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.

 

Erotic Freemasonry

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Orgies, Orgies, Orgies!

Well, the claim is bandied about a lot on these boards, claims of tantric sex rites and the like.

But what about actual cases of eroticism within Freemasonry?

In doing a little digging, I could find very little, and the truth of the matter is that as much as many of us would like to believe (maybe even a couple of Masons as well...
) in the sexual proclivities of Freemasons within the Lodge, it may be the case that it is just as they say: A bunch of men of varying ages sitting around doing asexual rituals in an asexual atmosphere.

This is not to say that eroticism within Freemasonry doesn't exist and has not existed.

Irregular Freemasonry on the Continent had a couple of interesting cases.

The first is Cagliostro's "Egyptian Rite." Though I find this case to be of somewhat dubious origin.

According to sexologist Paul Tabori in Secret and Forbidden, there was a ritual for the main degree initiation ceremony in the "Ladies Lodges" that was openly orgiastic.


After passing through several tests, novices assembled at dawn in the 'temple.' A curtain rose and the spectators gazed at a man seated on a golden globe, completely nude, holding a snake in his hand.
Secret and Forbidden

Apparently the naked man was none other than Cagliostro himself! The "high priestess" then explained to the astounded audience that both truth and wisdom were both naked and that the audience must follow their example. After the women of the Lodge had stripped, Cagliostro delivered a speech in which it was declared that sensual pleasure was the highest aim of human life. The snake in his hand then gave a whistle (hmmm...?) and thirty-sx "genii" entered wearing white gauze. As Cagliostro delivered the final words in his speech, "You are chosen to fulfill my teachings!," the orgies began.

The second case is far more interesting and can be relied upon as being factual as there is actual evidence if you choose to seek it out. Unfortunately for many Masonic detractors of the Christian variety, it may come as a bit of a shock to discover that the man responsible for some of the most far-out sexual rites in Freemasonry was a pious Christian and founder of the Plymouth Brethren.

In 1722, Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf founded a religious group in Upper Lusatia. Known as the Herrnhuter (Moravians).
In 1739, the Order was one of the first "innovatory" Orders to be introduced into early German Freemasonry. A series of appellations sprang up and the order were variously known as, "The Moravian Brethren," Orden vom Senfkorn (The Order of the Grain and Mustard Seed), "The Confraternity of Moravian Brothers of the Order of Religious Freemasons, and of course, the Herrnhuter.


ZINZENDORF, COUNT VON, NICOLAUS LUDWIG

v Founder of the existing sect of Moravian Brethren; also of a religious society which he called the Order of the Grain of Mustard-Seed. He was ordained Bishop of the Moravians in 1737, and at request of King Frederiek William I of Prussia, went to London, and was received by Wesley. In 1741 he proceeded to Bethlehem, in America, and founded the Moravian Settlements. The prolific author of a hundred volumes. He was born at Dresden in 1700, and died in 1760.
Link


Count von Zinzendorf's mystical order takes on the style of Freemasonry; Zinzendorf claims the wound in Christ's side caused by the spear of Longinus became the veritable birth canal of the Christian Church; Rites of ritualistic sexual magic were said to be basis of his belief.
Link

F.R.U.I.T.Y.!

In reading the above, this somewhat ejaculatory hymn verse has pretty astonishing implications.


Ach, welche Bickel ich dir irzt/ ich bin ein Geist mit dir/ und du ein Leib mit mire/ und ein Seel/ Du Seiten Kringel/ du tolles Dingel/ ich fress und sauf/ mich voll/ und bin vor Leibe toll/ und ausser mir
(Oh, what glances I send you now; I am one spirit with you and you are body with me and one soul. You treasure of the side, you mad little thing, I devour you like food and drink to fulfillment and am mad with love, out of my mind.)

Remember this is addressed to the Longinus wound!

Below is an image of the "Blue Cabinet of the Herrnhuter" through which the Count and his mistress observed and directed followers who were in a sexual embrace.



One other thing that I found a little strange is in Walton Hannah's "Christian by Degrees." It has to do with the Shriners.


