Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I have a very nice book by Rene Fulop-Miller on the Jesuits, it skirts over the Illuminati, but it does go into the relationship with the Freemason in some detail and the lead up to the Clermont accusations, among other run-ins.

I have that here - a first edition actually! I remember the brief mentions of the Enlightenment and Freemasonry and the Illuminati - way too brief for my taste. I don't remember anything about the Clermont chapter though; I'll look a bit later.

I haven't read many books about the Jesuits (from beginning to end), but this one I did. It was measured and fair - all around - I thought. There's one part in the book that I don't recall ever seeing anywhere; it's where Fulop-Miller goes into the importance that the Jesuits had on the thoughts of the philosophes during the Enlightenment. Particularly, the importance of the missionary work in China; that the Jesuits were practically responsible for the fact that Confucius became somewhat akin to a rockstar at the time. There's also some weird analysis in the book. Like when Loyola is compared with Lenin!

[EDIT: Nothing in Fulop-Miller about the confounding of the Masonic Clermont with the Jesuit Clermont College. The last few sentences of excerpt from the first link I gave pretty much sums it up, though: "The natural confusion between the names of the Jesuit College of Clermont, and the short-lived Masonic Chapter of Clermont, a Masonic body that controlled a few high degrees during its brief existence, only served to add fuel to the myth of Stuart Jacobite influence in Freemasonry's high degrees. However, the College and the Chapter had nothing to do with each other. The Jesuit College was located at Clermont, whereas the Masonic Chapter was not. Rather, it was named "Clermont" in honor of the French Grand Master, the Duc de Clermont, and not because of any connection with the Jesuit College of Clermont." One curious bit of real history, however, is the fact that a Jesuit Novitiate in Paris was sold to the masons for the headquarters of the Grand Orient of France, in the Faubourg Saint Germain in 1774. And yet another curious fact, is that a Jesuit Novitiate was transformed into a Scientology retreat in Sheridan, Oregon in 1974.]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
This is the problem all over. Stop trying to read so much into it. Don't be so defensive. I am not here to make anyone look stupid, I just want to play!

Kilgore I like you and your posts, I'm not trying to be defensive. If it comes out that way I apologize. As again you are one of the only few people on this board that legitimately engages in a conversation and not some hidden agenda, I don't want to drive you away or give you the wrong perception. Feel the love..in a brotherly sort of way.

Please hold that particular mirror up to yourself.

Er..I'm sorry? You are the one who said that because some masons have no problem with Bush..if he were a mason (and he is not), that this changed your entire perspective on masonry and its "lost its way." I said I would welcome politicians of any political persuasion who met the requirements and did things to try to improve their local communities - and I listed politicians whom I completely disagree with (I don't disagree with all of them, but I do at least with some of them). I think thats the opposite of partisan, and what you are doing would be the definition of partisan.

What is the Democratic National Committee??? What exactly are they supposed to have told me? All I was attempting point out and the point which you have relentlessly laboured since is that a) can it be 100% categorically, assured that George Bush never joined the freemasons, and which developed into b) would George Bush be someone the Masons would want to be associated with. You say yes to both points.

Sorry, I was typing too fast and did not seperate my thoughts in that post. The Democrat National Committee is the source of a vast majority of the propaganda the mass media pushes to hate Bush. They issue daily talking points that the media and DNC propaganda machines (moveon.org, huffingtonpost, crooksandliars, etc.) take from to form a united front to project hatred for him. The Republicans, by the way, did the same thing to Clinton - although they don't use the web as well. But if Obama doesn't win (and I think that he will), we will find the Republican National Committee doing the same thing for the next 4 years, although only Fox News is likely to go along with the talking points. This is mostly irrelevant to the post so we can stop talking to it, what I was trying to do is explain why I'm not joining the band wagon on bush hatred.

I am quite sure Bush never joined the masons, because given our history of promoting every single President regardless of his political affiliation, it would be an extraordinary break from the norm to ignore this about Bush. Also, given the fact that sites like ATS absolutely orgasm at the thought of bashing Bush, if he were a mason it would give the anti-masonic brigade here enough fodder to latch on for years - its an opportunity people wouldn't pass up.

Its obvious that if George Bush were a mason, masons who were not blinded by partisanship would not have a problem with him. He does do good for his community and for others, and he meets the requirements. I'm quite sure there would be masons who would not like it...I would hope they would all overcome their partisanship - although I'm sure some would not.

