Debunking Amazing Discoveries: Lucifer is the god of Freemasonry .

I ran across this website and article awhile back, at, and I am just now getting to sink my teeth into this smelly muck, and debunk this website’s fallacies. Evidently, by what they write, they have no knowledge of biblical theology, history (biblical or ancient), or Freemasonry, especially about Albert Pike, AE Waite, Eliphas Levi, or Manly P Hall. After viewing their list of apologist “experts”, why does it not surprise me that the liar and charlatan, Walter Veith, is at the top of their list?

First, let us address the title and summary of their webpage:

Lucifer is the god of Freemasonry
Summary: Read the accounts of occultists and Masons who confirm that Satan—not the true God—is the deity of Freemasonry. [sic]

First off, they lie right off the bat. No actual member of regular Freemasonry, when they wrote whatever text they did, has ever made any claim that Satan or lucifer is the deity of Freemasonry. Of course, that is what these charlatans want you to think, but it is not factual by any account, and certainly not scholarly as they might try to make it seem. Where is a citation for a factual source for these two statements? I do not see one, do you? Also, I would demand that it be an actual scholarly source which can be examined completely, and then be rebutted, using factual source material. You would want that too if this muck was written about you, would you not? When you look at their citations, they do not have one citation to support their written opinions on that webpage.

They next mention that the Apostle Paul said: “Satan masquerades as an angel of light: And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). The KJV has it:” No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light”. Funny that neither match, isn’t it? Also, the chapter was speaking of the clergy that was not teaching what Paul thought to be correct, in 2 Corinthians 11. They put this statement at the top to fool the reader into thinking that it is a religious website, and by that claim, it can not be a lie. Anyhow, let us see what Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible has to say on this verse.

And no marvel,…. This need not be wondered at, nor is it any new or strange thing; nor should it be thought to be incredible that there are such persons in being:

for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light; a good angel, one that has his abode in the regions of light; and is possessed of divine and spiritual light and understanding; who is clothed and arrayed with light, this is his form and essence. The apostle speaks agreeably to the notion, of the Jews, who say (t),

“rwa Mh Mlk Mykalmhv, “that all the angels are light”, the clothing of God himself;”

and they have a distinction between , “angels of the day”, and angels of the night (u): now Satan, the enemy of mankind, sometimes appears in the form of one of these; as he did to Eve in the garden, and to Christ in the wilderness; and by such appearances he often imposes on mankind; pretends the greatest friendship, when he designs nothing but ruin; and under a notion of good, either honest, or pleasant, or profitable, draws on into the commission of the greatest evils; and, under a show of truth, introduces the most notorious falsehoods and errors; and, under a pretence of religion, all sorts of idolatry, superstition, and impiety; it is in this way he has succeeded in his enterprises and temptations; these are his wiles, stratagems, and cunning devices.

(t) R. Abraham Seba, Tzeror Hammor, fol. 18. 4. (u) Zohar in Numb. fol. 91. 1. & 93. 3. [sic]

Next, let us see what Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states about the first of the chapter, which is given as Paul and the False Apostles:

Would to God you could bear with me a little,…. The false apostles boasted so much of their gifts, abilities, and usefulness, that the apostle found himself under a necessity of saying some things in his own defence, for the honour of God, and the good of this church; which otherwise his modesty would not have permitted him, and which he saw would be accounted and censured as folly in him by others; and therefore he entreats their patience a little while, and that they would suffer him to say a few things in vindication of his character, and not be offended; though it would be in commendation of himself, which, were he not forced to, would look vain and foolish” [sic]

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary states:

11:1-4 The apostle desired to preserve the Corinthians from being corrupted by the false apostles. There is but one Jesus, one Spirit, and one gospel, to be preached to them, and received by them; and why should any be prejudiced, by the devices of an adversary, against him who first taught them in faith? They should not listen to men, who, without cause, would draw them away from those who were the means of their conversion. [sic]

If you read my article about lucifer, then you will understand the truth about what the Latin word, lucifer, actually means, and that Judaism does not believe in some anti-God nor a devil named Satan.

However, one must remember that Paul taught Hellenistic Judaism, not mainstream Rabbinical Judaism, even though he made many claims that he was a Pharisee. The Jews reject that Paul had any real Rabbinical education. If he had taught correctly, then James and Peter would not have had to collar he and Barnabas at the Council of Jerusalem, which is mentioned in Acts 15, and Paul would not have minded taking his leaving trip with Mark, who would have kept him in line. Of course he wouldn’t go with Mark, an actual apostle. At this, Acts is said to be a much cleaned up version of the account. Below, I quote what the Jewish Encyclopedia has on Paul (Saul of Tarsus). Other university scholars have came to some of the same conclusions. You can take from below what you will, but the Jewish people have kept a very well documented history.

