When does a mason find out?

Originally posted by onesharpbroadhead
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!
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.

Umhm...and the fact that the French peasants (making up what 98% of the population?) were starving to death and living in dire poverty while their monarchs could care less, well, I suppose you think that had nothing to do with it? Same situation in Russia, that's why the Bolsheviks revolted.
Where did you learn history?
Do you have even one source to back up your assertions?

-Forestlady

Originally posted by forestlady

Umhm...and the fact that the French peasants (making up what 98% of the population?) were starving to death and living in dire poverty while their monarchs could care less, well, I suppose you think that had nothing to do with it? Same situation in Russia, that's why the Bolsheviks revolted.
Where did you learn history?
Do you have even one source to back up your assertions?

-Forestlady

I think he's still using the "official Jesuit version".

Never mind the fact that the Church was robbing the masses blind, or that the March on Versaille was made by peasant women trying to feed their children, or that Masons like Lafayette and Voltaire were doing everything in their power to keep the peace, while the Church insisted that the Third Estate be disregarded in governmental proceeding in order that its priests' votes have more influence.

"Screw the hungry poor, let's praise Holy Mother Church!" With that sort of mentality, it's no wonder they lost their heads.



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

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.

I dont se any link with it.

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

So all the sudden simbols got meanings?
It was stated that simbols of masonary do not have any meanings.

I cant see why they would make up interpretations and then state that the true science is reseved for the adepts.
At this point your explenation brakes up.
How do you explain this?
If they made interpretations why not make it for all of them?
Why reserve soemthing else for the rest
I cant see how your story is acurate.
So what does the frase below mean?

Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry

[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

So what does the frase below mean?

Once again, you can do your own research. If you would actually read the book, Pike explains himself.

Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry by Albert Pike, 33°

Arent you guys tierd of giving the same answer.

Once again, you can do your own research. If you would actually read the book, Pike explains himself.

I can only see that there is a diference betwen people that initiate and a people that are adepts.
I can see that it's says that it's reseved for soemone, just like a parking lot
if you saw that sign.
No one gets it exept the adepts.
Thats what it says.
Than the rest of the meaning refers as "yes they are lied upon." because
some people are thought something else while others know something else.

Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry

Realy you dont even need to interpret.
It says clear that it's reseved.
I see that last quote by him confirming that only the ones being initiated were preached false interpretations while the others know the truth.
You dont really want to quote on that so it's okay by me and okay by others who see it not so healthy.

A
You walk in to a movie theather, some one comes up to you and says it nicely, sir this seat is reseved for someone else.

B
You walk in to a movie theather, no body comes to you but there are signs all over the chairs, you start wondering why.



[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

If freemason is like other secret societies than I would assume it has secret that are only revealed only to higher initiates.

In Ancient Greece the The Eleusinian Mysteries had a legend which everyone knew. Demeter and Persephone were known to many, and was thought to be explaining the seasons. Only the initiates of the higher degree knew what the analogy truly represented. (Something about Persephone being the soul of men).

The Bavarian Illuminati had many symbols that were introduced and not explained, only to be revealed in the higher order.

Even in Masonry, doesn’t some degree of the Scottish Rite go into further details on the legend of Hiram Abiff?

Is that what is being referred to as “lying”? (revealing secrets only in the higher orders.)

Originally posted by pepsi78


I can only see that there is a diference betwen people that initiate and a people that are adepts.

All Adepts are Initiates, but not all Initiates are Adepts. An Initiate is anyone who has been initiated. Adepts are those Initiates who take their initiation seriously, apply the teachings of initiation in a practical manner to their lives, and study the sciences inculcated during initiation.

I see that last quote by him confirming that only the ones being initiated were preached false interpretations while the others know the truth.
You dont really want to quote on that so it's okay by me

You say I "don't want to quote on that" even though I spent 15 minutes writing about it on the last page.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by pepsi78


I can only see that there is a diference betwen people that initiate and a people that are adepts.

All Adepts are Initiates, but not all Initiates are Adepts. An Initiate is anyone who has been initiated. Adepts are those Initiates who take their initiation seriously, apply the teachings of initiation in a practical manner to their lives, and study the sciences inculcated during initiation.

I see that last quote by him confirming that only the ones being initiated were preached false interpretations while the others know the truth.
You dont really want to quote on that so it's okay by me

You say I "don't want to quote on that" even though I spent 15 minutes writing about it on the last page.

No you didint, you explained everithing but not this.

Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry

Why all this mary go round when you can put a definition on this.
I say it states that some knew something else and some knew something else.
Who do you think it was reserved for?
Or how do you dismis it.
I dont see any explenation, I see only explenation for the first part but not for the last quote.
So if you cant explain it everything that you explained would fall like a deck of cards.


[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
If freemason is like other secret societies than I would assume it has secret that are only revealed only to higher initiates.

This is partly true, but only in a qualified sense. Some non-Masons have the wrong idea that it takes a long time to go through the degrees, and that each degree yields some sort of important secret knowledge about Masonry.

But the reality is this: it doesn't take a long time, and anyone who wants the degrees can get them all in a couple of weeks, at most. That's why we Masons keep saying that "high initiates" and "rank" have nothing to do with degrees. You yourself could join a one day class, and get the three Blue Lodge Degrees in one day. Then, the next weekend, you could go to the Scottish Rite Temple offering a one day class, and go all the way up to the 32°. The next weekend you could get all the York Rite degrees, and then become a Shriner the next.

In this scenario, you've been a mason for about a month. You have all the degrees, but those degrees didn't confer any special "rank" upon you: they just made you a member of a Blue Lodge, the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, and the Shrine, respectively.

Now, if you took your initiation seriously, you would then start studying the degree ceremonies and symbols independently. You might begin by studying Pike and mackey, or Coil and Voorhis. You would begin reading non-Masonic books on philosophy and science that are referred to in Masonic ceremony. And eventually, you would become an Adept. Not because we conferred a degree on you called "Adept", but because you will have earned your own Adeptship through perseverence.

Even in Masonry, doesn’t some degree of the Scottish Rite go into further details on the legend of Hiram Abiff?

Yes, York Rite too. According to Mackey, and I agree, a Rite is not Masonic unless it focuses on the Hiramic Legend.

Is that what is being referred to as “lying”? (revealing secrets only in the higher orders.)

No, Pike was referring to the Blue Lodge lectures which explains Masonic symbols. According to Pike, Jeremy Cross and Thomas Webb did not know what the symbols represented, and therefore made new meanings for them up. Pike attempst to "remedy" this in his book by giving the "real" interpretations.




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

Thanks ML now I have a similar question for Pepsi78:

Do you believe that not revealing all secrets of freemasonry to an Entered Apprentice is lying?

(Do you think all the secrets of the Blue Lodge, the York Rite, the Scottish Rite and the Shrinners should be given on a tour of a Masonic lodge?)

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Thanks ML now I have a similar question for Pepsi78:

Do you believe that not revealing all secrets of freemasonry to an Entered Apprentice is lying?

(Do you think all the secrets of the Blue Lodge, the York Rite, the Scottish Rite and the Shrinners should be given on a tour of a Masonic lodge?)

Note
It does not say that it's not saying something, it's saying that the "true explications"are reserved, that means that it does teach something but not the true explications.
What do you understand by true explications?
When you say true explications are reserved it means that there is something said but not the true one because the true one is reserved.

Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry

I get what u'r trying to say.
That they are never told.
In that case it should be something like this.

Their explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry

and not

Their "true" explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry

When ading true it means a whole diferent thing.
Because you got true and fake so if true explication is reserved it can only be fake and not nothing so it's saying a lie.
If you look at the whole fraze you will see that it makes more sence.
Read the whole frase, the last quote links the whole frase.
Here

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

This explains that the last quote is valid.
This is what it means.
So link the last one with this, it is from the same frase.
So it cant be like he says his theory does not hold water because of the last frase, he quoted that they inerpreted simbols in a rong way and pike
tryed to set it right.
Not acording to the last quote made by pike, he states that it's reserved.

That is right Masonic Light stated that pike tryed tryed to make it better.
I dont see how this can be when it's reserved for the princes of the masonary.
I'm telling you they are making eforts to debunk this, i'll get in to a spot where they cant debunk anithing if I truly want to.

It's just like a game, make u'r cards from first, think in to the future and answer to everithing like a game of chess, It can be check mate.
I belive this is how they are thinking.


[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

1. The only person who is absolutely convinced that Albert Pike was in possession of true meanings of all the symbols was, well, Albert Pike. In my opinion, Pike was probably on to something, but of course I could be wrong, as Pike may have been.

You're putting an awful lot of stock in two sentences from a book with over a thousand pages. For the fifth time, I suggest you read the WHOLE THING.

Some times a few words or a frase has a powerful meaning.
I see you didint care to elaborate on what I wrote.
It's okay by me, I dont want to convince you, just want for others to see
and give an interpretation.






