http://www.masonicinfo.com/, page 1

http://www.masonicinfo.com/, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 11-11-2004 @ 11:33 PM by LTD602

I hope no one minds, but I'll post this. I think it might make things alot easier on eveyone.

www.masonicinfo.com...

An excellent starting point for answering questions about Masonry. Click on the "contents" section for quick reference.

[edit on 11-11-2004 by LTD602]

reply posted on 11-11-2004 @ 11:41 PM by twitchy

Hey thanks ltd, I'll be sure and check that out.

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 07:55 AM by LTD602

Sure thing, Twitchy.

There's plenty of information there, and if you still have some quetions after reading through some of the site, do not hesitate to ASK.

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 02:35 PM by PublicGadfly

LTD, shame on you-
you know that's a masonic propaganda site (disinfo) run by mason King.
For REAL masonic information Google works better, such as:
Mason crimes (245,000 choices)
murder and treason excepted

bro. King's disinfo site

Riiiiiight.
So, if this oath has no consequence and is in itself deceitful why isn't it either done away with or changed?

Is this same kind of ""spin"" used on the oath about having sex with another mason's wife?

If so, then to follow bro. King's logic it would be O.K. just so long as I told about it later? If so, who do I tell first? Do I tell the wife I'm going to tell- if so how long after (sure wouldn't tell her before)?

While we are at it- what did YOU ever come up with regarding it being O.K. for a satanist to be a mason? Maybe it is Luciferian?

You know- the ��whole man��

I'm so glad we have masons around to clear up all these things.

Feel free to spin all this.

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 02:56 PM by LTD602

ROFL.

What the hell are you talking about??

Sex with Masons' wives?? Satanists and Luciferans??

LOL . . . it is a site to DEFEND Masonry by, what we hope, employing logic and reason and candid answers. It's a site about Masons. NO, we're not murderers or criminals, or satanists or whatever else you can dream up. GOOGLE?? The WORST thing you can use for research. The amount of crap you'll turn up is enormous. Go ahead and sift through it. Post all the "crimes" you like. You can still prove NOTHING.

You are NOT a Mason. Therefore, you have NO BASIS on which to level accusations at Masons.

If you think every word we utter is a lie, is 'spin", then there's really nothing we can do, is there? The conversation ends right there.

What you're posting now is the same thing you've been posting months ago. You've been proven wrong time and time again, you've RUINED your reputation on these boards, and you've been penalized for your poor behaviour. You are NOT here to learn or ask questions, or even debate. Your sole purpose here is to accuse and deride Masons, every chance you get. You think that because you are a Libertarian of some kind and a lifelong "whistleblower", you take it upon yourself to try to "debunk" everything you don't understand or that may seem foreign to your sensibilities.

You are also a member of the "warn" club, several times over. Take care to think about THAT before you go on accusing others of ANYTHING.

Sex with masons wives and satanists and goats . . . . whatever. LOL.

[edit on 12-11-2004 by LTD602]

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 02:59 PM by Masonic Light

PublicGadfly wrote:

Nothing worth repeating.

It's actually sort of comical though: they can't rationally or logically refute Ed King, so they just call him names and ignore the information. I think our readers here are intelligent enough to consider both sides, as well as the evidence presented, and decide for themselves which is most feasible.

Fiat Lvx.

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 03:03 PM by The Axeman

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
LTD, shame on you-
you know that's a masonic propaganda site (disinfo) run by mason King.
For REAL masonic information Google works better, such as:
Mason crimes (245,000 choices)
murder and treason excepted

The admonition in the obligation is to impress upon a candidate that a Brother Mason should feel free to share their innermost thoughts without concern about 'blabbing' or reprisal. To suggest that (a) a Mason would commit a criminal act and then (b) tell another Mason about it in order that (c) it would be concealed is foolish in the extreme. (bro. King's disinfo site)

Why oh, why can't you ever quote the entire passage?!?!? Oh, wait, I know, because you want to spread hatred and fear of Masonry!

Allow me - These are the first three paragraphs from the page that Gadfly is quoting from.

In some Masonic obligations, there appears a phrase which will cause a law-abiding citizen to pause. While the wording may be slightly different from place to place, the essence of the promise is that a Mason agrees to protect a Brother Master Mason's secrets as his own, murder and treason alone excepted.

One may rightfully ask, then: what about other crimes? Robbery, assault, or other crimes against persons or property surely should not be the subject of 'Masonic protection', should they?

