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.
Originally posted by an3rkist
The fact is, Masonry is a part of history, and it being left out of history books is just a sign that the Masons have had influence over what is taught to our youth.
However, I would also agree that the Masonic organization in general is a highly dishonest one.
Dishonesty is not just telling lies, but also not telling the truth. Suppressing secrets is a definite form of dishonesty, and Masons as a whole are guilty of this, as charged. They would argue that they have a right to do that. And I would agree...to some extent. But when their actions of secrecy involve omitting important aspects of history from educational text books, that's where they have definitely crossed the line. And if they are, in fact, doing this, then the word "hypocrite" comes to my mind. The Masons value knowledge and enlightenment, (not inferring they are affiliated with the Illuminati), yet they are allowing society to be ignorant to their own existence and influence in history.
Originally posted by Masonic Light
If Masons did in fact have such an influence, then Masonry certainly would be taught in history books. After all, it would be great plug to the fraternity by pointing out that Washington, Franklin, Hancock, and many other great men in history all were very loyal and active Masons. Why do you think we wouldn't want that known?
Yet Masons publish hundreds if not thousands of books on the subject, which are generally ignored by non-members (except maybe for the anti-Masons). What else would you have us do? The books are out there, for anyone to read. A good start is "Freemasonry In American History" by the late Brother Allen E. Roberts.
Originally posted by an3rkist
Except that Masonry, to my understanding, does not seek to "recruit" people or even to have people know about them unless people actually go looking for answers.
And also, I think it is proven by the anti-Masonic culture of people that are out there that the knowledge of such influential people being Masons is actually damaging to the Freemason reputation.
Not to mention the more people learn about the Masons, the more they want know.
The Masonic organization has much to lose if too many people start asking questions.
Originally posted by Masonic Light
I would disagree, however, with your second statement that we do not care to have people know about us. All of the public ceremonies, such as the laying of cornerstones and Masonic funerals, to Shrine parades, circuses, and football games, are designed to give the public an idea of who we are and what we do.
It leaves the anti-Mason with the rather distasteful task of attempting to demonize men that are universally respected, admired, and beloved. One need only compare a list of famous Masons (Washington, Voltaire, Mozart, Goethe, Franklin, etc.) with a list of famous anti-Masons (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Pat Robertson, etc.) in order to get the big picture.
I'm not sure if this is the case. It may be for the prospective member who has taken an interest, but most people seem not to care at all.
I mean, what does Freemasonry have that could be lost via answering questions about it?
Originally posted by an3rkist
Except that none of those public ceremonies involve explaining to the public the "secret" aspects of Freemasonry. Sure, it shows the public all the good things that the Masons do, but many people would view certain aspects of the Masonic order as not only ritualistic, but as occultic. And occultic is rarely seen as a good thing when it comes to our society. The public is only aware of the things that Masons allow them to be aware of, while the less publicly accepted things are effectively kept secret. It's almost as if these public ceremonies are a big sleight-of-hand act.
Nobody needs to attempt to demonize the men themselves for it to hurt Freemasonry. It would seem that human nature does not appreciate having a single group of people with certain beliefs affecting the way we live.
People wouldn't like the idea that an organization that has beliefs different from their own, and on top of that has secrets, had so much influence on our way of life and our government. No, they don't need to demonize the men themselves, they just need to demonize the organization, which has obviously not been very hard for anti-Masons to do for over a hundred years.
Most people don't care because most people don't know about the Masons. Everyone I know who starts to learn about the Masons becomes extremely interested in what they're all about. It's human nature to be curious of the unknown, so it's human nature to ask questions about the Masons.
Apparently quite a bit. Freemasons on the internet tend to be very open about giving information about the order, but only to some extent. There are some things that are still not answered to the satisfaction of our, (non-Masons), curiousities. And Masons who I talk to face to face are much more reluctant to speak of it at all. Some of my very best friends who I was in the Army with, people I went to war with, people who knew almost everything about me, were hesitant to even admit that they were Masons. And even after they did finally admit it to me, I could get very little information out of them, unless I told them I was interested in joining. If the Freemasons have nothing to lose from people asking questions, then why do they take oaths to keep anything secret? (A rhetorical question as I know where that argument would lead to and it's off topic.)
Originally posted by Masonic Light
Freemasonry is certainly ritualistic; however, whether or not is "occultic" would depend upon one's definition of the word. As a student of occultism of many years, I have no problem with calling Freemasonry "occultic" as long as the classic definition is used. Also, we must bear in mind that if we truly seek religious and philosophical truth, we must be willing to disregard what our society thinks about it, if society be wrong and/or misinformed. Truth is not subject to popular opinion.
Many American leaders, especially in the past, have been Freemasons, but they became leaders not because they were Freemasons, but because their constituents agreed with their ideas, and elected them to office.
