Freemasonry and the Supreme Being

I wonder why it is that the Freemasons require for membership, the belief in a Supreme Being. It is pointed out, often defensively, that Freemasonry is not a religion, but a fraternity. So why then, would belief in a Supreme Being have any relevance?

Perhaps to ensure that the candidates for membership are of good moral character? After all, that seems to be the most important tenet of the public face of Freemasonry. That they are a fraternity of men who believe in "good" and who's works are for the "good of humanity." Can an atheist not be of good moral character and work for the betterment of our human condition?

And what if the Supreme Being I choose to believe in happens to be Lucifer, the Light Bearer?

[edit on 8/31/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


If that's the name you want to give the creator of the universe, so be it. Nobody asks, nor cares what religion you are. You believe in a creator? A supreme being? Something bigger than us? That's enough. We'll never ask you the specifics. Not our business.

reply to post by JoshNorton


A sincere thanks. While I reserve certain "suspicions" I guess you could say, I was hoping that someone in-the-know would answer without feeling like they were being baited into another "I hate Masons" thread.

But what if I don't believe in a Supreme Being at all? That the multi-verse just is.

Or if I find the question of a Supreme Being to be moot, and that I really don't care one way or the other?

reply to post by jackinthebox


Then perhaps Masonry isn't for you? I mean, if you wouldn't feel comfortable opening and closing a meeting with a prayer, then why would you want to come knowing that you'd have to stand for that at every meeting?

I mean, it's a fair question. There are certain York Rite degrees that require the candidate swear to defend the Christian faith. I'm not Christian, so I haven't petitioned those degrees. Sure, I could lie and say I'm OK with it, but why would I want to sit through the Knights of Malta degree if it's all about Jesus this and Jesus that?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
But what if I don't believe in a Supreme Being at all? That the multi-verse just is. Or if I find the question of a Supreme Being to be moot, and that I really don't care one way or the other?

While the wording varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, most of the Petitions (Applications for membership) ask the following:

"Do you believe in the existence of God, the Creator?"

If the answer is no, your petition will be turned in and marked unfavorably and you will not be elected to receive membership in the Lodge.

Also in the First Degree the Candidate is asked in whom he puts his trust. The only acceptable answer is "in God." If he does not trust in God (kind of difficult to do if he doesn't believe in God) he will not be initiated.

Also in response to your Lucifer question. Most people who claim they worship Lucifer, tend not to believe that he actually created the world, but rather that God (Lucifer's enemy) did. Most people. Probably not all.

I suppose someone could think that a grasshopper created the world if they wanted to. There are some very, ah, "interesting" people out there.

By the way, I really like your hamburgers.

Just as an addendum to Appak's post, during the initiation, in case there was some dissembling on the part of the initiate in regards to the basic nature of their understanding of God, the initiate is asked if he believes that God will reward virtue and punish vice. That kind of eliminates those who would say 'I believe that Lucifer (or Satan or Shiva or what have you) is God and I therefor am not lying by afirming a belief in God'. Thus are those who might pray to a society-destroying type of deity precluded from joining Freemasonry.

Just as an addendum to my own post, I think that this goes to the root of why it's a complete non-starter to suggest that Freemasons below "x" degree are clueless as to the evil nature of Masonry. While it has been argued left, right and centre that this inherent evil is cloaked from the 'lesser' degrees (and it has yet to be agreed upon by a majority of accusers as to what said "x" degree is), what makes no sense whatever is that, having initiated a person who believes in a loving and creative Deity, why they would:

a) Go to so much trouble to gradually turn the belief structure of said initiate so completely upside-down over the course of "x" timeframe (the time required to acquire said "x" 'know-the-real-story' degree) when (if the 'evil-at-the-root-of-Masonry argument were true') it would make a lot more sense to only initiate those whose worldview is already leaning toward evil in the first place. That's an awful lot of wasted time and effort that might be more profitably expended in doing evil.

and

b) Chance that said initiate will go public with all the dirt. Given the number of Masons there are and have been, the number of self-identifying former Masons who've gone public with verifiable details of their Masonic experiences are (so far as I know) nil. There have been some who've claimed membership and have come out with astounding stories. But so far as I'm aware, from the get-go, there's yet to be one to verifiably identify what Lodge, when they were initiated, passed, raised and taken the side degrees to "x" degree where they learned the 'evil true nature' of Freemasonry. That and they have to a man had mercenary motives behind telling their stories and I think that that casts considerable doubt on the veracity of their stories.

This is why I look askance at the tales of the 'hidden evil' of Freemasonry.

