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.

 

How do you prove a negative?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
While I can't claim to have read every thread on masonry on thi frum, I have kept up with the current ones. (as well as having read the first ten pages staring with the oldest ones and working backwards.) One thig has become glareingly obvious, masons are generly placed in the position of having to prove the negative.

The Posative (depending on your view)
1) Masonry is not a religion.
2) Masonry has no secrates. The rituals are posted on the web. Also in books, available to anyone. (see Link blow)
3) Masonry consists of 3 repeat THREE degrees period.
4) 32nd "Degree" refers to the Scottish Rites, a seperate orginization. Granted only open to masons but still a seperate org.
5) There is no orverall controling orginization, each Grand Lodge is autonomous.

While I will not violate my oblogation, there is nothing that would prevent me from posting a link that would be educational. The link is to an anti-masonry site but the do an excellant job of posting the degrees of free masonry. While there are diffrances they are close enough to more than give you the information to decide for yourselves. I do not agree with the conclusions the site autors draw I have sufficiant faith in both the members of this comunity and the facts to let the degrees AND the lectures at their conclusions speak for themselves.

www.ephesians5-11.org/masonicritual/

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Masonic Student]

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Masonic Student]

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Masonic Student]




posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
@#$%#$%@$^@@

Te link doesn't work but typing the adress does. Sorry about that I need help in how to post an active link obviously. Baby steps please. As I have enough trouble using the key board as it is.

Now it does, and the post is more or less back too, thanks Valhal, CUG an kinglizard for the help.

[edit on 5-12-2005 by Masonic Student]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Masonic student, do it this way...

[ url ]http://thisismylinkpleasevisit.com[ /url ]

Only leave the spaces out between the brackets and the url tags.

If you'll go back into your original post and edit the tag this way, it will be clickable.


Cug

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Student
One fact is glaringly obvious, masonic rebutal is almost always trying to prove the negative.

Stating the positive:
1) Masonry is not a religion.
2) Masonry has no secrets. It Is all available on the web. (see the link at the end.)
3) Free Masonry conists of 3 repeat THREE degrees period.
4) 32 nd degree refers to the Scottish Rites. Not Free Masony. It is a seperate org., granted only open to masons, but still a seperate orginization.
5) There is no overall world wide controle, each Grand Lodge is autonomous.


It's all in your point of view. The Anti-masonry people feel they are proving the positive, and you are trying to prove a negative.

Simple fact neither side will prove anything to the other side. But you should be able to talk about it without resorting to some of the crappy behavior I have seen here from both sides. Remember the only mind you can change is the one who is undecided, and that person is going to take account of your actions as much as your facts.

Oh and if you post the whole url (with the http part) the board will make it's own link
www.ephesians5-11.org...

[edit on 12/5/2005 by Cug]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Cug

My premise is that masons, in trying to rebut an acusation are trying to say what we are "not". ie: not a religion, not a secrate orginization with aims of world domination, not a front for the illuminati.

Too many of the treads confuse Free masonry with the Scottish Rites and/or the York Rite. Both of which are much later, seperatly formed, orginizations. Neither of which exert controle over Free Masonry. While they are made up of masons, they are not (there is that consept again) masonry as such.

It is a fine line but to a mason an import one. No mason has to go on to one of the other orginization. He will not be a "higher" mason if he does. I am guilty of using the short handed version of "32nd degree mason", myself. The proper phrase is "32nd degree scottish rites mason". By misusing this shorthand I now know I am contributing the the confusion. And will forthwith stop.


Cug

posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Student

My premise is that masons, in trying to rebut an acusation are trying to say what we are "not". ie: not a religion, not a secrate orginization with aims of world domination, not a front for the illuminati.


And the other side is trying to rebut accusations that they are lying, or are wackos, or don't know the "truth." The door swings both ways.




Too many of the treads confuse Free masonry with the Scottish Rites and/or the York Rite. Both of which are much later, seperatly formed, orginizations. Neither of which exert controle over Free Masonry. While they are made up of masons, they are not (there is that consept again) masonry as such.


