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.

 

A Fresh Start: Masonry Good or Evil.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TgSoe
Are you saying Co-Masonry is the Mother lodge my friend?

Erm... I don't think so


What do you mean by 'Mother lodge'?




posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by TgSoe
Are you saying Co-Masonry is the Mother lodge my friend?

Erm... I don't think so


What do you mean by 'Mother lodge'?



Oh my bad! Achilles said something about a Mother Lodge



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Number one criticism that is indefensible, besides the crime of secrecy already mentioned:
Lack of women.

As has been said before, women are the driving force behind men.
"only cause the wife wanted it done that I'm doing it. I had no intentions of getting it done"

And yet, where do we find an ABUNDANCE of Feminine reference?

Well, there is the Mother Lodge, for one...

She also quietly motivates men to do her bidding. If they so choose, they can benefit from listening to her.




According to The Secret Teachings of all The Ages the Masons were created by the Rosicrusians. So they must be the Mother Lodge of the Masons.

Here is a quote from page - CXXXIX

On the same subject, Papus, in his Tarot of the Bohemians, has written: " We must not forget that the Rosicrucians were the Initiators of Leibnitz, and the founders of actual Freemasonry through Ashmole." If the founders of Freemasonry were initiated into the Great Arcanum of Egypt- and the symbolism of Modern Masonry would indicate that such was the case- then it is reasonable to suppose that they secured thier information from a society whose existence they admitted and which was duly qualified to teach them these symbols and allegories. One theory concerning the two orders is that Freemasonry was an outgrowth of Rosicrusianism; in other words, that the "Unkown Philosophers" became known through an organization which they created to serve them in the material world. The story goes on to relate that the Rosicrucian adepts became dissatisfied with ther progeny and silently withdrew from the Masonic hierarchy, leaving behind their symbolism and allegories, but carrying away the keys by which the locked symbols could be made to give up their secret meanings.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Sorry, I'm afraid you've lost me. Unless akilles comes along to explain himself (won't we be the lucky ones!) then I'm afraid I'm left in a state of darkness.

In a masonic sense Mother Lodge has two possible meanings depending on the context - (a) the lodge that you were initiated in, or (b) the lodge that founded the lodge of which you are a member. But I think akilles meant something else.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
Sorry, I'm afraid you've lost me. Unless akilles comes along to explain himself (won't we be the lucky ones!) then I'm afraid I'm left in a state of darkness.

In a masonic sense Mother Lodge has two possible meanings depending on the context - (a) the lodge that you were initiated in, or (b) the lodge that founded the lodge of which you are a member. But I think akilles meant something else.


Akilles ALWAYS means something else. He's terribly sarcastic and cynical, and we all know that a cynic is an optimist who has been let down too many times


I have always referred to the mother lodge as the lodge I was raised in, or the UGLE, from which we all descend.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TgSoe" We must not forget that the Rosicrucians were the Initiators of Leibnitz, and the founders of actual Freemasonry through Ashmole."

Ashmole was invited into already functioning freemason lodges, so how could he have founded it? He also, apparently, kept very meticulous records, and only mentions freemasonry twice, and none of it is anything like him being the founder.

Also, how can the rosicurians be the founders of freemasonry? The two groups are extremely different, masonry used a stonemason's symbology, and seems, according to most, to be rather strongly linked with actual stonemason's guilds, rather than the rosicurians who use differen symbols mostly, and interpret the symbols they have in common in a different way, and are a 'esoteric alchemical mystic' group, which masonry apparently isn't.

And the book you cite, is it Blatvasky's? Why should she be taken as at all knowledgeable about any of this?

[The story goes on to relate that the Rosicrucian adepts became dissatisfied with ther progeny and silently withdrew from the Masonic hierarchy, leaving behind their symbolism and allegories, but carrying away the keys by which the locked symbols could be made to give up their secret meanings.

From what I understand, the Rosicurians, from the begining, we supposed to be the rosicurians, not the masons, and things like the story of rosenkreutz indicate that they only ever operated as Rosicurians, with RC as their 'badges'. True enough, the 'initiates' were supposed to operate in secret, or at least unobtrusively and quietly, but not that they created another secret society around them. Indeed, they were supposed to be going out into the world and collecting knowledge and bringing it back to the Rosicurian Centre, not initiating people into rituals.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
There is a time and place for a secret. Loose lips sink ships. Even a fish won't get caught if he keeps his mouth shut.... okay not a good example.
But it is a fact of our modern society that espionage, spies, secret dealings, out of the public eye are a fact. Remember Ollie North saying I dont remember a thousand times? I have a hunch he was keeping a secret, and likely for a pretty important reason.
As for the women, there is a section of Freemasonry called, "Ladies of the Eastern Star." It is full of women, and only women, men are not allowed, pretty sinister huh? lol The Mason bashing, conjecture, fabrication, and ignorance I read is overwhelming in quantity, but devoid of quality.
Blavatsky, Rosicrucians, etc. No way.
The Craft dates back thousands of years, at the very least it was in full swing when Hiram Abiff built Solomon's Temple, and likely dates back to ancient Egypt and Sumer. The recent fad of the last couple centuries is not the beginning, just a 'coming out' when the coast was clear.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
But it is a fact of our modern society that espionage, spies, secret dealings, out of the public eye are a fact. Remember Ollie North saying I dont remember a thousand times? I have a hunch he was keeping a secret, and likely for a pretty important reason.


