A question for Masonic Light and other Masons

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Hate to be a bastard, but he was Mulatto..

And reading about the Masonic Hall he formed, all I find in its history is that once he died, the Lodge was basically ex-communicated for two generations, although its warrant was as valid as any other.

They were finally let back into Masonry proper only a decade ago, and it was cited as 'lack of dues payed'. Wow, petty.

And so if there were (MANY PROMINENT) Masons on both sides of the Civil War, how come they didn't help things come to a Brotherly agreement?

Unfortunately, there is one similarity between Masonry and the KKK at that time, that is people meeting in a group with a slight superiority complex.




posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Hate to be a bastard, but he was Mulatto..

They were finally let back into Masonry proper only a decade ago, and it was cited as 'lack of dues payed'. Wow, petty.


Now you're really reaching. He was a Mulatto? Were the other 14 guys Mulattoes as well? And were Mulattoes treated as white men back then by society in general? And why call it the African Lodge? Please. Argue on a technicality if you like, but at least try to make it a relevant one.

As for being expelled for "lack of dues"? It might seem petty, but then only to those who have no understanding of finance. Even today, Freemasons are demitted from the Order for not paying dues. If they can't pay because they have no money, that's not a problem, the money is found for them. But if they refuse to pay for another reason they are demitted. Unfortunately Freemasonry has to pay it's way in this world just like anything else.
I find the fact that you use the refusal to pay fees as a "petty" reason for being demitted as ridiculous. Go anywhere, do anything that requires funds and refuse to pay and you will either be thrown out or thrown in jail. Maybe you sneak into the cinema for free and think that is your right, but the rest of us have to pay because we accept that somebody has to pay for the upkeep of the theatre and pay the staff's wages.

Superiority complex? Only when beating down liars with truth.





[edit on 8-2-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Leveller, what do you want me to say?

I find the fact that his 'lineage' is not known for sure to be intriguing.
It does point to an English nobleman, however.

After 'the Mulatto' died, his lodge of African-American Masons were effectively ex-communicated (under the excuse that their jurisdiction was already covered, although their warrant was just as valid).

That was when it became African Lodge No. 1, and although they tried communicating with other lodges, there was no reply.

As for their dues, they claim to have given the payment to a sea captain (as was custom), and claim it must have gone undelivered.

I'm not the one implying Racism, history speaks for itself. I am only indicating that a large gathering of exclusively white people in the Deep South might be mistaken for the KKK.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The problem that we have here is that you leap to one unfounded generalisation after another. But if you want to bound from subject to subject without answering any of the replies to your accusations, let's try to at least get those sidetracking accusations correct shall we?
Prince Hall's background is relatively unknown as you claim. To claim that he is descended from a white nobleman is mere unfounded conjecture. Why you would find the fact that historians have trouble pinpointing his exact family history "intriguing" is in itself yet another example of ignorance regarding the subject. Maybe you should try reading "Roots" by Alex Hailey? In it he explains the difficulties that he had tracing his family's history through the slave era.

You also claim that Africa Lodge sprang up after it was demitted and after Prince Hall died. This is blatantly not true.

"On March 2, 1784, African Lodge #1 petitioned the Grand Lodge of England, the Premier or Mother Grand Lodge of the world, for a warrant (or charter), to organize a regular masonic lodge, with all the rights and privileges thereunto prescribed.
The Grand Lodge of England issued a charter on September 29, 1784 to African Lodge #459, the first lodge of Blacks in America."

Prince Hall didn't die until 1807.

Maybe you should read the words of the Prince Hall Freemasons themselves.

www.princehall.org...

Now I don't pretend for one minute that there were no rascists within Freemasonry back in the 1700s or 1800s. But to single out one organisation when the whole of society back then was riddled with it is not exactly being truthful is it? You may as well condemn every single white person in the Southern states. Not only that, but your argument is that Freemasonry is a racist organisation also doesn't take into account the fact that Freemasonry is a worldwide fraternity and was present in non-European countries long before it arrived in America - the West Indies and India just two examples.
Any large gathering of any group of white people in the deep South could be interpreted the same way by using your argument, so yet again you've really made a bit of sneaky generalisation. One could just as well claim that a church congregation was the creating force behind the Klan. After all, this is a large group of people gathering together and could be just as guilty according to your logic.

