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.

 

Whom to Believe? Masons? Anti-Masons?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
1.) Murder and treason are excepted, therefore EXCLUDED from th oath to which you are referring. Not that the oath is really any of your business, but if you found it, so be it.

2.) Politics aer not discussed in Lodge. That doe not exclude Masons from being politicians. Politics are not necessariy related to Masonry insofar as Lodge discussion.

You have a bunch of other ephemera in your post that has alread been adderssed about 1000 times already, lol.

As for the baseless charges you level against Masonry: refer to my Brother Theron's posts, and you'll find a detailed play-by-play, of a quality and depth few else can manage.

And, as I have said countless times: Unless you are a Mason, you have no basis on which to judge the principles and foundations of Masonry. Much the same one who is not Jewish cannot truly understand what it is to BE Jewish, their history, their social bonds, their hopes and fears.




posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Gadfly, YOU wrote that masons are REQUIRED to lie for a brother. Yet, you have not demonstrated where we are so required. You point to my obligation to keep the secrets of a brother master mason as my own, WHEN GIVEN TO ME IN CHARGE AS SUCH, murder, treason and felony excepted.

NONE of this requires me to lie. Also, part of my obligation is not to cheat, wrong or defraud... that kind of eliminates lying...

so, again, here is the baseless charge that you have laid at the step of masons, and it IS a baseless charge.

Further, politics are NOT allowed to be discussed in lodge. He did not fall off a turnip truck, but the prohibition of discussion in lodge is politics and specific religion. PERIOD. Do masons hold political opinions? Sure, I am an active Republican (I know, imagine your surprise)... and I would venture that the whole political spectrum is represented here, but as masons, we seek that which unites us, rather than that which could divide us.

Further, as brothers, and mindful of our obligations to each other, we CAN discuss politics from opposite sides of the political spectrum without the need to descend into name calling or the need to demonstrate that each other are totally wrong. If we get too heated, we disengage and step away FRIENDS.

Your problem, gadfly, is that you do not trust people at all, and seek to oversee what everybody is up to, and immediatley suspect that anything you are not privy to is suspect. Well, how about you tell the folks here about that intiation YOU went through, the one you are carefully concealing... or do you think that is none of our business too?

Sauce for the goose, old son... you accuse us of all manner of evil with ZERO proof but your own paranoia. ALL of us deny categorically what you claim... so lets see, one irrational person ranting all manner of evil accusations without proof against the word of hundreds of good men, uniformly, all over the world... AND the evidence of history to show that you are wrong...

Who should the world believe... uh... MASONS!



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
    LTD posted. . . as I have said countless times: Unless you are a Mason, you have no basis on which to judge the principles and foundations of Masonry. . .


Sure-
Every judge that sentences a murderer has to be a murderer first?
Every time I want to shoot a stray or wild dog I have to wonder around sniffing garbage cans first? Or can I sniff cans once and the effect lasts for a few weeks?
Every policeman that nabs a doper has to be a user?

Every soldier in a war zone has to be shot before he can soot an enemy?

LTD you have been spouting masonisms for months, yet you were NOT a mason.

So, it's O.K. to be pro-anything without experience but not anti?

You were in the Ku Klux Klan when?

My bad- you were using one of those wonderful masonic allegories here, right?

Does this really mean that I should encourage my fellow masons to divulge their secrets to me so that I can “”allegorically”” die by ratting them out? Is this kind of like- lie to my fellow mason to maintain the sanctity of my allegorical oath?

Wow, this will take some getting used to. No wonder I have such a hard time following this masonic stuff.

I sure am glad that is cleared up- I worried for nothing.

Thanks

(just saw theron's post and want to give it the attention that it is due so I'll respond to him seperately- no hard feelings, right? Besides, he has humor)



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   


Every judge that sentences a murderer has to be a murderer first?
Every time I want to shoot a stray or wild dog I have to wonder around sniffing garbage cans first? Or can I sniff cans once and the effect lasts for a few weeks?
Every policeman that nabs a doper has to be a user?



Your examples are incompatible with Masonry.

We're not so literal.

If you honestly believe that actual pain will be inflicted on you if you break your oath, then you've missed your medication.

Oh, yes, and I AM a Mason, therefore INFINITELY more qualified than you to comment on Masonry. Oh, and about what I was talking about BEFORE becoming a Mason? Turns out I was right.

Reason and Logic always prevail. Even non-Masons can get away with that.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
    theron posted Gadfly, YOU wrote that masons are REQUIRED to lie for a brother. Yet, you have not demonstrated where we are so required. You point to my obligation to keep the secrets of a brother master mason as my own, WHEN GIVEN TO ME IN CHARGE AS SUCH, murder, treason and felony excepted.

    NONE of this requires me to lie.

