Would you want to be a Freemason?

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
Q- Why was JFK opposed to secret societies with secret oaths, if he was a member of one until he died?

Possible Answers (all as good as anyone else's best guess, which is as good as you're going to get):

1. Politician Doublespeak (look it up)
2. He is a lousy hypocrite and always was.
3. He is a megalomaniacal egotistical douchebag
4.He's been misinterpreted by quote-mining ideologues.

With the exception of your intentionally absurd fourth response (and an insertion of my own serious one), three of four answers are serious marks on Kennedy's trustworthiness. This begs another question: if any of the top three are true, and you certainly seem to believe one or more of them is, why should Kennedy's testimony on the matter be considered credible?

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Surely the conspiracy theories relating to Freemasons and its association with corruption can't easily be addressed?

It's really not that hard. To wit:

"When a straw poll was done of judges several years ago, less than five per cent were freemasons and none of those responsible for judicial appointments were."

there had been "no evidence" of any "unacceptable behaviour by Freemason judges.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham...said: "Our position is and has always been that no-one has ever been able to suggest that there has ever been a vestige of evidence that any judge in any case ever in this country has been diverted from his duty by any conflict arising from Freemasonic association."

I'd have to say "no" due to the negative views that exist in relation to Freemasons

If you don't want to become a Mason, that's your choice (and I'm aware you had a matter of personal taste I've chosen not to address), but this I never understood, at least not on ATS. Everyone's supposedly here because they think differently, disregard the norm and hold mainstream ignorance in contempt...and yet this is at least the third time I've heard a sense of vague popular unease cited as a motivator on this very subject.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Oh, hah, hah, hah. You 'studied' Masonry for 30 years and you mention the Taxil Hoax?

Actually, No.
I was referring to the statements Pike actually *did* make about Lucifer.
I'm sorry, but you won't be able to lobotomize the conversation enough to make the real things he said about Lucifer just disappear. It was HP Blavatsky who mentioned Adonai in relation to Lucifer, not Pike. So I apologize for citing Adonai in reference to Pike.

I have been aware of the distortions and fabrications of the Anti-Masonic movement for a long time. I know the difference.
And as far as I can tell, Leo Taxil didn't write Morals & Dogma for Albert Pike, (which I own).

My friend who was the WM at one of the LA-area lodges (I won't say which) is THE ONE who brought my attention to their views on Lucifer (which is not the same as Satan or the devil, ya frickin idiots) and God being inverted, as though the story of the Garden of Eden shows God to be a tyrant and Lucifer to be the bringer of Free-Will. There's much more to it, but there's no reason to re-cap the whole thing here.

The point is: that ol' man in the video wasn't JUST pulling the guy (w/ the camera's) leg.. there was definitely some truth to what he was saying. And I've come up against that truth time & time again, without looking for it..

BTW I never said that *I* studied FM for 30 years, but I have friends who have, who saw and say the same thing as I am saying here. They unfortunately will not sign up for this forum.
My father left the SR for the same reason... after being in it for many years and reaching the 32º.
What I meant was: it takes audacity to tell someone *who has* been studying for 30 years that they don't know more than a pee-on Master Mason who has been in it for a couple years and thinks he knows all there is to know.

I'm not looking for a fight here.
I have my views on Freemasonry and you have yours.
You can continue to believe you are doing good for people and I will hold fast to what my own personal experiences have shown me.

I don't hang out at "Jesus-nutter" websites like you said I do. I know Leo Taxil was a fraud. I have a library of occult books, and I am a high-level "student" of Kabbalah, which I have been studying passionately for about 20 years. The reason I was valuable to the people I mentioned in LA was because of my knowledge in that area.

They also had read many books on the subject and were more "practical" in their workings, however I held certain conceptual and theoretic strengths that they hadn't yet discovered, due to my delving into some pretty obscure studies, books and teachers who were more specialized and "under the radar".

