Let's put an end to ALL secret societies

Not always do someones' beliefs have "proof" behind them.

The objections and suspitions about Free Masons have been too persistant to not have some fundamental foundation. While we may not accept these based in fact. We do need to be able to examinen them in detail to understand them. Masonry has for too long refused to counter, or even discuss, the objections of others. We have been told that we are above such things and that our good works will speak for themselves. This is obviously not working. I have read too many posts here by people who are not Trolls. We, as an orginization, need to adress them in the light of reason. Not just shout "Proof- Proof-Proof".

Originally posted by Masonic Student
Not always do someones' beliefs have "proof" behind them.

Agreed. But they nearly always require some form of logic. And if they are beliefs that you are going to push onto other people, you should be able to state how you came to yor conclusions.
Remember that this subject is an emotive one too. Marcus' theory involves making accusations against other people. I believe that in this scenario it is therefore justified to ask for proof.

The outcome of this 'secret destiny' is a World Order ruled by a King with supernatural powers.

This King was descended of a divine race; that is, he belonged to the Order of the Illumined for those who come to a state of wisdom then belong to a family of heroes-perfected human beings.'

Manly P. Hall 33° Mason, The Secret Destiny of America

That also disturbed me and here’s why:

As much as Hall is honest, he has also been pushed aside as being a Non-Mason or that of a late bloomer to Masonry and thus the implication that his books can be considered an improper source of guidance, when speaking on behalf of Freemasonry. I however disagree with that assessment completely.

Could this statement by Manly Hall confirm the next ruler, who will be crowned king of this earth from the New Temple of Solomon, rebuilt upon the Mount Rock or somewhere therein?

If it is so, then why does this appear to be in complete opposition to what Christ said about him not wanting to be King of the earth? On a more positive note, if we did have King Solomon who was Great King ruling over the Jews before, would it so improbable that we will once again have an advanced soul as our new King?

If it is true and he is a kind and loving man, not calling himslf a King, I shall accept him. However, I shall oppose his rule (until death) if he turns out to be serving evil or that selfish cause.

From what I read in the book, it seems that this man will be a force for good and bring upon a lasting peace for sometime. Yet, at the same time what if by good he means something other than what you and I consider “good”? For example, the Jesuits call something good which includes anything you want including torture, just as long as it furthers the greater goal like that building of the New Temple and a return to the dark Ages.

I also would like to hear from others regarding this statement by Hall.

We, as an orginization, need to adress them in the light of reason. Not just shout "Proof- Proof-Proof".

You write as an honest person and a true Mason.

Best,
Markusjharper

Open Borders

As far as history let's also test our knowledge of current events.

How about if I told you the poweres that be intend to have effectively open borders between the US, Mexico and Canada a few (under four) years from now and the American public was being for the most part left in the dark and even distracting attention attention from it by talking about guest worker programs, amnesty etc.

Would you tell me I was a conpiratorial fool? Please be honest in your initial reaction to such a stament.

I agree peopledying. As part of NAFTA etc, they plan to use the new "Amero" as the North American Standard Currency and have openly embraced this idea. We would be fools to ignore the obvious, IMO.


[edit on 29-11-2005 by markusjharper]

Originally posted by markusjharper
As much as Hall is honest, he has also been pushed aside as being a Non-Mason or that of a late bloomer to Masonry and thus the implication that his books can be considered an improper source of guidance, when speaking on behalf of Freemasonry. I however disagree with that assessment completely.

I also would like to hear from others regarding this statement by Hall.

And here we see another example of illogical connection.
It has already been pointed out to Marcus that Hall's books were written before he became a Mason. Marcus disagrees with the assessment of Halls' work based on the illogical assumption that Hall knows the internal workings of Freemasonry without actually being a member. He makes him the authorititive figure in a subject where he clearly doesn't have the authority given here!!!
Hall's work isn't "pushed aside" as a non-mason. He was a non-mason!!!!
And why does Marcus disagree with the assessment made of Hall's work? All we have is the usual blanket statement. There is not one single thing to back up why Hall should be taken and read as the definitive author. Enid Blyton wrote children's stories should I therefore consider her to be the first and foremost authority on World War 2? It's the same sort of logic!!!

