, regarding the idea that “all roads lead to the Lodge above”—no, Masonry does not teach that, either. Mackey points out that innocence and rectitude of conduct are necessary to salvation, sure—but, of religions that have a concept of salvation, who does not teach this? What Mackey said is a very far cry from saying that “all paths to salvation are equally valid,” which is simply not a Masonic teaching; Masonry does not—and, indeed, by definition can not—take a position on this matter.

    Many anti-masons are offended that Freemasonry does not offer a platform for religious proselytizing. Such proselytizing is not appropriate for a nonsectarian forum in any case; in Freemasonry, we go a bit farther and explicitly declare sectarian religious discussions out of bounds. But to say what we do is not to say any of the following: ‘All religions are equally valid,’ ‘all conceptions of God are equally valid,’ or ‘all paths to salvation are equally effective.’ None of these are part of Masonic teaching, which simply does not address these issues.

    To the poster designated “Ephraim”: Let’s chat by e-mail. Write me at

    To the poster designated “anonymous,” who went into such detail about the Mountain Meadows Massacre:

    You have done a disservice to the entire list by yanking the discussion away into something that was irrelevant to the original posting. There is much that I could say about the Mountain Meadows Massacre that would put the entire affair in a very different light, but that similarly would be irrelevant to this forum; those interested in more light (rather than heat) on this issue are welcome to correspond with me by e-mail (see above; be sure to indicate whether you can accept a 200K attachment of a .pdf file). It would seem that you are offended by Ephraim’s mentioning his Mormon faith; this is the only reason I can see for your making such a post. If so, shame on you, too: Ephraim was not proselytizing, and the original post explicitly called for such a personal exposure of the nature of one’s faith if one were to commment. Ephraim stepped up to the plate and you go off on a tangent to knock him down. This is neither Masonic nor appropriate for a civilized forum at all.

  17. Ephraim writes:

    it is NOT about the people, but what the institution stands for and what it teaches. Masonry, church, ect.

    That's like saying "reality isn't important, it's the theory that counts."

    What difference does it make how good an organization's dogma is, when its followers go around murdering and robbing unarmed women and children? That's the reality, regardless of what the theory behind it was. Didn't you just write above: "By their fruits ye shall know them?" Why shouldn't that apply to the followers of your church?

    And you should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to justify the brutal murders of innocent people the way you have, and that's exactly what you're doing when you say:

    It was a bad time for the church ... [the Mormon murderers] just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and let the panic get to them.


    That doesn't bring back any of the innocent people they murdered and robbed, and it doesn't restore the irreplaceable generations of human lives they took from the world -- people who might have averted wars, cured diseases, or alleviated human suffering.

    The very least you could say is:

    "I'm terribly sorry for what happened to those people. It was a horrific event without any possible justification, but the memory of it should never be forgotten, lest their deaths have been in vain. Those who forget (or deny, or whitewash) their history, are doomed to repeat it, and the most we can do to honor the memory of those victims, is to acknowledge our crimes and take responsibility for them so that nothing like that ever happens again."

    If you have anything to say other than that, I don't know what kind of a Mormon you are, but you certainly aren't much of a man, or much of a Mason, in my opinion.

  18. Masonry is a religion. Like I posted about the lamb skin apron. Not even you Traveling Man can weasel out of that one. It's very easy to see.

  19. Marky Mark and the funky bunch.Thirdly, certainly there is no Masonic teaching whatsoever that even remotely has the meaning that “Jesus is no better than Allah in the religion of the lodge.” There is so much wrong with that statement from a Masonic viewpoint that it is hard to know where to begin, but here goes: (a) there is no ‘religion of the lodge,’ any more than there is a religion of the Boy Scouts, the U.S. Senate, or a college football league, although prayers are often offered at the gatherings of each; (b) Masonry declares itself not competent to rule on questions of the relative truth or value of different specific religions, and so simply takes no position on Jesus, relative to Allah or anybody else—which is perfectly appropriate, even mandatory, for a non-sectarian organization; (c) the fact that the lodge says it will treat people of all religions equally is in no way a statement that all religions are equally true, or that all conceptions of the Supreme Being are equally valid; these statements are entirely different. It would be convenient for anti-Masons if Masonry taught the things that you say Masonry does—but Masonry does not teach these things

    Complete load of crap in that reply. Every temple lodge is a religion. And masonry has its own plan of salvation which is meant by the lambskin apron. And masonry teaches every road leads to heaven. Not even you or your little band of masonic brothers can defend the lodge and its B.S. Now go get hammered with your Shriner brothers and drive a go cart into the crowd and blame it on the brakes drunk.

