Interesting Place to Find a Masonic Obelisk

reply to post by NewWorldOver

---

Brethren, I have had my fill of fighting with the Anti-Masons. Take my words for it, it's a tiresome road to travel and the Anti-Mason Syndicate on this forum DOES not tire of refuting/arguing/turning every topic that pops up in this forum into a mason-bash thread.

Yes, this IS the secret society forum. You'll find it interesting that the Anti-Masons claim there is a secret society within masonry, yet they have no proof for it and man-handle and over-take every thread which mentions Masonry to ramble about it. It's entirely transparent to me and many other members, but you wouldn't know it seeing the volume and tenacity of the Anti-Mason conspiracy posts.

In any case, it's best not to go out intentionally trying to anger them. Not only will it bring you heat, but like I said, the Anti-Masons simply do not tire and will drag your thread into the dirt.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

This is the nonsense I'm talking about.

Rabid, anti-conspitorial, unfounded character slander in an attempt to stave off ANY conversation about Masonry and secret societies.

I'm sorry, but this is a CONSPIRACY THEORY FORUM, Masons. You are NOT allowed to call people anti-semitic, anti-masons etc. for simply trying to DISCUSS your organization.

I'm just going to leave this thread alone before I get riled up. I am disgusted at the way Masons bully this forum, though.

Cya.

That is the most sincerely tiresome and childish post I have seen you make yet.
Well done.

Good luck to this thread

reply to post by NewWorldOver

---

This is the nonsense I'm talking about.

Rabid, conspiratorial, unfounded character slander in an attempt to stave off ANY logic or reason about Masonry and secret societies.

I'm sorry, but this is a CONSPIRACY THEORY FORUM, Anti-Masons. You are NOT allowed to post whatever you want without having to worry about people bringing logic and reason to your theories about our organization.

I'm just going to leave this thread alone before I get riled up. I am disgusted at the way Anti-Masons bully this forum, though.

Cya.

reply to post by NewWorldOver

---

I'm sure the irony of your post fails no one. In fact, it would be funny if not for the fact you don't realize what just happened.

Why is this kind of behavior even ALLOWED on ATS?

You do realize that quoting a person and editing their content is against the sites rules and regulations right?

Just because you didn't put a quote around your post doesn't mean it isn't painfully obvious what you're doing.

Once again I stand in awe at the tactics used by Masons to bully this forum.



Keep up this childish nonsense and I will alert more moderators to the activity in this thread.

I apologize to the OP if this has disrupted the discussion about the obelisk.

reply to post by NewWorldOver

---

Oh, I'm quite sure its fine to express my opinion using words. The words you use aren't copyrighted, you know - different people can use them even after you do. I sometimes wonder why your so consumed with hatred.

Alert the moderators all you want, no one cares because the only one doing anything wrong here would BE you derailing the topic. I alert them every time you post, too You have YET AGAIN derailed a thread with your anti-mason agenda.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Attention: Members

The subject matter at hand is "Interesting Place to Find a Masonic Obelisk".

This is not a discussion on one another, or your personal opinions of other members. If you have an issue with a specific society, so be it. But leave the personal commentary at the door.

If you have an issue with a member, please submit a complaint.

Any further off-topic posts will be dealt with accordingly.

Thank you,
ATS Staff

Got to admitt... I was pretty confused to find out Obelisk's where Masonic ...

They where made by Stonemasons of course.

If it at least had a square and compass, but it doesn't, and the shape is by no means Masonic..

So, in theory, this thread should have been a simple matter of "it is not Masonic" instead of 4 pages or so of petty arguing.

Why is that?

Because Masons said it is not Masonic?

This is an open forum and people should come to their own conclusions, and they do. I can't count how many times Masons have immediately stepped into a thread to say "No conspiracy here. This discussion is over."

It's rude to insinuate that a thread should die the moment a Mason gives his input. It also goes entirely against the notion of conspiratorial debate and conspiracy theories in general.

It's like somebody saying "Americans are ruining the world."

I, as an American, can step in and say "No we're not. End of discussion." But being an American doesn't give me the final say.

Make sense?
That's a rhetorical question. I know it makes sense, yet the Masonic stone-walling continues.