"Conductor (to Candidate): This is the place where our brethren stop to sprinkle the Devil's Pass with urine. You will contribute a few drops of urine to commemorate the time and place where all who pass here renounce the wiles and evils of the world to worship at the Shrine of Islam. Only a few drops will do.
"Candidate begins to obey instructions when the blinder is jerked from his eyes and he beholds before him a group disguised as women..."
(Walton Hannah. Christian by Degrees, London, 1954. Pp 203-205.)

Not exactly orgies, but maybe a little androgynous?

Is this last one for real?



[edit on 19/10/2008 by Beelzebubba]




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Beelzebubba
 


I for one don't ever want to see the shriveled old guys from my lodge naked, but the links look interesting and bear (bare?) exploration.

Anybody know if any lodges admit Scandinavian babes? I would petition for that.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Well, the claim is bandied about a lot on these boards, claims of tantric sex rites and the like.


I believe this is simply evidence that most anti-masons have suppressed perverted sexual desires, and the only way they know to give them outlets is to project their fantasies onto their main target of attack - Freemasonry.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
But what about actual cases of eroticism within Freemasonry?


Erotic freemasonry is a oxymoron. The first word is the opposite of the second. I can't think of anything more un-erotic than a total sausage fest of guys dressed up in a ornate room repeating lines they've memorized. Even for the gay members, since most of the membership is older, can't find that erotic.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
This is not to say that eroticism within Freemasonry doesn't exist and has not existed.

Irregular Freemasonry on the Continent had a couple of interesting cases.


And that would be why its irregular freemasonry, and why none of the masons on here are to my knowledge irregular freemasons, and why we all caution anyone against joining anything but regular freemasonry.

It doesn't exist in regular freemasonry and never will, which frankly, is all that concerns me. What other people do who claim to be freemasnons doesn't concern me.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
The first is Cagliostro's "Egyptian Rite." Though I find this case to be of somewhat dubious origin.


Of course that's not even irregular freemasonry, thats someone who made up a rite and called it freemasonry. Remember, anyone can call something freemasonry, it doesn't make it so.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Cagliostro delivered a speech in which it was declared that sensual pleasure was the highest aim of human life.


Of course immediately we therefore know this is not freemasonry, since in the first degree we are told to subdue our passions.



Originally posted by Beelzebubba
The second case is far more interesting and can be relied upon as being factual as there is actual evidence if you choose to seek it out.
.....
Count von Zinzendorf's mystical order takes on the style of Freemasonry; Zinzendorf claims the wound in Christ's side caused by the spear of Longinus became the veritable birth canal of the Christian Church; Rites of ritualistic sexual magic were said to be basis of his belief.


This looks like a case where the original person existed but the claim was later made up. In any case, you notice this too is not freemasonry. This is someone trying to call something freemasonry - thus it only takes on its "style" - in order to give it some sort of illusion of credibility. Of course, we know real freemasonry makes no statements whatsoever about any religion, so this is also not an example of freemasonry.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
One other thing that I found a little strange is in Walton Hannah's "Christian by Degrees." It has to do with the Shriners.


This is a anti-mason book, and like all anti-mason books, most of it includes made up ritual designed to make freemasonry look more evil than it really is. I am not a Shriner, but much like the made up 32nd/33rd degree rituals you find on the web, this looks to be another case where someone made a ritual up when they couldn't find anything legitimate to gripe about the ritual.

So, in summary, what we have here are 2 cases of things that you can't even classify as irregular freemasonry. They were organizations made up by someone and proclaimed to be freemasonry, but were not really so since they did not follow any of its main tenets. The third case looks to be a made up ritual from a anti-mason book.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by LowLevelMason]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LowLevelMason


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
The first is Cagliostro's "Egyptian Rite." Though I find this case to be of somewhat dubious origin.


Of course that's not even irregular freemasonry, thats someone who made up a rite and called it freemasonry. Remember, anyone can call something freemasonry, it doesn't make it so.


Yeah... i can get a bunch of bricks and some mortar and make a wall and call it freema... oh wait... never mind



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
There is no "eroticism" within Freemasonry whatsoever, and any claim to the contrary is... just plain bizarre.




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roark
There is no "eroticism" within Freemasonry whatsoever, and any claim to the contrary is... just plain bizarre.

