CORNERSTONE CORRESPONDENCE
For the Spirit
of Truth
From the cowardice
that dares not face new truth,
from the laziness that is contented with half-truth,
from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Good Lord, deliver me. Amen.
This chapter is comprised of the correspondence between one of the authors
(Morris) and Mr. T.N. Sampson, of "Cornerstone Ministries" (Poquoson,
Virginia). Because the letters are self-explanatory, we need not detain
the reader with a lengthy introduction or analysis, other than to say
that it largely concerns the veracity of Rev. Shaw's claims.
[Letter 1]
August 28, 1993
Dr. S. Brent Morris,
Book Review Editor
The Scottish Rite Journal
1733 16th St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009-3199
Dear Dr. Morris:
Cornerstone Ministries
was formed by my wife and myself to provide information to Christians
about non-Christian cults and religions. Not surprisingly, Freemasonry
is a topic we are addressing. I have spent some time reading the various
articles and books dealing with both sides of the issue and have found
that the truth in the matter is somewhere between Dr Holly and Mr Robinson;
however, falsehood abound on both sides.
I read your article
The Sound and The Fury in the February 1993 edition of The
Scottish Rite Journal and came away uncertain as to whether you
were being truthful or not in your criticisms of Jim Shaw's book, The
Deadly Deception. Since my attempt is to ascertain the truth, may
I trouble you to respond to the following questions?
- You note that
the book "is written in simple language, accessible to someone without
a high school education." What is meant by that statement? Is that
good or bad? My son has an International Children's bible which is
written to the third grade level; does that reflect badly on its content?
- You note that
Mr McKenney confused "a Thirty-third Degree Sovereign Grand Inspector
General with a Thirty-third Degree Inspector General Honorary". I
do not understand what the difference is. Mr Shaw claims to be a Sovereign
Grand Inspector General (pg. 103) and Coil notes that is the proper
title for the 33 degree (pg 608 of his Encyclopedia). I could
not find the latter title so I cannot figure out what was being confused
for what (though I am confused!).
- You say that
Mr Shaw was never a 33rd degree Mason. I have written a similar letter
to Mr Shaw asking him about this and will share his answer with you
when it is received.
- You note that
Blanchard claimed that his Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated
contained the ceremonies of the Cerneau Council. As I understand it,
Blanchard did not claim that his book reflected Cerneau ceremonies;
this is a claim made by Masons, and an unproven one at that.
- In shooting
fish in a barrel, you hit one or two that weren't in there:
- You say that
Shaw depicts Masons as being drunkards (pg 83). On that page, Shaw
merely notes that there was a great deal of drinking at the conclave,
a statement which does not support your criticism. You further note
that "neither the Grand Lodge of Florida nor The Supreme Council 33º,
SJ permit alcohol to be served at their functions". That is nice,
but you state current practice, not historical practice. Did either
allow alcohol when Shaw was a member in the 60's? As well, Shaw notes
going to a "distant city" to receive this high honor, which may or
may not have been in Florida.
- You dispute
Shaw's claim that Masons spend thousands to received the 32nd degree;
however, that's not what he claimed. On pg 63, he notes that "going
all the way to the 32nd degree can be very substantial, well into
the thousands of dollars today." Thus, the cost estimate goes from
Entered Apprentice to the Master of the Royal Secret. Do you dispute
his actual statement?
- Your comment
about Hiram being restored to life by Solomon appears correct, based
on what I know of the Master Mason ritual.
I am struck more
by what you have chosen not to criticize that by what you do.
Why do you not challenge Mr Shaw's descriptions of the Maundy Thursday
ritual? Or his linkage between the Hiram Abiff legend and that of Isis
and Osiris? Or any of the other significant charges that would give
any Christian pause for thought?
Finally, I found
it interesting to read in your article that you find the theory that
Masonry "descended from the so-called "Ancient Mysteries" and other
forms of pagan worship" has been discredited, and that only anti-Masons
continue to perpetuate this charge. How can this be true? To quote Rex
Hutchens in A Bridge to Light "Whatever the truth of history,
the contributions to the symbolism of Freemasonry by the religions,
philosophies, mythologies and occult mysteries of the past lie upon
its surface for all to see." Hutchens' book must be considered authoritative;
how do you resolve the conflict between the two viewpoints?
I am looking forward
to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
T.N. Sampson
[Letter 2]
September 23, 1993
Mr. T. N. Sampson
Cornerstone Ministries
P.O. Box 2183
Poquoson, VA 23662-0183
Dear Mr. Sampson,
Thank you for your
letter of August 28 about my February 1993 book review column, "The
Sound and the Fury." It is always satisfying to authors to get feedback
on their writing. I am happy to answer your questions about the Reverend
James Shaw.
Everything I wrote
in my column was truthful to the best of my knowledge. One misstatement,
however, did slip in despite my best intentions. I made the embarrassing
mistake of assuming that Rev. Shaw told the truth about being a Past
Master. The record reveals that he was never elected to any office in
Allapattah Lodge No. 271. I can find no evidence he ever belonged to
another Florida Lodge; neither did he serve in any office in his mother
Lodge, Evergreen No. 713 in Indiana. It appears I fell for one of Rev.
Shaw's slickly packaged lies. Mea culpa.
The Deadly Deception
is a well-written, entertaining book. As I said in my review, "The biography
is engaging, empathetic, and scattered with clever, vicious lies." It
is also written in "simple language, accessible to someone without a
high school education." This is testimony to Mr. McKenney's abilities
as a writer; he told a good story in simple language. For a much less
accessible book on anti-Masonry, see Paul Goodman, Towards a Christian
Republic, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Mr. McKenney said
"[Jim Shaw's] ardent quest carried him through . . . the position
of Sovereign Grand Inspector General. . . ." (emphasis added)
In the Southern Jurisdiction, "Sovereign Grand Inspector General" is
both the name of a degree and of a position. Each state has one active
member of the Supreme Council who has the position of "Sovereign Grand
Inspector General" for that state. All other Thirty-Third Degree Masons
are honorary members of the Supreme Council and are called "Inspectors
General Honorary." The nomenclature is somewhat different in the Northern
Masonic Jurisdiction. For more information, see Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia,
p. 313, s.v. "Honorary 33rd Degree Masons."
I stand by my statement
that Rev. Shaw was never a Thirty-Third Degree Mason. Rev. Shaw became
a Knight Commander of the Court of Honour in December 1965 and resigned
in October 1966, thirty-seven months before he would have been eligible
even to be nominated for the Thirty-Third Degree, much less elected.
The names of every newly created Thirty-Third Degree Mason are published
in the Transactions of the Supreme Council, and thousands of
copies are distributed. All Rev. Shaw has to do is to give the year,
and you can easily check the record.
The title page
of Rev. Blanchard's book claims to contain, "The Complete Ritual of
the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite," and the rituals themselves
abound with references to various clandestine Cerneau Supreme Councils.
Rev. Blanchard was much too smart not to have known which Supreme Council
he was dealing with, especially as he provided a detailed commentary
on all aspects of each degree. I can only conclude he understood what
he wrote.
Here is one reference
to a Cerneau Supreme Council, vol. 1, p. 124, ". . .
under the auspices of the Supreme Council of the 33d degree of the Ancient
and Accepted Scotch Rite, in and for the Sovereign and Independent State
of New York. . . ." This name was used by H. C. Atwood's Supreme
Council, ca. 1852-1854.
The name of a different
Cerneau Supreme Council, is found in vol. 1, p. 303, ". . .
under the auspices of the Supreme Grand Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors
General of the 33d degree for the Northern Jurisdiction of the Western
Hemisphere. . . ." Edmund B. Hays, Atwood's successor, used
this name ca. 1860-1863. Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, pp. 600-617,
s.v. "Scottish Rite Masonry," gives many names of the Cerneau Supreme
Councils.
For more evidence
that Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, contains Cerneau ceremonies,
see the 1979 edition, vol. 1, pp. 124, 145, 303, 358, 419, 436, vol.
2, pp. 137, 242, 287, 340, 388, 445, 462, 464, 470, 472, 475. I cannot
think of better proof that the rituals are Cerneau ceremonies than this
extensive, explicit, internal evidence. Confusing the regular and Cerneau
Scottish Rites is like confusing the Church of Christ with the Church
of Christ, Scientist.
Your reading of
Rev. Shaw's comment on p. 83 differs from mine. He does begin by talking
about the Conclave, but he then goes on to say, "Why must we always
do so much drinking? . . . But it bothered me that there
was always so much of it and that it played such a major role
in the Masonic life." This is a general comment on normal Masonic behavior.
My dictionary gives this definition for drunkard: "1. One who
habitually drinks strong liquors immoderately." Rev. Shaw's comment
clearly portrays Masons as habitually drinking strong liquors immoderately.
You questioned
whether such restrictions were in place when Rev. Shaw was a member.
