I left Freemasonry in 2016, and I am happy to discuss the subject.

originally posted by: KSigMason
a reply to: AMPTAH
You're taking a quote out of context and looking very stupid.

When someone is admittedly 'average' we need to take the extra time to explain the finer points several times as their ability to grasp the facts might not be as developed as others. It's the right thing to do and I'm personally prepared to explain this to him until it finally penetrates his cranium.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: KSigMason
a reply to: AMPTAH
You're taking a quote out of context and looking very stupid.

When someone is admittedly 'average' we need to take the extra time to explain the finer points several times as their ability to grasp the facts might not be as developed as others. It's the right thing to do and I'm personally prepared to explain this to him until it finally penetrates his cranium.

That's the problem, isn't it? I'm way too average to become a mason. There's no question, that with my 'average' intelligence, I would easily be "hoodwinked" into following any scheme the fellow brothers told me was the "right thing" to do. And knowing that these masons do love their "pranks", I'd be certain to fall foul of very many of them.

Gee, if they can get me to accept the doctrine that disregarding a Landmark of masonry is no problem for a Grand Master, and that doesn't mean that there's any change in the "Regular" status of his lodge, then, man, I could be told anything once I got there, for they can always retort that "the context" made the situation "special" and "exempted the rules" in this particular instance.

It is good, that I am not a candidate, for this, to my average intellect, is just confusion.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
That's the problem, isn't it? I'm way too average to become a mason.

Maybe, but I think the problem is you're well above average with your religion, it would interfere with your having fun outside of the sermons you continually advocate.

There's no question, that with my 'average' intelligence, I would easily be "hoodwinked" into following any scheme the fellow brothers told me was the "right thing" to do. And knowing that these masons do love their "pranks", I'd be certain to fall foul of very many of them.

No doubt if you joined my lodge I'd have you looking from the cans of dehydrated water and knowing you, you'd be looking for them.

Gee, if they can get me to accept the doctrine that disregarding a Landmark of masonry is no problem for a Grand Master, and that doesn't mean that there's any change in the "Regular" status of his lodge, then, man, I could be told anything once I got there, for they can always retort that "the context" made the situation "special" and "exempted the rules" in this particular instance.

It's okay, average people typically got lost on subtleties and nuances.

It is good, that I am not a candidate, for this, to my average intellect, is just confusion.

We are in wholehearted agreement.

a reply to: AMPTAH

May I ask, what is your opinion about Female and African American politicians in the U.S.? Does their participation and inclusion nullify the foundational and traditional precepts of U.S. democracy? After all, the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Constitution does not encourage such inclusion, therefore, according to your reasoning, we should be eradicating Women and African Americans from political participation.

a reply to: AMPTAH

With no challenge or disrespect intended to the Brothers of the UGLE, U.S. Grand Lodges, Prince Hall Freemasonry, or their Recognized affiliates...

AMPTAH, did you know that Freemasonry and Lodges of mutual amity were in existence prior to the structured lists of Landmarks? The direct forbearers of our Freemasonic traditions did not rely on the lists that you have provided as a means or method of proving a Freemason.

As the founders of Speculative, Grand Lodge, and Grand Orient Freemasonry did not determine true Freemasons by your reasonings; I fully reject your judgement of who is or is not a true Freemason, or what you constitute as true Freemasonry.

Just feel like I need to say that this whole Q&A is extremely anecdotal, and your reasons for leaving (and therefore I assume joining) seem a bit superficial. You "ran out of things to do" and exhausted all of the degrees? In what kind of time span? Did you just blow through the Scottish Rite in a weekend?

How well versed are you with the complete works of Pike, Mackey, Manly Palmer Hall, etc.? What about visiting lodges in other states, other countries?

There is also a lifetime of independent practice and reflection. Saying that all of it ultimately bored you, along with your direct anecdotal interactions with grumpy, racist, "gun-loving" brothers... it just all seems like you approached the entire thing as some kind of social club or charitable organization. You talk about preying on generosity and racism... these are human traits that Masonry directly tries to address and improve.

This, paired with your quick rise to become WM, all seems extremely sketch.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: AMPTAH

May I ask, what is your opinion about Female and African American politicians in the U.S.? Does their participation and inclusion nullify the foundational and traditional precepts of U.S. democracy? After all, the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Constitution does not encourage such inclusion, therefore, according to your reasoning, we should be eradicating Women and African Americans from political participation.

I think that's a completely different thing. The people of the outer society have a right and obligation to participate in the society that they live in. Those documents like the constitution don't exclude African Americans, only "slaves". And there are no more slaves. Neither does freemasonry exclude African Americans, only men that are not "free".