Saul (whose Roman cognomen was Paul; see Acts xiii. 9) was born of Jewish parents in the first decade of the common era at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3). The claim in Rom. xi. 1 and Phil. iii. 5 that he was of the tribe of Benjamin, suggested by the similarity of his name with that of the first Israelitish king, is, if the passages are genuine, a false one, no tribal lists or pedigrees of this kind having been in existence at that time (see Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.” i. 7, 5; Pes. 62b; M. Sachs, “Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung,” 1852, ii. 157). Nor is there any indication in Paul’s writings or arguments that he had received the rabbinical training ascribed to him by Christian writers, ancient and modern; least of all could he have acted or written as he did had he been, as is alleged (Acts xxii. 3), the disciple of Gamaliel I., the mild Hillelite. His quotations from Scripture, which are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version, betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text. The Hellenistic literature, such as the Book of Wisdom and other Apocrypha, as well as Philo (see Hausrath, “Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte,” ii. 18-27; Siegfried, “Philo von Alexandria,” 1875, pp. 304-310; Jowett, “Commentary on the Thessalonians and Galatians,” i. 363-417), was the sole source for his eschatological and theological system. Notwithstanding the emphatic statement, in Phil. iii. 5, that he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews”—a rather unusual term, which seems to refer to his nationalistic training and conduct (comp. Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), since his Jewish birth is stated in the preceding words “of the stock of Israel”—he was, if any of the Epistles that bear his name are really his, entirely a Hellenist in thought and sentiment. As such he was imbued with the notion that “the whole creation groaneth” for liberation from “the prison-house of the body,” from this earthly existence, which, because of its pollution by sin and death, is intrinsically evil (Gal. i. 4; Rom. v. 12, vii. 23-24, viii. 22; I Cor. vii. 31; II Cor. v. 2, 4; comp. Philo, “De Allegoriis Legum,” iii. 75; idem, “De Vita Mosis,” iii. 17; idem, “De Ebrietate,” § 26; and Wisdom ii.24). As a Hellenist, also, he distinguished between an earthly and a heavenly Adam (I Cor. xv. 45-49; comp. Philo, “De Allegoriis Legum,” i. 12), and, accordingly, between the lower psychic. life and the higher spiritual life attained only by asceticism (Rom. xii. 1; I Cor. vii. 1-31, ix. 27, xv. 50; comp. Philo, “De Profugis,” § 17; and elsewhere). His whole state of mind shows the influence of the theosophic or Gnostic lore of Alexandria, especially the Hermes literature recently brought to light by Reizenstein in his important work “Poimandres,” 1904 (see Index, s. v. “Paulus,” “Briefe des Paulus,” and “Philo”); hence his strange belief in supernatural powers (Reizenstein, l.c. pp. 77, 287), in fatalism, in “speaking in tongues” (I Cor. xii.-xiv.; comp. Reizenstein, l.c. p. 58; Dieterich, “Abraxas,” pp. 5 et seq.; Weinel, “Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister,” 1899, pp. 72 et seq.; I Cor. xv. 8; II Cor. xii. 1-6; Eph. iii. 3), and in mysteries or sacraments (Rom. xvi. 25; Col. i. 26, ii. 2, iv. 3; Eph. i. 9, iii. 4, vi. 19)—a term borrowed solely from heathen rites. [sic]

The problem is, that the Judaeo-Greek and Roman Hellenists invented an anti-God or devil that they named Satan, not mainstream Rabbinical Judaism. This muck was taught around Antioch by Paul and his followers. These early Hellenistic Jews or Christians, like Paul, were from a Judaeo-Greek parentage, and were believers in the Greek pantheistic God, Hades, their God of the underworld, who supposedly controlled a so-called purgatory, and they also taught from Zoroastrianism, which had a dualistic thought of two spiritual deities ever fighting, that originates from what is now, Iran. Here, Zoroastrianism has the Asha and Druj, the truth spirit and the lie spirit. In Judaism, God gave man free will, and thus, the truth (good) and lie (sin) comes from man alone, and not some external spirits. Ancient Asia shows this as the Yin and Yang, both entwined as one, thus they are two sides of the same coin, which is man’s free will of the mind. One can read my two articles on Satan and Lucifer to find out the truth on this. No Christian theological book, even Gill’s, will reveal the truth about what a satan actually is. It is totally different than what you think, according to mainstream Rabbinical Judaism.

Now, let’s examine this website’s next fallacy.

One example of this masquerading is the culture of secret societies that claim to have illumination or light but are in fact full of darkness. Their Gnostic teaching inverts the truth, making Satan the god and God the enemy. The following sources attest to the fact that Freemasonry is Luciferian: [sic]

What about that claim, eh? Not one cited source to back up their cheap and dirty accusational drivel. One can clearly see that they have no idea about what the word, gnostic, actually means. Jesus the Nazarite was gnostic, the same as any Rabbi. It means that he had deep religious knowledge. By what they wrote, it sounds as if Jesus should be saying that God is Satan and the enemy. Wait a moment, isn’t that what they claimed above? Also, did Jesus not call himself the Bright Morning Star in Revelation 22:16?

Let us see what the dictionary has on the word, Gnostic:


adjective, Also, gnostical
1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

4. (initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead. [sic]

Now, what other facts do you think they’re going to try to explain? None, that’s what! They’re going to try to flood partial or single sentence quotations of others, on you, which is also known as lying by omission. Here, they hope that you have not read what was written before and after these quotations or verses of scripture, nor will you want to take the time to do so. Also, they will seek to quote from texts that are obscure and hard for some people to get their hands on, in order to actually read what was said in its entirety, or use some supporting apologetic’s text, which was written by their own denomination! Some of these books are rare and not on the internet. As an example, by doing this, they could quote a sentence from an obscure, low-circulation, new-age gaming magazine which mentioned your name, that stated “I had to kill her”, and claim that you were a murderer. Especially, if the reader had also read a few other half-quotes or one-sentence quotes, from others, that sounded condemning. However, when you read everything that was actually written, in that obscure gaming text, you see this: “Wow, that was a good video game. Yes, said Ted, it was; I had to kill her. Why, asked Pete? Why, the game would have never stopped running”. Maybe you think that they’ll not stoop so low as to do this? Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but yes, they most certainly will do it, and have been doing so for over two thousand years now, especially from certain church clergy and those like the fraudulent Televangelists. Attorneys even use a form of this, in court, to this very day. They don’t study Aristotle’s, The Art of Rhetoric, as I have for nothing. Have you not ever heard an attorney request that a judge force a witness to answer either yes or no for an answer to a quote or a question? What happens when you can’t explain or give those extra sentences, which the attorney is purposely leaving out? Quite deceitful if you ask me, but it is allowed. What it takes to stop this miscarriage of truth is someone more educated and sly than these lying imbeciles, whom wrote the webpage in question, so thus, you have me.

Now, let’s get to their flood of fictitious quotes and fallacies.

Occultist and author Manly Palmer Hall.

