What actually do you people not like about Freemasonry?

Originally posted by lost
... but you still didnt answer the question. YES or NO:

Is it LOGICAL that a man put his hand on his holy book of choice and make an oath in order to serve?

response by Bondi was
In the context in which the oath is taken there is NO problem with placing your hand on a holy book

If that didn't answer it try. YES IT IS LOGICAL

if you really want me to, i will break down that sentence of yours showing you full and well you indeed DID tell me to do something

Anything that you have regarded as direction for you to do something, can also be read as suggestive. Depends how you read it.

Bondi wroteWhy don�t you start a thread saying Why I Hate People

Lost repsondedlol..thats the funniest thing you've said yet!!

Glad you are finally getting something of use out of the thread, that is what the intention. I have noticed there don't seem to be any threads started by yourself though? Maybe you should have a go a starting one, and then when someone comes on and isn't exactly posting in topic we can discuss that particular issue further.

Lost writesgood job! you can use profanity too. see, were not all that different. from the above statement, i now believe you actually have no idea why i aimed it at you. if you really do not know why i directed it at you i apologize for the surprise attack. in answer to your question i point you to your responce to my first post, which i interperit as very condescending.

If you class hell as profanity you come from a stricter upbringing than me, but if it is classed a profanity. I apologise for that. I appreciate your own apology, it is a shame you haven't applied similar thought prior to posting previously, maybe our conversations would have gone a little different. If you find my initial response condescending I again apologise for this, it was not the intention and fear that with a lot of posts on these types of forums the reader often interprets more meaing into a post than the author intended. May of been prudent to enquire as to the motive, rather than just jump straight in.

Bondi wrote Would you really condemn millions of people around the world....

Lost repsonsewell, if thats not a word game, i dont know....

Probably not the best choice of word, condemn, I merely meant would you really feel badly of all those people and the good they do over a secret handshake?

Lostwait wait...

This really is not needed.

so my big vice in this thread is that i attack individuals and not the group

Posting about individuals, rather than groups, was an error you made and was highlighted, the vice is you continued to attack even though your mistake had been pointed out.

for the last time and structured for your original title/question, my answer:

What actually I do not like about freemasonry is the fact that it and other similar fraternities/orginizations are secretive, thus recruiting not entirely but including some individuals who I deem cheats and/or weak followers.

At last a civilised response, and yes I do understand what you mean now. A couple of points I would like to make in repsonse, the first which I did mention before but possibly not understood in the way I meant.

1) To dislike an organisation that has secrets would also segregate you from other groups such as religious orders, ie you couldn't be christian due to the initial requirements of christians when the faith was born.

2) Freemasonry, and this is based on my knowledge of the UK Freemasons, do not recruit members. This may be different where you are, but it doesn't happen here.

bondi, we can go tit for tat on this. accept my answer as it is perfectly crafted above or continue to whine about me being insulting. i have given you exactly what you asked for and HOW you asked for it. everyone can now understand what i see as the basic flaw with freemasonry.

Why? Why? would you come out with the whine comment. If you feel I am whining about your insults, don't make any.

I do accept your answer, it's taken a while for us to get there, but at least the thread has served it's purpose in the end.

[edit on 22/11/2004 by Bondi]

Originally posted by saint4God
They are an exclusive organization. Exclusion means that some people are not invited in while others are not. By doing this, leaving people out, you're telling them they don't qualify and there's very little or nothing they can do about it. I would never turn anyone away who wanted to be my 'brother'.

Originally posted by Bondi
Can I come to your church sunday morning and pray to Allah?

Sure thing. Real value comes from listening to the servcie though, but if all I can get is presence then it's a start. If you know anyone who is Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan and/or Satanic, bring them along. The band really rocks too. I can give you directions if you like.

Originally posted by Bondi
That probably sounds wrong, I know what I mean and reading it myself doesn't sound right, hope you get the intention of my comment, can't think of anbother way of putting it.

Hope I didn't miss the intent.

Originally posted by saint4God
...but feel there is a fundamental conceptual problem with the organization.

Originally posted by Bondi
This basic, and abstract, problem you refer to is it just the exclusion thing?

Yes, exclusion the primary problem I have with the organization.

Originally posted by Bondi
1) To dislike an organisation that has secrets would also segregate you from other groups such as religious orders, ie you couldn't be christian due to the initial requirements of christians when the faith was born.

