Are Mason's allowed to lie

[widows son]

Very true, and thank you for your support brother, one day this guys world is gonna come crashing down. Again not judging just an observation from a week plus conversation with you. skip, again your intolerance will come back to bite you in the a...., wait that would be an obscenity, bite you in the bum bum. Karma can be a bitc.... Well you know

Not worried about your future
Widows Son

Ps daddyrich can you inbox me I have a question or two

 

[BryanMaloney]

The best guideline: refer to the ties in your obligations. What did you promise to do, or not do?

Of course, interpreted strictly, this means that Masons cannot be undercover police officers.

 

[BryanMaloney]

A parallel exists in religion, most of which have an authority from which their claims are made. If I make a claim about Christianity, it cannot be authoritively based on my personal views. Rather, it must be proven on how well those views are based on black-letter Biblical statements.

Amazing how that still manages to lead to contradictory claims. Look at the errors the Evangelicals teach based on their idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture out of context, for example.

 

[T.N. Sampson]

Amazing how that still manages to lead to contradictory claims. Look at the errors the Evangelicals teach based on their idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture out of context, for example.

Your first sentence is quite true, but you'd have to offer an example to support the view in the second. There are some pretty strict rules in quoting an authoritative source (e.g., clear verses outweigh vague ones), but anyone can find support for a viewpoint if he distorts enough. Cordially, Skip.

 

[scialytic]

... ... ...

T.N. Sampson Quote:

"Similarly, if I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, I'll look to their Catechism, and not the personal views of my Catholic neighbor, whose views may not be correct. He may be wrong, but the documentation published under the Church's authority certainly is correct and binding."

Whether *he* would be right or wrong in regard to doctrine isn't of consequence if you were interested in what *he* believed. All Catholics, Baptists. and Methodists aren't going to necessarily follow and believe all doctrine that is taught by their sect. If you want to know what they believe, you need to know them or you are just looking at the surface (which is great for arguing).

A man's relationship with God is a personal experience. There is nothing analogous between religion and Freemasonry (for me personally). I choose to enhance my relationship with God--not by being a Mason--but being a Christian. I happen to be a Mason as well, and that relationship is encouraged and promoted by my Brothers.

Also, you are doing far more research than many of us Brothers. To most, this Fraternity is just that...a Brotherhood. To come on here and throw source documents in our faces is preposterous. That's like me framing my argument regarding your Christian faith by choosing various quotes and text from Pat Roberton, Richard Land and John Wesley to suit my points. Digging through the tombs of material written by men and using them as fodder is pretty weak. The text only has meaning based on context; in which you are lacking.

It's more than just Dogma and GL decrees. They're there--but if you truly want to know Masonry--you have to go through it. Or at least have an open mind. Masonry is truly an individual experience, and the individual decides how it applies and molds them...not a GL or any other Mason (or anti-Mason for that matter). Until you can approach the subject with an open mind you're just chasing shadows...instead of dispelling them.

 

[widows son]

This guy doesn't have an open mind, and doesn't think for himself or base his opinions off of things he experiences in life, he only uses the bible as an authority for any rationality on any subject. I've seen some of the things put out by him on masonry.

 

[daddyrich]

" but anyone can find support for a viewpoint if he distorts enough. Cordially, Skip."

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[T.N. Sampson]

Re: ... ... ...

Whether *he* would be right or wrong in regard to doctrine isn't of consequence if you were interested in what *he* believed. All Catholics, Baptists. and Methodists aren't going to necessarily follow and believe all doctrine that is taught by their sect.

Understand your point, but the issue is one of authority. All religious groups have an authority that is relied upon as the basis of their teachings. For Freemasonry, it is the GL, which expresses its views on various matters via publications such as their Code, Mentoring Manuals, training documents and the ritual itself. These are formal statements of position, and are applicable only within the jurisdiction itself. But they are binding on Masons within that jurisdiction.

Using your point, if I want to know what a Catholic believes, he can tell me; however, if I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, I'd consult their authoritative documents, as he may or may note actually know. Such documents are not always binding. For example, a Catholic may not agree with the Church on its contraception policy, and certainly many don't. To me, it leads to the question: then why are you a Catholic? If you reject a key teaching of the Church, and by such rejection you are committing a sin in the eyes of your hierarchy, just what do you gain by being a member? And the hypocrisy by claiming to be a Catholic while rejecting its key doctrines seems pretty significant to me. I'd assume that if a person wished to hold a view of God that differs from their church, by all means find another church. As you pointed out:

A man's relationship with God is a personal experience.