I am sorry if I stated your hatred for Bush and you have none, but what I saw was you finding out that masonry would not reject Bush and then you pulling an absolute 360 into proclaiming we've lost our way due to that. Only very strong emotional feelings spawn that sort of complete reversal of opinion, and when its a reversal in a bad way, it usually is due to hate or something similar. I jumped to conclusions though, although I am still not sure what else it could be - just a strong dislike of him wouldn't be enough to cause such a shift in opinion normally.

Or lets leave politics altogether if you like...it is not about the man's politics, religion or whatever, it is about the man's character. He may not have been proven guilty of a crime in a court of law yet, but that does not mean that there is no evidence that he has committed crimes against international law, laws that your country and mine were party to writing.

I do not presume to be judge and jury in assessments of other peoples character. Its pretty presumptive to believe Bush (or Clinton, we know was actually found to be cheating on his wife - is that moral?) has some sort of enormous out of the normal character flaw because of programming we've been fed from the mass media. I have found no such evidence, although I realize there is a deep need to want to find some. If some sort of actual proof came out, I would be inclined to change my mind, but as it is, the proof amounts to partisan propaganda.

As I said...I'm not trying to be combative here. I think my writing style is authoritative due to writing too many academic papers where writing like this is required to defend yourself. I'm not though. Feel the brotherly love!

I have only read a few replies so far and I don't know if this was mentoned, so sorry for posting something that has been previously stated... But I think people believe the Freemasons are up to a conspiracy due to their ability to keep things in the dark, in otherwords, being secretive. Nothing uncommon for these types of societies.

Have you heard of The Order of the Eastern Star? They only accept high level masons and there altar resembles a pentagram. That may be where these myths of Satanism being practiced among Freemasons evolved, or atleast this reinforced the myth of Freemason's practicing Satanism. The Order claims to believe in God and Jesu, but who really knows...

If they are up to a conspiracy, then I believe they have closed off inside membership. Remember, Freemasonry is a society in a society it has been said. It is rumored there are 33 levels of Freemasonry, and now there are only 3. What happened to the other 30, if they ever existed?
And why did they decide to allow membership to woman and non-whites all of a sudden, more interestingly, why did they previously reserve it for white men?

There are too many unanswered questions revolving around them, and too many answers to the questions noone knows what to believe...

Originally posted by Nebel
Have you heard of The Order of the Eastern Star?

Yes.

They only accept high level masons and there altar resembles a pentagram.

Actually, this is an orginization which is geared towards women but any Mason may attend their meetings. Their altar is the same one used in Masonry and it is not shaped as a pentagram. Their symbol however is a five-pointed star which some claim is either the Star of Bethlehem or represents the five elements and consequently has a Druze ancestry.

The Order claims to believe in God and Jesu, but who really knows...

Just God, or the Great Architect of the Universe. We do not ask what you call God, only that you believe in God.

If they are up to a conspiracy, then I believe they have closed off inside membership. Remember, Freemasonry is a society in a society it has been said. It is rumored there are 33 levels of Freemasonry,

It is not a rumor, the Scottish Rite (an appendant brach of Masonry) has a honorary 33rd degree.

and now there are only 3. What happened to the other 30, if they ever existed?

Fear not, all the degrees are still there.

And why did they decide to allow membership to woman and non-whites all of a sudden,

Regular Masonry does not permit womem, the group you refer to is co-masonry or other non-recognized bodies.

more interestingly, why did they previously reserve it for white men?

Good question, to me it was a sad indicator of people's racist views, i am glad to say that this is changed in most jurisdictions.

There are too many unanswered questions revolving around them, and too many answers to the questions noone knows what to believe...

Which answers are you still uncertain about?

[edit on 14-6-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
I am quite sure Bush never joined the masons, because given our history of promoting every single President regardless of his political affiliation, it would be an extraordinary break from the norm to ignore this about Bush. Also, given the fact that sites like ATS absolutely orgasm at the thought of bashing Bush, if he were a mason it would give the anti-masonic brigade here enough fodder to latch on for years - its an opportunity people wouldn't pass up.

I am happy to concede. I am quite obviously struggling to maintain my argument and to an extent the coherence of it.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Its obvious that if George Bush were a mason, masons who were not blinded by partisanship would not have a problem with him. He does do good for his community and for others, and he meets the requirements. I'm quite sure there would be masons who would not like it...I would hope they would all overcome their partisanship - although I'm sure some would not.

