Freemasonry: a mason's perspective.

Well than it is misleading information, because Freemasonry never prosecuted anyone for their beliefs so on and so forth.

Hmm that 1882 date is familiar, I wonder if there is an actual significance to it, I feel I've seen it before on one of these threads.

Hmm where do you read the claims of the Church that Freemasonry has done any of this? I'd like to read it for myself
Sincerely,
no signature

go down to where it says "Question: May I become a Knight of Columbus while also being a Freemason?"

src: www.knightline.org...


and i got the info. about the origin of the freemasonry from a catholic priest.

[Edited on 15-11-2002 by echelon]

FM: the "lineage" of the Masons (tracing themselves back to the Knights Templar) is actually a lodge invention -- to add more of a "woo-woo" factor to the ceremonies.

The 1700's date for their origin is correct.

BTW, I got that from one of the lodge sites that had some good Masonic research on it, and went on to check it with other sources (including some good scholarly books about the Knights Templar). The research confirms it's just legend/made up (as research confirms that "Hiram Abiff" was made up)

No I'm aware of the Knights Templar, but the fact is they really don't know...and I wasn't referring to them anyways, I was referring to other history.

As for why they don't know, is they can't figure out what HAPPEND to the Templar, they found Templar graves in Scotland, and many of the Templar graves also were found to have profoundly masonic symbolism on it, something that was common with Templars that had previous affiliations with other masons, as well as being actual Opperative Stonemasons themselves.

The Lodge's claim of HOW involved with the Templars masonry is is probably exagerated, but this doesn't mean there was no involvment.

Again Byrd with Hiram Abiff, it all depends on who's doing what research, it all goes back to you see what you want to see
I think Hiram Abiff could have been a real dude, but I was looking into myself and found out that the reference actually dates further back to Egypt, than to Solomon's Temple, the story that is, so whether or not Hiram was a real person, the events...at least, their meaning, could very well have been. After all there is no actual evidence that Jesus ever lived either, hmm but I'd still like to see a citing to the source so I can read what they have to say about it

And I'll look at that site echelon, it looks fun, but I doubt they have "untainted" information. Just like the Nazis who lied about things that Jews had done, to futher the hate.

Sincerely,
no signature

About Morals and Dogma

From the Pope's Own Mouth
Even the title of his book shows that Masonry has a morality and a doctrine. If they are not Catholic morality and Catholic doctrine, and in fact they aren't even Christian, a Catholic or any Christian may not follow them.

Hmm maybe I should read Morals and Dogma a little bit more, but if I'm correct in my memory, it is actually outlining the histories and meanings behind the Morals and Dogma OF the Church as well as many other things, and yet the Pope here clearly lies....Well I shouldn't say lie, but he he's been LIED TO!

Because of course the Pope would never have read Morals and Dogma, and so would have to take someone elses word on it, and we all know how people like to twist the truth.

A good example is the part where Albert Pike discusses the origins of Lucifer. Lucifer meant the Morning Star, or Venus, it ended up in the Bible through King James as a method of ousting any remaining "paganism" in England. The Church agreed to this.

Yet many view that part of Morals and Dogma to be a tell tale sign that Masonry is Satanic, no it is just no one has ever read Morals and Dogma...but they all quote from it.

Sincerely,
no signature

www.knightline.org...

There's one BIG bit of evidence that tells "Hiram Abiff" is a myth (besides the fact that there's no historical documentation):

People in 1500 BC didn't have last names. Not even the kings had last names.

The practice of giving last names didn't appear until much much later, with the Romans.

I wish I could remember which lodge it was that had those pages that discussed this.

the freemasons have become more like tools to a higher rank society called the illuminati which is always one step ahead of everything

Hmm there is no Illuminati, and any bimbo who thinks Masonry is ran by it obviously doesn't have a clue about how masonry works.

You can't have some top secret super elite running freemasonry because masonry does not have a position for that "top secret super elite".

Masonry is broken into jurisdictions and a Grand Master presides over each jurisdiction, if anyone had supreme power the Grand Master of that Jurisdiction that the supreme power guy was in, could simply claim him as doing unmasonic acts I.E. ruling freemasonry.

Kinda like an Emperor whom can be kicked out by a peasant, just doesn't work.

Now the KofC might be ran by the "non-existant illuminati" because they have a supreme head of their organization.

Sincerely,
no signature

Malicious, the Masons aren't running anything.

They are a social club -- and one of the oaths they gave was to help fellow Masons. Most were influential business leaders in their towns and while they COULD do things like help a young man find a good first job (or a good job if he moved into town), their actual power is roughly equal to that of your local Chamber of Commerce.

Now, former local Chamber of Commerce members *have* ended up in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and other influential positions. The Masons have roughly the same chance of taking over the world as the Chamber of Commerce does.

WHY..FreeMason..a little tense are we??

Why do you have to come down to personal insults..do you think that make anyone change their minds about the topic of freemasonry??

Rather i think it does the opposite my dear friend, it makes people hate since you have insulted them...if seriously you are a Mason than you are not setting a very good example either.

Are all Masons Such people..personality wise??

And for my last question?
How do you knwo they are not part of an Illuminti...you should have countered on that besides personally attacking. Thanks

OrionSirius

OH I know there are "grand master" so to speak ruling over each jurisdiction but are they highest rank one can go, or are they the highest THAT YOU KNOW OF??

