My Response to Saints Alive in Jesus

It's been a while since I last posted on this blog. I have lately been writing content for MasonicFind.

Today my attention was called to an article titled "Freemasonry: 5 Minutes with a Mason" written on a website named Saints Alive in Jesus. It presents various false or inapplicable arguments based on false premises. I will pick it apart piece-by-piece.

I was talking to Mason a while back.

Right off the bat, we know that we are about to hear a subjective opinion as opposed to any authoritative material from a legitimate grand lodge (i.e., constitutions, legislation, by-laws, ritual, even a grand lodge website, etc.). Looks promising.

He was in The Blue Lodge, which is the lower level, encompassing the first three levels of Masonry, so he’s really been in the lower level of “Masonic Knowledge.”

There is false premise #1. For those who care for accuracy, Freemasonry in and of itself only has three degrees:[*]

1. Entered Apprentice
2. Fellowcraft
3. Master Mason

There are, of course, appendant/concordant bodies (or groups) that a Master Mason may join and that offer extra degrees; however, such extra degrees are only relevant to their respective bodies and have no bearing over the whole of Freemasonry. In addition, there are scores of such bodies that a Master Mason may join. These are all lateral to (instead of higher than) the degree of Master Mason.

Also, level does not indicate advancement in Masonry; it instead indicates equality. Degree (synonymous in Masonry with grade or order) and office (synonymous in Masonry with chair or rank) are used; degree refers knowledge conferred and obligations taken, whereas office refers to administrative rank and duty. The author does not make clear what he is referring to here by "lower level of 'Masonic Knowledge'" given that Craft Masonry (what the author refers to as the Blue Lodge) has both degrees and offices.

I also find it arrogant that someone who has never been a Mason pretends to have the requisite knowledge to pass judgment on what is considered "lower" in Masonry. The below meme feels appropriate.[†]

Replace "secrets" with "knowledge."

He told me he was a Christian.

Given that most Freemasons are faithful Christians, this claim does not surprise me.

I said, "Do you love the Lord Jesus Christ?"

He answered, “Yes, of course I do. There is nothing in Masonry that would offend Jesus Christ”

I said, “Are you sure there is nothing that you do in Masonry that would be offensive to Jesus?”

He said, “Ed, nothing that I do in the Blue Lodge would ever offend the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Agreed.

“Do you love the Lord, “I asked?

“Of course I do!”

Redundant repetition.

“Do you believe the Word of God?”

“YES, of course I do!”

“Do you live the Word of God?”

“YES, well, at least I do my best!”

All answers fitting of any Christian, including those who are Masons; and here is where we delve into a premise wholly dependent on the asker's/author's subjective interpretations of the Bible:

“Well then, if you love the Lord Jesus Christ, then you’ll do what he says and you will not do what he says not to do. So how can you be a Mason?”

“What are you talking about?”

I said, “Well, Jesus himself says to swear no oath. Let your yes be yes and your no, no. He said anything more comes of evil, from the Devil.” “34 I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. Matthew 5:34-37 “And James said that to swear these oaths brings Condemnation.” But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. James 5:11-13

He looked at me for a long minute and finally responded, “Yeah, but that’s, you know, symbolic.”

I said, “I’m sorry, but it’s not symbolic. It’s the solid Word of God. You need to repent,” I added.

Here is another viable interpretation of the two texts with some historical context:

An oath was a legally binding contract made between two individuals. The Bible does not forbid such oaths, but it does say that oaths made to God should not be entered lightly. Jesus openly discouraged the swearing of oaths to God and pointed out the futility of invoking inanimate objects as a “co-signer,” so to speak.

Masonic oaths are made to oneself, and the obligation beforehand allows the oath to be broken with impunity if it conflicts with one's duty to God, family, or country.

In addition, a covenant is a two-way oath between man and God. To enter into any covenant (including, therefore, the New Covenant made by Christ) therefore qualifies as taking an oath upon oneself. In addition, to sign a contract, a lease agreement, or to agree to terms of service are all forms of written oaths and are therefore enforceable. How awkward, given that the Saints Alive in Jesus website was created by Redfearn Design and therefore likely was upheld via a contract or a sworn agreement of terms of service of some sort. Wedding vows, oaths of fealty, and the Constitutional oath (which all public servants and military servicemen/servicewomen take) fall into this same category. I look forward to Saints Alive in Jesus posting an article illustrating the evils of wedding vows and public/military service.

He Did

Given that this particular issue was not something to repent of, I can only conclude that the Mason in question did not understand the nature of his obligations and/or this entire story is merely an illustrative narrative. Surprisingly, my response is already (but only somewhat) addressed after that:

Oaths, Vows and Pledges

What are we to Do?

Charles M., a Mason responded to the above article by saying, in part:

“Ed, you are getting the masonic oath, and the Biblical instructions about oath-taking all wrong. Christians can and do take oaths all the time. I took an oath, when I enlisted in the Air Force, So help me God. I took an oath, when I joined the Federal Government as a civilian, in 1983. I took an oath, when I gave evidence in a civil court proceeding……… There is no biblical prohibition against taking oaths, Jesus was speaking allegorically, indicating that a person should be honest in his speech.” [Emphasis added]

The definition of an Oath is threefold.

a. A solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfill a pledge, often calling on God, a god, or a sacred object as witness.

b. The words or formula of such a declaration or promise.

c. Something declared or promised.

