What does a 33 degree freemason know?

Who is going to waste over 2-hours watching this video? Can you maybe post some main points and references?

Originally posted by KSigMason
Who is going to waste over 2-hours watching this video?

Someone who wants to know a lot about what Masons believe in their own words, in context, and from respected Freemason historians

At least that's what it promises. I've skipped around for about 20 minutes and it looks pretty spot on so far. I don't have time to watch it all tonight, but it looks worth a watch.

One thing it illuminates--heheh, I said illuminate--is the meaning of the Hiram Abiff ritual. The presenter also has made a good case so far--again from respected Masonic literature--that the mystic mason buys into the Luciferian "ye shall be as gods" mantra.

In summation, the presenter seems to go to great lengths to be fair, concise, and in context by literally showing the passages and citing references from either official Mason materials or from their own respected historians.

Further, the presenter seems aware of the various denial techniques some Masons use to obfuscate and takes pains to carefully prove his point.

Originally posted by KSigMason
Who is going to waste over 2-hours watching this video? Can you maybe post some main points and references?

I know it is long so take it in shifts. But Oh so informative. When you have the time, watch it. This guy references and quotes and reads from Masonic Literature for Masons, published by Masons. The literature is not for public but for members only . The masons have a library. I watched it and it was enlightening indeed. ... See for yourself. This Video.Says it all. How to become illuminated to Baphomet, conjure demons up and to think of yourself as a Christ . . ( I was like wtf? ) So I watched it all. This video takes all of its points , from masonic literature he has at hand shows the book, who wrote it and reads out of it . many different masonic books. with pictures.
Taking the time out is worth it if you are interested in Masonic Literature, Dogma, and Secret Doctrine.. straight from their own publishers, leaders , authors , members. Give it a go. You can always pause and come back to it later .. that is what I did.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by KSigMason
Who is going to waste over 2-hours watching this video?

Someone who wants to know a lot about what Masons believe in their own words, in context, and from respected Freemason historians

At least that's what it promises. I've skipped around for about 20 minutes and it looks pretty spot on so far. I don't have time to watch it all tonight, but it looks worth a watch.

One thing it illuminates--heheh, I said illuminate--is the meaning of the Hiram Abiff ritual. The presenter also has made a good case so far--again from respected Masonic literature--that the mystic mason buys into the Luciferian "ye shall be as gods" mantra.

In summation, the presenter seems to go to great lengths to be fair, concise, and in context by literally showing the passages and citing references from either official Mason materials or from their own respected historians.

Further, the presenter seems aware of the various denial techniques some Masons use to obfuscate and takes pains to carefully prove his point.

Thank You . Could not have said it better myself.

reply to post by The GUT

Well my experience with YouTube videos is that they are usually full of # (inaccuracies, misconceptions, manipulated information, etc), so please excuse me if I don't jump into it expecting to find enlightenment.

I'll watch the first little bit, but I'll probably will not watch then entire thing...again, I'm not going to waste that much time.

When the narrator (who must have taken speech lessons from Ben Stein), is using just one illustration of the Masonic structure. Here is mine:



It is not as nice as there's but I tried to ensure that it is accurate. One is not made a 33rd for the benefit of the Lodge. The Lodge is Craft Masonry not Scottish Rite Masonry.

This video is going to give inaccurate information as you no longer need to be a Scottish Rite or York Rite Mason to be a Shriner. Now you must only be a Master Mason in good standing to petition the Shrine for membership.

Who is the Highest Authority in Freemasonry? Each Grand Lodge has a Grand Master who is the elected presiding officer for that term. Each appendant body has its own structure, but must basically have permission from the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge to operate within that jurisdiction as a recognized Masonic order. Within the Lodge the Worshipful Master has as much control as the Grand Lodge and the Lodge by-laws allow, but he is still accountable to the members who have the most control.

Each Grand Lodge has its own By-Laws and just because Indiana and Georgia have something similar doesn't mean they are all the same. Many have similar by-laws and all adhere to the Ancient Landmarks, but one should remember that what is good for the goose, is not always good for the gander. This is why in America, IMO, no national Grand Lodge exists today. Freemasonry does not meet the requirements to be a religion or a church.

It's funny and ironic that he mentions that the monitor talks about preventing willful misrepresentation and yet that is exactly what he is doing in this video.

I wonder if the narrator and other people realize that Manly P. Hall wrote this book decades before even joining. Lately, in the last year to be specific, I have been reading the works of Timothy Hogan.

