Secret Societies Forum Debate Archive

According to Dr. Joye Pugh, there's at least 72 degrees; the first 33 are known and before I ran into that research note I thought 33 was the highest, but no....33 is just the peon stage. What separates the men from the boys is after that.

A general thought is that good is always done out in the open; it is evil that goes prowling through the night doing stuff in secret. True, they are not completely entirely secret now because they plan to blow the cover soon; whatever the general public knows about them doesn't even scratch the surface so in essence they are plenty secret enough still.

Quite frankly all of this is the ultimate battle between good and evil and our souls are the pawns.

Research this while you all still can. ALL conspiracies are tied together, as are secret societies. (There seems to be a movement to censor the internet and if that pulls through government agents will be able to censor anything they want on any website that doesn't fit into their agenda....or at least I think that's what I've heard )

BTW you know the word "conspiracy" as it is used today was actually invented by the US government to make those who actually DO have factual evidence that doesn't flow well with what their agenda.

Originally posted by Conspirus
According to Dr. Joye Pugh

Whose doctorate is in education, not history or an analogous discipline.

there's at least 72 degrees; the first 33 are known and before I ran into that research note I thought 33 was the highest, but no....33 is just the peon stage. What separates the men from the boys is after that.

No degree above the 3rd has any meaning in regular Freemasonry; in fact, the bodies awarding additional degrees are subordinate to the ones awarding three.

A general thought is that good is always done out in the open; it is evil that goes prowling through the night doing stuff in secret.

Someone should tell God. I'm sure He'd appreciate the correction.

ALL conspiracies are tied together, as are secret societies.

Psychologists and scholars call this "patternicity" and "parallelomania".

There seems to be a movement to censor the internet and if that pulls through government agents will be able to censor anything they want on any website that doesn't fit into their agenda....or at least I think that's what I've heard

I've heard a lot of things. Your standard of proof should be higher.

BTW you know the word "conspiracy" as it is used today was actually invented by the US government to make those who actually DO have factual evidence that doesn't flow well with what their agenda.

It was used by John Robison in his Proofs of a Conspiracy while the US Government was still focused on becoming itself. So it dates to at least 1797. Are you saying the conspiracy runs back that far?

Originally posted by Conspirus
BTW you know the word "conspiracy" as it is used today was actually invented by the US government to make those who actually DO have factual evidence that doesn't flow well with what their agenda.

Tell that to Chaucer, who used the word in 1386 while writing "The Monk's Tale".

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by Conspirus
According to Dr. Joye Pugh

Whose doctorate is in education, not history or an analogous discipline.

We should be careful to dismiss the work (research in this case) of a person whose doctorate may not be related to a specific discipline. Steve Jobs for example dropped out of college and did not receive a formal degree in anything related to computing. Yet, he later co-founded Apple Inc. Computing was Steve Jobs' passion, research into biblical prophecy is Dr. Joye's.

en.wikipedia.org...
arts.guardian.co.uk...

And though her doctorate is in education, the fact alone that she received this distinction means that she is a very well educated person that would have the ability to analyze and discern information presented to her. Thirty years of research in a field not related to the person's degree should not be overlooked.

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

No degree above the 3rd has any meaning in regular Freemasonry; in fact, the bodies awarding additional degrees are subordinate to the ones awarding three.

Definition of regular Freemasonry is a topic that should be discussed in a separate thread. You are correct in that the Blue (Craft or Symbolic) Lodge has only three degrees. However, it is important to note that 3rd degree masons often seek further teachings in the Scottish Rite, which goes beyond the 3rd degree and publicly offers teachings to the 33rd degree.

www.masoniclight.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

It is also important to note that in order to be accepted into the Scottish Rite you must be a 3rd degree mason. These bodies awarding additional degrees are not subordinate but need to be considered separate from the Blue Lodge. In a historical context, the Blue Lodge formed in order to separate true masons from speculative masons. Therefore, the Blue Lodge should be considered the "introductory level" into "true" Freemasonry beliefs.

www.aboutfreemasons.com...