This obelisk may very well be the work of Masonic design, who is going to prove or disprove? It is open for discussion. Doesn't matter how badly the Masons cripple a thread... it should be allowed to continue.

reply to post by NewWorldOver

---

I think the only thing crippling the thread are people who fail to contribute to it or address legitimate questions directed to them. As the first person to respond (and being accused of using anger in my post) I still have not had my question answered by the original poster. It was fairly simple and straight forward; What is Masonic about the memorial?

Tell me, is this a denial of conspiracy that you so strongly desire to find in every thread that mentions Masonry? I think not, it is a simple question that has gone unanswered. Perhaps you are capable of tackling the queery yourself and laying out a rational arguement on how the Trinity Memorial is Masonic in nature or pedigree.

What is Masonic about Obelisks?

Being a Mason yourself it seems silly to even ask that question.

If the OP didn't answer you, what can we do? Force him? If you as Masons don't believe this is even an obelisk, that it's an unrelated pyramid, than why not leave it at that? I am painfully aware of the reason why... but that's not the topic of this thread.

I certainly believe that a pyramid or structure of any sort on ground zero of the first nuclear blast is significant. If it's not of Masonic origin, so be it... no need to doggy-pile the thread with the aim that the discussion simply die out. But again, I am painfully aware why this seems to happen in EVERY thread mentioning Masons. And I'll leave it at that.

Odd that you chose to answer the same way as the original poster, by not answering. Tell me in your opinion, if it is not too difficult, what is Masonic about it.



Being a Mason I find it silly that everyone thinks obelisks are Masonic in nature. They were used extensively in Anicent Egypt as impressive architectural elements. Their rennaissance and return to vogue can be directly attributed to Napoleon's Egyptian campaigns in 1798-1799 and the Egyptian Revival style of 1808-1959 which subsequently followed the aforementioned military operations.

While it may be revered by some Masons for its symmetry and structure it by no means is a true 'Masonic' emblem or icon. Its progenesis far predates modern Speculative Masonry by millenia and there are no usages of it in a Masonic Lodge.



Painfully aware of what? Please enlighten me.



Perhaps if people actually addressed questions directed to them threads would not end up diverging on these unwanted tangents. To assert a position and then not offer opinion or, more importantly, facts why is not helpful nor helps germinate conversation.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by NewWorldOver

---

Why is that? Because the obvious and logical answer is that it is not Masonic at all...

Its a rather black and white issue.

It is not Masonic, unless you can fashion proof that a Mason put it there with Masonic intentions and left some Masonic markings on it and secretly incorporated this new Masonic symbol into Masonry.

But you can't your as the younger generation says "A hater".

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

---

AM, are there any references to the obelisk in the Hiram Abiff legend?

It seems, the Scotish Rite degree of Perfect Master, did at one point reference the obelisk...



Is this the case in the Hiram Abiff legend as told in the Blue Lodge? Or is it only mention in the Scotish Rite degrees?

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23

---

Conspiracynut, I have not taken the Scottish or York Rights so I can not, in good faith, comment on any of their ritual work. In the Blue Lodges there is no mention of obelisks or any reference to their usage or placement.

Edit to add, I just noted you quoted a United Kingdom source, perhaps it is best to have one of the Masons on the other side of the pond address this question as well as you might get a more suitable answer if the degrees differ from those in the United States.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

[edit on 22-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23

---

So because it was mentioned once in a version of a degree it is Masonic, and all obelisk are Masonic.

MMkay.

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

Is that what I said????

Nowhere did I say it was masonic, I'm simply trying to establish a connection. (hence, my reason for questioning knowledgeable masons.)

Do you get pleasure from posting smartass comments? If you don't know the answer to my question, then don't answer.

You're a shame to Masonry. Move on kid, let the grown-ups have a discussion. (this is the second time you've been rude to me in these forums. )


[edit on 23/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Let us also not forget that if one looks from the top of the obelisk down one will see a square and they usually are set inside a circle. This symbolism of the square and circle is highly occultic.

Why is this important?

Here is a snippet I saw a while ago and went out looking for just now:


Food for thought...

reply to post by shotinthehead

---

I see that you are new to Above Top Secret, welcome. Can you please provide the source from which you culled these statements as I would like to view then in their original context before commenting upon them further.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]