It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do some people feel the need to post outright lies about Masons and Masonry?

page: 39
11
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts...If I was a thinkin' feller or paranoid, I'd think that this was a convenient deception. As you know, I entertain the well-known concept of groups-within-groups and this is even better; groups-within-groups-within-groups-ad-nauseum-repeat.


Kind of my point. The whole "group-within-a-group" theme wasn't foisted on Freemasonry by outsiders, but appears to have really been developed within Fremasonry itself.

An American Freemason today may think of the Royal Arch today as a harmless side organization for 'further study' but the historical evidence seems to indicate that it actually was set up as an interior organization to control the outer and only later, after failing, became an innocuous side ceremony.

Many of the other 'high degrees' are also former interior organization controlling entities that later lapsed into powerless ceremonials.

(A useful way to distinguish the difference is when you have of of these entities operating as a self-selected group claiming direction of the local 'blue lodge' Grand lodge. --The Scottish Rite outside the United States is such an example.)

So Freemasonic activity itself gave birth to the rumor.

Which brings me back to my main point, Freemasons themselves have made the subject as cloudy as outsider conspiracy theorists.


Originally posted by 2nd Hand ThoughtsSo why no "cleaning house" at home? Fair question I think....


My theory? Old men would rather die than part with a silly hat.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Taconicus]




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Welcome taconicus. You remind me of someone I once fondly knew and sometimes also unnecesarily condescending.


Oh, just having fun.



Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Hmmm. Seriously, we need references. That's how it's supposed to work around here. What are those ancient texts book-things. Do they have letters made into words and arranged into Titles? War and Peace? And what?


Sorry, I'm just drawing on my own research. There might be hundreds of titles. I'm not taking from any published author. If I get around to publishing, I'll let you know.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taconicus


An American Freemason today may think of the Royal Arch today as a harmless side organization for 'further study' but the historical evidence seems to indicate that it actually was set up as an interior organization to control the outer and only later, after failing, became an innocuous side ceremony.


Just for the record, the Royal Arch was never considered "an interior organization to control the outer", nor is it today a "side ceremony". The Royal Arch degree was developed and fostered by the Athol Grand Lodge, and was not recognized by the Premiere Grand Lodge. Only when these two bodies merged to form the current United Grand Lodge of England was the Royal Arch degree given any second thought in regular Masonry.

The Royal Arch was at first considered an honorariam to be bestowed only on those who had served as Masters of Lodges. At no time did members of the degree have any authorization or ability to "control the outer", seeing that all initiates to the degree were originally Past Masters, not current ones.



(A useful way to distinguish the difference is when you have of of these entities operating as a self-selected group claiming direction of the local 'blue lodge' Grand lodge. --The Scottish Rite outside the United States is such an example.)


Not really. The Scottish Rite does not control any Blue Lodges in the UK, Canada, Australia, or any other English-speaking country (where Masonry is the most widespread). Scottish Rite Blue Lodges under jurisdiction of a Supreme Council generally exist only in smaller Third World countries with small membership.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus

An American Freemason today may think of the Royal Arch today as a harmless side organization for 'further study' but the historical evidence seems to indicate that it actually was set up as an interior organization to control the outer and only later, after failing, became an innocuous side ceremony.


Just for the record, the Royal Arch was never considered "an interior organization to control the outer", nor is it today a "side ceremony". The Royal Arch degree was developed and fostered by the Athol Grand Lodge, and was not recognized by the Premiere Grand Lodge. Only when these two bodies merged to form the current United Grand Lodge of England was the Royal Arch degree given any second thought in regular Masonry.

The Royal Arch was at first considered an honorariam to be bestowed only on those who had served as Masters of Lodges. At no time did members of the degree have any authorization or ability to "control the outer", seeing that all initiates to the degree were originally Past Masters, not current ones.


No. If you look at early records, such as in New York or New England, it is clear that the Grand Chapter sought to direct the respective Grand Lodges, and felt they were exercising it. (New York Grand Chapter records have been published, perhaps a century ago.) And I'm sure my friend Masonic Light will concede that coordinated action by a large porportion of Past Masters would have a very persuasive effect on the function of blue lodges.

This situation lasted until the Antimasonic period.

Whether or not it now constitutes a 'side degree' is a matter of perspective. I realize that its members would disagree.



Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
(A useful way to distinguish the difference is when you have of of these entities operating as a self-selected group claiming direction of the local 'blue lodge' Grand lodge. --The Scottish Rite outside the United States is such an example.)


