Questions about Masonry: an open and honest forum

reply to post by ForkandSpoon


First off, Hitler Youths did not join willingly..



In America it was actually a few united archdioceses in the South that reaffirmed that Catholicism and Masonry cannot mix, however I have never heard the Pope say anything regarding the matter.

Computer is FUBAR, dbl post.....

[edit on 11/15/2009 by Rockpuck]

I disagree with Hitler Youths not doing so willingly perhaps some did not, esp toward the end of the war when they were used as children troops.....however the Nazi part was VERY popular for most Germans before Hitler brought destruction upon Germany, and the majority were more then willing.

That said I meant that more tongue and cheek, in that for him using a cannon to chastise masons when the cannon was actually aimed at those trying to toppole governments or the church, is very ironic, and very hypocritical given his background.

I admit I am somewhat biased in that I do not feel he holds up to the sort of genuine character his predecessor had. This really should be a seperate topic however.

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
I disagree with Hitler Youths not doing so willingly perhaps some did not, esp toward the end of the war when they were used as children troops.....however the Nazi part was VERY popular for most Germans before Hitler brought destruction upon Germany, and the majority were more then willing.

Rockpuck is correct. Membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory for all Aryans beginning in 1936.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Hello there,

The question I would like to ask a freemason concerns the masonic tenet of belief in "a supreme being". As I understand the matter, most lodges state that the main qualification a man must have before joining is that he must believe in (a) god. I have also been led to understand that talking about religion (talking about god?) is not allowed (or is at least discouraged) in lodges. I kinda get this. Obviously, a club which allowed members of multiple faiths would not want them to get too heavily into religion as religious disagreements could be corrosive to the overall sense of brotherhood among masons.

My question is this (and it may seem odd but I assure you it is a serious question): If the highest (and sometimes only) stated requirement to join a lodge is belief in god (ie religion), that would suggest that religion (or at least something to do with god) would be the biggest part of what happens inside a lodge, and yet most (actual) inside accounts I have read of freemasonry claim that religion is not to be discussed in lodge. Is this a paradox or am I missing something?

I am also curious about the "supreme being" rule as it applies to deism and agnosticism. For example, is a mason merely required to believe that there is some god, or must he believe in a specific god? I know that a mason can believe in yhwh or allah, or whatever specific god he wishes, but what if someone does believe there is a god, but is irreligious and believes none of the gods we've made up bear any resemblance to the real thing.

I appreciate any insight that you might be able to share.

Originally posted by Bodhisattva420
The question I would like to ask a freemason concerns the masonic tenet of belief in "a supreme being". As I understand the matter, most lodges state that the main qualification a man must have before joining is that he must believe in (a) god. I have also been led to understand that talking about religion (talking about god?) is not allowed (or is at least discouraged) in lodges. I kinda get this. Obviously, a club which allowed members of multiple faiths would not want them to get too heavily into religion as religious disagreements could be corrosive to the overall sense of brotherhood among masons.

Indeed, that is the case. Though there's a huge difference between talking about religion and talking about "god". A religion is a specific set of beliefs, and as you mention different specific faiths may seem incompatible with each other. I may call god A. My brother may call god B. So long as we're each true to our individual faiths, there's no reason for conflict. For purposes of compatibility, we may refer to God in lodge as the "Grand Architect of the Universe", because when we ask for belief in a "supreme being" we're asking for belief in a "creator" of some sort.

My question is this (and it may seem odd but I assure you it is a serious question): If the highest (and sometimes only) stated requirement to join a lodge is belief in god (ie religion), that would suggest that religion (or at least something to do with god) would be the biggest part of what happens inside a lodge, and yet most (actual) inside accounts I have read of freemasonry claim that religion is not to be discussed in lodge. Is this a paradox or am I missing something?

Religion does not take place in lodge. We may open or close lodge with a prayer, and likewise say a prayer for those brethren who have died since the last meeting, but that's the majority of the stuff that might be construed as religious. Really, the stuff that goes on in the ritual is a set of allegorical and symbolic teachings on morality, without a specific religious bent.

I am also curious about the "supreme being" rule as it applies to deism and agnosticism.

Two entirely different cases. A deist can be a Mason (and many are) because he believes that there IS a supreme being, but one that is not "hands-on" in the affairs of man. An agnostic is not sure if there's a supreme being or not, and thus cannot take the oaths that a Mason must take, because they would not be binding.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
I disagree with Hitler Youths not doing so willingly perhaps some did not, esp toward the end of the war when they were used as children troops.....however the Nazi part was VERY popular for most Germans before Hitler brought destruction upon Germany, and the majority were more then willing.

Rockpuck is correct. Membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory for all Aryans beginning in 1936.

Fair enough.....i did not know that.

[edit on 16/11/2009 by ForkandSpoon]

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Indeed, that is the case. Though there's a huge difference between talking about religion and talking about "god". A religion is a specific set of beliefs, and as you mention different specific faiths may seem incompatible with each other. I may call god A. My brother may call god B. So long as we're each true to our individual faiths, there's no reason for conflict. For purposes of compatibility, we may refer to God in lodge as the "Grand Architect of the Universe", because when we ask for belief in a "supreme being" we're asking for belief in a "creator" of some sort.......

