It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A masons ring of the 32nd degree

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Okay, here is the deal about the relationship between the Blue Lodge (first three degrees) and the York Rite and Scottish Rite. The basic concepts of all of the higher degrees regardless of the rite is to shed more light on the basic premises of the Blue Lodge, i.e. moral perfection. The York degrees are not too terribly esoteric which cannot be said of the Scottish Rite which is very esoteric. The Scottish Rite, at leat in the US, is the brain child of one Albert Pike who wrote the handbook generally given to every 14 degree initiate "Morals and Dogma." Pike was a deist and somewhat of a Luciferian in that he attempted to connect the idea of "light" or insights into moral perfection with Luficer as the "Light Bearer" in his pre-Fall state as an archangel in the highest councils of heaven. Christian tradition (loosely) believes that Luficer fell as a result of pride a la the character in Milton. Masonary at the higher degree levels plays on the idea that Masonary has insights into the higher character of man who is illumined by understanding and this understanding is revealed in increasing doses as one progresses into higher degrees. In most jurisdictions, there are "festivals" where all of the higher degrees are presented to a "class" by grouping degrees 5-14 and 15-32 in two days of watching, essentially plays presenting the specific insight that degree is supposed to incalcate. Many of the degrees are abbreviated or just passed over due to lack of time, etc. The key degress are 14 and 32 with other such as the Noahchite generally never performed at all. Some jurisdictions from time to time actually have extended classe where each degree is presented in its entireity over a 3-5 day period. The idea in all of the degrees is that once presented, the initiate is expected to do their own study (if they are serious) and progress through that study and research into a better understanding of what the meaning is all about. A very few Masons actually do this, but those that do and become active, fully participate in the degree presentation casts do eventually advance and get to participate by invitation into the allied degrees of which there are many, although not associated with traditional Masonry. For example, there are "Lodges of Research" where scholars of the rite get together to share their study, etc. The basic idea is fairly insiduous as concentration on any idea of study tends to lead into deeper searches for "truth" and thus becomes somewhat self-perpetuating as the idea grows that there is, in fact, a deeper meaning that is somehow eluding the initiate, only to be revealed at a higher level to fewer, more select individuals. I personally have no doubt that there does exist at the very highest levels of both the York and Scottish Rites a few individuals who are initiated into what is considered by that rite the "ultimate" truth. In the 33rd degree, most of the 33 degree Masons are "Honorary Inspector Generals" which is a thank-you for faithful service, donations, etc. But at the Supreme Council level, there are true "Inspector Generals" who represent the actual leadership and participate in a more focused understanding of what the whole experience is about. Essentially, Masonry is simply a mystery religion at the highest levels and a club at the lower Blue Lodge levels. Many go through the degrees but very, very few actually are given the insight as to what the actual import of the teaching is supposed to represent and that is usually achieved by participation and lore that really is passed on "mouth to ear."

Essentially I left Masonry because in every aspect, it is a counterfit religion and in many way mocks in a not too subtle fashion all religions but especially Judaism and Christianity. For example the posture of the candidate before the altar in the Blue Lodge when sworn into one of the first three degrees is actually the posture assumed at a Christain altar for ordination as a deacon, priest or bishop in the early, un-divided Church...everything from the position of the legs to the position of the hands and how the "holy book" is held. The result I have personally witnessed is either the initiate has no idea of what is going on and fails to appreciate the significance of the act or begins to substitute the teachings of the Lodge for the teachings of the Church. Frankly, Masonry is a terrible joke and, indeed, as I think Pike would have agreed "Lucifarian" in the very worst sense. No offense meant to Masons here but it is what it is. Interesting side note - to me at least - is that Mormonism uses the essentials of Masonry to impart their own temple ceremonies in a religion that teaches that Jesus and Satan or actually flesh and blood brothers, sons of a common God (Jehovah) but from different celestial mothers. There really is more to all this that meets the eye......
edit on 18-5-2012 by osbornegg because: spelling and typos




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthExposed
 

The Scottish Rite requires no particular faith, but the rituals have a mix of Judeo-Christian legends as well as others. The York Rite has 3-different bodies and the first two require no specific faith. It is not until you join the Chivalric Orders that require you to be a Christian.

