Why Masons do not worship Lucifer (or Satan)

reply to post by Erbal

Decentralized is the absence of a central authority. There is no central authority over all of Freemasonry.

Decentralized means "without, away from, without a central authority".

If every regular lodge answers to a single Grand Lodge, and any lodge (including the Grand Lodge) can be 'kicked out' of regular Freemasonry (no longer recognized as regular Freemasonry) for adopting or not adopting certain rules/principles/practices/landmarks/etc, how exactly does that constitute independence and sovereignty?

Lodges report to a Grand Lodge. A Grand Lodge reports to no one else, other than its own members. Recognition or lack of recognition doesn't negate a Grand Lodge's sovereignty. How we operate, how much we spend, how much we collect in dues, who we elect, and so on and so forth is kept within the Grand Lodge. Hell for a number of years Oregon and Idaho didn't recognize each other, but that lack of recognition didn't reduce our sovereignty.

If regular Freemasonry is independent and sovereign, what would irregular Freemasonry be considered in those regards when compared to regular Freemasonry?

Because they don't follow the Ancient Landmarks.

reply to post by Erbal

There must be recognition so a Mason from one state/country may visit another jurisdiction.

If every regular lodge only recognizes who the UGLE recognizes, wouldn't that be a form of centralized power? If you do not follow the UGLE, you cannot be a regular lodge, correct?

The Ancient Landmarks were established by the British Masons, but the UGLE does not control recognition for the entire world. As I stated before, the UGLE recognizes Regular Grand Lodge of Italy while the American Grand Lodges recognize the Grand Orient of Italy.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Erbal

 

Decentralized is the absence of a central authority. There is no central authority over all of Freemasonry.

Decentralized means "without, away from, without a central authority".

Maybe that is what it means to you, personally.

[I'm not trying to be the grammar police, I just refuse to allow doublespeak to go unchecked]
For any standard and generally accepted usage of the English language, the prefix of de- specifically does NOT mean without. Not or non means without, the opposite, or an absence of.

Example: destabilize requires the existence of stability to move away from. Not stable means you are without stability.

Decentralized is the moving away from a central authority. Not centralized is the absence of centralized authority.

Originally posted by KSigMason
Lodges report to a Grand Lodge. A Grand Lodge reports to no one else, other than its own members. Recognition or lack of recognition doesn't negate a Grand Lodge's sovereignty. How we operate, how much we spend, how much we collect in dues, who we elect, and so on and so forth is kept within the Grand Lodge. Hell for a number of years Oregon and Idaho didn't recognize each other, but that lack of recognition didn't reduce our sovereignty.

If a lodge values recognition and truly wishes to remain recognized, and the state of their recognition relies on compliance and uniformity to an outside influence they do not control, they are in effect forfeiting sovereignty.

If you do not possess supreme authority over your area of rule, you are not sovereign.

Originally posted by KSigMason
The Ancient Landmarks were established by the British Masons, but the UGLE does not control recognition for the entire world. As I stated before, the UGLE recognizes Regular Grand Lodge of Italy while the American Grand Lodges recognize the Grand Orient of Italy.

You are clearly describing a great deal of power centralized to only a couple of the highest grand lodges in the world.

reply to post by Erbal

I don't know why you can't get that recognition between Grand Lodges doesn't negate sovereignty, but it doesn't. You seem very confused as to how it all works.

Originally posted by Erbal

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by Erbal

If every regular lodge answers to a single Grand Lodge, and any lodge (including the Grand Lodge) can be 'kicked out' of regular Freemasonry (no longer recognized as regular Freemasonry) for adopting or not adopting certain rules/principles/practices/landmarks/etc, how exactly does that constitute independence and sovereignty?

Each State has it's own Grand Lodge and each Grand lodge is sovereign. There is no central governing body over each State although they all recognize the ancient landmarks of the UGLE.

If a Grand Lodge is sovereign and has no form of Masonic authority higher than itself, why in the world is there any disagreement whatsoever amongst Masons regarding the legitimacy of lodges who exercise sovereignty nonuniformly with the UGLE?

If every regular lodge only recognizes who the UGLE recognizes, wouldn't that be a form of centralized power? If you do not follow the UGLE, you cannot be a regular lodge, correct?