And nothing in his church selection should interfere with that.

Also, you are doing far more research than many of us Brothers. To most, this Fraternity is just that...a Brotherhood.

I think you are right on both counts.

To come on here and throw source documents in our faces is preposterous.

But wrong on that one. As I've pointed out, the GL is the authority in your jurisdiction, and its authority is exercised through those documents that you seem to disregard. I think you'd agree that Masonry is a very hierarchical organization. One only need examine the powers of a WM and those of all GL officers to see the truth in that. As well, what 'Masonry' is in any jurisdiction is not left to the definition of its members; rather, it's the prerogative of the GL itself. The FL GL frames the issue concisely:

Masonry is systematic, proportionate, balanced, and exists in the form of duties, laws and definite work, supervised and regulated, controlled through laws written and unwritten, expressed through Landmarks, traditions, usages, Constitutions, and By Laws, guided and directed through Officers vested with power and authority. When the candidate takes his Obligation it is to pledge himself to uphold that lawful system; when he salutes the Master and Wardens it is to signify his obedience to the legally constituted Officers! When he is willing to follow his guide and fear no danger he expresses his trust in, and loyalty to, the Fraternity, as should a child which as yet is unable to trust himself. This new world is a lawful world in which caprice and arbitrariness have no part. It has a definite nature of its own, it is devoted to specified purposes, it is committed to well defined aims and ideals. Its members cannot make it over to suit their own whims or to conform to their own purposes; they must make themselves over to it, must conform themselves to its requirements. One does not become a Mason first in order to become a member; he becomes a member in order to become a Mason, and if there be in his nature anything that obstructs him, he must make use of his Working Tools to remove it. Among the first requirements demanded of the Apprentice is that he shall offer himself as a rough stone, to be shaped under Masonic laws and influences for a place in the Temple of Masonry. (LSME Booklet 2, 2009, pg. 6)

FL is not alone in making such statements. Two others, to my knowledge, make the same statements and several more make the same point using different words.

To repeat, in each jurisdiction is a GL which exercises authority over all subordinate Lodges and their members in accordance with laws written and unwritten. Thus, what the GL publishes about Masonry in that jurisdiction is the truth in that jurisdiction. The Mason can agree or disagree with it, but he cannot disregard it as though it has no meaning. That is why I concentrate on such documents. In short, they define Masonic viewpoints within their jurisdictions and they, plus all Masons in that jurisdiction, can be held accountable for them. That a man refuses to accept then do not degrade from their authority.

I noted elsewhere that the SC GL demanded all candidates be white up until at least 1975. Would you not agree that all SC Masons were therefore responsible for that racist policy as long as they remained members? Would not the honorable man have expressed his opposition by resigning? And if he did not, could his continued presence as a Mason in that jurisdiction indicate his agreement with the policy? My experience in dealing with Masons has taught me that most Masons really don't understand what their GL actually teaches. As you have noted, they are more interested, understandably so, in the brotherhood in the Lodge than what the GL has to say on most issues.

That's like me framing my argument regarding your Christian faith by choosing various quotes and text from Pat Roberton, Richard Land and John Wesley to suit my points.

I disagree, as none of these men carry the authority upon which Christianity is based. They are individuals who are sharing their view of Christianity which may or may not be correct. They fall into the same category as Coil and Roberts, Freemasons whose opinion carry weight due to their extensive experiences in Freemasonry. But, they do not override GL authority, just as Robertson, Land and Wesley do not override black-letter Biblical doctrine.

They're there--but if you truly want to know Masonry--you have to go through it.

I think that view pretty much dates from the recent time when it became clear that the Blue Lodge rituals were no longer secret. I have about 20 of them myself.

If you look at the issue technically, though, what makes you a Mason is your obligation;what keeps you one is your dues card. But I think the point you make deals with the transformation a man undergoes as part of the ritual itself, and that such transformation cannot occur just by its reading. I am somewhat taken aback by the spiritual nature of the transformation, as I do not see how it occurs, by what force it occurs or by what authority Freemasonry makes the claim. But such transformation must certainly be linked to the lecture about the NE corner. I also doubt that anyone here would, or even could, answer those questions.

Or at least have an open mind.

I do indeed. Though my writings on other forums may be found offensive to many on this one, you will find my conclusions based on GL literature, and not the rote repetition of what others have found out. It's too bad I do not have recent TX GL literature (my Monitor from TX dates from the 19th century), as we could have an interesting conversation over its meanings.