I very much appreciate the replies so far. Freemasonry is a topic of interest to me, but it is hard to discuss in most threads without jumping on one bandwagon or the other.

I will keep this short for the moment, and return when I am in a place where I can make thoughtful replies. Hopefully later tonight.

Thanks again.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I very much appreciate the replies so far. Freemasonry is a topic of interest to me, but it is hard to discuss in most threads without jumping on one bandwagon or the other.

I will keep this short for the moment, and return when I am in a place where I can make thoughtful replies. Hopefully later tonight.

Thanks again.

Not at all. Thoughtful discussion is always welcome.

Just to throw another wildcard into your pack of thoughts, bear in mind that there's regular Freemasonry (which is what most people think of when the word comes up) and there's irregular Freemasonry (ie P2, certain 1-off 'lodges' of Masons not associated with any particular jurisdiction) and most non-Masons not unreasonably do not recognise that there's a difference. For instance, it'd sort of be like a non-Christian making no differentiation between any of the mainstream Trinitarian Christian religions and the Waco Branch Davidians.

I struggle with this concept myself. One of the keys to being part of the fraternity, is not discussing politics and religion and for good cause! It seems that comments in this very thread imply the validity of one god over another (grasshoppers don't count?)

[edit on 1-9-2008 by scientist]

Originally posted by scientist
I struggle with this concept myself. One of the keys to being part of the fraternity, is not discussing politics and religion and for good cause! It seems that comments in this very thread imply the validity of one god over another (grasshoppers don't count?)

[edit on 1-9-2008 by scientist]

No, one needs to have that 'belief in a Supreme Being' key to become a member of the fraternity. What doesn't get discussed in-Lodge (for the practical reason that nothing would get accomplished if it were discussed) are religion and politics. Let's face it; with the present White House marathon going on (and it seems the Parliament Hill marathon about to start), discussing politics would be a sure way to divide Lodges into warring camps. Likewise for religion. In regards to religion, it's enough to know that your fellow Mason believes in a Supreme Being that will reward virtue and punish vice, a notion at the very centre of all the world's major religions. What greater good is served by getting into a urinating match over whose method brings one closer to the Supreme Being?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
No, one needs to have that 'belief in a Supreme Being' key to become a member of the fraternity.

are you sure? I am under the very heavy impression that it is mandatory to believe in a superior being to be part of Masonry. In fact, it is asked at key moments, where do you place your trust. That trust is placed with god, is it not?

In regards to religion, it's enough to know that your fellow Mason believes in a Supreme Being that will reward virtue and punish vice, a notion at the very centre of all the world's major religions. What greater good is served by getting into a urinating match over whose method brings one closer to the Supreme Being?

I absolutely agree, and I also recognize (and again agree) with not allowing the discussion of personal religion in lodge.. although it seems a bit awkward when I am asked why I haven't joined York Rite, which forces the issue of a Christian god to be brought up.

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
No, one needs to have that 'belief in a Supreme Being' key to become a member of the fraternity.

are you sure? I am under the very heavy impression that it is mandatory to believe in a superior being to be part of Masonry. In fact, it is asked at key moments, where do you place your trust. That trust is placed with god, is it not?

That comma after "No" should have been a period. A belief in a Supreme being is mandatory.

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
In regards to religion, it's enough to know that your fellow Mason believes in a Supreme Being that will reward virtue and punish vice, a notion at the very centre of all the world's major religions. What greater good is served by getting into a urinating match over whose method brings one closer to the Supreme Being?

I absolutely agree, and I also recognize (and again agree) with not allowing the discussion of personal religion in lodge.. although it seems a bit awkward when I am asked why I haven't joined York Rite, which forces the issue of a Christian god to be brought up.

Well, a good man of a particular non-Christian faith should (IMHO) have no issue saying "I'm not a Christian" and not feeling he has anything further to explain on the matter. That certain degrees within the side rites are aimed at Christians is perhaps limiting but maybe in time, there will be some innovation that allows them to be more inclusive. I can't say because my focus is on Blue Lodge because that's as much as my schedule permits.

In any case, I enjoy and am not in the least threatened by the brethren in my Lodge who aren't Anglicans. We have Jewish, Catholic, assorted flavours of Protestant and Sikh members and I look at the multitude as an example of what man CAN be if he checks his ego at the door.

boy scouts require a belief in God. to be a medical doctor you have to go to med school to be a lawyer you have to go to law school and take the BAR exam............all of these things are requirments to be something just like believing in a Supreme Being is a requirment for freemasonry, *snip*

Mod Edit: Courtesy is Mandatory. Please review this link.

