What does a 33 degree freemason know?

Originally posted by czqjtohypmdu

Originally posted by ButterCookie
What does a 33 degree freemason know?

The same things that the majority of ATS'rs do.

Then how do you tell an ATS'r from a 33 Mason?

Just get somebody thats a freemason drunk and ask them and go from there.

reply to post by Unwrittenfate726

I've been pretty trashed and have never let any secrets slip, but if one follows the lessons from the 1st degree this would not happen.

Originally posted by czqjtohypmdu

No, most of the book is his own opinion.

Whenever he quotes someone, he always gives attribution for the quote.

No, Pike does not give any attributions for any quotes. He explains this in the preface by noting that since these are the lectures for the degrees, and not a book written for the public at large, references are not necessary.

Which simply shows that you've never read it.

Originally posted by czqjtohypmdu

Then how do you tell an ATS'r from a 33 Mason?

The 33° mason is usually old, retired, and often the secretary of his lodge.

The ATSers are those young, vibrant Masons who research Freemasonry thoroughly and go back to their lodges and teach the 33° Masons about Freemasonry.

Originally posted by Saurus

The ATSers are those young, vibrant Masons who research Freemasonry thoroughly and go back to their lodges and teach the 33° Masons about Freemasonry.

edit on 3/11/2011 by Saurus because: (no reason given)

Honestly , for many of the 33rds I know , you could not have written a more accurate statement .

Originally posted by Saurus

Originally posted by czqjtohypmdu

Then how do you tell an ATS'r from a 33 Mason?

The 33° mason is usually old, retired, and often the secretary of his lodge.

The ATSers are those young, vibrant Masons who research Freemasonry thoroughly and go back to their lodges and teach the 33° Masons about Freemasonry.

edit on 3/11/2011 by Saurus because: (no reason given)

no no no and yes yes yes, you said the ats'ers teach the 33rd, the highest 33rd do not get taught if they have payed attention to begin with.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by czqjtohypmdu

No, most of the book is his own opinion.

Whenever he quotes someone, he always gives attribution for the quote.

No, Pike does not give any attributions for any quotes. He explains this in the preface by noting that since these are the lectures for the degrees, and not a book written for the public at large, references are not necessary.

Which simply shows that you've never read it.

in the book morals and dogma, if they can find any insight "any insight" being operative words into what is before them???.

Originally posted by ThePunisher
you said the ats'ers teach the 33rd, the highest 33rd do not get taught if they have payed attention to begin with.

I was speaking 'tongue-in-cheek'.

In reality, one cannot tell from a person's "degree number" how much they know about Freemasonry.

Some guys join all the side orders within a few years of becoming a Master Mason, and know nothing about any of them. I know one guy who wanted to do all the degrees and belonged to 13 side orders. He couldn't do the work in any of them.

Others join just one or two, do them properly, and know more about those orders than anyone else.

To most Masons, a 33° means nothing special. My mentor, who knows more about Freemasonry than anyone I have ever met is a 3rd degree Master Mason, who also belongs to the Holy Royal Arch, Order of the Secret Monitor, and has only recently (in the last month or so, joined the 18th degree in Rose Croix.) I doubt there is a 33° Mason anywhere in the country who has close to as much knowledge as him about Freemasonry.

At the end of the day, the Scottish Rite is simply another side order that anyone can join. Up to 32° is pretty normal, and then 33° is awarded for long service in the order.

Knowledge in itself is useless - all the knowledge in the world only has meaning and value if it enhances our core values and our lives. A wise Mason knows how to integrate all the knowledge he has gained over the years and apply it in his life. Learning a new handshake and watching a new play, whether it is called 3° or 33° really means nothing.

2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.”

16 I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

Source: Ecclesiastes 1 (The Holy Bible, NIV Version)

It is hard for non-Masons to understand, but at the end of the day, we are all equal.

Originally posted by ThePunisher

in the book morals and dogma, if they can find any insight "any insight" being operative words

into what is before them???.

The book "Morals and Dogma", as the title suggests, attempts to trace the evolution of religious dogma and moral philosophy throughout history. This is done by Pike explaining in detail what certain historical groups and people thought in regard to these things, and how some of these thoughts may apply to Masonic symbolism.

Originally posted by sphinx551
reply to post by Cassius666

 

A 33rd degree mason won't know the stuff Hidden-Hand and Illuminator13 know.
That's for sure.

