Freemasons inside our banks? PHOTO EVIDENCE

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

I prefer Italian wine. Whatever they do to it, it's good stuff.

reply to post by thePharaoh

 

That doesn't really clarify the issue. I don't see a conflict of interest and I know Freemasonry causes none. The only issue is with non-members.

no conflict of interest????????????????????????????????????????????????

in every sense there is a conflict of interest

i`ll sum it up for you

the "brotherhood" circulate money amongst themselves

spending only amongst themselves (brother buys from brother...all types of goods).....

BUT

they TAKE money from the public arena....ie. our savings, gov. sudsidies, bailouts, insurance, comercial retail etc

and add it their own circulation

which means...WHILE WE GET POORER...THEY GET RICHER...

the private industry is growing and enslaving the public industry

thank you mr mason


BTW...here n the UK...they just announced they are closing 7 prisons..WHY....to change to private prisons.
the concept of a private prison, send shudders down my spine...god knows what your people want with live stock

peace

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

I wealthiest lodge I know of received a donation for $2m after a wealthy member died. Most of which was used to renovate the building.

$2 million to renovate a building?!?!
They used the most of this money to fix up their man cave when children are dying of cancer and could've used that money?

I would think if they needed that much renovation, the building should've been condemned long ago.

Oddly enough, such bequests often come with strings attached directing how the money may be used. Assuming that to be the case here (with its attendant use-it-or-lose-it nature), how should they have responded differently? And if their temple building is a registered historic site (as the temple for my lodge is), with the attendant limitations on what (if anything) can be done to its appearance (and how) two million dollars may not go so far as you might expect. Our building dates back 1840 but has fortunately been the recipient of regular maintenance over that period, minimising the number of vectors of maintenance fiscal shock. The Masonic Temple on Yonge Street in Toronto didn't keep up on this and "A Tale of Two Temples" details what can happen quite easily to a relatively new building.

I'll leave it to RP to elaborate on whether either of these reasons might've been a factor in this case

Fitz

Originally posted by thePharaoh

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

I prefer Italian wine. Whatever they do to it, it's good stuff.

reply to post by thePharaoh

 

That doesn't really clarify the issue. I don't see a conflict of interest and I know Freemasonry causes none. The only issue is with non-members.

no conflict of interest????????????????????????????????????????????????

in every sense there is a conflict of interest

i`ll sum it up for you

the "brotherhood" circulate money amongst themselves

spending only amongst themselves (brother buys from brother...all types of goods).....

Oh! I see! So we're our own little closed fiscal black hole, spending only with other Masons! Riiiight!

Guess we don't pay taxes, heat our homes from the local utility, buy anything whatsoever from retail chains. Oh! I geddit! In your world, Masons own EVERYTHING!

Originally posted by thePharaoh
BUT

they TAKE money from the public arena....ie. our savings, gov. sudsidies, bailouts, insurance, comercial retail etc

and add it their own circulation

which means...WHILE WE GET POORER...THEY GET RICHER...

the private industry is growing and enslaving the public industry

thank you mr mason


BTW...here n the UK...they just announced they are closing 7 prisons..WHY....to change to private prisons.
the concept of a private prison, send shudders down my spine...god knows what your people want with live stock

peace

Fitz

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Well, what you're stating might be the case, but he said that this was one of the richest lodges, so I find it difficult to believe that they allowed their building to go to this level of disrepair and wait until a wealthy member died so they could use his money to spiff things up.

Also, where does it state in the bylaws that Masons must occupy historic buildings? Where does it say that they must meet in a building they own? If they rented, they would save a whole lot more money and not have to worry about spending millions of dollars on building upkeep and repairs. This way, million dollar donations would then be going to assist in their charity work instead of themselves.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

Well, what you're stating might be the case, but he said that this was one of the richest lodges, so I find it difficult to believe that they allowed their building to go to this level of disrepair and wait until a wealthy member died so they could use his money to spiff things up.

Read the link in my last post. IIRC, there was something on the order of 17 lodges meeting in that building as well as other appendant bodies. So there shouldn't have been a problem spreading the maintenance costs so as not to weigh disproportionately on one group or another. Freemasons aren't immune from myopia.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Also, where does it state in the bylaws that Masons must occupy historic buildings?