Each State is independent. Like an entity all it's own. Yet they all practice the same thing. They all obey the ancient landmarks of masonry. As Ksig said, there are states that do not recognize other states. There are Grand lodges that do not recognize Prince Hall masons in some states. (only one or two in the deep south)

The Grand Lodge answers to no governing body.

Then you have the side orders. But they are another story and have no authority over the core of masonry, which is Blue lodge masonry. In fact, Blue lodge masonry is actually in the drivers seat since you must be a master mason in good standing to be a member of any of the masonic side orders. So if you get booted out of the blue lodge, you have to leave all the others.

I try hard not to engage in doublespeak. If you need clarification, please ask.

Originally posted by Erbal
There is no feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for any deity in any regular Masonic lodge?
There are no rites or ceremonies constituting a formal expression of reverence for any deity in any regular Masonic lodge?

Other then the opening and closing prayers, which are quite general in nature, there is no other mention of Deity in a regular meeting.

During the Degress and candidate must profess his faith in God and God is mentioned in certain parts of the ritual, I do not however consider this a form of worship.

To address your last point: It's ridiculously self-evident that a person can worship anything they want without invoking the belief in the existence of additional, supernatural entities.

What part to the Oxford definition of 'worship' (remember, you said the Oxford dictionary is what matters) does it state or imply that a person can only worship a supernatural deity?

The notion that someone can worship something other then God is not the point, the point is that a Mason must be monotheistic and Monotheism is the belief in one God.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how you can be monotheistic and worship multiple gods.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
The notion that someone can worship something other then God is not the point, the point is that a Mason must be monotheistic and Monotheism is the belief in one God.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how you can be monotheistic and worship multiple gods.

We've been over this ad nauseam... you are mistaken in your belief that every Mason is a genuine monotheist...
I'm sure most are but you have no way to know who is or isn't...
you are making the CHOICE to believe all regular Masons are genuine monotheists and you simply do not have any hard facts to support your chosen belief as a fact...

Me, personally, I do NOT agree that Catholics, for example, who pray to various saints/angels for help are genuine monotheists, but I wouldn't be surprised if that individual felt they were a monotheist. Are Christians monotheists if they believe in the existence of God and satan?

Oh, wait... here is your answer in all it's glory: You can be monotheistic and worship multiple gods IF you believe they are manifestations of the supreme god you believe in, if you believe the multiple gods are a oneness of the supreme being... that's good enough for a polytheistic Hindu to join regular Masonry.

Stop spreading your blatant disinformation.

Originally posted by network dude

Each State is independent. Like an entity all it's own. Yet they all practice the same thing. They all obey the ancient landmarks of masonry. As Ksig said, there are states that do not recognize other states. There are Grand lodges that do not recognize Prince Hall masons in some states. (only one or two in the deep south)

The Grand Lodge answers to no governing body.

Simple questions: Who sets these ancient landmarks? What happens when a Grand Lodge decides they no longer wish to obey the ancient landmarks of masonry? What happens when a lodge decides they no longer wish to obey their grand lodge?

A Grand Lodge is free to be racially discriminatory to the extent they won't allow a black Mason inside their temple, but they are not free to allow non-monotheists in their ranks? Also, I thought you guys universally taught oneness, I guess in some areas you still teach 4/5th's-ness as well.

Originally posted by Erbal
We've been over this ad nauseam... you are mistaken in your belief that every Mason is a genuine monotheist...
I'm sure most are but you have no way to know who is or isn't...

They know, and there is nothing for anyone in regular Masonry that appeals to the non-monotheist.

...you are making the CHOICE to believe all regular Masons are genuine monotheists and you simply do not have any hard facts to support your chosen belief as a fact...

Could someone be lying? Sure, but what would be the point? Why would you want to be a part of a group that requires belief in a Supreme Being and not have that belief personally?

Me, personally, I do NOT agree that Catholics, for example, who pray to various saints/angels for help are genuine monotheists...

I was raised Roman Catholic and I agree, this was one of the many reasons I felt that it was not for me.

Are Christians monotheists if they believe in the existence of God and satan?

I do not see why not. The historical Satan is not a Supreme Being but a fallen angel so I do not see the conflict. I personally do not believe in Satan but if it is a myth that someone wishes to ascribe to then be my guest.

Oh, wait... here is your answer in all it's glory: You can be monotheistic and worship multiple gods IF you believe they are manifestations of the supreme god you believe in, if you believe the multiple gods are a oneness of the supreme being... that's good enough for a polytheistic Hindu to join regular Masonry.