I understand that in places like Georgia, Freemason "Lodges" don't accept African Americans into the "White lodges". But, Freemasonry itself, doesn't say that blacks should be excluded. So, they could easily admit black men and continue to hold the title of "Regular Freemasonry". But, if they disregard the Landmark about women in the craft, they can no longer use "Regular Freemasonry" as their designation. They become something new, like "Co-Masonry" etc...

So, there are really separate and distinct issues here. The right to make "changes" to the craft will always exist. But, you can't have it "both" ways. You can't claim "antiquity", and yet all your practices are "modern".

That was the point I was making. Whether it is "right" or "wrong" to "change" or keep things "fixed" is not my concern.

My concern is only that if you claim that you're a Freemason, while at the same time claiming that Freemasons have no principles nor definition that make them Freemasons, and the Grand Master can do anything at anytime which he wants, well even God doesn't do that.

Everything in the universe has "some fixed parts" and "some varying parts".

The fixed parts is what makes it "a thing" to behold.

Mackey's point was that "virtue" is part of the fixed and stable nature of the universe, and is the reason for the Freemason's Landmarks.

In the Holy Bible this is exemplified in the verse,

For I am the LORD, I change not; -- KJV, Malachi 3:6

Since the LORD is "virtuous" he does not change.

If you're changing all the time, then where is the "virtue" ?

If all the Landmarks are movable posts, then how is Freemasonry to be defined?

It becomes a meaningless word.

There's then no difference between "Clandestine" and "Regular" but some one's opinion. And everybody has their own opinion. As we can see from the responses here, the Freemasons all have their own opinions. They disregard the works and writings of other Freemasons, and when this is pointed out to them by a "non-mason" they claim "its all taken out of context."

What essentially the Freemasons are saying in this thread, is that "Language" has no meaning, and to know freemasonry you must "experience some mystical thing" that cannot be put into words. That means all discussion with Freemasons will be fruitless, since they care not what they say, since what they say is nothing of value, compared to this "mystical" thing that is only known to the initiate.

a reply to: scientist

Good to see you around.

a reply to: AMPTAH

"You can't claim "antiquity", and yet all your practices are "modern". "

Hello again AMPTAH. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

The point I am making is not about slavery, race, or gender, rather; I am stressing the concept of change and continuation. Since the U.S. Constitution has been amended, and the laws of the land have changed, according to your Freemasonic reasoning; how can the United States of America claim a continued heritage stretching back to 1492, 1513, 1607, 1620, or even 1776? Surely, only those who followed the laws of the Crown, or settlement rules, or the original U.S. Constitution can be counted as actual U.S. citizens, whereas all of us "modern citizens" must surely be clandestinely new citizens. According to your reasoning, this should be the way of things, correct?

"If you're changing all the time, then where is the "virtue" ?"

Can you name anything in physical existence that is not subject to change?

"Since the LORD is "virtuous" he does not change."

In the earliest parts of Genesis, God is known as El,... then He was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El-Shaddai,.... then to Moses, God changed His name to Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh and YHWH,... then post-Christianity, He is known through The Word and Jesus. Beyond the semantics of His Name, there has been plenty of change throughout the theology, doctrine, and scriptures of Abrhamic Monotheism.

originally posted by: Sahabi

The point I am making is not about slavery, race, or gender, rather; I am stressing the concept of change and continuation. Since the U.S. Constitution has been amended, and the laws of the land have changed, according to your Freemasonic reasoning; how can the United States of America claim a continued heritage stretching back to 1492, 1513, 1607, 1620, or even 1776? Surely, only those who followed the original U.S. Constitution can be counted as U.S. citizens, whereas all of us "modern citizens" must surely be clandestinely new citizens. According to your reasoning, this should be the way of things, correct?

Well, that's the whole point about a "Landmark". The U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1789. It's a "recent" innovation, that we can easily determine its origins. We know when it was written, why it was written, how it was written, etc...The Landmarks are principles that are so old and ancient that their origins are beyond recorded history. This is the point Mackey makes. Here are his words;

THE UNWRITTEN LAW
Of the nature of the Landmarks of Masonry, there has been some diversity of opinion among writers; but perhaps the safest method is to restrict them to those ancient, and therefore universal, customs of the Order, which either gradually grew into operation as rules of action, or if at once enacted by any competent authority, were enacted at a period so remote, that no account of their origin is to be found in the records of history. Both the enactors and the time of the enactment have passed away from the record, and the Landmarks are therefore "of higher antiquity than memory or history can reach."

The first requisite, therefore, of a custom or rule of action to constitute it as a Landmark is, that it must have existed from "time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." Its antiquity is its essential element. Where it possible for all the Masonic authorities at the present day to unite in a universal congress, and with the most perfect unanimity to adopt any new regulation, although such regulation would, so long as it remained unrepealed, be obligatory on the whole craft, yet it would not be a landmark. It would have the character of universality, it is true, but it would be wanting in that of antiquity.