Religion does not take place in lodge. We may open or close lodge with a prayer, and likewise say a prayer for those brethren who have died since the last meeting, but that's the majority of the stuff that might be construed as religious. Really, the stuff that goes on in the ritual is a set of allegorical and symbolic teachings on morality, without a specific religious bent.......

Two entirely different cases. A deist can be a Mason (and many are) because he believes that there IS a supreme being, but one that is not "hands-on" in the affairs of man. An agnostic is not sure if there's a supreme being or not, and thus cannot take the oaths that a Mason must take, because they would not be binding.....

VERY VERY well said.

reply to post by Bodhisattva420

Obviously, a club which allowed members of multiple faiths would not want them to get too heavily into religion as religious disagreements could be corrosive to the overall sense of brotherhood among masons.

Indeed, I think Josh did a perfect job explaining everything, so I will just add that one specific reasoning for believe in One God (though this does include Polytheistic beliefs that is One God in many forms) is that when saying "God" in the Lodge it is a direct reference to your personal Beliefs. No one can say that the lodge doesn't represent them, because they all have to believe in a God, so when we say God we mean "which ever God" you so choose to believe in. "God" being a generic name, we also use Great Architect Of the Universe. Of course to believe in a Supreme God, you would automatically assume all these characteristics belong to all Gods. Or if you're a Deist like myself, all Gods are the same God.

And you are right, religion DOES play a huge role in Masonry.. Masonry however is not a Religion. We encourage people to be active in their faiths. Whether that's attending a Mosque, Temple, Church, Mass, Grove, what ever.. Every pledge is made with you're religious convictions as a witness.. but it's all at a personal level, religion it's self in a specific form should never enter a lodge. Most Masonic teachings are very personal.. what is unique is that while they are personal, people of all faiths receive them the same.

I am also curious about the "supreme being" rule as it applies to deism and agnosticism. For example, is a mason merely required to believe that there is some god, or must he believe in a specific god?

I am a Deist, and I can assure you Deism and Agnosticism are not alike. I believe in God, I even believe in Allah, and Yahweh, and the Buddha .. perhaps not in such specific beliefs as people of those religions do. Deism is the belief that there is a God, but plays no role in our lives.. the various religions, and personal religious beliefs not institutionalized are all methods of communicating with it. It's in line with Masonic beliefs because with Deism still comes the notion of a Soul, a God, Morality and personal responsibility.. all things organized religious teach.

Hope that helped.

Edit to fix errors but I then gave up and am going to bed.....

[edit on 11/17/2009 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by Trinityman

"There is no such thing as bottom-feeders and 'higher level masons' - this is disinfo put about by freemasonry's detractors."

You sound like you know a bit about masonry, but....

How would you explain the 1 through 33 degree levels of masonry
if your above quote is absolute? (Excluding the 9 degrees that the
Rosicrucians had systemized, if they truly did exist)

From my knowledge, the "lower ranking" freemasons began with the Knights Templars during the late Crusades of the Middle East.

Chiram Abiff - The Grand Master of the Dionysiac Architects was followed by "higher ranking" freemasons

It all came down to structure, and how the pyramids had to be constructed and the power of the number 9 and/or 99. (10 and/or 100 = being with "God)...

The base of a pyramid is a "square" (4), as was the checkered flooring of Solomons Temple, AND the floor of the Freemasons Lodge. The number 3 (which represented the 3rd degree freemason) "squared" would give you 9. The next level of initiation is 18, 1 plus 8 again equals 9 (3 "squared"). The next is 30, 3 "squared" equals 9. Then the highest level is 33, three "squared" equals 9, (and again) (33 degree) 3 squared equals 9; so... using both the 3's in the 33, and using both the 9's in what 3 "squared" equaled to would give you 99, which is to be believed as the highest number that can be reached in the physical dimension before becoming "one" with "God." Masonry began believing that the level of initiation is a factor of the "square root" of "God," which of course stemmed from the "square" root (foundation) of the pyramids.

Research "Chiram Abiff"

reply to post by Tek-Neek55


He doesn't post here anymore.. so I will answer:

Numbers mean nothing.

You reach "32" in a matter of hours.. but the degrees are not in order.. in fact, when you reach 32 you probably say through maybe 8 degrees.

Also, nothing is higher than "3" ... Scottish Rite, York Rite, etc are all Appendant bodies, and are not technically original Masonry. In fact I am not even sure if Scottish Rite masonry is practiced outside the USA.

reply to post by Rockpuck


So, wait... 32 is the highest degree?

And are my claims invalid?

I will admit, I know nothing on today's modern masonry.

I have studied masonic teachings and symbols of the ancients
and have figured those teachings are still being practiced today.

Correct me where I'm wrong.....

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Also, nothing is higher than "3" ... Scottish Rite, York Rite, etc are all Appendant bodies, and are not technically original Masonry. In fact I am not even sure if Scottish Rite masonry is practiced outside the USA.