He affiliated with Allapattah Lodge No. 271 in 1952. The 1954 Digest
of the Masonic Law of Florida F.&A.M. is pretty clear on the
issue of alcohol.
28.06 (398) No
particular Lodge shall allow its properties or any part thereof to
be used for the purpose of conducting or carrying on a liquor business
or for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages in any form.
In 1975 the regulation
was unchanged, though the following decision had been added to clarify
the law. "The serving of any intoxicating beverage in Masonic Temples
or Lodge Rooms or at Masonic banquets is forbidden by Masonic Law. (1969
Proc. 58, 212)" Equally explicit are the 1953 Statutes
of the Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction: "Art. XV §24.
The use of any spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors by any Body is hereby
prohibited. . . ." The prohibition is unchanged in the 1991
Statutes, though it has been renumbered as Art. XV §25.
Rev. Shaw received
the K.C.C.H. on December 18, 1965, in the "distant city" of Orlando.
Neither the Grand Lodge of Florida nor the Supreme Council, S.J. then
permitted or now permits alcoholic beverages to be used by any of their
subordinate bodies. Florida Masons are bewildered when asked how alcohol
"played such a major role in the Masonic life," because it has no role.
What sort of meetings did Rev. Shaw attend where they "always
do so much drinking?" It could not have been meetings of Florida blue
lodges or Scottish Rite.
I indeed dispute
Rev. Shaw's statement that "...going all the way to the 32nd Degree
can be very substantial, well into the thousands of dollars today."
When joining Evergreen Lodge No. 713 in 1945, Rev. Shaw paid $50
in initiation fees for the 1 -3 ; the cost in 1952 for the Fourth through
Thirty-Second Degrees, was $160. Thus the total for him "going all the
way" was $210. In 1993 the comparable fees were $125 and $200, respectively,
for a total of $325. This is far from being "well into the thousands
of dollars"; it's not even close to $1,000.
It is satisfying
to know that you agree Rev. Shaw's comments about the resurrection of
Hiram Abiff appear incorrect, as in fact they are. Rev. Shaw's description
is not the result of some simple misconception. He was a Mason for twenty-one
years and claimed to be a Past Master. His malignant distortion of the
legend of Hiram Abiff was consciously designed to outrage Christians.
He was not confused. His description is not some minor misstatement,
like calling an I.G.H. an S.G.I.G. He carefully designed his story and
its many amplifying details with the purpose of defaming Freemasonry.
I chose to criticize
those parts of Rev. Shaw's book that could be verified by non-Masons;
his lies concerning the Maundy Thursday ceremony cannot. The space assigned
to my book review column further limited the number of lies I could
expose.
The connection
between Hiram Abiff and the Isis-Osiris legend was quite popular some
100 years ago. Many of those writers also found connections between
Isis-Osiris, Jesus, and Baldur. Shaw supports his case by citing "the
most authoritative Masonic writers." Mackey and Sickles wrote a century
ago, and I neither have heard of nor read Pierson. Mackey and Sickles
wrote before the advent of the "authentic school" of Masonic historians;
they accepted evidence that would be laughed at today. Coil discusses
this pp. 310-311, s.v. "History of Freemasonry." Robert Freke Gould's
1885 History of Freemasonry is probably the best Masonic history.
It isn't "authoritative," just accurately researched, carefully written,
and conservative in its conclusions, the most that can ever be asked
of history.
The theory of descent
from the Ancient Mysteries has indeed been discredited among serious
Masonic historians, including Gould; there is no evidence to support
its fanciful ideas. You could compare Coil's opinion of the theory,
pp. 432-433, s.v. "Mysteries, Ancient Pagan." The most serious Masonic
history is published by Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, London, in
their annual transactions, Ars Quatuor Coronatorum.
Your quote by Dr.
Hutchens refers to the symbolism of Freemasonry, not its organization.
Freemasonry uses some symbols that were used by earlier organizations.
This borrowing of symbols is found in many organizations. For example,
the cornucopia is a symbol of plenty used by many churches to represent
the overflowing bounty of God's blessings. The symbol came from the
magical horn that Zeus gave to Amalthea, the goat who nursed him as
a child (legends vary as to details). While the symbol originated in
a pagan religion, it would be ludicrous to suggest that churches perpetuate
pagan worship if they decorate their Sunday schools with cornucopias
at Thanksgiving. Similarly, the dove used by Christians to represent
the Holy Spirit was used much earlier as a symbol of Aphrodite.
Dr. Hutchens's
book, like Pike's Morals and Dogma, is an expression of personal
opinion; neither represent dogmatic teachings. A printing oversight
led to the omission from the current edition of A Bridge to Light
of the disclaimer that Pike used for Morals and Dogma (and which
still applies today): "Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent
from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound." This
disclaimer will be added with the next printing of A Bridge to Light.
I would be most
interested in seeing your correspondence with Rev. Shaw. It will be
easy for you to confirm if he received the Thirty-Third Degree, was
a Past Master, or was Past Master of all Scottish Rite Bodies. Once
he gives you the dates and places he served, you can check the records.
If you can send me any evidence that I was wrong, I will correct my
statements, as I intend to correct my misstatement that he is a Past
Master.
I think part of
my review of The Deadly Deception is still appropriate. "Identifying
and exposing these pathetic inventions, however, is a task that must
be ultimately fruitless. Anyone willing to overlook the easily verifiable
lies on the book's cover will just rationalize away the corruption within.
What is saddest about this book is the eagerness of the authors to cheat
the public to achieve their twisted ends, all in the name of Jesus."
Sincerely yours,
S. BRENT MORRIS,
Ph.D.
Book Review Editor
The Scottish Rite Journal
cc: J. W. Boettjer,
33º
* * *
[Letter 3]
October 4, 1993
Dear Dr Morris:
I was pleasantly
surprised by your response to my earlier letter concerning Rev Jim Shaw's
The Deadly Deception. In my dealing with Masons, not all the
responses I receive (verbally or via letter) maintain a proper degree
of cordiality. You have probably experienced similar problems yourself
with those who are against Masonry. At any rate, your response was far
more detailed than I hoped to expect and I certainly appreciate the
time you took in its composing. You were very considerate of a stranger's
request.
I have not yet
received a response from Rev Shaw on my questions about his book. Should
he respond, I will send along a copy to you. Should he choose not to
respond, I would conclude that he has no answer to the charges you raised,
that your criticisms are valid and drop him from my source list. I find
it hard to believe that he would falsely claim so many titles and Lodge
offices, but people have done worse for what they considered to be a
worthy goal. I have always felt that the ends do not justify the means;
rather, the means must be worthy of the ends.
As to my own efforts,
I have come to the conclusion that Masonry is indeed a religion, and
that the god of Masonry is not the God of the Bible. one can quote Pike,
Coil and Hutchens, on these points, but the rituals speak eloquently
for themselves. Purporting to convey a mystery, or hidden 'knowledge,,
they teach concepts which are alien to Christianity and lead the Christian
Mason to choose between the two Deity's. over time, his studies of Masonry
replace his studies of Christianity and he begins to believe what those
rituals teach. Finally, by his participation in them, he implicitly
approves what is being taught.
I have enclosed
a summary of what I have found concerning Masonry, which I use when
answering questions about Masonry. I would appreciate learning of any
errors I may have made. My primary references were Ankerberg's The
Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge, Hutchens' A Bridge to
Light, the SBC's study on Masonry and Duncan's Ritual.with
respect to the latter, I have compared it to a much-censored version
of the Oklahoma Murrow Masonic Monitor and find enough
commonality to conclude that it accurately details Masonic rituals.
Should there be errors, perhaps you could send a complete Monitor which
would show where I have made mistakes. (I'm not serious; this is a little
joke between us!)
I appreciate your
position that Hutchens presents his own views and is not authoritative;
however, that confounds reason. The fact that the Supreme Council endorsed
his book (disclaimer or no disclaimer) and that it is given to Masons,
in the Lodge, as part of the 14th degree, makes the book authoritative.
Someone of his stature must know what masonry teaches and can be considered
authoritative until he is shown to be in error. If we extend the Masonic
argument, if Coil is not authoritative when he says masonry is a religion,
then you are not authoritative when denying that statement. So where
does the authority lie? It is clear to me that Masonry likes nothing
to be authoritative except the Rituals, and then tries to ensure that
no one outside masonry can see them. As an analyst by profession, the
logic of this escapes me.
Finally, I would
like to state that in everything I say or write concerning masonry,
I try to stick to the facts and be nonjudgmental. This is hard, as you
can imagine; however, both my father and father-in-law are masons, and
if I attack any Mason, I attack those I love as well. Yet by keeping
silent I also hurt them by not expressing my concerns and prodding them
(or any) Mason into questioning what he does and why. The Mason's decision
is his to make, for he accepts the consequences. This leads me to ask
you: Is Masonry is your religion? Is the Lodge more important to you
than Jesus? Do you spend more time studying Masonic rituals than you
do in Bible study? If these answers are yes, perhaps you should consider
what you have accomplished in Masonry in the light of the instructions
Jesus gave his disciples in the last chapter of Matthew.