Are you refering to Smartism? I do not see the conflict as it practices Monism and to me is quite similar to the Christian concept of the Trinity.

Stop spreading your blatant disinformation.

Disinformation? Like when I quoted the Conference of Grand Masters' definition? Maybe you can try posting something to refute what I said.

Originally posted by Erbal
Simple questions: Who sets these ancient landmarks?

The Grand Lodges set them, I already provided a link to the list of required landmarks. Each Grand Lodge can add others to these as they see fit for their respective jurisdictions.

What happens when a Grand Lodge decides they no longer wish to obey the ancient landmarks of masonry?

Mutual amity is withdrawn and they are considered irregular. No Mason from another Grand Jursidiction can visit, hold Masonic communication or discuss Masonry with a lodge in the irregular body under threat of expulsion and no Mason from the irregular jurisdiction can visit lodge in a regular jurisdiction.

What happens when a lodge decides they no longer wish to obey their grand lodge?

Their charter would be revoked and they would no longer be recognized by and Grand Jurisdiction.

A Grand Lodge is free to be racially discriminatory to the extent they won't allow a black Mason inside their temple, but they are not free to allow non-monotheists in their ranks? Also, I thought you guys universally taught oneness, I guess in some areas you still teach 4/5th's-ness as well.

My jurisdiction does not discriminate and I refuse to attend lodge in any jurisdiction that does.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal
We've been over this ad nauseam... you are mistaken in your belief that every Mason is a genuine monotheist...
I'm sure most are but you have no way to know who is or isn't...

They know, and there is nothing for anyone in regular Masonry that appeals to the non-monotheist.

Is there a fundamental difference between the teachings of regular and irregular Masonry? What do non-monotheists like about irregular Masonry?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal...you are making the CHOICE to believe all regular Masons are genuine monotheists and you simply do not have any hard facts to support your chosen belief as a fact...

Could someone be lying? Sure, but what would be the point? Why would you want to be a part of a group that requires belief in a Supreme Being and not have that belief personally?

That's the thing, regular Freemasonry does not make it crystal clear that a required belief in a Supreme Being explicitly means belief in the existence of one and only one supernatural deity.

A belief in a Supreme Being is incredibly subjective, we've been over this ad nausuam.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalMe, personally, I do NOT agree that Catholics, for example, who pray to various saints/angels for help are genuine monotheists...

I was raised Roman Catholic and I agree, this was one of the many reasons I felt that it was not for me.

Have you ever met a Roman Catholic who did NOT believe in a Supreme Being? If all Roman Catholic's believe in what they interpret as a Supreme Being, and we agree not every Roman Catholic is a genuine monotheist, it comes off as intentional BS when you assert Supreme Being ONLY refers to a monotheistic view.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalAre Christians monotheists if they believe in the existence of God and satan?

I do not see why not. The historical Satan is not a Supreme Being but a fallen angel so I do not see the conflict. I personally do not believe in Satan but if it is a myth that someone wishes to ascribe to then be my guest.

Monotheism means a belief in the existence of one and ONLY one supernatural deity.
The actual existence or non-existence of what is believed to exist is irrelevant to determining whether or not someone is a monotheist... if they believe more than 1 deity exists, they cannot be a monotheist.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal

Stop spreading your blatant disinformation.

Disinformation? Like when I quoted the Conference of Grand Masters' definition? Maybe you can try posting something to refute what I said.

I couldn't find any information about that quote you posted.

Why don't you summarize the quote, what makes it relevant, and how it is proof of whatever you think it proves.

It's YOUR claim, YOU prove it true and then I can respond. Right now I don't know what you want me to refute.

Originally posted by Erbal
Is there a fundamental difference between the teachings of regular and irregular Masonry? What do non-monotheists like about irregular Masonry?

That is a question that I can not answer as I have not been in an irregular lodge to observe their ritual.

That's the thing, regular Freemasonry does not make it crystal clear that a required belief in a Supreme Being explicitly means belief in the existence of one and only one supernatural deity.

A belief in a Supreme Being is incredibly subjective, we've been over this ad nausuam.

Not clear? Really? How much clearer does this need to be:

III. Ancient Landmarks

That it subscribes fundamentally, ritualistically and in all its relations to the Ancient Landmarks, Customs and Usages of the Craft. This requires adherence to the following.