Guess my lodge just has a prettier goat than yours...



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Truth be told... ours has really let itself go. Additionally, it smokes and cusses really badly.

Nobody wants to ride it anymore.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roark
Truth be told... ours has really let itself go. Additionally, it smokes and cusses really badly.

Nobody wants to ride it anymore.


Aww, how sad. Maybe you can call that guy who works with dogs - the Dog Whisperer, maybe he does goats too? You should get your goat some counseling =(



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
I believe this is simply evidence that most anti-masons have suppressed perverted sexual desires, and the only way they know to give them outlets is to project their fantasies onto their main target of attack - Freemasonry.


Is an orgy or tantric sex perverted? I've always considered myself a bit of a meat and potatoes man, but I wouldn't consider these acts perverted.


Erotic freemasonry is a oxymoron. The first word is the opposite of the second. I can't think of anything more un-erotic than a total sausage fest of guys dressed up in a ornate room repeating lines they've memorized. Even for the gay members, since most of the membership is older, can't find that erotic.


Just because you don't find any aspects of your Lodge erotic, doesn't mean that you speak for all Masons.


And that would be why its irregular freemasonry, and why none of the masons on here are to my knowledge irregular freemasons, and why we all caution anyone against joining anything but regular freemasonry.


We have had members on ATS who have been members of the Memphis-Mizraim Rite and they have considered themselves Freemasons, albeit of a more exotic nature.


It doesn't exist in regular freemasonry and never will, which frankly, is all that concerns me. What other people do who claim to be freemasnons doesn't concern me.


I agree with you. As I originally posted: "Asexual rituals in an asexual atmosphere."

So those who "claim" to be Freemasons are in fact not so unless sanctioned by who? The UGLE?


Of course that's not even irregular freemasonry, thats someone who made up a rite and called it freemasonry. Remember, anyone can call something freemasonry, it doesn't make it so.


It's easy to say that in hindsight, but look at the era when these two Orders came about. Innovatory Orders were those which added new material to the traditional Blue Lodge system. During this period many "innovatory" Orders were created, including the Scottish Rite. So those that made up a Rite and called it the Scottish Rite would also have been irregular, or as you put it, "not even irregular freemasonry?" What about the Shriners? Outside of the USA, they are regarded as a bit of a joke.

As A. E. Waite points out in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry that there was not at this time a true "high grade" system on the Order of the Scottish Rite or the Templar-legend based Strict Observence.


This looks like a case where the original person existed but the claim was later made up. In any case, you notice this too is not freemasonry. This is someone trying to call something freemasonry - thus it only takes on its "style" - in order to give it some sort of illusion of credibility. Of course, we know real freemasonry makes no statements whatsoever about any religion, so this is also not an example of freemasonry.


It is a fact that Zinzendorfs Order was accepted into early German Freemasonry. It is also a fact that much of his theological beliefs played a large part in the mysteries of the Order. Real Freemasonry makes no statements whatsoever about any religion? What about the Christian degrees of the Holy Royal Arch?


This is a anti-mason book, and like all anti-mason books, most of it includes made up ritual designed to make freemasonry look more evil than it really is. I am not a Shriner, but much like the made up 32nd/33rd degree rituals you find on the web, this looks to be another case where someone made a ritual up when they couldn't find anything legitimate to gripe about the ritual.


Have you ever read any books by Hannah? Of all Masonic detractors, he is probably the least tempted to flights of fancy. So, not being a Shriner, you can't definitively say that the ritual doesn't or has not at some stage existed?



[edit on 21/10/2008 by Beelzebubba]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
...far-out sexual rites ...pious Christian...


I'm sorry, those two phrases do not belong in the same sentence. BY DEFINITION, you cannot be a "pious Christian" if you engage in sexual rites or orgies. Sure, you can CLAIM to be a "pious Christian" (If I claim to be a Corvette, it doesn't make me one).

A subtle difference that will, no doubt, be lost on the majority of readers here.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Perhaps I should have put inverted comma's around the word "pious."
Indeed, it is an oxymoron. When one reads the official story on Zinzendorf, he comes across as the definition of piety. I'm sure the members of the Plymouth Brethren regard him as such. Yet when we look at his actions at the time, he was no such thing.