Sincerely,
T.N. Sampson II
* * *
[Letter 4]
February 12, 1994
Personal and professional
obligations have prevented me from answering your letter of October
4 in a more timely manner. I do appreciate the cordial tone of your
letters; you are the only anti-Mason to communicate with me and to have
the civility of identifying yourself. I usually receive anonymous mailings
of tracts by Jack Chick or Ed Decker.
It is not surprising
that Rev. Shaw has not responded to you. He is a pathetic liar caught
in his web of deceit. As far as I know, no anti-Mason has ever expressed
embarrassment or even chagrin at his lies (or those of Carlson, Schnoebelen,
Chick, Decker, and so many others). Only Dr. Robert Morey has acknowledged
the outlandishness of some attacks against Masonry. Most anti-Masons,
if they can be convinced that one of their sources has engaged in premeditated
fraud, just quietly drop the reference and move on to another "expert."
Rev. Shaw did much
more than "falsely claim so many titles and Lodge office," as you narrowly
acknowledged. He maliciously perverted the descriptions of his Lodge
experience to slander Freemasonry, and his book is still in wide distribution,
a wolf in sheep's clothing, duping the trusting.
Your summary of
Freemasonry is interesting, but abounds with factual and interpretative
errors. There are so many that I must decline your offer to correct
them for you. I simply do not have the time to point out all of them,
but I will show you some.
The only mysteries
or hidden "knowledge" to be found in Freemasonry are the modes of recognition
and the stories told in the degrees. Masons are encouraged to undertake
a spiritual examination, but no answer is given or demanded. Each Mason
must reach his own, independent conclusions. Freemasonry, not being
a religion, is incapable of providing an answer.
Your sources deserve
some comment. Ankerberg's The Secret Teaching of the Masonic Lodge
relies heavily on Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated
(which I hope I convinced you is inaccurate, but on which you haven't
commented). I do not have Duncan's Ritual, but I presume it,
like most exposés, is reasonably accurate. The problem comes with the
inaccuracies. For example, Rev. Shaw gives a generally correct description
of Freemasonry but slips in his twisted tales of reincarnation, resurrection,
and phallic worship. I have a complete monitor for you and will present
it on the night you become a Master Mason. (This is a joke between us,
but the offer is nonetheless serious.)
You are right that
I am not authoritative when I deny Masonry is a religion. I, as well
as Hutchens, Coil, et al., am an individual Mason speaking for myself.
I am, however, consistent with most historians, the vast majority of
Masons, the Southern Baptist Convention's study, and, most importantly
above all others, with Grand Lodges.
Here's what the
S.B.C. said on p. 70 of their $100,000+ report. (Its final version was
so negative towards Freemasonry that its principal author, Dr. Gary
Leazer, asked that his name be removed.) It's confounding that you choose
to ignore the consistent statements of Grand Lodges, the "overwhelming
majority of Masonic Leaders," and the finding of the S.B.C.
- While some Masonic
writers and some Masons consider Freemasonry a religion, even their
religion, the overwhelming majority of Masons reject the idea that
Freemasonry is a religion. The various monitors of Grand Lodges and
statements from the overwhelming majority of Masonic leaders in the
past and today deny that Freemasonry is a religion.
- Since Freemasonry
requires no doctrinal statement from members, other than the general
affirmation concerning the existence of God, it is reasonable to expect
that Masons profess a broad range of beliefs about religious matters.
. . . While the vast majority of Masons are professing Christians,
some Masons are non-Christians, a few are probably or have been anti-Christians.
It is illogical to insist that the beliefs of one or more Masons constitute
the beliefs of all Masons.
- It was not found
that Freemasonry is anti-Christian or Satanic, nor does it oppose
the Christian church. While a few Masonic writers glorify non-Christian
philosophy and religions, they are clearly a minor voice. Every organization,
including the Christian church, has some individuals who espouse positions
not held by the vast majority of members. Organizations must be judged
by the positions of the majority, not those of a small minority.
Authority for Freemasonry
lies with Grand Lodges, not independent writers, however respected they
may be. Henry Wilson Coil was a Californian Masons; his encyclopedia
was commercially published in New York. The only force his writings
have on Maryland Masonry is that of a good, conservative historian.
Jim Baker and Jimmy
Swaggart were (and perhaps still are) widely heard and read ordained
ministers of the Assemblies of God (if my memory serves me). Their writings
are not authoritative for the Assemblies of God, much less the Baptists
or Presbyterians.
It is difficult
to comment on your paper as you chose to give few citations and seem
to rely almost exclusively on secondary research. I will offer a few
corrections, but cannot give a comprehensive revision.
I have never heard
of a Grand Lodge named "Ancient Order of Free and Accepted Masons."
Most commonly in the U.S. the fraternity is known as "Ancient, Free
and Accepted Masons," A.F.&A.M., or "Free and Accepted Masons,"
F.&A.M.
Masonry does not
deny Christian beliefs any more than Rotary does. It is not a religion,
it does not allow religious discussions at its meetings, and is thus
incapable of accepting or denying the beliefs of any religion.
The history of
Masonry written prior to the twentieth century is indeed "almost totally
fiction," but you ignore or are unaware of the "authentic school" of
Masonic history that arose about 1880 and now comprises the majority
of Masonic history writing. Robert Freke Gould exemplifies modern Masonic
scholarship: scrupulous in facts, insistent on details, conservative
in conclusions. There are abundant, accurate (and non-sensational) histories
available for anyone who bothers to look. Good choices are Gould's History
Of Freemasonry, Coil's Freemasonry Through Six Centuries,
Hamill's The Craft, and almost anything published in Ars Quatuor
Coronatorum, the transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076,
London, the premier Lodge of Masonic research.
There is no Masonic
"doctrine" to keep pure. Thus the idea of central enforcement is meaningless.
Freemasonry, not being a religion nor having a doctrine, does not care
how much or how little its members believe, as long as they believe
in God.
The Worshipful
Master is not a symbol of deity, any more than the "Right Worshipful
Lord Mayor of London." The title preserves an archaic word form, as
found in the Wycliff Bible, "Worchyp thy fadir. . . ."
There is no part
of the Lodge called the "Holy of Holies." During parts of the ceremonies,
the room indeed represents King Solomon's Temple, with the porch, steps,
middle chamber, and Holy of Holies. This usage is similar to a church
front lawn at Christmas representing the manger in Bethlehem.
Master Masons are
not symbolically raised from the dead. The Hiramic Legend has the body
of Hiram removed from a temporary grave for reinterring.
Masonry does believe
in the Fatherhood of Good and the Brotherhood of Man. It says nothing
about "all men [being] His spiritual sons in good standing with Him."
To belabor a point (which you hae choosen to not accept), Freemasonry
is not a religion and is incapable of such pronouncements.
Freemasonry does
not each "that self-improvement and good works will secure God's favor
and guarantee entry into heaven." It offers no path of salvation nor
sacraments of any sort. It only presents symbols for the individual
Masons to interpret for himself. My lambskin apron reminds me of
St. James's admonition that "Faith without works is dead."
Contrary to your
assertion that Masonry teaches "God is an unreachable, uncaring Spirit,"
Masons are taught the vital importance of regular prayer.
Masonry does not
teach that the Name of God is lost. The Royal Arch Degree in particular
reaffirms that His name is (the pronunciation of which is indeed lost.)
The York Rite does
not teach that "Jahbulon" is the secret name of God. This lie originated
with Walter Hannah's Darkness Visible, 1952. (A little more attention
to original sources would greatly improve the accuracy of your paper.)
The name of Jesus
is not forbidden in Lodge prayers. His name is used widely in Lodges
around the world.
The legend of Hiram
Abiff is not presented as biblical history; its analysis is available
for anyone to read. I suppose some Masons may think it is history, but
then again many Christians probably believe the Bible says there were
three wise men and their names are Balthazar, Melchior, and Gaspar.
I am particularly
disappointed in the way you subtly misused my statistics on 1990 Masonic
charity. The source of your figures is my book, Masonic Philanthropies,
which you did not choose to acknowledge. When I compiled the figures
I tried to be scrupulously accurate in all categories, so there was
no possibility of misinterpretation by fair-minded readers. Your quote
is "42% of the $525 million collected by Masonic charities went to non-public
(i.e. Lodge) purposes." This could be easily read as going for refreshments,
entertainment, or Lodge operating expenses. The money went to orphanages
and retirement homes, which I think can be appropriately called philanthropy.
The Methodist Church maintains a retirement home in Baltimore, and the
Church considers it a part of their ministry, even through the residents
are all Methodists. Is this true charity? The Methodist Church thinks
so, I think so, but you may not. If you don't, then by all means discount
this aspect of Masonic philanthropy, but your readers deserve a more
accurate treatment of the facts. Tell them where the money goes and
why you don't think it counts as charity.