  1. When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy (emphasis added). [sic]
  2. I hereby promise the Great Spirit Lucifuge, Prince of Demons, that each year I will bring unto him a human soul to do with as as it may please him, and in return Lucifuge promises to bestow upon me the treasures of the earth and fulfill my every desire for the length of my natural life. If I fail to bring him each year the offering specified above, then my own soul shall be forfeit to him. Signed…{Invocant signs pact with his own blood} [sic]

The first quote is from Manly Palmer Hall, (who was a debunked mystic), and is text that is from his early book, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, published in 1923, which he had written when he was a whopping twenty-three years old. Funny that, when he had never stepped foot inside a Lodge of regular Freemasonry until he was fifty-three years old, in 1954, thirty-one years later, where he became an Entered Apprentice. He was raised as a Master Mason later that year. Hall became a 32nd the following year, in 1955, but he did not become a 33rd, in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, until he was seventy-three years old, in 1973, fifty years later.

Now, you may ask, “well, where did Hall get his ideas from?” It is very simple; he had fallen, hook, line, and sinker for the Taxil Hoax, by reading books such as those written by AC de la Rive, especially one which was titled: Woman and child in Universal Freemasonry, which was published in 1894. Other authors that he would have read from would have been Arthur Edward Waite, who hardly any Freemason took seriously or respected, as he studied Eliphas Levi and wrote about Levi’s fictitious claims, and the charlatans Edith Starr Miller (Lady Queenborough) and Helena Blavatsky, who both quoted the Taxil Hoax. Waite was also into many clandestine fraternities that regular Freemasonry, of that time, had quickly washed their hands of, and would not tip with a ten foot pole. We’ll touch back on AE Waite later on.

The so-called mystic movement was a big thing in the mid 1800s to the early 1900s. There was also that major twelve year long hoax, which was perpetrated upon both Freemasonry and the Catholic church, during the late 1800s, by Leo Taxil. A brother Freemason by the name of Harry Houdini, (born Erik Weisz), enjoyed busting up these charlatans and he exposed many of them for the frauds that they were. Never did Harry claim to be doing real magic, as it was all trickery and slight of hand. That is how he caught the liars (3)(4).

AC de la Rive was a publishing friend of Leo Taxil, and the manager of the magazine publisher, Antimasonic France.  AC de la Rive took over as the manager from Taxil, who had started it! Yes, they didn’t reveal that to you, now did they? I did. One can tell by the title of AC de la Rive’s book, Woman and Child in Universal Freemasonry, that it is of the most fraudulent, as a woman can not be made a Mason in any regular Lodge of Freemasonry (a fraternity is for men, a sorority for women). Leo Taxil even joked about why the Church in Rome had never cottoned onto that fact. Plus, this book is the one which contains the fake Albert Pike quotes from the fake Pike encyclical, written by Leo Taxil about Pike, who had already passed away in 1891 and could not defend himself. These authors love to wait until someone dies before writing their muck. The funny thing is, that the Hellenist church scribes waited until about one year after the apostles were dead, to pen the Gospels too. That is correct, check it out.

Also, there were Taxil’s own anti-Masonic books, which he wrote many of during the late 1800s, and especially a rather bad one, under the pen name of Dr. Bataille, where he brought out the fictional heroine named Diana Vaughan, who was supposedly made a Mason in a regular US Lodge, and was to be made the wife of the demon king, Asmodeus. He even had her traveling to different planets in the 1890s, within his book, and claimed that Asmodeus had taken her to Eden. On top of this fictional slush, Taxil wrote that a devil-snake had supposedly wrote prophecies on her back with the tip of its tail, and another demon, in order to marry a female Mason, supposedly turned itself into a crocodile and played the piano well! The tales about her are not only quite unbelievable, even to a young child of today, but are hilarious. These imbeciles, who wrote that webpage, are asking you to believe in this slush! Well, it is Walter Veith, so what can I say? Let me give you a little piece of advise about doctors of philosophy. Check what their PhD is in, as if it is not a doctorate for the subject at hand, then their PhD is not worth anything outside their field of study. Veith’s PhD is in zoology if I recall! Yes, you have a zoologist telling you that he knows more about Freemasonry than a Freemason does. That is about as comparable as a high school student (Veith) stating that he knows more about nuclear physics than a university professor in nuclear physics (me, a Freemason).

Here are the fake Pike Quotes in AC de la Rive’s book: Woman and child in Universal Freemasonry, which was published in 1894, for which he cited the fake encyclical supposedly written by the now dead Albert Pike, who supposedly gave it to the fictional Diana Vaughan, to deliver to France, but was actually written by Leo Taxil himself. It was quoted, and many state purposely misquoted, by both Edith Starr Miller and Helena Blavatsky. Take note of the footnote for their citation.:

    That which we must say to the world is that we worship a god, but it is the god that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the higher degrees, maintained in the Purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay and his priests calumniate him?

Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods; darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive….

Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil. [sic]

The footnote citation at the bottom of the page:

*It was the Sister Diana Vaughan that Albert Pike,–in order to give her the greatest mark of confidence,–charged to carry his luciferian encyclical, to Paris, during the Universal Exposition [Exposition Universelle 1889]. [sic]

The next book by Manly P Hall, of which they quote, is: The Secret Teaching Of All Ages, which was published in 1928, when Hall was only twenty-seven years old, and which was only four years after his first book rolled off the press. Hall was still a bit wet behind the ears, a self-proclaimed mystic and an armchair philosopher, who was still not a Freemason, but he was an avid reader of AC de la Rive and Leo Taxil, along with other charlatans such as Edith Starr Miller, Helena Blavatsky, Eliphas Levi, and AE Waite, while not knowing any better. There were many other charlatans, too, whose books he read, as he was left an occult library of them since his family was quite wealthy.

