Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

page: 35
16
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
Some lodges have websites and some don't - this is as likely to be because of incapability rather than secrecy.


I have to concur on this statement. Our lodge did not have a website until one of the newer (and younger) members took it upon himself to create and update the lodge website. Until that point we were only an unfunctioning link on the district website.




posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Yes, its a bit more self-evident when more information comes to light. There are many lodges with an aging population that may not be around at all in 10 years or so. There are other dynamic lodges showing remarkable growth. Such is the natural order of things - Darwin would be proud


I wonder if Darwin was a freemason? I know his grandfather was.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trinityman
Yes, its a bit more self-evident when more information comes to light. There are many lodges with an aging population that may not be around at all in 10 years or so. There are other dynamic lodges showing remarkable growth.


Fortunately our lodge, and to a larger degree the district, fall under the latter category. I feel it is a self-perpetuating situation, as more newer and younger members join we receive more petitions from the same.


I wonder if Darwin was a freemason? I know his grandfather was.


Did you just inadvertantly create a new Masonic conspiracy?? Oh boy.....



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by capozelli
 


Its quite easy to get the information you desire. When you type in "freemason lodge" in google the first 3 actual lodge websites that pop up are grand lodge sites - EVERY SINGLE ONE lists the names of the leadership and contact information. Most also list picture of all the officers and even district leadership information:

Grand Lodge of California Grand Officer List:
www.freemason.org...

Grand Lodge of Texas Officer List:
www.grandlodgeoftexas.org...

Grand Lodge of Massachusetts Officer List:
www.massfreemasonry.org...


And I could go on, and on and on.

You can't get this level of information from the Boy Scouts (I looked). The myth is that freemasons are some secret organization and no one knows who they are. The reality is that its one of the most open private organizations out there.

No, you won't get a membership list. And you shouldn't. Its neither your or anyone elses business why someone joins freemasonry or the rotary club. Both, by the way, will not give you a list - nor will any other private organization I am aware of.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


I think its become apparent that the only ones that are published are the ones that want to be. Other posters have tried to get lists but have been unable to do so. If you want to keep your mebership undiclosed then the fraternity helps you in this manner. Would you say that this is not true?



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


No, its quite apparent that the published members are everyone that is (1) in the leadership or (b) famous. Why would you want to know if someone who is not a officer and not famous is a member? Its absolutely none of your business.

I am a member of quite a few private groups. Not one will give you a membership list. Most won't even be as open as freemasonry about who famous members are and who the officers are.

The fraternity doesn't disclose anyone who doesn't meet those two qualifiers, as you would expect any private organization to do. If I were to become a officer, I would expect my name to be published.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by LowLevelMason]



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
No, you won't get a membership list. And you shouldn't. Its neither your or anyone elses business why someone joins freemasonry or the rotary club. Both, by the way, will not give you a list - nor will any other private organization I am aware of.


The CFR makes it member list published and they are always included with masons and others in conspiracy theroies. I never said they should make their list public, a mason posting here said they did which is either ignorance or disinfo.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 



The fraternity doesn't disclose anyone who doesn't meet those two qualifiers, as you would expect any private organization to do. If I were to become a officer, I would expect my name to be published.


I just checked the Washington Grand Lodge and they actually list the regualr members, with one caveat, that they volunteered to have theri names revealed.

Now what would a person who is involved in some sort of shady or underhanded actions do? They would ecline to have their names printed and could therfore remain in the shadows free to commit acts that went unassociated with other freemasons.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by capozelli
The CFR makes it member list published and they are always included with masons and others in conspiracy theroies. I never said they should make their list public, a mason posting here said they did which is either ignorance or disinfo.


The CFR is a lobbying group, they are required by law to disclose their membership group. Every lobbying group must disclose its membership. There is no relationship to it and any private club like freemasonry, rotary, elks, or anything else. The people who participate in the CFR do not do so as private citizens, but as lobbyists that represent a particular side of a policy issue.

There is no need for you to know who is and is not a mason. Its most gracious of the fraternity to widely publicize all the information for every famous member and every member of the leadership. The assumption that if a private, optional organization does not reveal the name of every single member that they might be up to something is remarkably similar to Hitler's logic about why jewish people needed to wear clothing identifying themselves.

