first - public apology to the Masons and the board

Well, I'm afraid that is your own ignorant fault. No mason told you that everything is exactly the same. In fact if you bother reading through this forum you can find literally hundreds of threads where Freemasons discuss what they do differently in thier own Lodges. The fact that you don't know what you are talking about here, can't be blamed on others.

No, it's because when Masonry is speaken of, they all wish to speak as if they are speaking an absolute truth of Masonry. I gave an example of what I said.

I am afraid that is your own ignorant fault for not being able to read correctly.

Originally posted by thematrix
What I ment with that is that in any organisation, if you have taken an oath, and you find something fishy or something that general knowledge in the organisation, but you personaly find should be shared with the world, you can't bring that out without breaking your oath and dishonoring yourself by breaking that oath and destroying the trust the people you have vowed brotherhood to, have in you.

It's not the truth though dude.
Look at it this way: If you took an oath, believing it to be a promise for good and you actually found out that it was covering something bad, would you still consider that oath to be valid? I certainly wouldn't and neither would any of the Freemasons I know.
My first promise is to God. Freemasonry taught me that. Any oath made to Freemasonry comes second and any oath that is made under false pretence is not a promise that I would feel bound to keep.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Leveller]

Originally posted by Leveller
My first promise is to God. Freemasonry taught me that. Any oath made to Freemasonry comes second and any oath that is made under false pretence is not a promise that I would feel bound to keep.
[edit on 23-8-2004 by Leveller]

I agree 100%. If I did find anything that I found dishonorable or disloyal to God, I would not be bound to it. Because, I know that my God would not want me to keep something that is bad and against his/her teaching a secret.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I will create that thread, but until then, I'll say that at first Alex tried to tell me that Egypt is completely lacking in the rituals in Masonry. Only to have another Mason come up and tell me the opposite with documentation.

Really? Where is this other Mason who showed you that Egypt is mentioned in Masonry? All I saw on the thread was people agreeing with me. Show me this contradiction.

I'd like to see more of "In my lodge we don't have...," instead of "Masonry doesn't have..."

[edit -- removed something I said which I shouldn't have, which was, indeed, quite unnecessarily rude]

Masonry is a set of rituals and traditions. Yes, there are slightly different versions of the rituals used in different areas of the world, but they're all based on the same central structure. And yes, interpretation of those rituals is different in different areas, but there IS something called Masonry, about which we can talk, and it is not differently "interpreted" from Lodge to Lodge. Also, the issue of choosing ritual and standard interpretations in a jurisdiction is NOT related to the individual Lodge -- it's related to the Grand Lodge.

It seems to me, Jamuhn, that you simply want to be right, even though you don't know anything about Masonry. So, when a Mason disagrees with you, suddenly they're "speaking for themselves, not Masonry." Whereas you, the Great Jamuhn, can speak about Masonry as a whole. I'm personally tired of it. Myself, Theron, ML, MM, Leveller -- none of us have contradicted each other, and I challenge you to point out where we have.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by AlexKennedy]

Originally posted by thematrix
What I ment with that is that in any organisation, if you have taken an oath, and you find something fishy or something that general knowledge in the organisation, but you personaly find should be shared with the world, you can't bring that out without breaking your oath and dishonoring yourself by breaking that oath and destroying the trust the people you have vowed brotherhood to, have in you.

Nope. First of all, it's not an oath, it's an obligation, and secondly, part of the obligation is that you are honor-bound NOT to keep a secret if it is "contrary to the laws of God or man."

Hey... wait a minute... you just made a judgement about what you THINK Masonry does, without actually KNOWING what goes on! What a surprise!!! I've never seen THAT before (heavy sarcasm).

Its not pointed at the organisation, but at the person itself. How can you live with yourself if you have made an oath to a person or group of people and break that?

Look, I've said it before, but since some people on this thread whose opinions I respect have apparently misunderstood me, I'll say it again -- I have no problem whatsoever with you disliking the concept of organisations. Go ahead. If you never join Freemasonry, I won't lose any sleep over it. But when you start implying that I have "limited honour" or that people are ignorant if they join organisations, well, yes, I'm going to argue about that. Not that I think you're a bad person. Not that I'm accusing you of being "hateful and bitter." Just because I disagree with what you're saying.

P.S. About your "every organisation has bad apples," No. That's an unwarranted assumption. Having that opinion is a personality choice, not a fact. If you want to assume it, fine. I don't. I think it is possible that there could be an organisation that doesn't have bad apples. I don't think Freemasonry is such an organisation. There may be bad apples in Freemasonry. I've never met one, though, and I have met my share of bad apples outside the craft. I do most certainly think that Masonry has a much lower proportion of "bad apples" than a lot of other organisations.

Originally posted by AlexKennedy

Originally posted by Jamuhn
So, I was curious about the inclusion Thoth's supposed works in Masonry, because it seems that the pyramid thing comes from somewhere...