  20. Anonymous:

    I doubt seriously that responding to you with facts in this issue would do any more good than previous attempts have, but here goes:

    Masonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being as a condition of membership. The faith that a Brother enters the Fraternity with is his. Freemasonry makes no attempt to change a man's beliefs.

    Masonry teaches a man to revere the god of his understanding and respect the beliefs of his Brothers. Nothing more, nothing less.

    But I suspect that tolerance and understanding are far beyond your ken. You can only mouth unproven allegations and lies. I'm sure you will have some crass rejoinder to this, and will add crass rejoinders ad infinitum as long as you get attention.

    Therefore I withdraw my attention from you. I'm terribly sorry that you couldn't win at "bait the Mason" with me, but it certainly was a valient effort pidgeon.

    Be Well,


  21. To anyone who happened to read the most recent Anonymous post:

    There clearly is no point in responding rationally to Anonymous directly, so I will just use what he has to say for educational purposes; what he writes is typical of a certain type of low-functioning anti-Masonry (itself just an example of low-functioning bigotry), and exposing that may help to deal with it more productively when you see it in others. Note, if you will, the rhetorical tactics that he uses:

    A.) He responds with personal attack, calling people names, and so forth.

    B.) He responds by labeling whatever he disagrees with as "crap," rather than responding to the substance of the other person's position.

    C.) He repeats his own position, without actually responding to the substance of the criticisms made of it.

    These are the tactics of a desperate man. I say this, because, in what is a debate of positions--an intellectual shootout, as it were--clearly he has run out of ammunition, and is just throwing about whatever sticks of rhetorical furniture comes to hand. My brothers, when you find yourself speaking with someone like this, do not be afraid to state the following:

    1) "You are not responding to the substance of what I am saying. This leads me to believe that you are incapable of responding; you just don't have anywhere else to go. Essentially, you have lost the discussion; you just don't know it yet. But anyone watching you without prejudice already knows that you have lost."

    2) "You are being a verbal bully. Rhetorical violence, like physical violence, is the last resort of the desperate. You must be pretty desperate to resort to name-calling and bullying."

    3) "You are simply repeating yourself, without taking into account anything that others have said. Frankly, one must wonder whether you are just doing this to keep yourself convinced. Repeating something does not make it so."

    Remember this exchange, my brothers. As more people of a younger generation enter Masonry, you will see more and more of these exchanges.

    And for you, Anonymous: I shall pray for you. You really do need help.

  22. I have taken everything you guys have said into account. It's a load of crap. Masonry is a religion and the lambskin apron proves this. Masonry has its own plan of salvation. Just admit it. Quit the lying because it's not doing you any good. But keep it up if you want because it's funny to read such lies.


  23. There clearly is no point in responding rationally to Anonymous directly,

    Right, because it's unfair to enter into a battle of wits with somebody who is only half-armed.


    I have taken everything you guys have said into account.

    No, you haven't. You've read words on a page which did not agree with your pre-conceived ideas. Of course, I can only imagine where you got these ideas - most people over the age of 14 have learned critical thinking skills, and can do a little research.

    The thing about some people claiming out of (profound!) ignorance that the fraternity is a religion of some sort is virtually inexcusable in this age of access to research materials. Nobody who is intellectually honest can repeat this claim - there is too much written about the fraternity to mistake this anymore, unless the only "research" that you do is read the same konspiracy sites on teh interwebz over and over.

  24. Jean:

    What if Freemasonry is a religion? What if it teaches there is salvation for the unchristian? What if the lambskin apron symbolizes this?

    So what? Just SO WHAT?

    What's it to you? Why does it matter to you? If everything you say is true, how does it affect your life?

    — W.S.

  25. Just tell the truth. Quit lying and making up half truths about freemasonry. I just happened to come across this site a few weeks ago. I decided to read the thing and it has nothing but half truths in it.

    Quit the lying and tell the truth. It's very simple to read a book like Morals and Dogma, Mackey's, and Duncan ritual of freemasonry to understand that masonry is indeed a religion. No matter how many times you try to say it isn't. So suck it up butter cup and tell the truth.