Of course not! And no Mason would believe that they were. Immediately prior to taking that Masonic obligation, the candidate is advised that nothing he is about to promise will in any way interfere with any duty he owes to God, his country, his family/neighbor or himself.

Good grief man, are you really that thick?

Feel free to spin all this.

You've got the spinning covered here, killer...

*edit*

The funny thing is while you're blabbing about disinfo the paragraph you posted only discredits the assertion you have made. Consider that along with the fact that EVERY MASON HERE has validified this statement. It's not about concealing crimes, it's about trusting your Brothers, i.e. being able to confide in one another without having what you've said in confidence repeated to anyone. You ever talk to one of your friends and said "keep this between us"? It's not a very hard concept for most people. But wait, the MASONS are all saying the same thing! OMG! It's a conspiracy!

No, it's the truth. I am fully convinced (obviously), as are alot of people here...

[edit on 11/12/04 by The Axeman]

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 03:27 PM by LTD602

Thank-you, Axeman, for UN-spinning Gadfly's obvious Spin !!!

It helps to quote the ENTIRE passage, doesn't it?

Honest and caerful research makes a world of difference.

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 03:29 PM by theron dunn

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
The admonition in the obligation is to impress upon a candidate that a Brother Mason should feel free to share their innermost thoughts without concern about 'blabbing' or reprisal. To suggest that (a) a Mason would commit a criminal act and then (b) tell another Mason about it in order that (c) it would be concealed is foolish in the extreme. bro. King's info site

Riiiiiight.
So, if this oath has no consequence and is in itself deceitful why isn't it either done away with or changed?

Mostly because it is NOT deceitful, though your inference is, to say the very least, deceitful. What Wr. Br. King wrote is the truth. The obligation is there so masons can feel free to share their innermost thoughts without concern about gossip or reprisal... for instance, if I felt that the secretary of my lodge was not doing a good job, the obligation ensures that if I share that concern with a brother that he will not go either to the secretary, or to twenty other brothers in the lodge and share MY concerns.

There is nothing deceitful in the obligation at all, nor, frankly, in masonry at all...

Is this same kind of "spin" used on the oath about having sex with another mason's wife?

No spin here at all. The obligation is an ancient one, and I see no reason not to keep it, if for no other reason than history... and to reinforce in a man what is ethical and moral behavior...not to violate the chastity of a woman that is not your wife.

YOU can spin it out to evil if you want, and apparantly you do, but I see it as a positive injunction.

If so, then to follow Wr. Br. King's logic it would be O.K. just so long as I told about it later? If so, who do I tell first? Do I tell the wife I'm going to tell- if so how long after (sure wouldn't tell her before)?

that is so illogical as to defy rational response. The obligation enjoines us NOT to a behavior... not to violate the chastity, not to divulge secrets when given to us as secrets to maintain... how ridiculous do you want to be?

While we are at it- what did YOU ever come up with regarding it being O.K. for a satanist to be a mason? Maybe it is Luciferian?

I will speak for the brother here as he has already clearly stated that NO satanist/luciferian could become a mason... aren't you keeping up with your reading?

You know- the ��whole man��

I'm so glad we have masons around to clear up all these things.

Feel free to spin all this.

No spin here, just honest answers... though from all YOUR posts, one can easily understand why you seem so dizzy and confused... spinning evil out of good such as you do...

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 06:15 PM by PublicGadfly

Axeman, YOU cited the mason-disinfo site. I pointed that it is a disinfo site. Don't throw on to me that which you wear.
Quote an entire phrase-

How can you complain?

I intentionally kept the part where bro. King states it is untrue

(c) it would be concealed is foolish in the extreme
You think I need to post the ENTIRE site?

I'll let you and the other pro-masons do that. I have a 500 word limit per post to abide by.

theron the oath is deceitful. I quoted bro.King exactly and he alludes to the oath not having any REAL meaning.

You guys talk about someone being thick headed-

An oath that does not mean what it says =?

Having a hard time with complex problems, let me simplify this for you-

IF an oath does not mean what it says it means is the oath deceptive?

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 06:28 PM by theron dunn

you are being deceptive by deliberately misinterpreting what Wr. Br. King wrote... but i am not surprised at that.

MASONS understand the obligation, it is clear you do not...

Have you ANY concept of keeping your word and watching your honor, or do you even have a clue what it is to have personal honor and integrity?

Not intending to malign you in your person or name, but what you post CLEARLY shows you have no concept, and are interested in no more than defaming men who strive to keep their word and maintain their honor and integrity.

that only leads me to conclude that you see in others the darkness on your own soul.