At this point I
must stop correcting your errors; I do not have the time. My efforts,
though, would be ultimately fruitless as you have reached a verdict,
passed sentence, and now seek only to sift through the evidence to support
your conclusions. I have neither the time nor interest to continue our
correspondence.
In closing, let
me answer your final questions.
- Masonry is not
my religion.
- Jesus is infinitely
more important to me than the Lodge.
- I study the
Bible more than Masonic ritual.
In fact it was
through Masonic ritual that I increased my interest in and study of
the Bible. This led to a two-year Bible teacher training program with
a commitment to teach a two-year Bible course. I have ten weeks left
teaching my original course and am making plans for another when this
is done. Regular Bible study is essential to Christian growth.
It is important
to me to be challenged in my response to God's love, to be reminded
of the impossibility of ever repaying or of being worthy of His great
gift. The most I as a repentant sinner can be is what I am now: forgiven.
When given a challenge
to my Christian faith and responsibilities, such as contained in your
last paragraph, I am grateful for the reminder of my debt and of my
failures in repaying it. I gladly turn my other cheek to you.
Sincerely yours,
S. BRENT MORRIS,
Ph.D.
Book Review Editor
The Scottish Rite Journal
cc: J. W. Boettjer,
33º
* * *
[Letter 5]
February 27, 1994
Dear Dr Morris:
Thank you for your
response. I appreciate the time expended in compiling the response,
and I find your sense of humor delightful and your letters a real pleasure
to read. However, I will respect your decision to discontinue our correspondence.
To wrap up our
exchanges, I have taken the following actions pertinent to your letter:
- changed the
title to "Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons".
- rewrote the
statement about doctrine and lack of central enforcement, as the latter
is indeed meaningless.
- deleted the
reference to the WM being a symbol of Deity.
This came out of
The Scottish Rite Journal (Crabbe, Summer, 93). (*) I had assumed
since it is published by the Supreme Council that it must be factual.
No other Mason has subsequently has supported that position.
- deleted the
reference to the Master Mason's Lodge being called the "Holy of Holies"
This came from
Duncan's Monitor, but no Mason I have talked to is aware of it.
- rewrote the
Masonic charity comment.
I was not aware
that you were the source. I'll get a copy and ensure my statements are
consistent with yours. I drew the data from the Journal (Hinton,
Feb 93), which did not address the remainder of the equation.
- will get a copy
of Gould's History of Freemasonry.
As to your other
comments:
I am matching it
against A Bridge To Light to see what commonalities there are.
I have also asked masons who have demitted to comment on some of the
rituals quoted by Blanchard.
- Masonry is not
a religion.
At the worst, include
me in a minority Masonic opinion. Masonry's practices and rituals are
proof enough to support such a conclusion. FYI, the PR campaign about
Masonry not being a religion has been successful. Masons mention that
right up front, though many have never heard of Masonic writers who
support that viewpoint (Pike, Coil, etc) . Coil is undergoing revision,
and his view will not survive the update by the purity group. Of interest
to you, one Mason noted that Pike and Hutchens were outdated, and no
longer applicable. I pointed out that you had done a review of Hutchens
I book in the Nov 93 issue of the Journal, thus undercutting
his argument. His vague response was not flattering to you, and I found
myself in the strange position of defending your integrity.
- No symbolic
raise from the dead.
I can see no other
meaning of the candidate being "raised" in the 3rd degree. The candidate
has been doing a great job of imitating a corpse for almost an hour;
I think the act we are addressing has no other practical teaching. Several
Masons have confirmed that viewpoint.
- "All men in
good standing with Him".
You will not be
surprised how many Masons have expressed exactly that sentiment to me.
- Name of God
lost/no Jahbulon.
Both have been
confirmed by other Masons. With many of the rituals being given in very
compressed times, it is quite believable that many have not understood
the impact of this part. However, those who choose to study the rituals
for moral and spiritual lessons seem to find the oddest things there.
"Self improvement". As before, I find that viewpoint over and over again
when talking to Masons.
- Jesus, name
used in lodge?
Again, many Masons
have explained to me very carefully why His name cannot be used in the
lodge.
I have indeed read
it, and several times at that. Did Dr Leazer remove his name? Others
have said he was fired for his lack of impartiality. In any rate, I
found the study flawed in some key areas, but, as I have stated before,
agreed with the conclusion.
Your comment about
authoritative writers contained a nugget that you perhaps did not intend.
Both Baker and Swaggart, before or after their respective Waterloos,
were authoritative only when their writings or comments were consistent
with the Bible, which is the source of Christian doctrine. By the same
token, Coil, Hutchens and Pike are authoritative only when consistent
with Masonic doctrine. This doctrine does not exist in clear written
form, but exists nonetheless in the ritual and in the lodge. have dealt
with enough Masons to hear the same comments over and over again to
finally understand that such doctrine does indeed exist, and covers
four main points:
- the Bible is
one of several books of Divine Will, and no better or worse than the
others; all religions are part of one Religion; all gods merely reflect
one God; good works, tolerance of all religious beliefs and personal
improvement are all one needs to enter the Celestial Lodge above.
I think that this
doctrine extends to many Masons, spiritual life, and contributes to
their strange view of Christianity.
Sincerely,
T.N. Sampson II
P.S. --
You may be interested to know that Ed Decker recently stepped on his
sword in a very large and public fashion. His Mormon video, Godmakers
II, used sources that were questionable at best. As a result, it
has been condemned by the most reliable sources of data on Mormonism.
He retains little credibility because of that work and his very negative
reaction to criticism.
[* The article by Norman
William Crabbe actually appeared in the Royal Arch
Mason Magazine. See Letter 6. ]
[Letter 6]
March 5, 1994
Norman William
Crabbe
Edgewater, Maryland
Dear Mr Crabbe:
Your interesting
article appearing in the Summer 93 issue of The Royal Arch Mason
Magazine contained a statement that has been rejected by Scottish
Rite gentlemen of the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdiction.
I wonder if I could impose upon you to clarify the matter?
The question was
whether the Master symbolized Deity, as your article claimed. I used
that comment in an article I passed along to Dr S. Brent Morris at the
Council and he specifically said that the Master symbolized no such
thing. I realize that many may see different things in Masonic symbolism,
but your comment seemed pretty clear and, appearing as it did in an
"official" magazine, I thought that it reflected a body of opinion.
By
way of explanation, I am not a Mason, nor am I an "antiMason" (whatever
that phrase may really mean). I have been researching masonry for about
four years to see what it really is and does, and have been surprised
by the amount of misinformation on both sides of the issue. Articles
such as yours are an important element in my research as it is far better
to hear the views of someone who has first hand familiarity with the
subject matter than one who is "guessing" from the outside.
I thank you in
advance for taking the time to explain this matter to me.
Cordially,
T.N. Sampson II
* * *
[Letter 7]
March 12th, 1994
Dear Mr. T.N. Sampson
II:
Thank you for your
letter. I will do my best to answer you but I'm not sure this answer
will be of much help to you.
I would expect
that Brent and I would have different opinions given the Democratic
nature of Masonry. The Science of Freemasonry is exact but the Art of
the Craft is left up to one's personal interpretation. I'm sorry but
I am unable to offer you any substantiating evidence that my statements
are in agreement with even one other Mason; living or dead. Please don't
feel slighted. I have never intended to substantiate my statements to
anyone either within the Craft or without the Craft. These views are
personal, subjective, observations accumulated over years of study;
not only of Masonry, but of Religions and Philosophies in general. They
are my own.
The Royal Arch
Magazine to my knowledge is a vehicle where Royal Arch Masons can
air their personal views on Masonic topics. For Clarification please
contact the Editor of the R.A.M.
I am enclosing
a reading list that I hope you may find interesting. I hope that you
are able to spend the time required to read at least some of these works.
Masonry is for
many men a starting point on their quest for Knowledge. Masonry in of
itself is never the "End" of the quest for Knowledge. This is one of
the Many reasons why Masonry is not nor can it ever be a "Religion".
There is "No" Dogma or Theology in Freemasonry. True Freemasonry is
inclusive not exclusive when dealing with the Religions of the World.
Yours in Faith,
Norman W. Crabbe
* * *
[Letter
8]
May 31, 1994
Dear Mr. Sampson:
Please forgive
me for troubling you after I asked that our correspondence cease.
1. May I have
your permission to reprint your correspondence in an article I am
preparing on arguments used against Freemasonry?
2. What definition
of "cult" does Cornerstone Ministries use?
3. Can you furnish
me with a list of the organizations against which Cornerstone Ministries
cautions Christians?
4. Have you ever
received a reply from Rev. Shaw responding to the evidence that he
lied about his Masonic experiences? (I understand that his publishers
are aware of the evidence and that they have contacted him and Mr.
McKenny. I do not know what answer they may have received from Rev.
