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 and conspiracy theories

page: 23
0
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:
Cug

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Well, why did you use two satanic pagan examples that the Illuminati created?

Easter, Astar, Ishtar. Goddess.

Santa Claus =Satan Lucas. Nick is a Nick name (ooh, nick names are of occult origin) for Satan.


You know anyone can change wikipedia to say Akilles started the Illuminati.. Hummmm Why do you have Kill in your username? Talk about hidding in plain sight!



There could not have been an occult revival in the 20th century if it hadn't been well planned.


If it was well planned why did it self destruct? I guess our dark overlords need to take a class on group dynamics!




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
Here is a major problem I see in this area of ATS. Freemasons who respond to us make hard generalizations about masonary but then admit that they do not know about, for example, certain symbols in Australia at Masonic Lodges. Course you can't make generalizations then if Freemasonary differs in other countries.


Practically all of the symbols in every jurisdiction are in common. It is this universality that allows independent Grand Lodges to recognize each other as legitimate Masonic organizations. Concerning symbolism, I had stated earlier that an obelisk is not a Masonic symbol, which is the truth. From a theoretical viewpoint, it could have been adopted as a symbol by our Masonic forefathers if they'd wanted it; after all, obelisks have been very popular in architecture for a long time, and architecture is intimately connected to Masonry. Furthermore, I personally don't have anything against obelisks, nor am I opposed to Masons or anybody else constructing them. My point was simply that this form of architecture is not used as a symbol in our Fraternity, regardless if a few Australian Lodges have them as decoration.


Further, just to spit the tired old, dogmatic logic that you guys love back into your faces, here is an argument by analogy which I hate to subject practical people to, but here goes... I am a member of the military which houses 60, 000 strong and there is no way I would sit on an internet forum and say that I am qualified to debunk conspiracy theory related to it... I have no idea what the mandate is with the upper ranks, and I would never pretend to know.


I don't think that this argument from analogy works in this situation, although, of course, as a Neo-Platonist, I think analogous arguments are indispensable, and not impractical at all!


The reason I don't think the analogy works is because Freemasonry and the military are extremely different organizations, and are analogous. For example, you are certainly correct that those in boot camp, and those who have become privates, have no real knowledge of decisions made at the top of the military hierarchy. But this cannot be compared to Masonry because every member has a right to be present at all Grand Lodge proceedings; further he has right to know what is the agenda beforehand, in order to voice his concerns to his Lodge representatives, who will cast the votes for the Lodge.

To illustrate how Masonry works, Grand Lodges usually meet annually for the transaction of business. It is the duty of the District Deputy Grand Master to visit each Lodge in his jurisdiction beforehand, and elaborate what is on the agenda for the year, so the membership is informed.

Further, all members are allowed to be present at the annual meeting, and each have a voice. In my jurisdiction, each Lodge has three votes on every subject in Grand Lodge, with three official representatives: the Worshipful Master, Senior Warden, and Junior Warden. If only one of these officers can attend, he casts all three votes for the Lodge. If none of these officers can attend, a member of the Lodge can be appointed Warden Pro Tempore, and cast the votes for the Lodge.

All Grand Lodge proceedings and minutes are published annually. One copy is given free to each Lodge in the jurisdiction, and individual members may purchase private copies. Large public libraries also order copies, and non-Masons may check them out if they are interested.

In Masonry, all authority is held by the Craft at large, through the Electorate. The Grand Master, who is the highest ranking Masonic official, is only an elected officer, chosen by the universal suffrage of his Brethren, and when his term expires, he will return to being just a normal member like everyone else.

The military does not allow all of its members to attend every meeting, nor does it allow them to vote on policy. Therefore, the analogy between the military hierarchy and the Masonic democracy cannot be valid.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Sorry, I disagree and think the analogy holds.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
Sorry, I disagree and think the analogy holds.


Masonic Light has a point in that the Masons elect their leaders whereas in the military you don't...Do I need to explain more??



