Freemasons - what are they?

[bobbygreg]

I've read up a few bits on Freemasons, mostly things that seem fictional though. It's not that I deny the existance of Freemasons, there's evidence for that, but I question some claims made against them.

What is your understanding of Freemasons, if you can explain it using evidence then that would be excellent. I'm open minded about the whole issue, however, I am not willing to blindingly accept everything that is said - no offence.

So, what are Freemasons, what is their common purpose, and what is it that makes them seen as currupt?

[kadosh]

I've read up a few bits on Freemasons, mostly things that seem fictional though. It's not that I deny the existance of Freemasons, there's evidence for that, but I question some claims made against them.

What is your understanding of Freemasons, if you can explain it using evidence then that would be excellent. I'm open minded about the whole issue, however, I am not willing to blindingly accept everything that is said - no offence.

So, what are Freemasons, what is their common purpose, and what is it that makes them seen as currupt?
What is called 'Regular Freemasonry' is a fraternity (for men). There are other forms of Masonry that are mixed lodges as well. The only people who see Masonry as corrupt are anti-Masons with an axe to grind. There is so much rubbish posted on the site (all anti-Masonic) it is unbelievable. It needs to be strongly rebutted as some guillible readers begin to believe it. Do not post messages unless the information has been properly researched and can be substantiated. Cut and paste is simply not good enough any longer.

[kbeet]

What is called 'Regular Freemasonry' is a fraternity (for men). There are other forms of Masonry that are mixed lodges as well. The only people who see Masonry as corrupt are anti-Masons with an axe to grind. There is so much rubbish posted on the site (all anti-Masonic) it is unbelievable. It needs to be strongly rebutted as some guillible readers begin to believe it. Do not post messages unless the information has been properly researched and can be substantiated. Cut and paste is simply not good enough any longer.

Freemasonry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[corruptus in extremis]

What is called 'Regular Freemasonry' is a fraternity (for men). There are other forms of Masonry that are mixed lodges as well. The only people who see Masonry as corrupt are anti-Masons with an axe to grind. There is so much rubbish posted on the site (all anti-Masonic) it is unbelievable. It needs to be strongly rebutted as some guillible readers begin to believe it. Do not post messages unless the information has been properly researched and can be substantiated. Cut and paste is simply not good enough any longer.

I have been speaking to a guy i know who stays near me and we got to talking when i mentioned that i had noticed him wearing a few things which i had recognised as masonic and we got into a discussion about all sorts of topics from freemasonry to religion and although he didnt ask me to join in so many words he did say that if i mention it to him that i was interested then he wouldnt mind.

I was 100% honest with him because he is a really nice guy and told him about my beliefs and about some of the negative stuff i have read about freemasonry (mainly on this forum). I dont know enough about masonry to really take a side on the issue but some of the more extreme accusations sound ludicrous to me.

I have to say i was intrigued when he said what he said to me and i have been thinking about it mainly to try better myself as a person and the good things i have read about masonry does teach men to become better people. I do find it hard not to get my head turned by the negative things though because i would call myself a critical thinker and even quite cynical so i dont know whats true and whats not.

I have been reading through some of the threads about masons and every thread seems to go down the same path, accusation from one side rebuttal from the other. It seems neither will ever convince each other of the truth.

I would appreciate any links from anyone to give me a better handle of freemasonry?

thanks

[kbeet]

I have been speaking to a guy i know who stays near me and we got to talking when i mentioned that i had noticed him wearing a few things which i had recognised as masonic and we got into a discussion about all sorts of topics from freemasonry to religion and although he didnt ask me to join in so many words he did say that if i mention it to him that i was interested then he wouldnt mind.

I was 100% honest with him because he is a really nice guy and told him about my beliefs and about some of the negative stuff i have read about freemasonry (mainly on this forum). I dont know enough about masonry to really take a side on the issue but some of the more extreme accusations sound ludicrous to me.

I have to say i was intrigued when he said what he said to me and i have been thinking about it mainly to try better myself as a person and the good things i have read about masonry does teach men to become better people. I do find it hard not to get my head turned by the negative things though because i would call myself a critical thinker and even quite cynical so i dont know whats true and whats not.