Throughout history there have been many who have thought themselves pious Christians or projected such an image, only to secretly be slaves to their carnal desires.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Is an orgy or tantric sex perverted? I've always considered myself a bit of a meat and potatoes man, but I wouldn't consider these acts perverted.


Um, yes, I would call an ORGY just a tiny bit perverted. Your a meat and potatoes kind of guy and you do a lot of orgies, eh? No details needed, but..um..wow. I'd love to see what your wife/girl friend thinks of that. Frankly, it doesn't matter either way - its just evidence that those seeking to accuse masonry have some repressed sexual desires they are taking out on the fraternity.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Just because you don't find any aspects of your Lodge erotic, doesn't mean that you speak for all Masons.


While I don't speak for all masons the ritual and landmarks of freemasonry are clear: Freemasonry doesn't exist for the purposes of being "erotic", in fact, as I previously debunked for you, its the exact opposite: even in the first degree masons are taught to subdue their passions. That would be the exact opposite of erotic. End of story.

And while we're at it, can you find me one regular freemason who will testify that he gets off in the lodge? Any of our ATS masons find themselves turned on in the lodge? Until you find one, the point is moot.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
We have had members on ATS who have been members of the Memphis-Mizraim Rite and they have considered themselves Freemasons, albeit of a more exotic nature.


Since when is it surprising that people who practice irregular/clandestine freemasonry think they are freemasons? That is the purpose of taking up such ventures after all. But I don't really care what they think, regular freemasonry doesn't accept them as such and irregular/clandestine freemasonry is NOT freemasonry, its people doing things with the label.


Originally posted by Beelzebubbathose who "claim" to be Freemasons are in fact not so unless sanctioned by who? The UGLE?


Regular freemasonry are those who follow the ritual and meet the landmarks. That happens to also grant them recognition by the UGLE, but recognition by the UGLE is the effect and not the cause of what makes something freemasonry.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
It's easy to say that in hindsight, but look at the era when these two Orders came about. Innovatory Orders were those which added new material to the traditional Blue Lodge system. During this period many "innovatory" Orders were created, including the Scottish Rite. So those that made up a Rite and called it the Scottish Rite would also have been irregular, or as you put it, "not even irregular freemasonry?" What about the Shriners? Outside of the USA, they are regarded as a bit of a joke.


I think it is easy: the orders who survived are the ones that, again, observed the landmarks. The Scottish Rite followed them, and so it still exists today. It has never been irregular. Also, Shriners are masons but the Shrine is not freemasonry per say - it doesn't exist for explicit masonic purposes it exists for fun and charity. Its a club where you must be a mason. I would, however love to know who thinks the Shriners are a joke - they do way to much charity work for anyone to think such things.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
As A. E. Waite points out in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry that there was not at this time a true "high grade" system on the Order of the Scottish Rite or the Templar-legend based Strict Observence.


Actually, as the Scottish Rite Ritual Monitor points out the higher degree rituals, which despite the name came from France, were from at the time regular and duly constituted lodges.

In any case, your arguing with a red herring. It doesn't matter because the Scottish Rite has no eroticism in it for you to find. Its irrelevant what you think about the origins as far as this topic goes.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
It is a fact that Zinzendorfs Order was accepted into early German Freemasonry. It is also a fact that much of his theological beliefs played a large part in the mysteries of the Order. Real Freemasonry makes no statements whatsoever about any religion? What about the Christian degrees of the Holy Royal Arch?


I'm going to have to call you out on this one. Please provide evidence that the ritual you quoted was accepted into German Freemasonry. What happened in reality most likely is that this is someone who, like Pike, loved to write ritual - but not all that ritual was included in the order. This one would not be for obvious reasons, like the fact that its not masonic. It would be like including a a rendition of The Lion King Musical for a Scottish Rite degree.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Have you ever read any books by Hannah? Of all Masonic detractors, he is probably the least tempted to flights of fancy. So, not being a Shriner, you can't definitively say that the ritual doesn't or has not at some stage existed?


