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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.