I have been reading through some of the threads about masons and every thread seems to go down the same path, accusation from one side rebuttal from the other. It seems neither will ever convince each other of the truth.

I would appreciate any links from anyone to give me a better handle of freemasonry?

thanks

i need a freemason
my back door steps are crumbeling and i got no money

[corruptus in extremis]

i need a freemason
my back door steps are crumbeling and i got no money


Cant help you mate i am just a lowly support worker:D

[ein_lite]

I have been speaking to a guy i know who stays near me and we got to talking when i mentioned that i had noticed him wearing a few things which i had recognised as masonic and we got into a discussion about all sorts of topics from freemasonry to religion and although he didnt ask me to join in so many words he did say that if i mention it to him that i was interested then he wouldnt mind.

I would appreciate any links from anyone to give me a better handle of freemasonry?

thanks


I'm probably not the right man to answer this question but it seems too depend on the lodge or group of lodges .. i just had a few things confirmed at the end of the goat thread ... and as i suspected masons and magical groups such as the OTO, golden danw, rosicrusians etc are related to masons but arent actually masons, i cant think of a good analogy .. maybe some masons are like pussy cats (boys club) and some are lions ( Lucifer worshipping magicians, both black and white) but you could call them all "felines". (i.e.based on masonry).

There essentially a boys club who look after you spiritually and mentally and do some good deeds.

Im not sure which group gives you the little badges and and stuff so when the cops catch you driving home pissed from the golf club they don't arrest you though!

There seems to be some good people on here who are honest and open so they should help you out better than i can!

[kadosh]

I would appreciate any links from anyone to give me a better handle of freemasonry? thanks
Here is one official web site - http://grandlodge.on.ca/frameswhat-is-freemasonry.htm

[corruptus in extremis]

Here is one official web site - http://grandlodge.on.ca/frameswhat-is-freemasonry.htm

Thanks

[filterfunker]

I've read up a few bits on Freemasons, mostly things that seem fictional though. It's not that I deny the existance of Freemasons, there's evidence for that, but I question some claims made against them.

What is your understanding of Freemasons, if you can explain it using evidence then that would be excellent. I'm open minded about the whole issue, however, I am not willing to blindingly accept everything that is said - no offence.

So, what are Freemasons, what is their common purpose, and what is it that makes them seen as currupt?

Since nobody really answered you last question, Freemason's are seen as corrupt because many of them are corrupt! I'm not "anti-Mason", but I am for anti-manipulation. First off, let's take a look at where you find Freemason's:

Politicians:
- USA:
- 14 Presidents: Clinton, Ford, Truman, both Roosevelt, Jackson, Monroe, Washington... Not Masons: Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Lincoln... (Johnson: Apprentice)
- 18 Vice-Presidents: Including Gore...
- 18 Senators: Dole, Byrd, Bentsen, Nunn, Helms, Goldwater, Kemp, Thurmond... Wallace...
- 76 members of the House of Representatives: Gingrich, Wright, Lott, Pepper, W. Ford, Rangel...
- 35 U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Out of the 9 members, in 1941: 5 to 4; in 1949: 8 to 1; in 1957: 6 to 3; in 1971: 5 to 4: Warren, Marshall...
- Generals Colin Powell, MacArthur, Doolittle.
- Declaration of Independence: 9 of the 56 signers. Franklin (helped to initiate Voltaire).

- UK: Many Kings, Queens, and Prime Ministers, including Churchill, Duke of Windsor, of Kent, Prince Philip...

- Canada: 6 Prime Ministers: Diefenbaker...

- Australia: 10 Prime Ministers: Hawke...

- South Africa: Pik Botha...

- Other International Leaders: King Hussein, Rabin of Israel, Arafat, Garibaldi, Bolivar, Marti, Villas, Zapata...

Religious Leaders:
Jesse Jackson, Oral Roberts, Robert Schuller, Louis Farrahkan, Vincent Peale, Geoffrey Fisher (Archbishop of Canterbury)... many Mormons: Smith, Young... many Rosicrucians...
- The Occult and Satanism: Aliester Crowley (magic, to destroy Christianity), Gardner (Wiccan, white witchcraft), Wescott (order of golden dawn), Helena Blavatsky (theosophy), Pike (satanist)...
Business and Economic Leaders:
The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, H. Ford, W. Chrysler, A. Citroen, C. Hilton, J.C.Penny, C. Woodward, D. Thomas (Wendy's), Sanders (Kentucky Fried Chicken), M. Sachs (5th Ave.)...