And what better way to cement Hall as a figure of authority than by praising him? He becomes an "honest" man for the purposes of this part of his argument, whereas he reverts to being a fiend when his work contradicts Marcus' theory.

When you look at Marcus' work, you can see this sort of tactic being repeated over and over again - a plea for sanity in an insane situation that he himself has created!!!!

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Leveller]

Originally posted by markusjharper

I also would like to hear from others regarding this statement by Hall.

I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with Hall. He has never been considered an important writer inside the fraternity's scholarly circles, and his books are of much more interest to, and are much more widely read by, non-Masons, rather than Masons.

Secondly, in the 1976 reprint to "Lost Keys of Freemasonry", Hall wrote that at the time he was writing that book (among others), his only knowledge of Freemasonry came from a few books that were widely available to the general public, which he had found at his university's library. Your claim that Hall apparently "knew more about Masonry than anyone alive today" is disproven from the horse's own mouth.

Thirdly, you've once again ignored my inquiry as to which "grand masters" Hall "taught Masonry to". If what you claim is true, certainly you'll have no problem coming up with a name that can be verified.

I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with Hall. He has never been considered an important writer inside the fraternity's scholarly circles, and his books are of much more interest to, and are much more widely read by, non-Masons, rather than Masons.

I agree and it’s unfortunate that so many Masons do not know of him or care, and the non-Masons see him as a demon. Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

Secondly, in the 1976 reprint to "Lost Keys of Freemasonry", Hall wrote that at the time he was writing that book (among others), his only knowledge of Freemasonry came from a few books that were widely available to the general public, which he had found at his university's library. Your claim that Hall apparently "knew more about Masonry than anyone alive today" is disproven from the horse's own mouth.

He said that in answer to how he knew what he knew about Freemasonry. Akin to someone telling you that you must enter a Masonic lodge, to actually know the Secret or know what a Freemason is and to act as one. Do Christians have to go to a church to be a Christian, so why do Masons find it so hard to accept that one cannot be a Mason unless a member of a lodge? Seems rather odd to suggest that he knew nothing simply because he wrote several books about Masonry before officially join a lodge.

Thirdly, you've once again ignored my inquiry as to which "grand masters" Hall "taught Masonry to". If what you claim is true, certainly you'll have no problem coming up with a name that can be verified.

Manly Hall spoke to large audiences at the Scottish Rite Temple of Los Angeles. (In 1990 he held a special commencement of the future of Freemasonry, for example)

Amongst his closet peers and those who revered him as the Greatest Philosopher and Mason in this century were:

Paul Grell 33 – Best friend

Harold S. Stein Jr. 33

Laurence R. Stein 33 - Stage Director and Assistant Secretary to California Scottish rite Bodies.

Henry C. Clausen 33 Past Sovereign Grand Command - Free and Accepted Masons in California who signed and nominated Manly Hall as the Grand Commander and also with that of the Grand Cross (ya, know the one with that Rose in the center and pyramid steps around it in the “T” shape) He says that Hall would exemplify at foreseeing what he considered (similar to a futurist) and became the mentor to the other Grand Commanders and him as well.



[edit on 29-11-2005 by markusjharper]

Now ML,

Before my thread gets torn apart, would you or another Mason care to answer any of peopledying's or my questions regarding the significant issues which we now face today? Or do continue to ride the turnip wagon?

Oops! *puts hand over mouth*

*makes exit*

Dup post, buggy computer.

[edit on 29-11-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by markusjharper
He said that in answer to how he knew what he knew about Freemasonry. Akin to someone telling you that you must enter a Masonic lodge, to actually know the Secret or know what a Freemason is and to act as one. Do Christians have to go to a church to be a Christian, so why do Masons find it so hard to accept that one cannot be a Mason unless a member of a lodge? Seems rather odd to suggest that he knew nothing simply because he wrote several books about Masonry before officially join a lodge.

He's not exactly answered the question has he?
This is the weird thing: Marcus claims on the one hand that Freemasonry is a society full of secrets known only to a few yet the next moment that somebody who is not a Freemason knows all those secrets.
Hmmmm..... see the problem here?