1. Monotheism -- An unalterable and continuing belief in God.

2. The Volume of The Sacred Law -- an essential part of the furniture of the Lodge.

3. Prohibition of the discussion of Religion and Politics. source

You are either observing the Landmarks or you are considered irregular. End of story.

Have you ever met a Roman Catholic who did NOT believe in a Supreme Being? If all Roman Catholic's believe in what they interpret as a Supreme Being, and we agree not every Roman Catholic is a genuine monotheist, it comes off as intentional BS when you assert Supreme Being ONLY refers to a monotheistic view.

Praying to and worshipping something are not the same thing. Just because I prayed last week that Eli Manning would lob a 70 yard touchdown bomb to Victor Cruz does not mean I worship either one of them nor does it make me any less monotheistic.

Monotheism means a belief in the existence of one and ONLY one supernatural deity.
The actual existence or non-existence of what is believed to exist is irrelevant to determining whether or not someone is a monotheist... if they believe more than 1 deity exists, they cannot be a monotheist.

The historical Satan is not a deity but a creation of God, believing that Satan exists (however absurd I think the concept may be) does not make someone non-montheistic.

I couldn't find any information about that quote you posted.

Why don't you summarize the quote, what makes it relevant, and how it is proof of whatever you think it proves.

It's YOUR claim, YOU prove it true and then I can respond. Right now I don't know what you want me to refute.

See above.

The Landmarks must be observed to be considered a regular Grand Jurisdiction. Recognition is withdrawn if/when a Grand Lodge ceases their observance of any of these Landmarks. This is not open for dispute.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


While your praying that Eli Manning will lob a 70 yard bomb to Victor Cruz i'm still praying that my Buffalo Bills kicker Scott Norwood made the game winning field goal against your Giants in Superbowl 25 funny thing is tho everytime i watch a re-run of it my prayers are never answered it's always Norwood wide right.....


On a more conventional note both you and Erbal bring up good points and it's been a very good debate however i have a question and at this point we are trying to nail down the true intention of the Masnory rule of monotheist vs non-monotheist, but since it is required to have a belief in a supreme being to be a Freemason what is the critera for this in another words if some guy who wanted to become a Freemason actually believed that Mickey Mouse or Goofy was there supreme being would that be excepted or is there some kind of guide lines that must be drawn and it has to be within reason???

Originally posted by King Seesar
While your praying that Eli Manning will lob a 70 yard bomb to Victor Cruz i'm still praying that my Buffalo Bills kicker Scott Norwood made the game winning field goal against your Giants in Superbowl 25 funny thing is tho everytime i watch a re-run of it my prayers are never answered it's always Norwood wide right.....

I think the big play was the 14 yard pass to Mark Ingram on 3rd and 13 in the 3rd Quarter where he broke five tackles and Bills fan's hearts.

On a more conventional note both you and Erbal bring up good points and it's been a very good debate however i have a question and at this point we are trying to nail down the true intention of the Masnory rule of monotheist vs non-monotheist, but since it is required to have a belief in a supreme being to be a Freemason what is the critera for this in another words if some guy who wanted to become a Freemason actually believed that Mickey Mouse or Goofy was there supreme being would that be excepted or is there some kind of guide lines that must be drawn and it has to be within reason???

No one asks you to give your name for God (Jesus, Allah, etc.). If you honestly believed that Mickey Mouse is the omnipotent creator the Universe then we are talking about the same God.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Yea the Ingram pass was pretty rough but it wasen't the final nail it hurt but not the final nail, Norwood put the final nail in our coffin with his leg, Jim Kelly summed it up best he said he should of gotten us five yards closer for the final kick, but you guys had a good game plan you knew you couldn't match fire power with our offense especially with Jeff Hostetler at QB, so Bill Parcells devised a game plan which would keep our offense off the field you guys beat us with clock control, we only had the ball offensively for under 20 minutes while you guys had it for 40 plus...

What boggles my mind is when we went to the Superbowl four straight years three out of those four years we had to beat Joe Montana John Elway and Dan Marino in the AFC championship game yet lose to Jeff Hostetler and Mark Rypien in the Superbowl.....


As far as the theological views of Freemasonry when it comes to a supreme being i was just making sure i understood it correctly it lines up with my views on why Mason's don't talk about Jahbulon because if this Jahbulon is indeed a supreme being that a particular Mason believes in your not going to demonize him or out him or even know unless he tells you the name of his supreme being besides by your beliefs it would be the same God no mater what the name....

