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.

 

Why the big fuss over secrecy?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I have read through alot of threads debating why masonry is secret, is it necessary, ect. My question is, What's the big deal? Alot of organizations use secrecy to a certain degree, college greek letter organizations, the American Legion, Coke (the soft drink), heck even the Boy Scouts.

So what is the big deal? Why is it even a topic?

[edit on 22-7-2007 by bigred1000]


[edit on 22-7-2007 by bigred1000]




posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Secrecy is about power and control.

Those who hold a secret, the knowledge of which is desired by others, have a certain level of power and/or control over the others. It can be used for bargaining, it can be used for exclusion or initiation.

Mystery and desire.

Even if the secret is that there is no secret, it's all a big fat lie - the effect on those who aren't in on it is the same!



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
That's actually a good question. American Legion meetings are held in secret as well. Does that mean they are up to something dubious? I really don't think so.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
For some people, it's a big deal because as long as there are secrets, they could be anything. The very idea of something being "secret" lends itself to wild speculation. And of course, even when someone says the secrets are benign, or "there are no secrets" there are those that will counter with "You're not high enough in the organization to know what's really going on" or, "Sure, you'd tell that lie, just to cover up the secret".

So it's a no-win. The only way to know "for sure" is to join the organization and rise high enough to eliminate the doubt.

Or, you can rely on reason and authority.

Bottom line, what's obviously "A" to one will just as obviously be "B" to someone else. Look at the Criss Angel thread, for example.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
It's human nature to assume that if someone is keeping something from you that they have some sort of ulterior motive. Whether this justifies it or not is arguable, but it's human nature to be suspicious of things we don't understand or just outright don't know.

Personally, I find it hard to explain why a group should be secretive about anything unless they are trying to hide something. I suppose they have the right, but I also have the right to do my best to try and figure out what they're keeping secret. I like to be "in the know", and being out of the loop on any level makes me feel somewhat ignorant.

Are secrets bad? In my opinion a secret kept is a sin committed. If someone or some organization has secrets, it has something to hide, or at the very least something to lose. Our society has come to a point where every organization has secrets, which does not justify secrecy, but gives evidence as to the mass amount of corruption and greed that has taken over our population. This is not to say that the people who keep secrets are necessarily the "bad" ones. It could also be that certain people are forced to keep secrets because of what certain other people would do with those secrets. Either way, it says a lot about the state in which our society is today.

Benign or otherwise, any organization that has secrets is begging for me to try and find out what they are!



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
It's human nature to assume that if someone is keeping something from you that they have some sort of ulterior motive.


Why is that? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but am honestly curious. Do you think that most people want to pry in other people's business, and what do you think such a motive may be?



Personally, I find it hard to explain why a group should be secretive about anything unless they are trying to hide something.


Why? Again, my question is honest and sincere. What is wrong with people or individuals minding their own business, and asking others to do the same?



Are secrets bad? In my opinion a secret kept is a sin committed.


A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter. (Proverbs 11:13)

A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness. (Proverbs 12:23)




Benign or otherwise, any organization that has secrets is begging for me to try and find out what they are!


All one needs to do is submit to initiation. For it is written that he who humbleth himself shall be exalted.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
Benign or otherwise, any organization that has secrets is begging for me to try and find out what they are!


OK, so you are prepared to accept the responses of the Masons here assembled, nuances in replies on the subject matter and personal opinions notwithstanding? There are plenty of good Masons here that are more than happy to discuss it with you... but will you listen?

You say you want to try and "find out what [we] are," and yet (pardon me) I somewhat doubt that you would be satisfied with the answers you receive on the matter.

Looking to misguided or just downright prejudiced people for answers is not the path for the seeker of TRUTH. It is PART of the path. The other part is soliciting - and fairly, reasonably, and objectively judging - the information from both sides of the proverbial fence.

The truth is out there for those who choose to seek (and recognize) it.

[edit on 7/25/07 by The Axeman]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Why is that? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but am honestly curious. Do you think that most people want to pry in other people's business, and what do you think such a motive may be?