I asked for specifics. I've supplied some for you, so now be kind enough to supply them in return.
Please supply evidence that Albert Pike founded the Klu Klux Klan and that Freemasonry was involved in promoting that organisation.
Don't leap to another subject to cover your tracks. Don't hide behind another insinuation. Just supply some facts.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I wasn't talking about the man Prince Hall, I was talking about the Prince Hall Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite. If you read the link I gave, it details Pike's relationship with Thornton Jackson, the Grand Commander of the PH Supreme Council.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
A quick search of the kkk site (www.kkk.com) doesn't reference Pike or Masonry or anything of the like....You'd think that if these things were involved with the foundation of an organization they'd be touting that bit of history on their site.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Pure genius: You'd think that if these things were involved with the foundation of an organization they'd be touting that bit of history on their site.


Umm, is that presuming the KKK founded Masonry?

Lets move on to cases of Masons turning in other Masons for gross misconduct, you know, like if you knew your fellow Mason cheated on his taxes.

Or maybe even a Mason who knew another that had cheated on his wife... Where do such things stand in the Noble Eyes of Freemasonry?

"You cannot awake those who pretend to sleep."



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles

Lets move on to cases of Masons turning in other Masons for gross misconduct, you know, like if you knew your fellow Mason cheated on his taxes.




No. Let's not move on. I stated that you would try to change the subject and generlise again and that's exactly what you have done. Return to the claim that you keep making and justify it. We can move on when you have shown that you have any sort of credibility.

Supply the proof you were asked for.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I wasn't the one who claimed Pike single-handedly started and run the clan. Whoever did so, did so clandestinely, and for me, that speaks louder than anything.

I mean, can we even agree on what the point of the Klan was? No.
You would say that it was strictly a racist group, while I would contend it was created as a diversion, as part of a larger plot.

Oh, but that would require legal documents for me to prove.

The fact that no one benefitted OBVIOUSLY from the existence of the KKK is what suggests there was an underlying benefit....



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
I mean, can we even agree on what the point of the Klan was? No.
You would say that it was strictly a racist group, while I would contend it was created as a diversion, as part of a larger plot.

Oh, but that would require legal documents for me to prove.


Nope, I totally agree with you that it wasn't started as merely a racist group. Although it certainly contained major elements of racism and did carry out racist attacks and block civil rights for blacks, it's main purpose was to oppose Federal Reconstruction policy in nearly every area.
Because slavery was a way of life in Southern USA it seems only natural that this would be one of the areas that it would defend and because it's such an emotive subject it's also the one that is mainly concentrated upon when the Klan is discussed.
The Klan was a political replacement for a defeated Confederate army. It's members had been beaten on the battle field so they decided to create a group to fight on the political front. Gaining no ground on this front they gradually reverted to guerilla warfare.

But one should also remember that the original Klan was disbanded in 1869 when it's leader recognised that it's political purpose had been overtaken by violence and then it was crushed by the Federalists in 1871. It didn't appear in it's present form until the 1920s.
Nobody benefitted from the original Klan because it was a complete failure.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Lets move on to cases of Masons turning in other Masons for gross misconduct, you know, like if you knew your fellow Mason cheated on his taxes.

Or maybe even a Mason who knew another that had cheated on his wife... Where do such things stand in the Noble Eyes of Freemasonry?


If a mason's conduct in society is questioned and agreed upon that it reflects negatively on the fraternity, that member will be expelled from Freemasonry. This has happened on numerous occasions (and is probably to blame for some of the disgruntled ex-masons you hear whining every now and then).



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
sebatwerk, leveller, and masonic light:

Far be it from me to tell you three, esteemed colleagues all, whom they can and cannot discuss items with. However, you may notice that when I realize that a poster here is, in addition to being a vicious bigot, a plain-and simple troll, I usually put the fool on ignore.