[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
Some times a few words or a frase has a powerful meaning.
I see you didint care to elaborate on what I wrote.
It's okay by me, I dont want to convince you, just want for others to see
and give an interpretation.

Masoniclight hit on it earlier and I'll elaborate a bit. It's humorous to me that people want to condemn Freemasonry by it own works (in this case the writings of the straw man Pike) so they pick and choose.

You've quoted Pike on page 819:

"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico 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 intendeed that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry."


That statement can be summed up (by those who care to examine the ENTIRE book...not just a select few pages or worse yet paragraphs) by the following from Morals & Dogma by Pike

"These [the Blue Lodge] Degrees are also intended to teach more than morals. The symbols and ceremonies of Masonry have more than one meaning. They rather conceal than disclose the Truth. They hint it only, at least; and their varied meanings are only to be discovered by reflection and study. " pg. 148


If picking and choosing parts of a book that suit one's needs is the S.O.P. here I'll do likewise. In the same book (Morals & Dogma) Pike says on page 134

"Speak kindly to your erring brother! God pities him: CHRIST has died for him; Providence waits for him: Heaven's mercy yearns toward him and Heaven's spirits are ready to welcome him back with joy."

Hmmm....one must wonder why a "Luciferian" (how that word makes me chuckle) would be so interested in God...and particularly in Christ.

Well apak dont think they are all bad.
Masoanry is made to be confusing, so you will think it's the right thing.
It's sort of accept that accept that accept everything.
Accept the dark and accept the white.
They welcome bolth of them, if you ever saw the sqares on the flor that's what it means, they are like a chess board, it represents good and evil.
It's made to be confusing and to make you change your mind on several factors.
Pike said it, embrace it all.
He gets people to tolerate things that are not so clean and then calls that god said it.
Here

'All true dogmatic religions come from the Kabbala and lead back to it; all that is scientific and great in the religious dream of all the illuminated such as Bachme, Swedenborg, St. Martin, and others similar, is borrowed from the Kabbala. All the Masonic associations owe their secrets and symbols to it' (Morals and Dogma (1871) p. 744-745).

God in his view is something else, he turns god for people that join in to something else little by little.
So in the end they come and tell you, well all religions are like this but they dont know.
But we will share it with you, this is the true god.
Sure a little christ there and a bit there and before you know it christ is something else and a totaly new person.
It's just a way of confusing people, in the end they just swich over.



[edit on 9-3-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's just a way of confusing people, in the end they just swich over.

pepsi78

I respect your view, but I just don't see it that way. Far too many intelligent people are members.

Just my take on it. I think it's a fine organization (some bad apples of course...but there are those in EVERY human institution).

Originally posted by Appak

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's just a way of confusing people, in the end they just swich over.

pepsi78

I respect your view, but I just don't see it that way. Far too many intelligent people are members.

Just my take on it. I think it's a fine organization (some bad apples of course...but there are those in EVERY human institution).

Well every one got an opinion and it's fair.
Well good luck joining.
Just make sure it's the right choice for you.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Well every one got an opinion and it's fair.
Well good luck joining.
Just make sure it's the right choice for you.

Oh, I'm not joining. I just don't see anything wrong with the organization. I realize there have been bad members but there have been bad preachers too. That doesn't make a certain religion bad itself.

Personally the Brotherhood of all mankind under the Fatherhood of God I see as a good thing.

Others see it differently.

You people seem to put so much faith into a Confederate officer from Arkansas(Pike), who definitely believed in the institution of slavery...and I can't seem to find a reason why this train of thought would be esteemed by any secret society that believes in making a good man better....what was good about slavery?...or at least fighting for it, as Pike did...

Originally posted by Masonic Light
But the reality is this: it doesn't take a long time, and anyone who wants the degrees can get them all in a couple of weeks, at most. That's why we Masons keep saying that "high initiates" and "rank" have nothing to do with degrees. You yourself could join a one day class, and get the three Blue Lodge Degrees in one day. Then, the next weekend, you could go to the Scottish Rite Temple offering a one day class, and go all the way up to the 32°. The next weekend you could get all the York Rite degrees, and then become a Shriner the next.

While this is true, in America, it is not true elsewhere. For example in the United Kingdom, where the Scottish Rite is much smaller in number, it takes an incredibly long time to make your way through the scottish rite degrees, and virtually no one gets to the 20th, let alone the 32nd, degree. 33rd is unheard of so to speak.