Why can no one prove a Masonic conspiracy?

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


I think what he was saying was that he believes someone had made it up; some anti, that is. Correct me if I'm wrong Masonic Light.

Yes, that was my original assumption. That line is not found in the Ritual as used in my Jurisdiction, and I've never heard it used in the Ritual of other jurisdictions I've visited.

Both Morgan's and Duncan's exposes purport to expose the ritual as used in the state of New York in the 19th century. I've never visited a New York Lodge, or seen its version of the Ritual. It is therefore possible that the line was an authentic quote; on the other hand, it's also possible that Morgan made it up, and Duncan used it as a source.

Regardless, to get back to the original question, I would have a problem with it. When we become Masons, we come "of our own free will and accord". We also choose to obey the ancient regulations and landmarks of the fraternity, of our own free will. Therefore, we do not renounce our will by obeying Masonic law, but instead we exercise it. Therefore, if the quote was indeed authentic, whoever wrote it seems to have lacked understanding of this.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men


Yes indeed:

“Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled ...”

“The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry.” (MORALS AND DOGMA, pp. 104, 105 & 819)

The problem is that these quotes from Pike are almost universally taken out of context by critics of Freemasonry. When they use these quotes in such a manner, Pike's original meaning becomes lost.

The first quote details Pike's concerns that, at the time he wrote his book, it was starting to become "too easy" to become a Mason. He was concerned that people would be admitted into our Lodges that we would sooner or later regret having initiated. In large part, Pike's concerns were valid. Every year at Grand Lodge, a list is read of members who've been expelled in the previous year for committing crimes or immoral acts; obviously, most of these should never have darkened our doors in the first place.

Pike points out that many such people, bearing a grudge, would attempt to betray the fraternity. But if they were "weeded out", their knowledge would consist only in Masonic legends, which mean nothing to non-Masons.

Pike's second quote is taken from the lecture of the 30°. This degree, called Knight Kadosh, recounts the legend that fugitive Knights Templar fled to Scotland, assisted Robert the Bruce in the Battle of Bannockburn, and afterward reconstituted themselves in Scotland as Freemasons.

At the time he wrote "Morals and Dogma", Pike believed this story literally. Since the Blue Degrees do not mention Templary, Pike believed that some of the symbols that he associated with the Templars had been given false interpretations, and that therefore the true interpretations (i.e., Templar origins) were found in the Scottish Rite.

However, after Gould published his "History of Freemasonry", Pike retracted this statement. Gould conclusively showed that Freemasonry was not a lineal successor to the Templars, and that Pike had been in error on that point.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The first quote details Pike's concerns that, at the time he wrote his book, it was starting to become "too easy" to become a Mason. He was concerned that people would be admitted into our Lodges that we would sooner or later regret having initiated. In large part, Pike's concerns were valid. Every year at Grand Lodge, a list is read of members who've been expelled in the previous year for committing crimes or immoral acts; obviously, most of these should never have darkened our doors in the first place.

Pike points out that many such people, bearing a grudge, would attempt to betray the fraternity. But if they were "weeded out", their knowledge would consist only in Masonic legends, which mean nothing to non-Masons.

A page number would be nice, to where this "too easy" or "weed out" speculation begins, so I can at least read it for myself and come to my own conclusion as to how exactly it relates to what is said on pp. 104-5. Perhaps I'm not "enlightened" enough to apprehend, but I can't find anything to that effect in the entire chapter - there's a lot pf pot shots toward Christianity ("blind Faith and vulgar credulity", etc., etc.) coupled with praise for paganism and occultism though.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
At the time he wrote "Morals and Dogma", Pike believed this story literally. Since the Blue Degrees do not mention Templary, Pike believed that some of the symbols that he associated with the Templars had been given false interpretations, and that therefore the true interpretations (i.e., Templar origins) were found in the Scottish Rite.

However, after Gould published his "History of Freemasonry", Pike retracted this statement. Gould conclusively showed that Freemasonry was not a lineal successor to the Templars...

Yes, Gould was quite the historian. I respect his work immensely. I have here on my computer, in pdf, the entire six volumes of History of Freemasonry Throughout the World.

