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.

 

Masons all over the money

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Well any way it is spun I find it interesting how masons often times are apparently either disinformed or not in agreement as to which masonic secret societies actually exist and which ones do not. Isn't there a manual for this? Anyhow it just goes to show the obvious power structure of masonry and all other groups alike. Hence it is on a need to know basis and there are many who apparently don't need to know.




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12.21.12
Well any way it is spun I find it interesting how masons often times are apparently either disinformed or not in agreement as to which masonic secret societies actually exist and which ones do not. Isn't there a manual for this?

Nope.

Anyhow it just goes to show the obvious power structure of masonry and all other groups alike. Hence it is on a need to know basis and there are many who apparently don't need to know.
Actually it shows that there's no power structure to masonry, because what's true for my lodge in my state in my country may be entirely different than someone else's somewhere else. Hard for that to be terribly useful for conspiratorial purposes, if you ask me, because half of the groups don't recognize each other for one reason or another.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


The only connection I have with these people is they know that I am spreading telepathic awareness and they were trying to get me away from doing that. Even offering me a rap star postition, because they knew I liked writing rap music. Thats how I know about the masons controlling media.

This states that the masons are a dangerous group of people. But, the God of Jesus Christ is protecting me to spread the word of telepathy. Which goes along with the fact that God is protecting me from people trying to kill me and any others who would help me spread telepathy. Don't go along with the dirty parts of the government and try to get money and things. Know that God protected me from certain death and will do it for anybody else.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by telepathicjon]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by telepathicjon]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
'She' wasn't made in a regular lodge, that's for sure....lol


If she is in fact a mason, she would have been made in an irregular lodge (not recognized by the grand lodge of England ~ because it does not practice true Freemasonry).

Do Freemason conspiracists even consider the difference between regular and irregular lodges?

[edit on 3/13/2009 by Choronzon]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Choronzon
 


You masons really make me laugh the way you try to side track all conversations with your 'Scottish rite' and your mason wrong. Your always saying that its not possible for 'this' or that to happen because its not "recognized" by the GRAND LODGE OF ENGLAND(Thrusts out chest, lifts chin and places fists on hips in Superman fashion).

A police officer is a police officer no matter where they are.

A priest is a priest no matter where they are.

A shriner is a shriner no matter where they are.

A soldier is a soldier no matter where they are.

An American is an American no matter where they are.

A mason is a mason no matter where he/she is.

These people might not be openly performing their duties in whatever title they carry at all times but they are still under the title. Because you ATS mason trolls say its not 'rite' doesn't make all these women, who have obviously taken an oath of honesty and truthfulness like you lot, liars. That is what you are saying here and you should be ashamed for labeling a group of women that stand for ideals that you say you stand for as liars and fabricators. I think the shoe is on the other foot gentlemen. I use that loosely to those with this thinking.

Well its time to wake up guys. We see through your games and its getting extremely boring.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether

I think your analogies are overly general and not very good at supporting your arguement.

A police officer is a police officer no matter where they are.


Unless of course they are a State Police officer and then have no jurisdiction in another state. Or a Military Police officer not being able to arrest civilians.


A priest is a priest no matter where they are.


Is a Roman Catholic Priest the same as a Celtic Priest?


A mason is a mason no matter where he/she is.


I feel that the ancient landmarks of the Fraternity are the sole qualifier for me to recognize whether someone is a Maosn or not. If they adhere to them then, to me, they are a Mason. Since it is a Fraternity and belief in a Supreme Being is required then, for the majority of Masons worldwide women are not recognized.


These people might not be openly performing their duties in whatever title they carry at all times but they are still under the title.


Anyone, anywhere can call themselves whatever they want.


Because you ATS mason trolls


Nothing like a nice ad hominen attack to further your point and display your vast debating skills...


say its not 'rite' doesn't make all these women, who have obviously taken an oath of honesty and truthfulness like you lot, liars.


They did not take the same oaths as we did, as ours specifiaclly precludes, among other things, women.


That is what you are saying here and you should be ashamed for labeling a group of women that stand for ideals that you say you stand for as liars and fabricators.


Perhaps we should degenerate into name-calling as others have done.


I think the shoe is on the other foot gentlemen. I use that loosely to those with this thinking.


