Freemasons VS. Freemasonry

Those that signed the Declaration of Independance from the Masonic Institution, July 4 1828, and their subsequent Degree of Initiation:
Solomon Southwick 4
David Bernard Intimate Secretary
W.W. Phelps 3
Isaac B. Barnum 4
Cephas A. Smith 21*
J. Van Valkenburgh 3
Platt S. Beach 1
Elam Badger 3
Joseph Hart 4
Kneeland Townsend Jr. 3
Anthony Cooley 21*
John G. Stearns 3
Reuben Winchell 3
Augustus P. Hascall 21*
Noble D. Strong 7
John Hascall 21*
Robert Earl Jr. 1
James Ballard 21*
Leonard B. Rose 3
Timothy C. Strong 4
William Waggoner 3
John Aumock 4
Herbert A. Read 21*
W. Robinson 3
Jesse Badcock 2
Lemuel Cook 3
James Gray 3
Elijah Gray 4
William Howe 7
Samuel Pierce 3
Adam Richmond 7
George W. Harris 3
Benjamin Cooley 3
John Joslen 3
A. F. Albright 3
Fayette Cross 3
Elias Cooley 3
Olney F. Rice 3
Warren Kneeland 3
Jabez A. Beebe 3 + 3 hon.
Burroughs Holmes 7
Noah B. Denton 3
Truman J. Wield 4
Edward Giddins 7
Abram Cherry 6
Richard Hollister 14
Amos E. Hutchins 3
Henry Conkling 3
Pascall D. Webb 3
Daniel Rowley 6
Jonathan K. Barlow 7
Mills Averill 3
Noah Ingersoll 3
Chapman Holley -unverifiable-
Auren Dabell 10
Frederick C. Farnam 3
Joel Bradner 3
Robert Shadders 2
Jonathan K. Foster 3
Seth M. Gates 3
David Reed 3
Willard Smith 12
Solomon Barker 3
Orson Nicholson 3
J.K Brown 7
Enos Bachelder 3
Stephen Robinson 3
Robert McKely 2
John Law 4
Isaac S. Fitch -unverifiable-
Hiram Cornell -unverifiable-
Asa Turner -unverifiable-
Samuel Ledyard 3
John Smith 3
Benjamin F. Welles 3
Anson Hinman 3
Samuel D. Greene 3
Chester Coe 3
Theodore Hooker 10
Elijah Northup 5
Reuben Sanborn 7
Jarvis Swift 3
David Snow 3
John Tomlinson 3
Nathan M. Mann 7
Nathan Townsend 7
Andrew Couse 3
Russel Waters -unverifiable-
Phlegmoncy Horton -unverifiable-
W. J. Edson 2
David C. Miller 1
James Rolfe 3
George W. Blodgett 2
Uriah Slayton 3
Martin Flint
Darius Sprague
Joseph Cochran
Orcutt Hyde
William Hyde
Phinehas Smith
Lund Tarbox -all unverified-
Hollis Platt 21*
Norman Bently 7

'*'= unable to document past Thrice Illustrious Order of the Cross.

Notes from a Report, drafted by the Committee of Fifteen, pursuant to their Declaration of Independance, to express the sentiments of the Convention. (You will be surprised.)
Draft Committee members, Solomon Southwick, David Bernard, Richard Hollister,Willard Smith, Herbert A. Read, John Hascall and Samuel D. Greene.
Draft prepared by Miles B. Lampson, Seth M. Gates, and A.P. Hascall.
Presented by Seth M. Gates.

Resolved, That however beneficial secret societies may have been considered in the dark ages of the world, as bonds of union and sheilds of protection to the members against the violence of the times; yet in this enlightened age and country, where the private rights and the civil liberty of our citizens are guaranteed by a free constitution, and an impartial administration of justice, they became not only useless to their members, but DANGEROUS TO THE GOVERNMENT.
Resolved, That the order of Freemasonry is a system of slavish despotism, calculated to break down the pride and spirit of free men, and thus render them fit subjects of despotic power.
Resolved, That whatever may be our predilections for the prominant candidiates for the presidency, and whatever part we as individuals may seem fit to take in national politics, we consider the overthrow and destruction of the Masonic institution as wholly disconnected therewith, and of vastly paramount importance- that this convention would view with the most undissembled feelings of regret, any attempt to render the honest indignation existing against the institution subservient to the views of any of the political parties of the day- that we unhestatingly disclaim all intention of promoting party views or political purposes.
Furthermore, That Freemasonry,
exercises the jurisdiction over the persons and lives of citizens of the republic,
arrogates to itself the right of punishing its members for offences unknown to the laws of this or any other nation,
requires the concealment of crime, and protects the guilty from punishment,
encourages the commission of crime by affording to the guilty facilities of escape,
affords opportunities for the corrupt and designing to form plans against the government and the lives and characters of individuals,
assumes titles and dignities incompatable with a republican form of government, and enjoins an obedience to them derogatory to republican principles,
destroys all principles of equality, by bestowing favors on its own members to the exclusion of others equally meritorious and deserving,
creates odious aristocracies by its obligations to support the interests of its members, in preference to others of equal qualifications, et cetara et cetara.