The author did not have the decency to provide the dictionary used to find these definitions. I find only a couple of similar definitions provided by Merriam-Webster:

1 a (1) : a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says

1 a (2) : a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words
// "The witness took an oath to tell the truth in court."

1 b : something (such as a promise) corroborated by an oath
// "They were required to swear an oath of loyalty.
// "took the oath of office

2 : an irreverent or careless use of a sacred name
broadly : swear word
// "He uttered an oath and stormed away."

The author then makes up his own definition for convenience:

The oaths taken by the Masons and cults[‡] like Mormonism, taken in secretive rituals, are called “Blood Oaths” because they include blood penalties for revealing the secret rituals.

This is nothing more than deceptive fearmongering on the part of the author, given that the actual definition of blood oath does not mean what the author is claiming according to the definition provided by Merriam-Webster:

: an oath taken by two or more people in which they ceremonially use or exchange each other's blood

broadly : a very serious or solemn oath

// "… she'd have to sign a blood oath promising that no matter what happened she'd never leave once that child was born …"

— Ron Harris, Elle, March 1993

// "Back when we were 17, we all took a blood oath to record three albums of 30-minute punk rock, and nobody would get to leave until we'd done just that."

— Pelle Almqvist, Spin, November 2007

Neither in Freemasonry nor in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is blood ceremonially or otherwise used/exchanged. We do, of course, take very serious, solemn oaths, but wedding vows, the US Constitutional oath, etc. fall under this category as well.

The penalties include the taking of the oath violator’s life by such means as slicing throats, ripping out hearts, slicing bellies open, gouging eyes, beheadings, etc.

Such penalties are symbolic only, and they have Biblical precedence:

"The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out."

— Psalm 10:31 (KJV)

"Those who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces. The leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests and all the people of the land who walked between the pieces of the calf …."

— Jeremiah 34:18-19 (NIV)

I have written more in-depth on the subject here.

One can readily see why they are referred to as “Blood Oaths” I am sorry to have to tell Charles that Jesus wasn’t playing allegorical, Masonic games when He clearly warned us that such blood oaths were from the devil.

Given that covenants with God fall under the above-provided actual definitions of blood oaths, the author has failed to prove this point. 

To believe such foolishness is OK, biblically, is to jeopardize one’s eternal soul. Your oaths guarantee a sure trip to hell.

All according to the author's mere subjective interpretation of the Bible. 

The other gross error on Charles’ part is to put Civic oaths in the same dirty bucket as his Masonic oaths. Oaths taken in public activity do not require one to have his throat slit or his heart ripped out, his head severed in two should he break his oath.

Any citizen, resident, and visitor of the United States is already subject to penalties should laws be broken; among those penalties is the death penalty.

In fact, US citizens are not required to swear oaths at all. Article Six of the United States [Constitution] requires that there be no religious test for public office.[§] Oaths are not required if the speaker chooses to “Affirm” agreement and this is true of all oaths administered by any section of the US government. Even years ago when I was a witness in a trial, I was easily allowed to affirm that I would tell the truth according to my knowledge of the laws pertaining to perjury.

Affirmations have been used in some grand lodge jurisdictions instead of oaths (notably for Quakers in Great Brittain); this is a solution well over a century old in Masonry.

If you want to know about Masonry, then I invite you to do the logical thing by going to Masonry directly. Look at authoritative sources (materials published by legitimate grand lodges, actual dictionaries, etc.) instead of relying on unsubstantiated claims and out-of-context information (like what the article “Freemasonry: 5 Minutes with a Mason” provides). Context is an essential component of Truth, for which gossip is not a valid metric.

                                                                                    

[*] Except, of course, for the few grand lodge jurisdictions that employ the Swedish Rite, which has 10 degrees. Given that the Swedish Rite is only employed by a small handful of grand lodge jurisdictions in Europe, this is irrelevant to this particular conversation.

[†] Unfortunately, I do not remember who created this meme and gave me permission to use it; it was years ago. If you created this meme, please feel free to reach out to me and let me know so that I can give you proper credit.

[‡] Cult is synonymous with religion according to Merriam-Webster. Arguably, the only people who aren't cultists are atheists; anyone who subscribes to any spiritual or religious ideology (including the author) is no less a cultist than I am as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (incorrectly referred to here as "Mormonism").

[§] The bracketed word was inserted by yours truly.

Works Cited

"Blood oath." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20oath. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.

"Cult." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/cult. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.

Ed. "Freemasonry: 5 Minutes with a Mason." Saints Alive in Jesus, Redfearn Design, saintsalive.com/5minuteswitha/freemasonry/?fbclid=IwAR38sW0dQGw6HsDq3oJ8Bmc0y3f4Y_nL1x21zBfqxkJ7sZlvv6x-hEKLbUY. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.

"Oath." Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oath. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.