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
Sorry, I disagree and think the analogy holds.


Then please elaborate.
In Freemasonry every Mason gets a vote on decisions affecting his Lodge.
As ML has stated, every Lodge gets three votes on decisions affecting Grand Lodge.
Anything that needs to be, is put to the floor and democratically voted on. That can range from what we are having to eat at dinner to who sits as Master.

Since when does a Private in the Army get a say in overall military policy? Come to think of it, when does a Private get a vote on the decisions made within his platoon?

Every Lodge receives a newsletter informing them of what is going on within Freemasonry, every month. These communications are specifically read out during a period in the Lodge called "Risings".
Every Freemason receives a monthly notice of what is happeing in his Lodge.
Information is not only there, it is given at every single meeting. To cap that, we have readings of the Minutes of the last Lodge meeting so that we are doubly informed of what is going on and any brother who was unable to attend is then brought up to date.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
Sorry, I disagree and think the analogy holds.


ML provided multiple conclusive examples. How about you do the same?

Don't make me get Axeman to stick a picture of a troll on here for ya.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
Sorry, I disagree and think the analogy holds.


To begin with, you are one of the few people on this forum who oppose Masonry that I respect. Our argument on Plato showed that you weren't just another kid on his parents' computer fascinated by internet garbage, but that you're a thinker.

Therefore, forgive me if I expect more from you than akilles or the others, but I think you'd expect the same type of argument from me also, viz., I would expect the others to just make a fleeting statement like the above, refuse to defend it, and then quietly move on to something else.

So I would ask you to answer this question: how can the analogy hold if the bases of the two institutions are so radically different? You have conceded, and I have agreed, that in the military, decisions are made by officials, which must be carried out by the rank and file, sometimes without full knowledge of the ecisions or their purposes. In Masonry, however, everything concerning Masonry must be approved by the general membership.

A better analogy of Masonry would be with the Constitution of the United States (and it is no accident that the US Constitution resembles the various Grand Lodge Constitutions). Each Grand Lodge is restricted by its Constitution in the same manner that the US government is restricted by the US Constitution. The rule of law applies in Masonry, and cannot be circumvented without due process.

If the Grand Master wants to amend the Grand Lodge Constitution, he must first make his formal proposal before Grand Lodge in regular session, and the Craft must either approve or reject it.

This type of government is much different from the military one, in which leaders have authority to make decisions without the approval of subordinates; in Masonry, the word "subordinate" doesn't even have real meaning, since every member is a Brother Mason and an equal, not only in theory, but in Masonic government. The newly made Brother has one vote, and the Most Worshipful Grand Master has one vote.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Freemasonry is partly a smokescreen for those who created it. It was not meant to be understood, but to keep us fixated on trying to understand it and distracted from the secret lodges which don't waste time on the "ancient wisdom" claptrap.

One such secret lodge is the Cuatuor Coronati, which ran cover for those who committed the Ripper murders so that the "canonical 5" victims would be found in places which traced out a pentagram, and whose center lies in an interesting relationship to the east end of St. Paul's Cathedral. It was an announcement of the dawn of the age of Satan. The same lodge is involved in running the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which threatens to unleash an "apocalypse."

The perpetrators were probably the original Golden Dawn, which split off into other groups and became the basis for mass recruitment into Satanism, etc. Aleister Crowley led this group afterward, and he wrote a piece entitled Jack the Ripper (which is on the internet) to help create confusion, which is the function of most of his writings.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by deorbiting
Freemasonry is partly a smokescreen for those who created it. It was not meant to be understood, but to keep us fixated on trying to understand it and distracted from the secret lodges which don't waste time on the "ancient wisdom" claptrap.

One such secret lodge is the Cuatuor Coronati, which ran cover for those who committed the Ripper murders so that the "canonical 5" victims would be found in places which traced out a pentagram, and whose center lies in an interesting relationship to the east end of St. Paul's Cathedral. It was an announcement of the dawn of the age of Satan. The same lodge is involved in running the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which threatens to unleash an "apocalypse."

