Masonic deception, or we are deceived?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Another issue which raises eyebrows among Christians is the matter of ‘preferment’–the tradition within Freemasonry which dictated that a Freemason will choose–or give preference to–a brother Freemason when confronted with two or more persons offering goods or services of equal value. In practice, this meant that Freemasons would often conduct trade only with brother Freemasons, would promote only brother Masons to positions of responsibility, would vote only for Masonic candidates, unless no brother Mason were available. At least one president–John Adams, I believe–was severely hurt early in life because he could neither join a Lodge due to enmity between himself and a local lodgemember who would ‘blackball’ his application to join, nor could his business progress as rapidly as it might without the support and patronage of brother Masons.

It should be noted that the official practice of preferment has been expunged from Masonic ritual since the middle 1800’s (it remained a part of some Masonic rituals in the UK through the 1980’s and 1990’s). In fact, one is reminded as a candidate that one is forbidden to seek membership in the Lodge for any sort of personal gain. Masons are forbidden to conduct personal business within the confines of a Lodge or during Masonic events for the same reason they are forbidden to discuss politics or religion during such times. Nor may shopkeepers, politicians, or others employ any Masonic symbolism or make reference to their Masonic affiliations in any advertisement or signage. (They may, however, wear their Masonic rings or other personal jewelry such as tie-clips).

Nonetheless–the informal, unofficial practice of preferment survives to this day. Masonic membership is extremely helpful–in some cases absolutely essential–to gain entry into certain types of work, particularly unionized tradework or certain types of government bureaucracies. Many salesmen and shopkeepers join the Lodge and it’s appendant bodies because a certain margin of business still flows towards such affiliations. The use of professional human resource managers, using job-screening methods which do not rely so heavily as in past times on personal references and recommendations, means that Masonic association rarely figures prominently into the hiring practices of many businesses or government agencies. Likewise, Masonic affilliation is not so helpful to political figures in this age of media campaigns as it once was. Finally–we should note that some people have chosen to affiliate with Christian churches in quest of the same sort of preferment which was once commonly exchanged among Freemasons.

Nonetheless–the notion of seeking ‘preferment’ is alien to the Christian faith, which teaches it’s adherents to ‘seek not your own’. Christians are taught to show impartiality, to give preference to others rather than to themselves. Preferment is no part of the natural Christian ethos. It was once a vital part of Freemasonry and remains at least a marginal part of the attraction of the Lodge. If Freemasonry were still an actively growing and healthy movement, one suspects that the practice of preferment would hold a much more prominent place in the Lodge–albeit unofficially, as it has survived since first being retracted from the ritual some hundred and fifty years ago. One cannot fault a Christian man for suspecting that he ought not to associate with an organization which might give at least the appearance that he is self-seeking and prone to showing partiality.
 
Another issue which rears it’s head is that while Christianity is a universal religion–indeed a faith which seeks first and foremost the outcast and the undesirable–Freemasonry is an exclusive fraternity. Masons like to say that they take in good men and make them better. The fact is that Freemasonry accepts ONLY ‘good men’–one cannot qualify for membership in a Lodge unless you are a man ‘of good report’. Criminals need not apply, nor at one time could a man belong who had been creditably accused of adultery, nor a person who had suffered bankruptcy, nor anyone who had engaged in questionable business or personal practices. In fact, one could be excluded from a Lodge by a single vote–a single ‘black ball’ cast against a candidate was sufficient to suggest that a would-be candidate might be unworthy of Lodge membership. (Lodges no longer exclude people who have completed bankruptcies, nor is it common to exclude or demit men who have been accused of moral transgressions, though it has happened on rare occasions). One can fully understand that such exclusivity would be an issue for some Christians.

Worse is the history of exclusion based upon race. One could not be a Freemason unless one were ‘a freeborn son of a freeborn son’–a rather formal way of saying that one could never have had ancestors who had been serfs or slaves. Almost no one of African descent living in America or Europe could make such a claim, and so blacks were systematically excluded from Masonic Lodges. In fact, a parallel ‘African’ or ‘Prince Hall’ system of Masonic Lodges emerged, because the Grand Lodge of Great Britain did recognize the right of blacks to join Freemasonry. These ‘Prince Hall’ lodges are widely considered to have the most perfectly-intact system of Masonic ritual. ‘White’ Freemasonry suffered a severe setback in the wake of the ‘Morgan Affair’ of the 1840’s, with 90% or more of all Masonic lodges in the USA going ‘dark’ (becoming defunct) for some decades, while the ‘Prince Hall’ lodges were little-affected by this scandal and were in fact a vital link in the ‘underground railroad’ system which helped southern slaves to attain freedom.

Racisim persisted within Freemasonry even in Northern Lodges into the ‘Jim Crow’ system of the post-Civil War epoch. In fact, the ‘Prince Hall’ Lodges were deemed ‘clandestine’ or renegade by most state Grand Lodges until the 1980’s and 1990’s, and it was nearly impossible for men of color to join ‘white’ Lodges until approximately that same period. Since then, ‘Prince Hall’ Lodges have been universally recognized by all American Grand Lodges, and proactive steps have been taken to ensure that worthy black males are not excluded from any Lodge they chose to petition.