I have, and she is among the worst although not the worst. And no I can't say if it exists, but I believe a Shriner has already responded and said that it did not.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Beelzebubba
 


Put quite simply:

If you are not considered a Freemason by fellow Freemasons, you simply ARE NOT A FREEMASON.

These "sexual rituals" (more or less a good speaker with a perverted desires found a way to get a room full of woman to screw him) are not Masonic. Never where Masonic. Never will be Masonic.

There is no "Woman of the lodge either"



And if I had to watch or partake in any orgy involving the Masons I have seen .. lol .. I wouldn't be a Mason. Not for all the power in the world (thats what we all desire right?) ..

NOW .. If the Lodge wanted to arrange, pay for, and provide the secret place, and the women, to have an orgy with just my self and a few good lookin girls well.. that would be one way to get me to pay my dues on time!

(ps guys, give your goat Prozac .. takes their edge off)



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
Your a meat and potatoes kind of guy and you do a lot of orgies, eh? No details needed, but..um..wow. I'd love to see what your wife/girl friend thinks of that.


Just because I don't find them perverted, does not necessarily mean I partake. Personal attacks are your style, eh?


Since when is it surprising that people who practice irregular/clandestine freemasonry think they are freemasons? That is the purpose of taking up such ventures after all. But I don't really care what they think, regular freemasonry doesn't accept them as such and irregular/clandestine freemasonry is NOT freemasonry, its people doing things with the label.


I have no doubt that from within there are many divisions.
But as an outsider, you'll forgive me if I make a sweeping generalization here, I find that if it wears an apron and it ain't in the kitchen, it's a Freemason.


I have, and she is among the worst although not the worst. And no I can't say if it exists, but I believe a Shriner has already responded and said that it did not.


Walton Hannah was a man, so I think you indirectly answered that question for me.
His scholarship was taken seriously enough by the Anglican Church to spark a discussion within C of E Assembly in 1952, as well as play a major role in the 1985 Anglican Synod.

Nothing from any Shriners yet. Just comments about the attractiveness (or lack thereof) of goats.

[edit on 22/10/2008 by Beelzebubba]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
This looks like a case where the original person existed but the claim was later made up.


For your perusal:


London. In the l740s and 1750s, "Rabbi" Zinzendorf (as he was then called) directed a mission to the Jews in London, in which mutual Kabbalistic studies served as a bridge between religions. At the same time, he organized his followers into a hierarchical secret society that functioned as an offshoot of "irregular" or "illuminist" Freemasonry.

According to James Hutton, an English Moravian who became a lifelong friend of Richard Cosway, the public society held open meetings in the Fetter Lane Chapel, while the elite interior order (the "Pilgrim Church") met secretly, lived communally, and practised Kabbalistic rituals. If Blake's parents were aware of the interior "Pilgrim" order, it would explain Blake's own usage of Moravian-style sexual imagery.

Hutton described the Pilgrims as the unknown superiors of the larger society, for their identity was not revealed to lower-ranking initiates:

"...a congregation of labourers who go hither and thither; whom no one knows but he to whom it is revealed. Everyone who has a whole mind to our Saviour is a member of it. It is composed of persons who indissolubly cling together...and who labour for the good of others among all religions, but never form themselves into sect."

Henry Rimius described the Moravians as a nonsectarian, subversive secret society, whose leaders "are gradually sapping the foundation of civil government in any country they settle in, and establishing an empire within an empire." While the higher initiates practise "gnostic obscenities," the neophytes are left in ignorance of the ritualistic orgies.

Attendants at the public services in Fetter Lane were certainly aware of the theory, if not the practice, of Zinzendorf's Kabbalistic sexual agenda.

Since his student days, Swedenborg had access to rare instruction in heterodox Jewish mysticism, which included the more erotic and visionary theories of the Shabbeteans, secret disiciples of Sabbatai Zevi.

Swedenborg sought out Jewish Kabbalists in the East End, and soon met Dr. Samuel Jacob Falk, known as the "Baal Shem" of London. Falk was a crypto-Shabbetean, who collaborated with a network of fellow "Zoharites" in England, Holland, Poland, and Germany.

Following the Shabbeteans' example, some members of the network pretended conversion to Christianity and assimilated Kabbalistic notions of the Shekhinah into Christian notions of the Virgin Mary.

