oh look another thread about freemasonry

Originally posted by fordrew
reply to post by vcwxvwligen

 

vcwxvwligen:

a) post legitimate sources to each one of your claims ( like you should have done originally)

Don't you tell me what I should and shouldn't have done. If you can't be bothered to research it yourself then you're in denial.

b) if you can't I have to ask you to please stop posting in this thread. At this point I honestly think you are purposely irritating people or you might be the most ill-informed person I know. Considering you not only derailed the thread, and the discussion was pretty much over some time ago.

You're getting ATS points because people are still posting in your thread. I guess you are "irritated" that you've discovered someone who isn't glossy-eyed about Freemasonry.

As for the question posed in the, OP you would know the answer if you did some research about the founding fathers and the Revolutionary War.

Originally posted by KSigMason
An oath to have your body severed in twain is a blood oath.

We hold very different definitions of what a blood oath is.
What's your definition, then?

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Looks like you just took something out of context

I'd like to hear from him his intent.

You should go back and re-read what he wrote a little more carefully.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Albert Pike was a racist nonetheless.

In your opinion.

He said that he would have refused to sit in a lodge with black people.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Eliphas Levi only made it through the 1st degree (Entered Apprentice) before he quit.

This page claims that he was raised to the 3rd degree, and that he quit because of their intolerance towards Catholicism.
www.freemasonry.bcy.ca...

And this site says he dropped from the rosters of the Lodge: www.freemasonry.bcy.ca... Nonetheless, he did not ascend the ladder of leadership.

No. It says "Quit/dropped"

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
According to this page, he was
www.freemasonry.bcy.ca...
The OTO was founded by 3 Master Masons.

From your own source:

"There does not appear to be any record of this conferment other than his claim made in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley."

"At the time it was under the jurisdiction of the Grande Loge de France, and so was not recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England as a regular masonic body."

"Finally, at around the 1910 period, came Crowley’s episode with John Yarker....St. James, who had expelled Yarker, established the Antient and Primitive Rite in Great Britain.

Towards the end of his life, Yarker was looking for someone to carry on the work of the A&P Rite in England, and decided on that person being Crowley. To this effect, he bestowed on Crowley, by post, the degrees of 33°, 90° and 95°; respectively, the Ancient and Accepted, Memphis and Mizraim. No evidence is available that the two ever met."

"In 1913, Crowley apparently wrote to the United Grand Lodge of England claiming his right to attend lodge meetings, and affiliate as a joining member. If any, the response would have been a rebuttal, due to the irregularity of his mother lodge. This correspondence is not extant; all that survives is Crowley’s draft, transcribed from shorthand and dated 1913.

The United Grand Lodge of England does not recognize Crowley as a member of the Craft. All his affiliations were with irregular bodies, and so they deny him recognition."

Freemasonry is not just the UGLE.

The Regius Manuscript is a forgery.

According to whom?

There's zero proof that it was written and completed in 926 AD or whenever (the date seems to flip-flop). Its style and context has been dated at no earlier than the 1500's by some historians style and context, but its material has yet to be dated using 21st century chemical analysis.

What's ironic is that a Freemason was first to propose a theory of such a connection.

Its something that is highly debated. That's why I say there is no concrete evidence of it.

Yes, but it was created a Freemason and not "Internet bloggers"

What part of the Bible says this?

Just read everything.

I'm not sure whether you've read the Book of Ecclesiastes. It's not about God forgiving King Solomon.

The Scottish Rite was not started by York Rite Masons, but by Jewish merchants.

History proves otherwise.

Which history is this?

How do you know? Were you there?

I was not there, but Freemasonry doesn't recruit into the Blue Lodge.

Maybe you really want regular folk to believe that, but "history proves otherwise."

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
What's your definition, then?

Where blood is spilled at the oath as a part of the oath.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
No. It says "Quit/dropped"

Nonetheless, he didn't go up the Masonic ladder and gain any title as the other poster suggested.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Freemasonry is not just the UGLE.

But for the longest time it held the standard as to what was recognized and other Grand Lodge's agree.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
There's zero proof that it was written and completed in 926 AD or whenever (the date seems to flip-flop). Its style and context has been dated at no earlier than the 1500's by some historians style and context, but its material has yet to be dated using 21st century chemical analysis.

So you don't have sources?

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Which history is this?

The history of the AASR is well documented.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
There's zero proof that it was written and completed in 926 AD or whenever (the date seems to flip-flop). Its style and context has been dated at no earlier than the 1500's by some historians style and context, but its material has yet to be dated using 21st century chemical analysis.

The Regius was written in Old English, which places it earlier than the 16th century. Its opening stanza is:

Whose wol bothe wel rede and loke,
He may fynde wryte yn olde boke
Of grete lordys and eke ladyysse,
That hade mony chyldryn y-fere, y-wisse;
And hade no rentys to fynde hem wyth,
Nowther yn towne, ny felde, ny fryth:
A cownsel togeder they cowthe hem take;
To ordeyne for these chyldryn sake,
How they my[g]th best lede here lyfe
Withoute gret desese, care and stryfe;
And most for the multytude that was comynge
Of here chyldryn after here [g]yndynge.
(They) sende thenne after grete clerkys,
To techyn hem thenne gode werkys;

It has been dated by academics at circa 1390 A.D.

Originally posted by KSigMason
Where blood is spilled at the oath as a part of the oath.

The initiate promises to shed blood if he violates the oath.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
No. It says "Quit/dropped"

Nonetheless, he didn't go up the Masonic ladder and gain any title as the other poster suggested.

So, why say that he was dropped?

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Freemasonry is not just the UGLE.

But for the longest time it held the standard as to what was recognized and other Grand Lodge's agree.

Not true. Not all grand lodges agree on much.

So you don't have sources?

I don't have sources verifying that the Regius manuscript is authentic.

The history of the AASR is well documented.

Well-documented where?

reply to post by Masonic Light


Those same academics could have made it up themselves.

It's funny how all of the old charges have been produced by the Quattor Coronati.