The perpetrators were probably the original Golden Dawn, which split off into other groups and became the basis for mass recruitment into Satanism, etc. Aleister Crowley led this group afterward, and he wrote a piece entitled Jack the Ripper (which is on the internet) to help create confusion, which is the function of most of his writings.



I'll ask you the same question that I ask every person who posts things like this as fact:

Where is your conclusive evidence to back this up?
What makes you qualified to be stating these things as fact?

Keep in mind that I am not calling you a liar or saying you're full of it, I just want to know why I should believe you.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
After the politeness and cordiality I have witnessed by masons on this site, the only masons I have ever met and after seeing the twisted mentality of many people who present masons as a sinister plot to ruin the world I have to say I stand by the masons.

There are also two different things being talked about. One is a club for men that help build moral charachter and better creatures to serve the communities around them. To gain knowledge about life and to live a life of knowledge. This sounds great and I wish I could be a part of it.

The other is the sinister plots of men in small circles with secret plots. Take note that if the masons were some sinister group all working together it would not be possible. If it is a group of men working in secret to ruin the world they must be a small group and that group is not the masons...sorry a friend is at the door I gotta go.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Leveller, even if I proved Bacon wrote Shakespeare, and partially translated the King James version, you would still not concede that he had a hand in writing the rituals.

So really, you are distracting people from the truth.

He DID write Shakespeare (they found an original script for one of Shakespeare's plays in Bacon's portfolio, and there are letters where he is alluding to the characters in said plays).

Shakespeare's collective works was released 10 years after he died, enough time for SOMEONE to actually finishing writing it.

Why is the 33rd degree in the Scottish Rite called a Governing Degree?
And this is said of elected Grand Masters:
"Many persons suppose that the election of a Grand Master is held in consequence of a law or regulation of a Grand Lodge. Such, however, is not the case."

As for who is on the list of translators of the KJV, Shakespeare isn't on their either, although all the greatest poets and scholars of the time were involved.

So much better than the seal-lik'er jokes provided by y'all, I give you the definitive in Shakespeare's Anagrams:
William Shakespeare: I'll make a Wise Phrase

William Shakespeare: We all make his praise

Heads or Tails?- I herald a toss!

Pentium Processor- Computerises Porn

Evangelist-Evil’s Agent

William Shakespeare's birthday :
April's skies, we may hail the Bard

Romeo And Juliet:
One JILTED Amour.

You know it would take a mind like Bacon's to write arcane Rites, such as those belonging to Freemasonry. You make him sound busy, he was. He was just doing more than some of you can apparently imagine.
ImAgInE, mEAnIng, EnIgmA.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
First, thanks ML, it takes a lot on here for people to actually get along and be civil. As for my brief post, I simply don't want to fight about this anymore, that is why I am stepping back. I hope one thing is clear: I am playing the Devil's Advocate. Do I think that Freemasonary is evil and at the heart of a conspiracy? I can't say either way. Some days I think it is part of the whole recruiting process, some days totally not. Something I have been holding back the whole time: one major reason for my suspicion is not from books or headline news, but from personal experience. In my province, I have friends who are Masons and they are high up in Government. In my circle, and it is a big circle, Freemasonary appears like a fashionable, necessary consituent of any semi-important to important persons networking reportoire. In that way, I think people around my circle join for the wrong reasons, in the Kantian sense


I won't post links, but they are on the net: some of these people are now in jail. Not saying it has anything to do with Freemasonary, but these people are not very pleasant and forthcoming. Thus, my experience with Masons on a personal level, aside from all the conspiracy flying around, has not been very good. I certainly am not going to make a hasty generalization and say that all Masons are blah blah. The test will be if the Masons actually let them practice again. If they do, it will contradict a lot of what has been said here by Masons. We are talking major crimes, but they got off easy.