Prince Hall Lodges are not just for black men. Anyone may apply to their halls for membership. The reason that the word "Temple" appears on Masonic buildings is that all Lodges are said to be a representation of King Solomon's Temple and thus is the reason we use that term.

We don't use Christian terminology to deceive (as the narrator implies) anyone. The legends of Craft Masonry are based on the Old Testament so it is natural that there will be common terms used.

I love how he jumps around from sentence to sentence (as seen about 16-minutes into the video) and misquotes the monitor. I'd also like to point out that nothing of this nature is written in my monitor. He is twisting the words of the monitor. Maybe he should read the text prior to those sentences, in the middle that he is skipping over, and after, the better to get the complete story. Nowhere in Freemasonry do we promise salvation by simply going through the degrees.

He focuses so much on this "secret doctrine" and I would agree that one must do research beyond the lectures and rituals of the Lodge, but this secret doctrine is not something sinister. It is enlightenment, something anti-Masons will never understand. The Lodge merely shows the path, but the individual must take the initiative to travel upon it to better himself. One may gain knowledge from books that are not written by Masonic authors and non-Masons put way too much stock into Masonic authors of old. Sure they are interesting books, but it has been pointed out that some of these tomes have bad facts and most importantly, are the person's opinion. There are many modern authors I enjoy. Too many see "Secret Doctrine" and think something sinister.

Albert Pike is one authority, but I'd like to point out that I enjoy his other works (such as Esoterika).

He shows one example of handing out "The Builders" in the early 1900's and thinks it is indicative of mass tradition, nearly a century later? Faulty logic that is. The most common practice would be the handing of a Holy Book to a newly raised Master Mason.

Actually Morals & Dogma is concerned with the Scottish Rite. It does have chapters on the first 3-degrees, but most Blue Lodges are what I like to call York Rite oriented Blue Lodges. There are a few, like in Louisiana, that are Scottish Rite Blue Lodges, but that is a whole other story.

To be continued...

reply to post by The GUT

Continued...

I do love how he tries to justify fanaticism and extremism. Albert Pike it seems is the whipping boy of the ignorant anti-Masonry movement. When you take quotes from multiple sources out of context the story is still incomplete.

The Illustrious Brother Kleinknecht (RIP) was not wrong in his words. Morals & Dogma was a tome of the personal opinion of Albert Pike. That is why it is a public book, as you can find it in many libraries.

Actually upon his the Sovereign Grand Commander's cap is not a Signal of Baphomet, it is the Jerusalem Cross:

The simpler form of the cross is known as the "Crusaders' Cross", because it was on the papal banner given to the Crusaders by Pope Urban II for the First Crusade, and became a symbol of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was first worn by Godfrey of Bouillon, the first leader of the Kingdom. The four smaller crosses are said to symbolize either the four books of the Gospel or the four directions in which the Word of Christ spread from Jerusalem. Alternatively, all five crosses can symbolize the five wounds of Christ during the Passion, the Pentateuch and, presumably, the first five Christian Churches.

Maybe the narrator should have done research before just throwing out the Baphomet theory.

One must also realize, which the narrator fails to point out, is that "A Bridge to Light" is a condensed version of "Morals & Dogma" with some of the opinions of Rex Hutchens. Kleinknecht was not lying, but the narrator is twisting his words and manipulating information to suit his agenda. The narrator is the false one.

Freemasonry is a social organization. Freemasonry does NOT have a plan of salvation. I'm not wasting any more time as the guy is manipulating, twisting, and fabricating things. Our 3rd degree is not about raising the dead (ie reincarnation or rebirth).

I guess when it suits their purposes, fanatical Christians don't need to follow the Commandments, particularly that one where it says one shouldn't lie.

reply to post by seeknoevil

The Baphomet conspiracy theory is a laughable joke and the indication that one is desperate to reckless and senselessly defame Freemasonry.

Like all anti-Masons he manipulates information and fabricates outright lies.

I felt myself getting dumber by the minute watching that travesty of a video. It is a compromise of academia and research.

reply to post by KSigMason

You got it wrong there.. um it isn't the "Signal" of Baphomet it is the Sigil which means

abstract design; the sigil is then charged with the will of the creator. Spare's technique, now known as sigilization, has become a core element of chaos magic.