It doesn't. It's just a happenstance that the building becomes 'historic' over time having been built/purchased when that lodge was formed. And the appreciation of 'historic' buildings is a relatively recent phenomenon. Going through my lodge's history, twice (one in the mid '20's and again in the mid '50s) consideration was given to levelling the structure and building a nice shiny replacement. Fortunately that didn't come to pass and now couldn't. Of course, the drawback is that in our particular area we're taxed as if we could do what we want with the building and have to pay accordingly (though we're appealing for a reduction because being historically designated, we can't do just anything with it). However new does not necessarily translate to better-built as anyone who's watched "Holmes on Homes" will know.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Where does it say that they must meet in a building they own? If they rented, they would save a whole lot more money and not have to worry about spending millions of dollars on building upkeep and repairs. This way, million dollar donations would then be going to assist in their charity work instead of themselves.

It doesn't. Our lodge happens to own the temple and two other Craft lodges and a number of other appendant bodies rent its use; it falls to each group to decide what makes fiscal sense for them. And again, I recommend the aforementioned link. In urban/suburban settings, there're going to be enough different lodges/Masonic bodies drawn from the local population that it really doesn't often make sense for them to have their own buildings. In less populated areas, that may not be the case and a number of smaller lodges have either gone dark or sold their building because the costs associated with ownership couldn't be spread across a large enough group to make continuing feasible.

Also, Masonry isn't immune from having to herd the cats to deal with getting the brethren to volunteer their otherwise free time to help out with maintenance.

HTH
Fitz

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Thank you for your sensible reply. I'm still interested in hearing more details from Rockpuck to see exactly what the circumstances were.

It appears to me that the lodges could be run more smoothly and efficiently as well as in a way that would enable them to retain more money thus giving them the ability to give more. After all, if the Masons are all about charity, they need to readjust their needs and priorities to strengthen their focus and enhance their ability to contribute to the community.

Considering many lodges rent out their buildings as you're suggesting and several Masonic groups often meet in the same building, I find it difficult to believe Masons who often state that they're having difficulty keeping the lights on. I may be suspicious by nature, but things really don't seem to be adding up in my opinion.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Considering many lodges rent out their buildings as you're suggesting and several Masonic groups often meet in the same building, I find it difficult to believe Masons who often state that they're having difficulty keeping the lights on. I may be suspicious by nature, but things really don't seem to be adding up in my opinion.

To some degree, it's a matter of location. I live in a big city, and there are more than 40 lodges that meet within our city limits, so we can not only share buildings, but sometimes rent them out for special events as a fundraising activity.

But if you drive an hour outside the city to a rural lodge, they've probably got a 70+ year old building and not much of a community or rental market to support it.

In 1959 one in 20 men in America was a Mason. There was a HUGE surge in membership after WWII. But the generation after that didn't follow in their fathers' footsteps, and we've seen a pretty steady decline in membership ever since.

Originally posted by Afterthought
It appears to me that the lodges could be run more smoothly and efficiently as well as in a way that would enable them to retain more money thus giving them the ability to give more. After all, if the Masons are all about charity, they need to readjust their needs and priorities to strengthen their focus and enhance their ability to contribute to the community.

This is almost definitely true. Those opposed to Freemasonry presume we're some sort of hyper-organized master conspiracy, when the truth is we're a disjointed group of entirely human individuals whose effort level doesn't always match their proficiency.

Considering many lodges rent out their buildings as you're suggesting and several Masonic groups often meet in the same building, I find it difficult to believe Masons who often state that they're having difficulty keeping the lights on.

IRS regulations state that less than 35% of a lodge's income can come from non-member sources, including rentals, under either exemption classification (social club and benevolent society) for which a lodge is eligible. We're talking about a supplement, at best.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Things are becoming a bit clearer now, but I don't understand why there has to be so many lodges as you've described. Why does there have to be so many separate groups if you're all moving towards the same goal? So, if I lived in your city, how would I choose which of the twenty lodges I wanted to belong to? Considering five of them might be close to my home, what other factors should I consider?

reply to post by OnTheLevel213


Thank you for your reply as well in regards to my confusion.
I would think that the Grand Lodge would be working towards streamlining things if indeed they are this disjointed and wasteful.

reply to post by Afterthought

It's our money and I bet it was set away for building or general funds like what my Lodge does.

The Masons as group gives millions a day to charity. How much have you given?

reply to post by thePharaoh

Our money is not used in such a fashion. Plus if its our money then we can do what we want with it. When I was Master of my home Lodge I was paid for time, but it was no that much and I also just put it into the Lifetime fund.

No, we don't take any money from the "public arena". We are privately funded. None of our funds come from taxpayer money. Now, I'm speaking from an American Mason POV, but I have never seen anything that shows the British Masons receive monies from the government. Care to provide evidence?

reply to post by Afterthought

The reason some Masonic buildings fall into disrepair is whole other story and I'm actually working on an article about the issue of Masonic Inflation (A comparison of the housing crisis and membership crisis).

