Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?
Art deHoyos & S. Brent Morris
Looking for a book to give a friend or neighbor who's somewhat pessimistic about Freemasonry or who has questions that you just can't seem to answer? Give them a copy of this book. It - along with 'A Pilgrim's Path' will help them to understand that this organization you belong to really isn't out worshipping Satan on Tuesday nights nor does it have plans for world domination next week.
Now in its second edition and frequently cited in response to the anti-Masonic faction, the authors have provided extensive and detailed information (including copies of documentation) to refute charges made by many of those who are currently active against Freemasonry. In one section, this book shows in extensive detail the lies of Jim Shaw, often quoted based on his claims as a 33rd Degree Mason (which he was not). It talks too about the foolishness of some online anti-Masons like the ever-persistent Ken Mitchell (JOKEN to many of those who began on usenet in the late 1990s).
It's far more than just picking apart a couple of folks. It's a hard-hitting rebuttal of many claims made by those who would destroy Freemasonry. We could wax poetic about this book for several more paragraphs but suffice it to say, if you want facts, this is the book. We feel that it's a must read for any Mason! If you're one of those folks who wants to read online, head here and it's fully available to you.
Very Highly Recommended!
Just click on "Prince, the Search Dog" to find things on our site. He's here on every page and he'll take you directly to our search form where you can see if we've written about whatever it is you're interested in. Prince has a great memory; he always remembers where things are! We also encourage you to use our Site Map and Contents Page for a full overview of the many things you'll find here.
This site and its contents are © (copyright) 1998-2012 by Edward L. King (Ed King). All rights reserved. All comments and opinions are mine personally.
Got some thoughts or reactions?
We'd be interested in your comments - within reason of