George Washington and the Freemasons

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


Once again, for all of you slow people, Washington only set foot in a Masonic Lodge ONCE or TWICE after his early 20s. That's why he said it in the letter. He did not die a Mason, and was not involved in Masonry for the majority of his life. You can know this because he committed it to writing.

Sremmos80
Lol the troll is over here too.
Now he is resorting to calling people lame and making fun of their avatar.
Wonder what your next thread will be.
Keep quoting your one source vs something that is very well documented.

My one source is a letter found in the library of congress where he states that he has only been in a Lodge in once or twice in 30 freaking years. I think my source wins vs your "documentation."

FreeWillAnomaly
My one source is a letter found in the library of congress where he states that he has only been in a Lodge in once or twice in 30 freaking years. I think my source wins vs your "documentation."

Except your source does not support your point that Washington left the Fraternity, only that he was an infrequent attender in lodge. If he left as you claimed how did he lay the Capitol's cornerstone in a Masonic ceremony?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


And with that the thread should be moved to the LoL forum.

reply to post by boymonkey74


All he said was "well, he laid a rock somewhere with a bunch of Masons once, and once or twice in 30 years can still be a Mason - he just had bad attendance."

With that, his Avatar should be moved to the lmfao section of trollspiracy.masons

From the OP's own source, George Washington writing:

"I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c."

To make such a statement shows that he had a vast knowledge of the affairs of the Masons in the U.S., that he kept up with current activities in the lodges, and had friends far and wide who had kept him aware of what was occurring in the organization. As for not attending activities, he had some other things to do (President, Father of his country, commanding officer in a decisive war, building the capital of his nation, etc.).

reply to post by Aleister


Of course he had friends who were still active in Masonry (which he was not - active in Masonry). He would have been stupid to burn all of his bridges in the most influential group of that time in that locality.

You basically didn't even say anything "Well, he was the president at one point in his life and all of that so - you know - he just didn't have time to go to the lodge more than once or twice for 30 YEARS!"

This cracks me up because I know you are not this slow. You are trying to put a spin on it and failing miserably.

eta Further, he was concerned about the influence of the Illuminati, and the Illuminati did later find a home in American Masonry (they had already permeated British lodges), not to mention a lot of influence I would imagine as the ideology and symbolism is present in modern Masonry.

Anyways, why would Masons want so bad to claim a man was a Mason who only set foot in a Masonic lodge a maximum of twice in 30 years?

reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly


It is getting ripped apart just fine, so fine even that this point I would just be throwing gas on the fire.
He was a mason nothing wrong with that.

FreeWillAnomaly
All he said was "well, he laid a rock somewhere with a bunch of Masons once, and once or twice in 30 years can still be a Mason - he just had bad attendance."

'Bad attendance' is not 'left Masonry' as you so incorrectly claimed. Additionally, the rock happened to be at the nation's Capitol and was attended by a vast number of people who Washington would have been wearing his Masonic regalia in front of. Your failure to address the sources and continuance to resort to ad hominems shows you are not prepared to address the topic in manner displaying intellectual honesty.

FreeWillAnomaly
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

I have no cause other than to show that Washington was not a Mason. He was involved in Masonry when he was young and impressionable and later left, and Masons decided they would claim him anyways.

You're moving the goalposts insomuch as you haven't addressed how he could have participated in a Masonic cornerstone ceremony if (as you claim) he was no longer a Mason. The simple reality is that as long as your dues are current, you're a Mason. Perhaps not an active one but running a new country is a time-consuming process. I've been Master of my lodge for less than 4 weeks and I've sent and received 400 emails on lodge matters alone. That's with the benefit of 21st century technology; how much more time-consuming Washington's position in his time?

Bottom line, you're repeating a mistake because you seem to want to believe it and you're being insulting to others for good measure. Don't be too upset if you get yellow-carded by the mods

Fitz

Sremmos80
reply to post by FreeWillAnomaly

 

It is getting ripped apart just fine, so fine even that this point I would just be throwing gas on the fire.
He was a mason nothing wrong with that.

Your first sentence is referring to your connection to the Anchor. Surely, it is not referring to what you think it is referring to. But go ahead and throw gas on the fire. You will need that fire to keep you warm for as long as it can, soon enough. Enjoy that.

Anyways, there would be nothing wrong with it - if it were true.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Is it possible he only meant "English" lodges?

I am not an expert on this, but you may know if there was at the specific time period an actual difference between "American" and "English" lodges.

He did specify it that way, so he may only be referring to that.
He could have had good attendance.

Just a thought. Maybe ya'll know specifically?

Oh an by the way, I do have something really special about G W that I haven't posted yet, but still plan too soon enough.
It's gonna be sweet, thankfully this reminded me as I had forgotten for a few weeks...

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Don't worry, I won't mind. I haven't insulted anyone but an Avatar (haha check the word play). I am entitled to my opinion of lame avatar guy's avatar.

I think I have proven that Washington was not a Mason to anyone capable of critical thought.

Oh, and don't get too upset if snitching on nothing renders nothing beneficial.

muzzleflash
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

Is it possible he only meant "English" lodges?

I am not an expert on this, but you may know if there was at the specific time period an actual difference between "American" and "English" lodges.

He did specify it that way, so he may only be referring to that.
He could have had good attendance.

Just a thought. Maybe ya'll know specifically?

The British lodges were full of people like Lame Avatar Guy during that point in history. You do have a point.

However, it does not pertain to this letter. He could not have presided over a British lodge when he was living in America, so there would have been no confusion there.

Found this so far, will keep looking:

After the American Revolution, independent U.S. Grand Lodges formed themselves within each state. Some thought was briefly given to organising an overarching "Grand Lodge of the United States," with George Washington (who was a member of a Virginian lodge) as the first Grand Master, but the idea was short-lived. The various state Grand Lodges did not wish to diminish their own authority by agreeing to such a body.[50]

Freemasonry wiki

FreeWillAnomaly
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

Don't worry, I won't mind. I haven't insulted anyone but an Avatar (haha check the word play). I am entitled to my opinion of lame avatar guy's avatar.

I think I have proven that Washington was not a Mason to anyone capable of critical thought.

Oh, and don't get too upset if snitching on nothing renders nothing beneficial.

Don't be surprised if mods don't interpret things a little less coyly than you'd like to think. As I said earlier, absent a demit (which would've precluded his participation in the cornerstone ceremony), he was still a Mason. Muzzleflash has also raised a valid point. Will you address that or is it inconvenient?

Fitz

FreeWillAnomaly

However, it does not pertain to this letter. He could not have presided over a British lodge when he was living in America, so there would have been no confusion there.

It seems like the early lodges could have been called "English" (or other applicable) prior to the Revolution, but I am not sure and will need further clarification.

I'll keep looking *I am learning as I go here.

reply to post by muzzleflash


I'm fairly certain the letters were written after the American Revolution...

I learn as I go too, though.

I'm happy I reminded you of your unfinished work. At least something beneficial came from this thread other than propaganda and petty snitching.

Even if the letter were pre Revolution (it was not), though, wouldn't he have specified British Lodge?