Well you answered the question with the first word of your reply: "Why?" People want to know the "why" of just about everything. (Or maybe it's just me, but I doubt that.) So when someone is hiding something from you, you ask, "Why are they hiding something from me?" Your mind analyzes the evidence, but since it is a "secret" there's probably very little evidence, and so you usually choose the most interesting yet realistic conclusion.

And no I doubt that most people want to pry into other peoples' business, EXCEPT when they feel that that person's business affects them in some way. If there is a chance that a person's secret affects your life in some way, you're going to be curious. I guess I can't speak for EVERYbody, but I think this describes most people. I think it would be wrong for someone NOT to try and find out if people are trying to turn them into a zombie slave or something to that effect. (Just an example!)


What is wrong with people or individuals minding their own business, and asking others to do the same?


Well I have a firm belief that nobody should be ashamed or secretive about who they are. I believe that as a race of intelligent beings we should have a completely open society, where there is no need for secrecy. I'm not secretive or ashamed about any of the things I say or do, though that's not to say I haven't EVER been secretive. I think this says a lot about the fact that we live in a society where you are conditioned to believe there are certain things you should keep to yourself. I envision a society where nobody is ashamed of who they are, and nobody greedily guards anything, and we are all members of the same organization: the Human Race. A pipedream, perhaps, but that won't stop me from saying that secrets just aren't beneficial to the Human Race as a whole.


A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter. (Proverbs 11:13)

A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness. (Proverbs 12:23)


I used the term "sin" for lack of a better word. I do not subscribe to religious texts such as the books of the Bible, so these verses fail to convince me of the benign nature of any secrets.


All one needs to do is submit to initiation. For it is written that he who humbleth himself shall be exalted.


Well I'm afraid I cannot submit to initiation into an organization such as the Freemasons, because it would be hypocritical of me.


Originally posted by The Axeman
OK, so you are prepared to accept the responses of the Masons here assembled, nuances in replies on the subject matter and personal opinions notwithstanding? There are plenty of good Masons here that are more than happy to discuss it with you... but will you listen?

You say you want to try and "find out what [we] are," and yet (pardon me) I somewhat doubt that you would be satisfied with the answers you receive on the matter.

Looking to misguided or just downright prejudiced people for answers is not the path for the seeker of TRUTH. It is PART of the path. The other part is soliciting - and fairly, reasonably, and objectively judging - the information from both sides of the proverbial fence.

The truth is out there for those who choose to seek (and recognize) it.


I think you'll find that I'm fairly open to the information I receive from Masons on this site and in person. Perhaps ML and others would disagree with this, but I do my best to leave my mind open to what they have to say, and take their side of the story along with others' to try and decipher what is fact, and what is not.

You cannot expect us to take your word for granted on every occasion. I wouldn't expect people to take my word as gospel truth without trying to get the other side of the story and comparing differing theories; it's the scientific process and should be done with most, if not all information gathered in any situation on any subject. When an organization has a tradition of secrecy spanning hundreds upon hundreds of years, an outsider like myself finds it hard to take information straight from the horse's mouth without at least a small grain of salt.

If you think it is not justified of us to take your word with a grain of salt, I find this to be a severely misguided thought. Just because we question the things you say does not mean we are crackpot conspiracy theorists with narrow-minds; we're just people with questions and maybe a few crackpot theories that are ready to be dismissed by the truth when we find it. Until then, we will continue to ask questions; and if you are so offended by us asking questions perhaps this is the wrong forum for you. Apologies if I sound defensive, but I took your [potential] accusations a little personally, because I work very hard to remain open-minded. You may call me ignorant to Freemasonry, but narrow-minded to the truth about Freemasonry is one thing I am not. I may ask accusatory questions, but that does not mean I believe the proposed theory. I'm merely seeking truth in all things, and will ask as many questions and come up with as many crackpot theories as I need to until the day I find the truth or the day I die.

[edit on 25/7/07 by an3rkist]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist


And no I doubt that most people want to pry into other peoples' business, EXCEPT when they feel that that person's business affects them in some way. If there is a chance that a person's secret affects your life in some way, you're going to be curious.


That certainly makes sense, and I do not disagree. But do you think, for example, that the secrets held by fraternity and sorority members affect non-members?



