Freemasons Facts or Fiction?

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by The_Archangel

 

but my best friends uncle is also a high up mason, and he said that wasn't true. In fact, he said he was a higher up mason than your best friends uncle.

See how silly it is to recount friends uncles stories. Perhaps a man who has spent years in masonry being friends with people like the former grand master of a state, and countless 33rd degree masons who have been so for more years than you have been alive, would know a bit more than you who gained your knowledge from hearsay.

Maybe you can't see how arrogant your statement seems, but it does show. When you have a written confession of a mason with lodge number and state, then we can start to look into your allegations. Until then, you just described an encounter with the reptilian overlord and your camera broke. You know what they say around here, pictures, or it didn't happen.

I put my comments out there for people interest not so people with an agenda can can pipe up who have nothing to offer the thread. I've take or leave. I dont mind. I'm sure the person concerned wouldnt want their details placed on an open source internet forum, do you?

You obviously no subscribe to the notion of secret knowledge in the higher echelons on Freemasonary and that is fine. That is your perogative, but unless you are one of those from on high, what do you have to prove that they dont? 'See how arrogant your statement seems'.

You, my friend, may not grasp the basics of an internet forum in which it is there as place to put forward ideas and recount points of interest. Your failure to grasp this means pointless 'banter' posts are added to countless threads instead of constructive additions.

reply to post by The_Archangel


I guess you may not be as adept in internet forums as you thought. See, the title of the thread is "Freemason Facts of Fiction" and since you posted a bit of fiction, I as a Freemason pointed that out. That is how internet forums work. Sometimes not everything goes your way. If you were going to invest in the stock market, would you take advice from some guy on the internet with a name like "The_Archangel" or would you listen to a broker with years of stock trading experience? Yea, me too.

Originally posted by The_Archangel
By your tone, you are obviously un-illuminated and are proberly one of the foot soldiers thats rattling his charity tin for the good name of the his lodge. I do not know what the level is that you have to reach, because it makes no difference to me weather it the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 33rd. Maybe when you have earnt your spurs you can come back and let me know.

Uh huh. 'K

And by your tone you evidently aren't in possession of the information you'd have others believe you are. Otherwise you'd be more forthcoming with details if not else the gentleman's degree.

That clearly hasn't happened and I'll be surprised if it does happen. Ever.

You provide a fact-free screed purportedly based on non-specific information provided by the 'uncle' of a 'friend'. As I said in my earlier response, said 'information' has been floated here and elsewhere time and again under different guises by different posers with the same breathless quality of 'discovery'.

This attempt's no more of a silk purse than the other sow's ears that've been attempted to be passed off as 'fact'. They draw on the same fake information, make the same baseless allegations made up from whole cloth and functionally call everybody below a certain degree (which most of these other posters have at least been creative enough to specify) as feckless fools, cluelessly working in the thrall of the 'higher degrees' while this all-seeing outsider is clever enough to see from the outside what the insiders are blind to.

Verifiable details or it didn't happen.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by The_Archangel]

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Verifiable details or it didn't happen.

As I said before. I'm not here to pass on personal details to some faceless person on the internet. I think you and the other one should look at my post in context. I said that he had been informed that he told to read up on Egyptology and that you learn more information as you passed through the degrees.

We'll have to agree, to disagree.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by The_Archangel]

Originally posted by The_Archangel
I said that he had been informed that he told to read up on Egyptology and that you learn more information as you passed through the degrees.

What if someone who was a Mason, and had opted to take these appendant degree, told you there is very little to do with Egyptology invloved with them?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


My friend, as someone who has not partaken myself in this, I can neither agree or disagree. I looked on this thread to learn something myself as well as adding a point of note that I had personal experience in. I will seek solace in a book from, hopefully, an unbiased source and leave this thread who protect it so fervently.

Enjoy.

Originally posted by The_Archangel

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Verifiable details or it didn't happen.

As I said before. I'm not here to pass on personal details to some faceless person on the internet.

Fair enough. But you won''t be too bothered that those with more of an inside view call Bravo Sierra absent some degree of verifiability? You seem to be skint when it comes to what qualifies as the "high" degree whereby a formerly clueless "low" degree Mason inherits the 'truth' that's at odds with everything else he's been exposed to up to that point.

Doesn't help your argument a scintilla.

Originally posted by The_Archangel
I think you and the other one should look at my post in context. I said that he had been informed that he told to read up on Egyptology and that you learn more information as you passed through the degrees.

Which I did and replied to in-kind. You see, at the point of transmission to the forum, this information is at best third-hand, having come nominally from your 'friend's' uncle to your 'friend' to you and thence from you to the forum. We don't know if there's an actual 'friend' or an actual 'uncle' of the 'friend' to be involved.

In fact, there's nothing so far verifiable to suggest that you aren't making this up out of whole cloth yourself. And in fact, given the story's similarity to previously debunked stories that claim the same thing, there's much to suggest that it is in fact a sow's ear.

Originally posted by The_Archangel
We'll have to agree, to disagree.

You're free to tuck tail and run. Your choice.

I'm also amused that you elected to edit-away your previous references to Masons and prams and such, not to mention the suggestion (incorrect though it may be) that I'm a Yank.

Speaks volumes, that does.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


My friend, I edited my post due to the fact that I realised that I was being drawn into a childish tit-for-tat game of text tennis on a topic that I am never going to win due to a lack of personal knowledge on the matter. I see that this thread is not progressing for the original poster and do not want to hog their post with pointless messages.

You and your fellow Masonic posters can add whatever comments you wish but I am respectfully withdrawing from this thread.

I added my points. You do not agree and that is your right.

Originally posted by The_Archangel
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

My friend, I edited my post due to the fact that I realised that I was being drawn into a childish tit-for-tat game of text tennis on a topic that I am never going to win due to a lack of personal knowledge on the matter. I see that this thread is not progressing for the original poster and do not want to hog their post with pointless messages.

You and your fellow Masonic posters can add whatever comments you wish but I am respectfully withdrawing from this thread.

I added my points. You do not agree and that is your right.

I'm sorry you see it that way. But to be honest, t'was you who responded to an honest request with a childish response (which to your credit, you acknowledge as such and modified accordingly). My responses (as well as those of AM and ND) have been straightforward requests for clarification, expansion or withdrawal of assertions for lack of supporting material.

It's also been pointed out twice by me and once I believe by ND that the assertion you conveyed that's nominally attributed to a 'high-ranking uncle of a friend' bears a clear resemblance to a previously-repeatedly-debunked assertion very much of a kind. Perhaps this should cause you to ask for further information from either your friend and/or his uncle.

Masons here on ATS in my experience have as a general rule given all claims their just and earned due. Sometimes there's truth to the assertion such as in the "I wouldn't recommend masonry to any one" thread by W3RLIED2.

Some have a clever kernels of truth enclosing bare-faced falsehoods such as the "Problem Lodge" thread by HDFACTORYCERTIF

And still others are clear regurgitations of previously-debunked falsehoods as this thread seems to be veering off to.

Given that two out of the three possibilities involve baseless slagging of a group of proud and identifiable men, is it really so surprising that members of that group would strive to minimise such falsehoods?