I agree with you there, but the numerical increment in the degrees would tend to give someone that impression. I know I sure thought that in the past, after all we are used to a 10th grader being higher in "rank" than an 9th grader.

Another thing I don't think has been explained clearly is exactly what irregular masonry is. There are what looks to be thousands of "masonic" groups and side degrees out there, and that makes you have to prove the negative of say Crowley was a mason.

What I guess I'm saying is if you want to prove a negative, you have to explain things better so you don't have to prove it in the first place.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
It is patently impossible to prove a negative.

I would however, like to point out that a review of the proven facts concerning the fraternity would tend to point toward a benevolent rather than malevolent organization.

* The time and money donated to charity.

* The character of many members of the fraternity and their contributions to society.

I am aware that members of the fraternity have also fallen far short of Masonry's stated ideals. That said, the charges of "satanic" worship, manipulation of governments, and other accusations seem to lack evidence.

One would think that an organization bent on world domination would have produced far more evidence than has been proffered.

Nazi Germany certainly produced such evidence. When I examine Freemasonry, I just don't see it.

I am reminded of a saying that I cannot attribute at the moment:

"For the believer no evidence is necessary; for the skeptic, none will suffice."



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Masons and skeptics would do well to understand the circle in the circle symbol of iluminati. circle in the circle is like a group in a group. the larger circle doesn't know that the inner circle exists. it only sees the larger circle.

Most CIA agents familys don't even know their spouse or family member is CIA. If you are CIA and write for a newspaper as cover, then all your family and friends are convinced you are a newspaper writer. AND NOBODY CAN PROVE OTHERWISE. THERE'S PLENTY OF EVIDENCE YOU ARE A WRITER, YOU CAN TAKE THEM TO THE PAPER AND SHOW THEM YOU ARE A WRITER. ANYBODY WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS CRAZY.

But does that mean everybody who writes for that paper is CIA? NO!
Do the other writers at the paper know the CIA man is CIA? NO!

But let it get out that one of the writers is CIA and all the writers are suspect. The entire paper becomes suspect. The whole industry becomes suspect. conspiracy theories will abound.


Cug

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by one last time

Most CIA agents familys don't even know their spouse or family member is CIA. If you are CIA and write for a newspaper as cover, then all your family and friends are convinced you are a newspaper writer. AND NOBODY CAN PROVE OTHERWISE. THERE'S PLENTY OF EVIDENCE YOU ARE A WRITER, YOU CAN TAKE THEM TO THE PAPER AND SHOW THEM YOU ARE A WRITER. ANYBODY WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS CRAZY.


But what if the inner circle *was* imaginary.

Say there were no CIA working for a paper. But someone claims that there is and offers as proof the fact that Mr X is at Langley every 3rd Mon. And you spend all day with Mr X every Monday and you state as much to the anti-paper guy. and they blow you off or say it's just a cover or you "don't know".

If you were a Mason and you knew there was no inner circle and the inner circle everyone describes is contrary to the most basic tenits of masonry. How would you counter that idea?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by one last time
Most CIA agents familys don't even know their spouse or family member is CIA. If you are CIA and write for a newspaper as cover, then all your family and friends are convinced you are a newspaper writer. AND NOBODY CAN PROVE OTHERWISE. THERE'S PLENTY OF EVIDENCE YOU ARE A WRITER, YOU CAN TAKE THEM TO THE PAPER AND SHOW THEM YOU ARE A WRITER. ANYBODY WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS CRAZY.

But does that mean everybody who writes for that paper is CIA? NO!
Do the other writers at the paper know the CIA man is CIA? NO!

But let it get out that one of the writers is CIA and all the writers are suspect. The entire paper becomes suspect. The whole industry becomes suspect. conspiracy theories will abound.


But equally it is probable that, in any given newspaper, there is no CIA agent working under cover. It's a possibility, and no more than that.

