Jim Shaw Fan-Girl Rage

[creationliberty]

KAREN FROM COLORADO:
I appreciated your article on Billy Graham. However, you say you've never seen proof that Billy Graham is a freemason. I have a copy of Jim Shaw's "Deadly Deception." He was a 33rd degree mason, who repented and became a Christian. He states on pg. 104 that Billy Graham attended and participated in his 33rd degree initiation, however the publisher made him take out Graham's name. NOW it states "an internationally known evangelist."
That's called heresay, not proof. Normally, it may serve as an eye-witness account, but as you said, the publisher took the name out, or rather, he allowed the publisher to take the name out (because legally, a publisher cannot change the author's words without his/her permission), so it's heresay.
Additionally, I have a copy of Graham's name being listed as a member of two masonic lodges, but can't find it at the moment. Graham is also listed as a member on the inside flap of "The History of Freemasonry."  In his picture with Truman, he is also giving Truman the "Lion's Paw" hand on chest sign, signaling that he is a 33rd degree mason.
Again, claiming that Graham is a member of certain lodges, but then not knowing what those are, does not provide evidence. (i.e. I'm not going to take your word for it.)
I can tell you did not go to the suggested link I gave in my Graham article, namely to my teaching on Freemasons, to get more details because I addressed many of these points in there. Again, here is the link in case you missed it, and that will take you to the specific chapter where those points on Graham are located, as well as many other people falsely accused:
https://www.creationliberty.com/articles/religionmason.php#7
I am deeply disturbed by Joni Eareckson Tada's glorification of Graham upon his death, when she did a video in which she states "One of the greats has gone 'Home' to glory." I rebuked her on both her FB page on on her YT video--and she both spammed and blocked me. She is teaming up with Rick Warren in Proclaim19, and collaborated with Kay Warren on a devotional--Joni also endorsed the Catholic devotional "First Things." I could not be more disappointed with her. She teams up with false teachers, then blocks the voices of true Christians who rebuke her.  I recommend Shaw's book however--I downloaded it from internet.
I know of Jim Shaw. Him being a former 33rd degree Freemason does not prove that Billy Graham was, and if he changed things by his publisher's wishes (i.e. to make more money by not offending as many people), then he serves the money-god mammon and not the Christian God of the Bible, which means he shouldn't be trusted as an author.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
-Mat 6:24

Karen, as Christians, we ought not to handle information like this, meaning that we should not speak and teach on speculation and rumor; not to say we cannot discuss such things, but to insist (as you did) that they are true without proof is not only irresponsible, it tarnishes Christ's name. If you really want to believe Graham was a Freemason, go for it, I don't have a problem with that; I only have a problem with people teaching that it is a fact without proper evidence. In our church, we want to look past presuppositions and understand the truth, and in my ministry, I'm not going to teach things without the evidence to back it up; I explain why in the teaching on Freemasons, so I would highly encourage you to go look at that since you seem very passionate about this issue. I even go one step further and quote a man who had attained higher degrees in Freemasonry than 33rd (i.e. there are more than 33), and he even testified that Graham was not a Freemason, rather, Graham was a just a puppet.

I will maintain what I've said on our website because you haven't presented anything convincing in your letter. If you would like to discuss something else, let me know. Have a great day.
NEXT LETTER:
I disagree with you.  If you want to call what I said "hearsay," say it to God when you stand before Him in judgement. As I said, I SAW his name listed as a member of TWO Masonic lodges, AND I COPIED IT. It was taken down by the powerful BGEA. You seem quite prideful and sanctimomomious. 
You don't know what hearsay is? (I spelled it heresay, instead of hearsay--that's an old habit I need to break.) My apologies, I should not have assumed that you knew what it meant; based on your letter, you acted very much as if you were well-studied, so that's why I didn't bother to define the words I was using, and I should have been more careful.
hearsay: unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge; information heard by one person about another; hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in a court of law because it is based on the reports of others rather than on the personal knowledge of a witness
Now, I'm not saying that Shaw's testimony is hearsay; go back and read what I said. Shaw's testimony is an eye-witness account (as I stated in the last letter), but because he removed the name, and then assuming what you're claiming is true and he later said whose name it was, then his testimony is now unsure; we don't know if what he's saying is the truth, and therefore, your testimony of his account is hearsay. If he provided a public letter of apology for standing on pretense to increase sales, and then exposed the name in that letter, I'd be open to reading that, but if he hasn't, then he's not trustworthy because there is no repentance in his heart, which is something a Christian is supposed to have.
Is Repentance Part of Salvation?
If you want to believe him, as I said in the last letter, you are welcome to do so, but I will not teach those things until the evidence is verified by a more trustworthy source than a man who too afraid to state these things publically. I'm held accountable to the Living God, and so I'm going to use standards He would approve of; not Karen's personal standards--if you expected me to abide by your personal standards, then I'm sorry, you've come to the wrong place.

