"Are you a mason?" "Of course I am!"

page: 14
5
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Erbal
 

Those are the 25 Ancient Landmarks held by Masons. If you do not accept these landmarks, then you are not a recognized Masonic organization. These Landmarks are also in my ritual monitor. Listen, I'm not here looking for your approval of what our Landmarks are, these are what they are.

Here is an exerpt from the Conference of Grand Masters of North America:


The Standards of Recognition

Since the delegates of this Conference change each year, it important to restate the Standards of Recognition adopted for our guidance when this Commission was formed in 1952. These are the guidelines used to evaluate Regularity of a Grand Lodge, and thereby determine whether it is worthy of consideration for Recognition by our member Grand Lodges.

This Commission provides this data for use by our Grand Lodges, and does not attempt to influence or recommend what action should be taken. The Commission serves in an investigative and advisory capacity only.

The standards of Recognition are summarized as follows:

1. Legitimacy of Origin
2. Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, except by mutual consent and/or treaty.
3. Adherence to the Ancient Landmarks � specifically, a Belief in God, the Volume of Sacred Law as an indispensable part of the Furniture of the Lodge, and the prohibition of the discussion of politics and religion.


From Code & Digest of the Grand Lodge of Idaho:


These are called Landmarks, and they all existed prior to 1717. They owe their unchangeableness largely to the fact that without them Masonry would lose its identity, become something different and cease to exist as Masonry.


That it adheres in principle to the Ancient Landmarks, customs and usages of the Craft, as set forth in the Constitutions adopted by the Grand Lodge of England in 1723.
Section 107, #5


Rank in Authority of Masonic Law. When Masonic Laws conflict, they shall rank in point of authority as follows:
1. Landmarks.
2. Constitution of the Grand Lodge.
3. By-Laws of the Grand Lodge.
4. Esoteric Work.
5. Regulations of the Grand Lodge.
6. Lodge By-Laws.
7. Customs and Usages.
8. When laws belonging in the same class conflict, the one last enacted prevails.
Section 3304


Landmarks. A landmark is a law or custom of the Fraternity that has existed "from a time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary," and of such nature that it cannot be repealed or changed without making the Fraternity a fundamentally different institution.
Section 3305

Those 25 are the standard, they are the Ancient Landmarks all regular Masons follow. Unrecognized, irregular Masons do not follow this.




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by protocolsoflove
 

Don't call me a liar. I cannot help if you all cannot grasp certain concepts.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by protocolsoflove
reply to post by Erbal
 


I said it once and I'll say it again. Smoke screens. Intentional confusion.


That is indeed the case and anyone who has dug deep enough can probably say this with 100% certainity.

All one has to do is review mainstream history to alternative history, private banking and the promotion of capitalism over socialism, the advocacy of religious dogma over spiritualism, constant wars, racism, etc.

These things cannot happen by themselves. Order out of chaos. problem-reaction-solution

But they always blame human nature as though humans are a bunch of retarded apes in central africa.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by KSigMason
 


I think the mysteries of the planet are the same, regardless what secret society you belong to.

People blame masons, knight templars, illuminati, skull&bones, scientology...every organisation that prides itself with "secrecy is paramount". Anything that bases itself off of secrecy is unethical and promotes elitism.

What they teach at the lodges should be teached in public schools. There is no truth that is too dangerous to be known and I probably know more than most master masons anyways. I don't care about the details though, I only care about the outline, aka bullet points!

Humanity has been deceived for thousands of years. This is the bottom line!



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

As I said before and still stand-by, there is nothing wrong (or unethical) with secrecy. You decry secrecy and yet partake of it...everyone does.

What they teach in Lodges is private. We have no obligation and you no right to force us out of our private meetings.


...I probably know more than most master masons anyways.


That's a dangerous assumption.


Humanity has been deceived for thousands of years. This is the bottom line!

Not by Freemasonry.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Erbal
 


Also from the same site,

"Albert Mackey’s Landmarks of Freemasonry are not universally accepted; they are not really landmarks at all. For example, No. 2, the three degrees of Craft Freemasonry aren't a landmark. The Third Degree didn't exist at the time of the formation of the first Grand Lodge in England. No. 3, the Master Mason Degree legend isn't unchanged as the oldest legends concern Noah, not Hiram Abiff. The five points of fellowship appear in ritual first in 1726, not at the time of founding in 1717. No. 4, there was no grand master in 1717 either. No’s. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are privileges vested in the Grand Master by the Grand Lodge. No. 9 is interesting as operative masons seemed to have the right to congregate for lodge purposes anytime five or six came together. No. 10, there was a time when the lodge was governed by the master and one Warden. No. 14 is noteworthy since in some jurisdictions, visiting is considered a privilege. No. 20, regarding resurrection, raises theological questions which some jurisdictions feel unqualified to address. And so on."

The only distinction is that Continental Lodges interpret the Old Charges to be inclusive of all, whatever race, class, gender, and spiritual belief (or lack thereof). Anglo-American Masonry is exclusive to males with spiritual belief.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by no1smootha
 


There are a few problems I see with that.. Off the bat, changing any of the landmarks would be un Masonic. I understand that your order practices Charity and benevolence towards man but that doesn't change the fact that the landmarks have been changed to suit your orders interests. Please don't take that as a dis respect because I mean none by it, simply pointing a couple things out.