Société de l’Harmonie : Anton Mesmer.
Link


Moravian Brethren
Thye religious sect of Moravian brethren, which was founded in Upper Lusatia about 1722, by Count Zinzendorf, is said at one time to have formed a society of religious Freemasons. For an account of which see Mustard Seed, Order of.
-Albert. Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Vol.II P.680


Mustard Seed, Order of.
The German title id Der Orden vom Senfkorn. This association whose members also called themselves "The Fraternity of Moravian Brothers of the Order of Religious Freemasons," was one of the first innovations introduced into German Freemasonry. It was initiated in the year 1730. It's mysteries were founded on the passage in the fourth chapter of St. Mark's Gospel in which Christ compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard-seed. The Brethren wore a ring, on which was inscribed Keiner von uns lebt ihm selber, meaning in English, No one of us lives for himself. The jewel of the Order was a cross of gold surmounted by a mustard plant in full bloom, with the motto Quod fuit ante nihil, this Latin meaning What was before nothing. It was suspended from a green ribbon. The professed object of the Association was, through the instrumentality of Freemasonry, to extend the Kingdom of Christ over the world. It has long been obsolete. (See Zinzendorf, Count von Nicholas Ludwig)
- Mackey, Albert. Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Vol.II P.688.

Encyclopedia of Freemasonry


[edit on 23/10/2008 by Beelzebubba]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
It seems all the good stuff has gone over to irregular freemasonry. Lodge meetings can be tedious and sometimes one dreams of taking part in heretical adventures as dreamt up by conspiracy-theorists.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Just because I don't find them perverted, does not necessarily mean I partake. Personal attacks are your style, eh?


You are beyond ridiculous, and I am beginning to think this was an attempt to troll up a response from the masons on the board. If you are going to admit that you have no problem with orgies, there is no insult in pointing out what you just typed.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
I have no doubt that from within there are many divisions.
But as an outsider, you'll forgive me if I make a sweeping generalization here, I find that if it wears an apron and it ain't in the kitchen, it's a Freemason.


You are embracing ignorance if it has never occurred to you that anyone can wear an apron and call themselves a Freemason. Also, it doesn't take anymore than 5 minutes of research to find out that these groups are irregular or clandestine. If you don't want to do the research, once you are informed of the facts I would expect that you would at least acknowledge them and recognize that none of it applies to actual freemasonry. But that assumes your not trolling.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Walton Hannah was a man, so I think you indirectly answered that question for me.


Nice try, congratulations, you caught me in a typo. And I think you've proven you really aren't interested in legitimate research by quoting such books which have been debunked time and again.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
His scholarship was taken seriously enough by the Anglican Church to spark a discussion within C of E Assembly in 1952, as well as play a major role in the 1985 Anglican Synod.


His book, which was not scholarship, was used by those with an axe to grind against freemasonry, as many anti-masonic books have been.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Nothing from any Shriners yet. Just comments about the attractiveness (or lack thereof) of goats.


Oh for goodness sakes, I found the Shriner ritual within 3 minutes of googling and it doesn't contain the trip you've quoted (which is unsurprising, given the source).



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
For your perusal:


Thanks for proving my point and debunking yourself: IRREGULAR freemasonry. Not real freemasonry.

Also, you quoted a conspiracy website, not a legitimate source. It could say anything and it wouldn't matter because the source is nuts.

Thanks for doing my work for me and debunking yourself.


Oh and, just so you know, Albert Mackey is not authoritative - and since he was trying to write a tome to include as many masonic references as possible, he couldn't have possibly done the full research needed into everything. Given that other masonic sources note this group is irregular and not real freemasonry, its all the evidence that is needed to prove, yet again, there is no such thing as "erotic freemasonry." You also forget to read that this was through the "supposed" instrumentality of freemasonry and was not itself a regular masonic group.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by LowLevelMason]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LowLevelMason
 


Ya know, occasionally a member will join ATS and start blustering away about how much they know and how everyone else is an idiot, except for those that agree with them.

