Want the Low-down on Freemasonry? This Thread's For You!

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
How is one to provide proof of what a secret fraternity is about? Defectors have written numerous books and they should know but freemasons deny everything they write.

My research has shown that the average freemason is neither good nor evil but the leadership is in serious question. Recent articles all over the internet indicate this so why do I have to provide links? There is the 'tax issue' regarding masonry currently being aired on the internet as one example of what I speak.

It appears that masonry is a networking group for ambitious people and a false belief system for those seeking enlightenment. It seems that only a hand selected few make it to the top where they learn more but nowhere near the enlightenment they sold their souls to obtain in the bargain.

Their penchant for propaganda is well known and at the drop of a hat they have an army of well versed volunteers desperate to fight for them for dubious rewards at best.




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
hey, denythestatusquo. how's it goin', eh?

i've talked with some of the brethren, lately, and i am amazed at how much it reminds of 'the stepford wives', or typical 'debunking' rhetoric we see on the subject of 911.

i mean, these guys are my friends, and i love them like brothers, but they actually do as much to keep the 'myths' of freemasonry alive as they do to quell the fires of suspicion. they say things like, 'i'd have to kill you if i told you that'.

in true true friend fashion, these masons admitted something that i would guess any freemason here will admit. the social structure of freemasonry would ALLOW bad apples to use all the secrecy as a a 'veil' for conspiracy. kinda like free speech in america, freemasons have free thought. if just two of them decide to do something, they can easily use the venues provided by the secretive freemasonic structure to do evil.

and like free speech, freemasonry is not unipolar, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Now gentlemen, im just throwing this out there. Again, I am speaking about local lodges, not throughout the US. Ill just skip to the good part. The Boumi Temple has raised money, funded, build, and currently sustains a children's hospital. They build playgrounds, they have scholarships for the inner city, they volunteer possibly more than the area Mormons, amongst other generous things.

Am I mistaken?

edit: If the freemasons and Illuminati are indeed one and the same, i dont think i would mind them taking over the world. At least this sect

[edit on 10-8-2007 by midnightrider07]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
How is one to provide proof of what a secret fraternity is about? Defectors have written numerous books and they should know but freemasons deny everything they write.


I don't think it could be said that we deny everything that they have written. The problem usually arises from either their own misinterpretations, but at times some of them will indeed outright lie.




My research has shown that the average freemason is neither good nor evil but the leadership is in serious question. Recent articles all over the internet indicate this so why do I have to provide links? There is the 'tax issue' regarding masonry currently being aired on the internet as one example of what I speak.


I suppose I would first have to ask exactly who in Masonic leadership you are targeting. If someone in a leadership position is "in serious question", then who is he, and why do you feel he is questionable?

Secondly, what do you mean by "the tax issue"? Freemasonry is registed as a non-profit fraternal organzation, and is this exempt from federal income taxes.


It appears that masonry is a networking group for ambitious people and a false belief system for those seeking enlightenment.


What specifically in Masonry do you think is "false"? And could you elaborate on your claim that Masons are "ambitious"?


It seems that only a hand selected few make it to the top where they learn more but nowhere near the enlightenment they sold their souls to obtain in the bargain.


What is your definition of "the top"? Doesn't every Master Mason reach it?

Furthermore, how exactly do we "sell our souls" by becoming involved in our Order?


Their penchant for propaganda is well known and at the drop of a hat they have an army of well versed volunteers desperate to fight for them for dubious rewards at best.


If defending one's fraternity constitutes "propaganda", what do you call it when non-Masons attack it?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
How is one to provide proof of what a secret fraternity is about? Defectors have written numerous books and they should know but freemasons deny everything they write.


To whom are you referring? Ex-Masons for Jesus? Jim Shaw? All been done here before. If you have some examples that haven't been thouroughly debunked, please do share.


My research has shown that the average freemason is neither good nor evil but the leadership is in serious question. Recent articles all over the internet indicate this so why do I have to provide links?