If you want to test my knowledge on Kabbalah and call me a noob again, I would be happy to get into a heated debate over *that* with you.

And if you want to say there is no relevance or pertinence to Kabbalah in reference to FM, you can expect a hefty laugh from the depths of my plus-sized belly.

reply to post by LeonoraTenen

The statement where he was mocking the idea that Lucifer and Satan were the same thing; literally or figuratively? Too many think that the mere mention of Lucifer in Pike's book means we automatically worship this mislabeled being.

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
BTW I never said that *I* studied FM for 30 years, but I have friends who have, who saw and say the same thing as I am saying here. They unfortunately will not sign up for this forum.

Then you wrote it poorly as you said the following:

Believe me, I know as much as any of you about Freemasonry. I've studied it for years.
My Father was a 32º SR / Templar.

There are really no secrets anymore that haven't been published.. so it's pretty hilarious to see Freemasons saying they know more about Freemasonry than someone who's not a FM, but has studied it for 30 years.

You said you studied it for years and then in the next paragraph say its funny for Masons to say they know more than someone who has studied it for 30-years. You didn't refer to a friend and thus the only conclusion one can come to is that you were talking about you having 30-years of experience.

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
What I meant was: it takes audacity to tell someone *who has* been studying for 30 years that they don't know more than a pee-on Master Mason who has been in it for a couple years and thinks he knows all there is to know.

Experience trumps book learning.

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
I was referring to the statements Pike actually *did* make about Lucifer.
...
And as far as I can tell, Leo Taxil didn't write Morals & Dogma for Albert Pike, (which I own).

Which quote do you want? There are only four mentions of Lucifer in the entirety of Morals & Dogma:

Hypocrisy is the homage that vice and wrong pay to virtue and justice. It is .Satan attempting to clothe himself in the angelic vesture of light. It is equally detestable in morals, politics, and religion; in the man and in the nation. To do injustice under the pretence of equity and fairness; to reprove vice in public and commit it in private; to pretend to charitable opinion and censoriously condemn; to profess the principles of Masonic beneficence, and close the ear to the wail of distress and the cry of suffering; to eulogize the intelligence of the people, and plot to deceive and be-tray them by means of their ignorance and simplicity; to prate of purity, and peculate; of honor, and basely abandon a sinking cause; of disinterestedness, and sell one's vote for place and power, are hypocrisies as common as they are infamous and disgraceful. To steal the livery of the Court of God to serve the Devil withal; to pretend to believe in a God of mercy and a Redeemer of love, and persecute those of a different faith; to devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; to preach continence, and wallow in lust; to inculcate humility, and in pride surpass Lucifer; to pay tithe, and omit the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith; to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel; to make clean the outside of the cup and platter, keeping them full within of extortion and excess; to appear outwardly righteous unto men, but within be full of hypocrisy and iniquity, is indeed to be like unto whited sepulchres, which appear beautiful outward, but are within full of bones of the dead and of all uncleanness.

Ch. III, p73

The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry.

For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God PAN; 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.

Ch. III, p102

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. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! 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! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired.

Ch. XIX, p321

It is by His uttered Word that God reveals Himself to us; not alone in the visible and invisible but intellectual creation, but also in our convictions, consciousness, and instincts. Hence it is that certain beliefs are universal. The conviction of all men that God is good led to a belief in a Devil, the fallen Lucifer or Light-bearer, Shaitan the Adversary, Ahriman and Tupho_n, as an attempt to explain the existence of Evil, and make it consistent with the Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Benevolence of God.

Ch. XIX, p324

Furthermore, Pike explicitly says he doesn't believe in any adversary to God, but argues that all the evil that happens is part of God's plan, and by experiencing the bad, we can appreciate the good.

—Of that 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.

