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 can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

page: 19
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Excellent point Brother Norton, I do believe they call that networking and some companies actually charge you for the same service. It is in fact how I acquired my present position-and no, it was not from a Mason-and is an invaluable tool when one is seeking employment.
Keith Ferrazzi's book Never Eat Alone suggests doing good work for friends and acquaintances asking nothing in return. Though the book never mentions Masonry, I found many of the ideas of service the same. Another (non-Mason) friend of mine was recently asked to join the advisory board of a local arts non-profit simply because he'd regularly volunteered to do things when they needed to be done, like picking up guest speakers from the airport. The executive director noticed his regular presence and contribution of help.

These are not the reasons I joined Masonry, but they're aspects of Masonry that I recognized as being in-line with my own thinking after I'd joined. I like the idea of helping my friends achieve success in their endeavors if it is within my ability to provide such aid.

(And as an incidental side-note on networking, it is my personal belief that people who do cool things tend to hang out with other people who do cool things. Through my own experiences as an artist & musician, I've met a lot of more famous and recognizable musicians, actors, writers, etc.)




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


I tend to agree, these are the tenets of Masonry that I find most appealing and spiritually rewarding. The person you assist today may be the friend who comes to your unasked-for aid in the future....and even if they do not you still gained a friend and helped a fellow human being.



[edit on 6-6-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Thanks for answering my questions I'm very curious about secret societies and this is the first time I got to talk to masons about their society. Can you answer my question about if you think the ritual was maybe more literal when it was written and that you needed to follow it word for word?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Do you feel that masonry is more of a networking and social club now then when it was created? Is this what masons usually do when they are in lodge meetings? Do you think that this can possibly become a problem if people ask for too much or don't get there way or maybe they don't deserve what they are asking for?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Capozzelli
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Do you feel that masonry is more of a networking and social club now then when it was created? Is this what masons usually do when they are in lodge meetings? Do you think that this can possibly become a problem if people ask for too much or don't get there way or maybe they don't deserve what they are asking for?
No, no and no. I really don't think that the networking aspect is at all "what it's about", at least in my lodge. It could be a natural consequence of people spending time together regularly, but it's not why we do so. Personally, I'm not all that outgoing... I'm not going to go out drinking with the guys after lodge 90% of the time. Some of the younger members are probably tighter knit because they spend more time together beyond the walls of the lodge, but I've got other things to spend my time on.

As to feelings of entitlement or disappointment if good work isn't recognized? I don't see that as being a problem. Again, at least not in my lodge. We had an extra long meeting last night... four degrees to confer, and by the end of it, there were only a handful of us left. I was among them. The WM mentioned in passing that he appreciated us sticking around. That was enough of a pat on the back for me, and it really wasn't necessary... I wasn't sticking around for him. I just knew that there were duties that needed to be performed, and I saw the gap where they might not get done if I didn't step forward, so I did.

*shrug*



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton


As to feelings of entitlement or disappointment if good work isn't recognized? I don't see that as being a problem. Again, at least not in my lodge. We had an extra long meeting last night... four degrees to confer, and by the end of it, there were only a handful of us left. I was among them. The WM mentioned in passing that he appreciated us sticking around. That was enough of a pat on the back for me, and it really wasn't necessary... I wasn't sticking around for him. I just knew that there were duties that needed to be performed, and I saw the gap where they might not get done if I didn't step forward, so I did.

*shrug*


What I meant is that do you think a person who comes into the lodge expecting to network and asking for something that he doesn't deserve might lead to a problem? How do you deal with people that think masonry is for networking? They could say they are joining for one reason and try to do this once they get in. I could see how this might make people think there is a conspiracy. I'm sure that masons have helped other masons this way and that non masons might be upset if they knew that they maybe lost getting a job or something because they are not members. What do you think?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Capozzelli
 


I am sure that the origins of the ritual come from a time to where it had to be taken much more literally. During the age of stone worker guilds, the secrets were the key to the profession itself, and while I'm not sure they would literally disembowel people for disclosing them I think spilling the beans would have been taken much more seriously than it is today. But remember, that is from a different age and a different time - we live in a different world today, where the fraternity is entirely based on speculative masonry.