I do not think any of the Masons here have advocated a position that places us above women. We are part of a Fraternity which, by its own definition, is a male-only orginization.


Well its time to wake up guys. We see through your games and its getting extremely boring.


If you are so driven to boredom then why continue to post? I am sure you can find other activities other then pot-stirring.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 




These people might not be openly performing their duties in whatever title they carry at all times but they are still under the title.


You forgot to read the above there Augustus. My father knew a lot of priests and most of them didn't wear anything to indicate they were priests. But when someone would find out they would become the way they would normally be with a man of the clergy. Whatever that feeling or way of acting may be, when you generally find out at the onset of meeting someone that they are a priest then you would be acting according this whether he has the neck piece of not. The Human psyche..

As to the police officer. Imagine that a police officer in Washington goes on a trip to California and doesn't wear his uniform. Now while he is in a bank and just leaves he notices that someone is holding up the bank and that only one CA police officer is there and the crooks are coming out. He identifies himself to the CA police officer with ID and then the CA police officer deputizes him to allow him to assist with the crooks. The CA police can also deputize an ORDINARY citizen to do the same thing.

An American is just that an American. You can't just come out and say 'I don't want to be an American' and then your NOT an American. Not that easy... Same thing for any country actually, even Canadians can't just come out and say "I'm don't want to be Cdn' and then you NOT a CDN. Even if you say these things you still have to pay taxes to your government, you still must provide data for their Census, you still have to report for Jury duty. That leads to the last statement...



A mason is a mason no matter where he/she is.


No matter what lodge your with, be it Scottish, Blue, Purple, Scarlet, Amazing or whatever, you are recognized as a mason. This should be quite evident by the amount of masons within the global hierarchy that flash each other symbols and shake each others hands using the masonic handshake. Even leaving this out of the equation for lack of something to have jumped on, a mason is a mason away from home and doesn't shed the coat just because he's away from the temple. If a US mason is on vacation to the UK and has friends there that are masons, would you not be accepted at their lodge during an appropriate group get together? I think you may be invited because of your 'masonic' links to a lodge.

So, as to your statement of me being very generalized.... I think not, you must think out of the box and not as a mason. Thinking like a mason can lead to logic not making much sense.




They did not take the same oaths as we did, as ours specifiaclly precludes, among other things, women.


I understand that you didn't take the same oath and that makes sense. But does that mean they didn't take an oath of trust and honesty with Freemasonry?

If I may use your logic....

1. Your oaths etc are different within your own lodge by degrees. Meaning masons level 1-3 would take one oath and levels 4 and above take others oaths. I could be wrong it could be 1-2 and 3 up.... You get the idea though... so within your own lodge or temple you have different oaths depending on the members level. I got this from a High Level mason post... I'll try to find it....

2. The oath that is made in the Blue lodge is different than the one that is given in a Scottish lodge. They would use different words etc...

3. These women that have taken an oath of freemasonry within the US and abroad perform in the same manner as your lodge does I bet.

So, now the questions...

If the women are not masons because they swore an oath that is somehow not recognized by other masons, does that mean they're not masons? If it does, then in scenario one, the first level mason isn't a mason because he swears another oath than the higher levels. Hell, the lowlevelmason could even say the higher one aren't truly mason because they state a different oath.

How about scenario two. If your from the Blue lodge and meet a Scottish lodge member is he not a mason because he made a different oath? Doesn't appear to be the way with our diplomatic officials who do the mason handshakes... acknowledging their duty to Freemasonry..

How about scenario three. If these women are presented to your lodge from out of country and they are with a group of male masons, would you not pay them the same courtesy or would you cast them out because YOUR lodge and oaths state something different than the others? Would you laugh at them and call them liars for calling themselves masons like all you masons do?

So, in summary I believe I've shown that those are not generalities and lead to understanding that just because you take off a uniform or some other identifying feature doesn't mean that you can turn it off. It also means you can benefit from making it known of your position. This benefit from being a mason is a good example of what is known as treason. But because they are a brotherhood that can cross all lines, even battle lines and show this brotherhood. Yet they cannot even acknowledge that these women are their equals within the freemasonry cult and should be shown the same respect shown there so-called brothers.