Film
Bob Hope, John Wayne, Louis Armstrong, Clark Gable, Tyrone Power, Danny Thomas, Al Jonson, Gene Autre, Casanova, Cecil B. DeMille, Walt Disney, Mayer (of Metro-Goldwin-Mayer), the 7 Ringling Brothers of the Circus, Houdini, Red Skelton, Collodi (Pinocchio), Lincoln (Tarzan), Roy Rogers, Nat King Cole, Oliver Hardy, Roy Clark, Jimmy Rodgers...
Musicians: Mozart, Beethoven, Handel, Haydn, Sibelius, Duke Ellington, Frank Lystz, Puccini...

Writers: Shakespeare, Voltaire, Kipling, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Connan Doyle...

Astronauts: John Gleen, Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, Cooper, Irwin... Lindbergh the aviator...

Founders: Booth (Salvation Army), Beard (Boy Scouts), Dunant (Red Cross), Sax (saxophone)...

Architects: Bartholdy (Statue of Liberty), Eifell (Paris Tower), Hoban (White House), Borglum (Mt. Rushmore), Smithson (Smithsonian Institute).

Medicine: Fleming (penicillin), Jenner (Small Pox), Mayo (Clinic in the USA)...





Now, we can all agree that there are Freemason's in many key INFLUENTIAL positions that have had a MAJOR impact on the world as we know it today.
Look at the state of the world today, corruption and scandals abroad. Politics is a joke, so is Holly-wood. Law enforcement has become a complete discrace, getting busted in scandal after scandal (keep in mind here that there are many, many Freemason police officers, even lodges that are ONLY police).

There have been "black lodges" within the Freemason organization that have been busted in major scandals:

Propaganda Due - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freemason's are heavily tied into law enforcement, I have a thread on these forums concerning this topic:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133518

What I find really funny, is that when any of this info is posted on forums, you get people jumping on you right away claiming it's "anti-masonry", kind of like the whole "anti-semite" thing that happens if you mention the word "Jew". Freemason's get really defensive when you bring up the scandal's and corruption. Yes you get alot of extremists and alot of utter crap, but why is that? Maybe because there is literally a TON of very suspicious happenings going on within the "craft". It's difficult to sift through the rubbish but if you dig deep enough it is there. Iv'e been studying secret societies for 10 years, my step mother is a high level Rosicrucian and iv'e also had a friend who was an undercover within the RCMP of Canada that had to go into hiding due to death threats from masonic RCMP officers. So I know first hand that there is deep corruption within law enforcement which is tied to Freemason activities. Of course there is no way to prove this to you, but please look into the information iv'e posted and decide for yourself. :D

[grandsecretary]

1) Now, we can all agree that there are Freemason's in many key INFLUENTIAL positions that have had a MAJOR impact on the world as we know it today.

2) Freemason's are heavily tied into law enforcement, I have a thread on these forums concerning this topic:

3) What I find really funny, is that when any of this info is posted on forums, you get people jumping on you right away claiming it's "anti-masonry

1) Yes we agree.

2) Yes, there are many Freemasons who are also law enforcement officers.

3) Freemasons (Moderns Freemasons) become exercised when membership of their brand of Freemasonry is conflated with allegations that ALL Freemasons are therefore, by mere dint of membership, corrupt.

Allow me to deal with this issue head on.

If Freemasonry is not a religion with a firm and unshakeable base in religious morality supported by extremely severe penalties for misconduct, but a loose uncontrolled social networking organisation (which IMHO it has become) then it is wide open to corrupt practices.

It is its own worst enemy. The seeds of destruction are clear for all to see.