Ch. XXXII, pp 859-860

Yes... I am nosey.
However, I will choose not to be a "Freemason" for selfish reasons.
These reasons are not based on the superstitions of propaganda. Instead they are based on the idea one may draw from the title itself. Example: "Mason"
Whether speculative or operative, I find it not necessary to understand how one affects him/herself or the others around him/her with such knowledge of the craft. The duty may itself not be concerned with knowledge of it.
In choosing to be one you should first consider that it is highly likely to be something but find that there is already that thing. Why then choose to be what one can make you when in fact you can make yourself to be greater within your own rite(s). If per chance you do decide there may indeed be benefits, and if per chance after you make the choice... you may find that you become a mason and thus may thereafter have to be one.
In some respect though, you find you have to be yourself, but a better kind of self. Who then can make you better? You or another?
If and when I choose to be a mason... All I can do and say is: "I came to make sure that it never happens again!"
Reference to "Hiram Abif" not G.A.O.T.U.
When I make that choice... If ever... I expect G.A.O.T.U. not to let that happen to me!

Also... I think I respect "Freemason" more than I should.


And lastly: They are not "Satan" Worshippers... or "Devil" Worshippers... or "Lucifer" Worshippers... or "Beast" Worshippers... or "Dragon/Beast" Worshippers... !!!

What they do worship, if ever, is more than there own craft! It is you... if and when you decide to be one.
But don't go thinking that that kind of worship is profane or sacred. Instead a good friend.
And as for G.A.O.T.U....
To me.. it is either or... "Grand Architect Of The Universe" or "Grave Acts Of The Underworld"
I prefer the underworld.

All antiquity solved the enigma of the existence of Evil, by supposing the existence of a Principle of Evil, of Demons, fallen Angels, an Ahriman, a Typhon, a Siva, a Lok, or a Satan, that, first falling themselves, and plunged in misery and darkness, tempted man to his fall, and brought sin into the world. All believed in a future life, to be attained by purification and trials; in a state or successive states of reward and punishment; and in a Mediator or Redeemer, by whom the Evil Principle was to be overcome, and the Supreme Deity reconciled to His creatures. The belief was general, that He was to be born of a Virgin, and suffer a painful death. The Indians called him Chrishna; the Chinese, Kioun-tse; the Persians, Sosiosch; the Chaldeans, Dhouvanai; the Egyptians, Har-Oeri; Plato, Love; and the Scandinavians, Balder.

Ch. XVIII, p277

To every Mason, the Infinite Justice and Benevolence of God give ample assurance that Evil will ultimately be dethroned, and the Good, the True, and the Beautiful reign triumphant and eternal. It teaches, as it feels and knows, that Evil, and Pain, and Sorrow exist as part of a wise and beneficent plan, all the parts of which work together under God's eye to a result which shall be perfection. Whether the existence of evil is rightly explained in this creed or in that, by Typhon the Great Serpent, by Ahriman and his Armies of Wicked Spirits, by the Giants and Titans that war against Heaven, by the two co-existent Principles of Good and Evil, by Satan's temptation and the fall of Man, by Lok and the Serpent Fenris, it is beyond the domain of Masonry to decide, nor does it need to inquire. Nor is it within its Province to determine how the ultimate triumph of Light and Truth and Good, over Darkness and Error and Evil, is to be achieved; nor whether the Redeemer, looked and longed for by all nations, hath appeared in Judea, or is yet to come.

Ch. XXVI, p525

On the history of personifying evil:

The division of things into the active and the passive cause leads to that of the two Principles of Light and Darkness, connected with and corresponding with it. For Light comes from the ethereal substance that composes the active cause, and darkness from earth or the gross matter which composes the passive cause. In Hesiod, the Earth, by its union with Tartarus, engenders Typhon. Chief of the Powers or Genii of Darkness. But it unites itself with the Ether or Ouranos, when it engenders the Gods of Olympus, or the Stars, children of Starry Ouranos.