And of course, even though NO private organization does this, its always freemasonry that is targetted. No organization gives out this information, but its always those masons that must be up to something.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I just checked the Washington Grand Lodge and they actually list the regualr members, with one caveat, that they volunteered to have theri names revealed.

Now what would a person who is involved in some sort of shady or underhanded actions do? They would ecline to have their names printed and could therfore remain in the shadows free to commit acts that went unassociated with other freemasons.




This kind of reasoning blows my mind. Just because someone chooses not to put their name on a membership list does not at all mean anything except that they want their information kept private. If someone REALLY wanted to do the evil, devious things you think are going on, it would be quite simple to volunteer their name - how would you know any different?

Here you are posting as an anonymous poster on an anonymous message board. Post your name, your full name, and your home city. You are demanding people who are members of private organizations do the equivalent of the same.

After all, how do we know that you aren't up to evil satanic child sacrifices and child molestation? For our own safety, you should reveal yourself.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


Ironically, it's these are some of the same people who claim to be fighting against the NWO calling for these people to pos ttheir names, reveal their membership, ect.
Essentially removing all privacy if you choose to be a member.

Which... is what the calim one part of the NWO is about, removing privacy.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


That is a excellent observation that had not even occurred to me. Quite a few of these posters ARE THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE who, if you search their posts, decry anything which could even remotely pose a threat to their privacy. They talk about fighting because they believe America is becoming Nazi germany with government agents going around asking for papers, when they are asking other people to do the equivalent.



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Hypocrisy and Projection among Conspiracy theorists? NO! Say it sin't so!

Most people fear most their own flaws.

A theif fears being stolen from.

A bully fears being bullied.

I'm convinced those that call "fascism" the most are those who tend to side with the true fascists. Freemasonry esp of all organizations has been the arch enemy of fascist and would be dictators and those that would enslave man....and yet we get accused of being the very thing that through out every era we have not only fought against but have been persecuted by.

Out of control Kings, An out of control Church complete with inquisition.....an insane nazi Dictator.....just a few who persecuted masons and killed them.

Those that have hated Masons most have always been those who most desired to enslave others to their views, and their views alone.

[edit on 8/1/2009 by ForkandSpoon]



posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Now what would a person who is involved in some sort of shady or underhanded actions do? They would ecline to have their names printed and could therfore remain in the shadows free to commit acts that went unassociated with other freemasons.


The reluctance to declare ones membership in a private orginization does not automatically signify a desire or indicate the perpetration of criminal activities. I think this would be the case whether they were a Mason, in a softball league or a member of the Mickey Mouse Club.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
The reluctance to declare ones membership in a private orginization does not automatically signify a desire or indicate the perpetration of criminal activities. I think this would be the case whether they were a Mason, in a softball league or a member of the Mickey Mouse Club.
I can see the congressional hearings now...

"Are you now, or have you ever been, an ear wearing member of the Mickey Mouse Club?"

Man, that's cold. (Not that Walt Disney on Ice is any warmer... cryogenics, dontchaknow...)



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Wasn't Walt a brother?



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
Wasn't Walt a brother?


No, and he was cremated, not frozen.
It's a urban legend... albeit a fairly creepy one.



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
There is no need for you to know who is and is not a mason. Its most gracious of the fraternity to widely publicize all the information for every famous member and every member of the leadership. The assumption that if a private, optional organization does not reveal the name of every single member that they might be up to something is remarkably similar to Hitler's logic about why jewish people needed to wear clothing identifying themselves.

And of course, even though NO private organization does this, its always freemasonry that is targetted. No organization gives out this information, but its always those masons that must be up to something.


I wasnt the one who asked for the membership list it was anon. I only pointed out that when one of the other masons said you can get this when you really cant. He was either lying or was not infromed. Either way it was him who said something that was not what the rest of you are saying. I really dont care who is a mason or not, Im more concerned about finding out if there is a conspiracy or not.

You dont need to roll your eyes at me.



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


You mention the Boy Scouts, they have no power or influence, they are children, bad example. The masons have members in positions of authority who are able to exert their will over others. I think that anyone who is in a position to accomplish this should have to make their affiliations open for others to see. We need to be able to have a clear accounting of those who may be able to manipulate our lives.



posted on Jan, 9 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
i have solid proof i refer u to my post ..connection molech bad god and freemasons..





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join