Concerning your accusations of pridefulness and sanctimonious: These are not just terms you throw out when you're upset; they mean something, and you'll have to answer for every idle word you speak.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
-Mat 12:36
Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.
-Ecc 5:2
The Biblical Understanding of Pride
For example, to seem sanctimonious would mean that one has an outward appearance of being sanctified (i.e. set apart from the world) in Christ, but is false. In a nutshell, you're accusing me of being a false preacher because I did not accept Shaw's testimony about an unnamed man who he later named. Do you seriously want to take that before the Judgment Throne of God and justify it?
I haven't spoken to you the way you've spoken to me, so, since you are obviously claiming that you are not prideful or sanctimonious (because that would make you a hypocrite), would you please explain how specifically (not vaguely) I seemed prideful and sanctimonious, and how you did NOT just speak to me pridefully and sanctimoniously in this letter?
I suggest you get off your soapbox and get on your knees before a Holy God who COMMANDS us to test and examine all men, and NOT to call people like Jim Shaw a liar.
Karen, could you explain how what you just said is not considered prideful and sanctimonious?
I didn't call Jim Shaw a liar, so don't falsely accuse me. Go back and read the letter. I'm saying he's not trustworthy because he's serves another master since he doesn't have enough faith in God to stand on the truth and bows to his publisher's will. Instead of asking me what would be considered reliable information on that point, you just decided to erupt in an emotional rage and falsely accuse me.
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
-Tts 2:3
Do you follow Christ, or do you follow Jim Shaw? If you follow Jim Shaw, then your letter is completely understandable because I have rebuked your master, but if you follow Christ, then your letter was railing accusation, which is displeasing in the sight of God.
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1Pe 3:9 
Karen, if I am all the things you claim that I am, then why not show me a better example if you are a child of God? If you don't wish to do that, then I'll make this simple: If you don't want to understand the truth of a matter, then our ministry and church is not the right place for you and you should find somewhere else to go, but I'm not going to return your railing accusations. It is my hope the Lord Jesus Christ blesses you and your family with all your needs throughout the coming week. Have a great day.
I never heard back from her again. It should be noted that, although I have heard of Joni Tada and Kay Warren, and know somewhat who they are, I know little about them or what they teach. The point is that Karen ASSUMED that I should know everything about them because I exposed Billy Graham, which is seems a little on the looney side. Why would you just start spouting out names as if I'm familiar with all these people? (i.e. She says she got something from a "BGEA," and I have no idea what that is, nor do I care; the assumptions are created based on her presupposed idea of my teachings.) My deduction is that she is likely a part of the conspiracy ministry crowd (i.e. most of which who are not of Christ), and follows them, which is why if you expose one person, you're assumed to be in "the know" with all the other easy-discernment (i.e. easy-to-identify) false preachers, and all those who would dare rebuke anyone in that conspiracy-ministry crowd are thrown to the lions.

[Jeanne]

I have to admit that I was disappointed to read here about Joni Earickson Tada, too. I read her first book back when I was in school about how she broke her neck in a diving accident when she was eleven years old and became a quadriplegic and then learned to draw by holding pens/pencils/paintbrushes in her mouth. She was/is a very talented artist.

I actually met her once when the youth group from the church I grew up in went on a Bob-Lo boat moonlight cruise up the Detroit River to Lake St Clair. The cruises used to be a regular event, but this was a special one where Joni was a featured guest.

