Freemasons, friend or foe

I was wondering if anyone has any ideas about the Freemasons and what they think about Stephen Knight who was poisoned and died just two years after publishing "The Brotherhood." in 1983. I have done a lot of research on the Freemasons but would love to learn more,do you belive they are just your average run of the mill underground religious brotherhood or do you think they are part of some sick organization.

reply to post by brooklyn87


Stephen Knight wasn't poisoned..He died due to a brain tumor that was removed once, then returned shortly before his death.

As for freemasonry, I personally don't believe they are up to anything sinister, but rather do much good for their local communities.

I have Freemasons in my family and they are all good guys. They try to do good things for the community! The conspiracy surrounding them is old and worn out.

IRM

I'm not one to judge, but Freemasons have been behind many revolutions. Whether you think events like the Boston Tea Party, French Revolution, and creation of the Declaration of Independence is good or bad, I'll let you decide.

Let me put it this way, Freemasonry isn't nearly as influential and powerful as they used to be. There membership is decreasing and due to all the criticism and a slow economy, not to mention many members have lost interest.

It is one of the oldest "secret societies" or as the Masons like to say a society with secrets.

I'm not sure about the story of the gentlemen being poisoned from Freemasons but you will hear all kind of fabulous stories on the internet.

I will give you this, if you have questions the best approach is to do your own research and not take other people's word for it. I'm sure I won't get any brownie points from all the Freemasons on this board but if there were secrets they wanted to hide there not going to tell you on a public forum.

There are many Freemasons who are on this board to protect the image of Freemasonry and share any information they are permitted to share with "outsiders". From my experience they seem to be a good group of people.

Other then that, read up, dig, and you just might find your answers!

The most well-known case against the Masons happened on 9/11/1826 when they killed William Morgan for leading an anti-mason movement. Shortly after his however, people started leaving Masonry in large droves, so it was a very major event in the history of Masonry. To me the reaction of the Masons to actually leave Masonry shows that Masons are highly opposed to that kind of thing at least as a whole. However, we have no way of knowing what the high-level masons take on the matter was.

The terquasquicentennial anniversary of his death was 9/11/2001. Masons would be as likely to hold a significant event on an obscure anniversary rather than an obvious one given their side interest in numerologies and symbologies. However, its my belief that the Skull & Bones society was involved with 9/11 rather than the Masons. Skull & Bones is an organization has a bit of an obsession with death, so it would be quite likely to be them who would use the terquasquicentennial anniversary of his death to hold for 9/11. Most likely they had it planned up to a series of nearby significant days, so that way if the weather was not the way they wanted, they could hold it off a few days and have it on another designated alternative day. Either that or they simply sprayed it with weather modification chemicals. Evidence of that would be heavy rains in the days prior to 9/11. I have not checked and am just throwing a bit of speculation out there, though it may actually be testable hypothesis by the ground soil in either case. The London terrorist attacks, with their cheesy ridiculous video stills of the "terrorists" like our cheesy nonsensical "plane hitting pentagon" stills occured exactly 911 days after 9/11.

I believe that high-degree masons may be involved in the occult, but I don't really know how well proven that is. Probably not proven at all.

There is something I have strongly against the Masons, which is their seeming policy of dishonesty. I have frequently heard that when you get to the higher levels, you get told things like. Oh, we just told you that on the lower levels, here is the "real truth". And then the real truth changes the higher up you go I suppose until you reach the top wherever that really is.

Another thing I have strongly against the Masons is their apparent support of elitism. The whole idea of a 33 degree Mason being a fundamentally better person than a 3rd degree Mason is ridiculous. People can be better at things but the whole concept of simply being better is simply incomplete and nonsensical, as well as insulting and harmful.

And of course I have to use words like "seem" and "apparent" because they are also secretive, so we are forced to guess at what they are really like. Another negative. While I'm sure most of the time they are plotting nothing but good for society, especially at the local level, times may pass where those tiny handful at the top decide they have to do something outright evil but "for the greater good". The greatest evils in our society are always done "for the greater good".

I'm also not particularly happy with the oath they have to take, though am not really that strongly against it.

Originally posted by truthquest
There is something I have strongly against the Masons, which is their seeming policy of dishonesty. I have frequently heard that when you get to the higher levels, you get told things like. Oh, we just told you that on the lower levels, here is the "real truth". And then the real truth changes the higher up you go I suppose until you reach the top wherever that really is.