Point taken and I think the clarification I was looking for. The fealty is automatic, but that doesn't mean you'd want to extend the comradeship beyond lodge - or words to that effect.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
I am sorry if I stated your hatred for Bush and you have none, but what I saw was you finding out that masonry would not reject Bush and then you pulling an absolute 360 into proclaiming we've lost our way due to that. Only very strong emotional feelings spawn that sort of complete reversal of opinion, and when its a reversal in a bad way, it usually is due to hate or something similar. I jumped to conclusions though, although I am still not sure what else it could be - just a strong dislike of him wouldn't be enough to cause such a shift in opinion normally.

This is the problem with fence sitting or not having a clear opinion one way or another, I get confused and have a tendency to simply push all the buttons I can find. No offence meant, though admittedly it does niggle a tad, but then perhaps that is more to do with my piety than masonic permissiveness.

I don't tend to involve myself in US domestic policy, only foreign and economic, the rest is largely none of my business and I have my own country to concern myself with. Itself a doozie. I am sure that Bush has his good points, but I also think that weak people should know their limitations and not court leadership. And, that we should ensure that the systems are not corrupted due to their weakness. I will let that be my last comment of the matter though, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
As I said...I'm not trying to be combative here. I think my writing style is authoritative due to writing too many academic papers where writing like this is required to defend yourself. I'm not though. Feel the brotherly love!

Could the SS board be turning all warm and fuzzy? However brief I welcome the sojourn. Futile as the argument has been, mostly given my taking a line that I don't firmly believe in (and wavering on it), it has it seems, been somewhat cathartic, so it is all good.

Best wishes

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I have a very nice book by Rene Fulop-Miller on the Jesuits, it skirts over the Illuminati, but it does go into the relationship with the Freemason in some detail and the lead up to the Clermont accusations, among other run-ins.

I have that here - a first edition actually!

Very nice!! Just to clarify (because I believe Fulop-Miller wote a couple of books on the subject) The Power and the Secrets of the Jesuits is the one I have.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
I remember the brief mentions of the Enlightenment and Freemasonry and the Illuminati - way too brief for my taste. I don't remember anything about the Clermont chapter though; I'll look a bit later.

I haven't had chance to look through the book for particular references and I am at work now, so can't but I am sure there is a little mention at least, though it would depend on what you were looking for whether you considered it significant or not. And it is highly possible that i may just have got my wires crossed about the Clermont chapter and Clermont College, thereby confusing the significance.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
I haven't read many books about the Jesuits (from beginning to end), but this one I did. It was measured and fair - all around - I thought. There's one part in the book that I don't recall ever seeing anywhere; it's where Fulop-Miller goes into the importance that the Jesuits had on the thoughts of the philosophes during the Enlightenment.

Definately sounds like the same book - I thoroughly enjoyed it, source rich, although it has a poor bibliography and no appendices which would make it a little more useful.

As it is a complete history of the Jesuits (from Loyola to circa 1920 I believe) it doesn't go into vast detail about the Freemasons in particular but given the significance of the Jesuits to the Enlightenment that is covered in some detail. While the Jesuits may not have led the enlightenment they did educate many of the minds that did, and especially in Europe, how the Jesuits employed dramatization and theatre to help teach 'the mysteries' and that in turn helped spawn a literary revolution. Like Weishaupt, most if not all of those brilliant minds did turn on their former teachers though. Which is somewhat fascinating in itself and makes me wonder as to what methods they employ that both nurtures brilliance and contempt.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Particularly, the importance of the missionary work in China; that the Jesuits were practically responsible for the fact that Confucius became somewhat akin to a rockstar at the time.

The China episode is telling in many respects. Firstly you find that there is mutual respect for each bodies concept of enlightenment and then conflict from outside China to prevent the desemination of Confucian thought beyond China. We have a very skewed perspective on the Jesuits role in China, certainly in England, where they were considered our mortal enemies virtually from their conception but particularly under Elizabeth I. In most history books you will find that the Jesuits are blamed for having Britain thrown out of China, our aggressive trade policy of course having nothing to do with it!!!