[edit on 8-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

I have yet to see one individual prove that there is a ‘Masonic’ conspiracy of any type taking place.


Maybe it's where you keep your head, that keeps you from seeing...

Over and over and over, over the course of many years, I have posted the tedious dismal drivel written by 33d degree Freemasons. Here.

Manly P. Hall
Foster Bailey
Albert Pike
J.D. Buck
C.W. "Lend a hand" Leadbeater ( 19th century Michael Jackson. Beat It would have been an appropriate song for this schoolteacher )

Over and over and over the same Freemasons post the same numb responses - including you.

"You just cut and pasted that from Freemasonry Watch" ( actually I scanned them from my personal library ) Why would cutting and pasting what was said by Freemasons make what was said by Freemasons less valid?

"These guys don't speak for Freemasonry, nobody does" ( The same can be said for the Mafia, the Hells Angels, the KKK... ) What kind of an organization hides behind no front at all?

"You are taking it out of context, you would have to be a Freemason to understand" ( I have to go with the notion that when Manly P. Hall says The Great Plan of the Ages has unfolded over the course of thousands of years, he means The Great Plan of the Ages has unfolded over the course of thousands of years )

It's called denial.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Researcher
Maybe it's where you keep your head, that keeps you from seeing...


Or perhaps you so desperately want to see that your connecting dots where none exist?


Originally posted by Researcher
Over and over and over, over the course of many years, I have posted the tedious dismal drivel written by 33d degree Freemasons. Here.

Manly P. Hall
Foster Bailey
Albert Pike
J.D. Buck
C.W. "Lend a hand" Leadbeater ( 19th century Michael Jackson. Beat It would have been an appropriate song for this schoolteacher )


Regardless of your slander against these writers, have you also posted quotes stating that this people were representatives that could speak for masonry? Your very language betrays that you don't quite understand masonry - the writings of a "33rd degree freemason" mean nothing more than the writings of any other mason. And I could quote to you from numerous masons - 33rd degree and otherwise - which directly disagree with the works of Pike and Hall. It doesn't really matter, because none of these people speak for the fraternity.


Originally posted by Researcher
Over and over and over the same Freemasons post the same numb responses - including you.


And over and over the anti-masons here post things that do not provide evidence for their claims and often have been debunked for years - including you.


Originally posted by Researcher
"You just cut and pasted that from Freemasonry Watch" ( actually I scanned them from my personal library ) Why would cutting and pasting what was said by Freemasons make what was said by Freemasons less valid?


You either don't understand research, or your ignoring it. Its very obvious why authoritative freemason sources are most important - they are primary sources. If you were interested in doing research instead of supporting an anti-mason world view, you of course would know the best two sources for what your researching are primary sources and secondary peer reviewed sources. Interestingly, anti-masons can never provide information from either of those two sources to support their claims - because there is no conspiracy here.



Originally posted by Researcher
"These guys don't speak for Freemasonry, nobody does" ( The same can be said for the Mafia, the Hells Angels, the KKK... ) What kind of an organization hides behind no front at all?


Invalid comparison, and of course you know that. Trying to point out who speaks for freemasonry is like trying to point out who speaks for your anti-mason group - its impossible to pinpoint. A few people stand out, but they don't speak for the whole group. The fact that there is no centralized ruling masonic body is of course evidence against anti-mason claims concerning world domination - how could we do so without a central ruling group? Thats the beauty - we are hiding nothing, but you are trying to make it look like we are.