[psquared]

"Politicians:
- USA:
- 14 Presidents: Clinton, Ford, Truman, both Roosevelt, Jackson, Monroe, Washington... Not Masons: Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Lincoln... (Johnson: Apprentice)
- 18 Vice-Presidents: Including Gore...
- 18 Senators: Dole, Byrd, Bentsen, Nunn, Helms, Goldwater, Kemp, Thurmond... Wallace...
- 76 members of the House of Representatives: Gingrich, Wright, Lott, Pepper, W. Ford, Rangel...
- 35 U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Out of the 9 members, in 1941: 5 to 4; in 1949: 8 to 1; in 1957: 6 to 3; in 1971: 5 to 4: Warren, Marshall...
- Generals Colin Powell, MacArthur, Doolittle.
- Declaration of Independence: 9 of the 56 signers. Franklin (helped to initiate Voltaire)."

So less than 175 people over more than 200 years out of literally tens of millions of Freemasons?

Certainly many Freemasons have held powerful positions, no doubt there. Probably because they have an interest in politics a little higher than the average American who likes being led as opposed to leading.

[witch1]

I have been speaking to a guy i know who stays near me and we got to talking when i mentioned that i had noticed him wearing a few things which i had recognised as masonic and we got into a discussion about all sorts of topics from freemasonry to religion and although he didnt ask me to join in so many words he did say that if i mention it to him that i was interested then he wouldnt mind.

I was 100% honest with him because he is a really nice guy and told him about my beliefs and about some of the negative stuff i have read about freemasonry (mainly on this forum). I dont know enough about masonry to really take a side on the issue but some of the more extreme accusations sound ludicrous to me.

I have to say i was intrigued when he said what he said to me and i have been thinking about it mainly to try better myself as a person and the good things i have read about masonry does teach men to become better people. I do find it hard not to get my head turned by the negative things though because i would call myself a critical thinker and even quite cynical so i dont know whats true and whats not.

I have been reading through some of the threads about masons and every thread seems to go down the same path, accusation from one side rebuttal from the other. It seems neither will ever convince each other of the truth.

I would appreciate any links from anyone to give me a better handle of freemasonry?

thanks

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?pictureid=8330&albumid=871&dl=1283882989&thumb=1

[filterfunker]

"Politicians:
- USA:
- 14 Presidents: Clinton, Ford, Truman, both Roosevelt, Jackson, Monroe, Washington... Not Masons: Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Lincoln... (Johnson: Apprentice)
- 18 Vice-Presidents: Including Gore...
- 18 Senators: Dole, Byrd, Bentsen, Nunn, Helms, Goldwater, Kemp, Thurmond... Wallace...
- 76 members of the House of Representatives: Gingrich, Wright, Lott, Pepper, W. Ford, Rangel...
- 35 U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Out of the 9 members, in 1941: 5 to 4; in 1949: 8 to 1; in 1957: 6 to 3; in 1971: 5 to 4: Warren, Marshall...
- Generals Colin Powell, MacArthur, Doolittle.
- Declaration of Independence: 9 of the 56 signers. Franklin (helped to initiate Voltaire)."

So less than 175 people over more than 200 years out of literally tens of millions of Freemasons?

Certainly many Freemasons have held powerful positions, no doubt there. Probably because they have an interest in politics a little higher than the average American who likes being led as opposed to leading.

that list is just SOME of the most influential ones, and these are KEY positions within the government. Yes it less than 175 people, and what percentage of the population is pulling the strings within society? A very small amount. Yes of course they have in interest in politics because it seems that higher ranking Freemason's do hold key positions of power. Why? Control, control control. This is really obvious, even a blind man can see what is going on. Society is being controlled and oppressed and there are "secrets" being withheld from the public, whether these secrets can be found on the internet or in books makes no difference. It is not being shown in mainstream media or posted on major media websites for all to see is it? The argument that there is no secret holds no water because practically anything is available on the internet. For example, you can download the entire Rosicrucian teachings very easily if you know where to look, but this is not common knowledge. If the teachings of secret societies BECAME public knowledge then things would be very, very different. If there is nothing to hide, then why not fully disclose EVERYTHING to mainstream media and be fully transparent? Why the secrecy? Why the defensive and arrogant attitudes of many Freemason's? Why the bizzare rituals and obsession with Geometry? If there is corruption going on within the organization, and many Mason's hold positions of influence in society, why not be transparent about it? You don't see Freemason President's proclaiming on the news that they are a proud freemason do ya? Of course not, it's kept a secret. So is the fact that many Mason's are cops, what are the cops doing around the world? Controlling people and breaking their own laws left, right and centre. Does the general public know that a high percentage of Freemason's are cops? No, because it would attract attention, which is what the organization doesn't want! If they did, it would be common knowledge now wouldn't it? I know for a fact that the connection between Freemasonry and Authority is being repressed. Why do many of these sources of information suddenly dissapear from the web? Why are social networking sites banning articles related to this subject? Nobody can give me a straight answer, what is there to hide then?