Nail on the head, with hidden-hand imo, Illuminator13 used "lol" far too much for me to see him as a credible source, however i do believe that the upper bloodlines will know more than anyone we can see as apparent "power beings" whereas the real powerful ones are the suspected "Masters in the shadows" and as far as 33 degree masonry is concerned, it has to be remembered that after the first 3 degrees, none of if it is "levelling up" among the ranks if you will. The degrees throughout scottish and york rites leading upto 32 can be obtained merely on a weekend masonic dinner party to put it simply, i very much doubt you would be given upto an additional 29 degrees over the space of a few days if they were in actual fact degrees of secrets, these are all mere tests to see if you will be chosen.

However, the 33rd degree is where things can get blurry. You can be given the 33rd degree from the 3rd without need to obtain 4-32. and the 33rd is given either to give praise to work done to forward the masons, society etc. All of the degrees imo are tests upto and including the 33rd purely to see if you will be completely what TPTB want in you and will do what they say without thought, being a "perfect puppet" to an evil puppeteer.

Originally posted by browsey
The degrees throughout scottish and york rites leading upto 32 can be obtained merely on a weekend masonic dinner party to put it simply, i very much doubt you would be given upto an additional 29 degrees over the space of a few days if they were in actual fact degrees of secrets, these are all mere tests to see if you will be chosen.

Well, 1) the York Rite doesn't lead up to the 32nd degree. 2) Yes, you can get it on a weekend Festival or Reunion, but some jurisdictions make you get each degree individually.

Originally posted by browsey
However, the 33rd degree is where things can get blurry. You can be given the 33rd degree from the 3rd without need to obtain 4-32. and the 33rd is given either to give praise to work done to forward the masons, society etc. All of the degrees imo are tests upto and including the 33rd purely to see if you will be completely what TPTB want in you and will do what they say without thought, being a "perfect puppet" to an evil puppeteer.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. I'm pretty sure you must first be a 32nd degree for at least 4-years before you are eligible to receive the KCCH, then you must be a KCCH for at least 4-years before you can be eligible (its not absolute) to elected to receive the 33rd degree.

Can you point out any individuals who received the 33rd straight from the 3rd degree?

Originally posted by KSigMason

Can you point out any individuals who received the 33rd straight from the 3rd degree?

i didn't necessarily mean that is "the way in which it is done" it is just a possible way, there are people who despite no records in accepted rites of masonry of their status, were given the 33rd degree as an honorary title. Figures such as Aleister Crowley who, claimed himself to be a 33rd degree mason (quite a longshot but the argument must start somewhere).

Usually as you said the 33rd degree will be given to a mason who has gotten to an age, where they have dedicated usually a lifetime to freemasonry and in a sense it shows this. HOWEVER, this is not always the case, people who are "known" to be obtaining a power position will be worked through the bullington club, much alike the skull and bones, which despite having no direct connection to masonry, sets someone up for a life of secret societies, rituals and brotherhood secrecy. Examples of two members of the Bullington, David Cameron and Boris Johnson shine through.. Hmmm. Well they are merely conservative you say, ofcourse they will join a fraternity in which it assists then to better themselves, well then why isit that Tony Blair, the apparent figurehead of the labour party, is himself a 33rd degree mason, no you'd think someone of his age would have only had time to have worked his way up EITHER the politicians ladder or the freemasons, surely not both? Well in actual fact, its both done for a reason and a greater cause.

Originally posted by browsey
i didn't necessarily mean that is "the way in which it is done" it is just a possible way,

No, actually, it isn't. And unless you can show that it has EVER been done that way, then you're just making stuff up.

there are people who despite no records in accepted rites of masonry of their status, were given the 33rd degree as an honorary title.

No. There are not.

Figures such as Aleister Crowley who, claimed himself to be a 33rd degree mason (quite a longshot but the argument must start somewhere).

If that's all you've got, then it's easily discounted. Crowley was a member of an irregular lodge... they weren't recognized by the rest of the Masonic world as having any Masonic authority, or even being Masons. He couldn't sit in lodge with real Masons. I'm sure you could find some clandestine lodge today where you could walk in, pay enough money, and walk out with a 33°. That doesn't make you a 33° Mason.

Usually as you said the 33rd degree will be given to a mason who has gotten to an age, where they have dedicated usually a lifetime to freemasonry and in a sense it shows this. HOWEVER, this is not always the case, people who are "known" to be obtaining a power position will be worked through the bullington club, much alike the skull and bones, which despite having no direct connection to masonry, sets someone up for a life of secret societies, rituals and brotherhood secrecy. Examples of two members of the Bullington, David Cameron and Boris Johnson shine through.. Hmmm.