Light was the first Divinity worshipped by men. To it they owed the brilliant spectacle of Nature. It seems an emanation from the Creator of all things, making known to our senses the Universe which darkness hides from our eyes, and, as it were, giving it existence. Darkness, as it were, reduces all nature again to nothingness, and almost entirely annihilates man.

Naturally, therefore, two substances of opposite natures were imagined, to each of which the world was in turn subjected, one contributing to its felicity and the other to its misfortune. Light multiplied its enjoyments; Darkness despoiled it of them: the former was its friend, the latter its enemy. To one all good was attributed; to the other all evil; and thus the words "Light" and "Good" became synonymous, and the words "Darkness" and "Evil." It seeming that Good and Evil could not flow from one and the same source, any more than could Light and Darkness, men naturally imagined two Causes or Principles, of different natures and opposite in their effects, one of which shed Light and Good, and the other Darkness and Evil, on the Universe.

This distinction of the two Principles was admitted in all the Theologies, and formed one of the principal bases of all religions. It entered as a primary element into the sacred fables, the cosmogonies and the Mysteries of antiquity. "We are not to suppose," says Plutarch, "that the Principles of the Universe are inanimate bodies, as Democritus and Epicurus thought; nor that a matter devoid of qualities is organized and arranged by a single Reason or Providence, Sovereign over all things, as the Stoics held; for it is not possible that a single Being, good or evil, is the cause of all, inasmuch as God can in nowise be the cause of any evil. The harmony of the Universe is a combination of contraries, like the strings of a lyre, or that of a bow, which alternately is stretched and relaxed." "The good," says Euripides, "is never separated from the Evil. The two must mingle, that all may go well." And this opinion as to the two principles, continues Plutarch, "is that of all antiquity. From the Theologians and Legislators it passed to the Poets and Philosophers. Its author is unknown; but the opinion itself is established by the traditions of the whole human race, and consecrated in the mysteries and sacrifices both of the Greeks and Barbarians, wherein was recognized the dogma of opposing principles in nature, which, by their contrariety, produce the mixture of good and evil. We must admit two contrary causes, two opposing powers, which lead, one to the right and the other to the left, and thus control our life, as they do the sublunary world, which is therefore subject to so many changes and irregularities of every kind. For if there can be no effect without a cause, and if the Good cannot be the cause of the Evil, it is absolutely necessary that there should be a cause for the Evil, as there is one for the Good." This doctrine, he adds, has been generally received among most nations, and especially by those who have had the greatest reputation for wisdom. All have admitted two gods, with different occupations, one making the good and the other the evil found in nature. The former has been styled "God," the latter "Demon." The Persians, or Zoroaster, named the former Ormuzd and the latter Ahriman; of whom they said one was of the nature of Light, the other of that of Darkness. The Egyptians called the former Osiris, and the latter Typhon, his eternal enemy.

The Hebrews, at least after their return from the Persian captivity, had their good Deity, and the Devil, a bad and malicious Spirit, ever opposing God, and Chief of the Angels of Darkness, as God was of those of Light. The word "Satan" means, in Hebrew, simply, "The Adversary."

The Chaldæans, Plutarch says, had their good and evil stars. The Greeks had their Jupiter and Pluto, and their Giants and Titans, to whom were assigned the attributes of the Serpent with which Pluto or Serapis was encircled, and the shape whereof was assumed by Typhon, Ahriman, and the Satan of the Hebrews. Every people had something equivalent to this.

Ch. XXVIII, pp659–661

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
I was referring to the statements Pike actually *did* make about Lucifer.
I'm sorry, but you won't be able to lobotomize the conversation enough to make the real things he said about Lucifer just disappear.

No one is asking you to make things disappear, oh great and dilligent multi-decade studier of Masonry, just explain it in context.

BTW I never said that *I* studied FM for 30 years...

Your statement has already been quoted above. It is hard to see where you did not claim such.

My father left the SR for the same reason... after being in it for many years and reaching the 32º.

