Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

I think you mentioned the Bible and secrets earlier. Remember what Jesus told his Apostles: "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they turn and rend you." And further, "To them I speak in parables; but to you, openly".




Yes,but the Holy Bible is available to all in almost any language and a million different translations. So, cast not your pearls was probably more meant in the literal speaking to someone. The pearls are all in the Bible. Symbolism I definitely understand and know a fairly decent amount about. There are tons of things just on our dollar alone and they all mean more than even these conspiracy people think. Back to the Bible, either way it's all there. There is nothing hidden, like extra books hidden in some cave. The Bible is right there for everyone, it's up to them to decipher hidden meanings and figure out what's real and what's a parable, etc... The Bible and secrets parallel doesn't work for me because they don't parallel like you and several others have said. There are hidden meanings in the Bible, but it's open for anyone on this earth to look at. The masons should be just as open if symbolism is used so much. That way, there's much less rumours spread about them and if one isn't privy to symbols, hand gestures, etc... then they have no idea what REALLY is going on, therefore no need for secrets, just hidden meanings.




JPT




posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Concerning Crowley, my opinion comes from:

1. Over 20 years of having studied his works.
2. Over 20 years of having studied the works of people who knew him personally, with both good and bad opinions of him.
3. Over 20 years of having studied the philosophical and occult system that he himself had been trained in.


Gosh. 20 years is 80% of my present life. Would you say you've now read all or most of the better known occult works that are available?



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Crowley was not saint, was rather neurotic, and had some emotional problems. On the other hand, he is unique and entertaining in the world of occult literature.


You have definitely studied him more than myself. He may have been entertaining, but many things that aren't good for this world are entertaining. He was unique yes and a very smart man, yes, but none of this makes him good for humanity. My point with him was that he was an example of a bad mason, but EVEN IF Mussolini was a mason, it wouldn't make all of them bad. He was just brought up because you or someone else asked to name just one mason that was bad or something like that. Either way, it's off the topic of mason secrecy and really has nothing to do with the secrecy topic at hand.

JPT



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
*sigh*

How quickly JPT went from "I respect each person and each person has their right to make their own choice in their life decisions" to "I'm not on trial here, masonry is". Not that I didn't expect it...plenty of other people have come in here before asking "innocent" questions and flattering the Masons who gave them honest replies, only to show their true agenda later. I was hoping JPT wasn't following the same pattern. He still may not be. Time will tell.



C'mon Josh, it's a figure of speech. Obviously masonry isn't on trial, I was simply giving my shortcomings and said I wasn't on trial masonry was. Have I bashed masonry? Have I spread any false lies about masonry? Have I not asked lots of questions to find answers? Also, why would you take it so personally if I was rallying against masonry? I believe in God and if you said God was a lie, I would say, "ok, that's your opinion". That still wouldn't be disrespecting me, it's simply your belief. You can accuse me all you want. I've already stated how I feel about masonry but am asking questions because I have no proof of my feelings. So, you left me a little room saying time will tell, but it's obvious you think I have some other intentions. I guess our debates are over because you probably will not have an unbiased debate anymore thinking my intentions are bad. It's cool, there are plenty of others I will continue to ask and will continue to tell them how I feel whether I agree or disagree with their thoughts. I'm sorry you are so jaded as well as to misconstrue my quote of "masonry on trial" instead of just asking me. Maybe I'm being a little sensitive here, but there's no sense in discussing anything further with you if you don't want to believe my intentions which I have shown over and over again.

JPT



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by justpassingthrough
 


No, I'm still open to discussion. You'll just have to accept a little paranoia when you're in a conspiracy forum. Comes with the territory, I'm afraid.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton


There's no more important degree than the 3rd degree. One could say the Scottish Rite degrees of 4 to 33 are meaningless, and they are in that they hold no weight nor sway over Masonry.


One could also say the same about the first three degrees, and all of Masonry for that matter.

Of course, one would not necessarily be correct.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by justpassingthrough



So, being able to move up so quickly, would this lesson the importance of the degrees?


Would it lessen the importance? No.

Would it create a whole bunch of 32° Masons that have no idea what the degrees mean? Absolutely.


It's not this exaggerated, but would that be like going from Cub Scout to Eagle Scout in say a month? This is a side debate I guess, but it would almost seem like all the degrees from beginning to say 32nd, are not that important. I'm not saying they aren't but it seems like they are there to humor more than have deep, true meanings.



It was originally intended by Pike, when he revised the degrees, that progress be made slowly, and that the brother fully understand one degree before moving on to the next.

For better or for worse, our culture has changed since Pike's time. The degrees are rich in meaning, but few have the patience and perseverence to find them.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by justpassingthrough


Yes,but the Holy Bible is available to all in almost any language and a million different translations.


So are the Masonic textbooks.