I disagree with you about the video. When a text professes " Tubal Cain " to be the author of the Secret Wisdom and the Grand Supreme master of them all, well, if you are up to par about " Tubal Cain " your eyes would see and you would know exactly what is behind this... JMO.
Funny how the author of the video can come up with all those text references for 2 hours, from varied books by mason authors and historians and make all of it make sense, totally 'out of context' like you said.
But like he said, the philosophy behind masonry is hidden to the untrained eye, even to masons that don't care to pursue the 'brotherhood' but instead enjoy the status and benefits just of belonging to such a fraternity.
No disrespect here is intended. We can agree to disagree. Not ' Signal ' of Baphomet
Sigilis ~~~

A sigil (play /ˈsɪdʒəl/; pl. sigilia or sigils; from Latin sigillum "seal") is a symbol used in magic. The term has usually referred to a type of pictorial signature of a demon or other entity; in modern usage, especially in the context of chaos magic, it refers to a symbolic representation of the magician's desired outcome.

reply to post by seeknoevil


If you chose to believe a man who is not a member of masonry over the word of men who are in fact masons, then you deserve all the knowledge you get.

Balphomet. Bwahahahahahahahahahah!

reply to post by seeknoevil

Well I guess he should have pronounced it correctly. Regardless though, it is not the Sigil of Baphomet, it is the Jerusalem Cross.

The narrator was taking the quotes out of context. Sitting through the ceremonies and doing my own research, I'm saying the narrator was full of #.

Originally posted by KSigMason
...I wonder if the narrator and other people realize that Manly P. Hall wrote this book decades before even joining. Lately, in the last year to be specific, I have been reading the works of Timothy Hogan...

...Albert Pike is one authority, but I'd like to point out that I enjoy his other works (such as Esoterika)...

I don't think Manly Hall--or Pike--for that matter are necessarily the be-all-end-all on mystic masonry, but you're not saying your brothers conferred his degree because he didn't have a clue are you?

And surely Pike knows a little about the symbology and mysteries of Masonry, no?

You are a knowledgeable guy, but you aren't above doing the typical sidestep pointed out in the film and many places on this board.

I'm reading The Symbolism of Freemasonry by Albert G. Mackey right now, btw, and it's a fascinating book. And speaking of old books, why would that make them somehow misleading if Freemasonry is based on ancient "knowledge" and "wisdoms?" That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Especially when we take into account what excellent scholars and historians the 18th century produced.

A survey of Masonic literature does make clear the undeniable fact that "mystic masonry" does embrace some form of "man can achieve godhood" philosophy. And some of your brothers do seek to establish communication with "higher intelligences" through ritual. To deny that would only call your own credibility into question.

And that's okay, just be honest about it.

Many of the philosophies--the mysteries--are found in everything from Hinduism to Theosophy and even Evolution to a degree. That's apparent. Is it a coincidence? Nah.

Christians recognize--rightly or wrongly--that we've been made aware of this and we see it as the kinship and continuation from the first lie in the garden, "Ye shall be as gods," through Nimrod and Babylon and in 'Pharaohic' Egypt into many modern movements and societies.

And I've read enough of Morals and Dogma to know that Pike isn't taken out of context and that he did have an affinity for Lucifer. Again, that's okay if that's your bag, but why be disingenuous about it?

I have no doubt that this is beyond the care and concern of the everyday 'fraternal' Mason. That's not why he's there.

But the so-called mystic Mason obviously does practice a philosophy that shares commonalities with the above.

Originally posted by The GUT
I don't think Manly Hall--or Pike--for that matter are necessarily the be-all-end-all on mystic masonry, but you're not saying your brothers conferred his degree because he didn't have a clue are you?

Hall got his degrees the way the rest of us did, by asking to join.

And I've read enough of Morals and Dogma to know that Pike isn't taken out of context and that he did have an affinity for Lucifer. Again, that's okay if that's your bag, but why be disingenuous about it?

Really? Considering the word appears four times in Morals and Dogma and two of those were from quotes from other sources I would like to see the logical progression of how you feel Pike had an affinity for something he did not even believe in to begin with.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by seeknoevil

 

If you chose to believe a man who is not a member of masonry over the word of men who are in fact masons, then you deserve all the knowledge you get.

Balphomet. Bwahahahahahahahahahah!

Hey yeah, maybe there is an unbias there since video author is not a mason. And reading from their own books, well how ' inside ' can you get.? IDK ... I liked the video and thought it was quite informative. And everything Gut is saying, I agree with whole heartedly. SO you have your opinion and I have mine. Research is great , isn't it Gut?
And I thought Masons were forbid to disclose what goes on behind closed doors so to speak?
Please, tell us more of their secrets. Just what is the secret doctrine of ancient wisdom? Who is the author of such doctrine?
And if it is so great, and good, why is it secret except to a select few that swear oaths to keeping it secret?
Any way , I am not here to argue or make fun of. Be it angry or mocking or besmirching Christian beliefs as ' fanatical . Please be more tolerant. BOTH sides lose the argument when degrading inflammatory remarks are made. I can dialog with out stooping to such non productive mud slinging.. can you give opinion with out so doing it as well? I did not make the video I only shared it.. Thank You.

reply to post by seeknoevil


There is an author by the name of Robert Lomas.

