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.

 

Talking to the wife about freemasonry

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngelWitch

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
What I mean is simply this: that having a freemason answer questions that a spouse might have could possibly present answers that are less than entirely objective. Especially if the freemason is high-ranking specifically because the time and effort invested in the fraternity naturally increases with the completion of requirements necessary for such advancements in rank.


So have the spouse do the research for herself, I believe i mentioned that above. The remainder the above post is fallacy.


Yeah you did. You also asked me a question. I answered it.




posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
What I mean is simply this: that having a freemason answer questions that a spouse might have could possibly present answers that are less than entirely objective. Especially if the freemason is high-ranking specifically because the time and effort invested in the fraternity naturally increases with the completion of requirements necessary for such advancements in rank.


Please define "high-ranking." Then, if you would be so kind, give me some examples of questions said spouse might pose that would result in "less than entirely objective" answers.

It's really very simple. You put as much time into Masonry as you will. Family comes first. If you have family engagements or responsibilities, those take precedence to any Masonic engagements or responsibilities.

Contrary to what Moonchild says (which isn't surprising...
), your wife's feelings and opinions on the issue matter greatly, and if she doesn't approve of you joining, the lodge will reject your petition. Masonry does not wish to cause problems for the candidate at home. Period.

I think (and pardon me if I seem to be putting words into your mouth) what you are saying is that by joining appendant bodies and advancing through the degrees of the York or Scottish Rites (these do not denote "rank"), you would obviously have to devote more time and attention to them in order to participate. To this I would concur, to a degree (no pun intended). It takes a time commitment, althought the amount of time you commit is completely up to the individual Mason.

In other words, family commitments come before Masonic commitments. I don't know how to say it any plainer than that.

Like I posted originally, talk to your wife about it, be honest, show her what you read and help her to understand it the way you do. Show her the anti-Masonic literature, and then show her how and why it is false. If she understands your reasoning for wanting to join, then chances are she will not have a problem; what wife wouldn't want a husband who is constantly trying to improve himself?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
No group is above cautious suspicion by prospective members. And especially groups purporting to possess esoteric knowledge based on initiation into a tiered system of level-based qualification.

People who have entered into the system and remain members agree with its philosophy and subsequent propaganda or else such a member would have left the group. Consequently, a person is biased in favor of the group to which he or she belongs. (Keeping in mind that "bias" is not an inheritantly pejoritave term.) Furthermore, directly because of esoteric information that the member has confidentially, I am placed at a disadvantage in any such "discussion". I can't question what I'm not allowed to know.

For example: One such group is known as "the church of scientology". If my wife wanted to be a scientologist, I would not specifically direct all of my questions and concerns to a level VI scientologist or any scientologist. As I am not a level VI scientologist myself, there is no way that the member can have a truly free dialogue regarding the level's "priviledged" information.


[SPELLING and EDIT]


[edit on 18-9-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
For example: One such group is known as "the church of scientology".


Comparing Scientology to Freemasonry is like comparing a rabid wild boar to a guinea pig.

Different animals.

Does Freemasonry have a billion year contract?! I don't think so...

Freemasonry has nothing to hide, and those who have eyes to see can see that. Those who cloud their minds with conspiracy nonsense and distrust for their fellow man (both of which are regrettably abundant in this day and age), see evil where there is none; they see conspiracy to harm, when in reality, Masons only "conspire" to make themselves better men, thereby making the world a better place; one man at a time... or perhaps how to help those less fortunate. I was witness recently to a brainstorming session in the lodge on how they were going to help Katrina victims. They finally decided that they were (among several other things) going to go out to one of the camps where evacuees are being housed to help serve food, etc; gather up personal effects, toiletries, that sort of thing, for displaced families; and also buy school supplies and uniforms for children of evacuees that were to going to start school here.

That's my kind of conspiracy!


[edit on 9/19/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Axeman -

Yes, because I am explaining how I approach concerns about group membership, and because scientology and freemasonry are similar from basic standpoints of heirarchy and the protection of esoteric knowledge, I would use the same method of approach. The nature of the groups is irrelevent at this point. To you masonry may be a tamed lion, but I don't know that do I? No matter what the lion says to me, I walk up to it just as carefully as the hungry and wild lion. A philanthropic lion is still worthy of caution and I believe wolves can wear sheep's clothing.

You are now explaining to me your experience and opinion of the group you already belong to. That is precisely what my approach is designed to prevent as the sole source of explanation. You are a member and as such you are likewise indoctrinated. Ideally, I would want to speak with an ex-member as well, keeping in mind that both sources are possibly equally biased in opposite directions.

Your passion makes me more confident in the reality of my approach's necessity and importance.