  26. Widow's Son - Help is indeed on the way. It should be here by 2012. (But no one's going to know what hour - I'd bet my life on that.)

    Christian Freemasonry. *sighs* Why must the unbelieving skeptics call themselves "realists" long enough to enter a debate already solved???

    Most Traveling Men I've met are Christian. I am - and I guarantee you that you cannot find a more convicted believer. (Sometimes faith extends into Knowledge, and is no longer faith...)

    The few who are not Christian in my lodge are the most moral, genuinely *Good* Jewish men I've ever met.

    It may very well be that somewhere in some hidden room in a famous city, evil men may have undergone a rite which we have and are secretly plotting our demise.

    That doesn't detract from the fact that I and every member of my lodge joined to become better men, to help other good men grow in further light - the Light of God.
    It is a great Good in this world that there still exists a place wherein people can still meet for charitable purposes and agree to set aside our religion and politics in order to better humanity - or at least the humanity *we* come into contact with on a daily basis.

    You want to get religious? Lets: Matt said this: "By your fruits shall ye know them." I'm not a religionist. I don't know all the scriptures down to the number - but how bout John? "By this shall men know ye are my disciples, when ye have love one for another." (Jn.13:33-35)

    "Be the change you seek in the world!" - Ghandi. That's precisely what we try to do. So "Judge Not! - Lest ye be judged!"

  27. Help whay have helped? The only thing you have helped with is proving my point. So lets do this again.

    Anonymous said...
    For a moment let's say Masonry IS a religion. Again, I ask you: So what?

    W.S. I have been through this with you in another on of your posts. Stop the lying about it not being a religion. When you and I both know that masonry is a religion. Stop lying to new canidates about the fact that it's not a religion.

    "Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instructions in religion. ... This is the true religion revealed to the ancient patriarchs; which Masonry has taught for many centuries, and which it will continue to teach as long as time endures." Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, pg. 213

    "(Masonry) is the universal, eternal, immutable religion, such as God planted it in the heart of universal humanity. ... The ministers of this religion are all Masons who comprehend it." Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, pg. 219

    Albert Pike was nothing if not inconsistent, but he was real clear about the 'religion' of Masonry. It's restated even today, that Masonry is not "a religion" but "religion." You can't split that hair.
    Masonry teaches it is the purity of life and rectitude of conduct that is "essentially necessary" for gaining admission into heaven.

    According to Freemasonry, it is the purity of life and rectitude of conduct that is the very essence of what is necessary for entering heaven.

    And you ask if there is a problem with this??

    I want to make sure I understand your contention.
    Does Masonry present a 'God'?
    These presentations are undeniable, as they are plainly stated in Ritual.

    Does Masonry possess a liturgy?
    The entire Ritual is liturgy.
    Rigid following of a structured form, required (proscribed) prayers, "acceptable" and "unacceptable" responses from candidates, and a catechism are but some examples of this liturgy.

    Does Masonry practice worship?
    Prayer is the most intimate form of worship --- conversation with God.
    Corporate prayer bonds a gathered body as one in this worship, in unified conversation with God.
    Masonry opens Lodge (and all other Masonic ceremonies) with invocation seeking "Divine Aid, Blessing, and Guidance".
    Masonry demands prayer from its candidate at the outset of his travels through each Degree.
    Masonry directs men to prayer in its Ritual.
    Masonry prays over its dead.
    Masonry closes Lodge (and all other Masonic ceremonies) with benediction seeking "Divine Aid, Blessing, and Guidance".
    (The problem arises in that Masonry never directs Mason to The One True Living God.)

    Does Masonry possess a doctrine?
    Masonry very plainly presents Masons with "the immortality of the soul, and the hope of the afterlife in heaven".
    From the first lesson of "the Common Gavel", to the "sheepskin lectures", Masonry presents to Masons a striving, by their own efforts, to become acceptable before God, and to be "welcomed home" with "Well done, good and faithful servant".
    (The problem arises in that Masonry never addresses man's sinful, condemned state, the need for salvation, or the Only Way [Jesus] to that glorious immortality in Heaven.)

