"Those who write for lucre or
fame are grosser Iscariots than the cartel robbers, for they steal the genius of the
people, which is its will to resist evil."
Co-Author - "The Deadly Deception"
For several years, Jim Shaw's book, "The Deadly Deception", lay in dusty corners unknown and unacknowledged. Then, with the rush to find 'dirt' by online anti-Masons, it was given a LOT of attention by those who want to 'prove' how evil Masonry 'really' is! Passages and claims were repeated by many who had never read the book but were happy to repeat things.
Jim Shaw was indeed a Mason and was active in the Scottish Rite bodies of Florida. He became a Mason in 1945 and demitted (requested that he be removed from active membership) in 1966. Despite the claims made in his book, he was NOT the Master of a Masonic lodge nor did he ever receive the honorary 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite.
No Mason would have qualms with a decision by Jim Shaw to leave Masonry. What Masons do find objectionable are the distortions and lies used to 'justify' it! Those who may believe that the inaccuracies in this book are the work of others, may find this site of interest.
One Lies - The Other Swears To It
Using an old saw, we noted an interesting support for Shaw's book on Larry Kunk's Ephesians 5:11 site where Mr. Kunk asserts that Masonry has launched attacks against Tom McKenney as the primary author so as to discredit his further books. Mr. Kunk's page says,
"The methodology utilized by the Lodge to "deal with" The Deadly Deception utilizes ad hominem arguments. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, such arguments are "To the man; appealing to personal interests, prejudices, or emotions rather than to reason."
This argument is particularly interesting in light of the common use of this exact same tactic by anti-Mason Ken Mitchell ("Another Mason; another lie.") and so many other anti-Masons. Kunk's page continues,
"An example of such an argument would be to declare that so-and-so "is an adulterer; we should not consider anything he would say, in a spiritual context, as having merit." We can see that such an argument would be invalid because it attacks the man, rather than the issue. Consider David: he was an adulterer and a murderer. Yet, the book of Psalms is in God's word, the Holy Bible. In the case of The Deadly Deception, Freemasonry has not taken legitimate issue with the accuracy of ritual or teachings of Freemasonry which are exposed in it, or the fact that the ritual and teachings are incompatible with a sincere expression of Christianity. Rather they have attacked the person of Jim Shaw. Jim Shaw is not the issue. Freemasonry is the issue."
This circular reasoning makes one think that Mr. Kunk supports the lies of these authors and that 'the end justifies the means'!
Beyond that, we must wonder why Mr. Kunk would think that a modern-day adulterer (not someone of the Bible like David) would be so callous in disregarding the injunctions of the Bible but yet merit the support of the religious community and be acknowledged as having moral authority to speak in a spiritual context. A bit contradictory, we'd opine.... Apparently Mr. Kunk must feel that those such as Jimmy Swaggart can still speak with authority on moral issues.
Kunk's argument also ignores the fact that if Mr. Shaw was wrong (some would say "lied") about his very own personal Masonic activities then isn't it quite possible that he's also wrong (lied?) about the "accuracy of the ritual and teachings" alluded to by Mr. Kunk? Are we expected to defend the claims of a proven liar just because Mr. Kunk wants to ignore the facts? While being an adulterer may be meaningless to Mr. Kunk and his skewed morality, we'd submit that being a liar certainly DOES matter when it comes to issues of credibility - and all of Shaw's claims are built on his assertions that he was there and that these things happened to HIM!
Shaw asserts that Masons were involved in alcohol abuse, pay-for-prestige degrees, and so much more. His assertions are based on HIS supposed personal involvement. Yet it is provable that he never, ever was involved in the things he claims. How can ANYONE, then, be so absurd as to agree with the claims of a liar?
Pretty intriguing: there are provable facts that Shaw lied but, discounting that, Duane finds what Shaw wrote 'rings true'.... Does any of this make sense in the world where people look at facts rather than lies which support their hatred?
You can also read some comments about Mr. Shaw's co-author, LTC Tom McKenney, USMC (Ret.) who seems a bit attracted by liars. Our comments on that are found here.
Just click on "Prince, the Search Dog" to find things on our site. He's 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!
This site and its contents are © (copyright) 1998-2014 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