The 33rd is an honorary degree conferred upon those who are elected to that prestigious honor. Back in the day, it used to be a requirement for one to go through the Scottish Rite or York Rite to join the Shriners. The Scottish Rite is not the highest set of degrees one can attain, that is left to the 3rd degree. Outside the Blue Lodge all the bodies are optional appendant bodies, but in no way superior to the Blue Lodge. Yes, in the Commandery (Masonic Knights Templar) you are referred to as "Sir Knight".

Masonic Light nailed the rest of it on the head.

reply to post by OldCorp
 

There isn't a disagreement, on that ring is the Hebrew Yod and it pertains to the 14th degree, and I also point you to what Masonic Light stated on page 2.

reply to post by OldCorp
 

Not really.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

When were you coronated a 33rd degree?

reply to post by osbornegg
 

I am sorry you left the Craft, but to each his own. Freemasonry is not necessarily "deistic", it just doesn't interfere with the religious beliefs. I would think that as an ex-Mason you would know that we don't conform to the basic requirements as a religion, even a "pseudo-religion". Yes, there is some spirituality in the Craft, but one can find spirituality nearly everywhere.


Originally posted by TruthExposed
York rite has 7 degrees and is another branch you can proceed to after your third, but is completely seperate from the scottish rite, and the degrees shouldn't be considered "ranks" I'm told. While you must be mason to join either rite, they are seperate from one another.

The York Rite normally has 6-degrees (4 in the Capitular and 2 in the Cryptic bodies), but note that some jurisdictions confer an additional degree in the Cryptic Rite. Then there is 3 Chivalric Orders. Then don't even get me started on the invitational, honorary degrees of the American York Rite.

reply to post by network dude
 

In Italy, I was told, you only go up to 28th then you must be invited from there on up.

reply to post by TruthExposed
 

I would say "ritually" Pennsylvania has one of the purest and oldest forms of Masonry in the US. You are correct in some ways as it does simply take a conflict to make jurisdictions not recognize each other, but not being recognized doesn't make them necessarily clandestine or irregular. As Augustus said, those who stay with the ancient landmarks are what we call regular Masonry. The biggest example of clandestine Freemasonry would be the Grand Orient of the US or the Grand Orient of France.

It can be sometimes very political, just look at the battle with the Grand Encampment going on right now.


Say an south african passes all your checks and grips and whatnot and knows precisely what you know - but you find out he's a member of Prince Hall or simply from a foreign lodge that doesn't report to the same people you do - aren't you supposed to halt all masonic communication at that point?

There really isn't "people to report to". As for Prince Hall, most Grand Lodges recognize most Prince Hall Grand Lodges.

Here is a riddle for you, the numerous Grand Lodges in the US recognize the UGLE and the UGLE recognizes the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, but the US Grand Lodges doesn't recognize that body in Italy, they recognize the Grand Orient of Italy instead.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthExposed
 

Freemasonry = ancient landmarks. As it has been said, without following these ancient landmarks that body is not, by definition, "Masonic".

You would be mistaken on what landmarks are important or not.

No, these clandestine Lodges do not adhere to the same landmarks, that's why they are called "clandestine". Going on technicalities, there is more than just AF&AM, there are also many jurisdictions that are called F&AM - it goes back to the moderns vs ancients. As I said before, most Grand Lodges recognize Prince Hall Masonry today. Some still don't, but that is a whole other conversation.

Actually nowhere in any of my obligations was there "clandestine" in it.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

Huh...that's a first I've heard a jurisdiction having that, but I've also never been to a NJ Lodge.

reply to post by TruthExposed
 

You got that all wrong.

reply to post by osbornegg
 

No offense to anyone, particularly my fellow Scottish Rite Mason, but the York Rite just doesn't throw the esoteric meanings at the candidate like one sees with the Scottish Rite. One has to dig to see the symbolism, but the York Rite has always been more historical than the liberal or philosophical Scottish Rite.

