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.

 

Masonic Textbook

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident
I'm a socialistic vegetarian atheist who doesn't like ritual nor ceremony. I'm looking for a group who has money to invest and my interests to accomplish some goals I feel will make the world a better place. One of these ideas is non-profit but sustainable. Are the Masons the group I'm looking for?
No. We'd have no problem with a socialist joining. We'd have no problem with a vegetarian joining. We would not allow an atheist to join, and if you don't like ritual or ceremony, you probably wouldn't want to join us anyway. We don't have money to invest and our goals are not to make the world a better place except one man at a time.




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 
I just wanted to see you type it. Thanks for your honesty.
edit on 15-6-2011 by gentledissident because: CAPS



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident
reply to post by JoshNorton
 
I just wanted to see you type it. Thanks for your honesty.
No problem. But that's the point I was making above. In my lodge, a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim and a Diest can all sit down with a socialist, a republican, a tea partier, a libertarian and a democrat and all still agree to give a $1000 scholarship to some kid who's going to college, or to have a blood drive for the red cross in honor of our armed forces, or to make a donation to some food kitchen for the homeless...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 



We don't have money to invest and our goals are not to make the world a better place except one man at a time.


What about the Shriners? As an organization of Masons, they do a lot of work for the general population. *Not sure what you meant by *One man at a time


Its only religious requirement is indirect: all Shriners must be Masons, and petitioners to Freemasonry must profess a belief in a Supreme Being.

The organization is best-known for the Shriners Hospitals for Children they administer and the red fezzes that members wear.

The Shrine's charitable arm is the Shriners Hospitals for Children, a network of twenty-two hospitals in the United States, Mexico and Canada.


1

Here brings my other question:

When someone becomes a Shriner, do they stay involved in their first lodge?

edit on 15-6-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Do the Masons still test you, by asking if you want to spit on the Holy Cross? And are there two factions to join depending on if you spit on the Holy object or not? Is their symbolism still all over the Snip place like in movies, advertising, music videos and album covers, and TV shows? Are they still being associated with Satanic rituals and murderous conspiracies? Are they still being controlled by Satanic forces by pretending to be multi-religious? Just wondering? I have overheard some Masons talking once, thinking I don't know whats going on! They are nothing but a way of control and manipulation. And where I am, they control everything!

PS. I think all the good works of the Lodges (AKA Shriners) is the group that doesn't spit on the cross! The real rulers of Masons did the evil deed, and got rewarded for it!
edit on (15/6/11) by SLAPurMAMA because: Additional Info








Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 15/6/2011 by Sauron because: Snipped profanity circumvention



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
What about the Shriners? As an organization of Masons, they do a lot of work for the general population. *Not sure what you meant by *One man at a time
Masonry, at its heart, is about making a good man better.

Let's put it this way. I can't change you. I can only change myself. By becoming a Mason, I've learned tools that help me lead a better life... more honorable, more honest. Philosophies that have made me a better father, a better husband, a better friend.

It's up to me to use those tools in my life. Nobody's going to do it for me.

As a Mason, I can't change you. If you become a Mason though, I can show you the same tools that I use, and let you change yourself. (And honestly, I can give you those same tools whether you're a Mason or not. The only thing particular to Masonry is the method of instruction, but the lessons are the same as in many religions and philosophies. Nowhere will a Mason tell you that this path is the only path. It's just one of many, and one that works well for some people, but not for others.)

It's why Masonry doesn't recruit. You can't give enlightenment to someone who isn't first seeking it themselves. It's like casting pearls to swine. (Also, read my sig file below this post.)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Hi, all.

I have read ATS for years and years but this is my first post. I just registered so I could post on this thread.

I have been a Freemason for 12 years and hold very high offices in both the Scottish Rite and York Rite. I am also a Past Master.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. I will tell you the truth, as there really is nothing to hide in Masonry (other than passwords that anyone can find on Google if they really look).

Be a little patient with me, because I work I won't always be able to answer instantly.

Let me know if I can help . . . I immediately thought about answering the question about "no sound of axe, hammer, etc . . . "

Ciao,

Violet



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
As an organization of Masons, they do a lot of work for the general population. *Not sure what you meant by *One man at a time


Most if not all lodges, Grand Lodges and appendant bodies make substantial contributions to charity. What JN meant was that our work in the improvement of society is limited to the personal sphere, in encouraging a man to act on his own convictions, whatever they may be, for the good of humanity, rather than engage in organizational endorsement of specific measures for that improvement, as the latter is usually divisive.