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Someone should tell God. I'm sure He'd appreciate the correction.

Proverbs 11:13 should be taken in context. Depending on the translation, the verse begins by referring to gossip or talebearer (one who spreads gossip or rumors). The verse later ends by saying a trustworthy or a faithful spirit conceals the matter. In today's words, this verse would be referring to a secret you may hold about someone you know. A personal matter that should only be revealed by the person himself/herself. My statement was referring to specific actions being done in secret, not holding a "secret".

Matthew 13:11-15 in context is strictly Jesus answering the disciples question in verse 10 preceding the passage you noted.

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

I've heard a lot of things. Your standard of proof should be higher.

There have been multiple attempts by the House and the Senate to enact censorship bills (Senate bill S.3804 for example). While this specific bill at face value addresses illegal counterfeit activities, the question comes down to their vague definition of "counterfeit". Anything you post or link that is not originally yours would possibly be seized. Domain seizures by the government is also growing in the last year. Additionally, there was an internet 'kill switch' bill as well as an internet ID bill that have been proposed.

www.internationalfreepresssociety.org...
www.techdirt.com...
www.prisonplanet.com...
www.businessinsider.com...

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

It was used by John Robison in his Proofs of a Conspiracy while the US Government was still focused on becoming itself. So it dates to at least 1797. Are you saying the conspiracy runs back that far?

Yes, the conspiracy of evil trying to overcome good runs back even further than 1797. John Robison actually outlines this in his writing. Manly P. Hall also refers to a secret group having existed for thousands of years in The Secret Destiny of America. But for further clarification of my earlier post concerning the etymology of the word "conspiracy" I will re-iterate the words: "as it is used today." The meaning of the originating words of conspiracy differ greatly from our current definition.

www.merriam-webster.com...

The definitions (1 and 2) in the above link do not relate at all and it can be argued that they are exact opposites.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Yes, you're right that the first known use was in the 14th century; however, the definition of the word has changed significantly since then to the point where you could argue the definitions are almost opposites.

reply to post by Conspirus


Really? Enlighten us with the two definitions then, please.

Originally posted by Conspirus
We should be careful to dismiss the work (research in this case) of a person whose doctorate may not be related to a specific discipline.

I don't intend to; I don't have a doctorate, and as far as I know, neither do many of the people on this site fomr whom I've learned a lot. However, introducing her as "Dr. Joye Pugh", rather than "Pugh" or "Joye Pugh", implies an authority on the subject she does not have.

And though her doctorate is in education, the fact alone that she received this distinction means that she is a very well educated person that would have the ability to analyze and discern information presented to her. Thirty years of research in a field not related to the person's degree should not be overlooked.

Nor should it be considered authoritative, as a context-free reference to her status in the academic community would make it appear.

Definition of regular Freemasonry is a topic that should be discussed in a separate thread.

Not when you (and Dr. Pugh) have offered commentary on the structure and organizational comings-and-goings of Freemasonry.

You are correct in that the Blue (Craft or Symbolic) Lodge has only three degrees. However, it is important to note that 3rd degree masons often seek further teachings in the Scottish Rite, which goes beyond the 3rd degree and publicly offers teachings to the 33rd degree.

Yes, but the Scottish Rite may only operate in a jurisdiction with permission from a Grand Lodge, and a blue lodge Mason may only participate if in good standing with a blue lodge.

It is also important to note that in order to be accepted into the Scottish Rite you must be a 3rd degree mason. These bodies awarding additional degrees are not subordinate but need to be considered separate from the Blue Lodge.

The Scottish Rite (and other bodies) may not be subordinate in terms of the Grand Lodge dictating policy, but they owe their very existence to the Grand Lodge's permission.

In a historical context, the Blue Lodge formed in order to separate true masons from speculative masons.

This is false; the appendant bodies evolved from the craft lodges. The Scottish Rite wasn't form until 1733, almost 20 years after the formation of the Premier Grand Lodge of London and Westminster (which is still centuries after the origin of speculative Freemasonry).