According to many Jesuit scholars though, the Chinese would have been as well exporting Confucism as importing Christianity, and that it was felt that the Chinese had little to learn about enlightenment. It is difficult to ascertain how much of this is romanticising history, but it provides a little balance to the more anglo-centric history that I have been previously exposed to.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
There's also some weird analysis in the book. Like when Loyola is compared with Lenin!

I can't recall this bit, but I can see what the author may have been getting at (especially taking into account that I have been reading about Lenin of late, so it si fresh). Lenin was smuggled in to Russia to bring about a cultural revolution, and to end the war over Poland between Russia and Germany. The vatican used the Jesuits repeatedly to attempt to unite Poland with the rest of Europe and sometimes just Russia, against the Ottomans. Rarely successfully or enduringly. But they also did use disguises to infiltrate Russia, there is a great deal about Lenin of the Jesuit, whether they are in fact connected though....

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Rather, it was named "Clermont" in honor of the French Grand Master, the Duc de Clermont, and not because of any connection with the Jesuit College of Clermont." One curious bit of real history, however, is the fact that a Jesuit Novitiate in Paris was sold to the masons for the headquarters of the Grand Orient of France, in the Faubourg Saint Germain in 1774. And yet another curious fact, is that a Jesuit Novitiate was transformed into a Scientology retreat in Sheridan, Oregon in 1974.]

I am as interested in the origins and dissemination of rumour as I am in its accuracy. I like to know who is throwing the mud and why...and if I recall this is covered quite well by Fulop-Miller.

Interesting and yet strangely unsuprising about the Scientology retreats origins. The jesuits have always liked actors!!!

Originally posted by Trinityman
You'll have to tell me more about this, as anything you find interesting I'm bound to also. All I know about Clermont and his Chapter is that he was part of the evolution of the Scottish Rite on the continent, and as such had very limited influence on the development of (Craft) freemasonry as a whole. I have a more global perspective on freemasonry than the average poster and am acutely aware of the relative bias towards Scottish Rite freemasonry in the US - a bias which simply doesn't exist elsewhere.

It is your global knowledge that is most beneficial I think, that and your insight into UGLE. Even as an outsider I can recognise that there are most fundamental differences in the different branches of freemasonry. I think that I asked this or a very similar question elsewhere, but I can't remember where, but would it be your opinion that the US system is more akin to the European than the English model. I think I may have asked the question differently...

I think that ConspiracyNut23 has presented very good evidence that the French practice is quite different to other branches of Freemasonry (in certain respects, certainly in symbology) - given the anglo-french conflict, it would not be surprising that post-revolutionary US would be more inclined to a distinct alternative to UGLE. Do you think you could indulge me in a more expansive explanation, I find it quite confusing.

I don't know a great deal about the Clermont episode or accusations, which is why I'd like to discuss the ins and outs. I know from a brief discussion I had with Masonic Light on the topic that either Pike or Hall wrote on it, and if my recollection is correct felt that whatever 'spurious' degrees had been introduced that they did not effect the fabric of freemasonry as a whole. I suspect that UGLE would not be quite so accepting given the British attitude to Jesuitism...any thoughts.

Originally posted by Trinityman
I know what you mean KT. Some freemasons ( and I include myself here periodically) get frustrated at some of the more outlandish posts and their seeming lack of headway with some entrenched viewpoints. There are so few people who post objectively or rationally that sensible conversation is hard to come by. Some masons do seem to get more frustrated than others though.

I fully realise that both sides have a 'problem' and I have tried to understand both sides, but I get a little tired, as do others, of being stuck in the middle. It would be nice if ideas could just be floated without an agenda being implied. I feel the obelisk thread is an excellent example of this - everyone concerned was banging their head up against a brick wall, it was like watching a car crash...despite that in amongst it there is a diamond just sitting there and which so needed to be examined. It wasn't, quite simply because ego became much more important to the 'warring factions'.

Sometimes you get the impression that side a) the Masons, are scared that there is a conspiracy and they don't know about it and side b) are scared that there isn't one and they may have to 'blame' someone else. And then there is side c) that just like throwing spanners in the works.

Originally posted by Trinityman
Yeah. I know. I've even read recently here that freemasons who post on ATS are now generally assumed to be co-ordinating their efforts, due to the similarity and structure of postings. This assumption saddens me, as I know it's not happening (or if it is, they forgot to tell me about it

) - it hasn't occurred to people that there might be another reason why there is a pattern from different posters.