When someone becomes a Shriner, do they stay involved in their first lodge?


Usually. The Shrine, like all appendant bodies, requires its members be Master Masons, and membership is contingent upon membership in good standing of a blue lodge. That said, it often happens that a man either joins the lodge solely for the purpose of joining the Shrine or neglects his blue lodge to participate in Shrine acitivities. This is far from the norm, however; my lodge's most recent PM and its four top officers are all Shriners.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAPurMAMA
Do the Masons still test you, by asking if you want to spit on the Holy Cross?


It never was. That was a favorite allegation by King Philip IV against his political enemies, and one that stuck against the Knights Templar thanks to Vatican political engineering. It was most likely carried over to Masonry by the Taxil hoax.


And are there two factions to join depending on if you spit on the Holy object or not?


There never were.


Is their symbolism still all over the F&#k'in place like in movies, advertising, music videos and album covers, and TV shows?


No, but you'll find any manner of idiots telling you otherwise.


Are they still being associated with Satanic rituals and murderous conspiracies?


Yes, but judging something by the accusations against it is circular reasoning.


Are they still being controlled by Satanic forces by pretending to be multi-religious?


Once again, never happened.


I have overheard some Masons talking once, thinking I don't know whats going on! They are nothing but a way of control and manipulation. And where I am, they control everything!


Anonymous testimonials are the best evidence.


PS. I think all the good works of the Lodges (AKA Shriners) is the group that doesn't spit on the cross! The real rulers of Masons did the evil deed, and got rewarded for it!


That's nice. Wrong, but nice.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
What about the Shriners? As an organization of Masons, they do a lot of work for the general population.

When someone becomes a Shriner, do they stay involved in their first lodge?
They should stay involved with their Blue Lodge. They don't always. There was a reputation the Shrine had for a while of old guys getting their buddies to join Masonry just so they could become Shriners. They would tend to gloss over the lessons of the first 3 degrees and not really take them to heart.

The Shrine hospitals are a wonderful organization and do amazing work. They are also better known than the Scottish Rite Hospital, the Scottish Rite Learning Center, or any of the York Rite charities.

But back to my first response to you query, while there's certainly an overall goal of philanthropy for the institution, it has to start with the individual. Charity is one of the more important lessons in the Entered Apprentice degree. If you can't get an individual to give of himself, how can you have an organization do it?
edit on 2011.6.15 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by YourPopRock
All Masonic material is copywrited. The original copywrite might be 1913 (your uncle was nade a Mason 98 years ago???), but if the copywrite has been updated (which I guaranty it has) to a point 70 years or less, then you might find yourself up a creek.



for someone who's such an expert on copyrights, you'd think you would at least know how to spell it...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Please people drop the off topic banter about copyright, it is not the topic of this thread.

This is;
Masonic Textbook

Thank you.

Sauron
Super-Moderator



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by The GUT
Looking for the girl-plant-angel-pillar aspect I came across the following gem--pics and all:

Morals & Dogma

Pretty much first thing:

LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darknesss! 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!
Convenient of you to omit the sentence directly before your out-of-context quote...

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.
www.sacred-texts.com...


My bad. I'll go back and check. Do they conflict or am I reading the quote I posted wrong?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
Do they conflict or am I reading the quote I posted wrong?


They conflict. The first paragraph admosnishes those to not follow such a doctrine and he explains further who is susceptible. He also says that it is odd to give a name meaning 'light-bringer' to the supposed Prince of Darkness. That is my interpretation of the passages.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
My bad. I'll go back and check. Do they conflict or am I reading the quote I posted wrong?
In my opinion, you've misinterpreted Pike. In Morals & Dogma, time and again he says he doesn't believe in a devil of any sort... that God is ultimately responsible for both the good and bad in the world, and that without the bad, you can't appreciate the good. In the passage you quote, he's mocking people who believe in Lucifer, because the word Lucifer even showing up in the Bible was a bad translation made a thousand years ago, and reinforced by the mythologies of Dante and Milton.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by GoldenObserver
From what I've read, I found this particularly Interesting.
This is part of the Entered Apprentice.


