Well then....

www.conspiracyarchive.com...

Pretty interesting read...

Thoughts?

I dunno, some of this makes sense to me.

It's almost as if ones quest in Masonry of which is focused on seeking the light is truly exactly that.

A Mason can join the lower ranks of the Blue Lodge and decide on going further. Everything is the opposite of what it seems. In other words, by seeking the light you are actually being exposed to greater depths of darkness over time. The further you progress into darkness, the more accepting of it you are until you reach a point where you choose your true fate.

During the course of ones journey through Masonry you are constantly being presented with two paths by which to walk. Each leading to either side, dark or light. Your being told to seek the light of which actually resides on the other sidde of the door from whence you came, yet you are being lead as though by a Serpent (of which the Supreme Council Temple is seemingly decorated with) in the opposite direction.

It's almost as if Masonry enables those of us in the world who are undecided or otherwise couldn't care less about any specific faith or religion to be presented with both sides and left to choose one on our own free will and accord...constantly allowing that fine line by which to break.

Hmmm, the plot thickens...




[edit on 19-8-2004 by ATSluvDroid]

Originally posted by ATSluvDroid
www.conspiracyarchive.com...

Pretty interesting read...

Thoughts?

It's all thoroughly debunked here if you care to read. Shaw NEVER received the 33rd Degree. Shaw (now deceased) was a book-seller, and an opportunist. This book "Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry" deals specifically with Shaw (and another like him)

www.srmason-sj.org...

Originally posted by ATSluvDroid
A Mason can join the lower ranks of the Blue Lodge and decide on going further. Everything is the opposite of what it seems. In other words, by seeking the light you are actually being exposed to greater depths of darkness over time. The further you progress into darkness, the more accepting of it you are until you reach a point where you choose your true fate.

How is this so, how by seeking light do you propose you end up in darkness? When you are initiated into Freemasonry you are asked what you seek, and YOUR answer is light. Seeking the light is ones choice, its a decision you make and continue to make in Masonry if you so choose. Something you will learn (hopefully) is that Light and Darkness walk hand in hand, it takes one to realize the other, and even in the darkest of darkness there is light, and in the most radiant light there is darkness.

Originally posted by ATSluvDroid
During the course of ones journey through Masonry you are constantly being presented with two paths by which to walk. Each leading to either side, dark or light. Your being told to seek the light of which actually resides on the other sidde of the door from whence you came, yet you are being lead as though by a Serpent (of which the Supreme Council Temple is seemingly decorated with) in the opposite direction.

No you're not, none of the above is true. What are these two paths you speak of? Life itself is a journey, it has many paths, one chooses which paths one wishes to walk. The path one walks in Masonry, like most things in life is up to the individual. Meaning, one can apply the teachings to himself with an open heart and mind, bettering himself as a man, or one cannot. I've never been lead by a Serpent in my lodge, only my guides, and if you consider those worthy brothers Serpents, then have a real issue with you.

Originally posted by ATSluvDroid
It's almost as if Masonry enables those of us in the world who are undecided or otherwise couldn't care less about any specific faith or religion to be presented with both sides and left to choose one on our own free will and accord...constantly allowing that fine line by which to break.

Im not following you here.

Jim Shaw, at least in that writeup, is a Christian, and a disgruntled one at that. I wouldn't want to have him over for beer and nachos. When Christians start to go on about "light" and darkness" and going to hell and such, I run in the opposite direction.

At the very least, these folks are drama queens that run to their local priest every time they think of titty or touch themselves.

I believe in a Supreme Being, who is just fine with casual Fridays, and who is also fine with me enjoying his curvaceous creations.

Many Christians should spend more time volunteernig in their communities and less time trying to interpret the worst piece of history ever written.

Jesus said - well, supposedly, that "the Kingdom of God is within YOU." Not in a building, not in "Father Joe" who thinks he has an inside track with God, and certainly not in a list of 10 rules. Besides, that whole not coveting your neighbour's wife business is total bogus. I've coveted my neighbour's wife on several occasions.

This isn't a criticism, just a plea for moderation, folks.

Could someone also please define, in exact terms, the meaning of "darkness"?? Abstract interpretations don't count. Also, please stay away from using terms like "evil". Those belong in Hollywood's next installment of Lord of the Rings, not in intelligent discourse.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by LTD602]

Well first of all it has been said over and over and over and over that Freemasonry (even the Scottish Rite) supports no one religion over the other. I know there are appendant bodies that have a Christian requirement for membership, and if memory serves me the Chapter of Rose Croix is one of those. I know nothing of the ceremonies or rituals of ANY Masonic body, and I will not presume to know what I do not.