Christians don't have to go to a church to be a Christian - true. But they do need to actually be Christians to be called Christians!!! You can't call a Muslim a Christian can you!!!!

Marcus might claim that "Seems rather odd to suggest that he knew nothing simply because he wrote several books about Masonry before officially join a lodge", but isn't it more logical to assume that somebody who is looking in from the outside is not going to have as clear a picture as the guy who is on the inside? How does saying "basically this guy wasn't a mason so he must know everything about Masonry" strengthen his case?

Originally posted by markusjharper


I agree and it’s unfortunate that so many Masons do not know of him or care, and the non-Masons see him as a demon. Kind of ironic, isn’t it?

I don't really think it's ironic; although Hall wrote about Freemasonry, he did so from the perspective of a Theosophist. Therefore, his ideas would have only little widespread interest, mainly among other Theosophists.

He said that in answer to how he knew what he knew about Freemasonry.

Which was sort of my point. He'd read a couple of the ritual exposures, along with some Blavatasky, put them together, and used it as a basis for his books. This is why I mentioned earlier that most don't consider his work a big deal, even those of us who respect him as a writer and a thinker.

so why do Masons find it so hard to accept that one cannot be a Mason unless a member of a lodge?

Because the definition of a Mason is one who has been initiated into the Masonic fraternity. Before Hall was initiated, he was sympathetic to Freemasonry, but was not a Mason.

Seems rather odd to suggest that he knew nothing simply because he wrote several books about Masonry before officially join a lodge.

I didn't say he knew nothing. He knew as much as anyone else who had read the same books that he himself did. I only disputed your claim that he knew more than anyone else.

Manly Hall spoke to large audiences at the Scottish Rite Temple of Los Angeles. (In 1990 he held a special commencement of the future of Freemasonry, for example)

This was shortly before his death, and by then, he was already a member of the Los Angeles Scottish Rite bodies. I do not dispute that Hall was a Mason, and often spoke at Masonic functions. I do the same the same thing, and so do many others. I only dispute your claim that he "taught Masonry to Grand Masters", especially before he himself became a Mason.

Amongst his closet peers and those who revered him as the Greatest Philosopher and Mason in this century were:

I'm aware that Hall was a very kind and likable old guy; I'm also aware that he was and is respected by those who've read his works, including myself. I'm also aware that when he passed away, the Scottish Rite Journal lamented his death in an obituary to "Masonry's Greatest Philosopher".

Now, the "Masonry's Greatest Philosopher" tag was the opinion of the author of the obituary. Hall was an interesting philosopher and a good man, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as the Journal did.

Henry C. Clausen 33 Past Sovereign Grand Command - Free and Accepted Masons in California who signed and nominated Manly Hall as the Grand Commander and also with that of the Grand Cross (ya, know the one with that Rose in the center and pyramid steps around it in the “T” shape)

I'm not sure where you got that, but it is incorrect. Hall was never a member of the Supreme Council, much less nominated to Grand Commander. He did indeed receive the 33°, but this degree, outside of members of the Supreme Council, is honorary only. When Clausen retired, he nominated Fred Kleinknecht to become Grand Commander, who was unanimously elected.

This was shortly before his death, and by then, he was already a member of the Los Angeles Scottish Rite bodies. I do not dispute that Hall was a Mason, and often spoke at Masonic functions. I do the same the same thing, and so do many others. I only dispute your claim that he "taught Masonry to Grand Masters", especially before he himself became a Mason.

You are correct and he did not teach it to Grand Masters before being initiated in to the lodge but I was referring to his ability to write deeply about Masonry and teach it to people before joining a lodge. Then to top it all off, he became a member who was later a role model for Grand Commanders etc. I go by memory 90% of the time and need to clarify that but I think still far too many Masons feel he was not a Mason and that is simply not true based on what I have proven. The point is not to discredit him and yet that is what Masons try to do. If you don’t agree with what he says then explain why and don’t focus so much on the whether he was “this” or “that”. It leads no-where and I have already mentioned that many times.