Another peculiarity of these Landmarks of Masonry is, that they are unrepealable. As the congress to which I have just alluded would not have the power to enact a Landmark, so neither would it have the prerogative of abolishing one. The Landmarks of the Order, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, can suffer no change. What they were centuries ago, they still remain, and must so continue in force until Masonry itself shall cease to exist.

It is fortunate for the stability of Masonry, that Landmarks so unchangeable should exist; they stand in the way of innovations controlling and checking them, and if sometimes inadvertently violated, are ever bringing the reflective and conscientious Mason back again under their influence, and preserving that general uniformity of character and design which constitutes the true universality of the institution....etc...pp.15-16.

Source: "A Text Book of MASONIC JURISPPRUDENCE;
Illustrating the Written and Unwritten Laws of
FREEMASONRY." -- By Albery G. Mackey, M.D.,

So, the written laws of Freemasonry, enacted in 1717 thereabouts, can all be changed and still the craft would be Freemasonry. But, the Landmarks of the craft, which is what defines Masons and differentiate them from any other body that work rituals, must be kept inviolate to retain some distinguishing identity for the craft.

Now, all sorts of innovations are possible, and, in fact, have occurred over time and history, to masonic work, by individuals who thought to change things. For example, two Freemasons, Carl Kellner and Theodor Reuss, decided that they wanted to make a number of innovations to Freemasonry, so they went off and took the Masonic knowledge and created OTO the "Ordo Templi Orientis", adding many "creative things" to the craft that appealed to their mind and imagination. But, OTO is not regarded as "Regular Freemasonry" even though it is based on it. It's just too innovative.

The point I'm trying to stress here, is that there's nothing "preventing" change and innovation. It has happened, and probably will continue to happen from time to time.

But, "some" innovations "deviate" so far from the "Landmarks" that they become something entirely "new", and can no longer claim they are "the same thing."

In the earliest parts of Genesis, God is known as El,... then He was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El-Shaddai,.... then to Moses, God changed His name to Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh and YHWH,... then post-Christianity, He is known through The Word and Jesus. Beyond the semantics of His Name, there has been plenty of change throughout the theology, doctrine, and scriptures of Abrhamic Monotheism.

Men change the names of God whenever their language or customs change. But, the LORD himself remains the same character. Some say he has 1000 names, or 10 names, or whatever. Others claim his name is "unknown", and refer to him as the "unknown God". So, this is about language itself.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Prestigious and renowned Masons of different Masonic Orders, Obediences, and Grand Lodges/Orients are at-odds with what constitutes a Landmark.

As there is debate amongst Masons as to what the Landmarks entail,.... how can you, a non-Mason, expect to absolutely and definitively define our Fraternity based upon sparse documents in the public domain? Is it fitting for a Hindu to walk into a Catholic Church and attempt to determine true Christians amongst the pews by referencing the writings of Rev. Billy Graham? Is it wise for Monsanto to regulate and decide what constitutes organic and all-natural foods?

The Landmarks of Freemasonry (Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon)

In 1720 the Grand Master of England compiled the General Regulations, which were approved by the Grand Lodge of England and published in 1723. One Regulation reads "Every Annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power and Authority to make new Regulations or to alter these, for the real benefits of this Ancient Fraternity; provided always that the old Land-Marks be carefully preserved." The Landmarks were not defined.

Today, Albert Mackey’s Landmarks of Freemasonry are not universally accepted; they are not really landmarks at all. For example, No. 2, the three degrees of Craft Freemasonry aren't a landmark. The Third Degree didn't exist at the time of the formation of the first Grand Lodge in England. No. 3, the Master Mason Degree legend isn't unchanged as the oldest legends concern Noah, not Hiram Abiff. The five points of fellowship appear in ritual first in 1726, not at the time of founding in 1717. No. 4, there was no grand master in 1717 either. No’s. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are privileges vested in the Grand Master by the Grand Lodge. No. 9 is interesting as operative masons seemed to have the right to congregate for lodge purposes anytime five or six came together. No. 10, there was a time when the lodge was governed by the master and one Warden. No. 14 is noteworthy since in some jurisdictions, visiting is considered a privilege. No. 20, regarding resurrection, raises theological questions which some jurisdictions feel unqualified to address. And so on.

Albert Pike wrote in 1924: "There is no common agreement in regard to what are and what are not 'Landmarks.' That has never been definitely settled."

The best writers are unanimous on two essential points, the two point test: a landmark must have existed from the "time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" and a landmark is an element in the form or essence of the Society of such importance that Freemasonry would no longer be freemasonry if it were removed.
.......
.......
.......
Mackey’s landmarks would mostly not pass the two point test.