I think that the move to simply star a post rather than voice agreement has cut out some of the silliness, but I certainly was not aware of an organised effort to kill topics, just a vague belligerency (sp?) which I can to an extent understand. I did note though that some only posted to defend masonry, which could be misconstrued. However, I did think the verge into the ridiculous was crossed when you received a warn for something you posted two years ago. lol.

I think that the 'management' have their own reasons for their bias towards the conspiracy angle (however implausible those arguments may be to some), they do after all have their business to consider. I don't think that we should allow that to overly concern us, afterall that business would be nothing without us and over all I feel they have a desire to be socialist in their supervision of the site.

Originally posted by Trinityman
Sorry for the off-topic blather. Your level-headed approach and independent questioning is important and appreciated. I've cut back my time on ATS to restore some sanity, and I would recommend some others do the same. A lack of perspective is a dangerous thing.

Never apologise to me for off-topic, I never keep to the straight and narrow... I have to admit I have been steering clear a little of SS, not just because I don't enjoy conflict but also because there has been so little of substance discussed. Despite Alightindarkness thinking me partisan, this could not be further from the truth, I want to talk to people who think differently and are different to me. That is what keeps bringing me back to ATS. You are entirely right though and I do it myself, this is just a microcosm and we need to venture out and gain a little perspective at times...if nothing else just to keep it interesting.

Now i must go and do some work....

All the very best (and still a pleasure )
KT

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Hey! I don't think your partisan anymore, although I am still vaguely confused (not that this is unusual for me). You are probably the most unbiased poster in the SS forum. Seriously, I was just going through an "average" SS forum thread with people literally spouting stuff from freemasonrywatch, then I read your post, and it was like a breath of fresh air.

Of course around here anyone who isn't biased AGAINST masonry is declared a Mason, so welcome to the club.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

it is highly possible that i may just have got my wires crossed about the Clermont chapter and Clermont College, thereby confusing the significance.

Yes, I believe that is what happened. It has been occurring since the 18th century. It was done on purpose to give the impression that Jesuits had infiltrated Freemasonry. Before the ubiquitous Illuminati conspiracy, the Jesuits had long filled the same role. Masons such as Illuminatus Bode and Illuminatus Christoph Friedrich Nicolai, Cercle Social French revolutionary Nicolas de Bonneville, and even Schiller had propagated the theory that the Jesuits had achieved a real influence upon Masonry. In particular, the higher degrees of Scottish "Jacobite Masonry" were the suspected point of infiltration. The Illuminati and the radical, rationalist Freemasons joined forces and created a veritable industry of conspiracy books that sought to prove that high-degree Freemasonry was the invention of the Jesuits. (The old "Jesuit under every bed" canard - Eric Jon Phelps is the modern purveyor of said affliction).

During the 19th Century, this Jesuit-over-Masonry tradition was carried on by some of the Masons involved with the occult. The Theosophical Society, and Blavatsky in particular, were the standard promoters of the theory. Most occultists throughout history have not traditionally been very good historians, and they embellish things as a rule just to further an agenda. The Jesuit-Clermont conflation with the Masonic-Clermont is just such an example.

There's a PhD thesis by Steven Luckert, Jesuits, Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jacobins: Conspiracy theories, secret societies, and politics in late eighteenth-century Germany, that goes into all the details - the pros and cons of all sides. I only mention it - despite how rare it is - because after having read it, I feel it is the definitive history of Jesuit/Illuminati/Freemason interaction during the Enlightenment. I am in the process of scanning it now (all 730 pages of it), because I wish to have a digital copy; but I may just offer it up on the bittorent sites as well. 40 bucks a pop on dissertation sites is a crime imo. Thesis' should be accessible and free to all who wish to consult them.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Just my opinion, but as a student of political science and public administration I know that I am commanded to be true to my government. Government is only really government when it has the legitimate right to use the coercive powers of the state. Legitimacy is what defines an institution of government. If the government does not have legitimacy, then it is no longer the government but is instead something else. As such, I find no problem with the masons in the revolution - their government was no longer legitimate, and I do not find it breaking the oath to do what they did.

When do you think that a government loses its legitmacy? Wont masons have a different idea of when this is? You could have two masons fighting each other then because one thinks the goverment is legitimate and the other doesn't.