Well I have a firm belief that nobody should be ashamed or secretive about who they are.


Agreed.


I believe that as a race of intelligent beings we should have a completely open society, where there is no need for secrecy.


As to the first part of your statement, I'm not completely convinced that our race is totally peopled by intelligent beings, nor that our society is an open one. I realize that we all like think that this is the case, but in many instances are we not simply trying to fool ourselves?

As for an actual need for secrecy, this I think would be relative. When it comes to deep spiritual knowledge, for example, there are several concerns, not the least being that such knowledge would be profaned and blasphemed if available to everyone equally, and the responsibility of the sacrilege would fall upon the shoulders of he or she who divulged such things to the unworthy and malevolent.




I used the term "sin" for lack of a better word. I do not subscribe to religious texts such as the books of the Bible, so these verses fail to convince me of the benign nature of any secrets.


I understand, but I quote the Bible there in order to show this just isn't something we made up in Masonry. In all ages, and at all times, the deeper mysteries were reserved, and to reveal them to those not ready to hear them was considered a crime. Not only a crime against the Holy Mysteries themselves, but also against those to whom they were revealed, but were not ready for them.



Well I'm afraid I cannot submit to initiation into an organization such as the Freemasons, because it would be hypocritical of me.


Why so? You seem to be sincere in seeking for knowledge. Such individuals are welcomed with open arms in Freemasonry and other mystery societies.



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
do you think, for example, that the secrets held by fraternity and sorority members affect non-members?


Well if you want me to get philisophical, I would say that all things affect all things, but on a less philisophical level I would say that for the most part - no. And for the most part I think that people don't care what "secrets" the average fraternity has. I couldn't care less what some sorority is doing in some university in some town. If we are talking about Freemasons, however, this is not "just some" fraternity. At the very least it is an ancient fraternal organization with members worldwide and a plethora of members who are celebrities in politics or other areas of society, and is thus a topic of interest even at the very least.


As to the first part of your statement, I'm not completely convinced that our race is totally peopled by intelligent beings, nor that our society is an open one. I realize that we all like think that this is the case, but in many instances are we not simply trying to fool ourselves?

As for an actual need for secrecy, this I think would be relative. When it comes to deep spiritual knowledge, for example, there are several concerns, not the least being that such knowledge would be profaned and blasphemed if available to everyone equally, and the responsibility of the sacrilege would fall upon the shoulders of he or she who divulged such things to the unworthy and malevolent.


It's not arguable, in my opinion, that our population has more than it's fair share of not-so-intelligent people. This is no secret. And I agree that our society is NOT an open one. However, I feel that for our society to progress toward a more utopian society, if there is such a thing, we would have to change both of those things.


I understand, but I quote the Bible there in order to show this just isn't something we made up in Masonry. In all ages, and at all times, the deeper mysteries were reserved, and to reveal them to those not ready to hear them was considered a crime. Not only a crime against the Holy Mysteries themselves, but also against those to whom they were revealed, but were not ready for them.


The first thing that came to my mind when I read this paragraph was "the Dark Ages". I'm not entirely sure why, but I think the processes in my mind were working toward the idea that keeping knowledge, wisdom, and enlightenment from humans is what, in my opinion, binds us in Hell. (I don't believe Hell is an actual place, I believe it's a state of mind brought on by ignorance and fear.) In other words, my first thought is that it's a crime against humanity to keep truth a secret.

Now I suppose there may be something to be said about people not being ready for truth. My question, however, is how does when know when a person is ready? And who are you, or any other human for that matter, to decide whether a person is ready or not? The only possible answer to this question that I would consider justified is something along the lines of "people need to come to truth themselves and of their own accord." My problem with that, however, is that some people, arguably, are born into situations where they become victims of circumstance, and whether they try or not will never find the truth without third party intervention. Is it right for us to just let them die without having a chance when we could have had a chance to tell them?

I, for one, feel that if I ever found the truth, nothing could stop me from yelling it from the rooftops to everyone within earshot. But then, I've never found truth, so I'm just speculating. I've felt the hints of it before, though, and have felt the urge to share what little I've discovered.