Which, as you say, has nothing to do with Masonry.

well then why isit that Tony Blair, the apparent figurehead of the labour party, is himself a 33rd degree mason,

He's not. He's not even a 3° Mason. He's not a Mason at all, in fact. Where's your proof that he is?

reply to post by JoshNorton


Saying, "no its not", and shooting something down without any evidence yourself, is merely doing the exact same that TPTB do. It is much easier to prove something than it is to disprove something, so rather than getting off on thinking you can shoot someones question down with just a "No" or "Prove it" well challenge you o disprove it.

as i mention Aleister Crowley 'CLAIMED' i did not say he was, is or ever has been accepted by the freemasons, but if you were a secret society would you? hmm sounds familiar with Anders Behring Breivik after his images were released, he was merely shot down as "purchasing" the outfits and not an accepted rite member.

If you want a debate, go ahead, that is why i come to forums, however, saying no, and shooting down a viewpoint is such a small minded way of thinking and of going about life. I did not post to prove nor disprove anything.

Do you not think the fact that the royal family and many prime ministerial figures have rumoured to have been high levels of masonry, there is no smoke without fire, however as i said, i am purely making a viewpoint so if you wish to discuss it, do that, discuss, not write a sentence after everything i have written merely saying, Nahh.. prove it.. because if that is what you want to do, become a politician so it will be your job to dismiss any viewpoint, not a freethinker. Put some heart into your writing my friend, coming to conclusions is the true skill at hand here, not proving or disproving.

reply to post by browsey


Some of what you say makes sense, but I need to tell you, asking someone to provide proof that your wild accusations are false is not going to work, here, or anywhere. You cannot do that.

For example, prove that Santa isn't real.

reply to post by network dude


The point I was attempting to make was that it is far easier to prove something than to disprove something. Using your example, 'Prove Santa exists.' for this proof would be needed of his existence 'somewhere'. However when it is re-phrased as "Prove Santa Doesn't exist' means one would have to search through all of existence in this realm and wherever else to disprove it, despite it being however ridiculous of a claim. As i said to JoshNorton i wasn't coming into a post with wild claims or accusations believing them to be gospel, i merely forwarded a viewpoint, which hopefully would infur a discussion/debate.

Whether or not since Winston we have had a prime minister whom has also been a member of the freemasons is 100% up for debate. We do NOT know either way, so the only thing we can do is radicalise what is know as fact, and come to intellectual conclusions.

I didnt realise ATS was a black and white, Fact OR Fiction forum with no grey area, i thought it was a means to debate, discuss and develop what we see as truth. I did not expect to be subsequently attacked for bringing up subjects nobody with membership to this site could prove either way, i.e. Blairs apparent link to the masons, if someone says he is online that doesnt mean it is true, but if he says on th news he is not a member that doesnt make that true either. History teaches us to be our own historian and develop summations and conclusions on our own terms, not what any media, propaganda or indoctrination pushes you to believe.

Again i was not stating any to be fact, i was hoping to start a discussion point, thread after thread has been made and posted upon with still no complete conclusions, so to say that my "wild accusations arent to work here, or anywhere" i dont know where you are speaking from as you yourself are starting to sound like TPTB telling people how and what to think.

Questioning the existence of something has descended through the ages, and the theory of much easier to prove than disprove shows you should never believe in anything 100%, a typical world being flat scenario, however i can start to see that my viewpoints on truth and myself might be somewhat not welcome here, call me a skeptic...

reply to post by browsey

Aleister Crowley, as it has been pointed out, was not a recognized Mason.

The Bullington Club and the Skull & Bones have no connection or bearing on how one is coronated a 33rd degree. And as Josh points out, Tony Blair is not nor was ever a Mason at any level.

reply to post by browsey

Even with his claims, degree doesn't necessarily mean rank within our fraternity. His claims don't show him being an officer and really the OTO was the only organization in which he had a significant impact. We historically can show what Lodges he went to in France and show that the Grand Lodge of England denied him entry. Crowley is a well documented clandestine Mason. Anders Breivik was a Mason, but was expelled.

You can look at the UGLE website and see who's who in British Masonry. It's not like we hide our well known Brothers.

reply to post by browsey

Santa was a real man who was a Christian Bishop of Myra, now Demre. Centuries later and many cultural changes, traditions later, we have Santa Claus.

Whether or not since Winston we have had a prime minister whom has also been a member of the freemasons is 100% up for debate.

Actually his time in Masonry is known:

Churchill was a regular lodge attender, although not an office holder, until his resignation in July, 1912. In 1918 he signed an unsuccessful petition for a new lodge to be called the Ministry of Munitions Lodge and, in his only other recorded masonic contact, he visited Royal Naval Lodge No. 59 on December 10, 1928

Initiated: May 24, 1901
Passed: July 19, 1901
Raised: March 5, 1902
Studholme Lodge, London,
later Studholme Alliance Lodge No. 1591 (1976)

SOURCE

Originally posted by browsey
I didnt realise ATS was a black and white, Fact OR Fiction forum with no grey area,

Haha, we are not strictly black and white here. In fact we eve have a forum called "the grey area".