My statement was referring to specific actions being done in secret, not holding a "secret".

Nonetheless, the Bible asserts a value to the ability to keep one's confidence, in which I see parallels in Freemasonry.

Matthew 13:11-15 in context is strictly Jesus answering the disciples question in verse 10 preceding the passage you noted.

Yes, and Jesus answers that He teaches the same lesson in a different method to a select group. Once again, there are parallels.

Yes, the conspiracy of evil trying to overcome good runs back even further than 1797. John Robison actually outlines this in his writing.

His critically flawed, agenda-driven writing. You'll note that Robison's heroes are Pugh's Antichrist.

But for further clarification of my earlier post concerning the etymology of the word "conspiracy" I will re-iterate the words: "as it is used today." The meaning of the originating words of conspiracy differ greatly from our current definition.

Yes, but Robison was using our current definition in 1797. This means that A) the U.S. government not only changed the definition but planted it in the consciousness of a foreign citizen of an older generation within 20 years of its inception, or B) one meaning of a word became archaic over time. Have you ever wondered why self-described God-fearing men sit happily in a church pew instead of screaming in panic?

The definitions (1 and 2) in the above link do not relate at all and it can be argued that they are exact opposites.

So you're saying a group couldn't "act in harmony toward a common end" as part of "a secret agreement to commit an unlawful act"?

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by Conspirus
We should be careful to dismiss the work (research in this case) of a person whose doctorate may not be related to a specific discipline.

I don't intend to;

You are by bringing up this “authoritative or not” tangent that, in the end, is only a technicality issue, especially if you take opinions of other people and learn from them as you state right below here:

I don't have a doctorate, and as far as I know, neither do many of the people on this site fomr whom I've learned a lot.

I agree there are very intelligent people on this site who have valuable information. Your statement only furthers my case in stating that you do not need a doctorate in the related field to which you are researching in order to have plausible information.

Also, if that is the case then why even bring up the question of whether or not what I say or what, as you prefer to hear her name, Joye Pugh says is “authoritative” or not? I only cited her for creditation purposes (as the rules of posting requires) because it is fairly recent of my researching. I would encourage you to just research it yourself, there is a lot of information out there that is available.

However, introducing her as "Dr. Joye Pugh", rather than "Pugh" or "Joye Pugh", implies an authority on the subject she does not have.

If the attachment of “Dr.” to Joye's name was a misleading as you say I apologize; but honestly this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

So for the sake of not swaying an argument unfairly we'll drop any type of title off of Joye's name and forget that as you wish. Now she is an ordinary person who has done 30 years of personal research in the matter this thread is talking about.

Nor should it be considered authoritative, as a context-free reference to her status in the academic community would make it appear.

Just so we are clear, I have never stated that Ms. Joye is an authority on the subject. All I am showing is that she does have a lot of very plausible information. You can back up what Joye is saying with what senior members of the Freemason organization have said.

Albert Pike, July 14, 1889 to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, La Femme et l' Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, pg. 588

"That which we must say to the crowd is: We worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees: The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine."

Not when you (and Dr. Pugh) have offered commentary on the structure and organizational comings-and-goings of Freemasonry.

On my part, it was a general comment on the levels in Freemasonry, period. But as far as Joye is concerned she has the most thorough timeline on the comings and goings of Freemasonry.

But since neither I or someone who's done 30 years of research on this topic has any type of authority to comment about this why would it be a big deal to you? Plus, I would assume I am entitled to an opinion just as you are, as do the random people that, as you have said, have no degrees on anything that you learn from as well.

Yes, but the Scottish Rite may only operate in a jurisdiction with permission from a Grand Lodge, and a blue lodge Mason may only participate if in good standing with a blue lodge.

I have found no information from any Scottish Rite organization to support your claim. Scottish Rite societies offer further intellectual and spiritual “enlightenment” than the blue lodge.

littlerockscottishrite.org...