Originally posted by Researcher
"You are taking it out of context, you would have to be a Freemason to understand" ( I have to go with the notion that when Manly P. Hall says The Great Plan of the Ages has unfolded over the course of thousands of years, he means The Great Plan of the Ages has unfolded over the course of thousands of years )


Now your just making things up. I've never seen anyone say you "have to be a freemason to understand." In fact anyone can understand it - and thats why anti-masons are in the minority. Most non-masons know and understand there is no conspiracy, because either they don't care or they looked at the evidence and understood the anti-masons were just making things up.


Originally posted by Researcher
It's called denial.


No disagreement here. Denial is exactly the state of anti-masonry. There is no evidence, but lack of facts never stopped anyone from making up a good conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

becuase masons are really good at hiding the truth

that's why they were once a 'secret society'



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Researcher
Maybe it's where you keep your head, that keeps you from seeing...


Firmly on my shoulders? Someone may be suffering from cranial-rectal-inversion but it is not myself.


Over and over and over, over the course of many years, I have posted the tedious dismal drivel written by 33d degree Freemasons. Here.

Manly P. Hall
Foster Bailey
Albert Pike
J.D. Buck
C.W. "Lend a hand" Leadbeater ( 19th century Michael Jackson. Beat It would have been an appropriate song for this schoolteacher )


Over and over and over and over (that is one more then you used but not nearly enough to convey the banality of that arguement) it has been shown that these quotes are out of context and are usually prefaced with the caveat that the author speaks in no way for Masonry as a whole.

That you disagree with the answers given does not make them any less true. You can contiue to assert that Hall, Pike, Bailey, et al 'speak' for Masonry and employ an invalid arguement that somehow annoits these indivduals as spokemen.

Amswer me this: if their writings are to be taken as Masonic gospel-truth by yourself, why should every other Masons opinion not be as justly valid? Quotes and opinions do not prove a conpiracy, facts and evidence are required to accomplish this feat.

I will await your answers and the additon of some evidence that disproves my Original Post.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark_Ace
becuase masons are really good at hiding the truth


What truth do you feel is being hidden? Additonally, how do you feel this truth is being hidden?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Your very language betrays that you don't quite understand masonry - the writings of a "33rd degree freemason" mean nothing more than the writings of any other mason. And I could quote to you from numerous masons - 33rd degree and otherwise - which directly disagree with the works of Pike and Hall.


I have worked at my current job for 14 years. My coworker Dave has worked there about 14 weeks. You got questions, who are you going to ask: the graybeard or the whiskerless?


It doesn't really matter, because none of these people speak for the fraternity.


The point is, they are IN the fraternity and they speak OF the fraternity. What is known in legal circles as "confession against interests"


You either don't understand research, or your ignoring it.


You mean... I have to give back all my paychecks for the last 35 years? If you had the slightest clue what I do, where I do it, who I do it for, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.


Its very obvious why authoritative freemason sources are most important - they are primary sources.


A primary source on Freemasonry would be... let me see.. I know! A Freemason!


If you were interested in doing research instead of supporting an anti-mason world view, you of course would know the best two sources for what your researching are primary sources and secondary peer reviewed sources. Interestingly, anti-masons can never provide information from either of those two sources to support their claims - because there is no conspiracy here.


As noted, primary sources on Freemasonry ARE Freemasons.

Secondary peer reviewed sources - has nothing to do with this conversation. You hide behind the conventions of science when discussing politics.


Trying to point out who speaks for freemasonry is like trying to point out who speaks for your anti-mason group


Tell me - which anti-mason group am I a member of?


The fact that there is no centralized ruling masonic body is of course evidence against anti-mason claims concerning world domination - how could we do so without a central ruling group?


We don't know that there is no centralized group. We only know that there is no centralized group known to the public.


Now your just making things up.


Like the anti-mason group I allegedly belong to?


That you disagree with the answers given does not make them any less true. You can contiue to assert that Hall, Pike, Bailey, et al 'speak' for Masonry and employ an invalid arguement that somehow annoits these indivduals as spokemen.