As nothing can be proved one way or the other on an Internet Forum we left with deductive reasoning and likelihood, taking all aspects into account (e.g. veracity of source, comparison with wider experiences, etc). Whilst there may be motive for a CIA agent to work for a newspaper, I don't understand why a Global Manipulator would choose freemasonry over any other organization. Indeed why would they choose to join an organization at all?

I guess I'm agreeing with your premise, we're both making the point that this is a difficult area. But of all the areas of ATS we are lucky that there are actually members of the organization under discussion here. Questions can be asked and answers given, and people will make their own mind up based on that.

And that's the way it should be.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
If one takes the stance that there is an "inner circle" to Freemasonry, and that "inner circle" had an agenda to manipulate world events, would there not be some evidence of this?

As far as I can tell, Freemasonry has been on the world scene since 1717. In almost 300 years, there does not seem to be evidence that the organization, (or a subset of that organization), has succeeded in steering world events successfuly. The fortunes of nations have risen and fell. Dictators and regimes that have tried to exend their influence around the globe have consistantly failed to achieve that end. Would it not make sense that some cabal that is as powerful as some would have us believe it is, be further along in their agenda?

If such an "inner circle" existed, it would seem that they are quite inept...



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Traveling_Man
I would however, like to point out that a review of the proven facts concerning the fraternity would tend to point toward a benevolent rather than malevolent organization.

* The time and money donated to charity.
* The character of many members of the fraternity and their contributions to society.

I am aware that members of the fraternity have also fallen far short of Masonry's stated ideals. That said, the charges of "satanic" worship, manipulation of governments, and other accusations seem to lack evidence.


Me being a Christian, though not a fundamentalist per say, let me add this bit of perspective to the pot:

First, a Christian does not look at good works as a sign in and of itself. Actually, as a Christian you are supposed to do good works in the deepest of secrecy so no one knows about them. The Bible even goes so far as to say that even an evil man is every bit as capable of doing good works, especially when it is for something or someone that he loves. So this is not much of a measure of anything, besides it has been argued that the money that they actually give to charity is such a small portion of the whole that they should really not bring it up as much as they do.

As to the manipulation of the government: the fact that so many high-ranking people of so many governments throughout history have been members is going to make it a hard sell to many that they not steering the world. I personally do not see that there is any human group that steers this world, but rather Satan who is the prince of this world. Now you can give those that are in power and being manipulated by Satan any name you want, but as far as them needing to have somewhere to meet or some organization to belong to, I just don’t see the need.

Since Cug is here, and some order is supposed to be restored on these subjects, I would very much like to continue what we had discussed before on the OTO thread. I learned something from one of you OTO guys in that thread that made me re-think some of the way I approached things in these discussions, and it should have been apparent from that point on. It was brought up in there that, “so what is wrong with being a pagan anyway”.

That got me thinking, as a Christian, other then the fact it’s not what I personally believe, and it is against what the Bible says, I have no answer. If that is your ideal set then I have no way to tell you its wrong, the only source I have is one that you put no faith in, which is my ideal set.

Why this relates to masonry is that I believe that this Pagan symbolism and ritual is what gets you all in hot water with the fundamentalists to begin with. I know it’s the reason I cannot join. Since it’s against your oaths to discuss it, then you have everyone stuck in a catch 22. The fundamentalists are going to keep calling you Satanists and Luciferians, and you cannot defend it other then to lie and deny you do this or that, which we know you do. It is apparent to everyone that looks into masonry that it is rife with Occult, Pagan ritual and symbolism. A Fundamentalist is going to lump that all into Satanism, or at best Luciferianism. The reason being that like it or not the symbols are the same, right down to using Blue/White/Silver in the aprons and alter cover, which are symbols of air and Lucifer’s supposed element. Then there is the owl symbol that is Lilith his wife, such as appears around the congress building. The Baphomet, which is the copulation of Lilith and Lucifer, which is the star of the order of the eastern star. The Eastern star that is his planet, direction and realm, and the list goes on.