Just to explain the mason response here, we get a lot of people telling us all about what we do and how we do it. By people who actually have no clue what we do or how we do it. So it's gets old having someone try to discredit your hard work and very existence. So if you are going to come here claiming Tony Blair is a mason, and not bring any proof, yea, we are going to ask for a bit more than just your word.

Masons are proud of their famous members. We go through great lengths to promote them while promoting masonry. If Tony Blair was a mason, I think someone would know. He would have sat in lodge with other masons. Someone would talk about it.

So don't get mad, or sad, or even vindictive, bring facts or end your sentence with something that lets the reader know that you are providing opinion and not fact. There are quite a few members here with huge amounts of knowledge and they are more than happy to share with anyone who asks.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by browsey

 

Aleister Crowley, as it has been pointed out, was not a recognized Mason.

-I am aware, thats is why in my original post i stated he claimed he was a mason. Which means he is self proclaimed in my eyes if i said he claimed, not was!

The Bullington Club and the Skull & Bones have no connection or bearing on how one is coronated a 33rd degree. And as Josh points out, Tony Blair is not nor was ever a Mason at any level.

-Again i am aware, reverting you back to my post i state they have no connection, beside introducing these people to the world of secret societies, rituals and brotherly secrets. much ALIKE the mason, not THE masons.

Taking what we know as fact, nobody can state either way whether he is or not, the same way in which nobody could disprove right now that im not a 44th and a half mason whose main area of expertise is control and manipulation, this is ofcourse false, but it is not proven, "believe only half of what you see and none of what you hear". this being a quote i keep at mind whenever disregarding information as we really do not know, whether he is or isnt, the only people to know truly will be him, and his brothers in his lodge, which if he had one, would be very secretive and higher than any form or freemasonry anybody attempting to work their way up the ranks, could achieve.


reply to post by browsey

 

Even with his claims, degree doesn't necessarily mean rank within our fraternity. His claims don't show him being an officer and really the OTO was the only organization in which he had a significant impact. We historically can show what Lodges he went to in France and show that the Grand Lodge of England denied him entry. Crowley is a well documented clandestine Mason. Anders Breivik was a Mason, but was expelled.

You can look at the UGLE website and see who's who in British Masonry. It's not like we hide our well known Brothers. - No but im sure if some brother felt it necessary to hide their status to avoid controversy, wouldnt it be hidden? Surely if a freemason has sworn blood curling oaths on death for the brotherhood, he will have the freemasons bets interests at heart for the rest of his life, and not his country or government.

reply to post by browsey

 

Santa was a real man who was a Christian Bishop of Myra, now Demre. Centuries later and many cultural changes, traditions later, we have Santa Claus.

Whether or not since Winston we have had a prime minister whom has also been a member of the freemasons is 100% up for debate.

Actually his time in Masonry is known: - Read again, i didnt question HIS time, i stated merely how after his odd leave from the brotherhood not a single prime minister after him would ever state to being in the masons, when surely there is no other reason than the one i mentioned above for this.

Churchill was a regular lodge attender, although not an office holder, until his resignation in July, 1912. In 1918 he signed an unsuccessful petition for a new lodge to be called the Ministry of Munitions Lodge and, in his only other recorded masonic contact, he visited Royal Naval Lodge No. 59 on December 10, 1928

Initiated: May 24, 1901
Passed: July 19, 1901
Raised: March 5, 1902
Studholme Lodge, London,
later Studholme Alliance Lodge No. 1591 (1976)

SOURCE

reply to post by network dude


Just to say apologies if i came across stubborn, but the main reason why, mason or not, people HAVE been lied to, that is one fact we know. Possibly the only one, so i do not go out to discredit the masons at all, i have family members who are active members of masonry, but i still believe they have been lied to, to a certain extent.

I understand how you will look to defend your view, and that is all i am doing, i do not 100% believe anything (apart from we have been lied to ) so when i say Tony Blair - Mason, i should have worded it better but the reasoning is simply to be inquisitive, to question and to unroot hidden truths.

Granted the masons would like to show off their famous members, ofcourse, but in todays day and age in which the questions and paranoia surrounding these secret societies is rife, having someone who is seen as in power (despite them having very little power at all) swearing their allegience to something other than what average joe and sally know or understand, which is why i believe certain members of the masons are not exclusive and if they have need to be, it is easy enough to hide as any members who will meet with them, will be of similar degree, and have no reason to oust anyone from within their own ranks.

so ill finish with a little slider, you masons are a hardy bunch, and easy enough to upset! just understand all of us who dont not belong within your walls do not all believe the same thing, or are anti-masons, quite the opposite, but secrecy gets the better of us all at times.