Why do masons get angry at people researching their beliefs?

reply to post by network dude


Well I am very happy to see we agree on something! I think that both Freemasonry AND Religions pevert the Bible. Let me ask you this, honestly ... who is the Worshipful Master... consider these words outside a masonic context before you answer.

reply to post by jpsolas

You are I believe trying to make out that I am intentionally deceiving people, no that's ironic

But you did intentionally misquote what is on page 213 of Morals and Dogma. SO you ARE intentionally deceiving people.

Of course, you probably have never even seen a copy of Morals and Dogma, and you probably just grabbed that quote off some anti-Masonry site, and you were just gullible and believed whatever they put on their site. Whereas some of the Masons like JoshNorton happen to have that book basically memorized, as well as all of Pike's other works, and not only can they quote it, directly from the book, but they can also put it in context of Pike's other writing and interviews, and own state of mind.

You are really ill-equipped to come and criticize a group of folks that live this stuff every day, and have weathered every attack you can throw at them.

Originally posted by jpsolas
reply to post by network dude

 

Well I am very happy to see we agree on something! I think that both Freemasonry AND Religions pevert the Bible. Let me ask you this, honestly ... who is the Worshipful Master... consider these words outside a masonic context before you answer.

In a masonic lodge, the Title of Worshipful master is directed at the person sitting in the east. I realize it's hard for a non member to fully comprehend this, but it's not that the guy in the east is to be worshiped, it's a title of respect. I have sat in the east and ran the lodge, while the current "worshipful master" was sitting in my seat. When he addressed me, he did so as "worshipful master" even though he technically held that title for the year.

God is the only true master. I call him God, others may have another name for him. I am fine with that. It's my belief that we will all end up in the same place loving the same spiritual entity no matter what his title is to the individual.

When you go to the Scottish Rite, you address the 33rds as Illustrious Sir. Again, just a title for a position of respect, not worship. (IMHO)

reply to post by getreadyalready


It's is wrong of you to assume I intentionally misquoted anything but thank you for pointing out my error, but dude it's a page number, get over it. It is also wrong of you to assume i've never seen a copy of Morals and Dogma - seriously stop jumping to conclusions about me it's unproductive. And finally - I certainly have not come here to attack anybody but it's interesting that you would feel like that.

reply to post by jpsolas


It wasn't just a page number. The first line of what you quoted is there, on page 231, but the rest of what you quoted is made up. It isn't there at all. It is a lot more than just a page number, it is a fabricated quote.

So have you seen a printed copy of Morals and Dogma? I haven't. Well, I did see the outside binder of one up on a high shelf in a Scottish Rite Temple, but I've never been able to peruse the book. I'm a Mason, and a Past Master of my Lodge, but just like you, I am relegated to reading Pike from snippets on the internet.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions, it is a very safe bet that you have never seen the book. It is also a very safe bet that you can't produce a list of ways Masons pervert the Bible. You need to stop making outlandish claims, that is what is unproductive.

reply to post by network dude


reply to post by network dude


Yep, i'm aware of all that thanks. I don't beleive you actually 'worship' the Worshipful Master but what it signifies, again from a biblical perspective, is Mans supremacy over God, Man 'as God'. Take the title of 'Sovereign Inspector General' - well again from a Biblical context there is only one being worthy of the title of 'Sovereign' i.e. supreme authority - and that is the Creator of the Universe (not the 3d world). Kings and Queens right back to Nimrod (another common biblical character associated with Masonry) have asserted their supremacy over men and portions of the globe - Nimrod aka the Prince of Tyre was the first man to be worshipped as a god on earth. In his designation as the Prince of Tyre he is strongly associated to another being the 'King of Tyre'. Nimrod as prince represents the King's dominion on earth BUT the King of Tyre is in fact the Satan - the Angel who rebelled against God and asserted he would rise up to be greater - as far as I can tell history is nothing more than a telling of this struggle. Genesis says that Satan told Adam and Eve, if they ate the apple they can be as gods...I don't see many gods walking around, in fact it seems pretty godless out there. The ego has been fed full of self-serving grandiose bull# for millenia coxing men to believe they are god or better than him. I get that its a term of respect and recognition, but beyond that what does it signify? Spiritually what does it mean? Bibilically - would it offend God?

