When does a mason find out?

A mason finds out later when he reaches a higher degree.
If they can trust him they will tell him the truth, until then they lie intentional about the simbols and about most things in masonary.
If they consider him to be ready for the whole thing than they come open and tell him.
Usualy takes few years.

Some people are beyond redemption.

What I hate far more than the perpetration itself is the vilification of those who perpetrate. Without understanding and intellegence it is easy to hate and want vengeance against the perpetrator. However to be moral in your hatred you must understand why people do the things they do either through ignorance, animal instincts, biological imbalances/abnormalities, society, socio-economic class, under the thumb of a manipulative religion religious leader or cult leader (cult being a smaller religion in essence), parental upbringing etc. The reaction to respond with your reacion is a simple animal instinct that gets angry without truly understanding the situation.

Originally posted by pepsi78
A mason finds out later when he reaches a higher degree.
If they can trust him they will tell him the truth, until then they lie intentional about the simbols and about most things in masonary.
If they consider him to be ready for the whole thing than they come open and tell him.
Usualy takes few years.

Any supporting documentation to go with this claim? Books? Websites? Visions?

Incidentally, do you mean symbols or cymbals? Please don't get me started on the cymbals of masonry

Originally posted by Spatacus
What I hate far more than the perpetration itself is the vilification of those who perpetrate.

How about those villify those who villify the perpetrators. What do you think about them? It's easy to perpetrate a villification of those who villify perpetrators without understanding the initial reason for the villification of the original perpetrators. If the perpetrators deserve villification then who are you to villify them?

How would you like it if someone came to villify you as a direct consequence of your perpetration of villification of the perpetrators that you originally came to villify? You wouldn't like it I'm sure. So think twice before you villify the villifyers in case the original villification is of a perpetrator is one whom you would yourself have chosen to villify under different circumstances.

Hope thats clear.

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
Actually - a fine example of what i stated regarding Masons and their war on Christian Civilization

It could be argued that your "Christian Civilization" is a contradiction in terms, but that's a whole other thread.

Need I remind this mason - that some of the most barbaric actions ever taken in war/revolution were taken during the Masonic inspired, led, and proclaimed - French Revolution - a war which was based entirely on Masonic Conviction!

Hogwash. Your comments show not only that you know nothing of Masonry, but are also deficient in the history of the French Revolution. Perhaps you should put down your Ed Decker books, and open a history book instead.

Need I remind this mason that his good masonic/jewish brothers the Bolshevics - aka - communists of Russia were not inspired by religion whatsoever and they brought more death and destruction upon the earth than any other form of government the world has ever seen.

Another lie. To begin with the Bolsheviks were anti-Masonic. Kerensky, the leader of the SR Party who had replaced the czarist government in February of 1917, was a Mason, as were many of his ministers. This government ws overthrown by the Bolsheviks in October. Four months later, in early 1918, Lenin issued an order banning all Masonic and Odd Fellow societies. In 1925, the former Grand Master of Masons of Petrograd wrote a letter to Premier Josef Stalin requesting that Masonry be legalized. Stalin responded by ordering his execution.

Again, if you would actually open a history book before attempting to discuss such issues, you may not walk away with as much egg in your face.

Secondly, of course the Communists were inspired by religious fervor. Communist ideology is messianic in nature, and its adherents have always been religious fanatics.




[edit on 9-3-2006 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23


In Knigge memoirs (Philo’s Erklaerung, seine Verbindung mit dem Orden der Illuminaten) writes that joining the blue lodge was a simple formality.

That's true, but that alluded to the early history of the Illuminati, before they had their own degree system. After the Illuminati developed its own degrees, they no longer sent their potential members to Masonic Lodges, but instead began conferring the degrees themselves, which at least technically made the Illuminati a clandestine Masonic Rite.

I agree that the first degree was academic, however all the other degrees had rituals. So by the time the Illuminatus became a Master Mason he had already performed the Minerval ritual and the Illuminati Minor ritual. (Note the top two degrees were not developed, so no ritual there)

I double-checked this point, and you are correct, my bad.

y there is, in the Illuminati’s writing. A Illuminatus not met to past the rank of a Master Mason was referred to as “sta bene” – I don’t know what ratio of members was abandoned thus, but they did. (I agree with you, that with only 4000 members it would be strange to abandon members. Maybe they were not suitable.)

There is the possibility that this group of Illuminates were interested in the esoteric concepts instead of the political ones. For example, I know that Comte de St. Germain was a member of the Illuminati, but assume he was more interested in Rosicrucianism and mysticism than in political intrigue (or perhaps not...with those Illuminati guys, you never really know).

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by CX


You have to keep in mind that all of this "lower ranks" and "higher ranks" stuff is the invention of conspiracy theorists and anti-Masons. Such stuff has no reality in real Freemasonry.