Christianity has to answer for it’s own shortcomings with respect to racism–it is said that the most segregated hour of the week happens every Sunday during 11:00 AM and Noon–when whites and blacks self-consciously worship in racially separate churches–but it is not an inate part of the Christian faith to be racist. Indeed, it was Christianity which most actively opposed racism and which gave impetus to the Abolitionist and the Civil Rights movements. One again can fully understand the reluctance of a Christian to affiliate too readily with an organization which so reluctantly undertook to abolish racism in it’s midst and then only long after most other organizations and institutions had done so.
 
My point in posts # 27, 40, and 41 is that one does NOT need to superimpose conspiracy theories upon Freemasonry nor suggest that the Masonic Lodge is a quasi-religious institution in order to critique it’s suitability for Christians to join. I do believe adequate answers to the points I raise can be given by Freemasons, and that in the exchange of such criticisms some Christians will opt to leave the Lodge while others will find it far less objectionable than supposed and may opt to join a Masonic Lodge. Roman Catholics, as I and Jamesclaude have repeatedly acknowledged, ought NOT to join Masonic Lodges, based upon guidance by their own official Church government–far better that Catholics pressure their leadership to take a seriously hard look at the Lodge as it really exists (as opposed to how it is perceived and described by folks better suited to write articles for Wacky World News or similar tabloids). Opening a real dialogue with Freemasons might well lead to a fruitful exchange of ideas.

I would also point out that this would not be a one-way exchange. I frankly think that what are widely called the ‘blood oaths’ of Masonry deserve to be moved from their current prominent place in Masonic ritual–while these oaths are a significant part of Masonic history and lore and came about for specific historical purposes, they now do the Fraternity more harm than good.
As John Robinson once suggested, I suspect these should be preserved NOT as oaths sworn by candidates but certainly mentioned and even read aloud in the Lodge along with a reminder to the candidate that as these oaths were being composed and originally entered into, there was real danger that a Freemason might be arrested by the existing powers and exposed to some of the extremities suggested by these oaths BEFORE being permitted to actually die.

(One of the things often overlooked about the Masonic oaths is that they would cause immediate death to the victim–only his corpse would be desecrated. In the ‘outside world’ of the time of Freemasonry’s inception, one’s body would be desecrated whilst one still lived, breathed, and could experience every moment of suffering). Freemasonry is reluctant to ‘move the ancient landmarks’–that is, to alter it’s traditions too quickly or too radically, lest the Fraternity become something totally alien to it’s roots. But the Grand Lodges HAVE made changes of various sorts over the years–note the expunging from Masonic ritual of any reference to ‘preferment’–and more could be done in this respect.

Meanwhile, inflamatory posts and diatribes are of little help to anyone. It is my hope that Christian Freemasons and Christian critics of the Lodge will truly dialogue and discuss matters such as these in more serious and reasonable terms.
 
I have looked at other posts on these threads concerning other religions attacking the Catholic faith.

It is misconceptions, misunderstandings, etc. That I agree with. A poster stated that if someone is attacking anothers faith, it is usually because they feel inadequate in their own faith. Some very good posts. There is so much misunderstanding about the Catholic faith. We, as Catholics have lived with this for so long.
Why, then is it so unconsciencable that there could be misunderstandings about masonery? And that what happened in the middle ages could be different than what happens now?
 
.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Some do - some don’t - some won’t.

Go to a web site that says what you want to hear, and there are plenty of 'em. Truth is not for everyone.

I could film a mass at my church or any Roman Catholic Church, edit it just so, play creepy music in the background, insert ominous commentary in a deep voice - and present it as a horror movie for those who aren’t familiar with that ritual many are familiar with - and deeply love.

Human sacrifice ? Eating a body ? Drinking blood ? Ewww ! Think about how the Eucharist could be convoluted into something sinister…

Detractors of Freemasonry do the same thing - focus on the parts which seem to be “juicy” - then “go to town” with them.

The “bloody oaths” ripe for the pickin’ - just as religious intolerants focus on certain Albert Pike quotes, secrecy and other items which can be easily distorted.

Freemasonry is an anathema to religious intolerants since it accepts those of varied faiths who profess a belief in a Supreme Being, and mandate no specific prayers or beliefs beyond that simple concept.

The “bloody oaths” of Freemasonry are often spun into unreal levels of fantasy - they’re such a wide-open target for speculation and potential “evil” - cross my heart and hope to die !

If you don’t sorta remember what you think somebody said about them - who heard it from their grandma, then it might be worthwhile to see what they’re really about:

[www.masonicinfo.com/bloody.htm](Bloody Oaths - the real story of Masonic obligations)

If your mind is already made up, I can assume that you’re here to do *anything BUT contribute to the dialogue. *

Peace,
  • James
.
 
midwest mom:
Why, then is it so unconsciencable that there could be misunderstandings about masonery? And that what happened in the middle ages could be different than what happens now?
Click to expand...
If you read the material which more than one pope has written, I think you will agree it is no “misunderstanding”. the church’s prohibition is not solely based on the “middle ages” unless you conclude that the Ratzinger statement is the middle ages and much of the written material is also not from that time.
 
Midwest Mom,

May I call your attention to previous posts that have names and dates which in no uncertain terms, states the Catholic position from Rome on what happens to a Catholic who becomes a member of the Freemasons.

There are Promulgations as late as 1983 directly from the Vatican that state:

If a Catholic becomes a Freemason that person cannot recieve Holy Communion.

What does that mean. It means the person has severed his connections to both Jesus Christ and the Holy Catholic Church.

That is not a “misunderstanding”!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top