Shaw or Mr. McKenny.)
Thank you for considering
my requests.
Sincerely yours,
S. BRENT MORRIS,
Ph.D.
Book Review Editor
The Scottish Rite Journal
* * *
[Letter 9]
June 2, 1994
Dear Dr Morris:
With respect to
your questions:
1. You have my
unrestricted permission to quote from my correspondence for any purpose
you wish. I would be interested to know for which forum the article
is intended, for the obvious reason. If it is the Scottish Rite
Journal, perhaps you would forward my request for a subscription?
2. Generally
speaking, a "cult" can describe any group that deviates significantly
from a "norm". Therefore, any group (Christian, Mormon, Islam, or
even Masonry) can have cults in their midst. If Catholicism is considered
the norm, one could brand the Protestant movement as being a cult.
A cult differs from a religion in that it usually features faith in
one person's teachings, an autocratic control structure, an absolute
control over members' salvation. Having said all this, my own definition
of a "cult" follows that used by Dr Walter Martin: a group of people
gathered about a specific person or person's misinterpretation of
the Bible." A cult then "embraces, teaches or practices religious
doctrine contrary to the accepted and established truth of Biblical
Christianity." (The Kingdom of the Cults, Bethany House, 1986)
3. We primarily
address the beliefs of two cults (Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses)
and two religions (Freemasonry and New Age), though we also offer
information on the beliefs of other religions, such as Catholicism,
Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. We are also a member of the Cult Awareness
Network (a secular group) and are available to answer questions on
any religious belief We neither charge for our services nor do we
solicit support from those who consult us.
4. Neither Rev.
Shaw nor his spokesman has responded to our letter. As noted earlier,
I have removed his book from our bibliography due to the charges you
raised. I am in no position to assess the truth, but you have made
the better case.
Of possible interest
to you is a current discussion on the Masonry forum in Compuserve on
Masonic Spirituality. I have found it a fascinating discussion, given
the public declarations that Masonry is not a religion. There has also
been much discussion about possible legal action against those who "libel"
Masonry. An interesting reaction, though I think it is more "spleen
venting" than a plan of action. Finally, in yet another discussion,
one of the correspondents ended his note with "in the faith..."; I wonder
what faith he was referring to? At any rate, you would find the forum
very interesting.
I am including
the most recent copy of our booklet. You will find that the chapter
of Masonry has been updated to reflect additional information learned
since the initial printing. The first chapter on Christianity should
provide sufficient background to understand my perspective on writing
the booklet. Should you have additional questions, please let me know.
Cordially,
T.N. Sampson II
* * *
[Letter 10]
August 10, 1994
Dear Mr. Sampson,
Thank you for your
letter of June 2, 1994, agreeing to let me quote from your correspondence.
My article is intended as an additional chapter in a revised and expanded
version of the book I co-authored with Art deHoyos, Is It True What
They Say About Freemasonry? (Silver Spring, Md.: M.S.A., 1994).
It may be published separately as an article in its own right. I would
not expect the revised book to be published for another year or so,
but I will send you copies of anything in which I quote you.
It is satisfying
to hear you say that I make a better case than Rev. Shaw, but I am disappointed
that you feel you are in no position to assess the truth. The issues
I raise are objective statements of fact that require no judgement or
opinion. Rev. Shaw's publisher has sternly assured me that he can refute
all of my charges, but so far he hasn't bothered to send me any data.
What would it take
to convince you that Rev. Shaw is a liar? I have a copy of his resignation
letter plus his dues card at the time which shows him to be a 32°, K.C.C.H.,
not a 33°. I can send you copies of lists of every Master of every Lodge
in Florida from 1952-1966 (when Rev. Shaw was a member in Florida).
I can also send you copies of lists of every new 33° from Florida during
the same period. Is there any amount of objective, independently verifiable
evidence that will sway your opinion of Rev. Shaw? Knowing this will
help me revise my book.
Sincerely yours,
S. BRENT MORRIS,
Ph.D.
* * *
[Letter 11]
August 20, 1994
Dear Dr. Morris:
I look forward
to your book and will obtain a copy for my library upon its publication.
Good sources can be hard to find.
As to Rev. Shaw,
I am somewhat curious why my opinion would matter. I am a 'cowan' on
the Masonry forum on Compuserve, and it is clear from their conversations
that anyone who dares criticize Masonry for any reason is a bigoted,
intolerant fool who is in it only for financial reasons. That there
may be those who have solid reasons for questioning Masonic practices,
and who do so honestly, is not even considered a possibility. Given
that standing definition, I do not see how any agreement we reach in
this matter is useful to either of us.
Having said that,
you have asked a fair question, and it deserves an answer. Rev. Shaw
has made a specific claim about being selected to receive the 33º. You
have stated that this is untrue. I would consider a letter from the
Supreme Council, on letterhead, signed by C. Fred Kleinknecht, stating
that Rev. Shaw was neither invited to receive, nor received, the 33°
honor at any time sufficient proof that Shaw lied about this facet of
his Masonic life. And, since it is such a critical part of his book,
I would consider it be sufficient to reject him as a source of information
(something, in fact, I have already done).
Since it has been
somewhat over 3 years since I first started writing on Masonry, you
may be interested to know how I have changed my own views. First, I
no longer bring Albert Pike into the equation, as the main fact of his
Luciferian viewpoints has indeed shown to be a lie (though there is
a slight hint of this in Morals & Dogma, pg. 321). As well,
I note a change in the ritual over the years, meaning that what is fisted
in Blanchard, Duncan, and Richardson do not completely reflect today's
Masonry. I also believe you did yourselves no favor by not sitting down
with the foremost of Masonry's critics and let them see the ritual
used. The honest ones would not then have relied on data listed
in other sources, and you would have avoided some of the harshest charges.
For example, what if Ankerberg had seen the actual rituals and not relied
on Blanchard's work? Finally, I note the fact that Masonry changes slowly,
but indeed changes. Perhaps the criticism raised has forced some of
that change. But, with these modifications I have not changed my view
that Masonry offers an alien god to those who fall for the stage props
indicating that the Biblical God resides in the Lodge or is somehow
connected to Him via Solomon. Nor have I changed my view that the tolerance
so stressed in Masonic lessons highlights the underlying assumption
that, since all religions are the same, one must be tolerant, as it
is the same God in all. These I continue to find objectionable.
Sincerely,
T.N. Sampson II
* * *
[Letter
12]
August 29, 1994
Dear Mr. Sampson,
Dr. S. Brent Morris,
who reviews books for the Scottish Rite Journal, has forwarded
to me a copy of your letter to him of August 20, 1994. In this letter,
you say: "I would consider a letter from the Supreme Council, on letterhead,
signed by C. Fred Kleinknecht, stating that Rev. Shaw was neither invited
to receive, nor received, the 33° honor at any time sufficient proof
that Shaw lied about this facet of his Masonic life." I am a little
surprised you require such a letter to convince you Mr. Shaw has grossly
and deliberately misrepresented the facts of his alleged Thirty-third
Degree status in the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in his book The
Deadly Deception, coauthored with Tom McKinney. I understand you
have received a copy of Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?
by Dr. Morris and Art deHoyos. In this book, pages 38 to 52, you have
read specific facts and seen photocopied records directly refuting Mr.
Shaw's claims.
Nevertheless, I
am pleased to cooperate with your request and state unequivocally that
Mr. Shaw was neither invited to receive, nor received, the 33° honor
at any time. Rather, it is my opinion, Mr. Shaw has yielded to religious
enthusiasm to such an extent that he is willing to lie in what he has
come to believe is a good cause. This is putting the best light on his
actions. Less charitable souls might point to the profits he, Mr. McKenney,
and the book's publisher have gained by distributing this book. I hope
Mr. Shaw, all concerned with The Deadly Deception, and you will
pause to reconsider James 1:26 which states: "If any think they are
religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their heart,
their religion is worthless."
Sincerely,
C. Fred Kleinknecht
* * *
[Letter
13]
September 5, 1994
Dear Sir: [C. Fred
Kleinknecht]
Many thanks for
your letter of August 29. That you are willing to state in print that
Rev. Shaw never held tile degree claimed tells me that the claim is
false.
Let me put your
mind at rest concerning my reason for the request. I do not have a copy
of Dr. Morris' book Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?
rather, I intend to buy a copy next year when the updated version is
ready. I was also unaware that Dr. Morris had presented photocopied
evidence refuting Rev. Shaw's claims in that book. With no such proof
in hand, I felt the letter as requested would be sufficient, and certainly
appreciate Dr. Morris' offer of "proof positive". I continue to find
it illuminating that Rev. Shaw would lie in an area that could be so
easily disproved.
Of interest, I
recently talked to a woman who had persuaded her husband not to join
Masonry. She had used Rev. Shaw's book to buttress her discussion. I
told her that there was much disagreement about Rev. Shaw's veracity,
but that I agreed with her that there were good reasons for avoiding
the Lodge.