So let's do an overview of this thread:

In my opening post I made mention of how within regular Freemasonry there was no proof of eroticism inside the Lodge. I mentioned that there were a couple of cases in irregular Freemasonry and cited those cases.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
In doing a little digging, I could find very little, and the truth of the matter is that as much as many of us would like to believe (maybe even a couple of Masons as well...
) in the sexual proclivities of Freemasons within the Lodge, it may be the case that it is just as they say: A bunch of men of varying ages sitting around doing asexual rituals in an asexual atmosphere.

This is not to say that eroticism within Freemasonry doesn't exist and has not existed.

Irregular Freemasonry on the Continent had a couple of interesting cases.


I authored this thread as much for Masons as non-Masons. Just to point out where the origin of the allegations may have stemmed from.

A certain member then has to come to the defence of Freemasonry. This member tells me that these two Orders aren't even "irregular." He then claims that the information on Zinzendorf is fabricated. When shown evidence of Zinzendorf's Order, supplied by an esteemed Masonic scholar. Well... that scholarship is obviously faulty. What a towering intellect we must have among us that they can discount entries in an Encyclopedia of Freemasonry!, without supplying any links or evidence of other Masonic scholars who have deemed Zinzendorf's Order "irregular."

Then I'm given a lecture on what is "regular," "irregular," "clandestine," "quasi,"... etc... Even though I stated in my first post that there were differences. I know there are differences, but who is to say who really is a "Freeason" and who is not?

Then, of course, the member (whom I suspect was frothing at the mouth by this stage) has to "debunk" the link to the information concerning Zinzendorf that is on a "Conspiracy website" (He really pounced on that one, spittle flying, I imagine) 'cos they're all "nuts." Yet here he is, on a "Conspiracy website," surrounded by thousands of "nuts."

(Just to clear that up. It was the only link I could find that had the same information as this:


[Wesley, John.] Queries humbly proposed to the Right Reverend and Right Honourable Count Zinzendorf. London: sold by J. Robinson, and T. James, 1755. 32 pp
Ximenes

The information is essentially the same. If you don't believe me, buy a copy.)

This member also has the audacity to make allusions about my sex-life saying that because I stated that I don't find "orgies" perverted, then I must be involved in them and what does my wife think of that. Well, it's none of his damned business! Of course it's a "justified" personal attack, because I don't find that kind of stuff perverted. If it really did offend me, do you think I would've responded with a one-liner. The fact that this member had to take it to a personal level by casting aspersions about me, shows the level of his maturity.

Oh, and the "typo" thing was hilarious.

Y'know if I made a typo around the letter H, it would probably be J,N,B,G,Y,U. Maybe even a T or a U if my fingers really strayed. But an S! That's like, on the other side of the keypad! C'mon, who do you think you're fooling.


Just who is "beyond ridiculous?" And just who is "The TROLL?"

What is even "regular" within Freemasonry? Please tell me.


One of the hardest things for non-Masons to understand about Freemasonry is that it is not a single, monolithic organization with one head and a single 'identity'. Freemasonry has grown in various ways in various parts of the world and although the signs and modes of recognition in 'regular' Masonic bodies are recognizable to other Masons, they are rarely identical in every respect. Further, each Grand Lodge decides for itself and its members what other bodies are 'regular'. Thus, the Grand Lodge of A might recognize Grand Lodges B and C while the Grand Lodge of B might not recognize Grand Lodge C as being a Masonic body. Confusing? You bet - although the instances of this type of thing are VERY small and usually involve very small Grand Lodges in very small countries! It's a complicated set of mutual recognitions that decide who is 'recognized and regular' and who is not.



As just one example of confusion, the Order of the Eastern Star is recognized and accepted as a part of the 'Masonic family' by every Grand Lodge in the United States. They're very much a part of various events throughout the jurisdiction and although not allowed into closed lodge meetings of Masons, they use that very same Masonic hall for THEIR meetings! Curiously, however, the United Grand Lodge of England - the oldest Grand Lodge in the world and from whom most recognized Grand Lodges in the world derive their heritage - considers the OES to be 'clandestine' and forbids the Members of the UGLE to attend meetings of the group. Is the Order of the Eastern Star 'clandestine'? Guess it depends....
Masonicinfo


Originally posted by Rockpuck
If you are not considered a Freemason by fellow Freemasons, you simply ARE NOT A FREEMASON.