Is "Maundy Thursday" a ceremony that is held throughout the Scottish Rite, or is it strictly a Rose Croix thing, or is it celebrated at all? If it is something that is commemorated throughout the Scottish Rite I can see how the name of Christ would be excluded, in keeping with the whole "religious tolerance" thing the Masons have going.

An interesting read, but my gut tells me there is something fishy about it... Besides, if he went fundamentalist and quit on his own accord, because of his own personal beliefs and revelations, that is his right, it doesn't make everyone else evil.

Oh, and LTD602, I don't think The Big Guy would have made his creations so beautiful if he did not intend for them to be admired. I enjoy His "curvaceous creations" immensely, and if lovin' the ladies is wrong, I don't want to be right! I don't think many of the male persuasion would disagree...

*edit for spelling*

[edit on 8/19/04 by The Axeman]

Every word is a lie. There is no record in the published materials from the time that Jim Shaw was ever made a 33rd degree mason. The WHOLE thing is simply made up slander... proof:

www.masonicinfo.com...
For several years, Jim Shaw's book lay in dusty corners unknown and unacknowledged. For a time, it was being given a LOT of attention by those who want to 'prove' how evil Masonry 'really' is! With the refutation of the lies it contains and no way to discredit the facts on the record, it seems to be slowly sinking into the muck of oblivion.

Jim Shaw was indeed a Mason and was active in the Scottish Rite bodies of Florida. He became a Mason in 1945 and demitted (requested that he be removed from active membership) in 1966. Despite the claims made in his book, he was provably NOT the Master of a Masonic lodge nor did he ever receive the honorary 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite Bodies of Freemasonry.
Art deHoyos and S. Brent Morris, noted Masonic authors, undertook an extensive analysis of Shaw's book and reveal the many inaccuracies it contains at this site. In addition, deHoyos has added additional documentation copies here. While some of us tend to 'enhance' our past exploits, few are brazen enough to publish such provable untruths as Shaw has done.

Morris and deHoyos have documented through publicly available records that Jim Shaw not only was not the Master of his lodge as he claims but that he was never even an elected officer!!! Beyond that, they also prove - using public documents and materials available throughout the world - that he never received the 33rd Degree of Scottish Rite Masonry. The "Deadly Deception" is the deception Shaw foists on his readers.


No Mason would have qualms with a decision by Jim Shaw to leave Masonry. What Masons do find objectionable are the distortions and lies used to 'justify' it! Those who may believe that the inaccuracies in this book are the work of others, may find this site of interest.

One Lies - The Other Swears To It

Using an old saw, we noted an interesting support for Shaw's book on Larry Kunk's Ephesians 5:11 site where Mr. Kunk asserts that Masonry has launched attacks against Tom McKenney as the primary author so as to discredit his further books. Mr. Kunk's page says,

"The methodology utilized by the Lodge to "deal with" The Deadly Deception utilizes ad hominem arguments. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, such arguments are "To the man; appealing to personal interests, prejudices, or emotions rather than to reason."

This argument is particularly interesting in light of the common use of this exact same tactic by anti-Mason Ken Mitchell ("Another Mason; another lie.") and so many other anti-Masons. Kunk's page continues,

"An example of such an argument would be to declare that so-and-so "is an adulterer; we should not consider anything he would say, in a spiritual context, as having merit." We can see that such an argument would be invalid because it attacks the man, rather than the issue. Consider David: he was an adulterer and a murderer. Yet, the book of Psalms is in God's word, the Holy Bible. In the case of The Deadly Deception, Freemasonry has not taken legitimate issue with the accuracy of ritual or teachings of Freemasonry which are exposed in it, or the fact that the ritual and teachings are incompatible with a sincere expression of Christianity. Rather they have attacked the person of Jim Shaw. Jim Shaw is not the issue. Freemasonry is the issue."

This circular reasoning makes one think that Mr. Kunk supports the lies of these authors and that 'the end justifies the means'!

Beyond that, we must wonder why Mr. Kunk would think that a modern-day adulterer (not someone of the Bible like David) would be so callous in disregarding the injunctions of the Bible but yet merit the support of the religious community and be acknowledged as having the moral authority to speak in a spiritual context. A bit contradictory, we'd opine.... Apparently Mr. Kunk must feel that those such as Jimmy Swaggart can still speak with authority on moral issues.

The argument also ignores the fact that if Mr. Shaw was wrong (some would say "lied") about his very own personal Masonic activities then isn't it quite possible that he's also wrong (lied?) about the "accuracy of the ritual and teachings" alluded to by Mr. Kunk? Are we expected to defend the claims of a proven liar just because Mr. Kunk wants to ignore the facts and While being an adulterer may be meaningless to Mr. Kunk, we'd submit that being a liar certainly DOES matter when it comes to issues of credibility.