You, of course, are free to do what you choose, and, on a personal note, I consider all three of you to be Way Above Top Secret.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Pure genius: You'd think that if these things were involved with the foundation of an organization they'd be touting that bit of history on their site.


Umm, is that presuming the KKK founded Masonry?


Absolutely not. I was just showing to those who try to make the link with Pike/Masonry to the kkk, that even on the kkk website there are no metion of Pike or Masonry. The link just does not exist.

I never stated that it was you who made that accusation. Many have made it, some even in this thread.

But I must ask how you managed to think that I was presuming that the kkk founded Masonry?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
When you said 'these things' I thought you meant the 'beasts of the KKK' not the 'baseless accusations against the Great Brotherhood'.

So " 'these things' proclaiming their involvement with the foundation of this organization" only made any amount of sense assuming the KKK founded Masonry.

Freemasonry didn't kick out Aleister Crowley, did he enhance your image as being more open-minded? No details on him being ex-communicated but not officially kicked out please.

Again, if how the member reflects on the group is a consideration, wouldn't it be feasible that the membership of some would NOT be disclosed??? Or that they would not officially join Masonry, but one of its many sub-groups? *cough Bill Clinton cough*



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Freemasonry didn't kick out Aleister Crowley, did he enhance your image as being more open-minded? No details on him being ex-communicated but not officially kicked out please.


Crowley wasn't "kicked out" of Freemasonry.
He was never even accepted in the first place.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles


So " 'these things' proclaiming their involvement with the foundation of this organization" only made any amount of sense assuming the KKK founded Masonry.


The KKK founded Masonry? You're kidding, right? The oldest Masonic document, the Regius Manuscript, is dated circa early 14th century England. The KKK was founded by US Civil War veterans in the 1860's.


Freemasonry didn't kick out Aleister Crowley, did he enhance your image as being more open-minded? No details on him being ex-communicated but not officially kicked out please.


There's no such thing as "excommunication" in Freemasonry. There is "expulsion", which is the same as being "kicked out".

Aleister Crowley was never a member of regular Masonry; therefore he could not of course be kicked out.

Crowley was a member of a clandestine Lodge in France. They could have kicked him out if they wanted to, I suppose, but I don't think they had any reason to. Just because Crowley enjoyed shocking the prudes of his day is no reason to kick him out, I don't think.


Again, if how the member reflects on the group is a consideration, wouldn't it be feasible that the membership of some would NOT be disclosed???


No. If a member of Freemasonry reflects badly on the Fraternity, he is required to give an account of himself, and faces Masonic punishment up to and including expulsion. Masons do not hide their Masonic membership; in fact, we're quite proud of it.


Or that they would not officially join Masonry, but one of its many sub-groups? *cough Bill Clinton cough*


President Clinton, whose father was a Mason, joined the DeMolay Society when he was 14; he describes his experience with DeMolay in his autobiography. DeMolay is not Masonry, nor a subgroup of it; it is a club founded by American Masons for their sons, but is entirely an US phenomenon and has nothing to do with Ancient Craft Masonry.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I love Revisionist History as much as the next guy, but are you suggesting the Devil himself gave the rituals for his group to him?

Cuz it wasn't God that he got his inspiration from.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
I love Revisionist History as much as the next guy, but are you suggesting the Devil himself gave the rituals for his group to him?


Are you admitting that you are an idiot? I don't even see the merest suggestion for the above quote in any of ML's statement.

It seems to me that you actually prefer Revisionist History, dude. You seem to show a blatant enough disregard for the authentic version.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
I love Revisionist History as much as the next guy, but are you suggesting the Devil himself gave the rituals for his group to him?

Cuz it wasn't God that he got his inspiration from.


Pardon my blatant ignorance, but what the hell are you talking about?



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Look at the post times, Brothers. You were quicker by a few seconds, and I was responding not to ML, but to Leveller.

So Crowley got his initiation from an irregular Lodge.

Big deal. The important thing is that an Occult figure was drawn to the teachings of Masonry. Came to the light, so to speak. And then went on to use these teachings to spreading false truths.

ML, did you know Clinton's father? Was he a good man?

I'm guessing an apology is due? Or am I wrong?





top topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join