Have a good day.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by freudling]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by freudling
I won't post links, but they are on the net: some of these people are now in jail. Not saying it has anything to do with Freemasonary, but these people are not very pleasant and forthcoming.
Thus, my experience with Masons on a personal level, aside from all the conspiracy flying around, has not been very good. I certainly am not going to make a hasty generalization and say that all Masons are blah blah. The test will be if the Masons actually let them practice again. If they do, it will contradict a lot of what has been said here by Masons. We are talking major crimes, but they got off easy.


You DID state it was a big circle of friends, but WHY call them friends at all? I don't know what these guys did but, if it's as bad as you say, they will surely not be allowed to return to the lodge upon their release from jail. As brothers, they do not reflect well on the fraternity. I'm glad you won't generalize all masons based on your friends... whether they be two low-lifes or someone like Albert Pike or Albert Mackey, no one person (or group of persons) speaks for the fraternity as a whole.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Leveller, even if I proved Bacon wrote Shakespeare, and partially translated the King James version, you would still not concede that he had a hand in writing the rituals.




Well, as you can't even prove the first two, I think that you're right for once. I wouldn't concede to you.

shakespeareauthorship.com...

Bacon is only one of many names pulled out of the hat regarding Shakespeare's work. He has no more credence than any of the other claims which themselves are highly dubious. In fact, as I've already pointed out to you, Bacon is even more unlikely to have been involved as his own workload regarding his own studies was immense.
The argument that Shakespeares work being released after his death justifies the involvement of Bacon, is pointless. A lot of Bacon's own work wasn't released until after his death. Again this would point to Bacon's massive workload - he was literally working on a rewriting of science and nature that he probably could never have finished, even if he started writing at an early age. Not a study that gave him much time for creating plays.

As for the KJV Bible. As I've already stated, there is actually a list available of those who were involved in the editing. Six companies of translators were created, two each at Westminster, Cambridge and Oxford, and forty-seven men named to these companies.

The First Westminister Company translated the historical books, beginning with Genesis and ending with the Second Book of Kings.

Dr. Lancelot Andrews
Dr. John Overall
Dr. Hadrian Saravia
Dr. Richard Clarke, Dr. John Laifield, Dr. Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffry King, Richard Thompson
Dr. William Bedwell


The Cambridge Company translated Chronicles to the end of the Song of Songs.

Edward Lively, Dr. John Richardson, Dr. Lawrence Chaderton
Francis Dillingham, Dr. Roger Andrews, Thomas Harrison, Dr. Robert Spaulding, Dr. Andrew Bing


The Oxford Company translated beginning of Isaiah to the end of the Old Testament.

Dr. John Harding, Dr. John Reynolds
Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr. Richard Kilby
Dr. Miles Smith, Dr. Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough


The Second Oxford Company translated the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine.

Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dr. George Abbot
Dr. Richard Eedes, Dr. Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile
Dr. John Peryn, Dr. Ralph Ravens, Dr. John Harmar


The Fifth Company of Translators at Westminster translated all of the Epistles of the New Testament

Dr. William Barlow, Dr. John Spencer, Dr. Roger Fenton, Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson


The Sixth Company of Translators at Cambridge translated the apocryphal books.

Dr. John Duport, Dr. William Brainthwaite, Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe
Dr. Samuel Ward
Dr. Andrew Downes, John Bois
Dr. John Ward, Dr. John Aglionby, Dr. Leonard Hutten
Dr. Thomas Bilson, Dr. Richard Bancroft


Where is Sir Francis Bacon's name? It's not there. Bacon was one of the most famous philosophers of his time. It's hard to believe that if he was involved, that he wouldn't merit a mention.
One major point. Bacon couldn't understand Hebrew or Greek - Latin yes, but the words that the actual translation was taken from was as foreign to him as common sense is to you. So not only would he not have had the time. Not only is there no evidence for his being involved. But he couldn't even do the job anyway.

So there you go akilles. Prove the first two before you prove the third. I highly doubt you can even make a convincing argument, let alone prove anything.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
As for who is on the list of translators of the KJV, Shakespeare isn't on their either, although all the greatest poets and scholars of the time were involved.