He will tell you every Masonic ' secret ' there is to know that he can. It's all been published, minus grips, tokens, and words... Modes and such.

Have at it... Let me know when you find a single refference to Bapheomet.

Originally posted by The GUT
And I've read enough of Morals and Dogma to know that Pike isn't taken out of context and that he did have an affinity for Lucifer.

Really? Where do you get that? He mentions Lucifer by name in all of 4 places in Morals and Dogma. You can find them all easily enough by copying and pasting the following string into Google…

site:www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/ lucifer

page 73:

Hypocrisy is the homage that vice and wrong pay to virtue and justice. It is .Satan attempting to clothe himself in the angelic vesture of light. It is equally detestable in morals, politics, and religion; in the man and in the nation. To do injustice under the pretence of equity and fairness; to reprove vice in public and commit it in private; to pretend to charitable opinion and censoriously condemn; to profess the principles of Masonic beneficence, and close the ear to the wail of distress and the cry of suffering; to eulogize the intelligence of the people, and plot to deceive and be-tray them by means of their ignorance and simplicity; to prate of purity, and peculate; of honor, and basely abandon a sinking cause; of disinterestedness, and sell one's vote for place and power, are hypocrisies as common as they are infamous and disgraceful. To steal the livery of the Court of God to serve the Devil withal; to pretend to believe in a God of mercy and a Redeemer of love, and persecute those of a different faith; to devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; to preach continence, and wallow in lust; to inculcate humility, and in pride surpass Lucifer; to pay tithe, and omit the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith; to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel; to make clean the outside of the cup and platter, keeping them full within of extortion and excess; to appear outwardly righteous unto men, but within be full of hypocrisy and iniquity, is indeed to be like unto whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outward, but are within full of bones of the dead and of all uncleanness.

That doesn't sound like he has an affinity for Lucifer.

p102

The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry.

For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.

Here he's saying he doesn't believe in Lucifer or Satan. There's only God or no belief in God. This is something that he gets to again and again in M&D, best summed up in the last chapter when he talks about equilibrium.

p 321

The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired.

He's mocking people who believe in Lucifer. No affinity here either.

Finally, p 324

It is by His uttered Word that God reveals Himself to us; not alone in the visible and invisible but intellectual creation, but also in our convictions, consciousness, and instincts. Hence it is that certain beliefs are universal. The conviction of all men that God is good led to a belief in a Devil, the fallen Lucifer or Light-bearer, Shaitan the Adversary, Ahriman and Tupho_n, as an attempt to explain the existence of Evil, and make it consistent with the Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Benevolence of God.

Again, saying that man created the belief in a devil as a false explanation, when in fact, all the bad in the world is God's will, along with all the good.

reply to post by JoshNorton

I should have said an affinity for the philosophies associated with Luciferianism.

The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry.

For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN; thence came the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.

The key here is that the initiate, whether he believes in a literal being or not, recognizes the light-bearer as a force created for good, liberty, and freewill. Which is as Luciferian, at least philosophy-wise, as you can get.

It further illustrates what we might call the yin-yang belief that "God" is an impersonal force comprising both good and evil, which we find over and over in various mystery philosophies.

I stand by my posts. One author does not make a witness to a thing. Disinformation. I disagree that God does bad. He allows bad, because it must be.. does not do bad or would not be God in the perfect state. Perfect Goodness does not commit evil It cannot it would not be perfection, and God is perfect. Evil is part of the grand plan. How could we know Great Goodness if we didn't experience terrible bad as well? Where would the discretion be? Anyways it is obvious that I see it with different eyes than you. That is okay. Discussion is good. Please don't allow my posts to ruffle your feathers. .. that is not my intent.

Originally posted by The GUT
I should have said an affinity for the philosophies associated with Luciferianism.

And that's an important distinction to make. Again, Pike scoffed at the idea of a devil, thinking it a primitive man's way of explaining evil in the world. But if he professed Gnostic philosophies, that doesn't make him a fan of the character Lucifer.

It further illustrates what we might call the yin-yang belief that "God" is an impersonal force comprising both good and evil, which we find over and over in various mystery philosophies.

