Internet research

I've noticed something rather disturbing: Many of the posters here are relying heavily on "sources" found on the internet . . . . one of the worst sources of information. I'm seeing people provide links that would never be addressed seriously in a proper academic situation.

ROFL. Even websites that are DEDICATED to proving this or that wild theory DO provide sources . . . . . which themselves are incredibly biased, either because they are religious in nature, "new age", or are the cyberspace equivalent to Unsolved Mysteries.

I really don't care what any of you post, but if you want to be taken seriously, please be a bit more selective. I recommend you pay attention to te URL: whatever.edu, or whatever.umass.org, or utoronto.ca . . . . all of these are good examples. Educational institutions. Masonlies.com, MasonicMysteries.org, and whatever else . . . . or Pharmacratic Inquisition.com . . . . (a guy made a website to promote the legalization of weed, based on an attempt to intellectualize the debate using far-out theories. Give me a break), these are noty worthy of attention. I need not even mention freemasonrywatch.

I also challenge everyone who has theories about Masons to either join them, or attend one of their "open house" meetings. Your opportunity for REAL field research awaits.

Some things to consider.

i'm sorry, you didn't provide any links for your research.

EDIT: crud... i managed to post that before typing everything...

anyway, ATS is just debate. the sources do play into context. when people do use flawes sources, the flaws are quickly pointed out. in your research and watching people post you should have seen this. it's not just that in the secret societies forum, but all the forums.

[edit on 8/26/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
i'm sorry, you didn't provide any links for your research.

Cmdr, did I rub off on you, or are you just hitting the "Mirthful Sauce" early?

I believe the crux of LTD's post is the all too common reliance on third party, and agenda driven websites, and eschewing the academic, and verifiable content sites.

My favorite is when people use a link to another forum as a support for their �point of view�, which is just some other anonymous poster (poser?).

This should probably be in �Board Questions and Business�, but I don�t have a link�

ATS Monkeys, not just the �missing link� anymore�

An interesting topic.

What LTD writes is quite correct - self-published websites can contain all sorts of (mis/ dis) information, with a bias towards whatever position the author wishes to take. Even our beloved media - and politicians - have been known to put "spin" on stories - or so I'm led to believe (by that self-same media!)

If one were to write a paper for a learned journal (say) then one would expect correct (possibly) Harvard referencing, an abstract, a bibliography - and peer-review - at the very least.

However, ATS caters for all-comers, of all ages, backgrounds, countries, belief systems, educational attainment, etc - and is the better for it IMO. It is not "elite" or "exclusive" but tries to cater to a "broad church".

Therefore, have we the right to expect *everybody* to have these skills, knowledge and experience, probably only truly experienced at post graduate level? Should we (as a community) restrict posting only to those who possess these criteria? I suspect that if we did, membership would drop dramatically and ATS would not be the vibrant, informative and - dare I say it? - funny place that it has become?

Or, do we try instead to counter facetious arguments (if such we find) through debate, good humour and pointing out those discrepencies?

For myself, I *hope* I show some discernment in the websites I select - and I guess that's all any of us can attempt to do? Whether this is successful or not, I'm sure someone will soon tell me

If there was no web I would be sending you down the libary and you would be complaining about the author of the book.

I can only speak for me but I have a few books, well borrowed from others, about illuminati. One written in the 70s actually, before the web. The information in there is about the same as some 'non' offical website.

The only power I see in freemasonary is whats above 33 degree. I can't join above that can I? thats the problem. On average how long would it take someone to reach the 33rd degree? and do these 33 degree masons ALL have high public status?

I bet you take an oath once you get past 33 degree not to share any info with anyone under 33 degrees! (of course I don't know that but I am guessing you do).

As for academics, I had to UNLEARN about history when I left education.


[edit on 26-8-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
The only power I see in freemasonary is whats above 33 degree. I can't join above that can I?

The 33� is the highest degree in Scottish Rite Masonry, and is the second highest honor that can be bestowed by the Supreme Council. The highest honor conferred is the Grand Cross of the Court of Honour, but this is a decoration, not a degree.

On average how long would it take someone to reach the 33rd degree?

The Statutes of the Supreme Council, S.J., require that a Brother be a 32� Mason in good standing for a minimum of 42 months before being eligible to receive the decoration of Knight Commander of the Court of Honour (KCCH). The Statutes further require that a Brother be KCCH for a minimum of 42 additional months before being nominated to the 33�. Therefore, the minimum time between joining the Scottish Rite and being eligible for the 33� is 7 years. This minimum time, however, can be waived by the unanimous vote of the Supreme Council, for both KCCH and 33�.

and do these 33 degree masons ALL have high public status?

No. Most 33� Masons are "regular Joes". The 33� is an honorary degree, conferred on those who have faithfully served the Rite, Masonry in general, the nation, and/or the community, and deserve recognition for such service.

I bet you take an oath once you get past 33 degree not to share any info with anyone under 33 degrees! (of course I don't know that but I am guessing you do).

Each Masonic degree contains its own obligations, which all members of the degree assume. Candidates to the 33� assume an obligation that recaps the proceeding degrees, as well as pledging to never recognize any degree higher than the 33�, of any Rite.

Fiat Lvx.



[edit on 26-8-2004 by Masonic Light]

Thanks for that.

So after 33 degree there is nothing? what about the order of Garter? do you have to be 33 degree to join that or can you just be any degree?

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Thanks for that.

So after 33 degree there is nothing? what about the order of Garter? do you have to be 33 degree to join that or can you just be any degree?