I believe Gould pins the start of Templar legends with Ramsay, which is the standard belief nowadays anyway. I have here a book by the French esoteric scholar and professor Antoine Faivre, Access to Western Esotericism. There's a page (188) in that book that is very intriguing, and adds another dimension. He has identified Masonic-Templar conflation much earlier than is generally accepted:

Already in 1675, and thus forty-two years before the birth of Speculative Masonry, Father Louis Maimbourg spoke of the Society of Free Masons "that is believed to have been formed at the time of the conquest of the Holy Land" in his Histoire des Croisades, which was published and translated several times. Elsewhere, a recently discovered document demonstrates the existence of a Chapter of Knights in an English Masonic lodge in 1710, seven years before the birth of Speculative Masonry! This order was founded by Frenchmen and was more free-thinking than religious, but it nevertheless used the vocabulary of Knighthood and had a Grand Master as its head. Finally, Ramsay...

The 1710 document is sourced to a discovery by Magaret C. Jacob. Apparently in her digging through the papers of druid-obsessed pantheist John Toland, she found the heretofore unknown manuscript.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
I think what he was saying was that he believes someone had made it up; some anti, that is. Correct me if I'm wrong Masonic Light.

That line is not found in the Ritual as used in my Jurisdiction, and I've never heard it used in the Ritual of other jurisdictions I've visited.

fyi that line is legit, although it's not part of the ritual; it's part of the post-ritual lecture given to the new EAs after the ritual takes place. Again, since lodges can all differ greatly, the content of the lecture may deviate from lodge to lodge, and from person to person (depending on how good their memory is).

[edit on 4-6-2008 by scientist]

reply to post by Masonic Light


Thanks for your honest answer. I take it then if something you felt was occuring that was not above board you would not abide by it?

To the other masons, why is your ritual different then masoniclights? Do you not all study the same words? Why is there not a standard ritual?

reply to post by Capozzelli


Because masonry is decentralized. This is one of the thorns in the side of those who would like to claim its trying to rule the world. The highest level of authority in masonry is the grand lodge - and there are many of them. They each have exclusive and total command over their own jurisdiction, and 0 command or authority over any other jurisdiction.

As such, lodges can and do change the ritual to reflect changing times. Its totally up to the Grand Lodge how the ritual will read and what it will say, although obviously much of it is the same - and there are certain landmarks everyone must observe if they want to remain a "regular" grand lodge.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus



" Well since you already have a copy would it be too much of a burden upon you to post several of its pages for the people that do not already have it in their libraries? "


Yes it would be, since I ;

a. I'm not sure just exactly where it is.

b. I don't have a scanner




Besides I don't think, that a handful of names would convince you or any other loyal mason of anything, in fact, if the whole book was posted, I'm sure you'd feel the same way or would at least act like it.

good day...

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


I understand, but why would a grand lodge leave in these words? To me they do seem controling and maybe sinister. Masoniclight has said he doesn't agree with them even if they were ritual. Are they in your ritual? If they were would you disagree as well? Is there a group that reviews the words for things like this?

Originally posted by toasted
[Yes it would be, since I ;

a. I'm not sure just exactly where it is.

b. I don't have a scanner

You forgot option c.;

It does not exist.

Besides I don't think, that a handful of names would convince you or any other loyal mason of anything, in fact, if the whole book was posted, I'm sure you'd feel the same way or would at least act like it.

You over generalize with your assumption. I can recall at least two notable occasions where I was corrected by others on this forum and acknowledged said corrections. One was by the very knowledgable ConspiracyNut-and he is now my friend-regarding the P2 lodge and the other was by the esteemed Masonic Light regarding symbolism in Masonry. I am sure if I searched I might find others but these will suffice to disporve you for now.

Please feel free to list your 'handful' or the entire book's worth, if you in fact do have this tome, I will be more then happy to verify your information and offer my mea culpa if you are correct.

good day...

It is indeed.

Proclaim it from the highest mountain...

Originally posted by toasted
You mean, besides the FACT that the corporations

and public officials including those who run the teevee and radio

are full of masons who own and run them?

I have my copy of "who's who in the elite", you're gonna have to get your own.

Or at least post it here on ATS... You have made claims, I suggest providing some empirical evidence... Who owns what? Who's who? Broad generalities do not an argument make...

Unless you don't know, and don't have anything to support your claim.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
You forgot option c.;

It does not exist.

Once again I'm assuming the role of interpretor ... but I think he meant this book:

Who's Who of the Elite: Members of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, & Trilateral Commission (Paperback)
by Robert Gaylon, Sr. Ross (Author)
www.amazon.com...

I don't have it, nor have I ever read it; but I am pretty sure that it contains exactly what it says it contains (eg, sans de membres francs-maçons). As I've mentioned here before, it is way easier - for a number of reasons, and I don't want to get into it again - to get lists of the above-mentioned "elite" org members than it is to confirm membership in Freemasonry.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

Originally posted by Capozzelli
I understand, but why would a grand lodge leave in these words? To me they do seem controling and maybe sinister. Masoniclight has said he doesn't agree with them even if they were ritual. Are they in your ritual? If they were would you disagree as well? Is there a group that reviews the words for things like this?