Halls second quotation refers directly back to the same fake Pike quotes, along with the writing of the charlatans Edith Starr Miller and Eliphas Levi, who made up much of what they wrote, and the chapter in Hall’s book was not even written about Freemasonry, but was about “ceremonial magic and sorcery!” Freemasonry was never mentioned anywhere in that chapter, and the book is not just about Freemasonry but many esoteric subjects. Not only that, but you can pick up any edition of the Scottish Rite Ritual and Monitor (1), at any of the larger public libraries, and see if you can find any oath such as Manly Hall wrote in that second quote. I can save you some time, as you will not find it anywhere within the book, but please feel free to look it up and check my facts. If it is not written within that book, which is the only officially sanctioned book that is published by the Scottish Rite, then it is to not be found anywhere within Freemasonry. That book has both the ritual allegories and the lectures listed within it. Oh yes, you notice that the writer of that website would never dare to inform you of this books existence.

That website’s slush reminds me of a bedlamite, tinfoil hat wearing, fruitloop-nutter, who just started a new church, maybe to Cthulhu, with no Bible, telling you that you can read Jack Chick’s comic books for the truth, and that the Holy Bible nor any other Holy Book are required. He may even tell you that the lack of any reading comprehension is approved of, and that those that can not read one lick will be the most blessed. He’ll say, “just look at the pretty comic book pictures; it explains it all!”

It has been stated that either when Hall was raised as a Master Mason, in California, or after the fact, that he spoke to his new brethren, and asked them to forgive him for his folly in his earlier writing during his younger years, and he stated that he had it all wrong. When one reads the books that Hall wrote, after he joined, you will find that they do not mention anything about Freemasonry having a lucifer or a Baphomet as any God or deity. He later became a 33rd, in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and he found no Baphomet or lucifer at the top either, nor was he asked to ever worship one. He became an allegorical Knights Templar, as a 32nd, which is a Christian order. The 33rd is almost the same as the 32nd. To be either, you must believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. It is a requirement! You must believe in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity to take the 17th to the 33rd degree.

Below, I quote Hall in the preface of the later editions of the Lost Keys of Freemasonry:

“At the time I wrote this slender volume, I had just passed my twenty-first birthday, and my only contact with Freemasonry was through a few books commonly available to the public”. [sic]

I’ll bet that Veith et al, did not want you to know about this preface, want to bet?

Here, I part with the Hall quotations, but I will quote you what was written by Brent Morris, PhD, a published scholarly Masonic historian, who cited his work with actual scholarly sources, and he did not try to lie by omission in the book: Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry (2). He is spot on in his assessment:

For example, Manly Hall didn’t become a Mason until 1954, so his 1923 book, Lost Keys of Freemasonry, represents the personal theories of a non-Mason. Further, Mr. Hall (who passed away in August 1990) was a self-avowed mystic and not a “leading authority” of Freemasonry. He was a promulgator of mystic and theosophical philosophies; his writings have not received official sanction by any Masonic bodies. The fact that he held the Thirty-third Degree and was respected by many Thirty-Third Degree Masons and even by the Supreme Councils 33º is no more significant than the fact that various Baptist, Anglican, or Methodist authors also hold or held that honor.

Anti-Masons regularly parade the writings of Masonic authorities before their audiences and dissect their words, looking for a sentence here or a phrase there to be used in their cause. They seek someone like a church authority who speaks dogmatically on teachings and doctrine; whose every word must be accepted by the faithful.

Freemasonry has no such authorities.

The Masonic authorities used by anti-Masons have been historical authorities who speak with the expertise that comes from long study, but who do not–indeed, cannot–speak for all Masons. It is like the difference between the authoritative teachings of the Episcopal Church and an authoritative history of the Kennedy assassination. [sic]

You are not taught anything in regular Freemasonry, except one moral lesson per each allegorical ritual (a play), within each degree. Freemasonry gives hints at other things during the lectures, which are barely broached, and it is up to that Mason to take that hint and read up about what it entails, if they want, as it is not a requirement. These hints are things referring to topics such as Noah’s Ark and Jacob’s Ladder. There are even hints to things concerning Euclid’s mathematics within the symbols, which is the arithmetic proof of a square. However, due to one Mason’s belief system being entirely different to those sitting next to him, what he thinks it means may be something totally different to another Freemason. That is how Freemasonry is, and that is how works, without exception. Thus, if I wrote a book during Albert Pike’s time on this earth, it would be different to his writing, as my understanding and research would be different than his, especially over my differing religious, philosophical, and theosophical views. It would be different than those like Albert Mackey, who even disagreed with Pikes work. Those books are their ideas, and not that of the fraternity as a whole. Many Freemasons disagreed with those books when they were published, and that is why, in the preface of Morals & Dogma, it clearly states:

In preparing this work, the Grand Commander has been about equally Author and Compiler; since he has extracted quite half of its contents from the works of the best writers and most philosophic or eloquent thinkers. Perhaps it would have been better and more acceptable if he had extracted more and written less. [sic]

It continues:

Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. [sic]

I hope you, the reader, caught the gist of that? You now see that the book was his thoughts on comparative religions, and not that of Freemasonry, the Scottish or York Rite, nor any of its other members. The book was never the “dogma” or the “bible” of Freemasonry. Pike had gotten the mysticism bug, too, and he was looking for things that were not there in the original Rite, nor in the complete Rite, and some of what he wrote has been proven wrong, many times, especially by the fraternities Research Lodges known as the Masonic Authentic School, or the Quatuor Coronati Lodge.

In the paragraph that all anti-Masons love to quote of Pikes, about lucifer, Pike even gets who wrote the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) wrong, as he states that it was the Apostle John. Everyone now knows that it was another less-known and obscure man, by the name of John of Patmos, who wrote it, and that they are entirely two different people. Many of the facts that we have today, were not available back then, to the American armchair philosophers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. What they had available to read was paltry at best. The paragraph of Pikes was about the 19th degree, the Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation), and he wrote those who took the degree thought that the word, lucifer, equated the devil. If you look at Revelation 22:16, it is Jesus, the Bright Morning Star and offspring of David, who blinds the feeble minds of the sensual and selfish souls, not a devil. That was what Pike was hinting about in that paragraph. It’s about the age old fallacy of what Isaiah 14:12 means, which, in reality, was a parable about the Babylonian king being compared to the quick rise and fall of the Morning Star (Venus), and not some devil falling from Heaven (see Isaiah 14:4).