Don't beat a dead horse theron, if this is NOT an oath to protect secrets nothing is. Imagine yourself called as a witness against a MM- the guy is a lodge brother and confided in you that he just needed someone to talk to- so “”- - - - yak, yak”” you now know his story. Are you going to out him?

I'm not surprised you are a Republican, after all you do live in California which as a state is known for its, ahh contrasts


O.K. so IN lodge you don't discuss politics- that's reasonable (whoops). After all the Duegards, rituals, passing the bag and such you wouldn't have time anyway.

theron, you make me out to be distrusting- why is that? What are your motives?
j/k

People I have no problem in trusting, it is organizations. Look at Ken Lay- probably a decent guy on his own. Put him in Enron and BAMm super-thief! (he was a mason too)

What initiation are you referring to theron? I've been through so many I wouldn't know where to start.

Is there some group or 'thing' I have defended that you think needs some further explanation? If so then ask away.

If I belong to any thing that affects you or others political or economic well being then I will gladly participate in a diatribe with you or anyone else.

“”who should the world believe””- - - indeed. Those sites you send people to are propaganda sites and you know it. It is all smoke, dodge and mirrors.

*special note- reason and logic= the escape for a lack of reality.
Was it reasonable for OBL to destroy the twin towers, was it logical? It was real.
One of the most logical minded societies in the last hundred years bombed Pearl Harbor.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
    LTD posted. . . as I have said countless times: Unless you are a Mason, you have no basis on which to judge the principles and foundations of Masonry. . .


Sure-
Every judge that sentences a murderer has to be a murderer first?


Nope, but he sure does need to know the law, the subject at hand, and be fair and honest, none of which you seem to be... bad analogy.


Every time I want to shoot a stray or wild dog I have to wonder around sniffing garbage cans first?


As opposed to your NORMAL behavior? How would it be different?


Or can I sniff cans once and the effect lasts for a few weeks?
Every policeman that nabs a doper has to be a user?


Again, bad example. A cop knows the law, and enforces it. You have repeatedly demonstrated ignorance of the subject, and a willingness to deceive and prevaricate to defame good men. You SHOULD be ashamed, especially in light of what you have been trying to hide about your own initiation in a secret society... but I don't think you have the honesty to be ashamed of yourself.


LTD you have been spouting masonisms for months, yet you were NOT a mason.


Actually, he IS a mason. He has received the first degree already, so he is a brother mason.


So, it's O.K. to be pro-anything without experience but not anti?


No, and since he is a mason, and you are NOT, he is in a MUCH better position to speak on the subject than you, a mere outsider will ever be...


You were in the Ku Klux Klan when?


You don't have to be a hatemonger to despise what hatemongers stand for... but seeing as you are a hatemonger and have never been a mason, you wouldn't understand that... or honor and integrity, either, it seems.


Does this really mean that I should encourage my fellow masons to divulge their secrets to me so that I can “”allegorically”” die by ratting them out?


There is no allegorical dying involved. Get over yourself. Its called SYMBOLISM...


Is this kind of like- lie to my fellow mason to maintain the sanctity of my allegorical oath?


Once more with this nonsense about lying. No one is required or asked to lie. Not revealing something is NOT the same as lying. If I had been entrusted with a confidence, and was asked about it by another brother, I would not lie to him, but I would tell him that I can't discuss the issue with him, or that I refuse to participate in gossip... but I would not lie. The obligation only calls for a brother NOT TO REVEAL, it says nothing about lying.

But, since you are so intimate with lies, you may not be able to distinguish keeping a confidence private... seems like a moral failing of yours...


Wow, this will take some getting used to. No wonder I have such a hard time following this masonic stuff.


yah, I can see where someone without a shred of honor or integrity might have a problem understanding men that do... more of that moral failing of yours being demonstrated, I guess.


I sure am glad that is cleared up- I worried for nothing.


Whew! Me too!



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I think the guys answered your other points quite well...

I would like to address this though.


Originally posted by PublicGadfly
...if this is NOT an oath to protect secrets nothing is. Imagine yourself called as a witness against a MM- the guy is a lodge brother and confided in you that he just needed someone to talk to- so “”- - - - yak, yak”” you now know his story. Are you going to out him?


I suppose it would depend on the charge. For the sake of argument what would be the charge against this MM who finds himself in court?

If it was murder/rape/grand larceny/tax fraud/(insert felony here) then I would say that a Mason would be honor-bound to testify to what he knows. If the Mason was guilty of said crime and had expressed it to his brothers he would probably be expelled for unMasonic conduct and be hung out to dry. Would you agree fellas?

My point is, what the oath pertains to would not cover the kind of thing you are talking about. If a man is on trial for a federal crime and you know something, you are obligated first to God, your family, and your country before Masonry, so therefore the Masonic oath to keep a secret would be nil because of your morals and duty to God and Country to do what is right.