Ah, but here's the thing: Anybody can be a Christian. Can anyone be a Mason? *prepares for the cavaets again*

Originally posted by saint4God

The problem I have is that there are Christians (those who are to care for and guide their brothers/sisters whether literal or figuratively speaking) who say "Sorry, private session. You can't come in but I'll see you when it's over".

I really appreciate the responses Bondi and Masonic Light, but feel there is a fundamental conceptual problem with the organization.

I think I understand your point, but consider the following analogy:

Let's assume your a judge, and are presiding over a hyped-up trial. Due to media coverage, you've sequestered the jury, who are presently deliberating. Then, members of the media show up at your chambers, and tell you that they're Christians: therefore, they have the right to be present during the jury's deliberations.

Somewhere in their argument, there appears to be a fallacy; in my opinion, the fallacy lies in the fact that because the members of the media are Christians, and the jury are (let us assume) Christians, they have the right to be present during deliberations. But in reality, the jury deliberations have nothing to do with Christianity, and the members of the media are not qualified to be present simply because they are not members of the jury.

Similiarly, suppose you wish to have a private conversation about some important topic with your immediate family. You are not acting unjustly by keeping a private family matter private.

Masonic Lodge meetings are opened to those who have earned the right to be present. Our quaifications for membership are extremely important, but certainly nothing outrageous...anyone of good character who believes in God is eligible for admission, and may then attend our meetings. But we have no duty to allow non-Masons into our meetings, anymore than you have a duty to allow me to listen in on your private family conversation.

Fiat Lvx.

Thank you ML, that was an extremely lucid explanation. BTW, I'm not a Mason people. Everyone has the right to privacy, complaining about not knowing others secrets is sour grapes IMO.

Originally posted by Bondi
1) To dislike an organisation that has secrets would also segregate you from other groups such as religious orders, ie you couldn't be christian due to the initial requirements of christians when the faith was born.

Originally posted by saint4God
Ah, but here's the thing: Anybody can be a Christian. Can anyone be a Mason? *prepares for the cavaets again*

Quite true, anyone can be Christian, as long as they believe in a particular god. Although people can be christian in nature regardless of their faith. Not as exclusive now as Masonry. I cannot disagree with your statement.

However...

What I was trying to refer to was the use of the fish symbol, and then the word "Ichthus" which has a meaning on it's own and an additional meaning when used with the fish symbol during a meeting of two people uncertain if the other was Christian. I wont act as an educator for your faith, as I am sure you know alot more than me and are fully are aware of what I am referring to.

I really have got to try and read these things before posting them, would probably prevent the occassional mis-understanding

Anybody can be a Christian.

provided they meet the membership requirements.

i suppose you're all cringing to see yet another post by me. relax, i will be tame. i just wanted to clear some last things up for namely bondi, the axeman and intrepid.

bondi, you're right -they do not recruit. i used the wrong word. i should have used 'attract'

i disagree however that it is logical for a man to put his hand on his holy book and make an oath in order to serve if you really think that. but your opinion is valued as much as mine in this thread.

axeman, i hadnt thought of that. i suppose it does show initiative, but i imagine (not sure) that most masons know other masons and want to be part of the club before they go knocking on lodge doors.

Your main qualm was that Freemasons keep secrets.

not just that they keep secrets, but what those secrets breed. it is more about what a group huddle keeping secrets tells those on the outside. it is what the secrets attract in my eyes: cheats and followers.

yes, i too keep secrets. however, i dont make or join a club that is shrouded in secrets. there is a difference. sure, if i were to take my social security # and share it with a select few, and then flaunt around like i am 'above' because i am in on the secret, i will generally attract followers who also want to be in on it, and/or cheats who think there is something to gain out of it. that is a pretty extreme example, but you get what i am saying.

All he can do now is resort to insults and half-baked arguments because the truth is still the truth no matter what.

i guess when you're lacking a real rebuttal, ones oponents arguments are 'half-baked'. your intellect astounds me axeman. yadda yadda, all i hear is a lot of words that dont say anything. please axeman, elaborate on the 'truth' would you? or dont

intrepid, you're absolutely right. everyone does have the right to privacy. and your opinion about sour grapes is dead on. anyone who complains about not knowing other peoples secrets has some issues. some might confuse such people with other people who have problems with fraternal organizations that keep secrets and thereby attract cheats and followers, however they are two completely different kinds of people.

lastly, as an individual i would never make an oath that ties me to a group of men that largly i do not know simply because i want to serve or donate charities. call me unpatriotic, but likewise, i will not align myself with a country that i believe to to be going down the drain. i suppose some would say president bush prides himself on his honor and integrity, but i do not believe it. nor will i defend the illogical actions of him or masons.