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 07:09 PM by Masonic Light

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Axeman, YOU cited the mason-disinfo site. I pointed that it is a disinfo site.

No, you simply claimed that it is a "disinfo site", without being able to cite one single instance of "disinfo" even though the website is huge, and chockful of info. This in itself says plenty about who seems to be spreading "disinfo".

Fiat Lvx.

reply posted on 12-11-2004 @ 11:40 PM by the sword of esus

whats the difference between the york rite and the scotish rite?

i heard that the york rite isnt masonic, how is that?

its not masonic cus it doesnt have degrees or what ?

i know nothin about masons just there degrees and thats about it

[edit on 12-11-2004 by the sword of esus]

reply posted on 13-11-2004 @ 12:03 AM by theron dunn

This is a direct quote from: www.masonicinfo.com...

reply posted on 13-11-2004 @ 12:25 AM by project_pisces

Ahhh yes,,,the wonderful world of INTER-NET:

Masonic Light says:
It's actually sort of comical though: they can't rationally or logically refute Ed King, so they just call him names and ignore the information. I think our readers here are intelligent enough to consider both sides, as well as the evidence presented, and decide for themselves which is most feasible.

Kinda like the structure: Inner Court, and Outter Court
sings: Ya left hand doesnt know what your right hands doing...

I wonder if when GW Bush slipped and said Internet's(plural)during one of the debates, what he really meant is the Outter-Net and the Inter-Net

So...how does one determine valid Internet and invalid Internet information?

Guess its all in the eyes of the beholder

For exmple: ole Alex T Rex Jones has enough info to convict our government of 911 involvement a million times over in a court of law if we had a true justice(not Justus) system. www.prisonplanet.com...

I know I know,,,hes just a kook. So am I,,,,we all are. hee hee ho ho ha ha

reply posted on 13-11-2004 @ 12:54 AM by theron dunn

Yeah, right... if he had evidence, the media would be all over it.

Now, could you help me with how a left turn into the twilight zone of konspiracy kookery about 9.11 is in ANY way relevant to the discussion?

Sheesh.

reply posted on 13-11-2004 @ 11:36 AM by Masonic Light

Originally posted by the sword of esus
whats the difference between the york rite and the scotish rite?

i heard that the york rite isnt masonic, how is that?

its not masonic cus it doesnt have degrees or what ?

i know nothin about masons just there degrees and thats about it

The York Rite is the oldest Masonic Rite; it originally consisted of two degrees (Apprentice and Journeyman), and dates back to at least the High Middle Ages. It is called "York Rite" because, according to tradition, the Fraternity was founded at York, England during the reign of King Athelstan.

In the early 18th century, a new degree was added to the York Rite system called Master Mason. This Rite was soon exported to the Continent, where several French Brothers began to revise the degrees. They created a new Rite called the Order of Perfection, which consisted of alternate versions of the 3 York Rite Degrees, along with 22 new degrees. This Rite was later carried to the USA and a group of Brothers from Charleston, South Carolina reformed it into a new Rite of 33 degrees, and called it "Scottish", ostensibly because the new degrees were based on the legend of fugitive Knights Templar coming to the aid of Scottish king Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn.

Not to be outdone by their French colleagues, the English Brethren of the York Rite also instituted new degrees, including its own Knight Templar order.

Today in the USA, practically all of our members become Masons in Blue Lodges of the York Rite. The major exception is one district in New Orleans, LA, where the Blue Lodges are Scottish Rite.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Masonic Light]

reply posted on 13-11-2004 @ 01:57 PM by the sword of esus

oh so after the 3rd degree of freemasonary you are not concitered a mason

if you follow the york rite

or they are still a master mason after they get pass that degree

[edit on 13-11-2004 by the sword of esus]

reply posted on 13-11-2004 @ 02:06 PM by LTD602

A Master Mason is always a Master Mason.

The York Rite degrees are merely appendant degrees, for those who want to continue their Masonic education.

In fact, you MUST be a Master Mason in order to pursue Scotish Rite or York Rite.

reply posted on 13-11-2004 @ 04:48 PM by The Axeman

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
Axeman, YOU cited the mason-disinfo site. I pointed that it is a disinfo site. Don't throw on to me that which you wear.

You want to talk about a disinformation site? Get real, man.

You give me an example of disinformaition on this site that doesn't stem from you twisting words or trying to spin something off to seem eeeeevil. You can't do it!

"That which I wear" is a rational intellect and an open mind. You should consider donning these "garments" yourself, but get your own, you can't have mine!

[edit on 11/13/04 by The Axeman]

Pages: ^^TOP^^