Anyway, since Kay Warren is Rick Warren's wife, that should tell you all you need to know about what she believes and teaches

[Kenneth Winslow]

We used to buy Joni's christmas cards (beautiful, very high quality cards for only $1 each) until I understood that female angels with stork-like wings, that she drew herself, was satanic. She also uses new-age counterfeit bible versions.
She has always been loved by millions of people. That should have been a clue, but I was blind to those things at the time.   

[creationliberty]

Surprising update, Karen from Colorado finally, after about three months, found my email and decided to read it. I didn't remember much about it at first until she gave details. Here is the final exchange; judge the matter for yourself:
KAREN FROM COLORADO
I only just now came across your response to my comments about Billy Graham and Joni Eareckson Tada. 
If we talked about that, I don't currently remember anything about it.
It was interesting and significant that you ATTACKED ME for my supposed lack of proof in my criticisms--I have a copy of a letter written by the co-author of "Deadly Deception," Tom McKenny, CONFIRMING that Billy Graham was IN FACT the name of the "internationally known evangelist" on pg. 104, who participated in Shaw's 33rd degree initiation rites, and that the publisher made them remove Graham's name before publication.
Oh, now I remember. I'll have to go look it up on our forum because, if I remember right, I published your letter for all to see on our forum since you were very hateful and railing, and I did that because, usually, what people do is send me nasty letters from their wicked hearts like you did, and then don't bother to read my respond (i.e. they're wasting my time and efforts), like you did, so I publish them for other Christians to see so it exercises their discernment and increases their understanding. I'll go back to that letter and look it over briefly to refresh my memory...

Based on what I'm looking at in relation to what you just said, all you did was mostly repeat yourself, and again, you don't seem to understand what hearsay is; even though I gave you a definition and explained the problem of making accusations based on hearsay. McKenny's testimony of what someone else said is still hearsay. Let me change fonts to isolate this part:
For the sake of other readers, since I'll probably update the forum post for their sakes, I'll give a hypothetical example to try and help everyone understand the matter. Let's say there was some nasty rumor floating around that Karen was a prostitute, which we can charitably assume is probably not true. These nasty rumors were started by one of Karen's co-workers (who we will call "Jim"), but Jim never came out and said Karen was a prostitute directly, he only implied that he saw someone like Karen working as a prostitute, but sadly, Jim died in a car accident a few weeks ago, so we are unable to confirm if the rumors were true. However, one day, a friend of Karen's deceased co-worker (who we will call "Tom") came along and wrote a letter CONFIRMING (in all caps) that Jim told Tom that he saw Karen working as a prostitute; if we approach that scenario according to Karen's philosophy, then we would all have to accept that Karen is a prostitute because, according to Karen, that testimony about someone else's testimony is (all-caps) IN FACT "evidence" to her harlotry. On the other hand, if we approach the matter of evidence based on the philosophy of Scripture (and of courts of law not only in this country, but also under Old Testament Jewish courts of law at the commandments of God), as I have chosen to approach the matter, then "Tom" is writing nothing more than hearsay, and therefore, Tom's testimony is meaningless because we cannot gain any substantial evidence based on one person claiming that another person said something.
So Karen, either you refused to read my explanation in the last letter calmly and understand the matter, or you've just been blinded by rage. Either way, I can't reason with someone who won't listen; there's nothing more I can do.
(NOTE: You also didn't answer the questions I asked you in my last letter, which shows you're either not reading what I said, or you're refusing to answer my questions, both of which is simply wasting my time.)
I also have a copy of a letter written BY Graham TO psychic/medium Jeanne Dixon (one of MANY found upon her death, along with telegrams from him), calling her a "woman of God," and stating he quotes from her wicked book, "A Gift of Prophecy" in his sermons. He also states that the "Jeanne Dixon Special Receipt" was excellent, which was confirmation of the rumor that Graham received funding from the Catholics and Illuminati (Dixon was a Catholic).
Fantastic, and that's helpful information. I have no doubts that Graham was funded by the Catholic Church, I have no arguments against Graham being funded by Illuminati, nor do I have any objection that Graham may have praised and befriended witches, and I would go a step further and say he was probably befriended and funded by the Freemasons directly, but that doesn't provide evidence he was an official member of the Freemasons. You've only provided speculation and hearsay, which doesn't do anything, and if I ever get some tangible evidence in the future, I'll change my teaching.
You owe me an apology for your false accusations of ME, which seems to be acceptable to you, while Christians who obey Eph. 5:11 in exposing false teachers are judged by YOU.
Ma'am, I owe you nothing; I only owe the Lord Jesus Christ everything I have. I'm not going to lie in order to please your wicked heart. I cannot reason with a scornful woman, and as the Bible says, if you rebuke a scorner, she'll hate you, which is why you're hate and anger is so hot against me.
scorn (n): extreme contempt; that disdain which springs from a person's opinion of the meanness of an object, and a consciousness or belief of his own superiority or worth
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
-Pro 9:8
Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
-Pro 15:10
The problem is that you're a scorner and railer, lifted up in the pride of your heart, and I can't reason with someone like that.
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
-1Co 5:11-13
I've tried to explain the matter to you, and you don't want to hear, therefore, I have to move on peacefully, and you should do the same. Concerning the railing and false accusations you've made against me, God will judge between you and me in His own time, and I stand in good confidence with Him on this matter; I don't need or demand "apologies" from you. I would rather you to get right with God; because whether you get right with me or not won't matter on the Day of Judgment. If you don't want to understand what the problem is, and why you've acted far out of line to Scripture, then all I can say is that I pray the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and your family with all your needs throughout the the coming week. Have a great day.
Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
-1Pe 3:8-9
Just to be direct: I don't have any interest in communicating with you again unless you come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing). You can learn more about that here if you'd like:
Is Repentance Part of Salvation?
In short, she was just repeating herself, she didn't provide any of the information I was looking for, nor did she answer my questions from the previous letter, so I'm not wasting my time with her any longer.