Lets review: They are all 33d degree Freemasons. As such, they passed through the lesser degrees. They were elevated to the 33d degree in honor of their contributions to Freemasonry. These are not the new kids on the block. It's sometimes called "Listening to your elders". In this case, I'm listening to YOUR elders.


Amswer me this: if their writings are to be taken as Masonic gospel-truth by yourself, why should every other Masons opinion not be as justly valid? Quotes and opinions do not prove a conpiracy, facts and evidence are required to accomplish this feat.


I will be delighted to answer that, but first:


Now your just making things up.


That silliness about gospel came from your fertile mind.

Once again: It's called "confessions against interests" In the case of a conspiracy, confessions of the conspirators are the only evidence available.


I will await your answers and the additon of some evidence that disproves my Original Post.


You want me to post the same tired 33d degree Freemason drivel for the umpteenth time, so you can regurgitate the same tired arguments? Been there, done that, moved on.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Researcher
 


I think the point the fellow is trying to make is that just ask Christianity has it's Biblical scientists and Theologians, Masonry has it's people who make studies and statements about the craft.
Does being a Mason or a Christian by default make them correct? No, it means they are well informed on their interrpretations of what they have been given, read, or learned itn whatever way.
People are free to, and generally do, make any interrpretations, connections, disaggree and aggree withtwhat they've said.
However, like i said, it ddoesn't make it corredct in any way, especially when the source material is dated.
Despite their respective intelligence, any Christian, Freemason, Jewish, ect. scholar will tell you that things have changed a bit since so-and-so wrote his book or studies however many years.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Researcher
 


I think what he was trying to get accross with his Anti-Mason group, is that there is no leader, it's a lump of people who all believe similarily to some degree or another and all generally follow the same guidlines. Possibly putting words in his mouth, but eh, s'what I took it as.
For instance, wether or not you consider yourself a Anti-Mason is up to you, but you do fit into some of the listings. However, I don't know if you agre with the fellow from a bit ago that believed Freemasons and Bikers were attempting to take ove rthe world.
Meani9ng you have similar point of view in one respect, but most likely largely differing views in other respects.

No, a quick question for you, which pparticular version of Freemasonry does your friend belong to, from what I understand, there are different groups who act different ways.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Researcher
I have worked at my current job for 14 years. My coworker Dave has worked there about 14 weeks. You got questions, who are you going to ask: the graybeard or the whiskerless?


Yet again, another invalid comparison. Just because the works of Pike, Hall, and the like are the centralized talking points for anti-masons does not at all indicate their knowledge or seniority of the craft is somehow above everyone everyone else in masonry - there are many more senior, learned masonic scholars who the anti-masons completely ignore. Do you know why? Because those scholars don't say things that the anti-masons can twist easily. And lets be honest - that is the only reason their writings are ever brought up by the antis.

So I have a ton of masonic scholars, with PhDs, who have written books which in some cases in large portion disagreed with the writings of Pike and Hall. Exactly why is it you get to declare they are somehow wrong and the anti-mason lunacy over taking Hall and Pike quotes out of context is correct?



The point is, they are IN the fraternity and they speak OF the fraternity. What is known in legal circles as "confession against interests"


I think you just shot yourself in the foot. I, and many other masons are IN the fraternity and speak OF the fraternity. Many of us wholly or in some small part disagree with what Pike or Hall wrote - but your just discounting people who don't further your world view and giving undue weight to those who do.

I am not a lawyer, although I do play one on ATS when people decide to string out legal terms for which my numerous graduate courses from a top law school give me some insight on. I could play the game by throwing all sorts of fascinating legal terminology, but I'll leave it and instead point out the obvious that in order for there to be a confession here, they would have had to confessed something. No matter how badly you want to take Pike, et al. out of context - you won't be able to do it enough to get anything resembling a confession.



You mean... I have to give back all my paychecks for the last 35 years? If you had the slightest clue what I do, where I do it, who I do it for, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.