Freemasonry is not so much a secret organization, as it is a private one. This is not much different than many gov't organizations, businesses and corporations andeven doctor's offices that must keep the medical records of patients a secret.

Meetings behind closed doors do not mean evil and nefarious goings-on, but it seems to be the nature of certain groups of people to always assume the very worst that their imagination will allow. Is this because they are paranoid, or simply because the truth is boring?



As for the women, there is a section of Freemasonry called, "Ladies of the Eastern Star." It is full of women, and only women, men are not allowed, pretty sinister huh?


The OES is actually not part of Freemasonry, it is a separate organization that is loosely associated with and under the protection of Freemasonry. It is not just for women, but a man MUST be a Freemason in order to be able to join. A woman must be the relative of a Freemason in order to join.



The Craft dates back thousands of years, at the very least it was in full swing when Hiram Abiff built Solomon's Temple, and likely dates back to ancient Egypt and Sumer. The recent fad of the last couple centuries is not the beginning, just a 'coming out' when the coast was clear.


By "the Craft", you are referring to operative masonry right? Like actual stonecutters, architects and builders?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I have met members of Ladies of the Eastern Star, and always got the impression they were part of it all. And I guess I assumed that the title meant men were not allowed. But if it is not called that, then that explains my error.
As for the last question regarding 'the craft'. Briefly, no, that is not my belief, I think that stonework is just one small part. And the Gothic Cathedrals, Pyramids, Solomon's Temple, etc., in my view are so amazing that their construction suggests knowledge beyond mere stonecutting and architecture. By 'the craft', I mean a compilation of teachings that is very powerful, and dangerous to let become known by all. Like the ancient Egyptian Priesthood, who were inconsolable when writing was invented because it opened up the chance a non-initiate, who had not been trained in all the safety precautions, could read the information and abuse it.
Fantastical, mysterious, I know, but that is what I meant anyway.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I have met members of Ladies of the Eastern Star, and always got the impression they were part of it all. And I guess I assumed that the title meant men were not allowed. But if it is not called that, then that explains my error.


Ah, I see. No, it is not called the "Ladies of", it is The Order of the Eastern Star.


The OES is often times considered to be Freemasonry for women, and many OES chapters are very close to the masonic lodge which they are affiliated with, leading some to feel like the OES is pretty much a part of masonry. Additionally, many masons who are also OES members tend to be very active in both organizations, further strengthening bonds between that OES chapter and Freemasonry. This is really not the case, though, and the two organizations are very different.



As for the last question regarding 'the craft'. Briefly, no, that is not my belief, I think that stonework is just one small part. By 'the craft', I mean a compilation of teachings that is very powerful, and dangerous to let become known by all.


Do you think that Freemasonry today has such knowledge?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Well, I am pretty sure the masons I see down at the local pub don't have any big, powerful secrets, but I could be wrong. What does it matter what I think, I am nobody. I don't know if the highest levels still protect such knowledge, I don't even know whether there is some singular international ruling board like some conspiracy theorists claim. I would not doubt that there is some private board of directors that are at the top of the hierarchy, but if so then I would bet that any of the 33 degree or lower Mastermasons would not need to know of their doings or existance, and might not know. It is safer that way. But, I have no definitive proof that the organization is millenia old, just a conclusion that is based on stringing together answers to questions throughout history that are most plausibly explained by their existance. The era of the Gothic Cathedral boom is one such anomaly in history, very little information on how, who, why, etc. The mathematics of the dimensions, the actual method of construction, and the design, and even the funding is all pretty vague. I feel it is plausible that Joseph, Jesus' father was a 'master of the craft', not a carpenter, but an influential, wise, well off, and knowledgeable man.
So there you have my speculations, which mean nothing cuz I don't know.
I just concluded that from my reading. The Templars, shroud, the defeat of the english at bannockburn, oak island, rosslyn chapel, the bible, Rennes le Chateaux, etc. all neatly join together to answer lots of questions, but it is just supposition, just my opinion on the most plausible sequence of events, which is not always right.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Well, I am pretty sure the masons I see down at the local pub don't have any big, powerful secrets, but I could be wrong.


The masons you see at your local pub are the same kinds of masons that hold office in a Grand Lodge. Once their one-year-term is over, they go right back to their mother lodge. But ALL masons have been taught the same things and taken the same oaths. This does not change once you take appendant degrees.