You seem to be sincere in seeking for knowledge. Such individuals are welcomed with open arms in Freemasonry and other mystery societies.


Well for one, I'm a devout atheist. If I remember right one must believe in some form of supreme being to become a Freemason, if for no other reason than to give the oaths meaning. (Which I find strange for Christians to do, because according to the Bible swearing an oath is a sin, but...)

Secondly, as is the topic of this thread, secrecy is not something I'm fond of at all. I find secrecy to be a form of dishonesty, and if there's one thing I value in life it is my integrity. I'm not saying that Freemasons have less integrity than I, but I would feel as if I were jeopardizing my integrity by joining an organization of this kind.

I also do not believe in taking oaths.

Aside from those things, very little, if nothing, would hold me back. I have even been invited by two of my NCOs while in the Army to join. Well, they didn't actually invite me to join, but they seemed to be trying to provide me with avenues with which to ask to join myself. I may have misconstrued their motives, but that's the way it seemed to me, and since it happened with two separate people I figured that gave that theory even more validity. Anyway, I'm sure I would enjoy Freemasonry immensely, and the more I learn about it the more I respect it and it's members - if only it weren't for these few technicalities.

(edited for grammar because I'm one of those not-so-intelligent people mentioned above.)

[edit on 25/7/07 by an3rkist]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigred1000
I have read through alot of threads debating why masonry is secret, is it necessary, ect. My question is, What's the big deal? Alot of organizations use secrecy to a certain degree, college greek letter organizations, the American Legion, Coke (the soft drink), heck even the Boy Scouts.



Originally posted by an3rkist
Personally, I find it hard to explain why a group should be secretive about anything unless they are trying to hide something. I suppose they have the right, but I also have the right to do my best to try and figure out what they're keeping secret.


Actually I would contend that freemasonry isn't particularly secretive at all. The whats, whys and wherefores are readily available to anyone who enquires. From my perspective of knowledge and experience about freemasonry a huge amount of information about the Craft is readily and freely given to anyone who asks.

The question is not whether the information is given, but whether it is believed. But this is no different from anything else we might be told about a subject without any prior knowledge.

If one choses not to believe what one is told, does that make the teller a liar? And does that make the organization deceptive?

I would contend that there is very little about freemasonry which is secretive, and a larger slice which is better described as private.


Cug

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist

I also do not believe in taking oaths.

Aside from those things, very little, if nothing, would hold me back. I have even been invited by two of my NCOs while in the Army to join.


What about the oath you took when you enlisted?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
Actually I would contend that freemasonry isn't particularly secretive at all. The whats, whys and wherefores are readily available to anyone who enquires. From my perspective of knowledge and experience about freemasonry a huge amount of information about the Craft is readily and freely given to anyone who asks.

The question is not whether the information is given, but whether it is believed. But this is no different from anything else we might be told about a subject without any prior knowledge.

If one choses not to believe what one is told, does that make the teller a liar? And does that make the organization deceptive?

I would contend that there is very little about freemasonry which is secretive, and a larger slice which is better described as private.


I find your observations of Freemasonry to be fairly accurate from my perspective, though the shrouds of secrecy were most certainly there in the past, and I doubt have gone away completely.

And you are most likely correct in your idea that the question is whether the information is believed. Obviously if someone is not believed that does not make them a liar. I'm sure that was a rhetorical question, but felt an answer was required anyway.

I think you're basically saying that short of joining the Masonic organization, all perceived information about it is mere speculation, even if it is coming from Masons, (from a non-Masons point of view anyway, due to the fact that he has no way of verifying the information).

I would agree with this.

However, does that make it pointless for people such as I, who want to know the truth but cannot join, to continue asking questions and continue trying to discover their "secrets"? Is it wrong for me to want to know the *potential* secrets being kept by Masons?


Originally posted by Cug
What about the oath you took when you enlisted?


Ah, how observant of you.
This can be explained by one word: timing. I did not have the convictions I have now concerning being an anarchist or even an atheist. It was while I was in the Army that I began to fully form all of my current philosophies, though the process no doubt began almost a year before I enlisted.