I couldn't leave this one alone!!!

How would Shakespeare be on the list anyway if he never wrote his plays as you claim?

"Shakespeare wasn't an author but he wrote the Bible".

Well...duh.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
The reason i didnt reply to you DOTM is because the answer you gave sounded scripted, like some expected diatribe.

This thread seems to be full of straw-men and puppet masters, used to confuse more than educate.

To deny ignorance in a swamp of truths, half- truths, half lies and lies is impossible.

Its hard to exert free thought in this forum.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Leveller, you have a misunderstanding.

There is a confusing issue, and there is CONFUSING the Issue.

Shakespeare's authorship aught to be a confusing issue, yet you have only helped further CONFUSE matters.

Perhaps Bacon's name wasn't listed so there weren't issues about someone who's faith was QUESTIONABLE translating the Bible. Or maybe you don't think this is the case, despite everything you said about him dedicating his public life to science.

Bacon wrote the Rituals, and about a century later (you know, for symbolic value), Freemasonry was officially instituted (1717).

You call that implausible, yet you have suggested a group of illiterate Tradesmen dedicated their time to writing the Rites.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Everyone is certainly entitled to their beliefs.
I'm sorry you doubt my sincerity. *sigh*
Believe what you will, but as another poster remarked, look at the Masons and what they say. Then look at the anti-Masons.
Everyone needs to make their own decisions.

In L.V.X.
DTOM



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
OK, back to the Masonic shooting incident in New York:

I think it was Leveller that replied with some articles that were supposed to refute that the fatal shooting was part of a Masonic ritual. If you are just tuning in, here is the low down:

In march of 2004, Albert Eid, a long time member of a Southside Masonic Lodge, in Suffolk County, NY, was charged with manslaughter for firing a gun into the face of a William James (47). The ritual was supposed to involve firing blanks for an initiation ceremony in the basement of the said Masonic Lodge, but Eid fired real bullets, claiming to have made a mistake, pulling out the wrong gun, as the one with the blanks was in his other pocket, killing James. There was an Associated Press article ran in some newspapers, and other, more independent articles ran as well around March 10, 2004. In response to those non-Associated Press articles posted here on ATS by Leveller (4), here is a summary of each:

The first link, written by a Freemason:

Actually states that "clubs within Masonary" are not completely isolated from Freemasonary. Said news reported ceremony into "Fellowcraft Club." He also states that, "...sadly, there was no explanation why they were playing with [real] guns." Also states that the reason members were suspended (i.e. the whole lodge was shut down) was because "members would have known about the club's ceremony and perhaps even perpetuated its activities." Well, I guess we can see why he thinks clubs within Masonary are not completely isolated. There was also a fatal death during a ritual? over 1 hundred years ago as well at a Lodge.

The second link:

This article is from a Mason as well. This article clearly states that the ritual was not a sanctioned Masonic event in anyway. The social club was not a sanctioned Masonic organization. I article also makes reference to a "Fellowcraft Club, a social organization. The article quoted Carl J. Fitje, Grand Master, saying, "Pistols are not part of rituals."

The third link:

This link was from what looked to be a newsletter from the Scottish Rite. This made reference to the "Fellowcraft Club", saying it has nothing to do with Masonary.

The fourth link:

This article was interesting. It actually does worse for these Masons. Not only was a man supposed to be frightened by thinking his life was in the hands of those around him, guns waving in his face, he (James, the victim), was made to stick his nose beside rat traps. There was also a 6-foot replica of a guillotine. Further, there was a plank he would be forced to walk down, as if walking off the side of a ship. James was also wearing no shirt throughout. This article actually mentions the "Fellowcraft Club" as well. James never told his wife about this ceremony, whether that means anything or not. The article also contained some notable Masons stating that the incident had nothing to do with the sanctioned practices of Freemasonary.