I dont think they let mason "wannabes" or such into the circle of trust!
OrionSirius

LoL Orion you know nothing of masonry. Degrees and positions are 2 different things. And don't tell me about circle of trust because by "your" definition I'm well in it.

Sincerely,
no signature

and a pretender. Even Byrd knows that Hiram Abiff is a symbolic personage. As far as Pike goes. I can give you all of the quotes from him and his successor Gallatin Mackey that simply state that it is Luciferian RELIGION. You will remain in the Symbolic lodge forever, an inept, as opposed to Adept. Why don't you describe for us what the Lodge furnishings mean? Why do you hold to any secrets, if it is just a social club? Are you afraid of something? It's not like anyone's going to find out it was you who said anything right? And if they did, then what? LOLOLOLOL. Use some logic.

"Well than it is misleading information, because Freemasonry never prosecuted anyone for their beliefs so on and so forth."

Ever hear of William Morgan?

I didn't suggest that the concept of 'Satan' had it's origin in the symbols of Freemasonry, or that the symbols of Freemasonry aren't akin only to Freemasonry. Nor do I think that the Indo Europeans that subdued the North of India previous to the develpment of Hinduism were Nazis. What I have suggested though, in another post, is that the symbols represent phallic worship and the deification of the generative powers of sex symbolized en masse by the sun, which, as a religion, does predate both Christianity and Judaism. This, to me, is not a religious debate, but a question of the goals of the Freemasonic organization and its various offshoots, including the goals of the belief that it borrows from, namely Priapic worship as detailed by Richard Payne Knight :. You can read all the Baigent, Lomas, Leigh, Knight books you want, they are very good at selling mystery novels, but are very refutable by the student of history.

There's no proof of WHAT happend to William Morgan, they found his body in a river, at first the lady said it wasn't her husband (giving cause to further suspicion) but then came forward and said it was. Most attribute the act to masonry, in reality it might have been masons who just took it too far, but what they did does not reflect any masonic actions.

Now as for that Phallus symbology, I hear it everywhere, and frankly it gets retarded. An all male institution is not going to have fertility worship, and yet some how people persist in believing so. In any case, I've also seen quite the stupid argument for it too, even down to the point where an Anti-Mason criticizes a branch of Christianity because it has a picture of the light house in the area, shining a lite on its name. He claims THAT is phallus worship, along with all the previously stated Mason stuff.

The Obelisk no longer has anything to do with Phallus worship IF IT EVEN EVER DID.

Sincerely,
no signature

The Obelisk not Phallic. Interesting. Well, you have the world of information against you on that one, as well as every proffessor in any field relating to ancient studies. Hmmm, I have all of the evidence presented at the Morgan case right here in front of me, right down to the admissions of the Freemasons involved...but, they were lying right?

Interesting you have all this information in front of you and don't care to share a source with us.

And notice I said that obelisks no longer represent "Phalluses" I never said they never did, but now we see them as reminants of high acheivement in architecture. A pinacle of Geometry. You know it is really unfair to attack Freemasonry because of it's use of collumns and Obellisks when the Vatican has a nice fat obellisk of its own...I suppose the Roman Catholic Church worships God's D.i.c,k?

Sincerely,
no signature

PS. Forgive my "french" but a point is a point

How about Richard Payne Knight Esq. 33*
'A Discourse on the Worship of Priapus and its Connection with the Mystic Theology of the Ancients' 1785, to which was added Thomas Wright and John Camden Hotten's work 'Essay on the Worship of the Generative Powers During the Middle Ages of Western Europe' 1865.
As well, 'The Sacred Fire: The Story of Sex in Religion' B.Z. Goldberg .: with introduction by Dr.Charles Francis Potter (M.A., S.T.M.,Litt.D.) 1930's (I have the 1958 edition), Joseph Campbell, 'Primitive Mythology', Arnold Toynbee,' A Study of History', H.G. Wells, 'Outline of History', 'Fragments of a Faith Forgotten' G.R.S. Meade original 1908 (I have the 1960 version with primer by Kenneth Rexroth), 'History of the PriestCraft in All Ages and Nations' William Howitt, 1833....
but, they aren't formatted like a mystery novel so I doubt you'd make it through them. For you, I'd suggest typing in, Phallic Worship on Google or something, look for a University site and read a summation.

I'll type out the entire transcript of the Morgan case for the benefit of the site when I have more time. As far as the Vatican goes, read 'The Two Babylons' by Alexander Hislop. The Vatican has a 'bust' of a 'rooster' head that has a phallic nose, to quote Payne Knight, "...the celebrated bronze in the Vatican has the male organs of generation placed upon the head of a c*ck (rooster), the emblem of the sun, supported by the neck and shoulders of a man. In this composition they represent the generative power of the (greek) Epws, the Osiris, Mithras, or Bacchus, whose centre is the sun, incarnate within man. By the inscription on the pedestal, the attribute thus personified, is styled 'The Saviour of the World' (in greek); a title always venerable, under whatever image it be represented." I'm sure that someone may have posted an image of it somewhere on the net.

[Edited on 23-11-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

I seem to get the impression that you believe that anyone who is against Freemasonry is Christian. I'm not a Christian, or any other religion for that matter, so, you can stop trying to curtail evidence by attempting to play the 'personal bias due to faith' card. Let's see some of your sources.