This isn't pot stirring mister mason, I'm merely responding in reference to the OP which states that there are women masons. Many mason have stated in SOME way that they are not masons... Because of the Blue this or Scottish that... when I'm telling everyone it doesn't matter about what 'rite' they belong they are 'wrong' and are masons. Like my big example above, you just can't say they are and 'poof' they aren't..... Reality doesn't work like that...

Thanks for the great reply.

Rgds



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I would like to add that I am still interested in hearing more of what the original poster has to say as soon as the debunkers of the OP's story are now through with their games trying to disprove him or deny him any credibility for the very same thing that none seem to agree on "women in masonry" so now we are going to dismiss what he says because it came from the mouth of a woman?

So in conclusion there is some obvious pot stirring going on because the original poster might know more than what he posted on this board so the masons immediately respond by trying to "debunk" him, yet do not agree wether or not women can become a part of masonry.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Guys, you're arguing the stupidest of semantics.

The bottom line is:

1. Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation. This means that it is for blokes/males/men. Being a bloke/male/man is a prerequisite for membership.

2. Various co-masonic, quasi-masonic, or pseudo-masonic organisations have been formed over the years, some with women as members, some have been mentioned in this thread. The members of these groups are not regular, recognised Freemasons because of their mambership in these groups. I can go around saying that I am the Emperor of the Galaxy, or the freaking Parakletos. Doesn't mean I am. I should also note that, just because the members of these groups aren't recognised as being Freemasons, doesn't necessarily mean that they are disdained by Masonry in any way. They're just not Freemasons. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, or that they're "not good enough".

3. If you guys want to think of these co-masonic/quasi-masonic/pseudo-masonic organisations as being comprised of Freemasons, go absolutely nuts. The governing charter of the latter organisation says that they're not. Simple as that.

Having said all that: Think whatever the hell you want. Doesn't matter to me.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether


These people might not be openly performing their duties in whatever title they carry at all times but they are still under the title.


You forgot to read the above there Augustus. My father knew a lot of priests and most of them didn't wear anything to indicate they were priests. But when someone would find out they would become the way they would normally be with a man of the clergy. Whatever that feeling or way of acting may be, when you generally find out at the onset of meeting someone that they are a priest then you would be acting according this whether he has the neck piece of not. The Human psyche..


Your father's aquiantance of priests and the publics reaction to them is not relevant to the conversation and I fail to see the analogy.


As to the police officer. Imagine that a police officer in Washington goes on a trip to California and doesn't wear his uniform. Now while he is in a bank and just leaves he notices that someone is holding up the bank and that only one CA police officer is there and the crooks are coming out. He identifies himself to the CA police officer with ID and then the CA police officer deputizes him to allow him to assist with the crooks. The CA police can also deputize an ORDINARY citizen to do the same thing.


By this very arguement you have demonstrated the fallacy of the analogy. A out-of-state police officer has the same amount of authority as a person residing in the state he is visiting. They both can do nothing until having the deputitzation bestowed upon them.


An American is just that an American. You can't just come out and say 'I don't want to be an American' and then your NOT an American. Not that easy...


In acutality you can. It is called renouncing your American Citizenship. Granted you need to sign a document reiterating your stance but it is permanent and once completed you are no longer considered an American.




A mason is a mason no matter where he/she is.


No matter what lodge your with, be it Scottish, Blue, Purple, Scarlet, Amazing or whatever, you are recognized as a mason. This should be quite evident by the amount of masons within the global hierarchy that flash each other symbols and shake each others hands using the masonic handshake.


A handshake does not make a person a Mason in my, and the majority of Masons worldwide, opinion. Adherence to the Ancient Landmarks of the Fraternity is the prime qualifier.


Even leaving this out of the equation for lack of something to have jumped on, a mason is a mason away from home and doesn't shed the coat just because he's away from the temple. If a US mason is on vacation to the UK and has friends there that are masons, would you not be accepted at their lodge during an appropriate group get together? I think you may be invited because of your 'masonic' links to a lodge.


While this may be tru for visiting the United Kingdom and certain other countries there is not mutual recognition worldwide owing to certain jurisdictions not abiding by the aforementioned Ancient Landmarks.

I can not just attend any lodge of my choosing as their, or my lodge, may not have mutual recognition. Nor would I want to attend a lodge where the Ancient Landmarks are not being observed.


So, as to your statement of me being very generalized.... I think not, you must think out of the box and not as a mason. Thinking like a mason can lead to logic not making much sense.