Not really. The Scottish Rite does not control any Blue Lodges in the UK, Canada, Australia, or any other English-speaking country (where Masonry is the most widespread). Scottish Rite Blue Lodges under jurisdiction of a Supreme Council generally exist only in smaller Third World countries with small membership.


Your qualification regarding English-speaking countries is fair enough.
I'll qualify yours in turn by noting that membership in some of the Latin American and European countries can be significant.

[edit on 24-1-2006 by Taconicus]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taconicus

Originally posted by Trinityman
Regular freemasonry is the default state and the majority state, and the principles have remained unchanged since before1717.


No, even the Grand Lodge of England changed its principles with the work of Preston and his Lectures. Preston decided to make the Old Testament claims for the origin of Freemasonry. When the Grand Lecturer begins to make claims that Adam was a Freemason, it's no wonder that confusion, and then mistrust, will begin to follow the reputation of Freemasonry.


I think you are in danger of over-complicating the issue. No-one is saying freemasonry remained static over the period in question, but the principles of brotherly love, relief and truth have not altered. Although they may not have been codified as such until later, they existed in abundance in 17th Century speculative lodges.

William Preston is an important figure in early speculative freemasonry, notable mostly for the schism he created in his own lodge and his leading role in the Grand Lodge South of the River Trent. There is no, and never was, any title of Grand Lecturer in English Freemasonry but I wouldn't be surprised if Preston awarded this title to himself. His influence of freemasonry is important but you overstate the case by claiming he fundamentally changed freemasonry.

I'm not familiar with the specific claims he may have made, but many freemasons at the time got carried away with the 'historical' roots of the Craft as outlined by Dr. James Anderson in the 1738 Book of Constitutions. This patently absurd history is now regarded as our 'traditional' history (as opposed to our factual history) as Andersons tome has moved into masonic folklore.

It helps to have a good overview of the development of freemasonry when analyzing 18th century sources, such as Prestons 'Illustrations of Masonry', otherwise one may become confused.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taconicus


No. If you look at early records, such as in New York or New England, it is clear that the Grand Chapter sought to direct the respective Grand Lodges, and felt they were exercising it. (New York Grand Chapter records have been published, perhaps a century ago.)


During the initial period when the Royal Arch was first worked, there were no Grand Chapters. The degree was conferred upon Past Masters in Blue Lodges, under the jurisdiction of the Athol Grand Lodge, which was technically irregular. The Premiere Grand Lodge of England (the one founded in England in 1717) did not recognize the degree.

After the two Grand Lodges merged, it was agreed that the degree would be kept, but would be moved to Chapters, and out of the Lodge. Here, for the first time, brethren who were not actual Past Masters could be exalted to the Royal Arch degree. I note all of this simply to point out that the Royal Arch was not invented to control Blue Lodges, as was previously claimed, but instead developed with its own interesting and unique history as a thing in itself.


And I'm sure my friend Masonic Light will concede that coordinated action by a large porportion of Past Masters would have a very persuasive effect on the function of blue lodges.


That's certainly true, but coordinate action by a large proportion of non-Past Masters would have the same effect. Every member has a voice and a vote, regardless if he is a Past Master.


Whether or not it now constitutes a 'side degree' is a matter of perspective. I realize that its members would disagree.


The United Grand Lodge of England's official position is that "pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees, viz., Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and master Mason, which includes the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch".

"Side degrees" are those that form no integral part of a certain Rite. In the US, side degrees would include, for example, Royal Ark Mariner, Secret Monitor, Order of the Red Branch of Eri, Masonic Order of the Bath, and Ye Antient Order of Corks. The Royal Arch, however, is an integral part of York Rite Masonry, one may even say its basis; therefore we do not consider it a side degree.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Masonic Light]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
I just have to ask, what is a pricne?

and unless I am mistaken the correct form would be Charles Prince of Wales
or BPC.


its my extremly bad typing skills messing me about.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Judgeofdarkness
its my extremly bad typing skills messing me about.

have a word with TC - I hear he's running a course...



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Is any Freemason here above the third degree?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peace to you all
Is any Freemason here above the third degree?


A lot of us are. Why you ask?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I've heard that it's difficult to get up to the top. You must have to do something to move up to the next degree, and it must get harder each time.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by Taconicus

Originally posted by Trinityman
Regular freemasonry is the default state and the majority state, and the principles have remained unchanged since before1717.


No, even the Grand Lodge of England changed its principles with the work of Preston and his Lectures. Preston decided to make the Old Testament claims for the origin of Freemasonry. When the Grand Lecturer begins to make claims that Adam was a Freemason, it's no wonder that confusion, and then mistrust, will begin to follow the reputation of Freemasonry.