Interesting little bit of history. Funny that so many Freemasons thought that way about Freemasonry. There were about 8 000 attending that Convention.
Nail # 2 in the coffin.

Lol that's not even a "nail". How do you know they aren't the "Despots"? Remember, the first rule of becoming a despot is to REMOVE all those who would stand in your way. In my opinion these "8,000" which is by far a minority opinion, are trying to become the slave masters of the world, and are using the "secret society" bit against the "Divine Gaurdians of Democracy" which is what masonry has ALWAYS been, and ALWAYS shall be.

Plus this is in 1828, there were conflicting ideas at the time of what was going on, and as you can see, masonry is still here, the "Declaration of Independance from the Masonic Institution" is not, don't you think Masonry would have turned the world into their puppets by now? All that is stopping them is their Morals, their Beliefs, and their undying love for democracy.

Thank goodness that declaration failed, or we'd all be slaves to despots by now.

Sincerely,
no signature

Yep. they were despots alright, like Elijah Gray for example. Real despot. To quote you 'the first rule of becoming a despot is to REMOVE all those who would stand in your way' and then '...and as you can see, masonry is still here,...'
That explains much.
You completely misunderstood. It was a their combined declaration of independence from the Masonic order, which they recognized as a threat to what true democracy is. They were all willing to GIVE UP their fraternal allegiance to Freemasonry because they recognized it for what it was, and were not afraid to be individuals in a society were the protection of individual rights was SUPPOSED to be the basis, hence the first Resolution.
In addition, I'd like to know which 'Divinity' made Freemasons the 'Divine Guardians of Democracy', and if that is the case, why does Freemasonry claim to not be a religion?

Freemasons are not a religion but it doesn't mean that they can't be religions. The "Devine Gaurdians of Democracy" was a phrase coined before the Revolutionary War around 1760s. The "Devine" part can be from anything, be it God Goddess or Tree "God". Of course back then most Masons beleived in christian or christian related ideals, there of course weren't many neo-pagans and hindus and muslims in those times in americas and europe.

Sincerely,
no signature

So, the question remains. Who ordained Freemasonry to be the 'Divine Guardians of Democracy'? The Protestant Church, the Catholics...who?
And with regards to your claims of Freemasonry not being a religion....well, you seem to like Pike so.
Morals and Dogma pg 213, 'Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instructions in religion.' Explained on pg 7 ' Every Lodge is a Temple...'
Websters New World Dictionary defines a Temple as:
'a building for the worship of a god or gods.'
On pg 718 'Masonry propagates no creeed except its own most simple and Sublime one; that universal RELIGION, taught by Nature and by Reason' and a really interesting quote that some readers may enjoy pg. 810
'Human reason leaps into the throne of God and waves her torch over the ruins of the Universe.'
Furthermore:
Main Entry: re�li�gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

The question doesn't remain, the fact is NO ONE'S god ordained it, THE god ordained it. And blast it I've heard that quote from Morals and Dogma too.

But here is the actual quote:

''Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion and its teachings are instruction. For here are inculcated disinterestedness, affection, toleration, devolvedness, patriotism, truth, a generous sympathy with those who suffer and mourn, pity for the fallen, mercy for the erring, relief for those in want, Faith, Hope, Charity. Here we meet as brethren to learn to know and love each other. Here we greet each other gladly, are lenient to each other's faults, regardful of each other's feelings, ready to relieve each other's wants,'' Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, page 213-214.

The context again, changes the actual meaning, Freemasonry isn't a religion, but it is a place to learn about it, anybody's religion.

Sincerely,
no signature

Originally posted by FreeMason

the "Divine Gaurdians of Democracy" which is what masonry has ALWAYS been, and ALWAYS shall be.

When I see these frenchies FM, like their are acting and what they are doing, I can't be agree with you.

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
When I see these frenchies FM, like their are acting and what they are doing, I can't be agree with you.

"Divine Gaurdians of Democracy" is used to refer to the Freemasonry in the U.S. (has alot to do with the American Revolution)

The American masonries & European masonries are very different.

[Edited on 11-29-2002 by echelon]

Freemasonry 's teachings are INSTRUCTIONS in RELIGION. How can the statements that follow it devalue that statement, when, they do not refer to relgion at all, but refer to how brethren should treat brethren? For example, I may be supportive and understanding to a friend, religion is irrelevant to that.
Check your definitions, and, if you dare to, provide the statements preceding the first lines of that paragraph.
PS: Why don't you respond to the other posts anymore? (I use way too many PS's)

[Edited on 30-11-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

No Ma-ha-bone, you can't just use one sentence from Morals and Dogma to make a claim, and then say (In reference to the posts of christianity here) that when people take one sentence from the bible that is out of context. NOt that you say that but it is the same idea.

Look at my Polytheism in the Bible posts, every christian was saying LOOK at context, and it is true, you must. Same with Morals and Dogma, the sentences before, and after, DO, effect what it means. Hence why the world is not just one sentence.

For one, lets ye forget, no religion or politics are allowed to be discussed in a lodge, for these are things that bring disharmony.