What pyramid thing? Sorry, Jamuhn, but can you blame me for being irritated when you repeatedly refer to things you "know" about Freemasonry that aren't actually, you know, true?

the pyramid appears in the ritual as a representation of the great builders of the past

www.masonicinfo.com...

I've seen a lot of Masons quote this webpage many times.

And obviously, I know a little something, but not more than yourself, about Masonry. You have even taught me some things, it wasn't that long ago, I'm sure you can remember (or not ). I am learning more though everyday, but I am discouraged when I am faced with condescending language and harsh speach. I told all you guys and I know you specifically Alex, that I state what I think and allow people to correct me, but instead I am getting attacked personally and I have to ask multiple times before you lay off me and get to the facts with some proof.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
And obviously, I know a little something, but not more than yourself, about Masonry. You have even taught me some things, it wasn't that long ago, I'm sure you can remember (or not

). I am learning more though everyday, but I am discouraged when I am faced with condescending language and harsh speach.

That's ludicrous. You present hostile arguments and condescending language all the time yourself.

I told all you guys and I know you specifically Alex, that I state what I think and allow people to correct me, but instead I am getting attacked personally

No. A personal attack would be something like "I think Jamuhn is a big idiot, and he hits women." Disagreeing with your points is not a personal attack.

and I have to ask multiple times before you lay off me and get to the facts with some proof.

That's pretty darn rich, as you're the one who never provides any proof of your "opinions." And since you're the one making assertions, the onus is on you to provide proof, not the people who are asking you for proof. That's like me saying "Jamuhn, I think you beat your mother on a regular basis, and I demand that you provide proof that you don't!"

I've provided where I got my information from and how I connected my ideas many times. And I do take condescending language and harsh tones as an insult. And yes, I do stoop to your and others level in this regard.

Maybe we can both start anew.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Well Jahmun, if you'd have bothered researching you would have found that the link that you use as evidence refers to it as The Eye of Providence. As it's already been pointed out to you many times (although you don't seem to be able to read), the Eye and Horus' Eye are two completely different things.

www.greatseal.com...

And if you studied properly you would see that it's origins are in the Renaissance - not Egypt.

www.epwijnants-lectures.com...

www.wordiq.com...

www.gpdemolay.org...

I wrote pyramids, not any eye.

I already read about that, and we were discussing that in another thread I believe.

Here's what I wrote:

It seems that the eye of providence started with freemasonry after its popular use, but this article links it to Horus nonetheless.

Here's what that article said that I introduced:

The simple fact is that the eye in the pyramid is not now nor has it ever been a Masonic symbol. While the 'Eye of Providence' (sometimes referred to in Masonic ritual as the "All-Seeing Eye") is always prominent to remind a Mason that his words and deeds are being judged by the Supreme Architect of the Universe and the pyramid appears in the ritual as a representation of the great builders of the past, their combined usage is nearly non-existent except by fanciful representations of someone who let their imagination create something.

The article is trying to distinguish between their combined usage.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Please keep this thread on topic, everyone has a right to their opinions and the freedom to express it within the terms and conditions of use within this site.

No one should have to face a personal attack for what they believe is the truth as they see it. civil discussion does more for all sides than does attacks.

There will be more warnings if the attacks continue.

You twist and turn like a rat in a drainpipe.
Your whole argument has been based on Egyptian symbology and how it ties into masonry, yet you haven't offered one single piece of evidence.

Do you think that pyramids have to be Egyptian? Do you honestly believe that the Egyptian civilisation had a monopoly on them?

And don't go whining that your argument isn't that the pyramids are Egyptian. Reading the other thread and the way you keep trying to tie in the Eye of Horus and the constant references you make to Egyptian mythology, makes that a waste of time.

Your argument wasn't that they were pyramids. Your argument was that they were Egyptian pyramids.

Well, I should have made that distinction clearer, I was talking about Egyptian pyramids. But I wasn't talking about the Eye of Horus and Masonry. The article talked about many different variations of the eye of providence. This is probably where I got the idea from about the tie of Egypt and Masonry:

Some Masonic writers and scholars go to great lengths telling us about the Egyptian Mysteries (Pike, Mackey, Hall, Waite, and Buck fall into this category), but, perhaps strangely, there is very little outright "Egyptianism" in the actual rituals of the fraternity. Excepting Pike's version of the 31�, there is practically none at all, unless one includes the Egyptian Rite of Memphis and Oriental Rite of Mitzraim, both of which have been tabled by regular Masonry.

Yet Pike spends about 300 pages total in Morals and Dogma elaborating on the Egyptian Mysteries, and comparing them to the rites of Solomonic Masonry, and Mackey does basically the same in his Masonic Encyclopedia. I believe many of their analogies or more or less correct, but it would also be easy for the non-Mason who reads these materials to draw false conclusions from them.

As he says at the end, maybe I am looking too much into, but it seems hard to distinguish what parts of Masonry are based of Egypt and which aren't.

My logic was that the pyramids were build of craftsmen (among the many slaves) and stone. So I would think that Egyptian pyramids would be part of the Masonry and their original craft. I haven't done much research on this, but are there any pyramids (not ziggurats) that existed without Egyptian influence?