What benefit do you gain by attempting to impose your pre- and mis- conceptions onto an institution that you know only by outlying shadows?

originally posted by: Sahabi

What benefit do you gain by attempting to impose your pre- and mis- conceptions onto an institution that you know only by outlying shadows?

I'm not imposing my beliefs. These are the beliefs of Freemasons which I am just reporting.

We are living in the age of confusion. Individuals, born male, are claiming to be female. Some born female, are claiming to be male. There's gender confusion. Can a biological woman now enter a Regular Freemason lodge by claiming she is really a man, that just happens to have a female body? I don't know what Freemasons will do there. Freemasons haven't "published" any opinion on this yet, it's too new. Everything is changing. I'm pretty sure some Lodges will black ball that candidate, given that some Lodges still black ball African American candidates and being black isn't even against any Landmark . But, seeing how Freemasons often deny that other Freemasons know what Freemasonry is all about, it is quite possible that there are Lodges that would let the candidate in, and still claim they are "Regular".

It is good to know what is happening in the environment in which you live. Freemasonry makes up part of the environment of every state. Who are they?

I would like to say that I think I'm converted. I'm full of sh*t and donkey p*ss. I really know nothing about modern freemasonry and its belief system since I am not a part of it.

Not everything is horrible. That includes freemasons as well.

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
Not everything is horrible. That includes freemasons as well.

Wait until we hit you with the brain-manipulating microwaves, then we'll see how much you like us.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He will like you as much as the brain-nuker tells him to

originally posted by: dashen
He will like you as much as the brain-nuker tells him to

I put the setting on 'lurv'.

a reply to: GoatWizard


I don't have any questions as what I know about Freemasons is basically they are a collective of lying sociopaths who hate everything good and desire a New World through Order from chaos.

They are definitely good at it, I will say that.

They have good people in the lower degrees but they are not even aware of the origins or purpose of the "Lodge."

They THINK they are involved in something that has been benevolent throughout history, which is proof how easily decieved and relatively uneducated people are re: the reason secret societies are secret.

"...secrecy is repugnant in an open and free society."

The great JFK.

To be fair he was talking about more than the goat riding sons of Cain...

But I find few people know about the Temple of Luxor, Donmeh-Sabbateans, Sabbatean-Frankists, Z(v)ionist Bnai Brit, and basically every pagan religion that hates God and his faithful and righteous servants.

Or the myriad of orders all under the umbrella of Satan, whether or not they believe in Satan is irrelevant.

HE believes in THEM!

Because they've always been good employees!

"The dajjal (false-messiah or antichrist) has ONE EYE, God, DOES NOT."

Hadith of Prophet Mohammed (saw) that makes it clear to me their loyalty lies with dajjal as that isn't the only thing said about the past generation that has come to fulfilment.

The taking of Constantinople by "70,000 sons of Isaac" without a fight by saying "There is no god but God "

70,000 "Toung 'Turks' ", a Donmeh-Sabbatean, Masonic movement to this day in power in Turkey were Ashkenazi (Edomite) and Sephardic (Israelite) Jews, false converts to Islam since the days of Sabbatai Zvi who orchestrated it in 1666 by declaring himself the Messiah and then proposing he would convert to Islam if the Sultan let him go.

He did. And a bunch of Torah inverting Jews who held sin as saintly behavior did too.

Ataturk claimed to be a descendant of Zvi, and both were Masonic/Rosicrucian/British assets.

Masonry calls it's version of Kabbalah "the Craft "

But I am more interested in the fact that Cabal comes from C/K/Qabalah.

A sin-ister cabal is exactly what Masons are.

And not one knows what it's origins are as if that's unimportant or something!

Huram Abi? The Phoenician/Canaanite is their example of a legendary founder but it WAS prior to Jewish usurpation, Nimrod who they idiotically thought was Zoroaster!!!

Even Eusebius the infamous propagandist of Ecclesiastical history, in the 4th or 5th century said it was a misunderstanding.

Sons of confusion, chaos, and the goat ride.

originally posted by: Disturbinatti
I don't have any questions as what I know about Freemasons is basically they are a collective of lying sociopaths who hate everything good and desire a New World through Order from chaos.

Oh, you caught us!!! What a clever guy.

Seth Rich thought he caught us too until we turned Hillary loose on him.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thanks!

But actually you kind of advertise it.

And confirm by denying. If it is not true you would not care enough to mock it!

Mockery is the lowest form of rebuttal.

a reply to: Disturbinatti

You're very welcome. I always appreciate when someone can expose us as thoroughly as you did. Our plans have been foiled.