You don't have to convince me that your experience is positive. If anything, I am suspicious of groups in general and as I explained, especially those where public knowledge and documentation decreases as the hierarchy progresses upward. Upward is where my concerns lay. Before I join the troops, I want to make sure that I understand the campaign.

If I'm buying a house, I want to see all of the rooms. If the agent says, "Trust me, they are great", I still want to see them. You might trust the agent outright, or believe friends that you trust who say that they have seen the rooms. It's a choice and at such a stage isn't merely a commentary about the condition of the house as a whole. I can only comment on the rooms that I've seen or am allowed to see. But I'm still not going to buy the house until I have seen the very last tiny little room. And as such it is absolutely the most important room to me.

[SPELLING and GRAMMAR]

[edit on 19-9-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
I hope your wife lets you join.

Other tactics that can be helpful (these are serious and should only be used if necessary...#4 is for comic relief):

1. Coercive pursuasion
2. Systematic thought reform procedures
3. Transient vulnerability and/or dislocation techniques
4. Just explain that you'll be discovering ancient and mystical mysteries that you won't be able to talk to her about. Even though that shouldn't conflict with your wedding vows or unique ideas regarding the necessary components of trust, any measure of mystery, no matter how small, usually spices up the old bedroom activities.



Um... numbers 1 and 2 might be a bit much - I don't wanna force her into the idea, knowingly or unknowingly. I don't even know what 3 means. However, 4 sounds pretty groovy, especially if they have a copy of the Kama Sutra lying around the lodge!



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
I just find the statement about family, religion, etc. unnecessary. No one is supposed to be trumping that sort of stuff anyway. I don't see how it would dispell a true and valid concern from a spouse.


I don't want to be misunderstood. To clarify, my wife has only heard the word "freemasonry" used in negative terms, but cannot recall if she heard anything specifically stated about their practices.

If she ends up researching it out, and decides she does not like the idea, or if she talks with some people on a council, and she says that she is still uneasy about it... well, that's it then - I won't join.

I don't want to push the issue with her. I know how she is - if you push something too hard she will give in and try to pretend nothing is wrong, but you can tell she is upset. So, I know better than to shove this in her face.

I plan to talk about it with her dad and get his feelings about it as well as our church leaders. Many of my early church leaders were masons (a topic for a different forum section, not this thread), and so there should not be much or any objection to it from that angle.

In my opinion, if the majority percentage of America's Founding Fathers were freemasons who inserted their beliefs into American law, and all the freedom we have today is because of freemason ideals, then every man in America should be a freemason.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman
[Does Freemasonry have a billion year contract?! I don't think so...

I was witness recently to a brainstorming session in the lodge on how they were going to help Katrina victims. They finally decided that they were (among several other things) going to go out to one of the camps where evacuees are being housed to help serve food, etc; gather up personal effects, toiletries, that sort of thing, for displaced families; and also buy school supplies and uniforms for children of evacuees that were to going to start school here.

That's my kind of conspiracy!



Oh no! The Mark of the Beast! If you multiply the significance of "Katrina" by the integrand of "Toiletry," and divide by "Master Mason," you get...

666!!!!!!!!!! AAAAEEEEEIIIIIIIII!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
You are now explaining to me your experience and opinion of the group you already belong to. That is precisely what my approach is designed to prevent as the sole source of explanation. You are a member and as such you are likewise indoctrinated. Ideally, I would want to speak with an ex-member as well, keeping in mind that both sources are possibly equally biased in opposite directions.

Your passion makes me more confident in the reality of my approach's necessity and importance.


Heheh. Contrary to popular belief... I am not a Mason. Yet. Soon, though.

So, I am not a member; I am not "indoctrinated." I am an outsider who just happens to have done loads and loads and loads of homework on the subject of Freemasonry. About a year and a half's worth; practically every day. I read anything I can get my hands on, frankly, and I still have a lot to read. That's what Freemasonry is, among other things... it's a lifetime of learning.

I started with the anti-Mason literature, then went on to read what Masons have to say about themselves, via the internet and by actually visiting with them, both here, via email and u2u, and at the actual lodges in my town.

Indoctrinated? Absolutely not.

Convinced due to extensive personal research and investigation? Absolutely.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with a cautious approach, and a healthy amount of skepticism is perfectly fine... but don't let fantasy and ridiculous claims trump common sense and reason; otherwise there is no hope of denying ignorance. That's all I'm saying.

Compare what Masons tell you to what anti-Masons tell you. It's not hard to see who is telling the truth and who is not.

BTW - Most of the Masons here are 32° (Scottish Rite) or KT's (York Rite), or both.

[edit on 9/20/05 by The Axeman]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join