So, cast not your pearls was probably more meant in the literal speaking to someone. The pearls are all in the Bible.


True, but they are cloaked in allegory and myth.


There are hidden meanings in the Bible, but it's open for anyone on this earth to look at. The masons should be just as open if symbolism is used so much.


Actually, as mentioned, the Masonic texts are also available to the public. And theoretically, one could study the occult works without ever having set foot in a Lodge, and become an Adept while a million Masons remain essentially clueless.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cadbury


Gosh. 20 years is 80% of my present life. Would you say you've now read all or most of the better known occult works that are available?


A lot of them, but nowhere near all of them. I do find myself going back to several basic ones, however: Levi's "Transcendental Magic", Regardie's "The Golden Dawn", the original Rosicrucian documents, Pike's "Morals and Dogma", Case's "The Kybalion", and Crowley's "Book of Thoth".



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by justpassingthrough
My point with him was that he was an example of a bad mason, but EVEN IF Mussolini was a mason, it wouldn't make all of them bad.



Interestingly, Mussolini expelled Crowley from Sicily for "Masonic" activities. Sort of ironic.


He was just brought up because you or someone else asked to name just one mason that was bad or something like that. Either way, it's off the topic of mason secrecy and really has nothing to do with the secrecy topic at hand.



Maybe it does though. Crowley sort of shared your view concerning secrecy. He believed that in the New Age, humanity would evolve to a point where the mysteries would be taught openly. He himself tried to contribute to this by publishing the formerly secret Golden Dawn documents and the basic formulas of practical occultism. He believed that if everyone had access to these disciplines, a spiritual revolution would occur. And in a sense he was right.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I located a few examples of Masonic conspiracies that defy logic, let alone proof.

One of my favorites; this author feels that the reward for supposedly hoaxing the Moon Landings was to receive the 33rd degree. Long on story, very short on facts, and some that are presented are fraudulent such as Brother Armstrong holding his apron on the Moon.

Step right up.....Hoax a landing, get a 33rd degree!!

The ever popular 'Washington D.C. was designed as a monument to Lucifer/Satan/Jahbulon'. Complete with crudely and unsymetrical drawn symbols. I especially enjoy the little devil-ears on the compasses, nice touch.

Washington D.C. street map; the focal point of hell.

Finally, an article in which the great Pat Robertson is quoted and likens Masonry to Communism, which of course to anyone who undertsands Masonry knows it is anathema.

Mr. Robertson's factless diatribe.

Of the numerous posted theories these struck me as illustrating the typical tact when accusing Masons or Masonry of conspiritorial involvement; assert without fact and ignore requests for the same.


[edit on 22-5-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


ML, there's a new book coming out in a week or so that I know you'd be interested in:

Secret Agent 666: Aleister Crowley, British Intelligence and the Occult
www.amazon.com...

The author is a history professor and the book is based on his previous article by the same name that appeared in International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence (Vol. 13, #3, Fall 2000), titled "Secret Agent 666: Aleister Crowley and British Intelligence in America, 1914-1918." Posted on the web a few times, but served takedown notices because Taylor & Francis owns the rights and would like to charge you an arm-and-a-leg, each time, for the privilege to read it. A few stragglers are oblivious to it though:
hometown.aol.com...

You've probably read it before, no doubt. But the book is like ten times more substantial. I have communicated with him a few times through email, and the stuff this guy has uncovered is incredible. You won't be disappointed.

I should be getting my copy in a few days, and I'll review it for my site. He's going to send it to me. I'll send him my book in August, since he said he was extremely interested to read (for the first time in 200 years in the English language) an entire book about the Bavarian Illuminati.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

A lot of them, but nowhere near all of them. I do find myself going back to several basic ones, however: Levi's "Transcendental Magic", Regardie's "The Golden Dawn", the original Rosicrucian documents, Pike's "Morals and Dogma", Case's "The Kybalion", and Crowley's "Book of Thoth".


I have these in .pdf format somewhere in my personal e-book library. I've read some Pike and Crowley but not so much Levi, Case, or Regardie. In fact, all I've read by Israel Regardie is the foreward he wrote for Wilson's Prometheus Rising.

I'd better get on with it, because I don't think I've got 20 years.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by justpassingthrough
 



Originally posted by justpassingthrough
You did say the church comparisons were apples oranges. I could argue this, but I your point is taken. I also understand about comparing the masons to a fraternity, as far as watching their secret things, though to compare the masons to a college fraternity is a little silly unless you feel they are comparable.


As Masonic Light mentioned, college fraternities are modeled after Freemasonry. Freemasonry is the "original" fraternity. Indeed, many college fraternities were founded by Masons and their retuals often bear strong resemblance to Masonic Degrees.