The Oath of Enlistment was something I took when I did not have certain understandings. At the time I was 17 and believed the war in Iraq was something noble, too. Everyone is ignorant at some point in my life, though I must admit some of us were more so than others at certain times in our lives. My time spent in Iraq was one of the many things that has contributed life experiences to my ever-building foundation for my philosophies. I just wish I could have built that foundation without certain things...

[edit on 25/7/07 by an3rkist]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
I find your observations of Freemasonry to be fairly accurate from my perspective, though the shrouds of secrecy were most certainly there in the past, and I doubt have gone away completely.

Depends what country you're talking about really. Freemasons in England are usually more reluctant to talk about their membership and activities than those in, say, the US. There are historical reasons for that, and actually I think in many cases freemasons are sometimes more secretive in the UK about their membership because of negative connotations. Chicken and egg.


I'm sure that was a rhetorical question, but felt an answer was required anyway.

Indeed. And because I'm a smartass.



I think you're basically saying that short of joining the Masonic organization, all perceived information about it is mere speculation, even if it is coming from Masons, (from a non-Masons point of view anyway, due to the fact that he has no way of verifying the information).

Sort of. You can read all about freemasonry and learn perhaps more than most masons without joining, but you have to join to feel it. IMO freemasonry is found in the heart, not the head.


Is it wrong for me to want to know the *potential* secrets being kept by Masons?

No, far from it. Keep asking. Keep plugging away till you reach your own personal conclusion. But if there are fewer "secrets" than you think then you are never going to be satisfied if you search for something that isn't there.

It is true that to understand freemasonry one has to join. But if one chooses for whatever reason not to join, it makes sense to me to believe those that have. It's the next best thing.


Cug

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist

Ah, how observant of you.
This can be explained by one word: timing. I did not have the convictions I have now concerning being an anarchist or even an atheist. It was while I was in the Army that I began to fully form all of my current philosophies, though the process no doubt began almost a year before I enlisted.


Well I'm not sure what the rolling eyes have to do with anything but anyway....

What does your anarchist/atheist views have to do with promising to do something? Is taking an oath too binding vrs say a promise to pick someone up at the airport? Is it the swearing to God, other supreme being that you don't like?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Maybe the truth is what we do behind closed doors is none of any one's business.

Simple as that.

Done.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
If we are talking about Freemasons, however, this is not "just some" fraternity. At the very least it is an ancient fraternal organization with members worldwide and a plethora of members who are celebrities in politics or other areas of society, and is thus a topic of interest even at the very least.


Concerning Freemasonry, I think that the "secrets" can be placed into three separate categories: the operative, the traditional, and the philosophical or religious.

The operative secrets were held by the medieval guilds, and concerned the actual art of architecture. These secrets were eventually made known to the public, and are now studied in universities.

What I call the "traditional" secrets are the so-called "modes of recognition": they consist of the traditional passwords, handshakes, etc. These things are the only secrets that modern Freemasons have vowed to keep private, along with portions of the ritual that describe them.

The third class of "secrets", however, is what I think you're talking about. In my opinion, this class of secrets is sort of the whole point of Masonry. It deals with the ideas and doctrines of the Kabalah, as interpreted from the Hermetic viewpoint. However, such teachings are no longer secret in any real sense.


It's not arguable, in my opinion, that our population has more than it's fair share of not-so-intelligent people. This is no secret. And I agree that our society is NOT an open one. However, I feel that for our society to progress toward a more utopian society, if there is such a thing, we would have to change both of those things.


There is nothing wrong with an open society, and I firmly believe we should move in that direction. However, regardless of how open a society is, we would still think it unwise to place a loaded gun in the hands of a child.




Now I suppose there may be something to be said about people not being ready for truth. My question, however, is how does when know when a person is ready? And who are you, or any other human for that matter, to decide whether a person is ready or not?


To further use the analogy, at what point can the child be trusted with the gun?

Obviously, there are several factors involved. First, the child is closely supervised and monitored by an adult, who himself is very knowledgable about guns. Such adult teaches the child not to fear the gun, but to respect it. The child is then taught how to operate it safely. After such training, the child possesses the knowledge to use the gun safely and responsibly.