The Scottish Rite (and other bodies) may not be subordinate in terms of the Grand Lodge dictating policy, but they owe their very existence to the Grand Lodge's permission.

Permission is a misleading term. The Scottish Rite was operating beginning in the early to mid-1700's in London as well as France. These groups were later “accepted”.

This is false; the appendant bodies evolved from the craft lodges. The Scottish Rite wasn't form until 1733, almost 20 years after the formation of the Premier Grand Lodge of London and Westminster (which is still centuries after the origin of speculative Freemasonry).

By speculative I meant people who were masons due to the craft of stonemasons. In the early 17th century, members interested in becoming a fraternity for the enlightenment of souls separated themselves from those “speculative masons”. These masons later formed the Lodge of Edinburgh, and three other lodges which later formed the Grand Lodge of London.

en.wikipedia.org...

Nonetheless, the Bible asserts a value to the ability to keep one's confidence, in which I see parallels in Freemasonry.

You are right, however there is a difference when the Bible refers to JUST keeping a secret and when it refers to secret societies. Ephesians 5:11-12 is an example: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.” In this verse he is referring to secret societies, and freemasonry is one of them.

Yes, and Jesus answers that He teaches the same lesson in a different method to a select group. Once again, there are parallels.

Sure you can find parallels in just about anything and everything; but you can't take snippets out of the Bible and fit it into a certain ideology when there are other passages in Scripture that contradict that ideology.

His critically flawed, agenda-driven writing. You'll note that Robison's heroes are Pugh's Antichrist.

I am concerned that the reference you provided may be one-sided. Your reference as well as the reference listed in the website you provided are masons.

Yes, but Robison was using our current definition in 1797. This means that A) the U.S. government not only changed the definition but planted it in the consciousness of a foreign citizen of an older generation within 20 years of its inception, or B) one meaning of a word became archaic over time. Have you ever wondered why self-described God-fearing men sit happily in a church pew instead of screaming in panic?

Check the word origin and history at the link below. The word in terms of conspiracy theory was not used until 1909. Also, I do not understand your question, will you re-phrase it?

So you're saying a group couldn't "act in harmony toward a common end" as part of "a secret agreement to commit an unlawful act"?

In a context free environment, as you would say, in harmony toward a common end is different from an unlawful act. A 'common end (in harmony)' implies something positive whereas 'unlawful' implies that you could be arrested from it. When you think of the phrase “It's just a conspiracy” what do you think? Most of the people I have come in contact with automatically discredit whoever it is that phrase was referring to even when they have no idea of the man's basis.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by Conspirus

 

Really? Enlighten us with the two definitions then, please.

The definitions were provided in the post above your comment.

Originally posted by Conspirus
I agree there are very intelligent people on this site who have valuable information. Your statement only furthers my case in stating that you do not need a doctorate in the related field to which you are researching in order to have plausible information.

Which, again, I never said. I just said it was improper to throw her PhD out as a credential.

Also, if that is the case then why even bring up the question of whether or not what I say or what, as you prefer to hear her name, Joye Pugh says is “authoritative” or not?

Because you referred to her as "Dr." when introducing her research. It's an appeal to authority, inappropriate given her actual credentials.

Just so we are clear, I have never stated that Ms. Joye is an authority on the subject.

You've implied it, intentionally or otherwise.

You can back up what Joye is saying with what senior members of the Freemason organization have said.

Albert Pike, July 14, 1889 to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, La Femme et l' Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, pg. 588

"That which we must say to the crowd is: We worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees: The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine."

Seriously? Thirty years of research, and she missed what thirty seconds of Google found?

On my part, it was a general comment on the levels in Freemasonry, period.

You led with "according to Dr. Joye Pugh, Freemasonry consists of X..." That's not a "general comment on the levels in Freemasonry". It's your first point in contention.

But as far as Joye is concerned she has the most thorough timeline on the comings and goings of Freemasonry.

Except that she doesn't understand how Freemasonry works.