This statement is very interesting to me.

What, for instance, would "other Freemasons" make of an agnostic Freemason within the world of "regular" Freemasonry?

I have had many civil discussions with many of the Masonic membership on this board in the past, but I'm afraid I've run into a member that goes beyond the pale. This individual does your Fraternity a great injustice.




[edit on 24/10/2008 by Beelzebubba]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
This just confirms your trolling.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Ya know, occasionally a member will join ATS and start blustering away about how much they know and how everyone else is an idiot, except for those that agree with them.


Which sounds strangely like what your doing?


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
In my opening post I made mention of how within regular Freemasonry there was no proof of eroticism inside the Lodge. I mentioned that there were a couple of cases in irregular Freemasonry and cited those cases.


And yet, you then said that it made no difference to you, that all freemasonry was the same, and then quoted what you thought was a Shriner ritual (a regular masonic club). You contradicted yourself, and I pointed out where you did so. You did not acknowledge these examples as irregular freemasonry until I pointed them out.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
A certain member then has to come to the defence of Freemasonry. This member tells me that these two Orders aren't even "irregular." He then claims that the information on Zinzendorf is fabricated. When shown evidence of Zinzendorf's Order, supplied by an esteemed Masonic scholar. Well... that scholarship is obviously faulty. What a towering intellect we must have among us that they can discount entries in an Encyclopedia of Freemasonry!, without supplying any links or evidence of other Masonic scholars who have deemed Zinzendorf's Order "irregular."


Wrong. I pointed out that the groups were irregular, and that what that effectively means is that they are not freemasonry. You attempted to argue the point, and were wrong. You never provided proof that the ritual you quoted from Zinzendorf was actually part of a masonic ritual, which is what I originally stated.

You misquoted a passage out of the Encyclopedia which never stated the ritual you quoted was ever part of freemasonry, and that indeed, the order was in the style of freemasonry and not freemasonry itself.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Then I'm given a lecture on what is "regular," "irregular," "clandestine," "quasi,"... etc... Even though I stated in my first post that there were differences. I know there are differences, but who is to say who really is a "Freeason" and who is not?


Oh, I don't know...perhaps since this is a constant debate in freemasonry it seems important. Forgive me that your supreme intellect has evolved beyond our petty 300 year old debates.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Then, of course, the member (whom I suspect was frothing at the mouth by this stage) has to "debunk" the link to the information concerning Zinzendorf that is on a "Conspiracy website" (


You must get angry really easily, I'm sorry that you do but I can't help that - your the one foaming at the mouth. You quoted from a conspiracy website without sources, and it is not proof.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
This member also has the audacity to make allusions about my sex-life saying that because I stated that I don't find "orgies" perverted, then I must be involved in them and what does my wife think of that. Well, it's none of his damned business! Of course it's a "justified" personal attack, because I don't find that kind of stuff perverted. If it really did offend me, do you think I would've responded with a one-liner. The fact that this member had to take it to a personal level by casting aspersions about me, shows the level of his maturity.


How melodramatic, you talk about your sex life and tell us how you have no problems with orgies, and then you blame this on me? Get over yourself, you can't spin that one no matter how bad you want it.


Originally posted by Beelzebubba
Oh, and the "typo" thing was hilarious.


Your trolling thing is hilarious. Forgive me if I don't spend anymore than a few minutes responding to you and make typos, your posts just aren't important to me.

Stop trolling. Oh, and it adds to your credibility if you don't attempt to outright lie in your posts about what has been said and what has not been said - its pretty hilarious though.

Its been explained to you what regular freemasonry is, but your too busy trying to troll to stop and read. Regular freemasonry is based on recognition - regular bodies are recognized by other regular bodies. The groups you mentioned were never regular, and never would be, because they are not freemasonry.

Its of course easy to debunk you from the start, which you keep conveniently ignoring, because in the first degree all masons are taught TO SUBDUE THEIR PASSIONS. This is completely diametrically opposed to having SEX RITUALS. Thus, people doing these things are not masonry. The end.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by LowLevelMason]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join