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

Originally posted by pepsi78
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]

Absolute garbage.

Masonry is a distant 4th to God, family/friends and work. We are taught this from an early stage.

If you keep posting this kind of thing, you might actually serve to make the patrons of ATS stupider. I beg of you to come back with something a little more substantial, and less based on your own prejudicial assumptions.

Please.

Well said Roark.

Heck, I post many times approaching Freemasonry from an "outsiders" point of view.....I'm sure not a Mason (note: I'm a chick lol). So I can't have any hidden agenda or oath etc. Yet I'm still said to be "lying" or some such thing. It's just ludacrious.

What I DO know, is the extreme kindness I have seen in person from Mason's to MANY people. Unfortunately, there will always be ignorance in this world, and bigots along with it. That, is a fact of life.

I pity those that judge without the facts.

Originally posted by Taconicus
and effectively became controlling by the 1810's in the United States.

What do you intend by 'controlling' here though? Influence? As in with Pike's M&D influenced a lot of people's interpretations and understandings of the symbols? Or control as in controlling the bylaws and regulations and such?

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

I thought all lodges outside the US were 'modern' and the Ancients only started and existed in the colonies?

Your standard histories are already failing you here.

Come on come on, this is an interesting discussion, lets keep it about the topic and not let personalities clash.

Ergo, side degree.

I think we can all agree that its non-intergral and non-requisite and therefore can be called more or less a 'side degree'. No sense in belabouring the point. Anything beyond Apprentice, Fellow, and Master can be called side degrees, even though those three are often said to be 'subsumed' within the York Rite.

I am also, coincidentally enough, reading the first book of the Illuminatus Trilogy, and therein the Royal Arch is outlined by the inside lines of a standing woman's legs. I suspect ( ) that thats fanciful, but in this context, well, that certainly is something that guys can discuss for quite some time.

Perhaps Masonic Light is just a legman, and thats all there is to it!

I have a friend that is born again, he is a very good man but when he had heard I was a Mason, he went insane.

I was told repeatedly that I was going to hell and that the Masons were a terrible organization, and that their charities were a front for their evil.

After 20 minutes yes 20 (he was on a roll and I didn't dare try to stop him), I asked him where his facts came from. He cited the famous Jack Chick tract and I began to explain to him the fallacies cited in that little book.

He told me that secret organizations scared him because only a bad organization would hide their truths, their secrets and their true purpose from the world. He continued to ramble on and I slowly pulled away from him and his "facts".

Long story short (too late I know), I believe that all too often these "lies" that are perpetrated aren't always to be malicious but rather based on the misinformation provided to them and the fears that grow from them.

Lies often become fact if enough people believe it and lies can then become evidence to support their claims. A uninformed "lie" is much different than a malicious "lie".

My 2 cents....

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts

Isn't it also great when his "book of the law" gets spun into something it isn't? The "law is love" agenda? Did they not read the part about baby sacrifice and blood?

Exactly where in the Book of the Law do you reference "baby sacrifice"? If you're referring to AL III:12, you will of course understand he isn't talking about "sacrificing babies", in conjunction with the statement two verses later, "ye shall be sad thereof".

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. Concerning "blood", Crowley wrote in his commentaries that the magical formula of the Aeon of Osiris was the shedding of blood (typified by Christianity). In the Aeon of Horus, generation instead of death is viewed as the method of salvation, and thus "blood" becomes the seminal principle.

Here's what gets me:

"III,23: For perfume mix meal & honey & thick leavings of red wine: then oil of Abramelin and olive oil, and afterward soften & smooth down with rich fresh blood.
III,24: The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child, or dropping from the host of heaven: then of enemies; then of the priest or of the worshippers: last of some beast, no matter what.
III,25: This burn: of this make cakes & eat unto me. This hath also another use; let it be laid before me, and kept thick with perfumes of your orison: it shall become full of beetles as it were and creeping things sacred unto me.
III,26: These slay, naming your enemies; & they shall fall before you.
III,27: Also these shall breed lust & power of lust in you at the eating thereof.
III,28: Also ye shall be strong in war."

Mmmm. Baby Blood Biscuits. And also:

"III,11: This shall be your only proof. I forbid argument. Conquer! That is enough. I will make easy to you the abstruction from the ill-ordered house in the Victorious City. Thou shalt thyself convey it with worship, o prophet, though thou likest it not. Thou shalt have danger & trouble. Ra-Hoor-Khu is with thee. Worship me with fire & blood; worship me with swords & with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!
III,12: Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child.
III,13: But not now.
III,14: Ye shall see that hour, o blessed Beast, and thou the Scarlet Concubine of his desire!
III,15: Ye shall be sad thereof.
III,16: Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises; fear not to undergo the curses. Ye, even ye, know not this meaning all.
III,17: Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything. Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly, nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth. Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms.
III,18: Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!
III,19: That stele they shall call the Abomination of Desolation; count well its name, & it shall be to you as 718."