Not really, I think you are wrong because my family goes way way back. I am related to George Washington the first president. And he was a high ranking mason. It's in the book of all books! I didn't even know I was related to him until I had to do a family tree. And I guess stuff was passed on and on. And my grandma told me, yes George Washington was a high ranking 33rd degree mason. And actually, I am related to his sister. Blood related. So...I dunno, you might want to check up on your answer there.

Originally posted by whitelightwolf

Not really, I think you are wrong because my family goes way way back. I am related to George Washington the first president. And he was a high ranking mason. It's in the book of all books! I didn't even know I was related to him until I had to do a family tree. And I guess stuff was passed on and on. And my grandma told me, yes George Washington was a high ranking 33rd degree mason. And actually, I am related to his sister. Blood related. So...I dunno, you might want to check up on your answer there.

Wolf,

Washington was a Third Degree Master Mason, not 33°. The 33° is a Scottish Rite degree, and Washington was not a member of the Scottish Rite.

It is possible that Washington had been exalted to the Royal Arch Degree in the York Rite, but the records are lost.

However, Washington did serve three terms as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge in Virginia. Lodge officers have a "rank" when elected and installed, but this rank leaves once their terms are expired. It is not the same thing as having "rank" in connection to degrees (degrees have nothing to do with rank in Masonry).

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by pepsi78
A mason finds out later when he reaches a higher degree.
If they can trust him they will tell him the truth, until then they lie intentional about the simbols and about most things in masonary.
If they consider him to be ready for the whole thing than they come open and tell him.
Usualy takes few years.

Any supporting documentation to go with this claim? Books? Websites? Visions?

Incidentally, do you mean symbols or cymbals? Please don't get me started on the cymbals of masonry

Sure
From pike a kkk clan member and proeminent masonic member.

"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry." - Sovereign Grand Commander Albert Pike 33°, Morals And Dogma, page 819

good luck debunking that



[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry." - Sovereign Grand Commander Albert Pike 33°, Morals And Dogma, page 819

good luck debunking that

This has been discussed on here a million times. You guys have a bizarre habit of quoting Pike, almost always out of context, but refuse to allow him or anybody else to elaborate on the part you want to quote. Such a tactic is both deceitful and dishonest.

This has been discussed on here a million times. You guys have a bizarre habit of quoting Pike, almost always out of context, but refuse to allow him or anybody else to elaborate on the part you want to quote. Such a tactic is both deceitful and dishonest.

Welll I try sticking to the topic.
Looks black and white to me.
The thing is not to convince you the thing is to convince others so they get
to see it.
There are alot of new members so they get to have an opinion.
There can be no interpretation for that.

I dont think I modifyed any of the words, I didint even interpret him, I just quoted from the book.

Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them

[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78


I dont think I modifyed any of the words, I didint even interpret him, I just quoted from the book.

Actually, I'd wager you've never read the book, and just quoted from an anti-Masonic website. That's one method they use in duping people into anti-Masonry: by presenting Pike quotes out of context.

If one actually reads the entire book, instead of a few comments taken out of context in order to make Pike or Masonry look bad, one gets the real idea, though.

Pike believed the symbols of Masonry contained profound spiritual and philosophical meanings. The Blue Lodge ritual lectures, where the symbols are explained, were written by Webb and Cross. The explanations are often mundane and corny.

This led Pike to believe that Webb and Cross did not know the real meanings, so they just invented new ones. Therefore, Pike considered this an "intentional deception", because they had to invent new interpretations since they didn't know the "real' ones.

Pike did NOT NOT NOT advocate lying to ANYONE in Masonry, or outside of Masonry. He saw this as a problem, and wanted EVERYONE to know what he considered the "real" meanings of the symbols. THAT'S WHY HE PUBLISHED IT IN A BOOK! Obviously, if Pike wanted to keep something secret, he wouldn't have published it.

Yet, Pike also realized the world is full of morons, and not everyone cares enough even to do a little research and study, preferring profane bacchanalia to spiritual and intellectual pursuit. Pike said that these idiots deserve to misled by Webb and Cross's mundane interpretations, and Pike was most probably right.

Originally posted by pepsi78
I dont think I modifyed any of the words, I didint even interpret him, I just quoted from the book.

Even if you are quoting directly, it could still be out of context. There was a member on this board who gave a terrific example. I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to this effect:

Bob loves children. - the apparent meaning being that Bob enjoys spending time with younger ones.

Bob loves children. He eats them with peas and potatoes. – Now we find out that Bob is a cannibal.

I assure you that the other poster’s example was more eloquent, but I hope it still demonstrate the point. What’s this mean is that if you wish to understand Pike, you’ll need to read the whole of Morals and Dogma, not just selective quotes. (I believe Nygdan is doing this at this very moment.)