You said you would answer as much as you could, but here's the difference. Of all the things I have learned in my life, about religion, philosophy, career, art, etc..., if a young person came to me and asked me to show them and help them in life, I would have no problems sharing everything I know, as long as their heart is always in the right place. For you or any other mason, no matter how hard one seeks or yearns to learn, there will always be the mason barrier in which you could not share certain things until that person becomes a mason. Is this correct?


Not exactly, but sort of.

See here we differe in methodology but not in intent. What I believe, I believe strongly; but I believe it strongly because I sought for my understanding of it, and the seeking made it that much more valuable. I could ramble for hours to someone who hasn't read or studied the things I have and express my opinions and conclusions based on them, but likely by that time they would either be snoring or their eyes would have glazed over and I'd have to snap a couple of times to bring them back.

I know, it's happened.


What I do is point people to where they can find the information they seek for themselves, and it is the same principle with Masonry. I don't want to impress my personal interpretation/understanding on someone who may be impressionable; I'd rather offer them the materials or where to find them and let them make up their own minds. That's the "initiation," if you will. Seeking, finding, understanding (or at least trying to).


Why do philosophers write books to try and answer life's questions? They are sharing what they know with all.


Yes; that is, they make the material available. It is up to the individual to consume and comprehend it.


I guess a complain is that the masons are a good organization that wants to move humanity forward. I have a problem with this because if they wanted to be a positive influence on humanity, I feel they would be more of an open book.


Again, as Masonic Light has stated, Masonry's view is that by improving the individual, you improve society. Charity is a by-product of improving individuals. You cannot build a Temple but by one stone at a time.


I see lots of parallels in mormonism and the masons and so these two entities always stick out because they both claim to be great and helpful, yet they are withholding info only to their own people.


There is a reason for that. Look into the life and times of one Joseph Smith and you may gain a better understanding of why you see parallels.


You are not a lover of humanity and life if you are biased towards only your own kind.


I am biased toward my own kind: Humans. And I have a great respect for life of all kinds. I don't even let my wife kill spiders in the house.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light


Actually, as mentioned, the Masonic texts are also available to the public. And theoretically, one could study the occult works without ever having set foot in a Lodge, and become an Adept while a million Masons remain essentially clueless.



that's a great point and well taken. I guess I've known this but have never really looked into the masonic texts. So, do you think the majority of the masons out there really are a little clueless. Maybe it's more of a hobby for them as opposed to something they really study and learn about? That's my impression. My feelings tell me that most masons don't really know much about the symbolism involved with their own fraternity. Thanks for all the other answers as well by the way. Some stuff just doesn't require a reply, but a thank you I can do.


JPT



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman





Not exactly, but sort of.

See here we differe in methodology but not in intent. What I believe, I believe strongly; but I believe it strongly because I sought for my understanding of it, and the seeking made it that much more valuable. I could ramble for hours to someone who hasn't read or studied the things I have and express my opinions and conclusions based on them, but likely by that time they would either be snoring or their eyes would have glazed over and I'd have to snap a couple of times to bring them back.

I know, it's happened.


What I do is point people to where they can find the information they seek for themselves, and it is the same principle with Masonry. I don't want to impress my personal interpretation/understanding on someone who may be impressionable; I'd rather offer them the materials or where to find them and let them make up their own minds. That's the "initiation," if you will. Seeking, finding, understanding (or at least trying to).


All good points. Not to beat a dead horse, but I still don't see a reason to be secretive. Well, not a great reason at least, BUT I also can't argue with any of what you had to say here. I agree lots you have to say here. I'm more of the nature that everything should be open. For example, anyone can attend a mason ceremony and watch things for themselves. This is an ideal world I'm talking about though. I do understand some of the reasons people have given for the privacy, which has a better connotation that saying the masons are secretive. I just don't agree and have yet to hear a reason that satisfies me.





There is a reason for that. Look into the life and times of one Joseph Smith and you may gain a better understanding of why you see parallels.


Yes, I know lots of the reasons why and am pretty familiar with Joseph Smith's history. To me, his secrecy is definitely a negative. I won't get into the mormon stuff since that would be WAY off topic, but yeah, my main point was that they are both very secretive without good reason, again to me. Of course, what you were saying was that Joseph Smith was heavily influenced by the masons, so it stands to reason he would adopt some of the traditions and ways.



I am biased toward my own kind: Humans. And I have a great respect for life of all kinds. I don't even let my wife kill spiders in the house.


Agreed, on BOTH counts! About the only thing I will kill is cockroaches! Again, thank you for your posts. I don't think we've done much to change each other's minds, but I do think we've both listened to each other and heard each others points. I feel we've both made some pretty decent points. I can't really argue much more with you because as you said, I think we both want the same thing, just the application is different. I may be forever leery of the secrecy and then again maybe one day, something will change and I'll be accepting of it. Every day is a new day, so only time will tell. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.


JPT



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by justpassingthrough
I appreciate you taking the time to reply.