[edit on 23-11-2004 by lost]

[edit on 23-11-2004 by lost]

Okay, now the misunderstandings are out the way, we are getting a better idea of the point trying to be made. If people could try to leave the mud slinging, and name calling for the playground or alternate threads it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Originally posted by lost
as an individual i would never make an oath that ties me to a group of men...because i want to serve or donate charities...suppose some would say president bush prides himself on his honor and integrity, but i do not believe it. nor will i defend the illogical actions of him or masons.

Although depending on your perception of fraternity and/or what you think a fraternity does will depend on a lot. The oath you make,with regards to Freemasonry, is to Freemasonry, and not the men within it. Freemasonry tries to show men ,I suppose one way of putting it is, how to behave and be a better person. Not exactly black and white, because the organisation is built around history, symbolic meaning and the like, to those who don't understand it, or interpret in the manner intended, it seems unnecessary, and pointless.

Bit like when I walk into a church and see people make the sign of the cross by touching forehead, shoulders, and chest etc, to me that is absolutely pointless and means nothing in my opinion. Saying that it doesn't mean it has no meaning, and it will definetly have a very meaningful interpretation to some.

The oath also is not to serve in the manner, I think, you mean. No mason is a servant of freemasonry, ie like you would be if you are a maid. You are supposed to "serve" freemasonry by the manner in which you live, again referring to religion, bit like you serve your god by living by your faith, love thy neighbour and all that.

As for President Bush, well being English I know little or nothing about the man so it would be unfair to comment, with the knowledge I do have it revolves arounf Iraq which is a sore subject for many people. And if I had to judge him by the actions I know of. I'd probably say he was about as much an idiot as Tony Blair.

If either had stood up and told the truth, ie we would like to send our troops to blast the hell out of iraq because the people live under a dictatorship, are treated like vermin etc etc, and as some of the greater powers of the world we feel we should aid these people and free them from their captivity.

I am sure the Americans and the English would of found the majority in favour. Where they have both imbelished the truth, added a bit, removed a bit, making it into what they thought the people would fight against it has back fired. That doesn't mean that is what the man is like permanently, I am sure he did what "HE" thought right, but that is a whole different debate which I do not want to get involved in for lack of knowledge.

Originally posted by Bondi
What I was trying to refer to was the use of the fish symbol, and then the word "Ichthus" which has a meaning on it's own and an additional meaning when used with the fish symbol during a meeting of two people uncertain if the other was Christian. I wont act as an educator for your faith, as I am sure you know alot more than me and are fully are aware of what I am referring to.

Crap! Are you saying I have to pry the fish off my car now?

Kidding, kidding. Anyway, Christianity wasn't 'meant' to be underground, it had to go underground. What's more important, dying for the faith or speading the word? It's a tough question and I don't have the answer. These days I'd shake my fist at the ruling government of the time but I wasn't that way five years ago.

I'm sure this is what you were referring to Bondi, but for other people who are interested:

This symbol was used primarily amongst Christians of the early church years (1st and 2nd century A.D.) The symbol was introduced from Alexandria, Egypt; which at the time, was a very heavily populated seaport. It was the port in which many goods were brought over from the European continent. Because of this, it was first used by the peoples of the sea as a symbol of Jesus Christ.

The symbol was later used as a means of identifying or acknowledging a fellow believer in Christ without the need for any verbal communication being exchanged. Why was this necessary?

During the reign of Emperor Nero (54 A.D.- 68 A.D.), and throughout the reign of subsequent evil emperors of the Roman Empire, Christians were commonly persecuted, tortured, and put to death because of their faith in Christ Jesus. Emperor Nero himself personally despised Christians. He blamed them for the great fire of A.D. 64 which burned nearly half of Rome. It was during Nero�s persecutions that both Peter and Paul are thought to have perished.

