Why do masons get angry at people researching their beliefs?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


It isn't always "bashing." What about claiming a group of people are Masons, being proven wrong, and then not responding to that in any way? You are guilty of that yourself. You threw out a list of names with no basis in fact, and then you were quickly corrected, yet you haven't responded in any way?

Doesn't that seem frustrating to you? Nobody got angry, we just set the record straight. Nobody was lazy, they just posted the facts and let them speak for themselves.

reply to post by ManOfGod267

Always found it interesting that every masonic Lodge has their emblem of the blazing Star which is the dog star of Sirius. Check out Robert temple's classic book 'The Sirius Mystery' which caused a stir when it first came out in the 70's and Temple in more recent years has spoken of the strange goings on that try to interrupt his more modern day work concerning all this.

Originally posted by majesticgent
So whether you believe in YHWH/Jehovah/God/I AM, Yeshua/Jesus, Allah, god, a god, Azazel, Krishna, Buddah, LAM, Lucifer, Satan, (insert deity here) then you could roll with the idea that there is a Grand Architect / creator? Am I on the right track to understanding it?

Well, in Christian teaching, Satan was subservient to God, so he couldn't be a supreme being. Nor was he the creator of the universe, so you really couldn't call him the Grand Architect. And as alluded to earlier, Lucifer was what they called the planet Venus. There's never actually been a supernatural entity with that name. But if you went with the misconception that there was an entity called Lucifer which may or may not be equivalent with Satan, either way, they'd still be subservient to God, and thus not worthy of worship.

Masons have been robbing Kings, Governments, and people for millennia.

They are a tight nit group of 'good ole boys' who know the system, created the system, and pilfer from it to further their own ends and live a lifestyle of self sexual gratification.

When they get caught doing something....they don't get punished. It's a tight nit club with money.


Thats why they get angry if you snoop around. As George Bush jr. said, "Yer either with us, or against us"

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

It isn't always "bashing." What about claiming a group of people are Masons, being proven wrong, and then not responding to that in any way? You are guilty of that yourself. You threw out a list of names with no basis in fact, and then you were quickly corrected, yet you haven't responded in any way?

Doesn't that seem frustrating to you? Nobody got angry, we just set the record straight. Nobody was lazy, they just posted the facts and let them speak for themselves.

You've made your point now move on.

Whats with you getting defensive?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


How was I defensive?

I was only pointing out the fact that Masons do not easily get angry and/or defensive. I don't think my post came across as defensive in any way. It was simple observation really. Sorry if you were offended by it. It was a little pointed, but only to get the point across.

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
Whats with you getting defensive?

You think we're bad, just wait until some wiccans here realize how ignorant you are of their beliefs…

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

Wouldn't it be obnoxious if someone else relentlessly searched your family history? Its more of a personal matter.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

what is it you intend to gain by this conversation?
At some point you actually seem as if you want to learn, then you just get aggressive and despondent.
Nothing good will come from a blindly aggressive attitude. Ask questions, listen to the answers, then research them to see if you agree or disagree with them. Or, you could just look for a fight, which will end quickly and with no rewards.

OK. I didn't mean Lazy like some awful and unique laziness only found in Masons here on ATS. I mean lazy like any of us get; I mean, who really wants to go digging around in books for quotes and crap when you are just trying to have fun.

I wanted to pull out a couple of quotes so we can experiment with the theory (?) posited in the OP.

NetworkDude:

Lucifer isn't mentioned anywhere I have seen in masonry except Pikes quote and he wasn't talking about the devil at all.But since he did mention the word, there will be countless people who will never bother to understand what he meant,

You seem to be saying that Pike just dropped the 'word' and that it warrants no deeper look while at the same time you seem to be suggesting that if one looks that there is a deeper meaning. Which is it please.
And if you are privy to a deeper meaning would you be willing to nutshell what you might think it is?
Thanks.

JoshNorton:

There's never actually been a supernatural entity with that name. But if you went with the misconception that there was an entity called Lucifer which may or may not be equivalent with Satan, either way, they'd still be subservient to God, and thus not worthy of worship.

Do you think that this was lost on Albert Pike, considering the quote from M+D?

If you guys don't want to get in to Pike I understand and I really don't think that you even have to know the guys name to be a fine Freemason.

But if you are interested in Pike then it's not just the Lucifer thing, guys, it's the whole damned book. I personally think it is a mess of a pile of A.P.'s take on the whole Western Mystery Trad. thing. But one can grasp pretty quickly that he is using all of the usual conventions of the WMT to construct the book; Kabbalah, Astrology, Tarot imagery, all the usual suspects, it's all in there.

So you realize, that all one has to do, to at least get to where Pike was coming from, is take the same tools and reapply them to the text. That's what we occultists and folklorists do on occasion.

reply to post by Warpthal

Wouldn't it be obnoxious if someone else relentlessly searched your family history? Its more of a personal matter.

Ah come on. It's the post post modern era. All is being revealed. The 'family history of Freemasonry' has been an open book for 35 years at least.

The Zeitgeist of this era is 'Open Source' and it is just too funny to watch as some insist on behaving as though it were the last turn of the century with all of these antique secret societies.