The only possible answer to this question that I would consider justified is something along the lines of "people need to come to truth themselves and of their own accord." My problem with that, however, is that some people, arguably, are born into situations where they become victims of circumstance, and whether they try or not will never find the truth without third party intervention. Is it right for us to just let them die without having a chance when we could have had a chance to tell them?


The only problem I see with that is that telling them anything does absolutely no good. If they are not ready to hear it, you would make more progress by talking to a brick wall. The only thing we really accomplish by doing such things is profaning the Arcana: we do not help those we're trying to enlighten in the least, and often make them even more hostile to the truth in the process.

Regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks of the Bible, it is hard to deny the wisdom of "Let he who hath an ear hear what the Spirit saith." Not everyone hath an ear, and those who do not will be offended by what you tell them, and as the Master has said, will turn and rend you.





Well for one, I'm a devout atheist. If I remember right one must believe in some form of supreme being to become a Freemason, if for no other reason than to give the oaths meaning.


True, but Freemasonry is not the only society that teaches the Mysteries, and not all of them require theistic beliefs. As I mentioned earlier, at some point along the path, previous beliefs about the nature of God, or lack thereof, become irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cug
Well I'm not sure what the rolling eyes have to do with anything but anyway....

What does your anarchist/atheist views have to do with promising to do something? Is taking an oath too binding vrs say a promise to pick someone up at the airport? Is it the swearing to God, other supreme being that you don't like?


Sometimes the selection of little faces fails to provide me with an adequate portrayal of my emotion, so I use that particular one because I interpret it in several ways. Ah whatever, don't read too much into the faces I input. I put them in there to make it more asthetically pleasing; you know, to add to the Feng Shui of my post. (I know nothing of Feng Shui, or even how to spell it or pronounce it.
)

Anyway, if I may quote the Bible, despite my disbelief in its literal legitimacy, (not sure which version these are coming from), here is a couple of verses that may help to explain my discomfort in using oaths:

"But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven for it is God's throne; Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:34-37

"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5:12

Now perhaps I've interpreted these verses incorrectly, but it seems to me that they are saying that swearing an oath is like admitting that there are times when you are dishonest. If you need to swear an oath in order for you to follow through with your stated goals you are implying that without an oath you might be less inclined to do what is expected of you.

I believe that people who know me know that I'm a man of my word. I cannot think of any occasion where they expected me to "promise" that I would do something. If I say I will do something for them, they know I will do it.

But as for my anarchistic/atheist "beliefs" having anything to do with the oaths, it would obviously be hypocritical and dishonest of me to swear an oath to somebody or something that I do not believe in. The oath would mean nothing, which is why *I assume* "secretive" organizations such as the Masons prefer, if not require, that their prospective members have a belief in a supreme being.


Originally posted by corsig
Maybe the truth is what we do behind closed doors is none of any one's business.

Simple as that.

Done.


As I tried to explain earlier, I believe that closed doors are a hindrance to the advancement of the human race as a whole. None of us should be ashamed of who we are or what we do, and none of us should greedily withhold information that is potentially enlightening. That's my stand on the subject anyway, though the idea that some people just aren't ready for certain truths may prove to have some merit.




Originally posted by Masonic Light
The third class of "secrets", however, is what I think you're talking about. In my opinion, this class of secrets is sort of the whole point of Masonry. It deals with the ideas and doctrines of the Kabalah, as interpreted from the Hermetic viewpoint. However, such teachings are no longer secret in any real sense.


These are definitely the "secrets" I refer to. Modes of recognition and initiation rites are of little value to me unless I want to be a part of the organization. I grow curious of Freemasonry's secrets due to the fact that they appear, at least in my mind, to have some form of knowledge or wisdom. If the only secrets remaining are the modes of recognition and such, then my attempt to uncover other secret truths will inevitably be fruitless, but one cannot admit that this is an inevitably quite yet.


To further use the analogy, at what point can the child be trusted with the gun?