Next, I get to tackle the charlatan Eliphas Levi, the pen name of the Abbé Louis Constant, who was born in 1810 and died in 1875, and I have been waiting for this. Below is their quote for Eliphas:

What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of Lucifer to the devil, that is, to personified evil. The intellectual Lucifer is the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the paraclete [an advocate]; it is the Holy Spirit, where the physical Lucifer is the great angel of universal magnetism [sic]

Now, one must understand which book that this quote came from. Was it strictly about Freemasonry? No, it was not, as Levi wrote about ancient religions and magic, which regular Freemasonry had told Levi that they did not want to hear about, nor be taught about, and he left Freemasonry over it right after he had just been raised to a Master Mason. It was not a friendly parting. This quote is from a book that Arthur Edward Waite wrote, not Levi, titled: The Mysteries of Magic, a digest of the writings of Eliphas Levi. published in 1886. Did Levi author any of the book? Not really. It was what Waite claimed Levi meant, by writing alleged quotations of Levi, of which Waite gave his take on them. Remember that I said that I would get to Waite eventually?

AE Waite was a self-proclaimed mystic who studied much of Eliphas Levi’s work. Waite ruined himself with regular Freemasonry, when he gained membership in irregular fraternities such as the Rosicrucians and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, an organization devoted to the study and practice of the occult, metaphysics, and the paranormal, (and an irregular organization who allowed women membership), where he rubbed elbows with Aleister Crowley, who was certainly no regular Freemason, and was one of the worst men to have lived. Waite believed in seances, ouija boards, and even invented a type of Tarot card set, named the Rider-Waite-Smith set. Waite also made the comment that the G in the emblem of Freemasonry meant gnosis and not God. That is not correct, and it never has been. The G has always meant God and Geometry, though Freemasonry is gnostic to a certain degree. That ‘certain degree’ is whatever the individual Mason makes of it, himself, and his gnosis will be different than any other Freemason.

In the paper, The Masonic Career of A.E. Waite, written by RA Gilbert in 1986, he states the following about AE Waite:

In English Freemasonry, the seal of a certain distinction attaches to the name of Arthur Edward Waite, while it has proved of such appeal in America that an important Grand Lodge has conferred upon him, causa honoris, one of its highest official positions.  Among his many publications those on the mystical and symbolical aspects of the Secret Tradition in Christian Times occupy a place apart, being things unattempted otherwise in the records of research’.  So Waite referred to himself in the prospectus for the revised edition of his book, The Secret Tradition in Freemasonry[1], but it is doubtful if a single masonic scholar of his time – or since – could be found who would agree that this self-adulation was justified.   During his lifetime Waite was castigated, and with justification, for his peculiarities of style, for his frequent errors of historical fact and for his cavalier attitude and contemptuous references to his contemporaries.   All this must be admitted against him, but he was also a highly original thinker who broke completely new ground with his studies of what he termed the ‘Secret Tradition’, while, for the esoteric school of thought within Freemasonry, he has been the most pervasive and powerful influence of this century. [sic]

Though Brother Gilbert does not give which American Grand Lodge gave Waite an honorary position, he goes onto say that: “During his lifetime Waite was castigated, and with justification, for his peculiarities of style, for his frequent errors of historical fact and for his cavalier attitude and contemptuous references to his contemporaries,” and that he was thought to be the “most pervasive” which is an unwelcome influence or physical effect on Freemasonry. This has happened with a few other Freemasons too, who tried to invent or see more myth and mysticism in Freemasonry than was was ever there, such as Eliphas Levi, or even Albert Mackey and Albert Pike. If it is not officially stated by the United Grand Lodge of England that something is regular or permitted, then it is not within Freemasonry no matter how much one might try to imagine it is, or even invent it. The problem was, and still is, that the early Scottish Rite had members such as Andrew Michael Ramsay, who highly embellished (lied about) details, such as how old and where the Rite originated. Ramsay claimed that it went all the way back to ancient Egypt to promote it, and that it was started by the real Templars which had not existed for 300 years before his oration. Albert Pike even swallowed that tale as true. In reality, it started with the Scotch Mason degree, a side degree that was invented in England, which then came to France, and the Rite was added to, etc, until the first twenty-five degrees were invented between 1725-1765. It came to the United States around 1800, where it was modified more and had the other degrees were added to it, making 33. The fraternity of regular Freemasonry is the oldest, it is the originator of it all, and its fraternal founding was in 1717 at the Goose and Gridiron Ale-House in London, England, with the formation of the first Grand Lodge, which became the United Grand Lodge of England. The Scottish and York Rites came along after that.

The truth about Eliphas Levi is this; that he had started to attend a French seminary to become a priest, but was defrocked in 1844, though he did write some counter-enlightenment literature during that time. Not much later, though, he changed direction, and wrote literature that was pro-reformation and enlightenment. Which ever sold the best, is my best guess to his reasoning. In 1853, after Levi left France for England, he met Edward Bulwer-Lytton, an English writer, who was interested in Rosicrucianism. This gave Levi the idea for writing about the occult, magic, esoterica, and mysticism, which he could make a good living from if the books would sell. He wrote his first work a year later, and it sold. By 1860, Levi was publishing one book after another, and making a fair bit of money for his endeavor. However, he also claimed to be a magician, and what he didn’t know, which was the majority of it, he made it up out of thin air, since fiction sold as well as, or better than, the truth. He would be considered an equal to the traveling snake-oil salesman of the time in the US, making wild claims over what he peddled. That is why French Freemasonry, finally, told Levi NO, just after he was raised as a Master Mason, when he offered to teach the Lodge his magic, etc. However, they were onto him, and were not interested. After this, he left Freemasonry for good. In his mythical and fictional occult literature, he was responsible for resurrecting the name of Baphomet, which was a lie invented and generated by King Phillip the Fair, (Philip IV), of France, to accuse the Knights Templar of heresy in order to steal their gold. The Pope, in the end, had found them not guilty, and had absolved them before he died. The French Freemasons, along with the French people, did not like what Levi wrote at all, because it besmirched their real history. He was also responsible for claiming that the pentastar had so-called magical properties as a symbol, and he invented the drawing of the star with the goats head in it, claiming that it was Baphomet. None of that had any truth to it, as Levi invented it, pulling it out of the clear blue sky, in order to sell his books. The pentastar, (a five-point star in any direction), was used by Christianity and many other religions before Levi bastardized it. The pentastar, or the pentagram, never obtained a reputation as anything evil until Levi sullied it. Mathematically, the pentastar holds the golden ratio within its geometry, and this was why that Freemasonry had used it many years beforehand. It was as if Levi had tried to demonize any religious or Masonic symbol, by claiming that it was something that it never was. This sold more fictional magic books to the mystics though, and Levi happily pocketed the money.