You are, and continue to be general, and I can not fault your too greatly for this as your knowledge of Masonry is minimal at best and you do not understand the principles behind the Fraternity and why we, as Masons, adhere to them.

It has nothing to do about thinking 'outside the box' but observance of tradition. Either it is done or it is not.


I understand that you didn't take the same oath and that makes sense. But does that mean they didn't take an oath of trust and honesty with Freemasonry?


They may have taken an oath but it was certainly not the same as mine and I can not comment on its contents as I am not aware of their contents. But, by its very nature, it must be different from the one the myself and the other Masons on this board have taken.


If I may use your logic....

1. Your oaths etc are different within your own lodge by degrees. Meaning masons level 1-3 would take one oath and levels 4 and above take others oaths. I could be wrong it could be 1-2 and 3 up.... You get the idea though... so within your own lodge or temple you have different oaths depending on the members level. I got this from a High Level mason post... I'll try to find it....

This is correct to a point. The oaths taken in the Blue Lodge are not superceded by any subsequent oaths you may elect to take and are the ones we refer to when the talk of oaths arises.


3. These women that have taken an oath of freemasonry within the US and abroad perform in the same manner as your lodge does I bet.


Similar yes, the same, definetly not.


So, now the questions...

If the women are not masons because they swore an oath that is somehow not recognized by other masons, does that mean they're not masons?


To me they are not Masons, but to themselves and their lodge they are whatever they wish to call themselves. We have no authority over any group calling themselves Masons, only on whether we opt to recognize them as such.


If it does, then in scenario one, the first level mason isn't a mason because he swears another oath than the higher levels. Hell, the lowlevelmason could even say the higher one aren't truly mason because they state a different oath.


A man is considered a Mason after taking the Entered Apprentice oath and is such even if he fails to continue through the remaining two degrees.


How about scenario two. If your from the Blue lodge and meet a Scottish lodge member is he not a mason because he made a different oath?


A Scottish Rite Mason has taken the same Blue Lodge oaths that I have taken and his additonal particpation in appendant degrees does not eliminate his adherence to these original three oaths.


Doesn't appear to be the way with our diplomatic officials who do the mason handshakes... acknowledging their duty to Freemasonry..


You seem at times utterly willing to understand the Fratenrity and its members but then you make ridiculous statments like these. I am surprised you did not get a Baphomet or Molech mention in there as well.


How about scenario three. If these women are presented to your lodge from out of country and they are with a group of male masons, would you not pay them the same courtesy or would you cast them out because YOUR lodge and oaths state something different than the others? Would you laugh at them and call them liars for calling themselves masons like all you masons do?


This scenario would not occur as visitations from out of the country, and out of state in most cases, are arranged by your lodge Secretary. He would know that they are not part of regular Masonry and they would not have been able to gain admittance to the lodge in the first place.


So, in summary I believe I've shown that those are not generalities and lead to understanding that just because you take off a uniform or some other identifying feature doesn't mean that you can turn it off.


Masonry is not an occuaption and is instead a lesiure activity that takes aplces within the framework of a charitable institution, so you can in fact, 'turn it off'. You attend when you can and do not when you can not.


It also means you can benefit from making it known of your position. This benefit from being a mason is a good example of what is known as treason. But because they are a brotherhood that can cross all lines, even battle lines and show this brotherhood.


Other Bretheren have answered this remark already and it does not need further additions from myself.


Yet they cannot even acknowledge that these women are their equals within the freemasonry cult and should be shown the same respect shown there so-called brothers.


If it was so 'cult'-like as you say, do you not think we would take any and all comers?


This isn't pot stirring mister mason,


I beg to differ and please capitalize the M's from now on if you are going to refer to me as Mister.


I'm merely responding in reference to the OP which states that there are women masons.


There are, I never said there were not any.


Many mason have stated in SOME way that they are not masons... Because of the Blue this or Scottish that...


No, once again, it has to do with the Ancient Landmarks, either you observe them and are a Mason or you do not, and are considered irregular or clandestine.


when I'm telling everyone it doesn't matter about what 'rite' they belong they are 'wrong' and are masons.