    Does Masonry possess a priesthood, or clerics?
    Masonry must be taught and learned --- passed from those that "have light" to those that "seek light".
    Though not as prevalent these days (but on the resurgence from what I hear) is the assignment of Mentors, and the focus upon "Lodges of Instruction".
    Historically, Entered Apprentices were not "Passed", nor Fellowcrafts "Raised" to the next Degree until they had demonstrated credible knowledge of their current Degree in Freemasonry, by presenting a "work", either in Lectures or Papers, proving that they were "ready" for the next Degree.
    This is the oldest form of priesthoods and clerics known to man.

    These points, from the definition of religion, present a clear picture.
    Is Masonry a religion?
    Let the honest man answer.

    Sunday, August 19, 2007 11:06:00 AM

    Anonymous said...
    Lambskin Apron stuff.
    Main Entry: 1es·sen·tial
    Pronunciation: i-'sen(t)-sh&l
    Function: adjective
    1 : of, relating to, or constituting essence : INHERENT
    2 : of the utmost importance : BASIC, INDISPENSABLE, NECESSARY {essential foods} {an essential requirement for admission to college}
    3 : IDIOPATHIC {essential disease} {essential hypertension}
    - es·sen·tial·ly /-'sench-lE, -'sen-ch&-/ adverb
    - es·sen·tial·ness /-'sen-ch&l-n&s/ noun
    synonyms ESSENTIAL, FUNDAMENTAL, VITAL, CARDINAL mean so important as to be indispensable. ESSENTIAL implies belonging to the very nature of a thing and therefore being incapable of removal without destroying the thing itself or its character {conflict is essential in drama}. FUNDAMENTAL applies to something that is a foundation without which an entire system or complex whole would collapse {fundamental principles of algebra}. VITAL suggests something that is necessary to a thing's continued existence or operation {cut off from vital supplies}. CARDINAL suggests something on which an outcome turns or depends {a cardinal rule in buying a home}.

    Main Entry: 1nec·es·sary
    Pronunciation: 'ne-s&-"ser-E
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English necessarie, from Latin necessarius, from necesse necessary, probably from ne- not + cedere to withdraw -- more at NO
    1 a : of an inevitable nature : INESCAPABLE b (1) : logically unavoidable (2) : that cannot be denied without contradiction c : determined or produced by the previous condition of things d : COMPULSORY
    2 : absolutely needed : REQUIRED

    No semantics... just plain English.
    "essentially necessary" means exactly that.

    Now, to the passage from Ritual we have in question:
    What does it matter if you see "living in Christ" or you see "living by the golden rule" ??? Not one bit...right?
    The only thing that matters is what that Ritual Passage says in plain English.
    If some fellow says "Living in Christ", he gets proven wrong immediately by the facts that this same address is given to ALL Masons, Christian & Anti-Christian.
    The "golden rule" fellow is dead-wrong of the bat, because "golden rule" IS NOT how to get to heaven, is it?

    That passage very inescapably says:
    1. "Here is the Masons' presentation of Heaven,
    2. Purity of life and conduct is essentially necessary to get into this heaven,
    3. And here is a Lambskin Apron to remind you of this essentially necessary ticket to heaven."
    How to Get There
    The Reminder

    That is as plain as it gets, and W.S. and Tom, I outright DEFY you to make it say anything else than what it DOES say.

    Since you can NOT change what it DOES say, then you are flat stuck with "Purity of life and conduct is the way to heaven", and you are flat stuck YOU HAVE A LIE STARING YOU DEAD IN THE FACE, STRAIGHT OUT OF MASONIC RITUAL.

    Stop LYING.


  28. Anonymous:

    Brother Tom has laready responded to you on another post about this, but since you insist on being obdurate, no Masonry is NOT a religion in that its adherants do NOT have to agree with the "party line".

    Freemasonry doesn't turn a Christain into a Hindou, or a Muslim into a Jew. Plain and simple.

    Now are you saying that purity of life and rectitude of conduct ISN'T necessary for gaining admission to heaven? I guess that will make the "Securlar Humanist" crowd happy. Or is it just that someone can be base, vile, rude, a practitioner of all that is evil and as long as he has his "Jesus ticket" all that doesn't matter and he'll get into heaven?

    Seems I remember a passage in the New Testament about Jesus not liking people who didn't feed the hungry, clothe the naken, visit the sick and confined and teling folks who did not do these things to get out of his sight.

    Hmmmm. Doesn't say that the folks who DID do these things necessarily believed in himm, or did I miss something?



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.