I don't find them either controlling or sinister, to be honest. The quote you've given is

Q. Why were you neither barefoot nor shod?

A. It was in conformity to an ancient Israelitish custom: we read in the book of Ruth, that it was their manner of changing and redeeming; and to confirm all things, a Mason plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor, and that was testimony in Israel. This then we do in confirmation of a token, and as a pledge of our fidelity; thereby signifying that we will renounce our own will in all things, and become obedient to the laws of our ancient institution.

Duncan's
It's worth pointing out that the strength of any oath, obligation or commitment can only be a reflection of the sincerity and steadfastness of the person who makes that pledge. I think the tone of how it was worded 150 years ago might seem severe to modern ears, but its intent was essentially "by doing as I was asked, I have shown that I am a faithful soldier, willing to uphold tradition." In fact, in my jurisdiction, that last sentence reads

I did this in token of my sincerity in the work I was then entering upon.

which you might find less objectionable.

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
Once again I'm assuming the role of interpretor ... but I think he meant this book:

Who's Who of the Elite: Members of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, & Trilateral Commission (Paperback)
by Robert Gaylon, Sr. Ross (Author)
www.amazon.com...

I don't have it, nor have I ever read it; but I am pretty sure that it contains exactly what it says it contains (eg, sans de membres francs-maçons). As I've mentioned here before, it is way easier - for a number of reasons, and I don't want to get into it again - to get lists of the above-mentioned "elite" org members than it is to confirm membership in Freemasonry.

But if the book listed doesn't make claims that these people are Masons, how can toasted say that it does? That's the bit I'm wondering. (No mention of Masons in the Table of Contents, nor any of the Amazon reviews, that I could find...)

reply to post by JoshNorton

"(eg, sans de membres francs-maçons)" = "(eg, not including members of Freemasonry)"

I know, nor have I heard that the book contains such information - it would be quite a feat of research if it did.

[EDIT: More precisely, I think it can qualified in the following terms: "not specifically mentioning if those listed are or aren't Freemasons."]

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

reply to post by Capozzelli


Masonic ritual must be taken into consideration in context...in context, when you read the whole section, it is not in my opinion anything to be concerned with. However, I think because Grand Lodges know that traditionally anti-masons have run rampant by taking things out of context, it would be better to change the language.

They are not in my version of the ritual. If they were, I would probably agree they should be changed. Not because I necessarily think its a sign of some sort of evil, but because where possible, its best to prevent people from taking things out of context and twisting it.

To my knowledge each Grand Lodge has a committee that deals with proposed changes like this, and while I'm sure it varies I think generally any member of any lodge under the Grand Lodge could recommend the ritual be changed.

reply to post by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men

Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
I don't have it, nor have I ever read it; but I am pretty sure that it contains exactly what it says it contains (eg, sans de membres francs-maçons). As I've mentioned here before, it is way easier - for a number of reasons, and I don't want to get into it again - to get lists of the above-mentioned "elite" org members than it is to confirm membership in Freemasonry.

Have you attempted to cross-reference any of the individuals on the list to determine if they have any type of Masonic affiliation?

[edit on 4-6-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


So is it typical for the grand lodges to change the ritual in response to how anti-masons feel about the words? Is there any other instance like this that you know about?

reply to post by JoshNorton


You are right, it doesn't sound as sinister when you word it that way. DO you think that in the past the meaning might have been more along the lines of the actual words or were they always what you say they are now? Is it possible that it was more literal when it was written and that masons were expected to follow the orders of those above them?

reply to post by Capozzelli


I think any organization does what it needs to do to maintain a good public image. Technically we shouldn't care because we know there is nothing harmful in the ritual. But the reality is that the words of the ritual were written, depending on the version, quite a while ago. If its possible to maintain the meaning and use different words to avoid confusion, why would any organization not to do this?

I do not know of any particular instance where the ritual wording was changed due to anti-masonry, but I can think of some times where proposed amendments were made to make language more clarifying and easy to understand for the membership.

I think most lodges ignore the sort of "off the wall" rabid anti-masonry you'll find on the internet. But I think most lodges do realize that sometimes people without an agenda have innocent questions about serious concerns they have from what they read - where we can stop such concerns, the better in my opinion.

If we lived in a world where people would do careful research from unbiased sources before jumping to outrageous claims, we wouldn't have to do stuff like that. But that is not the world we live in...and the fraternity must adjust to that reality.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]