The Order of the Garter is not a Masonic Order or Degree -- it is an Order of Chivalry within the British Empire. It was instituted by Edward III in 1348, and is rewarded to those who have shown extraordinary military service or loyalty.

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Thanks for that.

So after 33 degree there is nothing? what about the order of Garter? do you have to be 33 degree to join that or can you just be any degree?

The Order of the Garter is not Masonic, nor is it conferred by any Masonic organization. It is a decoration conferred by the British Crown.

However, in Masonry, the Garter is mentioned in the ritual of the First Degree. When the new Apprentice receives his Apron, he is told that it is the "badge of a Mason, more ancient than the Golden Fleece or Roman Eagle, more honorable than the Star and Garter..."

Fiat Lvx.

I see.

Thanks for that.

Listen I have another question. Don't take it the wrong way. Is Baal mentioned in anyway? Also what do you think of the thought Hermes and Nimrod founded freemasonary?

Quite a lot happened in those times, or so it seems.

[edit on 26-8-2004 by 7th_Chakra]

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
I see.

Thanks for that.

Listen I have another question. Don't take it the wrong way. Is Baal mentioned in anyway?

Nope. The word Ba'al only means "Lord" anyway. For this reason, you can find many biblical characters with the word "Ba'al" in their names. Look at this link. It is only in our recent, and relatively uneducated times, that people think the word "Ba'al" is the name of a demon rather than a descriptor of any god, including the God of Abraham. (I mean no offense to you in saying this).

Also what do you think of the thought Hermes and Nimrod founded freemasonary?

Just a note -- it's "Freemasonry." Many people say the word "Freemasonary," but that pronunciation is incorrect.

I've never heard of the idea that Hermes and Nimrod (together?) founded Freemasonry. Do you have further information on this theory?

Alex,

sorry let me correct the question.

Hermes found Freemasonry and and Nimrod being the 1st to teach it. does that make more sense?

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
Alex,

sorry let me correct the question.

Hermes found Freemasonry and and Nimrod being the 1st to teach it. does that make more sense?

Indeed! First of all, to clear things up, I believe that the rumour usually given is that Freemasonry is derived from the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus. I believe this claim is mythological (and I'm not too positive on the actual existence of Hermes Trismegistus -- I don't rule it out, though). The importance of the claim is not so much the idea of history, but rather the symbolic connection between Masonic doctrine and Hermetic doctrine. If we actually want to believe that H.T. was the originator of Freemasonry, first we have to prove he existed, and then we have the very onerous task of proving he created Freemasonry.

As for Nimrod (the Great Hunter) promoting Freemasonry, I've never even heard this before. Nimrod is traditionally the builder of the Tower of Babel. Since the wisdom of humankind was splintered at Babel (because of the confusion of languages), it is unlikely that any specific doctrine was communicated there and survived. Of course, if we don't believe in the literal confusion of languages, rather believing that story to be metaphorical, we are stuck with the problem of not knowing much about Nimrod at all.

If Freemasonry as Freemasonry stretches back to the time of Nimrod, I suspect we're in trouble with respect to finding its history -- there simply are not enough reliable records (unless someone comes up with a cuneiform tablet talking about Masonry -- not out of the question). At the moment, I feel there is simply not enough information fo form a reasonable history of Freemasonry.

Originally posted by LTD602
Pharmacratic Inquisition.com . . . . (a guy made a website to promote the legalization of weed, based on an attempt to intellectualize the debate using far-out theories. Give me a break)...

Either you believe an individual should have the "free will" to make his/her own choices or you do not. Obviously you prefer to have the church and state make your choices for you, which is all well and good; if not for the fact that you apparently support the church and state making those choices for everyone else via the sanction of incarceration.

The subjugation of an individual's "free will" by the state is not only "far-out", it is utterly insane and should be unacceptable in a "free society". Intellectualization of this issue is not the problem, the problem is the deintellectualization of the issue which has resulted in the dogmatic and ignorant "drug war" we have now.
.

So freemasonry doesn't have a 100% definate start date?

You speak about hermes T, have you heard of The devine Hermes? whom the Romans called Mercury. Among the Egytians he was known as Thoth.

questions questions!!

"Either you believe an individual should have the "free will" to make his/her own choices or you do not. Obviously you prefer to have the church and state make your choices for you, which is all well and good; if not for the fact that you apparently support the church and state making those choices for everyone else via the sanction of incarceration. "

df1 . . . . absolutely, a person DOES have the right to make their own decisions, according to the dictates of their own will. I was just being a disdainful asshole there . . . . whenever I see someone trying to promote hemp as the answer to all of our household needs, I look for the bong. In any case, I was being a dick. I'm entitled now and then . . .

Originally posted by 7th_Chakra
So freemasonry doesn't have a 100% definate start date?

No, it does not. Public Masonry began in 1717, we know that, with the formation of the first Grand Lodge. But before that, things are mostly speculation (although it's clear Masonry existed before 1717).

You speak about hermes T, have you heard of The devine Hermes? whom the Romans called Mercury. Among the Egytians he was known as Thoth.

Of course. I was trying to make the distinction between H.T. and Hermes. They are not the same person. Indeed, I have trouble believing that Hermes and Thoth were the same gods before the enforced syncretism of the pseudo-Pharonic Greeks made them so. What I mean to say is that I doubt Hermes and Thoth were the same in the way that Ishtar and Inanna were the same.

questions questions!!

They are the only way to get answers answers!