But since neither I or someone who's done 30 years of research on this topic has any type of authority to comment about this why would it be a big deal to you?

Because you're saying things that are factually incorrect, and people are believing you.

Plus, I would assume I am entitled to an opinion just as you are, as do the random people that, as you have said, have no degrees on anything that you learn from as well.

Why do conspiracy theorists always retreat to the "right to their opinion"? Yes, you obviously have the right to your opinion. You're confusing it, however, with the right to broadcast that opinion without challenge.

I have found no information from any Scottish Rite organization to support your claim.

Accounts of Shrine and Knights Templar bodies being shut down by Grand Masters are available at the links provided. I don't know of the same thing happening in the Scottish Rite, but Brent Morris and Art deHoyos cite a precedent for such happening, and reaffirm the Grand Master's authority to do so, in their book Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?:

No Supreme Council, no respected author, nor any other group or person speaks for or controls Masonry; that prerogative rests solely with the grand lodges. Anyone doubting this need only check the cases when grand lodges have closed down the Scottish Rite, the Shrine, and other appendant Masonic bodies in their states or suspended or expelled their "high officials." It is a rare but powerful reminder of who is in charge.

Permission is a misleading term.

I fail to see how "your entire membership may be forbidden, and your organization thusly crippled, by my prerogative" is a misleading use of the term "permission".

The Scottish Rite was operating beginning in the early to mid-1700's in London as well as France. These groups were later “accepted”.

The Scottish Rite as it currently exists developed far later. If you'd like to discuss use of Scottish Rite ritual in individual lodges prior to the formation of Supreme Councils, that's a fascinating topic, but it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

By speculative I meant people who were masons due to the craft of stonemasons.

They are termed "operative" Masons. Speculative Masons are the opposite.

In the early 17th century, members interested in becoming a fraternity for the enlightenment of souls separated themselves from those “speculative masons”. These masons later formed the Lodge of Edinburgh, and three other lodges which later formed the Grand Lodge of London.

You are confusing organizational evolution with separation. The operative and speculative Masons never split; there simply became more of the speculative sort.

Ephesians 5:11-12 is an example: “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret.” In this verse he is referring to secret societies, and freemasonry is one of them.

Two can play the context game. Ephesians 5:8 states "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light". Are we to assume that the Ephesians were part-time skullduggers?

Sure you can find parallels in just about anything and everything; but you can't take snippets out of the Bible and fit it into a certain ideology when there are other passages in Scripture that contradict that ideology.

Really, now?

I am concerned that the reference you provided may be one-sided. Your reference as well as the reference listed in the website you provided are masons.

So "research" is no longer the bar, then?

The word in terms of conspiracy theory was not used until 1909.

Foreshortening happens in usage. I can provide hundreds of other examples.

Also, I do not understand your question, will you re-phrase it?

Sure: why are God-fearing men not afraid of God?

A 'common end (in harmony)' implies something positive

No, it doesn't. Harmony simply means union, and common means "the same". Plenty of evil and awful things can be correctly stated to work in harmony, and plenty of evil ends are sought in common.

When you think of the phrase “It's just a conspiracy” what do you think?

That someone has foreshortened the phrase "conspiracy theory".

Most of the people I have come in contact with automatically discredit whoever it is that phrase was referring to even when they have no idea of the man's basis.

A lot of people are anti-intellectual and prefer commonly-accepted information. This condition predates and will post-date America.

something i REALLY want to learn more about is the connections of the illuminati and the freemasons and the templar knights AND BEFORE you say that im bad mouthing christians by saying this i did my research on the templar knights they were disbanded after while because they were put to trial by king phillip the IV and they admitted to: spitting and trampling the cross, homosexuality and, idolism so therefore before you accuse me of ANYTHING and they also first gave false confessions before admitting to their true crimes

have you ever had that feeling when your researching things like the illuminati that it seems no one wants revealed you feel like your being watched or someone might come after you it just gives me chills when i feel like someone is watching research this stuff i should stop being a night owl and researching it night that probably makes it worse

i'm totally agree with you but you should change your way of thinking )