To back up what you say? I dunno. It's not that hard to post links, or at the very least give something other than a vague reference to Freemasonic "leadership [being] in serious question." Is there someone in particular or can you just pick some random "leader" to fit your purposes? If you want to make accusations, make them. But making general statements that are impossible to defend is weak at best.


There is the 'tax issue' regarding masonry currently being aired on the internet as one example of what I speak.


What "tax issue?" As ML stated, Freemasonry is a non-profit organization that is exempt from Federal income taxes. I can assure you there are plenty of other taes that lodges pay ditifully and with minimal complain, if any. Property taxes, etc. Perhaps if you were to be more specific we can discuss what you view to be the problem.


It appears that masonry is a networking group for ambitious people and a false belief system for those seeking enlightenment. It seems that only a hand selected few make it to the top where they learn more but nowhere near the enlightenment they sold their souls to obtain in the bargain.


"False beleif system?!" There IS NO belief system attached to Freemasonry. There are the Masonic Legends, which are just that. Legends: allegories used to make a point to the candidate.

What would qualify a person to be considered "at the top?" Who "hand selects" these people? How is it they sell their souls? These are all questions that need to be answered if you have any hope of being taken seriously. I'm willing to explore the issue but you've got to be game too.


Their penchant for propaganda is well known and at the drop of a hat they have an army of well versed volunteers desperate to fight for them for dubious rewards at best.


What propaganda? Masonic websites? Books? Personal opinions of individual Masons?

What "dubious rewards" do you seem to think I am doing this for? If I'm entitled to a place at the top of the Masonic Seizure of World Power Committee or something, I'd like to know about it. Maybe it's a keychain with a beer bottle opener on it.


Seriously, do you think I'm here on "orders?" Seriously?!



[edit on 8/10/07 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
hey, denythestatusquo. how's it goin', eh?

i've talked with some of the brethren, lately, and i am amazed at how much it reminds of 'the stepford wives', or typical 'debunking' rhetoric we see on the subject of 911.


We're supposed to just stand idly by and let lies be told about us? Yeah, we can see what good that did. That's why we're here in the first place, because for a long time Masonry just allowed the profane world to speculate and did nothing about it. We, Masons, know that the BS is BS, but a lie told often enough, uncontested, becomes truth for many people. That's probably why some people are so hard-headed about Masonry being eeeeeeeeevil...

I'm not down with that. If someone claims something that I know to be false, I will speak up. You'd do the same if it were you, I'm sure.


i mean, these guys are my friends, and i love them like brothers, but they actually do as much to keep the 'myths' of freemasonry alive as they do to quell the fires of suspicion. they say things like, 'i'd have to kill you if i told you that'.


Jokes. I say the same thing to my friends, but apparently unlike you, they know that I'm joshing them. They also know I'm serious about not telling them anything that is private; however you'd probably be surprised at just how much is NOT considered private. That doesn't mean that some Masons might not say anything at all; to each his own. Me personally, I'd (obviously) rather explain what I can than perpetuate the myth.

I still joke with my buddies about it though. And they give me a hard time and joke about the anti-Masonic claims. It's all in good fun, however, because they know me, and they also know if they have a real question about it, I will answer it honestly.


in true true friend fashion, these masons admitted something that i would guess any freemason here will admit. the social structure of freemasonry would ALLOW bad apples to use all the secrecy as a a 'veil' for conspiracy. kinda like free speech in america, freemasons have free thought. if just two of them decide to do something, they can easily use the venues provided by the secretive freemasonic structure to do evil.


Yes and no. I would say that it is certainly possible for unscrupulous individuals to use the fraternity as a "veil for conspiracy," but certainly not probable.

I'm not sure what you mean about venues. Could you elaborate a bit please?

[edit on 8/10/07 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I think my question may have been missed in the 'fracas', just wanted to give it a little bump if that was the case. If nobody can help me fair dos - always worth checking though.