Like it or not what do you expect these people to call you?
Do they have a legitimate set of questions and gripes?
But then you cannot discuss it because its against your oaths, yet you get mad when it comes up.

Just because Luciferianism and Satanism only existed in its present from since the 20th century does not mean that these entities where not used, called upon in ritual and magic and perhaps even worshiped throughout history. At the very least it goes back to the Cabala and the Middle Ages.

I think that even Cug would have to admit that this is the case…



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Student

Too many of the treads confuse Free masonry with the Scottish Rites and/or the York Rite. Both of which are much later, seperatly formed, orginizations. Neither of which exert controle over Free Masonry. While they are made up of masons, they are not (there is that consept again) masonry as such.


This is a common misconception, but is not completely accurate. In actuality, the first three degrees as given in the Blue Lodge in the USA, UK, and Canada are themselves part of the York Rite. The term "York Rite" itself alludes to the Craft's legendary formation in York, England during the reign of good King Athelstan, as alluded to in the Regius Mss.

Secondly, it is well-known that early versions of the Royal Arch degree was practiced in Blue Lodges chartered by the Athol Grand Lodge, and that this degree was moved to the Chapter only after the Athols merged with the London Grand Lodge to form the current United Grand Lodge of England. Even today, the United Grand Lodge of England officially states:

"Pure ancient Masonry consists of three degrees: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason, which includes the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch".

The Order of the Temple was also conferred in Blue Lodges as early as 1730, making it almost as old, and perhaps even older, than the Master Mason degree. In the common American system, the York Rite begins at Entered Apprentice, and concludes with the Order of the Temple.

The Scottish Rite is also, by itself, a complete Masonic system. It has its own version of the Blue Lodge degrees, but had reached a Concordant with the various York Rite Grand Lodges that it would recognize their degrees. In the United States, District 18 in Louisiana still consists of Scottish Rite Blue Lodges, while all other regular Blue Lodges in the US are York Rite. Those initiated, passed, and raised in standard York Blue Lodges may join the Scottish Rite beginning at the 4°.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Why this relates to masonry is that I believe that this Pagan symbolism and ritual is what gets you all in hot water with the fundamentalists to begin with. I know it’s the reason I cannot join. Since it’s against your oaths to discuss it, then you have everyone stuck in a catch 22.


But we have taken no such oaths, and discuss these things all the time here. The only things we have promised not to divulge are the traditional "secrets", which consist of "modes of recognition", i.e., secret handshakes, passwords, etc., which is how we recognize each other as members of the same fraternity.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by defcon5
Why this relates to masonry is that I believe that this Pagan symbolism and ritual is what gets you all in hot water with the fundamentalists to begin with. I know it’s the reason I cannot join. Since it’s against your oaths to discuss it, then you have everyone stuck in a catch 22.


But we have taken no such oaths, and discuss these things all the time here. The only things we have promised not to divulge are the traditional "secrets", which consist of "modes of recognition", i.e., secret handshakes, passwords, etc., which is how we recognize each other as members of the same fraternity.


I was going to say exactly the same thing. I have no problem discussing any aspect of freemasonry on these boards, and am happy to do so.


Originally posted by defcon5
The reason being that like it or not the symbols are the same, right down to using Blue/White/Silver in the aprons and alter cover, which are symbols of air and Lucifer’s supposed element. Then there is the owl symbol that is Lilith his wife, such as appears around the congress building. The Baphomet, which is the copulation of Lilith and Lucifer, which is the star of the order of the eastern star. The Eastern star that is his planet, direction and realm, and the list goes on.


But many of these are not masonic symbols. Owls and Baphomets do not appear anywhere in freemasonry that I know of, and are certainly not traditional, recognised symbols. There is much misinformation about freemasonry swirling all around us. I can comment exhaustively on what I know about freemasonry but my experience of non-masonic; quasi-masonic or even allegedly-masonic symbolism is more sketchy.