In any event, I
do not use the book since Dr. Morris' concerns were raised, and certainly
would not recommend it based on the facts at hand.
Sincerely,
T.N. Sampson
* * *
[Letter 14]
September 3, 1994
Dear Mr. Sampson,
Thank you for answering
my question about Rev. Shaw. You should have now a letter from Mr. C.
Fred Kleinknecht stating that Rev. Shaw was neither invited to receive,
nor received, the 33° honor at any time.
You have been a
courteous correspondent, even if you carefully came just short of calling
me a liar about Rev. Shaw. I asked what would convince you, because
you have so doggedly dismissed any evidence offered in the case of Rev.
Shaw. I wanted to know if there was any amount of testimony that would
convince you or other critics of Masonry. Even with the unequivocal
statement from Mr. Kleinknecht, I note that you will only consider this
"proof that Shaw lied about this facet of his Masonic life."
Rev. Shaw did not
tell the truth about being a 33°, a Past Master, Paster Master of all
Scottish Rite bodies, or about revealing the "secrets" of the 33° for
the first time in history. Further he distorted the cost of joining,
as well as drinking in Florida Lodges. Each of these prevarications
can be independently verified with public records.
There is no "'minimum
donation' of a very large amount of money" to receive the 33°. There
is no interview before receiving the 33°, and there is absolutely no
discussion of member's religion before, after, or during the 33° ceremonies.
These are among the many other fabrication that Rev. Shaw concocted
about his Masonic experience, but none of these can be independently
confirmed. I will not impose on your credulity by asking you to believe
the word of a Mason.
However, there
is plenty of objective evidence that doesn't require you to take the
word of a Mason. Rather than only "doubt[ing] this facet of Shaw's Masonic
life," you might have doubted more of his statements, perhaps even that
nothing he said should be trusted without corroboration. Your loyalty
to Rev. Shaw is very touching.
With the exception
of Dr. Robert Morey, I have never read an anti-Masonic writer who had
any concern about the venomous lies that are repeated about Masonry.
Jack Chick's vile comic, "The Curse of Baphomet," comes to mind as an
example, as well as the publications of Texe Marrs, Ed Decker, and Ron
Carlson.
It is interesting
that you think we should share our rituals with our critics. When Rev.
Pat Robertson repeated the Pike-Lucifer hoax in The New World Order,
Mr. Kleinknecht wrote to him on May 12, 1992, pointed out the error,
and said, "If we must disagree let us base our disagreement upon the
truth." He further said, "All of [Pike's] writings are in the Library
of The Supreme Council, 33°, at the House of the Temple, in Washington,
D.C. They are available for public inspection, and you are welcome to
read them." I am not sure what more could be offered.
Rev. Robertson
has not given Mr. Kleinknecht the courtesy of a reply. There seems to
be little interest on Rev. Robertson's part in correcting factual errors,
at least as long as only Masons are being defamed. I do not share your
idealism about the good intentions of anti-Masons, especially those
with a profitable line of lurid publications.
Sincerely yours,
S. BRENT MORRIS,
Ph.D.
Book Review Editor
The Scottish Rite Journal
cc: J.W. Boettjer,
33°
* * *
[Letter
15]
September 9, 1994
Dear Dr. Morris:
I did indeed receive
the requested statement from Mr. Kleinknecht, who noted his surprise
at the request. He had the mistaken impression I had already read your
book Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?and had seen
the documentary evidence therein. I noted that I had not seen the book,
but looked forward to buying the updated version next year. As to the
letter itself, it was all I had asked for and I consider the case closed
on Rev. Shaw.
I do remain somewhat
curious as to why my opinion of Rev. Shaw's book, or his veracity, is
of such apparent interest to you. I get the impression that there is
something you wish me to say, but I cannot fathom what that might be.
Rather than being 'loyal' to Rev. Shaw, as you have charged, I have
dropped him from my list of references and do not use any of his material.
I informed you of this as early as Oct 93 and again in Jun 94. Further,
it is not my function to document and publish errors in books on Masonry,
pro or con; rather, it is to find credible sources to use in developing
my own opinions. I use this technique in any area of study, be it Mormonism,
Jehovah's Witnesses or Christianity. Based on our correspondence, I
do not find Rev. Shaw a credible source. Period.
Of possible interest
to you is that a Mason recently noted to me that one selected to the
33° degree was required to pay $1,000 to cover the cost of his ring,
dinner, hotel and other related expenses incident to his selection.
Now you and I can quibble over what constitutes a "minimum donation",
but clearly money is required from the candidate, a fact which you appear
to deny. Another Mason noted that drinking was allowed in the rooms
adjacent to the lodge when a new WM was installed. Yet you have flatly
denied that drinking is allowed. Since the truth is not totally clear
in either case, I do not accuse you of being a liar; however, I do think
that you have been less than forthcoming in some key areas. As you quite
correctly point out, nothing requires me to take the word of a Mason,
or any other person, in matters of fact. Sufficient objective evidence
can always be found to determine what is true and what is not.
As to sharing your
rituals, the example I had in mind was John Ankerberg, who noted that
failure to obtain the approved rituals resulted in using Blanchard.
As I noted, a little "horse trading" on both sides would have resulted
in more of the truth being known, and less of the unjust criticism.
I found Ankerberg's books pretty well thought through, though he did
overly rely on Blanchard, which you have convinced me does not reflect
current Masonic rituals.
Finally, it is
surprising that you would mention Jack Chick's The Curse of Baphomet,
as I found a copy waiting for me the day I received your letter. A neighbor
had ordered several such booklets and asked me about them. I found it
somewhat overheated, and its conclusions do not agree with my own. I
would neither endorse it nor distribute it based on its contents; however,
it did raise an interesting question about the symbol on your cap. I
have nothing on that symbol or its origination. Perhaps you could identify
a source which explains such Masonic symbols? And rest assured: I do
not accuse Masons of worshipping Baphomet!
Sincerely
T.N. Sampson II
* * *
[Letter
16]
November 29, 1994
Dear Mr. Sampson,
Your letter of
September 9 was received. I resent your suggestion that I have not been
forthcoming with you. I have answered you with statements you can verify
for yourself. In contrast you present anonymous anecdotes, but I will
try to respond fairly.
There is nothing
more you need to say about Rev. Shaw; your many previous statements
speak loudly and clearly.
On page 101 of
The Deadly Deception, Rev. Shaw described the alleged "minimum
donation" required to receive the 33rd Degree.
She then told
me that in order to receive the [33rd] degree, I would be expected
to make a "minimum donation" of a very large amount of money (at least
it was a "very large" amount for me). This took me completely
by surprise for there had not been a word about any such "minimum
donation" in my letter sent me by the Supreme Council.
It would seem that Rev.
Shaw is trying to create an unflattering image of the Supreme Council
luring 33rd Degree candidates to Washington and then surprising them
with an unwritten requirement of a substantial donation. In my letter
to you of September 3, I referred to this and other falsifications of
Rev. Shaw concerning his alleged receipt of the 33rd Degree. There is
a fee for the degree, but it is well-known and published in the Statutes
of the Supreme Council, "Art. XI, Sec. 4.E. For the Thirty-third
Degree, Patent included -- $200.00." Anyone who bothers to read the
Statutes knows about the fee; every other
expense associated with the degree is voluntary. There is no charge
to new 33rd Degree Masons for the Supreme Council banquet, despite what
your unnamed informant may have told you.
The Supreme Council
normally elects new 33rd Degree members on a Monday morning, and the
degree is conferred Tuesday afternoon. If a newly elected 33rd Degree
Mason chooses to receive the degree in Washington, there is indeed the
expense of travel and lodging. However, the degree is conferred many
times around the country in regional meetings.
In 1991, Wilkins
Jewelers, Inc. of Vero Beach, Florida charged $120.75 to $280.50 for
a gold 33rd ring, depending on weight and karat, and $275 for a 33rd
jewel. Neither a ring nor a jewel is required to receive the degree,
just as a senior class ring is not required to graduate from high school
or college.
A new 33rd Degree
Mason could spend $755.50 for the fee, ring, and jewel. On the other
hand I spent nothing when I received the degree: the Valley of Baltimore
paid my initiation fee; I chose to continue wearing my 32° ring; and
I have not bought a jewel.
I do not deny nor
have I denied there are expenses associated with receiving the 33rd
Degree. However, they are either well-known and published or entirely
voluntary. What I do deny is Rev. Shaw's allegation that there is any
sort of unexpected "minimum donation." That is simply not true.
I never said "drinking
is not allowed." That would be as foolish as saying, "No one professing
to follow Christ drinks." What I did point out is that the Grand Lodge
of Florida and the Supreme Council, S.J. completely forbid alcohol at
the functions of their subordinate lodges. Rev. Shaw's description of
drinking by Florida Masons is as phony as the idea that a Seventh Day
Adventist church would sponsor a wine tasting.
