# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1904_S39
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

of the Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. 1904. 39

religious tendency, they are, from the Freemason to the Hermannssohn [Son of Hermann], Deists and represent a religious tendency, and indeed an anti-Christian one.

But to operate against the lodges from this point of view may be carried on with success against the Freemasons, Odd Fellows and some others, but will be very difficult and unsuccessful with many other lodges and in many cases. The fact of the presence of deistic views, if they are not directly expressed, will never be conceded by the opponent, but will always be denied when the struggle over the right to exist is carried on. One will often not get at the individual lodge member with it, and he will decisively protest against its being said that religion is practiced in his lodge. But this no one can reject — which of course comes to the same thing — that the lodges are institutes of moral education that teach, demand and practice morality and attach their promises to it and therefore turn their backs on Christianity and Christ, indeed declare enmity. Such practicing of morality is natural religion as opposed to the revealed true Christian religion. —

So far the statements of the essayist. In the course of the debate the following remarks were further made:

We should emphasize the contrast, that the Masonic lodge to this very day has the purpose of replacing and abolishing the church. This is important because in the struggle against the lodges only the pointing to their religious side really decides the matter. They all together teach a religion other than the religion of Christ, indeed a religion without Christ. They teach a way to heaven that leads past Christ.

We must not let ourselves be drawn into the claim of individual lodge members that the evidence we have produced about the nature of the lodges does not correspond to the truth. If they want to hold to this assertion, we may demand of them that they furnish the proof. If they do not do so, we must stay with what we have before our eyes. One must not let oneself be confounded when the lodge members assert that the publications of their rituals, etc., which lie before us are spurious, since we have credible testimony that the reprints we possess agree completely with the genuine books.

That the individual lodges perhaps do not do certain things that the league otherwise carries on does not excuse the individual lodge. One rightly judges the individual lodge by what the lodge as a whole carries on and wants. So it is also with individual lodge members. If such a member is perhaps even more loosely connected with the lodge than others, that finally makes no difference.

The general principles have never been revoked by the lodges and will always remain acknowledged. Any changes in the