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
From the above text quoted by Axeman (www.sacred-texts.com... Morals and Dogma, Ch. XX - Grand Master of all Symbolic Lodges, pp. 325-328). Can anyone elaborate on the paragraph being discussed?

“Eight hundred Degrees of one kind and another were invented: Infidelity and even Jesuitry were taught under the mask of Masonry. The rituals even of the respectable Degrees, copied and mutilated by ignorant men, became nonsensical and trivial; and the words so corrupted that it has hitherto been found impossible to recover many of them at all.”

Leaving aside the rather tempting reference to the Jesuits, at what period in the history of Freemasonry is the author referring to? He mentions two hundred years previous, but I was hoping that someone might know a specific period or have a little more background. If so I’d be interested to know more.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout



Leaving aside the rather tempting reference to the Jesuits, at what period in the history of Freemasonry is the author referring to? He mentions two hundred years previous, but I was hoping that someone might know a specific period or have a little more background. If so I’d be interested to know more.



He seems to be referring to the College of Clermont degrees, as well as the Rites of Memphis and Mitzraim, which contained about a hundred degrees each, as well as the various spurious French Templar rites. None of these were ever recognized by regular Freemasonry, and they began popping up in the middle of the 1700's.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Do you Freemasons believe that the bible is inaccurate?



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
[He seems to be referring to the College of Clermont degrees, as well as the Rites of Memphis and Mitzraim, which contained about a hundred degrees each, as well as the various spurious French Templar rites. None of these were ever recognized by regular Freemasonry, and they began popping up in the middle of the 1700's.


Thank you Masonic Light that is very helpful. Clermont clears up the Jesuit reference beautifully too. An interesting article relating to Clermont College, the Jesuits and their involvement in the 30 years war.
assets.cambridge.org...

Can you point me in the direction of any further information about the attitude of the regulars to the Clermont degrees? Did the emergence of the 'spurious' degrees play any part in the more public face that the fraternity took at about the same time or did the Clermont degrees etc appear after freemasonry became a more public body?

The author of Morals and Dogma seems to believe that there were difficulties in ascertaining which degree and rites of the craft were authentic and which were a result of these spurious influences. Do you know whether this is widely considered to be the case? Was anything done to remedy the problem or is this the basis of whether you are regular or irregular. I also wonder whether there is a direct lineage in order to confirm regularity.

I am not familiar with the early history and the formation of speculative freemasonry, but it does seem to have been attacked in quite specific ways, mainly by emulation and erosion of the principles. Why do you think that is? Was the purpose to remove Freemasonry or to replace it in prominence with something else? I suppose the first thing would be to ascertain what threat freemasonry posed. I do think that the Anglo-Germanic/Holy Roman Empire relationship is significant, which is why I mention the thirty year war. It would also explain the bizarre persecution of freemasonry in the Reich. National Socialists should have nothing to fear from Freemasons. Given the high Catholic quotient in the SS leadership I think it is much more likely that the persecution was influenced from this ideology, but why? Any thoughts?

Sorry lots of questions there - brainstorming a little, but there is definately room for interesting discussion here.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout


Can you point me in the direction of any further information about the attitude of the regulars to the Clermont degrees? Did the emergence of the 'spurious' degrees play any part in the more public face that the fraternity took at about the same time or did the Clermont degrees etc appear after freemasonry became a more public body?


All of the additional degrees and pseudo-degrees were composed after the Grand Lodge was formed in 1717. I would recommend "The Story of the Scottish Rite" by Harold Van Buren Voorhis, which goes into some detail concerning the College of Clermont and its spurious "Rose Croix" Chapter. You may also be interested in "Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" by Albert Mackey or "Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia" by Henry Wilson Coil, both of which list every single degree and pseudo-degree, as well as all the rites, that were known to have existed throughout Masonry's history.