But I do know what you type. And it shows an astonishing lack of knowledge for what your claiming. It shows you either don't know or ignoring that your standards for evidence do not fit any academic or professional standard.



A primary source on Freemasonry would be... let me see.. I know! A Freemason!


Hear that? Its the buzzer. Incorrect, but we have some lovely parting prizes.

I notice you ignore the fact that I said authoritative primary sources. That would be - the constitutions for each grand lodge, and the official ritual for each grand lodge. Those would be primary sources for their respective regions. In masonry, thats the only authoritative primary source you've got. But if you looked there, you wouldn't find anything to confirm your world view...which is why your ignoring it.

Nice try though.



Secondary peer reviewed sources - has nothing to do with this conversation. You hide behind the conventions of science when discussing politics.


Whats that? You also don't have any peer reviewed sources that support your opinion? Of course. Its not the conventions of science - its reality - if your theory had any proof you'd be using peer reviewed sources. What does this have to do with politics? Nothing, except that you want there to be a political conspiracy.



Tell me - which anti-mason group am I a member of?


As Rune so correctly already said, you completely missed this one. His post already answered this perfectly.


We don't know that there is no centralized group. We only know that there is no centralized group known to the public.


Actually we do. There is no evidence of it, never has been any, even though I would love for someone to come up with it. If your using this as your standard of evidence, there is also a possibility that Pink Unicorns are controlling the world. After all, we only know that there is no centralized Pink Unicorns group known to the public.


Lets review: They are all 33d degree Freemasons. As such, they passed through the lesser degrees. They were elevated to the 33d degree in honor of their contributions to Freemasonry. These are not the new kids on the block. It's sometimes called "Listening to your elders". In this case, I'm listening to YOUR elders.


The 33rd degree is not the be all end all that anti-masons want it to be. Its an honor, surely, but there are A LOT of 33rd degree masons. They are not elders. They are normal people who have made a lot of contributions. You would know that, had you been interested in doing any research on this.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Researcher

That you disagree with the answers given does not make them any less true. You can contiue to assert that Hall, Pike, Bailey, et al 'speak' for Masonry and employ an invalid arguement that somehow annoits these indivduals as spokemen.


Lets review: They are all 33d degree Freemasons.
No they're not. Let's review, indeed: Bailey & Leadbeater were Co-Masons. Neither were ever members of the Scottish Rite or a regularly recognized lodge. Hall wrote his most popular stuff decades before he even became a Mason.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
So I have a ton of masonic scholars, with PhDs, who have written books which in some cases in large portion disagreed with the writings of Pike and Hall.


List them. Right here, right now.

List them.

...and there'd better be a ton.

And be specific about which page of which book from which author "disagrees" with fatboy Pike or the wanker Hall.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Researcher

I have yet to see one individual prove that there is a ‘Masonic’ conspiracy of any type taking place.


Maybe it's where you keep your head, that keeps you from seeing...

Over and over and over, over the course of many years, I have posted the tedious dismal drivel written by 33d degree Freemasons. Here.

Manly P. Hall
Foster Bailey
Albert Pike
J.D. Buck
C.W. "Lend a hand" Leadbeater ( 19th century Michael Jackson. Beat It would have been an appropriate song for this schoolteacher )



You claim to be quite a researcher, and yet you also claim that these authors are writing "drivel". Such a curious thing to say. Are you claiming that Secret Teachings of all Ages is "drivel"? I mean, the work is a classic and it clearly provides a huge amount of foundational material.

In your "research", do you consider foundational material to be "drivel" and can you give me a couple examples of what is and is not "drivel"?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


And be specific about which page of which book from which author "disagrees" with fatboy Pike or the wanker Hall.


I'm somewhat disappointed here. So far, I've considered you a studious and honest researcher, and the above potshots and name-calling are far beneath the dignity and intelligence of your previous posts.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join