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.
Originally posted by Trinityman
Some lodges have websites and some don't - this is as likely to be because of incapability rather than secrecy.
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.
I wonder if Darwin was a freemason? I know his grandfather was.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I can see the congressional hearings now...
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.
Originally posted by ForkandSpoon
Wasn't Walt a brother?
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.