And I haven't been posting much because of time...doesn't seem there is enough time anymore.



Sincerely,
no signature

religion and politics can be discussed by two or more Freemasons outside of the Lodge though, with the consequences married with the 'movements' of the Lodge. I never suggested that 'the world is just one sentence'. If anything, I asked YOU to provide the sentences preceeding. I agree with contextual interpretations, and I clearly see the calamity of basing a judment on partitioned paragraphical analysis. However, I also understand the differences between subjects, regardless of your interpretation, what Pike followed that sentence with doesn't refer to religion, or instructions in religion, it refers to conduct between brethren.
To further illustrate, you haven't responded to the usage of the word Temple, and its obvious implications.

The word temple is used solely because Solomon's Temple plays an important role in Freemasonry. Think of a Temple as a keep, or house. It doesn't mean a place of function, just a place of security,which is what masonry does.

It is not religion, but it does harbor it, and its members seek their own personal views and religions. As the saying goes, "one must not be an ignorant atheist, or a lnon-religious libertine"

I would say Temple is just being used like the word Gaurdian might be used.

And actually re-reading it again, it seems he is describing what he means by religion, it seems the rest of the paragraph is his "definition" of religion, and it makes more sense when you apply that "definition" to the first sentence.

Sincerely,
no signature

post the sentences that preceed it. Let everyone interpret it, unless of course, you are afraid!!!
"Every Lodge is a Temple..." Why would he write that, it is like saying 'every banana is a banana...'
As far as the Divine Guardian thing. Well, I don't know about anyone else, but, I don't like the idea of anyone who I don't know being the guardian of that which is constitutionally mine, and is protected by the constitution, especially if they won't come forward with what happens 'behind the Lodge door'. I didn't vote for that, did you? With that as a 'reason d etre' I suppose they could justify any means to an end.
Besides all of that, if Freemasonry is not a religion, how do you explain his use of the word 'worship' applying to the Temple? Things tend to add up, and by untilizing an even more complete contextual analysis than just looking at the sentences preceeding and following the 'offending' sentence, let's look at the context of the entire book.

No I'm not afraid, fact is I don't have the book with me, I only have the online book right now which doesn't have page numbers, meaning I'd have to sift through about 100 pages to find it and I'm not ready to yet.

Although surely you have the book? You can post the preceeding sentences too you know

Worship is another word used but the practice is different, for instance "Worshipful Master" doesn't have anything to do with Worship, it is just a term such as Honorable.

As for interpreting the WHOLE book, I doubt many have done that, it is a long and very complex book I guess you kinda have to be a 33rd to understand it all, it was written by a 33rd afterall.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 1-12-2002 by FreeMason]

and several others as well that have nothing to do with Freemasonry, yet are capable of reading and comprehending.
As far as you not being ready to sift through your 100 pages (the book is a monster!) to find it. I'll wait, I'm patient. I would just like you to be the person posting it because it proves your point wrong, and, I'm a jerk. LOL.
Worshipful, right, has nothing to do with worship, that word was just included in the title for no reason.
Why not Broccoliful Master? or Beerful Master? After all it is just a title.
If you want, you know, you could access the Quator Coronati Lodge # 2076, and get any Masonic research items you want for a limited time. Or for that matter, contact the Scottish Rite Citadel in Hamilton Ontario Canada. They have quite an old and extensive library of manuscripts, letters and books. Or, you could ask me, and I could send some books to you to help with your education.LOL
Shall we agree to leave Pike alone, and go into older, more interesting Masonic resources?
Perhaps after you POST YOUR DOOM Muhhahhahhahha!

Those comments are pretty offensive to those who have actually studied history.

Next time you meet a Brother Mason, please thank them for the existance of The United States of America.

.:.

Heh KEK, its alright....this argument is just based around the confusing interpretations of Albert Pike. Whom gave only his opinions.

Whorshipful master is the same as saying "the honorable", and I do believe you should know being brittish and all, that it was a commonly used title in the 16th and 17th centuries in england, when masonry as it is today was founded, albiet still without a grand lodge.

Anyways, as for this going on debate about Lucifer, it is fact that Lucifer is the morning star, so why is it you refuse to read Pike's sayings as such? He IS referring merely to that fact, as is plainly seen when he says, "Odd name to give to the prince of Darkness". Or do you overlook that phrase?

Sometimes, one word makes all the difference.

I know not what POST MY DOOM is...I've posted no such thing

I will not rest till Pike's name is unbesmerched

And sure, give some older more archaic doccuments, something new is always fulfilling.

As a last note, to truly understand something, you must experience it first hand. Morals and Dogma will always be a touch out of your league

Sincerely,
no signature

So,,,to KEK,,,,,,,,why would I thank anyone for the existence of the United States, and to Freemason...I'm a Canadian, not a Brit. I have studied History, been studying it for years...and KEK get your symbol straight... it would be best posted like this :. because the number of dots is what is significant...

Uhh Ma...wouldn't kek's symbol be more proper like this " .'. or .`. " that's the way I've always seen it

Or maybe he's alluding to some other symbol

Sincerely,
no signature