Different grand
lodges have different rules concerning alcohol--some stricter and some
more lenient than Florida. I cannot say anything about your other anonymous
story, since you don't share the year, state, or other pertinent details.
I can say, however, that Rev. Shaw's pious pronouncement on drinking
in Florida is another of his slick fabrications: "But it bothered me
that there was always so much [drinking] and that it played such
a major role in the Masonic life."
The question you
raise about the 33rd Degree emblem is an interesting one, but I do not
have the time to do research for you. Thank you for answering my questions.
This letter, so far as I am concerned, concludes our correspondence.
Sincerely yours,
S. BRENT MORRIS,
Ph.D.
Book Review Editor
* * *
[Letter 17]
Dear Dr. Morris:
This letter is
not to restart old arguments, but rather to fulfill an old promise.
Two years ago I said that if I ever received any information on Rev.
Shaw's claims from the writer of The Deadly Deception, I would
pass them along. Mr McKenney has sent along a position paper on the
subject, which I have enclosed for your review. Rev. Shaw, as you know,
passed away.
While I have your
attention, may I recommend finding another editor? In rereading your
book Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?", I noted that,
on pages 41 and 43 you have extracts from the references being used
to rebut Rev. Shaws claims; however, you've used the 1989 examples,
when Shaw left the Craft in 1966. Unless I've missed something, it would
have made more sense to show the extracts from the year in which Rev.
Shaw made his claims, not extracts some 20 years after the event. A
second instance is in your article in the October 95 issue of The
Philalethes entitled 'Misrepresentations of Freemasonry. In
this article, I had a difficult time separating your comments from quotes
by Enchanted. For example, refer to the paragraphs under the heading
'The Difficulty of Dialog' (pg 104). How is the reader to tell which
paragraphs are yours and which are quotes? In rereading, I assume the
odd paragraphs are yours (1,3 & 5) and the even by Enchanter! otherwise,
the article has you saying "(you) have taken vows to uphold certain
secrets, even if it means telling lies." (Was that indeed what Enchanter!
said? Is that a true statement?) The same problem occurs in the quotes
from Dr. Morey's book, where quotation marks were not used, nor was
a colon used in the preceding paragraph to introduce the quotes. Ditto
the quotes under the heading 'Deficient Research'. Seems to me that
any good editor would have ensured that quotes were properly indicated.
Finally, and a very minor point, Grand Lodges are capitalized except
once in your quote from the deHoyos and Morris book. In that quote,
one "lodge" appears with a lower case "I". Again, a good editor would
have caught this. I bring this to your attention because arguments for
or against Masonry are sometimes "discarded" for 'editorial' reasons,
vice incorrect factual statements. I hope we both support the view that
this argument should be based on facts.
While on my soapbox,
I did find consistent your attempts to separate Albert Pike from the
Scottish Rite. It's certainly true that he not the "guiding force" behind
Masonry, but he certainly was that force behind the SR, southern variant.
One cannot separate him as easily as Masonic writers would have us believe.
I also found it interesting that you noted that Pike's tome has not
been distributed in the SR since ca 1971, but did not bother
to mention that A Bridge to Light is distributed in its place.
Since the latter is based mainly on the former, one easily (and correctly)
concludes that Pike's thoughts remain in force in the SRSJ.
Since you are interested
in the 'online world', among the interesting opinions expressed on our
electronic highways these days was one entitled 'The Damning of Spiritual
Masonry' by Norman Williams Crabbe, MPS, (claimed to be reprinted
from The Philalethes, April 1994). An intriguing article, to
be sure. It told me much about Masonic thinking (minority view, I assume)
and of the quality of writing that The Philalethes is willing
to publish (assuming the claim is true).
Finally, the next
Leadership Conference on Masonry will be in Indianapolis next June and
I extended an invitation to Allen Roberts, via Nelson King, to attend.
Mr. Roberts had a few comments on the last conference and I thought
that he might wish to attend the next and present his own views. You
should consider attending yourself if nothing else, it would get us
all together for an open discussion of viewpoints (we all trust riot
control measures will not be needed).
Cordially,
T.N. Sampson II
* * *
POSITION PAPER
JAMES D.
SHAW AND THE 33RD DEGREE
[By Tom McKenney]
22
February 1995
1. The Issue.
Subsequent to the publication of "The Deadly Deception...Freemasonry
Exposed by one of Its Top Leaders" (Huntington House, Lafayette, La),
charges have been made by Scottish Rite Masonry that Jim Shaw was never
a 33rd Degree Mason; the charges were subsequently expanded to allege
that Jim also was never Worshipful Master of his Blue Lodge or Master
of any Scottish Rite Body, and that he was not "one of (Masonry's) top
leaders".
2. Evidence
In Support of the Charges:
- A. Scottish
Rite Masonry presents that it has no records of Jim's having held
the offices or degree in question.
- B. Scottish
Rite Masonry presents records appearing to show that Jim was made
Knight Commander of the Court of Honor (KCCH), the prerequisite honor
and "final stepping stone" to the 33rd Degree, in October 1965 but
resigned from Masonry one year later, effective October 1966, before
becoming eligible for the 33rd Degree. (Theoretically a man must be
KCCH for 4 years before being considered for 33rd Degree).
3. Evidence
in Support of Jim Shaw's Testimony:
- A. Jim Shaw's
Character and Reputation. Jim Shaw has been a dedicated Christian
for 30 years, a man of unquestioned character until these charges
were brought by Masonic officialdom.<
- B. Masonry's
Attitude Toward Truth. Freemasonry is a system built upon lies
and deception (for only one of many references, see Morals and Dogma,
p 819).
- C. My Own
Pre-Publication investigation. Before I wrote Jim's story, on
advice of a friend experienced in such matters, I investigated Jim's
story. The only non-Masonic sources who could verify Jim's story were
Jim's friend, Mike, Dr Swords, the ophthalmologist who had led Jim
to the Lord, and Mrs Swords. I couldn't speak with Mike, for he had
died of cancer years before. I found Dr Swords, in semi-retirement
as a physician/ surgeon, and extremely active in Christian affairs.
He is a man of sterling reputation and almost radically correct Christian
character, a man who would never compromise, especially with the truth
(yes, I checked on Dr Swords, also). Dr Swords got out Jim's medical
records to refresh his memory, and I found that Jim's story was meticulously
accurate according to Dr Swords' records and his very precise memory.
Both Dr Swords arid his wife stated, emphatically and without hesitation,
that Jim was 33rd Degree when he left the Lodge. They, of course,
had not seen the Scottish Rite records, but knew him and his Masonic
identity at the time of leaving the Lodge in 1966 extremely well.
- D. His Credentials
Never Challenged Before. Jim Shaw has openly presented himself
to the world as "Rev james D. Shaw, ex-33rd Degree Mason" in his published
tracts, pamphlets and cassette tapes for more than 20 years. In addition,
he has had published forewords as an ex-33rd Degree Mason in two widely
distributed major anti-Masonic books for many years. Never, during
a11 those 20-plus years, was any question or challenge to his credentials
or testimony raised by Masonic officialdom, either privately or publicly,
until after publication of "Deadly Deception.
- E. Most of
His Masonic Records Were Burned. When Jim became a Christian,
he burned his Masonic apron, regalia, certificates, etc according
to the Scriptures. The only items surviving the burning were some
that his wife hid; significant among these are Scottish Rite Reunion
programs which show Jim as "32°, KCCH" and "Degree Master", the program
from the ceremony making him KCCH, and a 33rd Degree Medal with purple
ribbon, still in its original plastic case. (The medal is not personalized
or dated.)
- F. Acknowledged
as 33° by the Universal League of Freemasons. There also survives
a membership card in The Universal League of Freemasons, an international
Masonic order, issued to Jim without his request by Sigmund Holsjen,
Universal Grand Master, identifying Jim as "Bro. Rev. James D. Shaw,
33°" (photocopy, obverse and reverse, attached). Jim continued to
pay dues to this order for some time after leaving the Lodge in order
to receive its literature for research.
- G. The Opinion
of Another Christian 33° Mason. F. Evans Crary, Esq, who was made
KCCH in the same program with Jim Shaw, and who subsequently became
33rd Degree and held the highest office in Masonry, Grand Master of
Masons, Grand Lodge of Florida, believes that Jim Shaw was 33rd Degree.
- H. They Possess
the Records. The Scottish Rite has possessed the records for nearly
30 years; what reason have we to believe that a system based on lies
and deception, with that much time, hasn't "lost" or altered the records
prior to their recent, late-in-the-game charges? As possessors of
the records, we certainly can't expect them to verify such a damaging
testimony.
- I. "One of
(Masonry's) Top Leaders". Concerning Masonry's denial that Jim
was ever one of Masonry's "top leaders", let me say first that this
has never been Jim Shaw's claim. Those are the publisher's words,
not Jim's. Before publication of "Deadly Deception", I argued against
the word, "top", but the publisher prevailed. At any rate this point
is moot; it could mean that in the 1960's Jim was one of Masonry's
top 3 leaders, or one of the top 3,000, or it could mean that he was
one of tile top 300,000; surely, if only Degree Master and KCCH in
the Scottish Rite, he was at least that.