I find this analogy somewhat disturbing, as I'm not a huge advocate of the use of guns, though I cannot deny that I used guns in my time in the military, and even have plans to own some for reasons which are not relevant in this thread. The reason I am disturbed by this analogy, though, is that the gun represents the "secret knowledge". You are suggesting that the secret knowledge is somehow dangerous, and I have yet to be convinced of this suggestion. I find that ignorance is far more dangerous, though usually only when accompanied by the perception of "knowledge", which I would call "faith".

I truly believe that the truth will, indeed, set us all free. And when it comes to being free, I agree with General George Starke when he said, "Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils."

[edit on 26/7/07 by an3rkist]


Cug

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist
If you need to swear an oath in order for you to follow through with your stated goals you are implying that without an oath you might be less inclined to do what is expected of you.


In a way that is true, however I'd state it more like without an oath you are more likely to suffer from not being a perfect human. For example I "promised" myself that I'd lose some weight and get my bike out and get into shape. Now being human I have to admit that I have not fully lived up to that promise (I'm still working on it
)



I believe that people who know me know that I'm a man of my word. I cannot think of any occasion where they expected me to "promise" that I would do something. If I say I will do something for them, they know I will do it.


That's good.. however esoterically you don't take an oath for other people. An oath is between you and god, your higher self, your unconscious mind, or whatever term of your choosing. It's not really like a promise at all, you might think of it like a magick spell that assists you in doing/following whatever the oath was about.


You are suggesting that the secret knowledge is somehow dangerous, and I have yet to be convinced of this suggestion.


This probably applies to more of an occult viewpoint than most masons follow. But the "Secrets" are dangerous to the untrained. Go find a forum somewhere about occult/esoteric subjects and you can see for yourself, wackjobs and egomaniacs are everywhere. It's a real danger, but like say riding a motorcycle if you learn what you are doing, take safety precautions, and practice, practice, practice the danger level is drastically reduced.

[edit on 7/26/2007 by Cug]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by an3rkist


Now perhaps I've interpreted these verses incorrectly, but it seems to me that they are saying that swearing an oath is like admitting that there are times when you are dishonest. If you need to swear an oath in order for you to follow through with your stated goals you are implying that without an oath you might be less inclined to do what is expected of you.


Traditionally, Christians consider this as pertaining to the frivolous oaths taken by the Pharisees. After all, God himself places himself under oath throughout the Bible, and the Apostle Paul continually places himself under oath in his Epistles.


I believe that people who know me know that I'm a man of my word. I cannot think of any occasion where they expected me to "promise" that I would do something. If I say I will do something for them, they know I will do it.


I understand what you're saying, but also refer to what Cug wrote above. A Magickal Oath is something much different than a profane one. It is an act of Will, binding the lower to the higher.



The reason I am disturbed by this analogy, though, is that the gun represents the "secret knowledge". You are suggesting that the secret knowledge is somehow dangerous, and I have yet to be convinced of this suggestion.


If we could travel back into time and show someone in medieval France a machine gun, on first appearance he would deem it harmless, and consider his slingshot a far better weapon. Because you and I share certain experiences that the French warrior does not, we would understand the potential danger of the gun. If we attempted to explain it to him, he would consider it foolishness, and probably think we were crazy.

Knowledge can be dangerous on many different levels, especially to the psyche. Human beings, all of them, are conditioned in an almost unbelievable amount. Consider the allegory put forth in the movie "The Matrix" (the product of two Ceremonial Magicians who are members of Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis). Neo reacts violently and irrationally when Morpheus confronts him with the truth, and with real knowledge. Neo does not come to believe the truth until after it is demonstrated to him, after which he has no choice but to believe.

This is the purpose of Initiation. Anyone can tell anybody anything, but unless such knowledge can be shown as being true, it won't do anybody any good. And the only way to show things as true is to demonstrate them.

The Science of Magi, which we hold to contain the seeds of all wisdom and all truth, is not a simple discipline. It requires the utmost dedication, which is itself is an ordeal of initiation. Nothing is handed to anyone on a silver platter. The kingdom of Heaven, as it is written, must be taken by force.

We do not hide any knowledge. The Mystery Schools exist to reveal secrets, not stuff them away. But one must be willing to learn before he or she can be taught. As the Master Therion once commented, we invite every man and woman to join with us in this, the Great Work.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join