Mr. Kunk's crony, Duane Washum, has written about Mr. Shaw:

We cannot prove or disprove Jim's status a Past Master or as a 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason. However, we found his testimony to ring true and we agree completely with his assessment of Freemasonry. Jim is an Ex-Mason with Jesus.

Pretty intriguing: there are provable facts that the man lied but, discounting that, Duane finds what he wrote 'rings true'.... Does any of this make sense in the world where people look at facts rather than lies which support their hatred?

Thanks for posting that, Theron. I hadn't had time to investigate myself but I thought that sounded pretty thin, to say the least. The lengths some people will go to...

Originally posted by The Axeman
Is "Mundy Thursday" a ceremony that is held throughout the Scottish Rite, or is it strictly a Rose Croix thing, or is it celebrated at all? If it is something that is commemorated throughout the Scottish Rite I can see how the name of Christ would be excluded, in keeping with the whole "religious tolerance" thing the Masons have going.

Well, first of all, it's "Maundy Thursday" (but a simple typo is easy to make. Secondly, the ceremony is explicitly about Jesus -- we sit at a cross-shaped table and talk a lot about Jesus as a great exemplar. Yes, at no point in the ceremony do we say "Jesus is literally the same being as God," because the ceremony is inter-denominational and inter-faith. Simple.

Oh, and LTD602, I don't think The Big Guy would have made his creations so beautiful if he did not intend for them to be admired. I enjoy His "curvaceous creations" immensely, and if lovin' the ladies is wrong, I don't want to be right! I don't think many of the male persuasion would disagree...

Within, of course, strictly defined limits -- don't love the married ones, for example. Plus, of course, those homosexual individuals of a male persuasion would not agree Otherwise, good post, Axe.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by AlexKennedy]

Originally posted by The Axeman
Is "Mundy Thursday" a ceremony that is held throughout the Scottish Rite, or is it strictly a Rose Croix thing, or is it celebrated at all? If it is something that is commemorated throughout the Scottish Rite I can see how the name of Christ would be excluded, in keeping with the whole "religious tolerance" thing the Masons have going.

In the Scottish Rite, Chapters of Rose Croix (which hold jurisdiction over the 15� - 18� in the Southern Jurisdiction) celebrate Maundy Thursday and Easter Sunday.

The name of Christ is not excluded from the ceremonies of the Scottish Rite; in fact, they are celebrated to commemorate the biblical events of Maundy Thursday and Easter.

To recap, Bro. Senrak is absolutely correct. When Jim Shaw resigned from the fraternity, he was a 32� Knight Commander of the Court of Honor. He never received, nor was invited to receive, the 33�.

His description of the 33� is based on the Cerneau ritual published in Blanchard's "Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated".

Fiat Lvx.

Well, it seems Jim Shaw WAS a Mason at some point, and he does admit that he loved his fellow masons and loved to do the work consonant with masonry. Why then, would he have a change of heart "at the 11th hour", as it were? I simply sdon't buy into the idea that after years of being a mason and loving it, some otherwordly, holy truth dawns on him. That is, he participated in all the rites, and all of a sudden one of them was such a radical departure from the "norm" that he runs in the other direction.

Interesting change of heart.

Originally posted by LTD602
Well, it seems Jim Shaw WAS a Mason at some point, and he does admit that he loved his fellow masons and loved to do the work consonant with masonry. Why then, would he have a change of heart "at the 11th hour", as it were? I simply sdon't buy into the idea that after years of being a mason and loving it, some otherwordly, holy truth dawns on him. That is, he participated in all the rites, and all of a sudden one of them was such a radical departure from the "norm" that he runs in the other direction.

Interesting change of heart.

Perhaps he was an unscrupulous individual who became aggitated with something about or someone within the Order? I don't know but it seems a definite possibility in this case. Why else would he lie? Not only did he lie, but lied knowing that his lie would have (at least to some degree) an ill effect on the public perception of Masonry. That to me opens up the possibility that maybe this guy had an axe to grind with Masonry (or individual Masons) to begin with before he wrote his book. Keep in mind this is speculation, I have not had time to read a great deal about it. The good thing about that is I have youth on my side so I have plenty of time to read.

I don't know, but I do think it would be strange if he did indeed just "out of the blue" have some kind of revelation like that and just walk away. But as was already stated, he lied about his initiation to the 33rd, so I can't help but question the real motive behind his book.

JMO

Originally posted by Masonic Light

In the Scottish Rite, Chapters of Rose Croix (which hold jurisdiction over the 15� - 18� in the Southern Jurisdiction) celebrate Maundy Thursday and Easter Sunday.

The name of Christ is not excluded from the ceremonies of the Scottish Rite; in fact, they are celebrated to commemorate the biblical events of Maundy Thursday and Easter.