Right, which is why I was alluding to this passage from Pike…

The ROYAL SECRET, of which you are Prince, if you are a true Adept, if knowledge seems to you advisable, and Philosophy is, for you, radiant with a divine beauty, is that which the Sohar terms The Mystery of the BALANCE. It is the Secret of the UNIVERSAL EQUILIBRIUM:--

--Of that Equilibrium in the Deity, between the Infinite Divine WISDOM and the Infinite Divine POWER, from which result the Stability of the Universe, the unchangeableness of the Divine Law, and the Principles of Truth, Justice, and Right which are a part of it; and the Supreme Obligation of the Divine Law upon all men, as superior to all other law, and forming a part of all the laws of men and nations.

--Of that Equilibrium also, between the Infinite Divine JUSTICE and the Infinite Divine MERCY, the result of which is the Infinite Divine EQUITY, and the Moral Harmony or Beauty of the Universe. By it the endurance of created and imperfect natures in the presence of a Perfect Deity is made possible; and for Him, also, as for us, to love is better than to hate, and Forgiveness is wiser than Revenge or Punishment.

--Of that Equilibrium between NECESSITY and LIBERTY, between the action of the DIVINE Omnipotence and the Free-will of man, by which vices and base actions, and ungenerous thoughts and words are crimes and wrongs, justly punished by the law of cause and consequence, though nothing in the Universe can happen or be done contrary to the will of God; and without which co-existence of Liberty and Necessity, of Free-will in the creature and Omnipotence in the Creator, there could be no religion, nor any law of right and wrong, or merit and demerit, nor any justice in human punishments or penal laws.

--Of that Equilibrium between Good and Evil, and Light and Darkness in the world, which assures us that all is the work of the Infinite Wisdom and of an Infinite Love; and that there is no rebellious demon of Evil, or Principle of Darkness co-existent and in eternal controversy with God, or the Principle of Light and of Good: by attaining to the knowledge of which equilibrium we can, through Faith, see that the existence of Evil, Sin, Suffering, and Sorrow in the world, is consistent with the Infinite Goodness as well as with the Infinite Wisdom of the Almighty.

Sympathy and Antipathy, Attraction and Repulsion, each a Force of nature, are contraries, in the souls of men and in the Universe of spheres and worlds; and from the action and opposition of each against the other, result Harmony, and that movement which is the Life of the Universe and the Soul alike. They are not antagonists of each other. The force that repels a Planet from the Sun is no more an evil force, than that which attracts the Planet toward the central Luminary; for each is created and exerted by the Deity, and the result is the harmonious movement of the obedient Planets in their elliptic orbits, and the mathematical accuracy and unvarying regularity of their movements.

~p 859

Originally posted by The GUT

For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force... They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN...

The key here is that the initiate, whether he believes in a literal being or not, recognizes the light-bearer as a force created for good, liberty, and freewill. Which is as Luciferian, at least philosophy-wise, as you can get.

Incorrect. What Pike is trying to say is that those who are just initiates ascribe to the mythological form of Pan, whence came Lucifer. Pike does not believe in any of them, that is the point he is trying to make and those that do are but initiates and do not fully understand God.

It further illustrates what we might call the yin-yang belief that "God" is an impersonal force comprising both good and evil, which we find over and over in various mystery philosophies.

Your own statement disproves that Pike believed or had an affinity for Lucifer as God embodying both principles excludes an outside agency acting as the nexus or focui of evil.

Originally posted by seeknoevil
Research is great , isn't it Gut?

My friend, you are free to believe whatever you want to. And I hope you are happy with your research. I did some too. I joined. I know what goes on and how it happens. And I know enough to know that what the multitudes of Anti's claim, is completely wrong. The structure does not support that kind of global control. But embrace the knowledge you have that says I give two spitts and a holler for Balphomet. I'll stick with Jesus and his Dad.

God bless and so mote it be.

reply to post by seeknoevil

In Biblical text, Lucifer the morning star, rebelled against God l and became the father of lies when he proclaimed that he could bring all souls back to the Father.This was not the will of the father. The will of the Father is free will . Lucifer and one quarter of the hosts of heaven where cast out, down. Thus Lucifer became Satan. Lucifer could not keep his angelic name because he was no longer the morning star. Lucifer and Satan are one and the same . Lucifer was the name of the angel before the great rebellion in heaven. So what ever name you give IT, it does not change that fact the Satan was Lucifer before his rebellion and fallen state. and that is JMO.