- J. Jim's
Testimony Is NOT "Impossible". Theoretically, one must be a Master
mason for 6 months before becoming eligible for the Scottish Rite
Degrees (4°-32°), then one must be a 32° Mason for 4 years before
being eligible for KCCH, and then be KCCH for 4 more years before
becoming eligible for the 33°. Concerning the argument that Jim wasn't
KCCH long enough even to be considered for the 33rd Degree, let alone
receive it, the fact is that the Supreme Council, which selects men
for both KCCH and the 33rd Degree, can coronet men when they please.
A Case in
Point. A recent example of this is that of the late John J.
Robinson. As a non-Mason, Mr Robinson wrote a sympathetic history
of Masonry, "Born in Blood", followed by two more pro-Masonic books.
Mr Robinson was made a Master Mason in Novemher 1992, a Scottish
Rite Mason of the 32nd Degree on 24 April 1993 (Northern Jurisdiction)
and 4 May 1993 (Southern Jurisdiction). On 3 Sept 1993, three days
before his death, Robinson was made a 33rd Degree Mason. After going
all the way from non-Mason to 33rd Degree in only 10 months, Mr
Robinson died on 6 Sept 1993. it is certainly conceivable that Jim
Shaw, after 20 years as a Mason, after more than 19 years as 32°
and a year as KCCH, could have been made 33° just before he resigned
from Masonry.
- K. When Unable
to Refute the Message, Attack the Messenger. Although the Scottish
Rite Journal has publicly called me a liar and Jim Shaw a phony, first
in a feature article and later in a special-issue book, not one word
of our charges against Masonry has been refuted. It appears to be
a classic case of damaging charges which can't be refuted, so the
attack is made on the source instead; since they can't refute the
message, they attack the messenger. This obscures the real issue (for
which they have no defense), by creating a false issue (concerning
which they hold all the records). This is exactly what has been done
in Arkansas, incidentally, to everyone who has spoken damaging truth
against the Clintons' circle of power (those who haven't died in the
process).
4. My Conclusion.
Initially, I was greatly troubled by certain aspects of the charges
by Scottish Rite officialdom, especially the apparent problem in the
time lapse between KCCH and 33rd Degree in Jim's case. When I discussed
this problem with Jim, he replied simply that the Supreme Council can
do whatever it chooses to do; this has proved to be the case.
In the final analysis
I must choose whom I will believe. Upon consideration of all the above,
and knowing Jim as I do, I accept and believe the testimony of Jim Shaw,
including all his Masonic credentials, exactly as published in "The
Deadly Deception".
/ Tom C. McKenney
/
Tom C. McKenney
PO Box 413 Marion, Ky 42064
Co-author, "The Deadly Deception"
Author, "Please Tell me"
[Transcribed
by S. Brent Morris, December 1995]
* * *
[Letter 18]
December 29, 1995
Dear Mr. Sampson:
Thank you for forwarding
me a copy of "James D. Shaw and the 33rd Degree" by Mr. Tom C. McKenney.
This document confirms my opinion of Mr. McKenney and Rev. Shaw. Your
observations about the editing of my articles are noted.
A computer glitch
seems to have destroyed the formatting of "Misrepresentations of Freemasonry";
I have enclosed a correctly formatted copy for you. I am responsible
for the choice of reproductions in Is It True What They Say About
Freemasonry? As Rev. Shaw is never listed as an officer of Allapattah
Lodge, I chose the 1989 listing as an example of what an independent
researcher could find; I thought reproducing every listing of officers
during Rev. Shaw's membership in the Lodge would be tedious.
Because of the
confusion this has caused for you, we will consider adding a summary
of all officers published in the Grand Lodge Proceedings in the
next edition. We could include tables of Scottish Rite officers during
Rev. Shaw's membership and a sampling of souvenir programs listing dignitaries,
and so on. At sometime, however, this becomes pointless if Mr. McKenney
and his ilk ignore the facts by stating that "Freemasonry is a system
built upon lies and deception."
You said you enclosed
the position paper for my review, and so I will give you a brief one,
addressing the points made by Mr. McKenney. It is first worth noting,
sadly, that the issue of Rev. Shaw has been reduced to ad hominem
arguments. Rev. Shaw makes many claims about Freemasonry in his book
that we cannot verify objectively. The reader is left to rely upon his
veracity in judging his witness about Freemasonry. The way to counter
Rev. Shaw's false statements is to show a general pattern of deliberate
deceit.
For example, Rev.
Shaw claims that candidates drink wine from a human skull in the 33rd
Degree. This is plagiarized directly from Blanchard's Scotch Rite
Masonry, vol. 2, p. 470, and is in fact an identifying characteristic
of "Cerneau" ritual. I imagine if I produced a copy of the 33rd Degree
ritual to counter this claim, Mr. McKenney would declare the document
a forgery. Similarly neither members of the Supreme Council nor anyone
else interview 33rd Degree candidates (pp. 102103), but how could
a researcher confirm this statement? We are reluctantly left with addressing
the general pattern of Rev. Shaw's claims that can be tested.
- 3.A Jim Shaw's
Character and Reputation. I have no doubt Rev. Shaw's friends
and colleagues regarded him as a good Christian who tried to share
the good news of grace through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. However,
none of this addresses the factual evidence.
- 3.B. Masonry's
Attitude Toward Truth. Whether Freemasonry is based upon
lies or truth is not the issue. Mr. McKenney makes claims that he
cannot or will not substantiate.
- 3.C. My Own
Pre-Publication Investigation. I am confident Rev. Shaw
told Dr. and Mrs. Swords that he was a 33rd Degree Mason, but, as
Mr. McKenney admits, they never saw the records. We cannot verify
their emphatic statement of Rev. Shaw's membership.
- 3.D. His
Credentials Never Challenged Before. This is an interesting
argument--something of a statute of limitations for lying. The fact
that no one has bothered to point out Rev. Shaw's lies does not give
any greater credence to Rev. Shaw's statements.
- 3.E. Most
of His Masonic Records Were Burned. A cynic could argue
this is much too convenient for Mr. McKenney's case. He says Rev.
Shaw's records are not available and then argues (in 3.H) that Scottish
Rite records cannot be trusted. His only evidence is a reunion program
that lists Rev. Shaw as "32°, KCCH," an honor we have never questioned.
The undated and non-personalized 33rd Degree Medal established nothing;
anyone can buy one in a pawn shop.
- 3.F. Acknowledged
as 33° by the Universal League of Freemasons. The U.L.F.
is a "clandestine" organization, membership in which usually results
in expulsion for regular Masons. I know of no regular Grand Lodge
that acknowledges the U.L.F. The question of whether membership in
the U.L.F. proves one is a Mason is similar to the question of whether
membership in the Mormon Church proves one is a Christian. It is my
understanding the U.L.F. will accept anyone who claims to be a Mason.
It might be amusing for you to join, or for me to get a membership
for my cat. What the dues cards does prove is that Rev. Shaw had no
compunction about deceiving the U.L.F. and claiming Masonic membership
for nearly 20 years after his 1965 resignation.
- 3.G. The
Opinion of Another Christian 33° Mason. F. Evans Crary
received the rank and decoration of K.C.C.H. with Rev. Shaw, but Mr.
Crary offers no evidence that Rev. Shaw ever received the 33rd Degree.
It is nice that Mr. Crary believes that Rev. Shaw received
the 33rd Degree, but a lawyer should offer better corroboration than
hearsay. Was Mr. Crary present when Rev. Shaw received the degree?
Can he give us a date? Does he have any document--program, newsletter,
or Transactions--that can be independently verified?
- 3.H. They
Possess the Records. Indeed we do, but we base our arguments on
public not archival documents. The Supreme Council publishes its
Transactions biennially and distributes hundreds of copies around
the world. The Transactions lists every 33rd Degree Mason when
he receives the degree. Further, the Valley of Miami publishes a newsletter
that lists officers, and their reunion programs list their "Honor
Men," the KCCHs, and 33rds. Thousands of these documents have been
distributed. Any of these documents would establish Mr. McKenney's
case and produce a public acknowledgment of error by me. Rather than
call the Scottish Rite liars, Mr. McKenney should point to some fact
that can be independently confirmed.
- 3.I. "One of
(Masonry's) Top Leaders." This question is moot, as we conceded that
this as well within the allowable limits of advertising.
- 3.J. Jim's
Testimony is NOT "Impossible." Here we made a technical error.
We stated that Rev. Shaw resigned from Masonry "thirty-seven months
before he would have been eligible to even be nominated for
the 33°." This is much the same as saying, "The U.S. Constitution
prevents the election of a President and Vice-President from different
parties." In th