The reason i bring up Jahbulon is because by the status quo conspiracy theory (not mine) Jahbulon is a secret Masonic only God that the "higher level Masons" worship and it's understood that this Jahbulon is not the same as the Christian or hebrew or islamic God, but your on ATS so you know this old conspiracy theory..

Originally posted by King Seesar
...so Bill Parcells devised a game plan which would keep our offense off the field you guys beat us with clock control, we only had the ball offensively for under 20 minutes while you guys had it for 40 plus...

'Smashmouth' football. My favorite kind.

As far as the theological views of Freemasonry when it comes to a supreme being i was just making sure i understood it correctly it lines up with my views on why Mason's don't talk about Jahbulon because if this Jahbulon is indeed a supreme being that a particular Mason believes in your not going to demonize him or out him or even know unless he tells you the name of his supreme being besides by your beliefs it would be the same God no mater what the name....

The reason i bring up Jahbulon is because by the status quo conspiracy theory (not mine) Jahbulon is a secret Masonic only God that the "higher level Masons" worship and it's understood that this Jahbulon is not the same as the Christian or hebrew or islamic God, but your on ATS so you know this old conspiracy theory..

There is no mention of Jahbulon (or Jabulon) in the Blue Lodge or Scottish Rite. It is an outdated usage orginating in French Masonry's Royal Arch Degree. Additionally, no one has ever given me and adequate description of 'higher level Masons', who they are, what they do and how they became 'higher' in relation to other more 'pedestrian' members.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal
Is there a fundamental difference between the teachings of regular and irregular Masonry? What do non-monotheists like about irregular Masonry?

That is a question that I can not answer as I have not been in an irregular lodge to observe their ritual.

Well, perhaps you should do a little research before you keep repeating over and over that Freemasonry offers nothing for non-monotheists... I was under the impression irregular and regular have the same teachings.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalThat's the thing, regular Freemasonry does not make it crystal clear that a required belief in a Supreme Being explicitly means belief in the existence of one and only one supernatural deity.

A belief in a Supreme Being is incredibly subjective, we've been over this ad nausuam.

Not clear? Really? How much clearer does this need to be:

III. Ancient Landmarks

That it subscribes fundamentally, ritualistically and in all its relations to the Ancient Landmarks, Customs and Usages of the Craft. This requires adherence to the following.

1. Monotheism -- An unalterable and continuing belief in God.

2. The Volume of The Sacred Law -- an essential part of the furniture of the Lodge.

3. Prohibition of the discussion of Religion and Politics. source

You are either observing the Landmarks or you are considered irregular. End of story.

If the landmark defines monotheism as an unalterable and continuing belief in God, and it does not define monotheism as belief in the existence of one and only one God, it sounds like you just require theism and the word monotheism is a token gesture.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalHave you ever met a Roman Catholic who did NOT believe in a Supreme Being? If all Roman Catholic's believe in what they interpret as a Supreme Being, and we agree not every Roman Catholic is a genuine monotheist, it comes off as intentional BS when you assert Supreme Being ONLY refers to a monotheistic view.

Praying to and worshipping something are not the same thing.

Praying to something strongly implies belief in it's existence. Why would someone pray to an angel or saint if they didn't believe it could be heard and answered? Clearly an angel is a supernatural entity that can be considered a deity by definition... whether or not each individual who believes in their existence also believes they are a deity, that's not for me to say.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalMonotheism means a belief in the existence of one and ONLY one supernatural deity.
The actual existence or non-existence of what is believed to exist is irrelevant to determining whether or not someone is a monotheist... if they believe more than 1 deity exists, they cannot be a monotheist.

The historical Satan is not a deity but a creation of God, believing that Satan exists (however absurd I think the concept may be) does not make someone non-montheistic.

Your personally beliefs are irrelevant to the facts of another individuals beliefs.
If someone believes Satan (whatever you want to call it) is a deity by definition, and if they believe it exists, and if they believe another deity exists, then they believe in the existence of more than 1 deity and fail to qualify as a monotheist.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalI couldn't find any information about that quote you posted.

Why don't you summarize the quote, what makes it relevant, and how it is proof of whatever you think it proves.

It's YOUR claim, YOU prove it true and then I can respond. Right now I don't know what you want me to refute.