I believe many people who are against masonry are so on the basis of information which is misleading or simply untrue. It's no wonder so many people are against it if it practices Satanism, or Child Abuse, or any of the other 101 things it is supposed to be doing.

But none of these things are anything to do with freemasonry. There is no space for poor or anti-social behaviour in its core definitions.

From the website of the United Grand Lodge of England


Freemasonry is a society of men concerned with moral and spiritual values. Its members are taught its precepts by a series of ritual dramas, which follow ancient forms, and use stonemasons' customs and tools as allegorical guides.....


For many years Freemasons have followed three great principles:

Brotherly Love - Every true Freemason will show tolerance and respect for the opinions of others and behave with kindness and understanding to his fellow creatures.

Relief - Freemasons are taught to practise charity and to care, not only for their own, but also for the community as a whole, both by charitable giving, and by voluntary efforts and works as individuals.

Truth - Freemasons strive for truth, requiring high moral standards and aiming to achieve them in their own lives....


A Freemason is encouraged to do his duty first to his God (by whatever name he is known) through his faith and religious practice; and then, without detriment to his family and those dependent on him, to his neighbour through charity and service.

None of these ideas is exclusively Masonic, but all should be universally acceptable. Freemasons are expected to follow them.


Cug

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

As to the manipulation of the government: the fact that so many high-ranking people of so many governments throughout history have been members is going to make it a hard sell to many that they not steering the world.


Well in the US id guess that 98% of the leaders are members of the same group.. Christians. Does this imply there is something nefarious going on?



“so what is wrong with being a pagan anyway”.

That got me thinking, as a Christian, other then the fact it’s not what I personally believe, and it is against what the Bible says, I have no answer. If that is your ideal set then I have no way to tell you its wrong, the only source I have is one that you put no faith in, which is my ideal set.


Great
Now if more people could think like that there would be more interesting disscussions here.



It is apparent to everyone that looks into masonry that it is rife with Occult, Pagan ritual and symbolism.


From my point of view, if masonry was "rife with Occult, Pagan ritual and symbolism" I'd join! But as far as I can tell masonry is rife with Christian teachings, ritual and symbolism and that holds little interest to me. Now these teachings may be on the generic side to allow other one God faiths to participate but they are still Christian based.



A Fundamentalist is going to lump that all into Satanism, or at best Luciferianism. The reason being that like it or not the symbols are the same,


Many of the symbols you presented have nothing to do with masonry. Now some of them might be in some of the masonry offshoot orders, and some of them come from places like the bohemian grove that have nothing to do with masonry but that is not the fault of the masons is it?



Just because Luciferianism and Satanism only existed in its present from since the 20th century does not mean that these entities where not used, called upon in ritual and magic and perhaps even worshiped throughout history. At the very least it goes back to the Cabala and the Middle Ages.

I think that even Cug would have to admit that this is the case…


No I don't
In the middle ages Satanism was a Christian religion. In fact to perform the historical "Black Mass" you had to be a Catholic priest. Now if you say if it doesn't follow my belief system it has to be by default Satanism that is fine and dandy, But it is unfair to say that the other groups think, are aware of, or even believe in Satan. Remember from their point of view you may be the one worshiping whatever their version of the big bad guy is.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
To return to the salient point that Masonic Student had posted about what was on a certain website concerning what detractors have to say about masonry; my reply remains: "where is the proof of all this 'evil'"?

If the purpose of this forum is to examine conspiracy theories and determine wether or not there a given theory is valid, then apply the scientific method and examine the facts.

Conjecture is no substitute for truth.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
1) Masonry is not a religion.
Answer is correct by Masonic logic - but all Religion is Freemasonry according to the higher degrees.

2) Masonry has no secrets. The rituals are posted on the web. Also in books, available to anyone. (see Link blow)

Incorrect - their membership is secret as is all their hierarchy and rituals.
The only reason rituals and their other details are on the web is because ex-cult members have posted them.

3) Masonry consists of 3 repeat THREE degrees period.