Originally posted by couldntthinkofone
something i REALLY want to learn more about is the connections of the illuminati and the freemasons and the templar knights AND BEFORE you say that im bad mouthing christians by saying this i did my research on the templar knights they were disbanded after while because they were put to trial by king phillip the IV and they admitted to: spitting and trampling the cross, homosexuality and, idolism so therefore before you accuse me of ANYTHING and they also first gave false confessions before admitting to their true crimes

Well, if you've done your research then you know that Philip the Fair owed the Templars a lot of money and didn't want to pay them, so he coerced Pope Clement to do something about it. You also know that the false confessions were made while being tortured and were later recanted, and that the Vatican was aware of the recanted testimonies and pardoned them. (The Chinon parchment.)

So you've got a bully king who doesn't want to pay his debts.
He gets his buddy to torture the people he owes until they confess to crimes they didn't really commit.
They recant their testimony, but are put to death anyway.

And yet conspiracy theorists today still think that modern Freemasonry stems from the Templars, but also believe that we want to put royal bloodlines in place and are controlled by the Vatican.

Originally posted by couldntthinkofone
something i REALLY want to learn more about is the connections of the illuminati and the freemasons and the templar knights AND BEFORE you say that im bad mouthing christians by saying this i did my research on the templar knights they were disbanded after while because they were put to trial by king phillip the IV and they admitted to: spitting and trampling the cross, homosexuality and, idolism so therefore before you accuse me of ANYTHING and they also first gave false confessions before admitting to their true crimes

You shouldn't be accused lol I've read the same stuff too; not the most educated on the Templars but some of what I remember.

The Knights of the Templar shouldn't be considered anywhere near Christian; though they proclaimed themselves as Christians they even killed innocent Christians on their raids. It's interesting how they keep being mentioned as "Christian" when none of their deeds ever lined up to Scripture.
Their secret symbol was the skull and bones, and their more commonly known symbol was the red cross. This red cross was also one of the symbols the Rosicrucian Order used, who then have been rumored to form the illuminati/freemasons.
Long story short the Knights Templar went underground after the Inquisition, were assumed to have become an extinct organization in the 1300s or so. Interestingly their rituals and ideals flourish in many Orders around the world today...basically secret societies since they all seem to do similar things in taking oathes and climbing ranks and such.

And as for your second post, I DO remember feelin like that when I first started looking into things...kinda like you're gonna get jumped by a demon possessed illuminati member. I think I just got used to it lol

reply to post by TheBorg


I'm sorry brother Borg, but I am from an ignorant society,and speak before I read or listen,forgive me,but I don't have a lot of time.I do not wish to insult anyone,but my tv screne is a blur with black and blue eyes.The man on the hill is alive and loud,or is it a woman, very hairy. I'm not scared anymore.Earthquake.Quasqai Rug like Freuds.Did I run into this,or did it run into me. You are a clever if you do not answer back.

reply to post by TheBorg


I do not know how to twitter. That's how bad it is.
Sorry,but I might need your help.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Josh, I'm not trying to do research.I need help. I finally stopped typing two ee's,without trying.I know your not suppose to start a question out with an Are,but. Are you a descendent from the real Josh Norton? If you are,than I might have some things,some artifacts that might belong to you. They were good luck to me at first,but I accidently turned it into bad,I think. If your a mason,I might have messed up October for everyone. Was Josh Norton ever in San Diego and did he have a thing for precious stones or semi? Please,answer back. I don't care how ignorant I sound,there's so much more.

reply to post by Conspirus


Hi,How do we know who's on our side? Obviously,the masons know more than us. Do we trust them or do we have a choice? I would hate to think that they are like the Mayans or Olmecs,that like to do ephigy/ephiggy/effigy saccrifices.(sorry for my grammar) I would like to know who's idea it was to try to put such a collaboration of items together as in (100 Objects) The Brit- Museum. It was quite genius or sick!

reply to post by Conspirus


Thank you for this article.