To be honest I think a part of the divide here has less to do with freemasonry and possibly more to do with our respective ideas of what luciferianism or satanism actually entails. I think in truth it is a LOT more subtle than sacrificing virgins on the full moon - I don't think masons are running off into the night to drink blood - but I do think that freemasonry was infiltrated centuries ago and it has been used to decieve good upstanding men (and women) by diverting their worship away from the real worshipful master (false Gods before me?). I would suggest that luciferianism in its most basic form is merely worshiping wordly objects before God - whether they be other men, money, music, whatever - The God of the Bible says that he is jealous for Your love, that he wants you to Love him more than you love anything else - but he wants you to choose it, just like we chose the apple we have to choose to go back to him - free will (remember above how i mentioned how important the 'free-will' aspect is and how you must voluntarily take the oath - signifying you choice to turn away from God again. History might not repeat but it certainly echoes.

I reiterate here - friends - I have not come looking for a fight, I don't want to offend but I am moved to speak up on this because if what I am saying is true then the implications are great, especially for Freemasons. I am not a 'christian-fundamentalist', please don't try to dismiss me by simply tarring me as such - I am an avid researcher and Truth seeker and have been for many many years. What I am presenting here are what I beleive to be logical conclusions based on objective analyses - I am not here for a confrontation with my fellow man and don't have the time or energy to defend against personal (off topic) digs - I am prepared to change my beliefs in light of stronger evidence to the contrary, are you? - I have met with Masons and visited the Grand Lodge in Dublin many times - We always have respectful conversations and they appreciate my genuine interest - I am glad for the platform we share here and the chance to be able to speak with fellow truth seekers (masons and non-masons) - Please lets keep it substantial and educational.

reply to post by network dude


reply to post by network dude


Yep, i'm aware of all that thanks. I don't beleive you actually 'worship' the Worshipful Master but what it signifies, again from a biblical perspective, is Mans supremacy over God, Man 'as God'. Take the title of 'Sovereign Inspector General' - well again from a Biblical context there is only one being worthy of the title of 'Sovereign' i.e. supreme authority - and that is the Creator of the Universe (not the 3d world). Kings and Queens right back to Nimrod (another common biblical character associated with Masonry) have asserted their supremacy over men and portions of the globe - Nimrod aka the Prince of Tyre was the first man to be worshipped as a god on earth. In his designation as the Prince of Tyre he is strongly associated to another being the 'King of Tyre'. Nimrod as prince represents the King's dominion on earth BUT the King of Tyre is in fact the Satan - the Angel who rebelled against God and asserted he would rise up to be greater - as far as I can tell history is nothing more than a telling of this struggle. Genesis says that Satan told Adam and Eve, if they ate the apple they can be as gods...I don't see many gods walking around, in fact it seems pretty godless out there. The ego has been fed full of self-serving grandiose bull# for millenia coxing men to believe they are god or better than him. I get that its a term of respect and recognition, but beyond that what does it signify? Spiritually what does it mean? Bibilically - would it offend God?

To be honest I think a part of the divide here has less to do with freemasonry and possibly more to do with our respective ideas of what luciferianism or satanism actually entails. I think in truth it is a LOT more subtle than sacrificing virgins on the full moon - I don't think masons are running off into the night to drink blood - but I do think that freemasonry was infiltrated centuries ago and it has been used to decieve good upstanding men (and women) by diverting their worship away from the real worshipful master (false Gods before me?). I would suggest that luciferianism in its most basic form is merely worshiping wordly objects before God - whether they be other men, money, music, whatever - The God of the Bible says that he is jealous for Your love, that he wants you to Love him more than you love anything else - but he wants you to choose it, just like we chose the apple we have to choose to go back to him - free will (remember above how i mentioned how important the 'free-will' aspect is and how you must voluntarily take the oath - signifying you choice to turn away from God again. History might not repeat but it certainly echoes.

I reiterate here - friends - I have not come looking for a fight, I don't want to offend but I am moved to speak up on this because if what I am saying is true then the implications are great, especially for Freemasons. I am not a 'christian-fundamentalist', please don't try to dismiss me by simply tarring me as such - I am an avid researcher and Truth seeker and have been for many many years. What I am presenting here are what I beleive to be logical conclusions based on objective analyses - I am not here for a confrontation with my fellow man and don't have the time or energy to defend against personal (off topic) digs - I am prepared to change my beliefs in light of stronger evidence to the contrary, are you? - I have met with Masons and visited the Grand Lodge in Dublin many times - We always have respectful conversations and they appreciate my genuine interest - I am glad for the platform we share here and the chance to be able to speak with fellow truth seekers (masons and non-masons) - Please lets keep it substantial and educational.

reply to post by jpsolas

And I don't mean to offend but I have to be blunt, I don't think that the real Freemasons, those who are really in the know would be frequenting conspiracy forums. What was that old one: "those who know don't speak, those who speak don't know" - Just one more thing Morals and Dogma was never intended to be available to the public but you can now access it online, the ball of secrets and deceit is unraveling quite rapidly now, and it seems that there are none more deceived than lower initiate Masons as they are being tricked into lucifer worship. It would be folly for any Mason below the 31st degree to believe that they know more than Pike did, that they know better than he did and they don't need any non-masons trying to tell them otherwise. Well, that's quite sad. The evidence is there if you care to see it.