Well maybe it does...whatever "Masonry" is, but "Freemasonry" has no regularity at all by its very definition.
The most common form is The Scottish Rite which is practiced by the vast majority of Freemasons, along with whatever other rituals they have within their clich, it has 32 regular degrees + the executive 33rd Degree allocated to members (current, past and honorary) of the Supreme Council.

4) 32nd "Degree" refers to the Scottish Rites, a separate organization. Granted only open to masons but still a separate org.

Completely wrong - the 32nd Degree is a summary of all preceding knowledge contained within the Scottish Rite which begins with the 1st Degree.
This is clear from Pike's "Morals And Dogma" which begins with the 1st degree, it is also verified by McClenechan's "Book of AASRF"
The ritual does not make any sense if a candidate has not completed the whole rite, it could not possibly stand alone.

5) There is no overall controlling organization, each Grand Lodge is autonomous.
There is no direct hierarchy as the cult is "fire walled" off into the various components so they can quickly sever off any liabilities and deny any responsibility for the various no good deeds they get up to, however the highest ranking and influential officers in any particular body will belong to higher lodges and they will co-ordinate the works of their various lodges to serve a higher purpose, that is the whole purpose of Freemasonry (See Morals & Dogma again - it has extensive detail in regards to this)
A low level mason is incapable of "recognising" a higher level anyway so it will seem to a 3rd degree mason that he is at the top of the ladder, even though he is really on the bottommost rung.
Also there is a "Supreme Council" - ummm... any guesses to what those 2 words mean?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS

1) Masonry is not a religion.
Answer is correct by Masonic logic - but all Religion is Freemasonry according to the higher degrees.

What's masonic logic? Is that the opposite of anti-masonic logic? Answer is correct by all reasonable understanding of the word religion.


2) Masonry has no secrets. The rituals are posted on the web. Also in books, available to anyone. (see Link blow)

Incorrect - their membership is secret as is all their hierarchy and rituals.

False. Membership information is available through national and provincial directories. Write to Grand Lodge or any given Provincial Grand Lodge if you would like to buy one. Or bid on eBay. Masonic ritual is available for purchase at any number of websites, like here for example.


3) Masonry consists of 3 repeat THREE degrees period.

Well maybe it does...whatever "Masonry" is, but "Freemasonry" has no regularity at all by its very definition.
The most common form is The Scottish Rite which is practiced by the vast majority of Freemasons, along with whatever other rituals they have within their clich, it has 32 regular degrees + the executive 33rd Degree allocated to members (current, past and honorary) of the Supreme Council.

Yes, it does - there's no maybe about it. The Scottish Rite is a side order mostly limited to North America, and is not as common as Craft freemasonry by any definition.


4) 32nd "Degree" refers to the Scottish Rites, a separate organization. Granted only open to masons but still a separate org.

Completely wrong - the 32nd Degree is a summary of all preceding knowledge contained within the Scottish Rite which begins with the 1st Degree.
This is clear from Pike's "Morals And Dogma" which begins with the 1st degree, it is also verified by McClenechan's "Book of AASRF"
The ritual does not make any sense if a candidate has not completed the whole rite, it could not possibly stand alone.

The 32nd degree is a part of the Scottish Rite and is not a seperate organization. More than that I cannot say, as I don't understand the point you are trying to make.


5) There is no overall controlling organization, each Grand Lodge is autonomous.

You simply don't believe what you are being told because it doesn't fit into your fantasy of Freemasonry. Grand Lodges are like countries; they have complete control over their jurisdiction, but talk to one another for their own mutual benefit. There is no global controlling power in Freemasonry, the Grand Lodges are entirely seperate.

Also there is a "Supreme Council" - ummm... any guesses to what those 2 words mean?

There are several 'Supreme' organizations in freemasonry. Each one is supreme in its own area/jurisdiction. Ummm - I wonder where that leaves your theory?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS

1) Masonry is not a religion.
Answer is correct by Masonic logic - but all Religion is Freemasonry according to the higher degrees.


There is no Masonic degree that claims that "all Religion is Freemasonry". Necros just made this up himself.