I think you are in danger of over-complicating the issue. No-one is saying freemasonry remained static over the period in question, but the principles of brotherly love, relief and truth have not altered. Although they may not have been codified as such until later, they existed in abundance in 17th Century speculative lodges.

William Preston is an important figure in early speculative freemasonry, notable mostly for the schism he created in his own lodge and his leading role in the Grand Lodge South of the River Trent. There is no, and never was, any title of Grand Lecturer in English Freemasonry but I wouldn't be surprised if Preston awarded this title to himself. His influence of freemasonry is important but you overstate the case by claiming he fundamentally changed freemasonry.

I'm not familiar with the specific claims he may have made, but many freemasons at the time got carried away with the 'historical' roots of the Craft as outlined by Dr. James Anderson in the 1738 Book of Constitutions. This patently absurd history is now regarded as our 'traditional' history (as opposed to our factual history) as Andersons tome has moved into masonic folklore.

It helps to have a good overview of the development of freemasonry when analyzing 18th century sources, such as Prestons 'Illustrations of Masonry', otherwise one may become confused.


I'm fairly certain Preston considered himself a Grand Lecturer, as did his associates, and I also vaguely recall Jeremy Cross doing the same. (Webb, too, perhaps?)

Also running on recollections at this point, Anderson took things back as far as Solomon, (thereby keeping his 'history' in accord with the degree,--roughly keeping them telling the same tale).

Preston, (in a fit of enthusiasm), brought it back to Adam. His lectures were also the prime source of the idea of Freemasonry as a "system of morality" rather than something---anything---more prosaic.

Preston's lectures' influence was second only to the Ahiman Rezon and Anderson's Constitutions, and still plays the same role for the UGLE as Morals and Dogma does for the Scottish Rite.

So I'd say that's relatively influential.


[edit on 25-1-2006 by Taconicus]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
No. If you look at early records, such as in New York or New England, it is clear that the Grand Chapter sought to direct the respective Grand Lodges, and felt they were exercising it. (New York Grand Chapter records have been published, perhaps a century ago.)


During the initial period when the Royal Arch was first worked, there were no Grand Chapters. The degree was conferred upon Past Masters in Blue Lodges, under the jurisdiction of the Athol Grand Lodge, which was technically irregular. The Premiere Grand Lodge of England (the one founded in England in 1717) did not recognize the degree.

After the two Grand Lodges merged, it was agreed that the degree would be kept, but would be moved to Chapters, and out of the Lodge. Here, for the first time, brethren who were not actual Past Masters could be exalted to the Royal Arch degree. I note all of this simply to point out that the Royal Arch was not invented to control Blue Lodges, as was previously claimed, but instead developed with its own interesting and unique history as a thing in itself.


It didn't work that way. The Royal Arch didn't have chapters, but was worked in blue lodges, (both ancient and modern), the distinction having become by the 1780's, largely meaningless.

"Control" by the Athol Grand Lodge was in name only, if that.

Separate chapters were then created for the Royal Arch degree--whether for the express purpose of controlling the lodges, or quickly developing along those lines,-- and effectively became controlling by the 1810's in the United States.

The story you recount is faithful to the standard stories passed along as fact, but has little to do with the records of the period.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
And I'm sure my friend Masonic Light will concede that coordinated action by a large porportion of Past Masters would have a very persuasive effect on the function of blue lodges.


That's certainly true, but coordinate action by a large proportion of non-Past Masters would have the same effect. Every member has a voice and a vote, regardless if he is a Past Master.


But organization is, obviously, the key. Hypothetical rights to vote don't mean much against an organized body taking steps to dominate votes.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
Whether or not it now constitutes a 'side degree' is a matter of perspective. I realize that its members would disagree.


The United Grand Lodge of England's official position is that "pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees, viz., Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and master Mason, which includes the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch".

"Side degrees" are those that form no integral part of a certain Rite. In the US, side degrees would include, for example, Royal Ark Mariner, Secret Monitor, Order of the Red Branch of Eri, Masonic Order of the Bath, and Ye Antient Order of Corks. The Royal Arch, however, is an integral part of York Rite Masonry, one may even say its basis; therefore we do not consider it a side degree.


But is 'York Rite Masonry' really integral at all to Freemasonry?

I'm sure you feel it is. I don't share your presumptions.

Certainly the members of the Chapters, Councils, and Commanderies see themselves as essential. Many others would disagree.



[edit on 25-1-2006 by Taconicus]

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Taconicus]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peace to you all
I've heard that it's difficult to get up to the top. You must have to do something to move up to the next degree, and it must get harder each time.