Three more points I'd like to make:
1) That was then, this is now. It's a very public symbol these days. I haven't ran into anyone who said 'what's that mean?'. If I do though, it's a great opportunity to share the history.
2) The requirements to be a Christian do not discriminate against gender, age, and previous religion.
3) The thread served it's purpose I think, fairly explaning both perspectives. Though I don't agree with the organization, at least I have a better understand of it.

agreed.

i only bring up bush to make a point, not to detract from the topic of masonry. the axeman said masons pride themselves on their honour and integrity. my point is, i am sure there are those who claim Prez Bush does the same. he might pride himself on his honour and integrity yet i still despise him. such prides dont matter.

Originally posted by Bondi

Originally posted by Corinthas
What i was getting at is this exclusivity makes people feel left out... the masons are REALLY good at making people feel left out!

But why would you feel left out. If you are 21 or over, male, and believe in a god by what ever name you call it, you can join if you want, and be an honest person with morals. Not exaclt y the most exclusive club about is it.

I am writing in my special invisible ink again it seems, above i had said this:

"After that i was trying to argue that one masonrys main goals is exclusivity.. allthough like i said stating this usually has them jump striaght in to defensive mode and claim it wants and allows everyone/anyone to join . And it this i was trying to debunk, as a secret group like that needs its exclusivity to give it that little something special.


And what do you go and do... reassure me that "everyone above the age of blah.. can blah blah.." Obviously they don't teach reading as a masonic secret.

No not everyone is welcome!

If everyone WAS welcome you would run the risk that one day (not a very likely example but nevertheless one worth considering) everyone would be a mason leaving no more non-masons (basic set-theory here fellas) and you would have no more exclusivity, and need a new little club....

Originally posted by saint4God
Crap! Are you saying I have to pry the fish off my car now?

I am glad some can still keep their sense of humour.

Three more points I'd like to make:
1) That was then, this is now. It's a very public symbol these days. I haven't ran into anyone who said 'what's that mean?'. If I do though, it's a great opportunity to share the history.
2) The requirements to be a Christian do not discriminate against gender, age, and previous religion.
3) The thread served it's purpose I think, fairly explaning both perspectives. Though I don't agree with the organization, at least I have a better understand of it.

1) Maybe when freemasonry has been about as long as Christianity it will not need it's secrecy. Although the reasons for the secrecy were different of course.

2) And this is a good point, and a very good trait. But those who are not Christian could argue that your are selective. I only say could retorically, it's not an pro freemasonry arguement.

3) I am glad to this fact. It is not a thread to try and convery people to freemasonry, more a way of highlighting that some views are speculation and not based in fact.

Once people have the facts it is still there choice to dislike the fraternity, my only intent was they dislike when in posession of the facts not the fiction.

Originally posted by Corinthas
What i was getting at is this exclusivity makes people feel left out... the masons are REALLY good at making people feel left out!

Very sad if this is the impression you have received, we have not done the job we set out to do very well , have we.

To be included is to create an atmosphere of family within which we can hopefully find resources to help others.

The Three pillars upon which masonry rests is Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. Inclusively we know this to be true. Making the popular world accept this is not so easy.

"After that i was trying to argue that one masonrys main goals is exclusivity.. allthough like i said stating this usually has them jump striaght in to defensive mode and claim it wants and allows everyone/anyone to join . And it this i was trying to debunk, as a secret group like that needs its exclusivity to give it that little something special.

No , you can not join if you are a Criminal. Other than that so long as you can declare a belief in God. It should not be a problem for any Just, Truthful and moral person to join, if they wish to. I can go along with selective.

And what do you go and do... reassure me that "everyone above the age of blah.. can blah blah.." Obviously they don't teach reading as a masonic secret.

Not with you on this one.

No not everyone is welcome!

If everyone WAS welcome you would run the risk that one day (not a very likely example but nevertheless one worth considering) everyone would be a mason leaving no more non-masons (basic set-theory here fellas) and you would have no more exclusivity, and need a new little club....

Well it all depends if you want to join, we all belong to something. Family, Church, Social Club. Do you know everything that goes on in your Church or your Club or come to that your family.

If your wife keeps a secret from you is that exclusive ?

if your Church does not tell you it has not got the funds to repair the piano, is that exclusive?

Masonic secrets , which amount to a handshake and a few words, are about a silly a secret as it is possible to keep. It means nothing to anyone but another mason, it is simply a test of merit. " I have promised to keep your secret and I have done what I promised".

To be honest I only talk about the hanshakes to people who are not masons, nobody is interested who is already a mason.