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

Considering many lodges rent out their buildings as you're suggesting and several Masonic groups often meet in the same building, I find it difficult to believe Masons who often state that they're having difficulty keeping the lights on. I may be suspicious by nature, but things really don't seem to be adding up in my opinion.

You're conflating "lodge" with "temple"; for clarification, a Masonic lodge refers to the group itself though in common parlance many use the words "lodge" and "temple" synonymously. As for some lodges having trouble keeping up with their expenses, that's a function of balancing income with outflow.

Lodges have certain defined expenses that can't be avoided: Grand Lodge dues (on a per member basis), rent/mortgage+utilities+taxes, mailings, food, honorariums for the secretary+treasurer, etc.. There're only a few vectors of income and if a lodge rents space at a temple, about the only reliable one is membership dues and initiation fees for new Masons. So if you have a lodge that hasn't been keeping up with maintaining its membership (members pass away, move, decide another lodge works better with their schedule, etc), over time going dark because they can't pay the bills/can't keep the membership coming out on a regular basis becomes inevitable. And past a certain critical point, the fraternal bond has to be really strong to avoid the pace of loss accelerating.

A lodge in my district is on that cusp now. They have about IIRC 15 members and the median age I would guestimate is 60 something. There are a couple of younger members but absent a sudden sea change in the exertions to attract new members, this year or next will likely be their last. It's unfortunate but that's life. AM's lodge (like mine and others in our area) is going gangbusters and things appear rosy. But that isn't always a given. When I joined a dozen years ago, things could've just as easily gone south. But the membership saw the writing on the wall and took steps to avoid it. Hopefully, we'll continue to do so and not get complacent.

But that's not within my ability to control. Only time will tell

HTH
Fitz

reply to post by KSigMason

How much have you given?

What a snarky reply!
For your information, I give my time to animal causes. I'm currently a foster "mom" to dogs until they're adopted. Sometimes providing time and energy is just as important as money.

Originally posted by Afterthought
What a snarky reply!

To be fair, you proposed that there was not only something wrong but outrageous about a group you know very little about the financial situation of putting money you know very little about the acquisition of towards a cause you know very little about the need of. That's pretty presumptuous.

reply to post by Afterthought

How does that help kids with cancer?

reply to post by OneTheLevel213 and KSigMason


For starters, I've been asking questions and conversing in a mature fashion. I expect the same.
Second, I'm aware that Masons also help burn victims. So, to say that only children with cancer need help is simply ignorant and a low blow. Regarding my choice of charitable contribution, step off. At least I'm doing something to help. If you don't believe animals need help, I feel bad for you. It is my choice to donate to whatever cause I feel is important as well as what area I'm best in to assist. Just as Masons have stated that they have every right to decide who to help, so do I. If you don't feel helping animals is important, that's your opinion, but don't knock me for my choice. Bringing animals to see sick kids has been proven to be very beneficial to their recovery, so maybe Masons should look into this as well. Throwing money at a cause is only one way of helping, but it's also the laziest. It wouldn't hurt if a lodge got together with an animal therapy group and arranged to have a therapy dog tour a children's cancer/burn ward.

Originally posted by Afterthought
It wouldn't hurt if a lodge got together with an animal therapy group and arranged to have a therapy dog tour a children's cancer/burn ward.

My wife and I already do this.


And to be perfectly honest, you have in the past made some rather outrageous comments about Masons so if you are treated with some skepticism it is not entirely unearned.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Bringing things up that I've stated in other threads is a low blow. If this is how you'd like to play, please be prepared to quote me and link to the thread that contains these comments.

I have never tried to pretend that I am not suspicious of the Masons having more power and control than they claim. The organization is far too old to be immune from corruption. Most other organizations have been infiltrated, so I can't believe that the Masons haven't been, too.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

Fitzgibbon
Oh! I see! So we're our own little closed fiscal black hole, spending only with other Masons! Riiiight!

Guess we don't pay taxes, heat our homes from the local utility, buy anything whatsoever from retail chains. Oh! I geddit! In your world, Masons own EVERYTHING!

haha

not what i said..and you know it

i`l ony go as far as saying they own the industry.

stateless bankers in public sector banks.....in fact any bank

peace

Originally posted by Afterthought
Bringing things up that I've stated in other threads is a low blow.

This thread does not exist in a vacuum. Things you say in other threads influence people's opinions in different threads.

If this is how you'd like to play, please be prepared to quote me and link to the thread that contains these comments.

You have made enough snotty and smarmy comments in this thread, why did deeper?