J.P. Solas -

These are your words.

The teachings of these Readings are not sacramental, so far as they go beyond the realm of Morality into those of other domains of Thought and Truth. The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite uses the word "Dogma" in its true sense, of doctrine, or teaching; and is not dogmatic in the odious sense of that term. Every one is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment.

link

these are Pike's words.

I am a 32nd degree mason. I do not now, nor will I ever claim to know all there is to know about freemasonry, or any other subject. But I do know what I have experienced in masonry thus far. The only God I worship is the God of the Bible. The one true God. If Lucifer is a fallen angel and you think masons worship him, I think you have been fooled.

All the you tube videos and all the internet quotes don't mean a thing compared to first hand experience. If any man truly wants to know what freemasonry teaches, there is only one way to know for sure. that is to be a part of it. You included. Write books, claim knowledge all you wish, but always know that you only THINK you know.

reply to post by jpsolas

Please list them then.

EDIT: Particularly those in the York Rite.

reply to post by jpsolas

No one is denying that there are plenty of Biblical verses used in Masonry. Being based upon a story from the Bible that goes without saying. What we are denying is that we pervert the verses. Please cite exact Bible verses and then how we pervert it.

Freemasonry is not a religion. Here is a quote from Morals & Dogma: "Masonry is not a religion. He who makes of it a religious belief, falsifies and denaturalizes it." Nowhere in Freemasonry do we teach one to be anti-God or anti-Bible; that is just stupid nonsense.

So by this oath of not swearing you're saying Christians cannot be public servants, politicians, serve on a jury, serve in the military or law enforcement, and so on. My obligations, oaths, and vows were to God and God alone will judge me on that.

"Swear no oaths, not even to me."

Actually it doesn't say that. If you're going to paraphrase the Book of Matthew, do it accurately. I didn't swear on Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, or my head.

Secondly, if a man joins up, but doesn't fully appreciate what he's getting involved with, maybe he's joining to make business connections, further his career or to get away from the wife for a couple of hours a week, he might swear this oath on his lips but not mean it in his heart, he might be doing it vainly just to get in.

Often they don't find what they seek and leave quickly. They coming in with selfish intent is a violation of their first promise in Masonry and thus could be brought up for expulsion.

reply to post by jpsolas

So you're saying you're all talk? I can make all sorts of claims, but I choose to be mature about it and actually back up my claims. If you can't list it then you're full of it.

reply to post by jpsolas

Worshipful is old English meaning "one worthy of respect". The term actually doesn't imply that we worship this individual.

If you've ever called someone "Mister/Mr.", then you've basically called them "Master".

reply to post by jpsolas

It does not signify man's supremacy. In the First degree one is charged to always to give due homage to God.

Actually kings were often referred to as "sovereign", but it was their sovereignty over men not God. Masonry uses as a term of authority they hold in that position. These positions don't shield them nor give them unrestrained power. I've seen Grand Masters get expelled from the Fraternity for breaking the rules. The Grand Commander of Romania got removed from his office in May right before the Romanian Grand Conclave. Holding a title does little if you disgrace the position. We still hold God as superior to every title we have - that is seen throughout all of Freemasonry.

You'd think that in a time of militant atheism, the faithful wouldn't be so rude to Freemasonry, but see them as a kindred spirit as we hold faith to be very important, but then again anti-Masons pride and hatred often gets in the way and blinds them.

but I do think that freemasonry was infiltrated centuries ago and it has been used to decieve good upstanding men (and women) by diverting their worship away from the real worshipful master (false Gods before me?).

Infiltrated by who and what did they change to deceive us? Was it our ritual they changed because I can give you the two most known men to have a real hand in the rituals we use today.

reply to post by jpsolas


jpsolas, I think that there is a compelling explanation for the "man as god" belief. Obviously, mankind has, through evolution, surpassed the lower forms of life in every way, We may not be able to out run a cheetah but we could hop in a supersonic jet.