I don't know if the highest levels still protect such knowledge, I don't even know whether there is some singular international ruling board like some conspiracy theorists claim. I would not doubt that there is some private board of directors that are at the top of the hierarchy, but if so then I would bet that any of the 33 degree or lower Mastermasons would not need to know of their doings or existance, and might not know.


The organization known as Freemasonry is VERY transparent. Anybody can read the constitutions, minutes of meetings, etc. of each Grand Lodge. There is no singular ruling body in Freemasonry, each jurisdiction is headed by a Grand Lodge whicg has supreme authority in that jurisdiction. Each Grand Lodge is in recognition with the others and, if they stray too far away from the traditional principles of the organization of Freemasonry, they (as well as the masons in the jurisdiction) risk losing their recognition from all other Grand Lodges, and cease to be masons.

It's easy to say that there could be a secret top-level of masons, but it's impossible to prove. All the documentation, proof, evidence, logic and reason states that the organization of Freemasonry is structured just like it is shown. Remember: the organization itself is not secret. On the contrary, it is very open and public. It keeps some secrets private, but the organization, it's members, meeting places, aims, goals, constitutions, etc are not secret in any way.



The Templars, shroud, the defeat of the english at bannockburn, oak island, rosslyn chapel, the bible, Rennes le Chateaux, etc. all neatly join together to answer lots of questions, but it is just supposition, just my opinion on the most plausible sequence of events, which is not always right.


You've been reading Born in Blood, The Temple and the Lodge or The Hiram Key, haven't you? You are following one theory which is VERY difficult to prove. There are theories for the beginning of Freemasonry that are much more logical and conclusive.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I have indeed read those books, and dozens more on the subject, and hundreds that also indirectly relate. I am not a mason. But, in my humble opinion, a behind the scenes round table of a handful of faceless puppet masters. The public leaders, they do not make the calls, imho, they get their marching orders from above. Or not.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I am not a mason. But, in my humble opinion, a behind the scenes round table of a handful of faceless puppet masters. The public leaders, they do not make the calls, imho, they get their marching orders from above. Or not.


How is that possible, when any changes made by a Grand Lodge are always presented to and voted upon by the general membership of the jurisdiction?



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
My speculations, which I must stress are just that, were I think misunderstood due to my poor writing. I do not doubt that what you say is exactly the way you describe it. What I so badly tried to say was that I see signs and hints that there could be a few ultra-secretive, (for security reasons), people at the top of the worlds power chain. They might not be masons, some might be and some not, I could see the whole world represented by maybe a dozen key figures, who hold the strings of the leaders of the nations. Which I did not make clear, I did not mean the Lodge leaders, but Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair, etc. To me, it is not at all far fetched that these figureheads do what they are told. Of course, the members of such a roundtable are likely known names, just not known for that.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I have to agree with Nygdan's post, almost verbatim. To begin with, there's not even real evidence that a Rosicrucian Fraternity even existed; many historians believe the entire episode was a hoax, and that the Rosicrucian Manifestos and writings were authored by a single individual who simply wanted to inspire the founding of such an organization.

The 18° of Scottish Rite Masonry, called Rose Croix, was certainly inspired by the Rosicrucian writings, but probably not from a Rosicrucian organization.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye



Is the light of the Merkabah the light that masonry alludes to? Is Illumination, being in the presents, of the Merkabah?


On this, it is important to understand Masonry's historical roots. Modern Freemasonry is a product of what we would call the "Age of Enlightenment." Every symbol in Masonic ceremony can be traced to this phenomenon, and, just as it was in the period of the Enlightenment, "Light" refers to reason being championed. This "Light" is what separates the modern era from the so-called "dark ages".



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
But, I have no definitive proof that the organization is millenia old, just a conclusion that is based on stringing together answers to questions throughout history that are most plausibly explained by their existance.


There is not really much evidence for the existence of "speculative" Freemasonry prior to the 1700's - at least as far as what I've seen. Some researchers (Masonic and otherwise) have come up with some interesting theories, but nothing that I personally would label absolute proof.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
... that the Rosicrucian Manifestos and writings were authored by a single individual who simply wanted to inspire the founding of such an organization.


There is some speculation that the "single individual" may have been Johann Valentin Andreae (see this site: homepages.tesco.net...)



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Hammer: good or evil? Depends on who's swinging it and what's being hit. Would it be a big shock to anyone that someone at some point used the "tools" of Freemasonry for a nefarious purpose? I'd hope not. We're talking about humans, here. Is it the designed purpose of Freemasonry to do something most of us would consider evil? I seriously doubt it. Like almost anything, it's only as good or evil as the individual utilizing it, like any other tool, implement, or body of knowledge. The concept of Freemasonry being evil at it's core is simply not credible. IMHO.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join