But sadly for you you do not have any say in what Masonry does and therefore your opinion is just that.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether

1. Your oaths etc are different within your own lodge by degrees. Meaning masons level 1-3 would take one oath and levels 4 and above take others oaths. I could be wrong it could be 1-2 and 3 up.... You get the idea though... so within your own lodge or temple you have different oaths depending on the members level. I got this from a High Level mason post... I'll try to find it....

2. The oath that is made in the Blue lodge is different than the one that is given in a Scottish lodge. They would use different words etc...


But it seems to me like you're trying separate Scottish Rite Masons from Blue Lodge Masons, which can't be done. *All* Masons are Blue Lodge Masons, and have taken the same obligations.

To use myself as an example, I became a Master Mason in the Blue Lodge, just like all other Masons. I then joined the Scottish Rite, and am currently a 32° KCCH of that Rite. I also joined the York Rite, and became a Royal Arch Mason, Cryptic Mason, and Knight Templar. In all of these other degrees I took additional obligations, but the original ones still stand.



If the women are not masons because they swore an oath that is somehow not recognized by other masons, does that mean they're not masons? If it does, then in scenario one, the first level mason isn't a mason because he swears another oath than the higher levels. Hell, the lowlevelmason could even say the higher one aren't truly mason because they state a different oath.


The high degree Mason has taken all the obligations that the lower degree Mason has taken, and they are therefore bound by the same obligations.


How about scenario two. If your from the Blue lodge and meet a Scottish lodge member is he not a mason because he made a different oath? Doesn't appear to be the way with our diplomatic officials who do the mason handshakes... acknowledging their duty to Freemasonry.


Masonic handshakes are ceremonial, and are only supposed to be given within a tyled Lodge. I know of hardly any of our "diplomatic officials" who are Masons. But back to your question, all Scottish Rite Masons are also Blue Lodge Masons, so the same rules apply.


How about scenario three. If these women are presented to your lodge from out of country and they are with a group of male masons, would you not pay them the same courtesy or would you cast them out because YOUR lodge and oaths state something different than the others? Would you laugh at them and call them liars for calling themselves masons like all you masons do?


Let's look back at your examples of priests and policemen. I'm not a policeman, and even if I dress up like one and wear badge, I still wouldn't be a real policeman. If I tried to pass myself off as a cop, I could be arrested for impersonating a police officer. I'm not a priest either. I could easily don a black shirt and a clerical collar, and tell people I was a priest, but I would only be acting out in make believe.

This is what happens in female Masonry. Suppose you and a group of your friends took a book of Masonic ritual like "Duncan's Monitor", and began "initiating" people into your group using it. You are not a Mason, and the people you were intiating would not be Masons, regardless of what sort of oaths you had your candidates take, or what ceremonies you perform. This is the difference between regular Freemasonry and the fake groups, which is as you can see, a pretty big difference.



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Oi Vey! Another nameless soul taking pot shots at the Masions cos they knew someone who knew someone who said they over heard something in a bar one time.

I have to feel for the Masons who brave this site! Others ignorance must be eliminated!

Go pick on the Knights of Columbus for a bit!!!!



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 


The KoC is another secret society like the masons that do not belong... If you noticed the above, you will see that mister mason... I mean both of the masons above have agreed that to what I'd stated. That they would use some type of disagreement between the blue lodge and orange lodge and the scottish lodge etc to make all the info I've included buried. Just another thing to make those reading this thread not want to.

As to the handshake being ceremonial... you have a ceremony everytime you meet your fellow masons? I realize that is one reason for the handshake, which is evident in the handshake that Reagan gave to Russian President during one of his accord signings here. So, I believe you there mister mason, that is true that they use for ceremonial occasions.

As to capitalizing mason... that is a word that signifies a group not a person that would be worth capitalizing on....

Rgds



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
I mean both of the masons above have agreed that to what I'd stated.
That they would use some type of disagreement between the blue lodge and orange lodge and the scottish lodge etc to make all the info I've included buried.


Our rebuttals do not make your opinions 'buried', they make them incorrect.


Just another thing to make those reading this thread not want to.


So people should only read threads where you feel you are correct?


As to the handshake being ceremonial... you have a ceremony everytime you meet your fellow masons?


No, I have never met another Mason by the way they shake my hand, it is almost always by noticing a ring, car decal or some other overt indentifier.


I realize that is one reason for the handshake, which is evident in the handshake that Reagan gave to Russian President during one of his accord signings here. So, I believe you there mister mason, that is true that they use for ceremonial occasions.