The author of Morals and Dogma seems to believe that there were difficulties in ascertaining which degree and rites of the craft were authentic and which were a result of these spurious influences. Do you know whether this is widely considered to be the case? Was anything done to remedy the problem or is this the basis of whether you are regular or irregular. I also wonder whether there is a direct lineage in order to confirm regularity.


Actually, it's all pretty much up in the air, which makes it confusing for the Masonic historian. Eventually, the various degrees became grouped into the various rites. Their regularity depends upon their permission to exist as Masonic organizations by the Grand Lodges, with such permission granting them ipso facto recognition. In the USA today, the only regular Rites are the Scottish and York, along with mini-Rites attached to them, such as A.M.D., Royal Order of Scotland, Masonic Rosicrucian Society, etc. The Rites of Memphis and Mitzraim, Swedenborgian Rite, various Illuminatis, Rite of Strict Observance, and various other defunct rites have been consolidated into the Grand College of Rites of the United States.


National Socialists should have nothing to fear from Freemasons. Given the high Catholic quotient in the SS leadership I think it is much more likely that the persecution was influenced from this ideology, but why? Any thoughts?


For detailed information, I would recommend reading "Freemasonry Ideology" by SS Oberfuhrer Dietrick Schwarz. This was the Nazi Party's official statement on Freemasonry, signed by Himmler. The book condemns Freemasonry because of its use of the Kabalah, which the Nazi's considered Jewish propaganda. It is also states that Freemasonry embodies the principles of political liberalism, which are opposed to a fascist "folkish" state.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
from darkness to light...

from ignorance to knowledge...

from death to life...

I am NOT a conferred mason. ...but that said...

I have read; studied Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma and keep a leather bound. I also keep a first edition of Light from the Sanctuary by Snodgrass, which I am familiar with. I know several masons, my wife's father was a 33; he recieved a mosonic ceremony at his passing; may he RIP.

I study religion, philosophy, numerology, and witchcraft... masonry fits right into my studies.

The OP makes no reference towards the actual rituals involved in the conferring of degrees. Care to share on public forum? Or is that too low-down? I could begin for you if you like.

Do recall however...



I will always hele, forever conceal, and never reveal any of the secret arts, parts, or points of the hidden mysteries of Freemasonry, which I have received, am about to receive, or may be hereafter instructed in, to any person unless it shall be to a worthy Brother Entered Apprentice, or within the body of a just and duly constituted Lodge of such; and not unto him or them whom I shall hear so to be, but unto him or them only whom I shall find so to be after due trial, strict examination, or lawful Masonic information.

Furthermore: I do promise and swear that I will not write, indite, print, paint, stamp, stain, hue, anything movable or immovable, whereby or whereon the least word, syllable, letter, or character may become legible or intelligible to myself or another, whereby the secrets of Freemasonry may be unlawfully obtained through my unworthiness.

To all of which I do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, without any hesitation, mental reservation, or secret evasion of mind in me whatsoever; binding myself under no less a penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out, and with my body buried in the sands of the sea at low-water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I ever knowingly or willfully violate this, my solemn Obligation of an Entered Apprentice.


I am under no such oath,

Shall I begin with the lambskin apron?



It is yours; yours to wear throughout an honorable life, and at your death to be deposited upon the coffin which shall enclose your lifeless remains.


I'll let you finish if you like... but... It becomes my duty at this time to demand of you some metallic substance.



The scholar may wish to amazon.com:

Lester's Look to the East
Duncan's Ritual

My Brother, your own good judgment must tell you when and where to answer Masonic signs.

Careful... there are swine out there.

I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
"The Story of the Scottish Rite" by Harold Van Buren Voorhis
"Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" by Albert Mackey
"Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia" by Henry Wilson Coil

Thats an awful lot of reading - I was hoping for something a tad more concise, but nothing ventured....The Story of the Scottish Rite sounds like it could be a good read, the others may be more detail than I can handle at the moment. Thank you.