No, actually it gets easier. The first three are the most difficult, at least in my jurisdiction, because open Lodge examination on proficiency is required after each degree. That means that once you're initiated as an Entered Apprentice, you must first memorize the Catechism of the First Degree, and repeat it in Lodge before you can be passed to the Second Degree, and so on. Once the exam has been passed on the Third degree, the candidate is certified by Grand Lodge as a Master Mason.

The higher degrees, at least in the USA, are much simpler. If you want to join the Scottish Rite, you simply apply for degrees 4 through 32. Most Scottish Rite Temples confer the degrees twice per year at Reunions. At Reunions, large classes of candidates receive the degrees together. In my Temple, it lasts two weekends, where we begin with the 4°, and just do one after the other. The first weekend, we go up to the 18°. The next weekend, we begin at the 19°, and go up to the 32°.

The higher degrees of the York Rite are done in more or less the same way.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taconicus


It didn't work that way. The Royal Arch didn't have chapters, but was worked in blue lodges, (both ancient and modern), the distinction having become by the 1780's, largely meaningless.

"Control" by the Athol Grand Lodge was in name only, if that.


Not at all. It was the Athol Grand Lodge who instituted and authorized the Royal Arch to begin with. The Royal Arch was never worked in the so-called "Modern" Lodges (those under jurisdiction of the 1717 Grand Lodge).


Separate chapters were then created for the Royal Arch degree--whether for the express purpose of controlling the lodges, or quickly developing along those lines,-- and effectively became controlling by the 1810's in the United States.


In the United States, Chapters first appeared in those states which were occupied by both "Antient" and "Modern" Grand Lodges; as previously mentioned, Chapters formed as result of the various mergers. South Carolina, the last state which merged an Antient and modern Grand Lodge, did indeed do so in 1810.


The story you recount is faithful to the standard stories passed along as fact, but has little to do with the records of the period.


Actually, the "standard stories" contain an accurate history, based on surviving records, minutes, and other documents of the period, from both Grand Lodges and Grand Chapters.


But organization is, obviously, the key. Hypothetical rights to vote don't mean much against an organized body taking steps to dominate votes.


It seems almost as if you are trying to level an accusation of some sort, but I have no idea whom you are accusing, or what they're being accused of.


But is 'York Rite Masonry' really integral at all to Freemasonry?

I'm sure you feel it is. I don't share your presumptions.

Certainly the members of the Chapters, Councils, and Commanderies see themselves as essential. Many others would disagree.


From a strictly technical viewpoint, the first three degrees are York Rite, with the Chapters, Councils, and Commanderies having been added to the system much later. I'm not aware of too many Masons who would not consider the Royal Arch to be integral. As previously mentioned, in the UK, Canada, and other countries of the British Commonwealth, it is considered the completion of the Master Mason's degree. Although it isn't necessarily considered as such officially in the US, it does indeed contain valuable information that completes the masonic legends.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
It didn't work that way. The Royal Arch didn't have chapters, but was worked in blue lodges, (both ancient and modern), the distinction having become by the 1780's, largely meaningless.

"Control" by the Athol Grand Lodge was in name only, if that.


Not at all. It was the Athol Grand Lodge who instituted and authorized the Royal Arch to begin with. The Royal Arch was never worked in the so-called "Modern" Lodges (those under jurisdiction of the 1717 Grand Lodge).


Simply not true.

After the Revolution, Lodges were largely on their own to do as they liked.

It doesn't make sense otherwise. There would have been no need for the first Grand Chapters in the 1790's if there was authority being exercised elsewhere.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
Separate chapters were then created for the Royal Arch degree--whether for the express purpose of controlling the lodges, or quickly developing along those lines,-- and effectively became controlling by the 1810's in the United States.


In the United States, Chapters first appeared in those states which were occupied by both "Antient" and "Modern" Grand Lodges; as previously mentioned, Chapters formed as result of the various mergers. South Carolina, the last state which merged an Antient and modern Grand Lodge, did indeed do so in 1810.


Again, no.

Any of the so-called 'Modern' jurisdictions became effectively 'Ancient' by the end of the Revolution, certainly at least insofar as everyone had the Royal Arch.

Even the pretended mergers of 'Ancient' and 'Modern' Grand Lodges was something that happened in name only. The "merger" in Massachusetts, for example, was with a Modern grand body that hadn't met for years. Likewise in most the rest of the states.

The New England Grand Lodges were all originally 'Modern', the Royal Arch and other degrees were already widespread in the 1780's, ---and there was effectively no Grand Lodge control in this period.