Ok, so from the above four articles, we have 2 recurring themes (1) All make reference to "Fellowcraft Club", 3 of them claiming it is detached from Masonary (2) All were written by Masons, although the last I am not sure. The fact that Masons wrote these is, of course, not good when we are trying to refute an Associated Press article, which takes a compeletly different spin on it. Now you can say the AP article is biased, but those above 4 articles are fairly biased too, in the Masons favor, although a couple were written fairly objectively. But they failed to mention what the AP article does, which makes all the difference:

(1) A Senior Deacon, Mr. Steven Mayo, said "...the Monday night ceremony was an initiation into the Fellow Craft." The AP article does not say that it was for the Fellowcraft Club, as it appears in the Washington Times, unlike the abovementioned 4 articles.

(2) Witnesses of the ritual told Police that this gun firing stunt goes back 70 years.

(3) The police said it was "not clear" why he was carrying a loaded gun.

None of the articles actually explains what the "Fellowcraft Club" is.

Ok, so I got fed up and made some phone calls. I called the Washington Times and drilled them on these points mentioned here. I called the AP in New York and did the same to them. First, the guys were total asxholes on the phone. However, they standby their original story. One of the guys brought the article up and we looked at Mayo's comments and he said that he stands by what Mayo was paraphrased as saying, thus contradicting the other 4 articles spoken of earlier: how there is something called the "Fellowcraft Club." The Associated Press clearly concludes that it was a Masonic ritual, and not a separate club. Ok, so where does that leave me? First, here is what is the problem with Mayo's comments.

Mr. Mayo said the Monday night ceremony was an initiation into the Fellow Craft, which is the second degree within the multilevel Masonic system.

One thing that makes me think Mayo DIDN'T actually say the second part of the sentence comes from my knowledge of English grammar (wow, it actually comes in handy!) Let's look at the second clause in the sentence: "...,which is the..." is a non-defining relative clause. All that means is it is something that adds extra information related to something in the first clause, like "Fellow Craft." However, it appears as though the author added that clause in, without it being something actually uttered by Mayo. However, I have no proof of that, and as it sits, we cannot say that. This one comment is really the deciding factor in this case, as well as witness testimony. I tried to get court transcripts from Eid's hearing, since he was sentenced in January to 5 years probabtion, but they want to charge me stupid money to order online.

I also called the main Mason's switchboard in NY, looking for Mayo to talk to him personally. I could not get his contact info. My next step is to call the investigator on the scene and get info from him. I tried to get the name of the person who wrote the AP article, but they would not give me that info. Are we entiteld to that information? Anyway, my conclusions are that, first off, any article written by people who are part of an organization under the criminal light are suspect for obvious reasons, so those articles (4) mentioned above are "dubious", although the one (fourth) actually makes the ritual look worse than the AP article did.

The first actually states that the "Club within masonary" is not totally isolated and that all members of that Lodge should be punsihed. The couple articles out there, one from AP, the other from the NYT, don't mention the Fellowcraft Club and provide a quote from a Senior Deacon saying the ritual was a Masonic one. I cannot say much right now, except it looks as though someone is trying to cover something up. But I am not committing myself to anything, since Eid was in fact very shook up after the event and pleaded guilty, with no criminal record. That either says he is a great actor or sincere.

As it sits, in order to sway any logical person's stance on this case, somebody has to prove that Mayo's comments were mis-paraphrased, and that the non-defining relative clause is not supposed to be there. Somebody also has to prove that the Wintesses who said the firing ritual goes back 70 years are lying. Somebody also has to shed light on why on earth a man would carry a loaded gun in one pocket during a ritual.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by freudling]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I don't know how many times you want it refuted, you won't listen to the answer anyway.
The "Fellowcraft Club" in NY was a club that these guys had set up for themselves that was not sanctioned by Freemasonry. The ritual that they worked was not sanctioned by Freemasonry.

Which part of that can you not understand?


Yet again I will post this link.

www.masonicinfo.com...

Read it.




top topics



 
0
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join