Originally posted by Masonic Light
Actually, it's all pretty much up in the air, which makes it confusing for the Masonic historian. Eventually, the various degrees became grouped into the various rites. Their regularity depends upon their permission to exist as Masonic organizations by the Grand Lodges, with such permission granting them ipso facto recognition.

I'm a bit confused by this. Did some lodges just carry on with the degrees even though they were known to be spurious? Is this because the discovery took such a long time and they had already become established? Are there any unions that claim to only to use pre 1717 rites and degrees?


Originally posted by Masonic Light
For detailed information, I would recommend reading "Freemasonry Ideology" by SS Oberfuhrer Dietrick Schwarz. This was the Nazi Party's official statement on Freemasonry, signed by Himmler.


I'm going out on a limb, not having seen this book, but this appears to be a 'hoax' or rather a piece of propaganda. Do you know when and by whom it was published? If it was an 'Official' statement of the Nazi ideology then it would have come from the party and been signed, most likely by Hitler. To have been signed by Himmler it indicates to me that it was not sanctioned by Hitler or Goebbels and is at most SS/SD in origin.

The other thing that sticks out, is that I am about 95% sure that there was no SS Obefuhrer Dietrick Schwarz and it has a made-up ring to it - "Key Black" I believe it translates to. Deitrick is a very uncommon first name, usually a surname.

I would therefore guess that reading the book would leave us none the wiser as to the real reason that the Nazis chose the Freemasons for persecution. The Freemasons and the Jews had been the target of pamphleteers for some time and it became quite fervent in the inter-war period. One of the leading proponents from 1926 onwards was Erich Ludendorff, who distributed pamphlets the conspiratorial powers of Judiaism, Freemasonry and the Jesuits. No-one got left out. He was also a General, though admittedly not in the SS. It does appear to me that this could be his work though, perhaps rehashed for Himmler's purposes.

According to Robert Wistrich in the Whos Who of Nazi Germany, Hitler is said to have ridiculed Ludendorff in public and accused him of being a freemason in 1927. Ludendorff was by this time claiming that the Nazi Party was infiltrated by Freemasons, Jews and Jesuits. After his death, his wife continued his work. Wistrich writes:

"embracing such outlandish and bizarre theories as the idea that Wall Sreet bankers financed Hitler's electoral campaigns". Now where would she get an idea like that from.
???!!! At a deNazification court she was labelled a major offender and sentenced to two years labour. The Ludendorff movement was banned in 1961.

The Freemasons were persecuted in a mirror of the Jews in Germany. By very steady increments. The SS and the Gestapo raided the Lodges fairly regularly and with increasing jurisdiction. They certainly sought to seize membership lists. Which indicates one of two things, that Hitler and/or Himmler took seriously the threat of infiltration and ordered it investigated. Or that Freemasons had infiltrated the Party and they wanted the evidence removed. Obviously the military maintained connections but as they were not party members this would not affect them. It may be that Himmler in his unfailing preparedness for intrigue actually took them before anyone thought to destroy them.

Though all freemasons were eventually persecuted it was in the protestant areas of Prussian that the attacks were initially most concentrated and where the Freemasons most ably demonstrated their willingness to compromise. Despite all efforts the fraternities were disbanded. Too much of the documentation relating to this period remains only available in German so it is difficult to get a clear picture. It certainly warrants further study...if only I knew German.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I'm looking forward to catching up on this thread and joining in what looks to be great discourse on the subject, however I am a bit preoccupied at the moment...

We just welcomed the newest member of our family to the world last night: a beautiful baby girl - 6 lbs, 10 oz, and 20 in long. Mother and baby are well.

Needless to say I may be posting less than I have been of late, but I didn't want anyone to think I just abandoned this thread... priorities and all.


*passes out cigars*

Fiat Lvx!!!



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Good thread.

Good News...

... and Good Luck!!!



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

I'm a bit confused by this. Did some lodges just carry on with the degrees even though they were known to be spurious?


Yes.


Is this because the discovery took such a long time and they had already become established?