I'm aware that Hall was a very kind and likable old guy; I'm also aware that he was and is respected by those who've read his works, including myself. I'm also aware that when he passed away, the Scottish Rite Journal lamented his death in an obituary to "Masonry's Greatest Philosopher". Now, the "Masonry's Greatest Philosopher" tag was the opinion of the author of the obituary. Hall was an interesting philosopher and a good man, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as the Journal did.

So in your opinion he’s not the Greatest, yet the Masonic author of the obituary thought he was. Ok, because I’m too tired to argue ML, I agree with you and not the author. So who was or is the greatest Mason of this century in your opinion?

I'm not sure where you got that, but it is incorrect. Hall was never a member of the Supreme Council, much less nominated to Grand Commander. He did indeed receive the 33°, but this degree, outside of members of the Supreme Council, is honorary only. When Clausen retired, he nominated Fred Kleinknecht to become Grand Commander, who was unanimously elected.

Not sure if you noticed but I did not get it from a Google search – that would be too easy to tell anyhow. I have the movie for starters but then again why the big fuss? I answered your questions honestly as I could; you know that I can certainly do that much, so when are your guys going to answer some of our questions regarding the current events?

I did not come here to prove my knowledge about other Masons by answering question after question. If you want to keep asking me questions hoping that I may screw up and you can point it out to us all, then I suppose I have already lost, as I will eventually tire and make an error and by this time forgotten my question or reason for coming here. Or is this not the point?

You’re not the only Mason here ML and still it would be nice to have some response to our questions regarding current events also – if ever.

Originally posted by markusjharper
If you don’t agree with what he says then explain why and don’t focus so much on the whether he was “this” or “that”. It leads no-where and I have already mentioned that many times.

"Hello pot. This is kettle."

And where did he get the line that most Freemasons don't agree that Manley Hall was a member?
Every Freemason I know who broaches the subject is aware of Hall's membership. Some are also aware that he wasn't a mason when he wrote the books Marcus is referring to. Focussing on "this or that" is not a big deal to Marcus once he has been proven wrong. Before that instance it is the be all and end all. He will use "this or that" in his argument - indeed he is even the one to first bring the subject up. But once he gets found out he seemingly forgets this.

As for other Masons answering him? Beware. He might put you on ignore if you don't agree with him!!

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Leveller]

You go tell Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush Sr to declassify their files on ufo's, you go tell bush sr, his son, and other former us presidents that swore on the masonic bible to come clean and start being open about their secrets.
Go tell the Bilderberg's to stop holding secret meeting every year and to allow the press and you in.

I wish you the best of luck, perhaps this will happen though... in your dreams.

Originally posted by markusjharper

You are correct and he did not teach it to Grand Masters before being initiated in to the lodge

Thank you.

but I was referring to his ability to write deeply about Masonry and teach it to people before joining a lodge.

This may seem like it's splitting hairs, but is nevertheless an important concept here: Hall didn't really teach Masonry in his books; what he taught was Theosophy. He simply used Masonry as a vehicle to teach Theosophy. This isn't much different from James Anderson, a Presbyterian minister, using Masonry to teach Christianity. Hall was a Theosophist before he became a Mason, and Anderson was a Christian before he became one. They simply used the Masonic fraternity and its symbolism to teach stuff they already believed before either of them knew anything about Masonry.

Then to top it all off, he became a member who was later a role model for Grand Commanders etc.

I don't know if I'd go that far. Grand Commander Henry Clausen respected Hall, and nominated him for the 33°; but Clausen did the same for hundreds of other California residents (Clausen was simultaneously Grand Commander of the Supreme Council and SGIG in California).

I go by memory 90% of the time and need to clarify that but I think still far too many Masons feel he was not a Mason and that is simply not true based on what I have proven.

I don't think you need to prove he was a Mason. He was indeed a Mason, and his Masonic record is fairly well known.

The point is not to discredit him and yet that is what Masons try to do. If you don’t agree with what he says then explain why and don’t focus so much on the whether he was “this” or “that”. It leads no-where and I have already mentioned that many times.

I'm not trying to discredit Hall or anyone else. But I am saying that if one relies on Hall alone, without consulting the work of more academic Masonic researchers, then one is not going to have a realistic understanding of Freemasonry.