Are you now saying the President Reagan and the Soviet Premier were both Masons? Interesting....of which lodges were they members? With your vast and intimate knowledge of Freemasonry I am certain you can provide this answer rather quickly.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 


At last thank you, because something doesn't fit into certain peoples orders, or the rite's of their lodges, does not mean it does not exist.

Even right here where I live, there are a group (not masons) wont go into too many details, but non the less, very similar, anyhow this group, led by a self professed wannabe leader, think because they are not involved in the ritual and secrets of certain other groups, that they don't exist, or are a bunch of loonies, yet he and his group are surrounded by many of them, because he cant get to their secrets, he sets out to destroy them.

Truth be known, this supposed leader, was indeed invited several months ago, to participate in a ritual, to open his eyes that he needed to stop his games of spreading rumour and lies, he made an excuse not to take part, made it out that he just needed a small amount of time so he could commit himself, in reality, he became afraid that his lies would be discovered, so set off on a campaign of deception, which was very much expected, the guy even decimated his family to get a high priestess who he made his partner, we are talking a wannabe Alistair Crowley, sad thing is he believes he has pulled the wool over everyones eyes, he is even trying to join the local council of faiths, even they are starting to avoid him like the plague.

My point is, because rules ban certain people because of what ever reason, all they do is alienate themselves, what they don't know is a lot more than they do know, there are many Female masons, those orders who forbid their membership are just missing out, and misguided.

As for the masons ruling the World from behind the scenes, sorry, never happen, those who claim it has, well they know zero, nothing, and should continue that way IMO.

And the guy who has his little order I was talking about, well he has torn his own life apart, sad thing is he hasn't the balls to admit it, and continues his quest for power even today.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by telepathicjon
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


The only connection I have with these people is they know that I am spreading telepathic awareness and they were trying to get me away from doing that. E


I'd like to get you away from spreading 'spreading telepathic awareness' too, telepathicjon. Does that make me a Mason, rap label owner, member of BigPharma or what?



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by Jkd Up
 

Just another thing to make those reading this thread not want to.


Actually, the thing that really made me want to stop reading this thread was your oversimplistic post about "a police officer is a police officer" and "an American is an American wherever they are" and so on, and the fact that at least four people out there thought it warranted a star. That, and the boring nature of people going on and on about the same things - things that have already been discussed and addressed countless times. It must suck for the masons to have to deny the ignorance of so many others so often...

I keep coming back to this thread, however, in the hopes that telepathicjon will have posted again, spreading more of his telepathic awareness. How fascinating that god has called on him to do that... I wonder how that works exactly.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 12.21.12
 

What are you rambling on about?


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
A mason is a mason no matter where he/she is.

Co-ed Lodges are not recognized by a majority of the Grand Lodges. You should do some research on 'irregular' or 'clandestine Lodges'.


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Because you ATS mason trolls say its not 'rite' doesn't make all these women, who have obviously taken an oath of honesty and truthfulness like you lot, liars.

It makes them liars if they say they are Scottish Rite Masons. The only recognized co-ed body of Freemasonry is the Order of the Eastern Star.


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Well its time to wake up guys. We see through your games and its getting extremely boring.

So we are to take your defamation as fact?


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
No matter what lodge your with, be it Scottish, Blue, Purple, Scarlet, Amazing or whatever, you are recognized as a mason.

Not clandestine Lodges.


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
If a US mason is on vacation to the UK and has friends there that are masons, would you not be accepted at their lodge during an appropriate group get together? I think you may be invited because of your 'masonic' links to a lodge.

You still have to prove your a Mason that is recognized by their Grand Lodge and your Grand Lodge has to recognize them. And many don't realize that some European Grand Lodges require American Masons to have the York Rite degrees/orders before they can visit.


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
If the women are not masons because they swore an oath that is somehow not recognized by other masons, does that mean they're not masons?

They don't use the same customs.


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Scenarios 1 and 2

You really don't understand Freemasonry.


Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
How about scenario three.

Holding to your scenario none of them would be allowed into Lodge because we would look up their Lodge and see that we do not recognize them for being a co-ed Lodge. We'd ask them to leave and go on with the night.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AllTiedTogether
 

Reagan was not a Mason. The last Mason who became President was Gerald Ford.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join