"The Moveabe Jewels"
Are the Rough Ashler. The Perfect Ashler, and the Trestle Board.
The Rough Ashler is a stone as taken from the quarry in it's rude and natural state; the Perfect Ashler is a stone made ready by the hands of the Apprentice, to be adjusted by the working tools of the Fellow Craft; and the Trestle Board is for the Master Workman to draw his designs upon. By the Rough Ashler we are reminded of our rude and imperfect state by nature; by the Perfect Ashler, of that state of perfection which we hope to attain by a virtuous education, our own endeavors, and the blessings of God; and by the Trestle Board we are reminded that as the operative workman erects his temporal building agreeable to the rules and designs laid down by the Master on his Trestle Board, so should we, both operative and speculative, endeavor to erect out spiritual building agreeably to the rules and designs laid down by the Supreme Architect of the Universe, in the Great Book of Nature and of Revelation, which is our Spiritual, Moral, and Masonic Trestle Board.


I really wonder if The Supreme Architect and God are the same to the Masons. Also, does anyone know exactly what "the Book of Nature" is?
Yes, Supreme Architect, Great (or Grand) Architect of the Universe, etc. All ways of describing God.

The lesson in the above portion of the lecture is that God's design for the earth, for mankind, for nature, or, for that matter, for quantum physics, should be the blueprint on which we should strive to build our lives.


Thanks for taking the time to answer some questions--I was wondering when y'all were gonna show up.

So my question: Is the Supreme Architect different than Jehovah?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by The GUT
Do they conflict or am I reading the quote I posted wrong?


They conflict. The first paragraph admosnishes those to not follow such a doctrine and he explains further who is susceptible. He also says that it is odd to give a name meaning 'light-bringer' to the supposed Prince of Darkness. That is my interpretation of the passages.


Thanks. It is worded in a way that leaves some speculation.

I see Josh has answered too: So this "God" is also responsible for the "bad" as well and basically condones it as natural?
edit on 15-6-2011 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
I see Josh has answered too: So this "God" is also responsible for the "bad" as well and basically condones it as natural?
In Pike's opinion, yes.
I'd recommend reading the whole passage, pp858-860, but here's the bit that addresses that thought:

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.


Also, pp 847-848

It is the fine dream of the greatest of the Poets, that Hell, become useless, is to be closed at length, by the aggrandizement of Heaven; that the problem of Evil is to receive its final solution, and Good alone, necessary and triumphant, is to reign in Eternity. So the Persian dogma taught that AHRIMAN and his subordinate ministers of Evil were at last, by means of a Redeemer and Mediator, to be reconciled with Deity, and all Evil to end. But unfortunately, the philosopher forgets all the laws of equilibrium, and seeks to absorb the Light in a splendor without shadow, and movement in an absolute repose that would be the cessation of life. So long as there shall be a visible light, there will be a shadow proportional to this Light, and whatever is illuminated will cast its cone of shadow. Repose will never be happiness, if it is not balanced by an analogous and contrary movement. This is the immutable law of Nature, the Eternal Will of the JUSTICE which is GOD.

The same reason necessitates Evil and Sorrow in Humanity, which renders indispensable the bitterness of the waters of the seas. Here also, Harmony can result only from the analogy of contraries, and what is above exists by reason of what is below. It is the depth that determines the height; and if the valleys are filled up, the mountains disappear: so, if the shadows are effaced, the Light is annulled, which is only visible by the graduated contrast of gloom and splendor, and universal obscurity will be produced by an immense dazzling. Even the colors in the Light only exist by the presence of the shadow: it is the threefold alliance of the day and night, the luminous image of the dogma, the Light made Shadow, as the Saviour is the Logos made man: and all this reposes on the same law, the primary law of creation, the single and absolute law of Nature, that of the distinction and harmonious ponderation of the contrary forces in the universal equipoise.

edit on 2011.6.15 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
So my question: Is the Supreme Architect different than Jehovah?
Do YOU believe that Jehovah created the universe? Then to YOU Jehovah is the Supreme Architect. If YOU believe that Allah created the universe, then to YOU Allah is the Supreme Architect. This is not to suggest that Jehovah and Allah are necessarily the same, merely to offer a common descriptor by which men of differing faiths can still stand side by side in prayer to their creator.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join