From chapter 4 of Harold Berry’s “Truth Twisters” (see post #57):
A quote from Albert Pike, who virtually rewrote the Scottish Rite degrees into the present form used by the Masonic Lodge and Scottish Rite: “The Bible is an indispensable part of the furniture of a Christian Lodge, only because it is the sacred book of the Christian religion. The Hebrew Pentateuch in a Hebrew Lodge, and the Koran in the a Mohammedan one, being on the Altar; and one of these, and the Square and Compass, properly understood, are the Great Lights by which a Mason must walk and work.”
Joseph Ford Newton, an Episcopal minister and authority in the Masonic world, said, “Masonry is not a religion but Religion – not a church but a worship, in which men of all religions may unite.” He also wrote: “Religion, then, is the bond that binds us, first, to God, Whose [sic] is ‘the something universal’ which unites all things into one whole, and gives to the universe meaning and beauty. Second, it is the tie by which we are united to our fellow men in the service of duty, the sanctity of love, and the spirit of fraternal righteousness.”
Newton’s universalist views relate more to Hinduism than Biblical Christianity.
Henry Wilson Coil, author of authoritarian “Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia”, rejected any argument that says Masonry is not a religion – only religious: “It would be as sensible to say that man had no intellect but was an intellectual or that he had no honor but was honorable.” He further comments: “If Freemasonry were not a religion, what would have to be done to make it such? Nothing would be necessary or at least nothing but to add more of the same. That brings us to the real crux of the matter; the difference between a lodge and a church is one of degree and no of kind.”
Barry reports, The Entered Apprentice is told: “In his private devotions a man may petition God or Jehovah, Allah or Buddha, Mohammed or Jesus; he may call upon the God of Israel or the Great First Cause. In the Masonic Lodge he hears humble petition to the Great Architect of the Universe, finding his own deity under that name. A hundred paths may wind upward around a mountain; at the top they meet.” (from “The Lost Word: Its Hidden Meaning”, George H. Steinmetz, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1953, page 156.)
There’s a lot more in that book - on many religions, comparing each to Biblical Christianity. I recommend it as a basic part of every Christian’s library.
I recommend it as a basic part of every Christian’s library.
So Mason’s stand on character , integrity , values & morals and are allowed to call the God they worship by the name they choose .
If I understood your post and I processed it correctly , why the uproar over the Masons ? This is the reason why I keep my beliefs and my God simple .
It just strikes me as to much going on for something so simple but I love knowledge and thank you for giving me some . Perhaps someday I can return the favour .
> A quote from Albert Pike, who virtually rewrote the Scottish Rite degrees into the present form used by the Masonic Lodge and Scottish Rite:
There is a common misconception amongst the profane that Albert Pike speaks on behalf of all Freemasonry. He doesn’t. Indeed, nobody does, anymore than Jimmy Swaggart speaks on behalf of all Christians, or John McCain speaks on behalf of all Americans, or Ian Paisley speaks on behalf of all Irishmen, or Manfred the Wonder Dawg speaks on behalf of all FReepers.
Albert Pike had an opinion, and he published it and is quoted widely. Some masons may agree with his viewpoints: I certainly don’t. In fact, I find Albert Pike’s writings to be turgid and a thorough bore, just barely bordering on the ravings of a lunatick. Others find him interesting.
One thing is certain: his works are not definitive, and they do not form the masonic equivalent of Holy Writ. He does not officially represent masonry, and he does not represent me.
Pursuant to #71 it goes without saying that none of the other “authoritative sources” in Harold Berry’s “expose” on Freemasonry (eg Newton, Coil, &tc) speak with any official authority on behalf of the Craft, either.
If they be Masons they speak for themselves. If they be disaffected Masons they do their own credibility no good by speaking ill of their brethren. And if they be non-Masons, chances are good that they could never find two Masons willing to propose them into the Lodge, and thus speak in the context of sour grapes.