The other issue I have is that allowing atheists to become Masons goes strictly against one of the key uniting Forces in Masonry... That being a reverence for Deity.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

As I said before and still stand-by, there is nothing wrong (or unethical) with secrecy. You decry secrecy and yet partake of it...everyone does.


So all secrets are the same? I don't think so!


What they teach in Lodges is private. We have no obligation and you no right to force us out of our private meetings.


And I don't care about handshakes, signals, whatever you guys do. What I care about is that you are not plotting against the will of the people. You can call me paranoid, which I am sure you will, but from my research I have every reason to believe that is exactly what his happening. Not you personally, masonry as a whole and the higher up you go the worst it gets.



...I probably know more than most master masons anyways.

That's a dangerous assumption.


Really. Why so?



Humanity has been deceived for thousands of years. This is the bottom line!

Not by Freemasonry.


Then by whom? maybe santa claus........
edit on 5/29/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: fixed quotation tag



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


I am not offended. How are Mackays Landmarks immutable to a Mason whose Jurisdiction never adopted them? And how are they ancient when several of them mention the power of the GM whose office didn't exist before 1717?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

I'm not saying all the secrets are the same. I'm saying naturally that secrecy is not a bad thing, it's how one uses it.

Except your paranoia and suspicions cannot usurp my rights. There is nothing in Freemasonry that would allow for "plotting against the people".

What is considered "higher up"?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

I'm not saying all the secrets are the same. I'm saying naturally that secrecy is not a bad thing, it's how one uses it.

Except your paranoia and suspicions cannot usurp my rights. There is nothing in Freemasonry that would allow for "plotting against the people".

What is considered "higher up"?


If I cheat on my wife then yes I will keep it secret for a while. If I do it often enough it probably means I need a divorce cause we don't match well enough.

As for masonry and its unofficial bodies, they are worldwide wherever capitalism is predominant. The ufo cover-up is global, capitalism is global, religious dogma is the norm. Some group is cordinating everything...simple logic dictates this.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

So if your wife confides in you, you're not going to keep those secrets?

As I said, they naturally are not nefarious or wrong.

Your simple logic would fall under the non sequitir fallacy.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

So if your wife confides in you, you're not going to keep those secrets?

As I said, they naturally are not nefarious or wrong.

Your simple logic would fall under the non sequitir fallacy.


If someone shares their secrets with me then I share many of my secrets with them.

How is my arguement non-sequitir? Some secrets are more difficult to divulge then others according to the potential harm they may cause. But it is different harming my wife telling her stuff to keeping secrets of worldwide importance that can have a positive impact. Even if the impact is negative, it would be temporary.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Man, I'd hate to be your spouse and share any intimate secrets with you as you'd just share them with any person on the street.

I'd say I would explain to you what a non-sequitir argument is, but I'm heading to bed. It is late.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Man, I'd hate to be your spouse and share any intimate secrets with you as you'd just share them with any person on the street.

I'd say I would explain to you what a non-sequitir argument is, but I'm heading to bed. It is late.


That is not what I meant. If my wife admits to wrong doing then I will be more open to her as well. It is called trust. In any case I am not married so I don't have to worry about it!

As for non-sequitir fallacy I know what it means, but I believe you made a mute point. I was merely trying to illustrate acceptable small secrets from unacceptable big secrets. Perhaps you cannot comprehend and interpret text well.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The way I see it, why need such hypothetical situations put in place? If one is to behave as a man of God no one would ever have to lie for them or keep such knowledge a secret.

It has never occurred to me an any point to wonder whether or not my closest friends would conceal a crime for me. Concealment of wrong doing is the code of thieves.

I think this is the kind of secrecy that is abhorrent. If you just want to keep ancient and long forgotten texts secreted away, there is nothing wrong with that. If you wish to withhold teachings from people until a certain level of initiation or understanding, I see nothing wrong with that kind of secrecy for it is an agreement between adults.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

That is indeed the case and anyone who has dug deep enough can probably say this with 100% certainity.

All one has to do is review mainstream history to alternative history, private banking and the promotion of capitalism over socialism, the advocacy of religious dogma over spiritualism, constant wars, racism, etc.

These things cannot happen by themselves. Order out of chaos. problem-reaction-solution

But they always blame human nature as though humans are a bunch of retarded apes in central africa.


Gosh, why are you so angry all the time in this thread?
And since you assert that you know so much more than any Mason could possibly know, why exactly are you so angry? You should be out there in the streets, giving power and knowledge to the people.
It must be tiring, railing on the internet against things you cannot have any real idea about.
We all have a spiritual right to secrecy and privacy, and no one can deny us this, no matter how angry they get


Lastly, there's a reason that the blame rests with human nature. It's called personal responsibility. Take some.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CodyOutlaw
 


It is ok for right wingers to be angry but no ok for left wingers to be angry?

Do right wingers have a monopoly on anger?

Do I have a right to be angry when people ask me questions, I answer them as faithfully as I can, and then they distort the message to use it against me?

You people should get a real job rather troll the boards. After all it is an alternative site where conjecture on conspiracy topics is encouraged and the owners relly on traffic to make a handsome buck.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Yes! There is a monopoly on ANGER!!!!! And if you try to take that away I'm going to get ANGRY!!!!




I have nice temporary summer job where I get paid decent wages.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


These guys have a monopoly on anger. You're gonna have to ask them first:






new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join