The problem with "masonic secrets" is a misunderstanding by the general public.

There are 'secrets', which consist of words, phrases, handshakes, etc. We can't give these out because we promised not to. Not because they are important but because it's a test of our loyalty to ourselves, our brothers and to God.

I think masonry picks the silliest things for the 'secrets' exactly because revealing them would do absolutely no good. No one would be able to ascertain the least thing about masonry from these things and that's exactly why they are all over the Googlenets.

As far as the 'Secrets' we can't give those to you because it is impossible within the constraints of written or spoken language to transfer them to another person.

The 'Secrets' you are yearning to uncover can't be told, they have to be experienced. I can't give them to you because i am physically, humanly incapable of explaining them in human language.

I would love for everyone to know the 'Secrets' because they are marvelous and uplifting and wonderful, but there is a purpose in the way they are revealed and there is a reason we do things the way we do.

Generations of humans have discovered the true meaning of who we are, where we come from, why we are here and what will happen to us through mystery schools, secret societies, religions and stories. These are the same conclusions masonry helps unveil.

But I can't give them to you. I can't because I am unable to. Each person must learn them on their own.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I'm sure most masons are nice people but how can you trust anyone who delights in keeping secrets?

There's a fundamental flaw with that question. You are assuming that someone with a secret would tell a lie instead of saying "I won't tell you that." That's a bad assumption to make.

If I've been entirely honest in my exchanges on this forum, will you still brand me a liar because there are some things I refuse to tell you? Why would you assume that you could not trust someone in such a situation?

[edit on 3/16/2009 by JoshNorton]

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
All I'm saying is that any society which is promoted as being secret,

That terminology's used by its opponents, not its adherents. Masons (especially here) repeatedly make the point that Freemasonry is a society with secrets, not a secret society. And those secrets are as well known and available as they have been for pushing three centuries.

If it were a true 'secret society', it'd be a pretty miserable failure on the secret front. Any erstwhile "secret" society worth the epithet would hardly have its logo on the side of buildings, now would it? By comparison, before the 2004 U.S. election, how many'd actually heard of S&B?

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
even if those secrets are available in book form, leaves itself open to conspiracy theorists who will always claim that they are hiding something.

You can lead a horse to water......

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Are you really that confident and sure that you're being told everything? Is there no room for there to be hidden secrets which even the mainstream masons don't know about?

I'm quite confident that the degrees for the appendent bodies are of a kind with Craft Masonry because to have a sooper sekret surprize when you get to the 33rd degree (which is Scottish Rite only, I might add) is so ridiculous that it'd have been revealed decades (if not centuries) ago and Freemasonry laid low long before you or I trod the Earth.

The 'sooper sekret surprize' mindset has more to do with C-grade Hollywood summer slasher flicks than reality.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Just imagine the freemasons as a huge business with departments in various cities around the country.

I understand your analogy but Masonry does not have the centralized structure that you describe in your theory. Each lodge is semi-autonomous, only having to answer to the Grand Lodge and each Grand Lodge is fullyautonomous having no other Grand Lodge above itself. Lodge officers are elected and serve for one year, the same for Grand Lodge officers. There is no comparison to a corporate CEO or President who can hold office indefinetly, or at least until the shareholders vote the person out.

The ordinary workers (masonic members) look up at the assistant manager for guidance.

Actually, we are taught to look to God for guidance.

He in turn reports to the manager who in turn reports to the area manager, and so on until you reach the share holders and eventual business owners.

The analogy does not apply again due to the fact that, while the Master may answer to the Distict Deputy and he to the Grand Master, all serve on a limited basis and would mean that every officer in the line would need to carry on the scheme to make this theory work. It becomes very ponderous and obviously not very concealed if each subsequent Master, who is advanced throught the officer's chairs, needed to be 'clued in' of the nefariuos doings and goings-on.

As for the share-holders; the individual Brothers are the true 'share-holders' of the Fraternity. We are what makes it grow and thrive, officers are transient, the membership is enternal.

If we think of a lodge as the city base couldn't you be forgiven for not knowing what the Area manager is up to or has in store for you.

It would be easy to find out what my District Deputy (or 'area manager') may be 'up to', his shedule is published and he travels about the district quite regularly.

And couldn't he in turn be forgiven for not knowing what the share holders are doing. . ?

But I do know, I attend lodge with them at least twice a month.

You seem to be extremely confident that there is no real room for conspiracy but I don't think anyone can be entirely sure of that.

As I said before, could there be Masons working together to further their own ambitions? Certainly. But that is not what Masonry is about and those that join looking for such will find that The Fraternity has little to offer them in this regard.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
I know some on here have said that the secrets you keep aren't ground breaking or serious just a test of whether a person can be trusted, but if that's the case couldn't they be testing you to see if you could keep the real bigger, important, secrets that perhaps only a few know about?

The rationale is not to keep the secrets as a test so that others may offer meritous reward or bestow rank, priviledge or attainment, but as a test to yourself that you can adhere to what you have promised and display character and integrity.

I kind of wonder if it is another case of the male ego thinking they can get together a group of people and have their "special little secrets" and try and change things either for the better or worse? I know it isn't really that simple but just a thought!!

to answer directly: friend or foe? friend.

I really enjoy the architecture of masonic buildings, have a big thing for symbols and occult knowledge, and am also a fan of the type of bond in the fraternity setting.

Before doing any research into Masonry, I was suspicious due to all of the negative imagery and reactions that I came across. Later came a point that I was interested enough that I sought out being petitioned, but nothing ever came of that. My initial interest was in being around and having access to studying history, architecture, and occult symbols when present, but I have realized now that I have a good ability to source out the information I want in books, libraries, ect.

If I were to join ever, it would be for the fellowship and chance to learn from leaders. Really, in my mind, the meetings and gatherings are close to Elks and similar groups, as being familiar with them due to my father. Not that I really know much about Masonic meetings, but this is my perception of it.

This said by a once skeptic.

Remember, a gut reaction to something we don't understand is fear. And fear is lame.

Not fear just confusion, and ideas, I am always up to learning more about this subject, and as you know internet research only goes so far