Yet no anti-Masonic movement has ever been able to sustain influence in free nations. It is only in the corruption of Fascism and Stalinism that anti-Masonry has flourished. In free nations, the fraternity is supported by the general public.
...it is safe to assume that most of the Masons who don't answer questions about Freemasonry do so not because they are trying to keep anything secret, but simply because they do not know the answers. Therefore, many would hide such ignorance behind a mask of ambiguity and supposed secrecy.
It must be kept in mind that most Masons are those who receive their degrees, and then only attend sporadically. Very few ever open a Masonic book, or seek to the study the subject. As is the case with most organizations, most Masons know little or nothing about their history, or even basic rules and regulations.
Originally posted by an3rkist
My previous post was not an attack on any level of Masonic practices or beliefs.
The argument, however, was that the Masons do not wish to have a bad reputation, amongst society. I think the general public, if they were fully aware of Masonic practices, would, in fact, demonize the organization.
And that is why I think the Masons have the motive to try and keep their organization out of the spotlight.
Not to mention, if we're talking history books, we're probably talking teenaged kids, who may may be too immature to understand the Masonic organization. I think the Masons certainly do have a potential motive to keep their organization out of history books, and that's why I brought up "what society would think". I respect anybody whose beliefs go against society's, though I may not respect their beliefs themselves.
The only problem with that is that it is arguable. Although I would like to believe that's true, there's no way to prove that their membership in the Freemasons had nothing to do with their status. Freemasonry itself claims that they help their members to succeed, and I've seen for myself with my own eyes, in the United States Army, that people who are Masons are promoted to Senior NCO positions faster if they are Masons. This has been admitted to me on more than one occasion from more than one Mason who held a Senior NCO position in my unit.
All I'm trying to prove here is that it would not be hard for non-Masons to demonize the organization, and so it stands that the Masons do, indeed, have something to lose if too many people who are not open-minded enough start to become more aware of the Masons.
Yet look at the plethora of anti-Masonic websites on the internet. Hell, look at the plethora of anti-Masons in this forum! There doesn't need to be an organized anti-Masonic movement for damage to be done.
Originally posted by Masonic Light
Why? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but honestly would like to know why you feel that would be the case. In recent years, cable TV and even the cinema have been deluged with shows and movies about the Masons. You mention the "Masonic practices", which have been shown on The Learning Channel, History Channel, and National Geographic Channel, and these have had many millions of viewers who were not Masons.
Masonry has always been very public in its existence. Parades on horseback were common in colonial times, replaced by our fez-brethren in gocarts today. Organized Masonic charities are household words.
I became a Mason while in college. Once, in a history class, I turned in a paper on Voltaire's influence in the Enlightenment (mentioning that he was a Mason, as well as other Enlightenment figures). My professor, who possessed a Ph.D in history, returned the paper with a comment saying something like "Interesting! I think George Washington was a Mason too!"
This shows, at least to me, that the primary reason that Masonry is not mentioned in the history books is because the writers are completely oblivious as to the subject (Ph.D's and all).
Indeed there are many anti-Masonic websites, but you have to admit, most of them are pretty entertaining and fun to read. It is doubtful that many rational people would ever take such stuff seriously.
Originally posted by an3rkist
Just for argument's sake though, I will pose this question: Is it possible that the Masons had/have control of what was written about them in the history books, but they had no control over the History Channel or whatever? It's reaching, but just because people learned about the Masons and it didn't ruin their reputation doesn't necessarily mean that the Masons didn't fear that possibility in the past and thus doctored the history books. (Could I layer this "conspiracy" any deeper?)
Wouldn't most knowledgeable Masons agree that the history of Masonry is as important to the history of the United States as, say, the Magna Carta? I'm sure this professor had heard of the Magna Carta, and how it influenced our Constitution, yet it's fairly safe to assume, from my point of view, that he knew nothing of how the Masonic beliefs of some of our forefathers also influenced the Constitution? (It may not be proven, but I'm pretty sure Masonic beliefs were indeed an influence on the Constitution...please correct me if I'm wrong.) I find it somewhat mind-boggling that someone who had studied history and the lives of historical figures for long enough to get a Ph.D would not know the history of Freemsonry to some extent, atleast how it played into the forming of the United States government.
Originally posted by Masonic Light
Case in point: you mention the influence on the US Constitution, which is true. The US Constitution was heavily influenced by the book "Constitutions of the Freemasons" published by Benjamin Franklin years earlier.
After the Revolution, George Washington was offered a crown. He refused it, believing that the secular government should be modeled after Masonic government, which is democratic.
Originally posted by an3rkist
See, those are the kinds of things that, to me, seem extremely relevant in history. Yet I doubt that that's in many high school history books in America. It definitely begs the question: Why?
Originally posted by Masonic Light
The only thing I think we disagree is the answer to your question "Why?" You might theorize that Masons don't want it in the books, while I would argue it's not in the books because the writers are either prejudiced against Masonry, or simply don't know themselves.