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.

 

Why do people misidentify persons as being Masons when they are not?

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
 


There has been an ongoing trend among conspiracy theorists to group the majority of politicians and businessmen as members of Freemasonry when they are in fact not a member. This is often used to support theories that there is a preponderance of persons in power who are members of the Fraternity.

The most glaring committal of this act is the often made statement that ‘most Presidents were Masons’. While 14 Presidents have been Masons (15 with Lyndon Johnson who did not go on to become a Master Mason) this percentage is obviously not ‘most’.

Other instances are the inclusion of such person as Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Fidel Castro (among numerous others) whose tyrannical persecutions were and are anathema to what Masonry stands for.

Others lump well known business moguls such as Nelson and David Rockefeller into the Fraternity when there exists no evidence to support this assertion.

Another take on this is to include any person who is believed to be shaking the hand of another in a fashion that the theorist may mistakenly construe as a Masonic grip. This inclusion often does not even take into account the personal beliefs of those being included as even know atheists are placed into the Fraternity by this assumption.

Why would Masons want to hide the affiliation of other United States Presidents if they were in fact Masons? Ronald Reagan is often mentioned as being a member. If he were indeed a Mason why would he not be recognized? He was an immensely popular person both during and after his administrations and would most likely be placed in very high esteem by Masons.

Almost every Mason’s ‘pedigree’ can be accurately traced from his initiation to his raising to the Master Mason degree. Why can no one show evidence to support their claims that the persons in question are Masons? Masons are proud of their past and present members who achieved success and there is no logical reason not to recognize their affiliation.

Why would Masons ‘admit’ to some Presidents/Politicians/Businessmen (even ones with a negative stigma such as Benedict Arnold) as members but not others?

 


[edit on 22-3-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]




posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
The internet is full of throwaway comments. Many people just drop names and are never heard of again, and therefore don't have to answer to their claims. Quite often the dropping of names seems to be a tool to besmirch the fraternity (eg: naming Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler as Masons) and at other times it serves no ascertainable purpose at all (naming Ronald Reagan and the like).

Apart from the former reason (attempting to throw Freemasonry into disrepute in the eyes of the casual or ignorant reader), I have no idea why people do it. It's a mystery to me. Maybe they get a thrill out of appearing as though they know something that others don't... regardless of the veracity of that "knowledge", haha... I mean, this forum regularly plays host to people who claim to be "special" in some way, or possess some kind of secret knowledge. Ra-Cana (Dragon/Lion bloodline guy) and the Parakletos (who has logged in under multiple names) are two prime examples in my mind.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Not sure why. It always astounds me and you pointed out great reasons.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Not sure why, but, as i work in the public sector, before i was a mason i got handshakes that confused me. Oddly, more than once, I was directly asked outright by customers if I was a Mason ! (which i had basically no knowledge of at the time), and after being confused, customers said (well you should be). !?!?!?. Bizzarre, but am now a proud Fellow Craft. Still, really interesting, eh?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
People are always skeptical about people and things they don't understand. The unknown, the secret, the chance to start rumors and spew lies. People are always trying to demonize any idea of a secret. Therefore, they are compelled to attack blindly. The Freemasons are good people and had some members in our Founding Fathers. If they were part of building my good ol' US of A, then they are good in my book. They are some of the most accepting people of freedoms of religion and liberties in general, how is that bad? I for one, am sick of all of the slandering, people do towards the worlds oldest and largest fraternity. They are more like an agent of charity, and I say God Bless all Masons.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by Angel One]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


I thought record of initiation and raising was if the particular Brother was not a cryptic mason.
Line 3



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeyondBelow


I thought record of initiation and raising was if the particular Brother was not a cryptic mason.
Line 3


A Cryptic Mason is a Mason who has received the degrees of Royal Master and Select Master in Councils of the York Rite. In order to qualify for those degrees, one must already have been raised a Master Mason, as well as exalted to the Royal Arch.

All Masonic bodies keep records of all initiations.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Still patiently waiting for someone of the 'anti-Mason' (or non anti- for that matter) persuasion to explain their rationale in including non-Masons in their arguements and stating that they are indeed Masons.

Take the challenge and step up to the plate so that you may educate us on why Masons would want to coverup this information.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by AugustusMasonicus]




top topics



 
9

log in

join