You 'heard' this but somehow it has become truth? Who did you 'hear' this from and what did they tell you the 'real truth' was in acutality?

Another thing I have strongly against the Masons is their apparent support of elitism. The whole idea of a 33 degree Mason being a fundamentally better person than a 3rd degree Mason is ridiculous.

Who said an individual in an appendant body of Masonry is somehow 'better' then a person who chooses only to participate in Blue Lodge Masonry? There are many good men in my lodge who have never entered the Scottish Rite but do much for the community and the lodge and are not considered beneath the two 33rd degree Masons that are also members of my lodge.

People can be better at things but the whole concept of simply being better is simply incomplete and nonsensical, as well as insulting and harmful.

So is making unfounded or unproven statements....

Originally posted by truthquest
The most well-known case against the Masons happened on 9/11/1826 when they killed William Morgan for leading an anti-mason movement.

Just for the record, the fate of Morgan is questionable. It is possible that some local Masons did indeed murder him, but if they did, they acted on their own, without any organizational approval.

Morgan did not lead an anti-Mason movement; the anti-Masonic movement was born following his disappearance.

To me the reaction of the Masons to actually leave Masonry shows that Masons are highly opposed to that kind of thing at least as a whole. However, we have no way of knowing what the high-level masons take on the matter was.

Some left, and some stayed and weathered the storm. Albert Pike commented on the phenomenon in his book "Morals and Dogma" thusly:

WE often profit more by our enemies than by our friends. "We support ourselves only on that which resists," and owe our success to opposition. The best friends of Masonry in America were the Anti-Masons of 1826, and at the same time they were its worst enemies. Men are but the automata of Providence, and it uses the demagogue, the fanatic, and the knave, a common trinity in Republics, as its tools and instruments to effect that of which they do not dream, and which they imagine themselves commissioned to prevent.

The Anti-Masons, traitors and perjurors some, and some mere political knaves, purified Masonry by persecution, and so proved to be its benefactors; for that which is persecuted, grows. To them its present popularity is due, the cheapening of its Degrees, the invasion of its Lodges, that are no longer Sanctuaries, by the multitude; its pomp and pageantry and overdone display. - p. 814

The terquasquicentennial anniversary of his death was 9/11/2001. Masons would be as likely to hold a significant event on an obscure anniversary rather than an obvious one given their side interest in numerologies and symbologies.

Actually, most Masons have zero interest in numerology, and no one now living has any idea of exactly when William Morgan died.

I believe that high-degree masons may be involved in the occult, but I don't really know how well proven that is. Probably not proven at all.

Some Masons are interested in the occult, but most are not. I have long been a srudent of the occult, but I was an occultist long before I became a Mason.

There is something I have strongly against the Masons, which is their seeming policy of dishonesty. I have frequently heard that when you get to the higher levels, you get told things like. Oh, we just told you that on the lower levels, here is the "real truth". And then the real truth changes the higher up you go I suppose until you reach the top wherever that really is.

No such thing is ever said in any degree of Masonry. This misconception usually comes from those who've read the writings of the above quoted Albert Pike. It was Pike's belief that whoever originally wrote the Blue Degrees gave false interpretations of the symbols, and that he (Pike) had discovered their "true" meanings.

This may or may not be the case, but Pike spent almost his entire writing career trying to tell Masons his idea of the "true" meanings, not covering them up or lying about them.

Another thing I have strongly against the Masons is their apparent support of elitism. The whole idea of a 33 degree Mason being a fundamentally better person than a 3rd degree Mason is ridiculous. People can be better at things but the whole concept of simply being better is simply incomplete and nonsensical, as well as insulting and harmful.

A Mason would never say that a 33° member is a "better person" than a third degree Master Mason. The 33° is simply an honor in the Scottish Rite of Masonry, that makes a brother an honorary member of the Supreme Council. It would be sort of like a university granting the students who excel the most the right to graduate with highest honors. It's a noble accomplishment, but doesn't make them better people than those who graduate with a C average.

I guess no one can really judge the masons until they are in them themselves, I think it is the same old rumor situation that gives them a bad name but who knows...

I don't understand why they have to be either friend or foe. Like all demographics there's inevitably good and bad amongst them. Also, any such judgement is a bit meaningless when most of the anti-Mason conspiracies have the caveat that only the 'higher ranking' Masons know the score. That suggests a very small elite and the rest of the Masons in pretty much the same boat as non-Masons.