Bottom line is not everyone is welcome... this makes peple left out and they don't like it.

This was an attempt at actually answering the question in the title and I for one think I did a pretty good job of it

Originally posted by Corinthas
i was trying to argue that one masonrys main goals is exclusivity

It is not a goal, in my opinion, there are exclusions for a reason. To be 21 you, should be of a mature mind, male comes from the fact all masons were male and this has just become a requirement as times have progressed. Not saying it is right mind you. They may change there ways the same as the church has in recent times. A person of strict morals, meaning a good person, I am sure no one would disagree with that.

[qoute]allthough like i said stating this usually has them jump striaght in to defensive mode and claim it wants and allows everyone/anyone to join.

I wasn't intentioanlly defensive if that is what it seems.

as a secret group like that needs its exclusivity to give it that little something special.

Quite true, a group with secrets, wouldn't be a group with secrets if it didn't have any.

And what do you go and do... reassure me that "everyone above the age of blah.. can blah blah.." Obviously they don't teach reading as a masonic secret.

As already addressed, i wasn't trying to be defensive, I thought by listing the requirements people would see it's not as exclusive as many perceive it to be. As for the not reading jibe, if you read the other posts you would know that is not necessary.

No not everyone is welcome!

Not everyone is welcome in church, to join a football team, to attend certain schools, is it a concern though. Depends on the intention of exclusion, the reasons behind why certain types/people/backgrounds are not entertained by groups. Like you later say it wouldn't be a group if there was not exclusion. I presume you have a view as to why freemasons exclude certain people. I have posted my views earlier in this post I would be interested in yours.

If everyone WAS welcome you would run the risk that one day (not a very likely example but nevertheless one worth considering) everyone would be a mason leaving no more non-masons (basic set-theory here fellas) and you would have no more exclusivity, and need a new little club....

That is not a concern of mine. If everyone acted in the way I know masons to act the world would be a better place. In saying that though, if everyone acted like a christian, buddhist, etc the world would also be a better place.

I guess the the trouble I am having with answering alot of posts, is not with what you say, or your opinions, like I have said before I am not trying to convert anyone, it's more the point made can be applied to any group, or organisation in the world and it is hard to see why people only have a problem with freemasonry using these exclusions traits.

Originally posted by Corinthas
This was an attempt at actually answering the question in the title and I for one think I did a pretty good job of it

Firstly you have answered the question.

Secondly the responses, can only speak for myself here, are used to show how your reasoning can be applied else where.

For example I am not accepted at my local christian church, not because I am a bad person, merely because my views on god are not that of the christian church.

I am not going to speak out against christianity for that exclusion, I will merely not be part of it. I would not try to convert some one away from their faith because it is not my own, the same as I am not trying to convert you towards freemasonry. I does not effect me in any way whether you like or dislike it, I personal like to be sure of the facts prior to making a decision on anything and I thought others would be too.

Would any of you be interested in a Q & A thread about Freemasonry.

No, I think it's good because, or I think it's bad because stuff, strictly why do mason's do this, why do they do that. What is this bit about, or what is this thing for.

Seems alot of people are interested, for differing reasons, but a lot of threads get bogged down with opinion. Do you think you would benefit from a better understanding?

i would only be interested in a Q&A if i could be guaranteed to get all the answers from an ex-mason. not necessarily an anti-mason, but rather someone who knows every detail of the fraternity and would be willing to answer all questions. otherwise all answers will surely be coming from the biased defending position. this is probably not a possibility though.

Originally posted by billmcelligott
If your wife keeps a secret from you is that exclusive ?

Yes. I disapprove of withholding any information from your spouse because it breaks one of my favorite words --> trust.

Originally posted by billmcelligott
if your Church does not tell you it has not got the funds to repair the piano, is that exclusive?

Yes. Quartley the church I attend posts their income & expenditures in the bulletin & provide a contact for questions. No individual names are included. First time I've ever seen a church do it and think it's really cool!

Someone please (besides a Christmas gift/Birthday surpise) give me a good reason why anyone should withhold information in a personal relationship.

Originally posted by lost
i would only be interested in a Q&A if i could be guaranteed to get all the answers

By this I take it you mean if some one will tell you what the modes of recognition are.

If so, then the Q & A would not benefit you, even those who have left masonry still choose to maintain the secrets. Majoritly speaking.