Everyone, Masonic or not, has their opinion on Albert Pike

I think you really missed the true purpose of the Scottish and York Rites if that is what you believe about the "highest levels".

I am sorry that you think such a thing about Masonry, but I, for obvious reasons, disagree with that assessment.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


You are definitely more knowledgeable in the ancient history of Masonry than me or most brothers these days. You could be 100% correct. Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, and it seems contradictory to take a hard line on the female thing, when we've let so many other things slide far, far from their original intentions. The actual floorwork is one of the things that bothers me the most. Although most lodges walk through the motions, they have no idea why, and no idea how powerful that floor work should actually be.

If there is an ancient masculine power portrayed by the degrees, that is very interesting to me, but if it is just a change in semantics, then it becomes hard to justify.

I have to admit, regretfully, that I have never heard of the "landmarks" except on ATS. Most of what I know of Masonry is from ATS. Those things are not taught in regular lodges in my district. They are lucky to get through an opening and closing, and getting a degree done properly is quite an undertaking. This is why it is difficult for me to feel any sort of elitism over clandestine Masonry, when the FAAM form is performed barely adequate. Sometimes I'm jealous of other forms of Masonry, because they seem to take their craft much more seriously than we do.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinocchio
What matters more to a Freemason... Is it the Tool(s) or the regalia or the Emblem(s)???


His Obligations and Duties.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by osbornegg
The Scottish Rite, at leat in the US, is the brain child of one Albert Pike...


Did he have a time machine? He was born in 1809 and the Scottish Rite existed prior to that.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthExposed
REGARDLESS of what the lodge changes, the vow to God made this hypothetical Christian take seems rather binding, thus tying his hands to ever treat a woman or clandestine as an equal.


If this hypothetical Christian has an issue joining a fraternity (which means no women), then this hypothetical Christian should just stay home. Masonry is not for everyone, particularly this hypothetical Christian.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by osbornegg
 


I am sorry you left, but by the sound of your understanding, perhaps that was best. I think you missed Albert Pike's meaning by quite a bit. It almost seems like you got your information from the wrong source. Anyway, good luck and trust that God will know what's in a mans heart when he enters heaven. (silly men who like to judge don't have a clue)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
[
Well since freemasonry wasn't around until the 1500s, and had no Grand Lodges before 1717' I'd imagine we missed the cut for making it into the bible.


Our allegories and lessons, as well as ( some one correct me if I'm wrong please) all of the ritual of blue lodge is entirely based on the stories found in the bible.


Thanks your reply.
It is my understanding that George Washington was 33rd degree and many Presidents use the masonic Bible while being sworn in as the President. Does that mean the the President in question is a free mason.
Am curious how does the masonic Bible differ from say the kjv.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthExposed

And if the organization adheres to the same landmarks? And are you SERIOUSLY trying to deny your political nature?


It isn't the organisation that is political; it would be the actions of certain members. Such is the reality of any body of men (or women for that matter [perhaps even more so the latter]). However that's their shortcoming and not the organisation's


Originally posted by TruthExposed
Christians can certainly share fellowship with other Christians, regardless of where you got to church..... ... ...Masons can only share masonic fellowship if they belong to the same organization, again due to politics.


You might want to revisit your assertions as far as Christians of different denominations sharing fellowship. Those with a heavily vested interest in the dominance of their particular creed tend to view others as one step removed from the Devil himself. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the "troubles" late of Northern Ireland.

As far as sharing fellowship, a lodge is free to share it with anyone it chooses (fellowship being defined as the banquet room time before or after a lodge meeting). As for sitting in lodge, that remains the exclusive domain of regular and recognised Masons.


Originally posted by TruthExposed
Your very thorough obligation contains the word "clandestine" - now look in your published monitor/manuscript as to YOUR lodges definition of the word.


As has been pointed out previously, the word doesn't appear in the ritual in Ontario either. It's only referenced by its opposite counterpart, Regular

HTH
Fitz



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

I was the Master of my Lodge when I hadn't even returned the FC or MM catechisms, yet I was a Worshipful Master due to lack of interest and my ability as a quickstudy and sucker for punishment.