Actually, most of them appeared to be money-making scams. For example, in New York, the irregular Cerneau Rite used to advertise in newspapers "Get your 33rd degree from us", all for a nominal sum.


Are there any unions that claim to only to use pre 1717 rites and degrees?


No. Previous to 1717, there were only two degrees (Apprentice and Journeyman), and both were operative in nature.




I'm going out on a limb, not having seen this book, but this appears to be a 'hoax' or rather a piece of propaganda. Do you know when and by whom it was published?


I'm not sure. The English translation was once available online, but appears to be gone now. Here are a couple of resources. The second link is an article written in 1941, and says the book was published by the Nazis in 1938:

Link

Link




If it was an 'Official' statement of the Nazi ideology then it would have come from the party and been signed, most likely by Hitler. To have been signed by Himmler it indicates to me that it was not sanctioned by Hitler or Goebbels and is at most SS/SD in origin.


Yes, it was an SS handbook.


The other thing that sticks out, is that I am about 95% sure that there was no SS Obefuhrer Dietrick Schwarz and it has a made-up ring to it - "Key Black" I believe it translates to. Deitrick is a very uncommon first name, usually a surname.


My fault, I was relying on memory. His first name was actually "Dieter".



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I'm not sure. The English translation was once available online, but appears to be gone now. Here are a couple of resources. The second link is an article written in 1941, and says the book was published by the Nazis in 1938:

Link

Link



Thanks Masonic Light, I'm currently having a good dig into this to see what I can find. Helpful links, the second article is very interesting. I am still suspecting that even Deiter Schwarz is made up, certainly not a SS Oberfuhrer. The preface was by Heydrich evidently, which gives it credibility and a further insight into motives. I don't doubt that it was genuinely published by the SS, I am simply interested in who's view it reflects and promotes, and for what purpose. I'd like to know who 'Deiter Schwarz' was....in order to ascertain which factions within Germany sought to remove freemasonry, although it could just be a rehash of previous pamphlets.

Hitler himself had very little time or interest in ideological matters from 1934 onwards, so that it was published in 1938 is telling.

If I find anything interesting I'll let you know.

I've become distracted by Nazi propaganda at the moment but thank you for your replies to the spurious degrees; noted and stored for later. It is fascinating and may provide the insight I was looking for. I need to read some more (as always seems to be the case) but I will hopefully engage you on the subject a little later.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
It was a simple question, do the Masons think the Holy Bible is innacurate?



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spirit7
It was a simple question, do the Masons think the Holy Bible is innacurate?


In that case, here's a simple and accurate answer.

I'm a Mason and I don't think it's inaccurate.

Some Masons *MIGHT* think it's inaccurate. That's their choice.

You see spirit7, the Masonic Fraternity does not require it's membership to all think alike. Unlike some organizations, we actually encourage freedom of thought.

Why do you ask this question, by the way?

What are YOUR thoughts on the Bible? Do you think that it is to be taken literally...word for word? Is there room for interpretation?

Just curious.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spirit7
It was a simple question, do the Masons think the Holy Bible is innacurate?


It depends on your interpretation, dude, and also what you mean by "inaccurate".

I, for one, don't believe that the first homo sapien woman was created from the rib bone of the first homo sapien man. Given that a lot of the Old Testament is written in a kind of stylised Hebrew poetry, I think that context should be applied when reading an English translation.

I would suggest that people who believe that the Bible is inerrant (on a word-for-word basis) are mistaken, as it can be demonstrated that there have been hundreds of corrections and modifications made over the years. So which version are we even talking about? The very first edition released by King James in English?

So, I guess from that perspective, yes, I believe that the Bible is in some ways "inaccurate".

But I've met VERY few people who think that the Bible is totally, literally inerrant. Do you believe this?

Oh, and by the way, none of this means that I consider the Bible to be of no merit. I have great respect for its teachings, and I think the world would be a virtual paradise if everyone lived according to Christ's teachings.

Rah.





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join