[strangersmind]

If they have this proof why not just send you a copy of it? She had 3 months to look for it. It really don't matter if billy was a 33rd degree Masson. It is not going to change that he is not of god.

[creationliberty]

Of course, you do make a good point, that we're all in agreement that he's not of Christ one way or another, but the problem is that these people worship men, like those authors. They believe they are infallible, and they worship those men, rather than God. They have a vested interested in those authors because of the conspiracy ministry movement, and if one thing is wrong in the conspiracy ministry movement, then they have to question anything and everything because they refuse put their trust solely in the Living God.

[strangersmind]

Ya I have seen a lot of that too where they liston to some one and it becomes evidence even tho they never show proof. I was once all into the conspiracy theories, that was in tell some men put me in my place and god open my eyes to see the truth. Like 9 11 or cem trails, they make more sense then bombs and poison. I am working on a post about that it won't be about some conspiracy men in black type stuff but rather what they told me and the science behind it. I don't no if you will ever do a article on them

[Nate]

I can tell everyone here with complete confidence that Jim Shaw was a liar and his book The Deadly Deception cannot be trusted. Masonic authorities proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jim Shaw lied about receiving the 33rd degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry and other things. This is not to say that there aren't serious problems with Freemasonry, but you can't criticize an organization like the Masons with lies and no proof. Of you want to know about Freemasonry I suggest two books- Darkness Visible by Walton Hannah and Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry. Those books are filled with facts, but be warned- neither book was written by a Christian. Hannah was a Roman Catholic and the other book was written by Masons Brent Morris and Art de Hoyos, but are fact filled. I've studied Freemasonry deeper than many others care to go. You'd be surprised who lies about Masonic things and who tells the truth!

[creationliberty]

I have a book too: Freemasonry: A Luciferian Beacon
In case anyone didn't know about it. You're probably not going to find people here who are interested in reading from authors who are not of Christ, since they would have no discernment of spiritual matters.

[Nate]

Oh cool. Thanks Chris.
As a student of history I still recommend books that contain matters of fact, as Christian people should be able to have discernment to ignore any humanistic philosophy they may contain. But you're right, these authors have nothing to offer that's any good spiritually speaking

[Nate]

Reading through your book I notice you've done some good research. Very thorough, and you're completely right about all the solar worship connections- Ezekiel 8!!!

There is also a short tract that's good at stating almost everything wrong with Masonry in one tract titled The Plain Truth About the Lodge by Melton at Bible Baptist Publications.org A good summary for those who don't have time to read a whole book on the subject
Come to think of it, anyone who just reads Ezekiel chapter 8 already has access to every Masonic secret!