Masonry is truly an individual experience, and the individual decides how it applies and molds them...not a GL or any other Mason (or anti-Mason for that matter).

In a sense you are probably right; however, I don't think you appreciate how the GL looks at the matter. As noted in the FL quote, the man is made over into something acceptable to Freemasonry. Cordially, Skip.

 

[scialytic]

Mr. Sampson, you are quite the provoker. Subtle...but apparent enough. Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts in the future. I will do the same for you. You are here for your own selfish motives. Take care and God bless.

 

[widows son]

Give it up skippy, your not converting anyone here, your only embarrassing yourself, clearly nobody cares based on other peoples comments toward you. Your mission to destroy masonry WILL fail, and you will be left nothing but lost and wasted time

 

[widows son]

PS can you cite your references? I'd like to have a look see

 

[widows son]

One thing we need to remember that even though we are masons, we are still human and flawed. People have this idea that we are something else. If you consciously and pathologically lie all the time, then you are just doing damage to yourself, and making your fellow brothers look bad

 

[T.N. Sampson]

PS can you cite your references? I'd like to have a look see

If you are referring to a post of mine, please indicate which comment you are interested in looking into. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Phre-massen.nash]

[h=3]Definition for taquia:[/h]

Web definitions:

Makes lies acceptable and deceptions honorable when dishonesty serves the Islamic purposes.. www.crossroad.to/glossary/Islam.htm

 

[widows son]

Hey skip, can you cite some of your monitors? And the grand lodges which issue some of your info

 

[T.N. Sampson]

Hey skip, can you cite some of your monitors? And the grand lodges which issue some of your info

What do you want to know? How many I have and from where? Cordially, Skip.

 

[widows son]

Yes to all plz

 

[T.N. Sampson]

Yes to all plz

Here is a list of GL materials I have on hand. It is taken from an internal file I use, and I'm sure there are some minor errors among the dates. But it's a good view of the library itself.

Monitors: Alabama (1963, 1978), Arkansas (1954), California (1985), Florida (1965, 1974, 1984, 1995), Georgia (1940, 2011), idaho (1948), Illinois (1916, 1962), Indiana (1949, 1975), Iowa (1953, 1991), Kentucky (1921, 1990), Louisiana (1945), Maine (1877), Maryland (1922), Massachusetts (1954), Michigan (1944), Missouri (1952, 1989), Montana (1934), New Mexico (1954), New York (1951, 1993), North Carolina (1997), Ohio (1948), Oklahoma (1992), Oregon (1955), Pennsylvania (1965), South Carolina (1975, 2010), Tennessee (1923, 1953, 2010), Texas (1898), Vermont (1893, 1947), Washington (1921, 1949, 1952), West Virginia (1917), Wisconsin (1925)

Ritual: California (1990, 2003), Florida (1997), Illinois (2005), Indiana (undated), Iowa (1951), Kansas (2011), Kentucky (2008), Maine (1952), Massachusetts (2002), Michigan (1963), Mississippi (1927), Missouri (1993), New Hampshire (1948), New Jersey (1973), New York (1960), North Dakota (1935), Ohio (1980), Vermont (1949), Washington (undated), West Virginia (1917), Wisconsin (1925).

Degree Training materials (e.g., Mentor's Manuals, LSME, Candidate Guides, etc): Arkansas (undated), California (2010), Delaware (undated), Florida (2009-11), Georgia (2000), Illinois (2003), Indiana (various), Iowa (2007), Kentucky (undated), Michigan (undated), Minnesota (2009), Mississippi (1986), North Carolina (2010), Nebraska (2008), New Mexico (undated), Ohio (2008), Tennessee (undated), Utah (undated), Virginia (2002-03), Wisconsin (2007),

Code/Constitution: Alabama (1963), California (1975), Florida (2010), Georgia (2011), Hawaii (2010), Idaho (2010), Illinois (2011), Kentucky (1995), Maine (2007), Massachusetts (2006), Minnesota (1915), Missouri (2006), Montana (1917), New York (1975), North Carolina (1977), Ohio (1945), Oregon (1949), Pennsylvania (1913), Tennessee (2012), Utah (2006), Virginia (1985), Washington (2003), Wisconsin (2007).

This is not an inclusive list, but I think it answers your question. Cordially, Skip.

 

[cutter2001]

All of this started by a guy that can't spell very well.

 

[widows son]

Lol