See above.

The Landmarks must be observed to be considered a regular Grand Jurisdiction. Recognition is withdrawn if/when a Grand Lodge ceases their observance of any of these Landmarks. This is not open for dispute.

Prove it. It's your claim, the burden of proof lies on you.
You can't drop some obscure quote with nothing else behind it and then declare it's irrefutable proof that cannot be disputed. That's ridiculous and unreasonable.

Originally posted by Erbal
Well, perhaps you should do a little research before you keep repeating over and over that Freemasonry offers nothing for non-monotheists... I was under the impression irregular and regular have the same teachings.

I think you understand at this point that when I say that Masonry has nothing for the non-monotheistic I am refering to Regular Masonry where we include God in the requirements and ritual.

If the landmark defines monotheism as an unalterable and continuing belief in God, and it does not define monotheism as belief in the existence of one and only one God, it sounds like you just require theism and the word monotheism is a token gesture.

Monotheism is pretty self-explanatory. Are we going to play the Clintonesque game of defining what 'is' is?

Praying to something strongly implies belief in it's existence. Why would someone pray to an angel or saint if they didn't believe it could be heard and answered? Clearly an angel is a supernatural entity that can be considered a deity by definition...

How so when the historical and commonly accepted beliefs regarding angels has them created by and/or answering to God?

If someone believes Satan (whatever you want to call it) is a deity by definition, and if they believe it exists, and if they believe another deity exists, then they believe in the existence of more than 1 deity and fail to qualify as a monotheist.

The historical Satan is never considered a Deity so I fail to see the point. You can believe in God and his creation Satan and still be monotheistic.

Prove it. It's your claim, the burden of proof lies on you.
You can't drop some obscure quote with nothing else behind it and then declare it's irrefutable proof that cannot be disputed. That's ridiculous and unreasonable.

'Obscure quote'? This is directly from the Conference of Grand Masters which meets every year to discuss Masonic recognition not only for United States Grand Lodges but how they recognize other Grand Lodges througout the world.

My quote, and the fact that every United States Grand Lodge has these three Ancient Landmarks, does prove the point completely and totally. If you disagree it is up to you to prove otherwise by citing a Grand Lodge that does not uphold these three Landmarks or demonstrating that they are erroneous.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by Erbal
Well, perhaps you should do a little research before you keep repeating over and over that Freemasonry offers nothing for non-monotheists... I was under the impression irregular and regular have the same teachings.

I think you understand at this point that when I say that Masonry has nothing for the non-monotheistic I am refering to Regular Masonry where we include God in the requirements and ritual.

BS! Rewind the tape to when you said: "there is nothing for anyone in regular Masonry that appeals to the non-monotheist. "

It would be completely unreasonable to assume you were NOT specifically referring to what goes on in regular Freemasonry AFTER you are initiated, ie the teachings, rituals, activities, a brotherhood, dinners, whatever goes on in a lodge between initiates.

I'm not a mind reader... try harder to use words that clearly and accurately represent your intended message.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalIf the landmark defines monotheism as an unalterable and continuing belief in God, and it does not define monotheism as belief in the existence of one and only one God, it sounds like you just require theism and the word monotheism is a token gesture.

Monotheism is pretty self-explanatory. Are we going to play the Clintonesque game of defining what 'is' is?

If the landmark read "1. Monotheism -- " I would have no choice but to interpret that as only one things: the standard definition of monotheism.

But the landmark reads: "1. Monotheism -- An unalterable and continuing belief in God. " and that forces me to account for all the words after the -- as an expansion on the author's intended context and interpretation.

Look at rule 2, it's consistent with what I am saying: "2. The Volume of The Sacred Law -- an essential part of the furniture of the Lodge. " The words after '--' are an expansion of the words preceding '--'.

If they wanted monotheism AND the rest of what they wrote, why didn't they use the word and? "Monotheism AND an unalterable and continuing belief in God." means one thing, "1. Monotheism -- An unalterable and continuing belief in God. " means something else entirely.

Explain the purpose of making a rule with a self-explanatory word like monotheism that is followed by "---- An unalterable and continuing belief in God."

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalPraying to something strongly implies belief in it's existence. Why would someone pray to an angel or saint if they didn't believe it could be heard and answered? Clearly an angel is a supernatural entity that can be considered a deity by definition...