There is nothing impressive about 'reaching' the 32nd Degree in the United States. Almost every Scottish Rite Mason does so in rather short time.

What I meant was: it takes audacity to tell someone *who has* been studying for 30 years that they don't know more than a pee-on Master Mason who has been in it for a couple years and thinks he knows all there is to know.

Well, since you now claim to not have studied Masonry for more then 30 years who cares about some hearsay you bring to this forum? I have a friend who studied Masonry for more than 31.375 years, and he said what you said your friend said was wrong. See how easy that is?

I know Leo Taxil was a fraud. I have a library of occult books...

Then I suggest re-reading them so you do not post the silly 'Adonay'/'Lucifer'/'Three World Wars' crap again. Decades of study and you confuse Blavatsky with Taxil? Please...

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You're doing great.

I hit a wall.

tried to reply but internet went dead... lost my post. Oh well. Will try again later.

Originally posted by LeonoraTenen
tried to reply but internet went dead... lost my post. Oh well. Will try again later.

edit on 12-3-2012 by LeonoraTenen because: lost post

I will be awaiting your next venture.

This thread is a feast.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by King Seesar

 

Here is a link to that whole speech. If you read it, instead of the chopped up, out of context version that conspiracy folks like to quote, you see that he was asking the press to not print everything they may hear and to think of national security. It's amazing how you can omit some parts of a paragraph and make it sound completely different.

I think JFK is directing his words to the Fifth Column in the Press with this speech. JFK of course had to know about secret societies in the Catholic Church, etc. He had to understand the power of the Freemasons, etc. He is slapping the Fifth Column a little bit. I'm sure it had to agitate them. I do not think ''Freemasonry'' killed JFK.

JFK also wanted to keep secrets, and keep some things in America, and the refusal to transfer nuclear technology to Israel is most likely what did him in. No doubt some secret society, or factions of secret societies, were involved from the intelligence agencies to the press to local law to military commanders. There are plenty of secrets and secret associations in society in general. Those who are on top are not necessarily there with good intentions for the local population.

It is extremely naive to go around thinking that everybody is open and transparent and nobody has any angles to play.

reply to post by XXX777


are you aware that JFK was a member of the Knight of Columbus? It's a secret society within the Catholic Church and it's very much like masonry. I think the only reason JFK was not a mason is he was Catholic. If you read the speech, it's very hard not to understand what he was saying.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by XXX777

 

are you aware that JFK was a member of the Knight of Columbus? It's a secret society within the Catholic Church and it's very much like masonry. I think the only reason JFK was not a mason is he was Catholic. If you read the speech, it's very hard not to understand what he was saying.

That JFK was a K of C really wasn't at the top of my consciousness.

I do know that the Catholic Church is blamed for hostilities against Freemasons at various points in history. And Catholics didn't like Templars, or heretics of any sort, or something along those lines. Religion as politics. So I get how people could think that Freemasonry killed JFK for some reason or other.

But I think the answer is something along the lines of religious extremists like world Zionists trying to check the power of the United States, or on the other hand something so complex within the structure of the Roman Empire that we will never understand without being explicitly instructed at some very high level.

HERE IS THE EDIT: Thinking about JFK as part of the Roman Empire via Catholic Church secret society makes me believe even more that he was backhanding the Press Fifth Column in that speech. If Rome didn't like JFK getting too chatty with Hollywood, then Rome could have taken out JFK. But JFK seems to have been aware that Hollywood and the Press were not his friends, so I think the real motive lies elsewhere. The refusal to transfer nuclear technology is the most damning evidence I've read. They say that very soon after his death, the new President gave Israel whatever Israel wanted. That seems to show who benefited from the assassination.

Now, Marilyn Monroe could have been killed by Rome. No doubt.

To network dude and XXX777 i agree with what both of you had to say i think that JFK was talking about many things in that speech including communism and also secret societies, now did he have something against the Masons persay because he was Catholic maybe but he was just trying to cover all his bases.


