Originally posted by trueforger

I know that.The point was the very obvious similarities and probable cross mutually beneficial relationship between two secretive groups(Masons and Skull&Bones)as evidenced by seeming inability of Masons to say anything against the predations of a Skull&Bones member,and his obvious handler of the last 8 years.

Since in reality Masons speak bad of each other a lot, why wouldn't a Mason speak bad of a Skull and Bones member, when Skull and Bones members aren't even Masons?

Case in point: 2004 Presidential elections. While neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry are Masons, both of them of Skull and Bones alumni. But that certainly didn't stop them from talking a load of trash about each other.

The "G" stands for God, the Grand Architect of the Universe

Kerry,S&B operative #2 just sorta folded and gave up the fight to hand the prize over to S&B operative #1,Jr.A little bit of words to provide a plausable strain is weak.It kinda proves my point.I never accused Masons of paedophilia,just massively unfair insider business practice.And of supporting the unsupportable administration we just endured.With silence...Golden,for you. .PS I think Fitz has a nice smile

[edit on 2-2-2009 by trueforger]

Originally posted by trueforger
Kerry,S&B operative #2 just sorta folded and gave up the fight to hand the prize over to S&B operative #1,Jr.A little bit of words to provide a plausable strain is weak.It kinda proves my point.I never accused Masons of paedophilia,just massively unfair insider business practice.And of supporting the unsupportable administration we just endured.

As previously noted, "the Masons" did not support "the administration we just endured", and you still didn't explain exactly how Masons are involved in "massively unfair business practice", which I really want to hear, seeing as how only a very small percentage of our membership are businessmen in the first place.

Originally posted by oconnection



Then why have different degrees if the knowledge is shared evenly? Why progress to the next level, what's the incentive? I don't doubt your sincerity but I do believe your speaking out of ignorance.

I'm not sure he's speaking out of ignorance; instead, he's just repeating what he's been told by other Masons, which is the popular "modern" line.

Of course, it cannot be completely true. You are absolutely right that there has to be a division of knowledge in any degree system, be it academic, Masonic, or otherwise. For example, in Freemasonry, one who is a Master Mason only does not know what happens in a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons or a Consistory of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Should a Master Mason desire that knowledge, he must request admission into those bodies, and apply for those degrees.

Then why have different degrees if the knowledge is shared evenly? Why progress to the next level, what's the incentive? I don't doubt your sincerity but I do believe your speaking out of ignorance.

Here I got again, being sucked into the Secret Societies forum again.

HaHa! Welcome back!

You have to admit we have been fairly tame lately.

I was thinking about this very question last night in a lodge meeting during a particularly rousing discussion about whether the motion to donate $200 to a local event was a motion unto itself or whether it was an amendment to the original motion to donate $100, notwithstanding the second of the second motion without discussion on the first motion.

Wherewith the party of the first part, rather then withdrawing his original motion declared a point of order that the second motion was an amendment, rather than a wholly independent issue, therefore we should vote to approve the second motion as an amendment first and then discuss and vote on the original motion if amended to include the increased amount from the second motion.................

Seriously. 20 minutes.

Unfortunately our newest brother, who was raised just this last Saturday, sat in bewilderment, confused as to how this prolonged reparte' was allegorical or symbolical of the most impressive and solemn knowledge which had only recently been revealed to him.

Meanwhile our chaplain had once again drifted off into slumber, which was particularly worrisome to me since I am a paramedic in real life and up until only recently said chaplain had been transporting a portable oxygen container which was mysteriously absent this particular meeting.

I believe he awoke when the Senior Steward, having only recently been raised himself, conducted a rather lengthy Q&A about whether the funds would be contributed directly to the sponsoring organization or whether they would be used for pizza and cups.

After the requisite hubbub, dress code and parking for the event were discussed ad infinitum with a mildly passive-aggressive parry between the tyler and the Worshipful Master about whether a logo-emblazoned polo shirt constituted 'business casual' dress.

Wait....

What was the question?



[edit on 2/4/09 by emsed1]

Originally posted by emsed1


I was thinking about this very question last night in a lodge meeting during a particularly rousing discussion about whether the motion to donate $200 to a local event was a motion unto itself or whether it was an amendment to the original motion to donate $100, notwithstanding the second of the second motion without discussion on the first motion.

Wherewith the party of the first part, rather then withdrawing his original motion declared a point of order that the second motion was an amendment, rather than a wholly independent issue, therefore we should vote to approve the second motion as an amendment first and then discuss and vote on the original motion if amended to include the increased amount from the second motion.................

Robert's Rules of Order....gotta love 'em!

This sort of stuff is exactly why the newer "Traditional Observance Lodges" don't even discuss business at their regular communications. Instead, the focus on esoteric Masonic education, and business is taken care of by the elected officers at a different meeting.