So who was or is the greatest Mason of this century in your opinion?

If by this you mean greatest Masonic author, I could give you my opinion. If by "this century" you mean last century, when Hall wrote, I would say it's probably a tie between Dr. Joseph Fort Newton, Harold Van Buren Voorhis, and Henry Wilson Coil. I would've included A.E. Waite, but I've found a few too many errors in his work.

Not sure if you noticed but I did not get it from a Google search – that would be too easy to tell anyhow. I have the movie for starters but then again why the big fuss?

I'm not sure what "movie" you're talking about, but Supreme Council Executive sessions are not filmed. Nevertheless, the minutes of the sessions are published in the Transactions of the Supreme Council. Manly Hall was never a member of the Supreme Council, nor was ever nominated to office there.

I answered your questions honestly as I could; you know that I can certainly do that much, so when are your guys going to answer some of our questions regarding the current events?

I haven't seen any questions regarding current events as they relate to freemasonry. If you have something specific to ask, I'll try to answer.

Originally posted by Masonic Student
Not always do someones' beliefs have "proof" behind them.

The objections and suspitions about Free Masons have been too persistant to not have some fundamental foundation. While we may not accept these based in fact. We do need to be able to examinen them in detail to understand them. Masonry has for too long refused to counter, or even discuss, the objections of others. We have been told that we are above such things and that our good works will speak for themselves. This is obviously not working. I have read too many posts here by people who are not Trolls. We, as an orginization, need to adress them in the light of reason. Not just shout "Proof- Proof-Proof".

This is the point I have made so often. The mass of information against Masons is so large and a lot of it is impossible to globally toss as junk. As a non-troll and a non-anti who started looking into it after the FBI recommendation to look at the Zionist focus which lead me, inexorably, to the Masonic involment questions, well, it will happen to any non-biased researcher who starts poking around so Masons need to become more willing to not categorically deny it is so frequently happens or they will look suspicious. Thanks for the frankness, we need it in this mind-bogling and twisted we live in.



[edit on 29-11-2005 by intrepid]

Originally posted by Dedicated_Dad
I've not responded to your posts of late because the "information" in them is frankly -- to a Mason -- just bizarre, and I can't find a "nice" way to say so. I found an indisputable fact that I hope will help.

Brother Hall wrote "The Secret Destiny of America" in 1944, ten years before he became a Mason. I've been unable to determine when he received his "Honorary 33rd Scottish Rite Degree", but in any case it could not have been sooner than 10 years after he became a Mason, meaning qt least 20 years after writing this book.

Obviously this means this book could have no "Masonic" authority. Further, Manley Hall -- for all his esoteric and occult leanings, was no "Masonic Authority" either. Frankly, in my jurisdiction, it would have been hard to find a lodge that would have accepted a person of such "occult" notoriety, but since some lodge, somewhere, did, I call him "Brother."

Thereafter he must have petitioned a Scottish Rite body for admission, and received -- not "taught" but RECEIVED -- the Scottish Rite Degrees, although it is not unheard of for those with the proper authority to confer an Honorary status to someone who has not petitioned. Again -- I don't know which SR Body did this for Brother Hall, but it's certainly possible that some group of my SR Brethren thought Brother Manley was 'da bomb and bestowed such an honor on him. Still, this doesn't mean that the rest of us think he was anything more than some far-out dude with some really strange philosophical leanings.

I think from the later discussions here between Markus and Masonic Light he was an influential Mason despite exactly when he joined. Let's get back on point.
Most of the elite were born elite. Their upbringing is steeped in tradition and is a kind of secret society in of itself. Their father was a Mason, his father was a Mason, his father's father was a Mason. Perhaps while growing up the child heard stories of his father's involvement in other secret groups.

'There exists in the world today, and has existed for thousands of years, a body of enlightened humans united in what might be termed, an Order of the Quest. It is composed of those whose intellectual and spiritual perceptions have revealed to them that civilization has secret destiny..

The outcome of this 'secret destiny' is a World Order ruled by a King with supernatural powers.

This King was descended of a divine race; that is, he belonged to the Order of the Illumined for those who come to a state of wisdom then belong to a family of heroes-perfected human beings.'