As far as the Mason's being involved with his death i'll say this i do partly believe in some of the known conspiracy that people bring up against the Masons i just have my own take on it that makes more sense that i'v explained before, but taking into all account what i know about the murder of John fitzgerald Kennedy there's probably other groups you would want to look at first imo....

Hey... That reminds me.
JFK was murdered for being a Roman Catholic inside the heirarchy of the Freemason's Country.
While not all felt that strongly about it... Someone did enough to have him killed.
Why?

reply to post by XXX777


My grandfather was a devout Catholic and a 33rd deg Mason.

You're talking about old history between the Holy Roman Church and the Templar Knights.

I just wanted to follow up and say that I'm not really interested in heated debates with people (in this case a gaggle of Freemasons) who so quickly resort to insults, when they feel they are defending themselves, their relatives (or their "craft") from attacks put out by anti-masonic hoax literature...

There is a clear difference between anti-masonic literature and the simple acknowledgement that Freemasonry has borrowed its degrees, rituals and customs from Druidic and other Ancient (ie, Kemetic, Hermetic and Goetic) forms of Witch-Craft.. and that is why it is referred to as "Ancient and Accepted", and "The Craft".

I don't need Leo Taxil's BS anti-masonry to make the point that Pike was referring to Lucifer in the same way which Manly P. Hall, Helena P Blavatsky, Crowley, and many other "mystics" do... which is the bearer of truth and LIGHT... the divine agent of free-will - free-er of men.

The GAOTU is kept vague for a good reason (as is the "All-Seeing Eye of Providence").
And they don't want atheists in their sects because, as spirit-workers, that leaves them nothing to work with.

Look, I have known enough mystical/magickal masons to know what the hell is going on. They were my close friends, (some young, and some *OLD* - past WM's) as were the OTO members who they "worked" & partied with (who I knew too). There is no amount of clever deception you can whip up to cloak what has only been kept from view (especially in recent past) with a semi-translucent veil. You've really got your work cut out for you if you plan to not look dishonest to people who've seen enough themselves where it's obvious you're either lying or just ignorant still. Maybe none of you are valuable enough to them, due to your lack of occult knowledge or talent, plus connections) for them to discuss these matters with you. I represented a connection to top-level music industry and I came with knowledge on specialized Kabbalah in areas they had never been exposed to and which are not available simply from books you'd find in the local Psychic Eye bookshop.
I can only guess that it is these main two factors (plus, who I am) that allowed me to have extensive discussions about the nature of divine singularity versus duality and have them answer me frankly.

Have any of you even thought to venture that deeply to see the spiritual aspects, with regard to how these rituals and emblems come straight from Egyptian Kemeticism, Canaanite / Phoenician / Sumerian / Babylonian mystery cults, Druidic Magick, Pan-theism, Dionysian ritual etc...?

It's fairly obvious isn't it? If not, then what do YOU make of it? Is it just like a bingo game to you?
Or do you see the theistic side of Masonry to be focussed solely on the God of the Good, not also that of "Evil"??
Because if that's the case, I think that's a bit far-fetched, to not believe it addresses evil too.

Still I have to laugh at myself for even trying to have this conversation right now. It's futile.
It's a pipe dream for anyone to expect you guys not to *always* conceal the things you are required to by oath.
Therefore an honest debate is an impossibility. You can say there are no such oaths and it will be viewed as simply another empty denial. So it's futile for you to try and convince me to the contrary of what I believe that I know from my own experience and friends' candid words (not all simply "bad masons").

The reason my father left the SR was because he began to learn more at the upper degrees (didn't take a weekend to get 32º back then because attendance wasn't as low as it is now) and those things conflicted with his being a Christian. I don't feel the need to say more, but I could via PM. He was at a different lodge in the LA area than the one I was brought into and the same teachings were occurring. So it's not just a fluke. And think.. this is in the entertainment & culture capitol of THE WORLD!!!