Now, it seems strange to mention the sacrifice of a baby only to be followed by "But not now." However, if you read the odd numbered verses you get:

11. [...] "I will give you of their flesh to eat!" (i.e. power, victory, etc.)
13. "But not now."
15. "Ye shall be sad thereof."
15. "Fear not at all;..." (Power, victory, etc. is forthcoming)

and if you read the even versus you get:

12. "Sacrifice cattle, little and big: after a child."
14. "Ye shall see that hour, o blessed Beast, and thou the Scarlet Concubine of his desire!"
16. "Deem not too eagerly to catch the promises; fear not to undergo the curses. Ye, even ye, know not this meaning all."
18. "Mercy let be off: damn them who pity! Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!"

So, the unsettling passage as a whole becomes clearer when the double-think is ordered. Make the sacrifices yet don't expect answers or power too early on; or you will be sad. Trust that it will all become clear and that the power will be granted upon you. In the meantime: kill, torture, and spare not for the rewards will be great (and you'll get a concubine as well...or more likely BECOME the scarlet concubine and receive the demon seed).

Also in the book under the Comment: "Love is the law, love under will." This charming love-stuff is very clear in the following bit:

"III,49: I am in a secret fourfold word, the blasphemy against all gods of men.
III,50: Curse them! Curse them! Curse them!
III,51: With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross.
III,52: I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.
III,53: With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din.
III,54: Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds.
III,55: Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!"

Good stuff. I like to read it at the beach. I also have the "Thought of the Day" calendar version. I'm not familiar with Crowley's apologetics and rationalizations or his own interpretations regarding the writing and his own life. None of that is present in the book. All of the above IS.

[edit on 30-1-2006 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Taconicus
and effectively became controlling by the 1810's in the United States.

What do you intend by 'controlling' here though? Influence? As in with Pike's M&D influenced a lot of people's interpretations and understandings of the symbols? Or control as in controlling the bylaws and regulations and such?

I wouldn't think 'by-laws' as much as directing the day to day events. Freemasonry was, surprisingly, very different in the United States in the 1820's. Lodges even regularly tried legal cases among members. If you can control that, then you've taken a good step toward real-world political control.

Power, in politics, is always 'who can get things done'.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by TaconicusCertainly no control from England, either 'Ancient' or 'Modern'.

I thought all lodges outside the US were 'modern' and the Ancients only started and existed in the colonies?

There are numerous differences between 'Ancient' and 'Modern', but the difference usually cited is the existence of the Royal Arch and some peripheral degrees.

The best origin for 'Ancient' Freemasonry is Ireland and moving back into the North of England to compete with the older 'Modern' Freemasonry.

American colonies usually had 'Modern' systems, but virtually all were flipped during the Revolution, 'Ancient' masonry was much more popular in the British Army, (especially among the men, not the officers), and spread through those contacts.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Taconicus
Your standard histories are already failing you here.

Come on come on, this is an interesting discussion, lets keep it about the topic and not let personalities clash.

That's not just me being abusive, but merely trying to drive the point home.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Taconicus
Ergo, side degree.

I think we can all agree that its non-intergral and non-requisite and therefore can be called more or less a 'side degree'. No sense in belabouring the point. Anything beyond Apprentice, Fellow, and Master can be called side degrees, even though those three are often said to be 'subsumed' within the York Rite.

Fair enough. I appreciate the acknowledgement.

Originally posted by NygdanI am also, coincidentally enough, reading the first book of the Illuminatus Trilogy, and therein the Royal Arch is outlined by the inside lines of a standing woman's legs. I suspect (

) that thats fanciful, but in this context, well, that certainly is something that guys can discuss for quite some time.

I just think of all the four-letter words women have used at me...

God this is a long post.

Just thought you guys should check out the Alex Jones video "dark secrets inside bohemian grove".

He infiltrates a masonic ritual and records it all. Apparently Bush and his Dad were there. You can see a giant owl(Illuminati) and a sacrifice.

Do a search, the vids free.

Originally posted by Taconicus
The best origin for 'Ancient' Freemasonry is Ireland and moving back into the North of England to compete with the older 'Modern' Freemasonry.

What ancient lodges are in Ireland? From what I understand about the Grande Lodge of Ireland, it was the one that granted a lot of the 'mobile' or traveling lodges to the various groups within the British Army.

Interstingly, there is also a current traveling lodge in Iraq (the Masonic lodge in iraq, excluding any connection to the yezidis of course ), however it is working on getting a charter from the Grande Lodge of New York. Seems like that could also tie into your idea, but that might ultimately be a fruitless avenue of inquiry.

American colonies usually had 'Modern' systems, but virtually all were flipped during the Revolution,

Interesting, I had thought it happened before the revolution, the revolution proper anyway.