Certainly no control from England, either 'Ancient' or 'Modern'.

This, despite any claims of being 'Modern'.

Your standard histories are already failing you here.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
The story you recount is faithful to the standard stories passed along as fact, but has little to do with the records of the period.


Actually, the "standard stories" contain an accurate history, based on surviving records, minutes, and other documents of the period, from both Grand Lodges and Grand Chapters.


I certainly disagree.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
But organization is, obviously, the key. Hypothetical rights to vote don't mean much against an organized body taking steps to dominate votes.


It seems almost as if you are trying to level an accusation of some sort, but I have no idea whom you are accusing, or what they're being accused of.


I'm not making an accusation. I'm making a point.


Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Taconicus
But is 'York Rite Masonry' really integral at all to Freemasonry?

I'm sure you feel it is. I don't share your presumptions.

Certainly the members of the Chapters, Councils, and Commanderies see themselves as essential. Many others would disagree.


From a strictly technical viewpoint, the first three degrees are York Rite, with the Chapters, Councils, and Commanderies having been added to the system much later. I'm not aware of too many Masons who would not consider the Royal Arch to be integral. As previously mentioned, in the UK, Canada, and other countries of the British Commonwealth, it is considered the completion of the Master Mason's degree. Although it isn't necessarily considered as such officially in the US, it does indeed contain valuable information that completes the masonic legends.


Ergo, side degree.


Cug

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

In his first commentaries on AL, Crowley says that this verse is so bitter, he does not wish to comment on it. In a later commentary, he acknowledges that it was a prophecy of the death of his oldest daughter.


This is also later stated in AL III:43


The Book of the Law chapter III verse 43
Let the Scarlet Woman beware! If pity and compassion and tenderness visit her heart; if she leave my work to toy with old sweetnesses; then shall my vengeance be known. I will slay me her child: I will alienate her heart: I will cast her out from men: as a shrinking and despised harlot shall she crawl through dusk wet streets, and die cold and an-hungered.


And basically that is what happened.


Originally posted by Taconicus
But for anyone who wants to be a student of the subject, you would have to take all the other varieties into account. If you work for Ford, you can pretend Chevys aren't really cars at all, but if you want to study automobiles, you have to study both Fords and Chevys.


That is true, but what it seems to me that your doing is saying Yugo's were crap, so all cars are crap. If you want to study automobiles you can't apply the quirks of one make to another.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cug

Originally posted by Taconicus
But for anyone who wants to be a student of the subject, you would have to take all the other varieties into account. If you work for Ford, you can pretend Chevys aren't really cars at all, but if you want to study automobiles, you have to study both Fords and Chevys.


That is true, but what it seems to me that your doing is saying Yugo's were crap, so all cars are crap. If you want to study automobiles you can't apply the quirks of one make to another.


Not at all.

The question was "Why do some people feel the need to post outright lies about Masons and Masonry?"

My response, in short, is : half of it they got from Freemasons.

And not just 'bad seed' Freemasons, or officially unrecognized Freemasons, (though there's an awful lot of that as well), but from zealous, happy, sincere, and clueless, Freemasons.


The only reason why I'm going on this little aside with Masonic Light, (which is a little tangential), is in hopes that he might realize that the ground he's standing on isn't nearly as firm as he thinks it is.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I cant belive this thread is still on.
I guess it will go on forever, why dont masons level with us and accept
what we belive.
People are convinced it's like that and i dont know what will change it

It's funny that on every forum i go i find on the topic of new world order masons, it just convinces me that something is rong.
At least be smarter and go undercover.
First of all if you want to change something change your avarts.
If some one talks to you it's imposible not to look at it and say "what might that be"
I'm not asking anyone to cheat or trick any one leave masonery at home and talk from person to person not from mason to person.
But i guess you cant do that since masonary is the first thing in your lifes
it's more important than family than your friends that you use to know.
It's brain wash, maybe some of you dont notice but for us it's amasing
deffending masonary till you die(just a organisation in your view)


[edit on 27-1-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Yet another Facsinating & Educational ATS Thread!!! I would have to say that the BEST Post goes to Skadi - since it basically answers Axemans Question - which is the Title of this Thread! Then of-course came the usual flood of Fundamentalist Troll Drivel (usually happens whenever "Mason/Masonry" is mentioned in a Thread - what a Shame)!


Also great info from the posts of Masonic_Light - as usual! How are you ML my man?! Still keeping at it I see - Keep up the Good Work Dude! Keep it on the Rational/Reasonable tip!




top topics



 
11
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join