I am surpirsed that none of the other masons answered my question about the words in the oath. I wanted to hear if they had the same opinion as alightindarkenss or if they feel different. At what point would the masons feel that they couldn't be 'true to your government and just to your country'? I'm sure there are some masons who don't like Bush and think he is not worth being true and just to. What makes you decide to become involved in a revolution?

reply to post by Capozzelli


A government is no longer legitimate when the population as a whole no longer perceives the state's right to use coercive force as valid. Note its the population as a whole, because there are always a few crazy people who think the government is out to get them (like some of ATS does). When things get that bad, there is little disagreement. The last time there would have been such problems would have been during the revolution.

This is a good thing. You really don't want people just agreeing to obey their government even when it isn't legitimate (and is no longer government) - that brings us things like Hitler's Germany.

Not liking the government due to politics isn't valid. If we started a revolution every time the media programmed people to hate someone as they have Bush, we'd need a whole new country every 20 years or so.

Originally posted by Capozzelli
I am surpirsed that none of the other masons answered my question about the words in the oath. I wanted to hear if they had the same opinion as alightindarkenss or if they feel different. At what point would the masons feel that they couldn't be 'true to your government and just to your country'? I'm sure there are some masons who don't like Bush and think he is not worth being true and just to. What makes you decide to become involved in a revolution?

I'm no fan of Bush, but I think he's often just a scapegoat. IMO, Cheney is the brains behind the operation, and the guy is pure evil.

Regardless, Pike goes into great length talking about what type of government Masonry considers "legitimate", and which type "illegitimate" in Morals and Dogma, so I refer you there.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Not liking the government due to politics isn't valid. If we started a revolution every time the media programmed people to hate someone as they have Bush, we'd need a whole new country every 20 years or so.

But wasn't the revolution about not liking the politics of the king? I understand what you are telling me but there were masons who agreed with what the king wanted and then changed their minds and helped with the revolution. I'm not the best with history and I might be wrong but didn't they change their minds because of politics?

reply to post by Masonic Light


I don't have this book but I think it is posted online somewhere. Can you tell me where in the book I should look or maybe give me the quotes you are talking about? Thanks.

reply to post by Capozzelli


No - the revolution was much larger than not liking someones politics. The issues were so large books have been written on it...so its a bit complicated to get into here. But it was a basic recognition that people who lived in the United States were being coerced by the government into actions they did not agree to, and the state actors doing the coercion were not viewed as the proper authority to be carrying out such coercion.

As masonry does not act as a group on anything other than its own lodge meetings and ceremonies, some masons at that time knew the government was no longer legitimate. Others may not have. Obviously, as there is no greater masonic body ordering people to revolt or not revolt, it doesn't really have an impact either way. It is the individual decision of the mason, in my opinion.

Again, this is the sort of situation where we can't win either way. If we point we are under oath to be true to our government, some will claim that must make us evil because we would support things like Hitler. If we point out that what makes the government is legitimacy and we have no oath to a illegitimate state because it is no longer government, then some will claim its too open and the oath is meaningless. There is literally no way to make everyone happy here.

The spirit of the oath is that masons are citizens first - and their loyalties to the fraternity are last in a very large line (nation, family, friends, work, religion, etc. -- then the fraternity). The fraternity neither encourages nor discourages how I interact with these other things for which my first loyalties lay - it says simple that - above all else - other things are more important when it comes time to prioritize.

[edit on 15-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by Capozzelli


I'm betting there were Masons on both sides of the revolution. I mean, it wasn't like the colonies rose up as a united front. You had loyalists and Brits in the population who were against the revolt, and Maons in the British military who believed they were in the right.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


Were the US masons controlled by the UK grand lodge? If they were what was the result of them splitting with the masons who were loyal to the king? Even if they weren't what type of problems did this lead to between US masons and UK masons?

reply to post by RuneSpider


I think we were writing at the same time because I was thinking this. What do you think happened with the two groups when this split took place? Did they UK lodge not recognize them anymore?

reply to post by Capozzelli


I am no scholar of masonic recognition and politics, although some of the other masons are (chime in, guys!), but my sense is that there were no major problems since grand lodges were established in the US that have mutual recognition with the UGLE.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


Maybe I was not being clear enough, sorry. I was asking more about the time of the revolution if UK masons and US masons were not recognizing each other because the king, if I remember reading somwhere else, was the head of masonry in the UK and US when this happened.