[edit on 1-9-2008 by GAOTU789]

In my opinion, while a belief in a supream being is manditory for acceptance to the fraternity, if you didn't have that belief, masonry would mean almost nothing. While it is not a religeon, for me it fills a spiritual void. I don't think you need to go to church to go to heaven, but you do need to continue to be reminded of gods work to keep your own life in perspective. Again, that is just my opinion.

How hard would it be to get a spell checker attached to this site? I have gotten so lazy over the years. I don't even know if a word is spelled wrong anymore unless my computer tells me. I just know it doesn't look right.

Another point ,with regards to belief in a Supreme Being, are the obligations which are taken for each degree. These obligations are taken on the whichever Holy book your religion subscribes to, or as is common in most lodges I have visited, The Holy Bible. If you did not believe in a supreme being, the obligation would therefore be meaningless. I have visited lodges with 4 or 5 Holy books on the altar, and each is opened in due form when the lodge is in session.

In our altar I saw recently the Holy Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah and the Book of Mormon.

I think, personally, that if you don't believe in a benevolent God you wouldn't really get much out of freemasonry.

From what I have seen the Luciferians and Satanists seem to be more into personal or self-gain. (Not speaking for them, just an observation)

An atheist wouldn't even want to apply for membership simply because a lot of the teachings assume a belief in God and they are framed that way.

I think an Agnostic would be very confused.

I just think a non-believer would probably either be bored or offended and wouldn't like it anyway.

Sorry I have not delved into this as deeply as I had hoped, yet anyway, so let me at least lay out where I am really coming from.

Freemasonry is something that I have been a bit leary of, and even skeptical of, but I am not a "Mason hater" by any stretch of the imagination. That latter point may have something to do the fraternity being spoken of in a positive manner while I was growing up.

I have never seen any "evil" perpetrated by the Masons, as a whole, and do not see the fraternity as the moving force behind the NWO and the enslavement of mankind. Could they be manipulated into playing a part, sure. Who couldn't? After all, it seems that our once proud and free Republican government has fallen under the shadow, and now works contrary to the interests laid out by our founders. Something that the "average" person has yet to wake up and realize is not only possible, but true.

But I digress, rambling when I am tired. To the point of the Supreme Being. I personally do not have a belief in one singular conscious lifeforce that could be labeled as a being. What I do believe in however, is a certain order to existence. A natural order, that when followed is righteous. Acts of kindness, charity, mercy, and general "goodness" are the way of that order. This order is not something that can be forced any more than you can force a nation to "accept freedom." It's something that cannot be done. It just is, or it is not if you are in the grip of those who would upset that natural order.

Again I ramble. To the point now. No, I do not believe in a Supreme Being, but I do believe in good for the sake of goodness. In being right for the sake of righteousness and not vanity. Another man's bondage grants me no gains. I do not believe in goodness for the sake of a God, or a fear of that God's wrath. I believe in what is good because I am the change that I want the world to be.

[edit on 9/2/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by emsed1

I think, personally, that if you don't believe in a benevolent God you wouldn't really get much out of freemasonry.

Perhaps, but "God" and benevolence are not synonymous. I can believe in good, and all the works of what is true and just, without believing that there is a supreme being who presides as the arbiter.

From what I have seen the Luciferians and Satanists seem to be more into personal or self-gain. (Not speaking for them, just an observation)

I agree with your observation. And while I see much truth in their "faith" there are key tenets which I would be unable to abide while being true to that faith and my own conscience mutually.

An atheist wouldn't even want to apply for membership simply because a lot of the teachings assume a belief in God and they are framed that way.

But are those teachings really a belief in God, or of belief in what is good?

I think an Agnostic would be very confused.

Ever meet an agnostic that wasn't?

I just think a non-believer would probably either be bored or offended and wouldn't like it anyway.

Quite possible. Which may be why there are people who insist that there is so much more to it, simply because "there has to be." But I think it might be more difficult to be outright offended I think.

reply to post by dredz


An excellent point.

In my own case, it is not a "fear of God" or even a belief in that God at all which would preclude me from violating an oath upon that book, or otherwise blaspheming it. It is my respect for my fellow man I think, for one. And my repsect for what is good. I would not want to tarnish what is considered to be fair and good for mere personal gain. For once that is done, then what good can there be left in your own life? There are some things you can never take back or make amends for, and they will haunt you for the rest of your days. No God has to be there to do that.