I quote from The myths of Baphomet and the Goat of Mendes, by Kathryn Hughes, Atlanta Paganism Examiner, at the website, below:

The Goat of Mendes was first associated with the occult in the mid 1800’s when the occultist and magician Eliphas Levi drew a picture of a figure inspired to some extent by an early Greek description of the Goat of Mendes being represented by a ram headed and cloven hoofed figure. That image was combined with the image of the devil from a Tarot [card set] popular at the time and Levi named his figure the Goat of Mendes and called it Baphomet the Sabbat Goat. Levi is also credited with the first depiction of the inverted pentagram with a goat’s head as a symbol of evil.

Aleister Crowley, the English occultist who stated there was no devil, adopted Levi’s Baphomet as a fertility symbol and a union of opposites. Crowley also developed a theory in which he claimed the name Baphomet referred to the god Mithras. Crowley also adopted the name Baphomet for himself. This only furthered the Christian conviction of the devil as the evil Baphomet.

Not only Freemasonry, but the church, had a very low opinion of Levi over his claims. To be very honest, the books written by Levi and those by others like him, are not worth the paper they’re written on. We Freemasons have a good chortle at those who quote from them, because it shows their ignorance.

One of the worst things that Levi ever did, was to use a statue of George Washington as a model, to design a sitting, goat-headed, Baphomet with. The anti-Masons love to claim that his drawing came first, which has long been known to be a blatant lie. He was caught by the dates of when his drawing originated, as compared to when the statue was carved. Anyone can look those dates up. Levi was nothing but a charlatan, draining money from the new mystics pockets, by stating his wild claims about magic. He and Leo Taxil are of the same caliber, and both were booted from Freemasonry.

Now, we will get into the Albert Pike quotes, and at least one has been tampered with, which doesn’t surprise me in the least.

1) Lucifer, the Light-Bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!iv

2) The devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythological and horned form of the God Pan; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.v

3) The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is Yahweh (GOD) reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but a negation of God…the Kabala imagined Him to be a “most occult light.”vi

4) That which we must say to a crowd is—We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees—The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay whose deeds prove his cruelty, perdify and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil.vii

Let’s start with the first quote, as I can knock that one out very quick. Please read my article on lucifer, here, and remember my text about what Pike meant, above. Once you read that, then come back and read the rest below.

Quote two is one of the things that Pike got dead wrong, and everyone in Freemasonry knows it, who has actually studied Judaism and Kabbalah. This paragraph has been debunked many times. First and foremost, Pike was an Episcopalian and not a Jew.  He did not understand what the Rabbi’s meant. The very first thing that he mentions is the devil, which the Jews do not believe in. What Pike is speaking of is the free will of man, that God gave him, and every other animal on earth. By giving man free will, man can sin or do good. There is no devil nor any anti-God that makes man sin; it is man alone who does it. To say otherwise is calling God a liar, which is blasphemy, about what he supposedly stated in Isaiah 45:5-8. This is one of the reasons why Christian pastors or priests do not want you reading the Old Testament (Tanakh), as it disqualifies their mythical and pagan Hellenistic Satan.

Pike does allude to something correct in the second quote, in that a devil named Satan was invented by the Hellenists. Here, he writes that the Greek God Pan was used, but that was not correct for the devil’s origination and invention by the Hellenist Christians, as the devil or Satan originated from the Greek God, Hades, who the Greeks later started to call Pluto. What they used from Pan was the physical attributes of a goat-type figure.

Pike then states: “of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend”. Here, he is speaking of the protestants who think that the Latin word, lucifer, equates to Satan, when it most certainly does not and it never has. Also, those poets that he mentioned are those such as Dante Alighieri and John Milton, whose stories spread the fallacy that the Latin word, lucifer, meant Satan, such as Milton’s Paradise Lost, and Dante’s Inferno. Any priest or Rabbi will tell you that the word, lucifer, is Latin for the Morning Star, Son of the Morning, Venus, or Light-Bearer. If you have read my lucifer article, then you understand this fully well.

Quote three comes from the same page as quote two in Morals & Dogma, except look at what this lying author has done. He has tacked on a piece of text, from page 740, which has no relation to this first quoted text! The “most occult light” which is Ein Soph (Pike’s antiquated spelling as Ainsoph) , is God during the creation! This comes from the following texts on page 740:


Pike is incorrect, again. Ein Soph is not called light, as nobody knows what En Soph could possibly look like, in the all. The Zohar is the Book of the Light. Pike alludes to Genesis 1:3, when it says “let there be light”, which is the Big Bang or the moment of creation, from which the first light emanates from its “primal nucleus”. This light is only a small a part of Ein Soph, not the all, since Ein Soph means infinity. After all, there could have been no light, if it were not for Ein Soph being there beforehand. He mentions that Ein Soph is the occluded (most occult or hidden) light behind it, and that can’t be known. Ein Soph is the unknown, the I AM that I AM or the ALL, the creator of the universe, and the universe is part of Ein Soph itself, thus, the all of nature is part of God.