The Scottish Rite is not "appendant", although it is sometimes treated as such in the USA. It is a complete, self-contained rite of Freemasonry, and is the largest Masonic organization in the world. In non-English-speaking countries, practically all of the Blue Lodges are Scottish Rite bodies as well.

Originally posted by Tek-Neek55

How would you explain the 1 through 33 degree levels of masonry
if your above quote is absolute? (Excluding the 9 degrees that the
Rosicrucians had systemized, if they truly did exist)

As practiced in the US, UK, and Canada, Ancient Craft Masonry consists of three degrees, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch, the latter of which is conferred in Chapters upon those who have completed the Lodge work of the Blue Degrees.

The 4th through 33rd degrees are grades of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, which many Masons choose to progress through, although it is not mandatory.

The Masonic Rosicrucian Society possesses nine degrees, beginning with Zelator and ending with Magus. The Society is invitational, and chooses its members from among the more scholarly Master Masons (Third Degree), who are also Trinitarian Christians.

From my knowledge, the "lower ranking" freemasons began with the Knights Templars during the late Crusades of the Middle East.

Chiram Abiff - The Grand Master of the Dionysiac Architects was followed by "higher ranking" freemasons

Until at least 1724, there were only two degrees in Masonry: Apprentice and Fellow of the Craft. The only "rank" in Masonry comes with being elected an officer of a Lodge or Grand Lodge.

No one has mentioned that Freemason's donate around 2 million dollars a day to charities and organizations around the world. Countless donations have been made in Masonic lodges that have provided help for soldiers, children, the sick, the homeless and the list goes on. We collect coke tabs in water jugs for Pete's sake. This is not a sinister organization that is hiding King Solomon's treasure under the White house. LoL.

You want to know what secrets go on in Masonic lodges?
We eat dinner every 1st and 3d Monday and then deal with lodge business.
Most of the time the focus is on how to help others in the community.

I'm sure there are some lodges that consist of members who may have a certain amount of influence in the community. This does not mean they secretly rule the world. That is just silly.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
In fact I am not even sure if Scottish Rite masonry is practiced outside the USA.

Maybe I misunderstand the smiley thing. But let me reassure you: Scottish rite (ancient and accepted scottish rite, that is) is practised in at least one country outside the USA (and I happen to know of several others). Same for York rite, memphis misraïm (although one can debate its regularity), rectified scottish rite, etc, etc.

Trust me, I know.

reply to post by Masonic Light


In the USA, it is Appendant.. you have the choice to be Scottish Rite or not, pay different dues to different people etc. Many Masons are 25 year Masons and are not Scottish Rite, they are exclusively York Rite, which is just as close to Blue Lodge Masonry as is the Scottish Rite. I don't think it would be fair to say the Scottish Rite is not an appendant body while claiming the many other organizations are. Blue Lodge Masonry is still only the first three degrees.

reply to post by komodo_nl


Good to know, usually you only hear Americans talking about the Scottish Rite, which is why I said I didn't know if it was practiced elsewhere.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Thank you for the information guys. Was quite helpful.

Btw, I do get that deism & agnosticism aren't the same thing (would probably place myself more in the deist category). Was more just throwing those out as a couple of the more obvious examples of how a man might "believe in a supreme being" without believing in any of the supreme beings that man has come up with so far.

This brings up another question, less of a serious question than the other one but still something I'm curious about. In the case of deists taking oaths, is the bible still used? My understanding of the matter is that a muslim or jew can take the oath on the qu'ran or torah if they wish, or that a qu'ran/torah would be placed on top of "the volume of sacred law"(King James Bible). As someone who takes things like oaths seriously but is neither christian, muslim or jewish, neither of these books would have any special significance. And as an ex-christian I would consider an oath involving the king james bible as less binding than an oath sworn on a phone book. As there is no 'holy book' among deists (I nominate 'Age of Reason' by Thomas Paine), this is something I've sometimes wondered about.

Then Masonry degrees, levels and ranks do exist. Even if it's through choice to progress or through invitation.

Whats up with RockPuck's claim of reaching "32" in a matter of hours?



[edit on 17-11-2009 by Tek-Neek55]

Originally posted by Bodhisattva420
This brings up another question, less of a serious question than the other one but still something I'm curious about. In the case of deists taking oaths, is the bible still used? My understanding of the matter is that a muslim or jew can take the oath on the qu'ran or torah if they wish, or that a qu'ran/torah would be placed on top of "the volume of sacred law"(King James Bible). As someone who takes things like oaths seriously but is neither christian, muslim or jewish, neither of these books would have any special significance. And as an ex-christian I would consider an oath involving the king james bible as less binding than an oath sworn on a phone book. As there is no 'holy book' among deists (I nominate 'Age of Reason' by Thomas Paine), this is something I've sometimes wondered about.

That was a struggle I had, myself. Ultimately I came to the decision that while I don't consider myself Christian by any stretch of the imagination, there are lessons in the Bible that are worthwhile and have value. (I don't have much tolerance for Bible thumpers who don't even know what their own book says, but that's another matter.) To me, the volume of sacred law on the altar is, like much of Masonry, a symbol. By putting your hands upon it while you say your oath, if, to you, it represents "Age of Reason", then so be it.