Plus, digging through Masonic family history is big business and actually provides quite a draw for Masonic Lodges.

Tell me all of the fascination with Templarism and such hasn't swelled your ranks. It did in my day and I know it does today.

Originally posted by Frater210

NetworkDude:

Lucifer isn't mentioned anywhere I have seen in masonry except Pikes quote and he wasn't talking about the devil at all.But since he did mention the word, there will be countless people who will never bother to understand what he meant,

You seem to be saying that Pike just dropped the 'word' and that it warrants no deeper look while at the same time you seem to be suggesting that if one looks that there is a deeper meaning. Which is it please.
And if you are privy to a deeper meaning would you be willing to nutshell what you might think it is?
Thanks.

Pike was a very smart man. He was writing a very advanced book to a very small audience. If you actually look at the entirety of that quote, you see he was making fun of the people who used the term Lucifer as a/the devil.
www.masonicinfo.com...
above is a masonic perspective on the passage.

I have been part of all the positions in a blue lodge from Steward to master, and I have been to most of the 29 degrees of the Scottish Rite, and I have not heard the word Lucifer used. Maybe I missed it, maybe it's part of the mysterious 33rd, I don't know. But as honest as I can write this, I only hear the Lucifer garbage on this site and only when mis-quoting Pike.

If I am supposed to know about Lucifer in any context, my instructors have not done their job.

Originally posted by Frater210

JoshNorton:

There's never actually been a supernatural entity with that name. But if you went with the misconception that there was an entity called Lucifer which may or may not be equivalent with Satan, either way, they'd still be subservient to God, and thus not worthy of worship.

Do you think that this was lost on Albert Pike, considering the quote from M+D?

No, Pike knew that there was no Lucifer as well. He was an educated man and knew that it was, for all intents and purposes, a typo in one translation of the Bible that became escalated and distorted by Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost. In fact, in Morals & Dogma he writes:

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.

Morals & Dogma, page 102

He explicitly says "false Lucifer". He knew it was a bad translation. He also acknowledges the poets' (Dante's and Milton's) role in proliferating that legend.

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.

Actually what is the agenda? If there is a genuine interest that is fine but more often than not there is an agenda that seeks to discredit.

I s this a rea question or is it more disengenuouness?

I am not a mason but I know what is brown and smells bad!

reply to post by network dude


Well said. I would think that that would put the final nail in the coffin concerning the Pike quote.

Pike was one guy, not all of Freemasonry, and the quote is barely more than a sentence long. It really is meaningless. What is meaningful is that Pike would write about Lucifer in the nuanced way that he did at the time that he did. So for a guy like me that is interested in the socio-historical aspects of occult thought that is really interesting.

Thanks, NetworkDude.

reply to post by AzazeI


Are you a Mason? I assume not so you dont know for certain.

reply to post by JoshNorton

No, Pike knew that there was no Lucifer as well. He was an educated man and knew that it was, for all intents and purposes, a typo in one translation of the Bible that became escalated and distorted by Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost.

In fact, in Morals & Dogma he writes: 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.

Morals & Dogma, page 102 He explicitly says "false Lucifer". He knew it was a bad translation. He also acknowledges the poets' (Dante's and Milton's) role in proliferating that legend.

Wow, thanks, JN, never seen that before. I am a little stunned.

Then if he is pointing out the 'False Lucifer' then that must mean that this is the true Lucifer?...

the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor

Somebody better start a thread on this because we could be here a while.

Do you think he means something like Margaret Murray was talking about?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

I think we better see that one in better context. Not complaining. Just would like to get to the bottom of that one, too.

Thanks, JN, awesome.

Originally posted by Frater210
Wow, thanks, JN, never seen that before. I am a little stunned.

Then if he is pointing out the 'False Lucifer' then that must mean that this is the true Lucifer?...

the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the Light-bearer or Phosphor

Somebody better start a thread on this because we could be here a while.

Do you think he means something like Margaret Murray was talking about?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

No. Again, Lucifer was never meant to be a name in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that there was an angel named Lucifer who was cast out of heaven and became Satan. That spin of "the Fall" was written 1400+ years later by some poets for pulp entertainment of the masses. It's like people in the year 2400 believing that Jesus was a kung-fu master because Neo in The Matrix was "the One."

Again, I defer to Isaac Asimov for a better description of the use of the word Lucifer in the Bible.

As far as Pike's beliefs as written in Morals & Dogma, it's really very clear that he personally didn't believe in an adversary. In his mind, all good and evil was equally part of God's plan.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

How was I defensive?

I was only pointing out the fact that Masons do not easily get angry and/or defensive. I don't think my post came across as defensive in any way. It was simple observation really. Sorry if you were offended by it. It was a little pointed, but only to get the point across.

Your response is filled with irony.

I guess your right...

Originally posted by Tiger5

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.

Actually what is the agenda? If there is a genuine interest that is fine but more often than not there is an agenda that seeks to discredit.

I s this a rea question or is it more disengenuouness?

I am not a mason but I know what is brown and smells bad!

Nope. No agenda.

How can you smell over the internet?