Fiat Lvx.

Let me see if I've got this straight. The "Belief in a Supreme Being" requirement encompasses all the "major" religions. The Muslims, Jews, and Christians (possibly more?)all agree that Jesus lived, and was crucified, they just don't agree on his importance, am I right? Assuming (I know it's dangerous) I am correct, mentioning Christ's name in ritual in the Scottish Rite is accepted as long as he is not referred to as a Diety but more of a role model? I don't understand (there's a shocker). Help me out here, fellas.

Originally posted by The Axeman
mentioning Christ's name in ritual in the Scottish Rite is accepted as long as he is not referred to as a Diety but more of a role model?

Absolutely. Jesus is often referred to, even within the Rose-Croix degrees themselves (which are completely separate from the Maundy Thursday and Easter celebrations) as "The Great Exemplar."

Originally posted by LTD602
Well, it seems Jim Shaw WAS a Mason at some point, and he does admit that he loved his fellow masons and loved to do the work consonant with masonry. Why then, would he have a change of heart "at the 11th hour", as it were? I simply sdon't buy into the idea that after years of being a mason and loving it, some otherwordly, holy truth dawns on him. That is, he participated in all the rites, and all of a sudden one of them was such a radical departure from the "norm" that he runs in the other direction.
Interesting change of heart.

According to his resignation letter, Shaw wanted to devote the time he was spending in Masonry to going to Bible College and becoming a minister (which he did).

It is very interesting that Shaw left Masonry on good terms with the fraternity...it was only years later that he became a rabid anti-Mason (and received quite a good bit of money for his yellow journalistic anti-Masonic books and speeches).

At the time of his resignation, Shaw was the Degree Master for the 25� in his Scottish Rite Temple. He even said in his resignation letter that he would confer the degree again in the fall, so as not to leave the degree team in a bind without a Master, and would help teach the Master's part to a friend who had volunteered to take it. If Shaw had honestly believed that Masonry was "satanic" or "anti-Christian", he surely would not have done this.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by Masonic Light]

By the way, anyone with any doubts may visit the following link, which shows of photocopy of his resignation letter, the dues card that he turned in with his resignation (showing him to be a 32� KCCH, not a 33�), a letter in response from his Temple's Secretary asking him to turn in his red cap (32� KCCH's wear red caps, 33�'s wear white caps), plus a copy of the Reunion Program from his Temple from the year he resigned, with a picture of Shaw wearing his KCCH cap, and the program itself, listing the 25� team, indicating that Shaw was a 32� KCCH (not a 33�).

www.tx-mm.org...

That read llike it was written by afifteen year old.

Whether the story is true or not, I find it interesting that there were no references to satan or any such occultish figure, as is the wont by many to associate Free Masonry with demonic worship.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy

Originally posted by The Axeman
mentioning Christ's name in ritual in the Scottish Rite is accepted as long as he is not referred to as a Diety but more of a role model?

Absolutely. Jesus is often referred to, even within the Rose-Croix degrees themselves (which are completely separate from the Maundy Thursday and Easter celebrations) as "The Great Exemplar."

So no one is denying or disputing the fact that Jesus is a Diety in ritual, but his status as the Son of God is simply not alluded to, leaving the interpretation to the individual, correct? Otherwise I can see how some Christians would take offense to this.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by LTD602
Well, it seems Jim Shaw WAS a Mason at some point, and he does admit that he loved his fellow masons and loved to do the work consonant with masonry. Why then, would he have a change of heart "at the 11th hour", as it were? I simply sdon't buy into the idea that after years of being a mason and loving it, some otherwordly, holy truth dawns on him. That is, he participated in all the rites, and all of a sudden one of them was such a radical departure from the "norm" that he runs in the other direction.
Interesting change of heart.

According to his resignation letter, Shaw wanted to devote the time he was spending in Masonry to going to Bible College and becoming a minister (which he did).

It is very interesting that Shaw left Masonry on good terms with the fraternity...it was only years later that he became a rabid anti-Mason (and received quite a good bit of money for his yellow journalistic anti-Masonic books and speeches).

At the time of his resignation, Shaw was the Degree Master for the 25� in his Scottish Rite Temple. He even said in his resignation letter that he would confer the degree again in the fall, so as not to leave the degree team in a bind without a Master, and would help teach the Master's part to a friend who had volunteered to take it. If Shaw had honestly believed that Masonry was "satanic" or "anti-Christian", he surely would not have done this.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by Masonic Light]

So you think he slung all that mud for money? I mean it wouldn't be the first time anyone's done it, but it seems a shame. I wonder what posessed him to publish flat out lies? Lies that can be easily exposed as such, even.