2) Masonry has no secrets. The rituals are posted on the web. Also in books, available to anyone. (see Link blow)

Incorrect - their membership is secret as is all their hierarchy and rituals.
The only reason rituals and their other details are on the web is because ex-cult members have posted them.


As has been mentioned a million times, the "secrets" of Free,asonry consist in its modes of recognition. Nothing else has ever been considered secret, and there are a million books written by Masons about Masonry out there to prove it.


3) Masonry consists of 3 repeat THREE degrees period.

Well maybe it does...whatever "Masonry" is, but "Freemasonry" has no regularity at all by its very definition.



By definition, Masonry is regular, inasmuch that "regular freemasonry" is defined as a fraternal organization descended from, and in recognition, with the United Grand Lodge of England and/or its predecessor, the Premiere Grand Lodge of London, formed in 1717. This regularity is actually quite simple to establish.


The most common form is The Scottish Rite which is practiced by the vast majority of Freemasons,


The oldest and most common form of Freemasonry is the York Rite, which dates at least to the 13th century, and probably earlier. The Scottish Rite was founded by a group of York Rite Masons in 1801 who simply combined the degrees of two other Rites that had gone defunct. About 1.8 million Masons in the United States belong to the Scottish Rite, while about 4 million belong to the York Rite, which includes the Blue Lodge.

Outside of the United States, the Scottish Rite is extremely small, per capita.


along with whatever other rituals they have within their clich, it has 32 regular degrees + the executive 33rd Degree allocated to members (current, past and honorary) of the Supreme Council.


Wow, you finally got one right. After two years of this sort of stuff, I was kinda rooting for you.


4) 32nd "Degree" refers to the Scottish Rites, a separate organization. Granted only open to masons but still a separate org.

Completely wrong - the 32nd Degree is a summary of all preceding knowledge contained within the Scottish Rite which begins with the 1st Degree.


Necros is correct inasmuch as the Scottish Rite is a complete system of 33 degrees. However, Masonic Student is correct inasmuch as the Scottish Rite is separate entity from the Blue Lodges, which are York Rite bodies, and who control Masonry in their various jurisdictions through the Grand Lodge.



5) There is no overall controlling organization, each Grand Lodge is autonomous.
There is no direct hierarchy as the cult is "fire walled" off into the various components so they can quickly sever off any liabilities and deny any responsibility for the various no good deeds they get up to,


Interesting fiction, no history. In the real world, the reason that there are various autonomous Grand Lodges is that the first Grand Lodge of England originally chartered "Provincial Grand Lodges" in the American colonies to act for Masonry in its name. During the Revolutionary War, the Provincial Grand Lodges in the colonies seceded, and formed their own Grand Lodges, for the purpose of not being connected to what was then "the enemy". After the war, this schism was healed, and now the various Grand Lodges exist in harmony and cooperation.




A low level mason is incapable of "recognising" a higher level anyway so it will seem to a 3rd degree mason that he is at the top of the ladder, even though he is really on the bottommost rung.


Whether or not the person is a 3rd Degree Master Mason or 33° Scottish Rite Mason is not the issue. The real issue is who has been elected to the offices in the fraternity's government. If a 33° member of the scottish rite has not been elected to Grand Lodge office, but a 3rd Degree Master Mason has been elected Grand Master, then the Third Degree Grand Master outranks the 33° Scottish Rite member, and has the authority to expel the 33° from the fraternity for reasonable cause.


Also there is a "Supreme Council" - ummm... any guesses to what those 2 words mean?


You left out four important words: "of the Scottish Rite". Supreme Councils of the Scottish Rite govern that Rite, but onbly inasmuch as such government does not conflict with Grand Lodge law. Grand Lodges reserve the right to shut down any Scottish Rite organization and expel its members. Members of the Supreme Council are well aware of this, and they do not claim to usurp the ultimate Masonic authority of the Grand Lodge.


[edit on 7-12-2005 by Masonic Light]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join