That's not just me being abusive, but merely trying to drive the point home.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Taconicus
The best origin for 'Ancient' Freemasonry is Ireland and moving back into the North of England to compete with the older 'Modern' Freemasonry.

What ancient lodges are in Ireland? From what I understand about the Grande Lodge of Ireland, it was the one that granted a lot of the 'mobile' or traveling lodges to the various groups within the British Army.

Right. Generally speaking, Ireland=Ancient=Royal Arch=Military.

(Well, at least I'm making sense to myself...)

Originally posted by Nygdan

American colonies usually had 'Modern' systems, but virtually all were flipped during the Revolution,

Interesting, I had thought it happened before the revolution, the revolution proper anyway.

???

"2nd Hand Thoughts" - Crowley wrote the contents of that Book in a highly entranced state. He was in a museum in Cairo - surrounded by Ancient Egyptian Artifacts. Crowley always maintained that he "Channeled" the contents of that Book - like you say it has a very different tone than the rest of his writings. He himself said that there was a lot of content in that Book that disturbed him - I mean really, it contains a Prophecy about the Death of his own Daughter (which has been stated came true)! Yes it contains lots of Pagan content & ideas - very naughty - I know.

I have read the book - but just because it says "Kill & Torture" didn't mean I ran out & did that - it didn't take my Concious away from me - it didn't Negate my belief in Karma & my Recognition of the fact that Murder & Torture are both wrong & illegal.


P.S. It was stated before - I will state it again - The Book is not really talking about "Killing & Eating Babies"! "Droppings from the Host of Heaven" & "Blood of the Moon, Monthly" -> it is talking about the
*SEMINAL FLUIDS* of both Males & Females - Yes I know its gross! Not all that safe either considering you have HIV/AIDS & other nastiness floating around out there. I personally have Not participated in this sort of activity. Yes the Book can get nasty at times - the Jesus comment still stings - but there are still some things that you can get out of the Book - The Power of FreeWill for instance.

Also - only "Thelemites" follow Thelemic writings - NOT all FreeMasons. There are FreeMasons of all kinds of Religions out there - it is a very Tolerant Organization.

[edit on 31-1-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 31-1-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts


Now, it seems strange to mention the sacrifice of a baby only to be followed by "But not now."

Why does it seem strange? If you were familiar with Crowley's commentaries, it would make perfect sense. In 1904, when the book came to be written, Crowley himself had no idea what the verse meant. It was only after the death of his daughter that he recognized the verse as a prophecy of her demise. Eventually, Crowley came to understand that his daughter's death initiated him into what he called the "Trance of Sorrow", or First Noble Truth of the Buddhists, and the language of the book became clear. Crowley felt guilt because he was not in England with his daughter when she died, but was instead in Burma living with Buddhist monks, studying and practicing Hinayana. When he learned of her death, he felt himself to blame because he questioned if there could have been anything he could have done. This was the "sacrifice" of his own initiation, which led to the fullfilment of the second prophecy: "Ye shall see that hour, o blessed beast...ye shall be sad thereof."

Also in the book under the Comment: "Love is the law, love under will."

The Key to the above formula is found in the number 93.

This charming love-stuff is very clear in the following bit:

Actually, although you were just being sarcastic, you're in reality absolutely right. "Love under will" would have to replace the magical formula of the Aeon of Osiris, which was "Love Under Fear", and before this could take place, the actual Osirian religious worldviews would have to break down.

Fair enough on this crowley-thing. I appreciate the points you both have made.

I do know my ideas aren't the only ones out there. Not trying to seem like I'm trying to get a last word in, but this is why I don't fear practitioners of the darkly nefarious arts. They are always self-obsessed and selfish and therefore ultimately doomed and mislead by that masturbatory sword with which they live.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts

I do know my ideas aren't the only ones out there. Not trying to seem like I'm trying to get a last word in, but this is why I don't fear practitioners of the darkly nefarious arts. They are always self-obsessed and selfish and therefore ultimately doomed and mislead by that masturbatory sword with which they live.

Well, if it makes any difference, I don't think anyone has anything to fear from practioners of the 'darkly nefarious arts', even assuming such a thing exists. Real Magick, as Crowley himself mentioned, but taken into more detail by other writers who were/are practioners, is simply a westernized form of a Yoga, where ceremony takes the place of traditional eastern meditational techniques: the results, however, if properly performed, are the same.

Quote: "Crowley came to understand that his daughter's Death Initiated him into what he called the "Trance of Sorrow", or First Noble Truth of the Buddhists."

Wow - the Death of your Daughter - what a way to Experience Impermanence & Emptiness first hand!

I can only imagine what that must have felt like! But it does indeed lead us to the Realization that Death will eventually come to us all!