Can you understand that or does everything have to have a negative connotation to you?



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
As a Freemason, there is only one objection to Freemasonry that I can respect,...

That is, if someone's Faith refuses to permit membership in an organization that would restrict their obligation to prostheltize their Faith, then I can understand it...

However, these same people would be hypocrits if they would say that they couldn't witness at work because it's prohibited,...

They would need to apply their standards across all forums...

But if they genuinely held that belief and stuck to it, then I understand it... As for certain other religious objections,... they are usually based upon false propoganda,...

Such as; The false belief that the "G" in the Compass and Square stands for gnossis. The belief that Christians cannot be a part of an organization that allows brotherly love with non-Christians (they need to read their letters of Paul to the Corinthians). The belief that the Fraternity espouses worship of the Devil (or uses any Satanic symbols). Etc.,Etc.

If you object to what an organization believes about ITSELF, then your objections MAY be legitimate. IF it relies on ASSUMPTIONS, then it is not. As far as Freemasons are concerned, if any man feels that he can no longer be a Freemason, he may always demit. His brothers won't necessarily LIKE it, but they will RESPECT it.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
JaseP that's good- one of the best slams against anyone for NOT being a mason.

To follow your logic someone would be a fool or raving religious (zealot comes to mind) case if they did not embrace masonry, is this right?

I'll pass on your analogy to the “G” because I've really never heard that.

Back to your religious views-

I disagree with you. I disagree with you on the religious scenario you painted and I disagree that religion could be the only - - - oh wait, I get it-

“”the only reason I can respect””

O.K., fair enough. If someone is a raving religious thumper (by any name or term) you respect them not being a mason, other than that you don't respect their reason- right?

By extrapolation, would it be fair to say then that other than the religious reason you don't respect that person (for not being a mason)?

If true, then fine by me.

As to someone quitting masonry- quit is quit, this demit thing is just another masonry requirement. After all, we are not talking breach of contract here, are we?

Or maybe its contract by fraudulent means?

Not being a lawyer I wouldn't really know. According to some I could be considered an anti-mason. I have never considered myself as such.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   


Or maybe its contract by fraudulent means?

Not being a lawyer I wouldn't really know. According to some I could be considered an anti-mason. I have never considered myself as such.


Mandelkern . . . er um . . Gadfly . . . . sorry, Mandelkern was the chap you fired, who turned around and sued you, but that's a different matter.

You're full of "maybe's." Maybe this or maybe that. NOTHING HAPPENS if someone chooses to "demit" and leave.

Yes, you ARE an anti-Mason.



[edit on 16-11-2004 by LTD602]

[edit on 16-11-2004 by LTD602]



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   
No Gadfly, its clear your forte isn't the law, but security systems do seem to be your thing... so, how is the weather in New Mexico this time of year?

Why is it so hard for you to accept when a mason offers a sincere statement, that you have to try to twist it? He wrote that he could respect someone that did not want to be a mason for religious or other personal reasons... why do you have to try to pervert that?

I do not have a problem with someone that does not join for whatever reason, that is up to the man. What I disagree with is folks that do NOT have a sincere bone in their bodies cobbling up lies and spin to defame the good men that make up masonry.

I have debated men that hold sincere religious objections, Christian Fundamentalists, usually, who seem to think that the bible is the literal word of g-d, rather than the g-d INSPIRED words of men. There is a signifant difference between the two! Now, a man may not want to be a mason, and may hold out that since Jesus is not mentioned in lodge he cannot be a mason. Fine.

But I find those folks are the very same folks that do not mention Jesus at their workplace... or at city council meetings, or in line at the supermarket, or in the doctor's officer, or to their boss, or.... why is it that they are okay with criticizing a fraternity, but can't seem to see the giant oak in their own eye? Very strange.

None the less, I can admire someone that takes a sincere and honest position and sticks with it, but that admiration is tinged with... sadness, when I see those folks resort to lies to defame that which they do not agree. I mean, honest differences are no big deal, we all have differences. I like sushi, some folks consider it fish bait. I don't like zuccini, but my wife loves it and bakes bread with it...

Its the differences that make the world go around. It would be a dull place if we all agreed upon everything. One of the great things about masonry is that it gives us a means of finding areas on which we CAN agree, and of eschewing those areas where we might NOT agree, so that we can work together.

To quote Rodney King, Can't we all just get along?

As long as there are folks that are intellectually dishonest and willing to commit fraud and utter hate speech, there will be divisions in this world. You come here to commit fraud and to stir up dissention, and you do it through deceit... and that is sad.

In a sense, you are no better than the guys in sheets and pointy hats prancing around burning crosses and chanting white power. You use innuendo and slander to injure the good men that make up masonry, because it is not in your heart to believe the good intentions that can be easily discerned from the good acts and history of freemasons the world over. This is a defect in YOUR heart, not in masonry, and your continual attacks on masonry only serve to demonstrate that...