The idea is that man continues to evolve. Through formation of our pineal glands creating the 7th chakra we can see that the major energetic/spiritual centers of the body continue to grow and develop. Edgar Cayce said that mankind would move into the 5th root race around 2004 and that humanity would ultimately realize total and complete connectedness in the 7th root race. This is when mankinds connected consciousness is also aware of the consciousness of the Creator and all minds are one in the mind of God.

While ignorant, materialistic or left hand occultists play that they can have physical control as a "tyrannical merciless god" on earth, they are misrepresenting the true path. No man can claim to be God, yet it is our destiny to be one with or "on the level" with the creator for it is one of the lost keys of the ancients which mankind has forgotten.

Originally posted by jpsolas
Genesis says that Satan told Adam and Eve...

What Bible are you reading? There is no one called Satan in the Book of Genesis.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Why do masons get angry at people researching their beliefs?

Whats the problem? Its not like your disrespecting them or anything.

The work of masons is the work of the world. Therefore the masons are concerned about their public image.

That public images is important, because the assistance and cooperation of the public is necessary for the effectiveness of the masonic work.

If one were working on spiritual things, then the public image would be irrelevant. Since one would then not be seeking any material gain, from the workings of one's activities, the public cooperation would not be required.

So, monks, for example, retire to some isolated place, and ignore the world, while woking on their spiritual conquests. The monk cares not what people in the outer world say or think about him. He does not "dress" nor "adorn" himself with any "flash or glitter" to appear appealing to the public eye. He simply covers himself from the cold and damp with whatever clean garment would suit his basic needs.

The impressive image of a Freemason, with his lambskin and jewels, all mark the mason as an individual focused with his attention on the outer image. That part of him that is "seen" by others.



Beautiful, handsome, attractive to the ladies, appealing to the eye of all men. There stands a good man.

BUT, INSIDE...what work was being done there? What we could not see. What remained hidden. What is secret.

Why are we all so apt to judge a man from his exterior image?

By this habit, we automatically give credit to those who appeal to our eye, and deny credit to those others, as if by instinct. But it is the only way the men can be deceived. If the outer were always as the inner, then men could never be deceived. For then beauty on the outside, would guarantee beauty on the inside, and all would be right with the world.

Therefore wherever men strive through artifact to improve their image, the thought behind this must be to receive the benefit of the public, by appealing to their eye, over and above their natural worth, and hence evidence of a deceptive mind.


Simply clad, he is an honest man, and impressively clad he becomes a deceiver of men. For something in him changed, so that now he believes he's entitled to a higher honor, than that granted by his noble birth.

Masonic pride is offended when you don't acknowledge and validate it. Masons are insecure people who generally discover a feeling of belonging by exhibiting solidarity with the masonic organization. They plaster themselves with masonic jewelry and their houses, cars, and offices with masonic symbols because it makes them feel powerful and accepted. When you don't acknowledge or even recognize the alleged power that Masons believe that Masonic symbols instill in them, then their insecurities that were present before they became Masons makes them defensive. The Masons simply a group of insecure people that uses symbols to make themselves feel more important and powerful than they really are or ever can be.

The military does the same thing which is why the military is full of Masons. The military hands out pieces of tinsel to make soldiers feel honorable when in reality, the pieces of tinsel are simply symbols that represent the soldiers support of murder and war. People don't see that though. They simply look at a medal and see 'honor' while the Mason's look at the Masonic symbols of witchcraft and think 'power' and 'belonging'.

reply to post by NAMTERCES

The charity of Freemasonry is universal.

Actually our regalia is not about attention getting. Freemasonry also teaches that it is not the external, but the internal that matters.

That mass murderer is not really an indication of Freemasonry as he only attended 4-meetings (3 of them to receive the degrees).

reply to post by chizeled

We really don't seek the approval of people like you. Nor do we care to be validated, don't be foolish.

I'd say the one who senselessly attacks us is the insecure one. I don't need to attack others to make myself feel good.

originally posted by: FortAnthem
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

I think they get angry when someone posts a thread making unfounded accusations against their order.

If you post a thread honestly seeking information about the order without the accusations and are willing to accept their answers as sincere and honest, they can be quite pleasant and forthcoming.

As long as you are willing to listen to what they say with an open mind, they aren't that bad.

The tough part is trying to figure out all their inside jokes.

edit on 8/8/11 by FortAnthem because: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dde3a658c63b.gif[/atsimg]

Agreed, gotta have an open mind. It's not anger it's more frustration when people believe something so absurbed, and consider it fact without questioning it.