How so when the historical and commonly accepted beliefs regarding angels has them created by and/or answering to God?

Is it a commonly accepted definition that a deity cannot be created by, or answer to, God?

How do YOU personally define the word deity?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalIf someone believes Satan (whatever you want to call it) is a deity by definition, and if they believe it exists, and if they believe another deity exists, then they believe in the existence of more than 1 deity and fail to qualify as a monotheist.

The historical Satan is never considered a Deity so I fail to see the point. You can believe in God and his creation Satan and still be monotheistic.

Are we discussing historical theology or personal beliefs?

Question: If you believe a person can believe in the existence of God and Satan and remain monotheistic, why can't a monotheistic Mason worship Satan (or anything similar)? Is there any universal rule or landmark dictating the personal worship choices of a Mason?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by ErbalProve it. It's your claim, the burden of proof lies on you.
You can't drop some obscure quote with nothing else behind it and then declare it's irrefutable proof that cannot be disputed. That's ridiculous and unreasonable.

'Obscure quote'? This is directly from the Conference of Grand Masters which meets every year to discuss Masonic recognition not only for United States Grand Lodges but how they recognize other Grand Lodges througout the world.

My quote, and the fact that every United States Grand Lodge has these three Ancient Landmarks, does prove the point completely and totally. If you disagree it is up to you to prove otherwise by citing a Grand Lodge that does not uphold these three Landmarks or demonstrating that they are erroneous.

For the record: have you changed your position from "ALL regular Masonic lodges are required to be monotheistic" to "ALL regular Masonic Lodges in the US are required to be monotheistic" ???

You have not even attempted to demonstrate that every US Grand Lodge has those 3 ancient landmarks. Why can't you be bothered to show some proof instead of asserting it as fact?

The whole subject of landmarks is a controversy. Even the 25 Mackey landmarks do not mention monotheism.

www.la-mason.com... Landmarks for the Grand Lodge of LA: No mention of monotheism

Also, here the website for the Commission on Information for Recognition - the guys who are in charge of Conference of Grand Masters that provided you with your quote.
www.recognitioncommission.org...

Why do they list this for the standards of recognition:

The standards of Recognition are summarized as follows:

Legitimacy of Origin
Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, except by mutual consent and/or treaty.
Adherence to the Ancient Landmarks � specifically, a Belief in God, the Volume of Sacred Law as an indispensable part of the Furniture of the Lodge, and the prohibition of the discussion of politics and religion.

No mention of monotheism, just a belief in God.

Augustus: you are the king of BS mountain. I've easily debunked all of your major claims so far.

Originally posted by Erbal
BS! Rewind the tape to when you said: "there is nothing for anyone in regular Masonry that appeals to the non-monotheist. "

You knew exactly what I meant so stop acting like you did not.

It would be completely unreasonable to assume you were NOT specifically referring to what goes on in regular Freemasonry AFTER you are initiated, ie the teachings, rituals, activities, a brotherhood, dinners, whatever goes on in a lodge between initiates.

How so when the requirement for membership is known prior to joining?

If the landmark read "1. Monotheism -- " I would have no choice but to interpret that as only one things: the standard definition of monotheism.

But the landmark reads: "1. Monotheism -- An unalterable and continuing belief in God. " and that forces me to account for all the words after the -- as an expansion on the author's intended context and interpretation.

...

Explain the purpose of making a rule with a self-explanatory word like monotheism that is followed by "---- An unalterable and continuing belief in God."

It is there because if your belief changes (your belief in a Supreme Being ceases) you are no longer in complaince with the Landmark. I have seen members leave because of this, there is even one who posts here occasionally who has left for this very reason.

Is it a commonly accepted definition that a deity cannot be created by, or answer to, God?

I would think so. The reverse would be a rather paradoxal situation where God keeps creating more Gods.

How do YOU personally define the word deity?

Only one way, capital 'd' as in synonomous with God.

Are we discussing historical theology or personal beliefs?

The historical theology is what is being discussed. I try not to impart too much of my personal beliefs as they are not entirely relevant and I typically preface them by noting they are my personal beliefs.

Question: If you believe a person can believe in the existence of God and Satan and remain monotheistic, why can't a monotheistic Mason worship Satan (or anything similar)?

Because the historical Satan is not supreme as he was created by God.

Is there any universal rule or landmark dictating the personal worship choices of a Mason?

The Landmark was clear on the belief requirements.