That's unfortunate. How recently was that? By rights, you shouldn't even have been considered for the position having not proved yourself a skillful and worthy workman. However, it's easy to sit in judgement when your district is doing well. FWIW, our temple holds weekly practise sessions for lodge officers so that they can work on perfecting the work of the chair they hold while practising for upcoming chairs. A Godsend IMHO

Fitz



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by network dude
 


If there really are things in the work that are supposed to communicate things which cannot be taught as This site proposes, then my Lodge is missing the whole point of it. We just got our checkered floor and tessalated border last year after being chartered for more than 50 years!


Interesting that. More than a bit of an oversight (an inexpensive one at that). Must've made the JW's lecture a bit of a headscratcher!

Fitz



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Don't take it personally, in my jurisdiction Prince Hall is still clandestine.


A circumstance shared until relatively recently in my own jurisdiction.Having sat in Lodge during an Initiation a few years back, the reticence leaves me scratching my head. While the manner of their work was slightly different, the landmarks were certainly the same and I'm just surprised the recognition was delayed as long as it was

Fitz



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
[
Well since freemasonry wasn't around until the 1500s, and had no Grand Lodges before 1717' I'd imagine we missed the cut for making it into the bible.


Our allegories and lessons, as well as ( some one correct me if I'm wrong please) all of the ritual of blue lodge is entirely based on the stories found in the bible.


Thanks your reply.
It is my understanding that George Washington was 33rd degree and many Presidents use the masonic Bible while being sworn in as the President. Does that mean the the President in question is a free mason.
Am curious how does the masonic Bible differ from say the kjv.


The masonic Bible is a KJV Bible with a few extra pages at the beginning. The presidents who have swore their oath on it, do so more for the George Washington aspect, than the masonry aspect I believe. Only 14 presidents have been masons with Gerald Ford being the last one.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by osbornegg
 


Just a lil note for you egg. I love a full post like the one you gave. But when you make a solid wall of letters like that ? Not all of our members can read it comfortably.

That's why most everyone uses spacing like so. No biggy, just FYI as I did the same thing early on.

Great post thank you.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
Only 14 presidents have been masons with Gerald Ford being the last most recent one.


ftfy [/grammar nazi]



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
It is my understanding that George Washington was 33rd degree...


The Scottish Rite, which confers the 33rd Degree, did not exist until after his death.


...and many Presidents use the masonic Bible while being sworn in as the President. Does that mean the the President in question is a free mason.


No, it does not. Any President can request to use the Washington Bible, it is in possesion of St. John's Lodge in New York City and is on display there.


Am curious how does the masonic Bible differ from say the kjv.


The Washington Bible was printed in London in 1765 and is a standard King James version. Some jurisdictions hand out Masonic Bibles that have explanations of the symbols, persons and places associated with the degress and a place to collect signatures of members important to the Brother whom it is presented.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 

The 33-degree Scottish Rite system didn't come into practice until 1801, after Washington's death. In Washington's time the highest he could have received was the 25th degree, but there is no record of him going through the Scottish Rite.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by osbornegg
For example the posture of the candidate before the altar in the Blue Lodge when sworn into one of the first three degrees is actually the posture assumed at a Christain altar for ordination as a deacon, priest or bishop in the early, un-divided Church...everything from the position of the legs to the position of the hands and how the "holy book" is held.


The position of the EA candidate's hands at the altar is only superficially like that of the ordination of a deacon, priest or bishop in the Orthodox Church in which "[t]he candidate kneels in front of the altar, places his right hand over his left hand on the edge of the Holy Table, and places his forehead on top of his hands". There is nothing in his left hand except his right hand, and there is no placement of his legs at all.
edit on 19-5-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
If the higher echlons of masonry have hidden knowledge, what do they say about the 2012 mayan prophecy,
or do they have their own version of the end of the world scenario.
How does the masonry tie in with the so called illuminati, if such illuminati exist at all.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join