Thanks for playing, though, I really appreciate the service that you are performing FOR masonry. Your posts demonstrate that we ARE the good men that we claim to be, and that your position is morally, intellectually, and spiritually bankrupt.



posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PublicGadfly
JaseP that's good- one of the best slams against anyone for NOT being a mason.

To follow your logic someone would be a fool or raving religious (zealot comes to mind) case if they did not embrace masonry, is this right?

I'll pass on your analogy to the “G” because I've really never heard that.

Back to your religious views-

I disagree with you. I disagree with you on the religious scenario you painted and I disagree that religion could be the only - - - oh wait, I get it-

“”the only reason I can respect””

O.K., fair enough. If someone is a raving religious thumper (by any name or term) you respect them not being a mason, other than that you don't respect their reason- right?


Boy, now if that isn't putting words in my mouth,... I don't know what IS!!!

I'm talking about OBJECTIONS to Freemasonry,... that is, Reasons why they disagree with the philosophy of the Fraternity,... but you've twisted that into meaning that I hold a LACK of RESPECT for anyone who ISN'T a Freemason,... INTERESTING!!!

Of course I said nothing of people who just don't want to join... cause they lack the time or the inclination... But that's not OBJECTING to Freemasonry, that's not joining...

I don't OBJECT to the philosophy of the Kiwanis Club,... but I have no intention of JOINING them. But of course, according to you that makes me anti-Kiwanis... or a Kiwanis biggot or something.



By extrapolation, would it be fair to say then that other than the religious reason you don't respect that person (for not being a mason)?

If true, then fine by me.


You extrapolate all you want,... you often do...




As to someone quitting masonry- quit is quit, this demit thing is just another masonry requirement. After all, we are not talking breach of contract here, are we?

Or maybe its contract by fraudulent means?

Not being a lawyer I wouldn't really know. According to some I could be considered an anti-mason. I have never considered myself as such.


AS a LAWYER,... Uhmm,... no. You obviously don't understand the law. You just brought the "law" into the topic so you could use the word "fraudulent." Neither applies here.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I would advise anyone who is trying to make a decision on the freemasonry debate to read the threads on a different forum.

Try going to sites more closer to the source. A masonic forum isn't just for masons, it is the place most people go to get civilised conversation and have their questions answered without some one posting degrading and unhelpful information.

As for who to believe, that is down to the individual, but it would be impossible to make any decision using a forum dedicated to one side of the argument. This is a conspiracy orientated site, therefore people here will predominantly see the conspiracy in everything and everything, whether it's freemasonry or the teletubbies. A masonic forum will obviously highlight the good points in freemasonry.

If you prefer to use forums for your information, join one from each side of the argument, you'll soon see which one is more plausable and at least then you have more chance of getting all the facts.

Only my suggestion



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bondi
This is a conspiracy orientated site, therefore people here will predominantly see the conspiracy in everything and everything, whether it's freemasonry or the teletubbies.



Forget the Freemasons, it's those damned Teletubbies everyone should be looking out for... Those things are just creepy...



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Leader of the NWO. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA







posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Damn Tinky-Winky! Damn him all to Hell!! Him and his Nefarious cohorts must be destroyed!
Just what is in that bag anyway? The plans for World Domination?



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janus
Damn Tinky-Winky! Damn him all to Hell!! Him and his Nefarious cohorts must be destroyed!
Just what is in that bag anyway? The plans for World Domination?



A collection of David Icke books, of course!



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid



Figures you would pick the gay Teletubbie... Errr... Wait they're all gay?

My bad...



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I have a question for the masons. Why are women not allowed to masons? Whats with the 'no girls allowed' attitude remenicent of the treehouse. I have read alot of the posts by masons here, trying to say that masons are just good men, etc etc.

What do masons have against women? Women arnt good enough to be masons, and dont deserve the spiritual enlightenment you all claim to seek.

I know Im coming of really bad "anti-mason" sounding, but it is just a curiocity a minor annoyance, because I am a Female, and I find it all too intresting.

How do you feel about gay masons? etc etc

Again, I am very curious.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I believe it stems from traditions past, there were only male masons, in fact there were only men in most jobs that didn't include house work.

The opinion of a women involved with talks of work were not particulary great, therefore in olden times women were not allowed in the lodge as it was a place for discussing work, and I guess it has become some what traditional.

I understand in some parts of the world they have started masonic organisations specifically for this, so they don't have to break traditions and don't leave the women out either.

Saying that, the women have there own things for them, ever tried going to an Ann Summers party


Any way, this is what I think it is, I could be wrong and I am sure thee will be many different opinions as to the reason.

HTH



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join