The Zohar nor Kabbalah state that YHVH reversed is satan, since they do not believe in an anti-God nor devil named Satan. Satan is always written in the Tanakh, as “ha-satan”, which in Hebrew means “the adversary,” and it can be anyone or anything! One occurrence has it as “satan”, and it was describing an army. Jesus called Peter a satan, a “stumbling block”, so let’s see if they can wiggle out of that! What is true, is that in Isaiah chapter 45, God states that he creates light and dark, good and evil, and that there is no other. A good instance of this is the book of Job, where “ha-satan” is an unnamed angel and adversary, who God commands to bring hardship down upon Job, to test him. Satan was not the angel’s name! See my article on Satan. What I can find, is that there is a name reversal mentioned in astrology, such as during Cancer, along with Capricorn and Leo, over the three times of the year in biblical history. It has absolutely nothing to do with any devil named Satan.(1)(2)

Below is what the Kabbalah Centre International website states on the subject at hand. You will see that what some call the satan, is within ones own mind, or the bad thoughts of it. Again, this mental “ha-satan” (the satan)  would be the mental adversary to us doing what is good and right. They state it plainly: “The literal translation of Satan is the “disturber” or in Hebrew, an “adversary” (it is not “the satan”, unless “ha” is written in front of it, thus it is ha-satan or “hstn” in untranslated Hebrew. The word, “stn” is satan in untranslated Hebrew. Satan was never the name of anything).”

Satan [adversary] is real, but not the Satan that we imagine—a devil flying around with a pitchfork. That is not Satan. The literal translation of Satan is the “disturber” or in Hebrew, the “adversary”. Satan is a negative force that we all have within us. It is a tool created by the Light to help us to grow, to overcome, to shine, and to become the unlimited soul that we are supposed to be in this world. One of the manifestations of that force called Satan is our ego. But it’s not just the ego. Every desire that is for ourselves alone, stems from that negative force. The code name for this selfish desire is Satan.

It is not something physical. It is within us, like the intelligence of the soul, which is the pure energy of sharing, giving, and trusting—an electric extension from the Creator. We have another intelligence within us, which was also created by the Light—it is the source of all selfishness, reactive feeling, egotistic behavior, jealously, sadness and depression, victim consciousness, and blame consciousness. It is the part within us that feels wronged whenever something does not go our way. [sic]

Did this idiot, who wrote Amazing Discoveries, not think that I nor another Freemason would not catch him in the act? I can not believe the audacity and the gall of this writer; to add words from a completely different page to another pages writing! (See image of proof, below). That takes a real lying, sniveling, vulgar, little gutter snipe, who has no morals, nor any truth in them, thus, I think I have proven my point about this quote. To understand what Ein Soph means, read my article on Who Is God?


This last Pike quote, is one of the easiest to shred to pieces, as I have already debunked this above, which was from Abel Clarin de la Rive’s book, Woman and Child in Universal Freemasonry, and is straight from the Taxil Hoax. The text of it is at the ninth block quote down. However, I will quote, below, De la Rive’s retraction in his magazine, Freemasonry Revealed, April 1897.

With frightening cynicism, the miserable person we shall not name here, [Taxil], declared before an assembly, especially convened for him, that for twelve years, he had prepared and carried out to the end, the most extraordinary and most sacrilegious of hoaxes. We have always been careful to publish special articles concerning Palladism and Diana Vaughan. We are now giving, in this issue, a complete list of these articles, which can now be considered as not having existed. [sic]

Leo Taxil admitted to the hoax, in Le Frondeur, a Parisian newspaper, April, 25, 1897, titled: Twelve Years Under the Banner of the Church, The Prank Of Palladism. Miss Diana Vaughan-The Devil At The Freemasons. A Conference held by M. Léo Taxil, at the Hall of the Geographic Society in Paris. AC de la Rive recanted his writing just after Taxil exposed the hoax. Later, Taxil is quoted giving his real reasons behind the hoax, in the ‘National Magazine, an Illustrated American Monthly’, Volume 24: April – September 1906:

“The public made me what I am; the arch-liar of the period,” confessed Taxil, “for when I first commenced to write against the Masons my object was amusement pure and simple. The crimes I laid at their door were so grotesque, so impossible, so widely exaggerated, I thought everybody would see the joke and give me credit for originating a new line of humor. But my readers wouldn’t have it so; they accepted my fables as gospel truth, and the more I lied for the purpose of showing that I lied, the more convinced became they that I was a paragon of veracity.

“Then it dawned upon me that there was lots of money in being a Munchausen of the right kind, and for twelve years I gave it to them hot and strong, but never too hot. When inditing such slush as the story of the devil snake who wrote prophecies on Diana’s back with the end of his tail, I sometimes said to myself: ‘Hold on, you are going too far,’ but I didn’t. My readers even took kindly to the yarn of the devil who, in order to marry a Mason, transformed himself into a crocodile, and, despite the masquerade, played the piano wonderfully well.

“One day when lecturing at Lille, I told my audience that I had just had an apparition of Nautilus, the most daring affront on human credulity I had so far risked. But my hearers never turned a hair. ‘Hear ye, the doctor has seen Nautulius,’ they said with admiring glances. Of course no one had a clear idea of who Nautilus was I didn’t myself but they assumed that he was a devil.

“Ah, the jolly evenings I spent with my fellow authors hatching out new plots, new, unheard of perversions of truth and logic, each trying to outdo the other in organized mystification. I thought I would kill myself laughing at some of the things proposed, but everything went; there is no limit to human stupidity.” [sic]

– Leo Taxil, National Magazine, 1906.

The last quote of this liars list, is from AE Waite, which is from the book titled, The Book Of Black Magic (Weiser Books, 2004), and was not about Freemasonry at all!