Is this follow along Masonic beliefs or not?



Why is it that The Reverend Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, 33°, Bishop Carl J. Sanders, 33°, G.C., Rabbi Seymour Atlas, 33°, Dr. James P. Wesberry, 32°, K.C.C.H., The Reverend Louis R. Gant, 33°, or The Reverend Dr. W. Kenneth Lyons, Jr., 33°, G.C. , are never cited as "Masonic Authorities"? Because there's no sensationalism to be gained from pointing out their membership!

I don't know much about these individuals. What would help is a comprehensive resource that includes Yitzak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Peter G. Peterson, Yassir Arafat, Didnet, Binyamin Netanyahu, Reagan etc. Do you know where to get this information?

I mean you no disrespect, but can assure you that the sooner you disposess yourself of the notion that Masonry is at the root of, or even part of any sort of nefarious "grand conspiracy", the better off you're going to be.

Consider the fact that we can't agree from jurisdiction to jurisdiction -- over 100 Grand Lodge jurisdictions in the US alone -- what exactly constitutes proper ritual or at what age a man can become a Mason. I love my Fraternity, but the odds that Masons could be part of something so broad and deep is simply laughable.

There may be a secret group of boogeymen out there somewhere -- I don't think so, but there MAY be -- but I am 100% SURE that you'll never find it in Masonry. Any claim to the contrary -- whether found on a website, book, or otherwise, should be your first hint to question the credibility of its author.

I've made some comments about "a better class of website." That was perhaps uncharitable. What I probably should have said would have been to repeat advice I received many times as a child: "Consider the source."

Some websites should be immediately recognized as the work of kooks and others as the work of

charlatans. On the other hand, some may be considered to be relatively credible sources in spite of their eclectic and unconventional origins.

If they use the terms "Masonry" "Illuminati" "Jesuits" and "New World Order" in the same paragraph, and aren't joking or debunking nonsense, it's a safe bet they don't belong in the latter category.

You'd be well served to first educate yourself as to the facts about Masonry, the actual history of the "illuminati" and the "Jesuits" (not to mention other topics apt to send some folks scurrying for the tinfoil) so as to be equipped to critically and logically evaluate the claims made about them. The sort of websites you've been posting aren't exactly condusive to education or critical analysis.

If you want to know about Masonry, Masonic websites are a logical place to go. In spite of the ridiculous claims, we've nothing to hide. Think of it another way: If you want to know about the KKK, who would you ask? Wouldn't it make sense to find out what they say about themselves? If you check out their website or those of the church of satan and aryan nations (all of which I personally find disgusting

) you'll find that they pretty much admit everything that's said about them.

Why would you trust such groups to be honest about themselves, and believe what they say, but dismiss, say The Masonic Information Center or some equivalent bonafide authority as inaccurate while accepting the word of outsiders? Why would you, if you want to know "Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?" not believe us when we try to tell you? If you believe we are evil, why are we the only evil that cannot be believed? The very premise defies all logic.

DD I said many times I do not belive the majority of members of Masonry, Jehovas, Mormons, etc are the same as what inhabit the top. My remarks as to where you get your info and if it in not possible that you do not know everything there to be know. For example are you that close to Binyamin Netanyahu?

I really am trying to help, and I sincerely hope you'll take this in the spirit in which it was intended.

Respectfully,

DD

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by markusjharper
**I will not respond to any post on this thread designed to flood the reader with cut and pasting; nor the post which ask for proof, evidence and more proof

Then basically, all I have to say is that your post is complete and utter bollocks.

"I'm going to write what I like, but nobody is allowed to argue with me".

But then you've never supplied one bit of evidence for one single claim that you have made here - ever. Nice change of tactic though. Deny the supplying of proof before you are asked for it.

Leveller I notice you consume a lot of paper in backbiting but never address specific evidences or questions such as:

Is the content of the Manly Hall excerpt consistent with Masonry.

You did not respond to questions anout the Great White Brotherhood.

You did not respond to my query about open borders.

You did not respond to my questions about if it is not possible all Masons do have access to upper eschelon info about masonry and about where you get your information etc.

Blamket denials are utterly worthless.