ML I had no idea that the Comte de St. Germain was a Bavarian Illuminati. I’ll need to look into that, thanks. (I had heard but thought it was Illuminati myth, not fact.)

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23


ML I had no idea that the Comte de St. Germain was a Bavarian Illuminati. I’ll need to look into that, thanks. (I had heard but thought it was Illuminati myth, not fact.)

Here's an interesting page on the subject from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Originally posted by pepsi78
I dont think I modifyed any of the words, I didint even interpret him, I just quoted from the book.

Even if you are quoting directly, it could still be out of context. There was a member on this board who gave a terrific example. I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to this effect:

Bob loves children. - the apparent meaning being that Bob enjoys spending time with younger ones.

Bob loves children. He eats them with peas and potatoes. – Now we find out that Bob is a cannibal.

I assure you that the other poster’s example was more eloquent, but I hope it still demonstrate the point. What’s this mean is that if you wish to understand Pike, you’ll need to read the whole of Morals and Dogma, not just selective quotes. (I believe Nygdan is doing this at this very moment.)

ML I had no idea that the Comte de St. Germain was a Bavarian Illuminati. I’ll need to look into that, thanks. (I had heard but thought it was Illuminati myth, not fact.)

I do belive that just a few quotes are relevant as long as they are clear.
Tell me shall we interpret ecuations in math books?shall we interpret geography ?can I interpret 1+1? it's just a fraze out of the math books, no because it's celar.
So when ever a fraze states something clear I can not interpret.
let's look at the fraze shall we.
What can posibly this fraze mean.
The blue lodge is the foundation of masonary.
It has been the historical foundation of it.
It says intentional, now let's see what intentional can mean hmmm i guess it can mean just intentional.
How about "false interpretations"?or "not intended to unerstand"
See you can interpret something that is not direct, something that is fuzzy
, something that can have 2 meanings.

I dont see here the need to interpret anithing because it's very clear.

The Blue Degrees are but the outer court of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry." - Sovereign Grand Commander Albert Pike 33°, Morals And Dogma, page 819

If any mason wants to interpret that I would love to see it.
But not like ohh you just dont understand, you didint read the book.
I like them to come and interpret the frase.
What did albert pike ment when he said that?

about

Bob loves children. - the apparent meaning being that Bob enjoys spending time with younger ones.

Ps why dotn you interpret this for me.
Bob HATES children.
can you give an interpretation on that?




[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78


I dont see here the need to interpret anithing because it's very clear.

It's "clear" only within the original context, which I have elaborated upon above, and which you ignored.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by pepsi78


I dont see here the need to interpret anithing because it's very clear.

It's "clear" only within the original context, which I have elaborated upon above, and which you ignored.

I dont see you interpreting anithing.
Maybe you should do it you got the kids curios
I mentioned it that there is no need for interpretation.
There isnt really anithing to interpret, if there is well let's see it.
your quote states I interpreted him the rong way, but the thing is that I did not even interpret him.
I just quoted what he said.
It is what he said isnt it?





[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

I just quoted what he said.
It is what he said isnt it?

Quoting out of context is as bad as misquoting. It leaves the impression that Pike had a certain view, when in fact he didn't. This is done purposely by anti-Masons.

The quote you gave insinuates that Masons are purposely lied to, and that Pike approves of lying. In reality, Pike says that Masons are "lied" to by default because Webb and Cross didn't know the truth, and Pike wished to correct the problem by writing his book. Obviously, Pike's intent was much different than the anti-Masons would have us believe.

In reality, Pike says that Masons are "lied" to by default

A lie is a lie by default or any other reason, a lie is contrary to the truth no matter how it spills out.
No matter like you sustain he tryed to repair something a lie is a lie.
Plus just like you said, is there any way to prove it?
Is there any thing that it would indicate what you said, any book any frase?
Just like you did, I cant take u'r word for it so show it to me

And 2 what didint Webb and Cross know?





[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

A lie is a lie by default or any other reason, a lie is contrary to the truth no matter how it spills out.
No matter like you sustain he tryed to repair something a lie is a lie.
Plus just like you said, is there any way to prove it?
Is there any thing that it would indicate what you said, any book any frase?
Just like you did, I cant take u'r word for it so show it to me

And 2 what didint Webb and Cross know?

This is exactly what I mean. Why don't you guys do your research before you want to come on here arguing about it?

You can read Albert Pike's book "Morals and Dogma" here. If you guys want to use it as the basis of your argument, the least you can do is actually read it.

As for Webb and Cross, it was Pike's opinion that they "lied" by making up interpretations to symbols whose meanings they did not know. Most Masons do not agree with Pike on this.