Likewise, I appreciate your desire to understand rather than attack.

It's a quality that is quite rare in my experience and it speaks well for you. If you have any other questions/topics you'd like to discuss, please feel free to u2u.

-Axe



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by justpassingthrough
All good points. Not to beat a dead horse, but I still don't see a reason to be secretive.


Hey dude,

I don’t really consider Freemasonry “secretive” myself, but here is my take on why we behave the way we do with our material/lessons/rituals:

- The ritual often involves a revelatory process. There is a lesson in them for the mind that is willing to accept it. Some of the lessons and allegories, however, don’t make sense without prior knowledge of others. So there is a kind of unfolding process which would be totally spoiled by revealing it all at once or out of order. This would also defeat the entire internal purpose of the material. It would become, as we Australians say, a “dog’s breakfast”.

- It’s our material. The ritual was developed by Freemasons for Freemasons, using Masonic symbology, and within the bounds of Masonic tenets and morality. Quite frankly, no private citizen has the right to demand access to the material, nor explanations of the ritual. It’s really none of their business. If they are truly sincerely interested, they have an open invitation to embark on the journey to discover it for themselves. They can do it with the help and guidance of the brotherhood if they decide to join.

- Finally, I would pose a kind of reverse question, just to keep the conversation rolling: Why SHOULD Freemasonry proactively reveal, publish, or otherwise explain its material? In what way do we owe this to society, and in what way is it any of society’s business?

Cheers,

Roark.


[edit on 22-5-2008 by Roark]



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman

Originally posted by justpassingthrough
I appreciate you taking the time to reply.


Likewise, I appreciate your desire to understand rather than attack.

It's a quality that is quite rare in my experience and it speaks well for you. If you have any other questions/topics you'd like to discuss, please feel free to u2u.

-Axe


Likewise. Also, feel free to reply to any other stuff I've said if you think I'm misinterpreting something. Have a good weekend!

JPT



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roark

Hey dude,

I don’t really consider Freemasonry “secretive” myself, but here is my take on why we behave the way we do with our material/lessons/rituals:

- The ritual often involves a revelatory process. There is a lesson in them for the mind that is willing to accept it. Some of the lessons and allegories, however, don’t make sense without prior knowledge of others. So there is a kind of unfolding process which would be totally spoiled by revealing it all at once or out of order. This would also defeat the entire internal purpose of the material. It would become, as we Australians say, a “dog’s breakfast”.


This makes sense and I can understand not showing things so that you don't spoil the surprise. My take on this is that, it should still all be available. I could care less about the surprise or it being out of order. I don't need someone only allowing me to see certain things at certain times. I do understand the logic. Again, I relate it to religion because I can read up on anything I want to in religion, I don't have to join a certain one and go up the ranks to learn about God. Nothing is hidden from me by the church or it's members. The unfolding process makes sense and is logical nonetheless.


- It’s our material. The ritual was developed by Freemasons for Freemasons, using Masonic symbology, and within the bounds of Masonic tenets and morality. Quite frankly, no private citizen has the right to demand access to the material, nor explanations of the ritual. It’s really none of their business. If they are truly sincerely interested, they have an open invitation to embark on the journey to discover it for themselves. They can do it with the help and guidance of the brotherhood if they decide to join.

- Finally, I would pose a kind of reverse question, just to keep the conversation rolling: Why SHOULD Freemasonry proactively reveal, publish, or otherwise explain its material? In what way do we owe this to society, and in what way is it any of society’s business?

Cheers,

Roark.


[edit on 22-5-2008 by Roark]


Yes, there is no need for the masons to release all their info to the public just because the public wants to know. My argument about the secretive stuff is that masons get all mad when there are all sorts of rumors about them, some lies and some the truth I'm sure. I'm sure they are angry that secrets get out but are mainly frustrated by the enormous amount of lies out there about them or their fraternity. I don't feel much sympathy for the masons in this because I feel it could be solved very easily by opening things up for all to see. Hey, if you're going to be secretive, then rumours come with the territory. There will always be rumours no matter what, but the masons could reduce the rumors by a TON if they were to quit being so secretive. I'm also not saying they deserve for false statements to be said about them, but it could be made much better if they were more open. Again, yes, there is no need for them, nor should there be an expectation to come out in the open about everything. I know when I hear rumours about the masons I feel might be false, I never defend the masons because they would never share secrets to a non-mason like me. This is offensive because I would share whatever knowledge I have with them. Also, since not everything IS out in the open, who's to say that some outlandish rumour about the masons ISN'T true? It's all about who you choose to believe. Do you believe an ex-mason's statements or the current mason's statement if they conflict? Thanks for the nice message and am glad so far everything has been civil and I haven't seen any anti-masons or pro-masons come on here and ruin the civility.

JPT





top topics
 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join