Testimony of Duane Washum, Past Worshipful Master

Duane Washum has at least two testimonies that can be found on the internet. I will try to correlate these two testimonies and present answers to them.

Duane Washum writes, "My first questioning of Freemasonry was in regard to the obligation I took when I was initiated." Why didn't Duane stop and ask? Why was he willing to deceive the men who were present at his initiation?

Duane Washum continues, "My next moment of confusion came when I was Junior Steward. A member was in the habit of talking during lodge meetings. This was disruptive but not a big problem. What was a problem, I thought, was his use of God's name in vain. One evening this terminology was used four or five times in a short period. I later told him that if he used those words in the Lodge room again, I was going to file Masonic charges against him. The reaction of the members who overheard was very confusing. Some approached me and mildly chastised me for the way I had approached him. But it was the reaction of the majority of the members that caught me off guard. They reminded me that he is a Past Master, and a Grand Lodge Officer. He was not wrong in using God's name in vain. Rather, I had affronted a Past Master and a Grand Lodge Officer."

First of all, the Past Master was wrong for his use of language and disrupting the meeting no matter his rank. This should never happen in a Lodge meeting.

Secondly, Mr. Washum was wrong in how he handled the situation. (It appears that Mr. Washum was rude and disruptive himself, to bring attention to himself and the situation. But, this just shows the true character of Mr. Washum.) One of the lessons we are taught in Freemasonry is to "whisper good counsel" in a brother's ear. What is apparent is, Mr. Washum directly confronted the Past Master. Notice the difference between Duane Washum and the other Masons. Duane Washum was confrontational, while the other Masons "approached me and mildly chastised me for the way I had approached him." Notice, too, what he says, he was mildly chastised for the way hi approached the Past Master, not that his objection was wrong. He was wrong for being confrontational.

The statement that Mr. Washum makes that the majority of Masons present would suggest that "he [the Past Master] was not wrong in using God's name in vain," I find very hard to believe. In fact, I do not believe it.

Duane Washum writes, "At first I did not notice that none of the prayers are in the name of Jesus Christ." When did Mr. Washum first realized this? How could he have overlooked it from the beginning? How observant was he?   Mr. Washum testifies, "Being a Chaplain, saying grace for a meal was my duty. Since there is no specified prayer, the prayer was my own, and I prayed in the name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I was soon told that we never pray in the name of Jesus Christ for it would be offensive to our Jewish members I then became aware that there is no mention of Jesus Christ in any of the prayers or in the ritual book."

Mr. Washum writes, "A proposed major undertaking that would involve a great deal of money was made into a motion and defeated, much to the dissatisfaction of the Master. Without notice, it was brought up again, this time in a stacked meeting. The motion passed, I made an objection to the Master and told him that what he was doing prostituted the dignity of his office. I found myself 'wrong,' because the Worshipful Master is always right."

Mr. Washum continues, "Both of my confrontations began to consume my thoughts." [Notice how everything with Mr. Washum is confrontational when he does not get his way. As we have seen above, the other Masons were not confrontational when they approached him. In fact, according to his own words, "they mildly chastised me." This statement about being confrontational speaks volumes about Mr. Washum's character, it does not appear to be very Christ-like, does it? JR]. Mr. Washum continues, "I was morally right, but I was made to feel that I was wrong." [No, Mr. Washum, you were just plain rude. Again, this speakes volumes about your character. JR] Apparently, this confrontation was during a Lodge meeting, because he stated, "By opposing the Worshipful Master I was in the eyes of some, committing blasphemy!" [This is Mr. Washum's opinion, not fact. The use of the term "blasphemy" is meant to prejudice the Christian reader against Freemasonry. We see here that Mr. Washum is willing to say anything to get his way. JR]

Mr. Washum writes, "I soon found myself questioning things, including my title. Was I really a Worshipful Master? By whose authority? I never considered myself to be a master over anybody, and I certainly wasn't worshipful?"

Since, Mr. Washum was "questioning things," why didn't he look these terms up in a dictionary? If, he did, it shows us two aspects about his character. The two terms are: "master" and "worshipful." First, he is incapable of understanding what he reads. Second, if, he is capable of understanding what he reads, then it shows him to be obstinate. The definition of these two terms are clearly found in any good dictionary. But, they are contrary to Mr. Washum's opinion and the purpose of his testimony, which is to mislead the Christian reader.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "master" as: "1a. a (1) male teacher (2) a person holding an academic degree higher than a bachelor's but lower than a doctor's. b. an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill. (2) a great figure of the past (as in science or art) whose work serves as a model or ideal. 2a. one having authority over another: ruler, governor. 4a. a presiding officer in an institution or society."

Encarta World English Dictionary defines "master" as: "1. Boss, 2. somebody highly skilled, 3. somebody in control, 4. skilled worker: somebody who is highly skilled in a trade or craft and qualified to teach apprentices, 5. player at high level: of excellence in some games, especially chess or bridge, 6. a leader."

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "worshipful" as "a. notable, distinguished. b. chiefly British -- used as a title for various persons or groups of rank or distinction."

There is one statement that I completely agree with. That statement by Duane Washum is, "I certainly wasn't worshipful." I agree with you Mr. Washum, becasue he has shown himself to be rude and confrontational.   Mr. Washum writes, "I remember how, after becoming a Mason, I had mentioned it to a man in my church. He said, 'So you joined the Masonic cult'."

Is Freemasonry a cult?
Mr. Washum uses "cult" in order to sway his readers to believe what he writes and to prejudice the Christian reader against Freemasonry. He claims Freemasonry is a cult without defining it. He also fails to give reasons why Freemasonry is a cult.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "cult" as: "1: Formal religious veneration: worship. 2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents."

Does Freemasonry have a "formal religious veneration: worship?" The answer is "no, we do not." We do have our rituals, but our rituals are not a "formal religious veneration." Masonic ritual is not a religious service.

Does Freemasonry have "a system of religious beliefs?" The answer to this question is "no." Freemasonry teaches a man to search his own religion for "a system of religious beliefs."

Secondly, Masonic ritual can in no way be construed as a religious ceremony.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition defines "cult" as: "1a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader."

Freemasonry is a fraternity and not a religion, therefore, the first part of the definition is not applicable. Secondly, Freemasons do not live "in an unconventional manner." Thirdly, there is no one "authoritarian, charismatic leader" of Freemasonry.

Another definition of "cult" is "an elite group: a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective." (Encarta)
Freemasonry is made up of millions of men, throughout the world, with different beliefs and belonging to different religions. Freemasons come from all walks of life and different political parties. Freemasonry can hardly be defined as a group of men who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective. There is a group of people who come closer to this definition, that group is the professional anti-Mason, such as Ex-Masons for Jesus and Ephesians 5:11 Inc.   Mr. Washum writes, "The next two weeks found me in extreme turmoil. I would think about the discussions with my Christian friend but then I would read from my Masonic Bible." Here again, we see that Duane Washum is trying to prejudice the reader without giving the facts by using the term "Masonic Bible." There is no such thing as a "Masonic Bible." The chances are, Mr. Washum was reading a King James Version of the Bible, with a few pages added in the front which explains some of the legends from the Masonic ritual and the Scriptural references that inspired those who wrote them.

Mr. Washum writes, "Finally, I went to my knees and once again asked the Lord to show me the truth. It roared across my mind. 'Blood Oath.' I recalled my uneasiness with the oath of secrecy, and Jesus' admonition to 'make no oath at all' (Mat. 5:34)." Is Mr. Washum correct in his interpretation of Matthew 5:34?


August 6, 2007