First Conjuration Addressed to Emperor Lucifer. Emperor Lucifer, Master and Prince of Rebellious Spirits, I adjure thee to leave thine abode, in whatsoever quarter of the world it may be situated and come hither to communicate with me…I command and adjure thee, Emperor Lucifer, as the representative of the mighty living God, and by the power of Emanuel, His only Son..

Yes, this is it, the AE Waite quote, which is from a book about Black Magic, and not about Freemasonry! Here is what that book contains: “The Secret Tradition in Goetia, including the rites and mysteries of Goetic therugy, sorcery and infernal necromancy. Completely illustrated with the original magical figures. Partial Contents: Antiquity of Magical Rituals; Rituals of Transcendental Magic; Composite Rituals; Key of Solomon; Lesser Key of Solomon; Rituals of Black Magic; Complete Grimoire; Preparation of the Operator; Initial Rites and Ceremonies; Descending Hierarchy; Mysteries of Goetic Theurgy; Mystery of the Sanctum Regnum; Method of Honorius.”  Honorius I was a pope in the Catholic Church, by the way.

This lying douche-bag website author will throw out anything, and claim that it is from Freemasonry! There is not one truthful bone in that websites author., has lost itself any and all credibility by outright lying and deceit, especially by mixing different texts into one quote, and claiming that they come from the same page, which is outright lying by omission and addition. One can tell that this slush was all cut and paste, where nothing was hand written, since the imbecile has “The devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry,” at the start of the second quote, instead of where it belonged, at the first of quote three, and then they tacked a purely deceitful bit of text on the end of quote three, from page 740. That is the most unethical work that I have ran across in some time. The worst thing, though, is that they claim to being Christians, but that no longer surprises me in the least. I know of televangelists, who were sentenced for tax fraud, who are more truthful than this. When a religious denomination has to rely on lies and deceit, then I want nothing to do with their brand of it.

So Mote It Be


  1. “Each one of the twelve months has a Tetragrammaton combination that is an indication of what Light is available and what the work of that month is. Cancer is the only month that literally has the Tetragrammaton backwards – Hei Vav Hei Yud. The kabbalists teach this indicates complete judgment; complete because you take what is meant to be right – the direct flow of the Light of the Creator – and you totally upend it and change it around. The work in the month of Cancer, therefore, is not to draw Light, but rather, to change darkness into Light, bitterness into sweetness. The work is to take the Hei Vav Hei Yud and turn it into Yud Hei Vav Hei”. See:
  2. Cancer, along with Capricorn and Leo, is one of the three “negative” months of the year. In Capricorn, the siege of Jerusalem began, in Cancer the walls around Jerusalem were penetrated, and in Leo the destruction of both Holy Temples in Jerusalem took place. Kabbalah teaches us that the course of history transpires as a result of the cyclical energy processes of the year rather than because of physical events. Therefore, by looking at the time at which each moment in history occurs, we can better understand why it happened. See:
  3. Kalush, William; Sloman, Larry (October 2006). The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America’s First Superhero. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-7207-0. Retrieved November 9, 2015
  4. Harry Houdini on conjuring, Encyclopædia Britannica.

5 comments on “Debunking Amazing Discoveries: Lucifer is the god of Freemasonry .

  1. E G Penny says:

    Excellent Article


  2. […] Source: Debunking Amazing Discoveries: Lucifer is the god of Freemasonry . […]


  3. Josh says:

    What do you think of this link?
    For the record Henry makow doesn’t think this play is about bullying because of one song:,_Don%27t!


    • Actually, Henry Makow and “Fraser Crain” are liars. In Freemasonry, our constitution states that we must observe the laws of the land, and Freemasonry must allow homosexuals into the US membership, even though a few States Grand Lodges have fought doing so. Obama is not a Freemason, in either the F&AM, AF&AM, nor Prince Hall, yet he signed the bill, but Freemasonry had nothing to do with it. However, Freemasonry must abide by the laws of the land, just as every other fraternity does. Nobody speaks of homosexuality in Freemasonry, and if someone is homosexual, then it is private to them. The Masonic Constitution does not ban homosexuals, and hasn’t since 1717.

      I had a Catholic friend, who told me that the idea of Freemasonry being homosexually oriented, originated from Freemasons giving the five points of fellowship. The Catholic church used it as propaganda, and called it the “fags dance”, thus it originated with them as propaganda. The five points are where a Freemason gives the secret of a Master Mason, and it is designed to look as if one is giving a one-armed hug to his brother Mason, while shaking hands, and whispering the secret to the other’s ear. There is nothing within Freemasonry, that even in the slightest bit, promotes homosexuality. I guess the Catholic church frowns upon shaking hands, and giving a one-armed hug to a brother? Anyhow, Freemasonry sees it as don’t ask don’t tell now, as it is never mentioned within the fraternity, and a brother would know better than to bring it up as politics, or try to push the agenda in a Lodge. There are homosexual Freemasons, (some came out), but it was never discussed, nor did they act unseemly within a Lodge. There’s some trouble in the southern US Lodges over it, but none in the northern.

      Henry Makow is also a bald face liar, when he states that the Ordo Templi Orientis or the Rosicrucian Order are a part of regular Freemasonry. They never have been, and they are as irregular as any organization can be. A Freemason can be expelled from the Lodge for attending one of their meetings. Crowley stated the OTO, and he was a member of an irregular French Lodge under the Grand Orient. When he tried to visit the United Grand Lodge of England, he was thrown out on his rear. Crowley started the OTO, because he could not be a regular Freemason, as everyone despised him. Crowley was an evil, sick, and sinister man, who regular Freemasonry wanted nothing to do with. You notice that they say that the OTO had the play.

      The Henry Makow website is bigoted in the worst sort of way, and the writers have no problem with lying about Freemasonry. You’ll notice that the article’s author wont use their real name either. I am a Freemason and a conservative, but I do not care if someone is a Homosexual, as long as they do not try to push their beliefs on me. It is their character that counts. I would venture to say, that the majority of the homosexuals are much better people, in character, than Henry and his fanatical bigoted flunkies ever could be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s