To those supporters of secret societies. If you are gonna go with a membership based on secrecy. Then bet it all! Go with secret identities for all citizens, secret criminal courts, Oh, I think that's started already. Oops!, secret eduction where the parents do not know what their children are being taught, etc.

I mean, hell! If you embrace the philosophy, go all the way. Oh, by the way, I think Freemasonry is gone. Check it out, they morphed into the Telecommunications Union. Cordially, Ravenmock1.

"Stone Buildings (Pyramids) are out of style and Cell Towers are In" Ravenmock1

Originally posted by Ravenmock1
To those supporters of secret societies. If you are gonna go with a membership based on secrecy. Then bet it all! Go with secret identities for all citizens, secret criminal courts...

Actually I'd don't think there are many supporters of secret societies here, TBO.

Let's see what some prominent masons themselves had to say about the organization.

This is from www.geocities.com...
and is a quote from Manly P. Hall.

The champions of philosophic Masonry, alas, are a weak, small voice which grows weaker and smaller as time goes by. In fact, there are actual blocs among the Brethren who would divorce Masonry from both philosophy and religion at any and all cost. If, however, we search the writings of eminent Masons ,we find a unanimity of viewpoint: namely, that Masonry is a religious and philosophic body. Every effort initiated to elevate Masonic thought to its true position has thus invariably emphasized the metaphysical and ethical aspects of the Craft.

Here's another one from the same source. Remember, this is Manly P. Hall writing: Strange as it may seem, the majority openly ridicule the very supernatural powers and agencies for which their symbols stand.

How about Albert Pike and his "Morals and Dogma"? From www.sacred-texts.com... This is Albert Pikes' 861 page volume of 'lectures' on the esoteric roots of Freemasonry, specifically the 32-degree Scottish Rite. Until 1964, this book was given to every Mason completing the 14th degree in the Southern jurisdiction of the US Scottish Rite Freemasons. Masons also try to distance themselves from Albert Pike, ESPECIALLY since his KKK affiliation became well known on the internet.

Look at the picture comparing Baphomet and a statue of George Washington created by FreeMasons. www.illuminati-news.com...

Here is a quote from www.ephesians5-11.org... Over the years, some people have claimed that Freemasons worship Lucifer, or Satan. The truth of the matter is that the name Lucifer is not found in the rituals of the Blue Lodge, or the York Rite. We do not believe that Lucifer is mentioned by name in the Scottish Rite degrees, either. However, one of the "Sacred Words" in the17th Degree of the Scottish Rite is "Abaddon," the angel of the bottomless pit, mentioned in Revelation 9:11.

Here are some more quotes:
When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands, and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. He must follow in the footsteps of his forefather, Tubal-Cain, who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a plowshare." Manly P. Hall, 33rd Degree, K.T., The Lost Keys of Freemasonry or The Secret of Hiram Abiff , Forward by Reynold E. Blight, 33rd Degree, K.T., Illustrations by J. Augustus Knapp, 32nd Degree, Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, p. 48

See www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... for more details.

When someone says "Masons are evil", what they mean is the people at the top of Masonic orders. They will USUALLY (but not always) realize that the people at the bottom are kept ignorant of the Satan worship going on at the top.

Oh, and for those who don't believe this..... Try offering a prayer to Jesus Christ at your next lodge meeting.

Originally posted by sir_chancealot


When someone says "Masons are evil", what they mean is the people at the top of Masonic orders.

I seriously doubt that anyone who says such a thing knows anything about "the people at the top of Masonic orders".

They will USUALLY (but not always) realize that the people at the bottom are kept ignorant of the Satan worship going on at the top.

So why would "people at the top" want to worship your make believe boogey man?

How do you know this anyway? Because you read it on the Internet?





[edit on 18-7-2007 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Oh, and for those who don't believe this..... Try offering a prayer to Jesus Christ at your next lodge meeting.

Try offering a prayer to any other god, or even ol' scratch himself.

You will get the same result.

In any case why would a Jewish mason want to hear a prayer to Christ? Or a Muslim mason or a (fill in the blank) mason for that matter?

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by sir_chancealot


When someone says "Masons are evil", what they mean is the people at the top of Masonic orders.

I seriously doubt that anyone who says such a thing knows anything about "the people at the top of Masonic orders".

They will USUALLY (but not always) realize that the people at the bottom are kept ignorant of the Satan worship going on at the top.

So why would "people at the top" want to worship your make believe boogey man?

How do you know this anyway? Because you read it on the Internet?

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Masonic Light]

Wow. You must not even know your own Masonic authors. Manly P. Hall is widely revered (within the masonic lodge) as one of the greatest masonic philosophers that ever lived. And the chances are about 50/50 that you have a picture of Albert Pike inside your own lodge. Don't you think what THEY had to say about masons and masonic rituals would be relevant?