So, statistically, Freemasons are - even in a conspiracy theorists eyes - the same as everyone else and 'friend' and 'foe' aren't really applicable. In this sense, there's as much point in saying 'check-out girls: friend of foe?' or 'gay baristas: friend of foe?'.

Originally posted by brooklyn87
I guess no one can really judge the masons until they are in them themselves, I think it is the same old rumor situation that gives them a bad name but who knows...

Actually, you'd be surprised how many people "really judge the Masons" without ever joining, much less conducting credible research.

So your initial question is a bit vague. Not that "Masons: Homosexual agenda-furthering, baby-eating, child-prostitution promoting, devil-worshipping tools of the Vatican and the Queen or nice guys who do community service?" is a better question. Or maybe it is.

Ask. Chances are, we'll answer.

Originally posted by brooklyn87
I guess no one can really judge the masons until they are in them themselves, I think it is the same old rumor situation that gives them a bad name but who knows...

I was quite suspicious for several years until I joined.

The reality has been far more boring than what I imagined, although I really enjoy the brotherhood and fellowship.

I haven't felt like I've been misled at all, because nobody has tried to force any belief of convince me of any dogma. Ever.

But, then again, if you believed me then there would be no point to this forum on ATS! :-)

Actually, things have seemed a lot more civil lately and it's kind of enjoyable.

i would have to say, and even this is not fact, that like every other society be it secret or pe will have different levels and some will be more involved in " dirty " work. ive read that there are lots of freemasons that are just that. freemasons, and some are more enlightened than others. but a gain, im not claiming it would or should be taken as truth. being that youve studide this for a long time in depth you probably know more than most do. and on the other hand, who knows. maybe they are all clued in on a secret agenda. i have a friend who is a mason, and i asked him how to join. al you need is a "sponsor" of sorts. so by that i would assume its not a bloodline thing, or only a select few are allowed to join.

I don't think you can really point a finger at the group itself and ask whether it is friend or foe. Like anything in this world i think ultimately it goes back to the human beings actions as in good and evil. that is not i think what may or should portray the group as being either good or evil, its the type of people that are involved. Different people at different times do good just as well as some can do evil. blame individuals not the group as a whole. because of one persons actions doesn't mean everyone associated has the same beliefs or actions...it doesn't justify it. just my thoughts...

[edit on 4-3-2009 by browneyedgirl8]

exactly what i was trying to say. i think just because freemasons have been around for a long time and still nobody really knows everything about them, leaves an air of mystery to them. the whole " you cant blame a group for one members actions" is def appropriate here as well as skull and bones, the grove, or any other "secret society" place, or group. id be more willing to place money on masons as a whole being more on the side of goo seeing that most if not ll (dont take this as fact please) were mid to high level masons, and drafted that wonderful, yet now exempt set of papers we lived by. you remember the constitution and the bill of rights?

my father in law is a mason...i have asked him numerous questions about the "conspiracies" surrounding them. Honestly all they do is help out the communities people in need that sort of thing. I mean he answered all my questions and even showed me their books even though at the moment i can't recall the names. he showed me their bible and how they explain where all their beliefs in freemasonry come from and how it was established. I think people want them to be something sinister...its just too hard to believe in our world with the times the way they are that people may actually want to do good.

right??!! its very easy to tag something or someone sinister if they dont openly give out all theyre info or beliefs anytime somebody asks. when the country was fist started all they did was good, like making sure they made a bill of rights and such. ill lean to the 99% of them are here to do good. until its brought out that the whole group has a hidden evil agenda. my question would be how much a percentage of ANY group has to know about such evil and bad things to make the whole group accountable for said actions or plans? 50%? 73%? 84%? that would be a good thread to start?

your right, i mean lets say the group has 200,000 members and if only 10 or even 200 are really truly doing evil and none of the other members know, do you penalize them as a whole and start conspiracies about the group because of the percentage that does do evil whether it be because of how they think the group should be used or their own personal morals and beliefs. I mean if everyone knew what sinister things they were up to, you think honestly that many people can keep a secret? i really don't think so. even if it was a minuscule amount someone would say something whether they meant to or not.

Originally posted by brooklyn87
I was wondering if anyone has any ideas about the Freemasons and what they think about Stephen Knight who was poisoned and died just two years after publishing "The Brotherhood." in 1983.

Where did you get this info, mate?

He died of a brain tumour, to my knowledge.

just one of those theories apparently, I heard it somewhere, but for the longest time I have heard and read many different horror stories about the Freemasons, not all of them of course but a selected few.