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Please keep this thread on topic...

The thread started as an apology from dribbler to Masons and others, but that water has passed under the bridge long ago. And someplace along the line, amid relentless bickering, I received an apology and that is as close to on topic as this thread has ever been. Perhaps it is best that this thread be locked and that new thread with an actual topic be started so that we have a topic to stay on.
.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I haven't done much research on this, but are there any pyramids (not ziggurats) that existed without Egyptian influence?

Why don't you Google? You'll find plenty - especially in China and South America.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Well, I should have made that distinction clearer, I was talking about Egyptian pyramids. But I wasn't talking about the Eye of Horus and Masonry. The article talked about many different variations of the eye of providence. This is probably where I got the idea from about the tie of Egypt and Masonry:

Right. What ML was trying to say there, though (if I may arrogate to myself the right to speak about what he meant) is that there's little doubt there is a connection between Freemasonry and some aspects of Egyptian civilisation. But there's a few caveats there. First, there is very little that is explicitly Egyptian in any ritual, and none in the Craft Lodge ritual. The fact that there is no explicitly Egyptian material in the Craft Lodge ritual is what we mean when we say "there are no Egyptian elements in Masonry." Secondly, the Egyptian "spirit," if you want to call it that, in Masonry is only a small point of contact -- not everything that was in Egyptian culture is in Masonry, and not everything that is in Masonry comes from Egyptian culture. Thirdly, the connection between Egyptian mysteries and Masonry may be one of common ancestry or common roots in the universal subconscious. That is to say, it may be that both the Egyptian Mysteries and Masonry got their idea from some other, more ancient source (prehistoric nomadic herdsmen, say, or the early Zarathustrians), or it may be that they both received these ideas as abstracts from a universal pool of archetypes.

I know you aren't adressing Masonry directly in your argument, Jamuhn, but I thought this information might be of use to you.

As he says at the end, maybe I am looking too much into, but it seems hard to distinguish what parts of Masonry are based of Egypt and which aren't.

Just to be completely clear -- it may be that Masonry is not based on Egypt at all. What ML is trying to say is that there are points of connection between the spirit of Masonry and the spirit of certain ancient Egyptian mysteries.

My logic was that the pyramids were build of craftsmen (among the many slaves) and stone. So I would think that Egyptian pyramids would be part of the Masonry and their original craft. I haven't done much research on this, but are there any pyramids (not ziggurats) that existed without Egyptian influence?

Could possibly be so, but again, pyramids are never explicitly mentioned in the Craft Lodge ritual.

There are many Pyramids that existed without Egyptian influence. Take those of the Mayans, for example (some of them were flat-topped, so they could arguably be called very highly angular ziggurats, but the distinction is so tenuous as to be irrelevant). You can also find ancient pyramids in China.

Just as a brief note, Jamuhn, I appreciate your spirit of curiosity. Masonry teaches that one must moderate the spirit of "Strength" with the reign of "Wisdom," which is a deeper mystery than can be explained here. But one resulting lesson from this doctrine is that if one has curiosity without assumption, and if one seeks answers without presupposing patterns, one will succeed.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by AlexKennedy]

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Please keep this thread on topic...

The thread started as an apology from dribbler to Masons and others, but that water has passed under the bridge long ago. And someplace along the line, amid relentless bickering, I received an apology and that is as close to on topic as this thread has ever been. Perhaps it is best that this thread be locked and that new thread with an actual topic be started so that we have a topic to stay on.
.

I agree...

There was talk about that earlier, but I haven't seen it yet...

There are many Pyramids that existed without Egyptian influence. Take those of the Mayans, for example (some of them were flat-topped, so they could arguably be called very highly angular ziggurats, but the distinction is so tenuous as to be irrelevant). You can also find ancient pyramids in China.

Wow! That article is very interesting indeed. I guess its too soon to make a conclusion that we are, in part, of alien origin.

Originally posted by Leveller
Correct me if I'm wrong Axeman, but his first post implied that Freemasons are not trustworthy and "limited in honour".

Second reason would be that binding yourself to a groupment will limit you in honor and trust to bring out whatever information you stumble upon within the organisation.

Yes, I can see how it would come across that way to you, but that statement is based on the false assumption that there is something nefarious within Freemasonry to stumble upon. I can see where he's coming from because I used to think the exact same thing. While I think he should get the facts straight before speaking, I don't think it was an intentional attack, merely a situation posed out of ignorance to the truth. I think that has already been covered, but I wanted to respond to you particularly, so there is no impression that we have crossed each other somehow.



[edit on 8/23/04 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Wow! That article is very interesting indeed. I guess its too soon to make a conclusion that we are, in part, of alien origin.

Ah, too much "Stargate SG-1." I myself am watching the second season, which my friend leant me. It's always nice to see good TV being made, especially good TV that doesn't get cancelled after the first Season. Now if only we could get a few more episodes of the (traditional) Twilight Zone...

[edit on 23-8-2004 by AlexKennedy]