[luciferhorus]

What is Freemasonry?

In attempting to answer this question, certain appropriate "methods" should be utilised which will be familiar to those engaged in the academic field of "The Study of Religion."

Since this forum seems to often have around 2000 people viewing it and it often appears on Google front page for searches on "Masonioc" subjects, I am quite sure that it will be used as a research source for students and scholars engaged in the study of religion who are researching Freemasonry.

Since I am quite familiar with the process of marking student's papers (I have a post grad in Education), there are a number of common mistakes which are often made when undertaking such a study.

1: Masonry as understood by Masons.

There are numerous Masons on this forum who simply dismiss all criticism and respond with abuse and contradiction (such as "I don't agree with that").

When studying any religious cult, it is important to study the writings of the cultists themselves, however if one writes a comprehensive essay which is based only on the writings of Masonic cultists themselves, this would almost universally be considered biased. It is as if one were to write an essay which claimed to be a comprehensive study of the "Jehova's Witness" cult which only referred to the writings and opinions of the cultists themselves, and which did not take into account the writings of apostates and anti-cultists.

2: Masonry as understood by anti-cultists.

Similarly if one wrote an essay on Masonry which claimed to be a comprehensive study, and "only" referred to the writings and opinions of anti-cultists, this also would be considered biased.

3: Judgement.

Judgement is a subjective discernment of good and evil. Clearly an anti-Capitalist or Communist is unlikely to consider the Masonic cult to be a benevolent influence on society; similarly with the members of competing religious cults such as the Christians and Muslims. Ultimately the more one studies a cult from the perspective of it's cultists and anti-cultist opposition, the more one is able to form a judgement, however such a judgement will also be influenced by the political philosophy, moral philosophy and religious indoctrination of the student.


Why the defensive and arrogant attitudes of many Freemason's?


Since the beginnings of the Internet, more and more articles and information have become universally available to students regarding Masonic cultism; it is my view that this is an entirely good thing and that it will assist in generating international animosity against this Capitalist cult of Capitalists. It also gives Masonic cultists the opportunity to defend themselves against their numerous accusers and for others to judge the "quality" of their defense; however on this particular thread, what we can see is that Masons simply not intelligently respond to their critics and just reply with statements of contradiction and abuse; this is entirely to the advantage of their anti-cult enemies.

Essentially Filterfunker, if you post anti-Masonic essays on this forum or on any forum where there are Masons, and all you get is responses which constitute abuse and contradition, you might consider that to be an indication of victory; certainly in a debate between philosophers using the Socratic method, if a philosopher responds to the criticisms of an opponent with simple contradiction and abuse, then this person would be deemed to have lost the debate by default, and indeed in a live debate with an impartial judge, the debater using such a strategy may well even be silenced and told to "stand down," for such immature behaviour and avoidance of debate.

A football hooligan, a child in a playground or any common fool can always try to shout down a philosopher or scholar with contradiction ("I don't agree with that" one-liners) and abuse; such hooligans may shout louder than the philosopher, but they will still never win the argument from the perspective of other philosophers and scholars.


Lux

[kadosh]

Canonbury Masonic Research Centre Conference: Anti-Masonry 30th-31st October 2010 - http://www.canonbury.ac.uk/
http://www.canonbury.ac.uk/images/confposter2010.png
London's Canonbury Masonic Research Centre is pleased to announce that tickets for its twelfth annual conference, which this year is on the theme of ‘Anti-Masonry’, are now available.

Tickets for the conference are £100. Price includes entrance to the film screening of the film Les Forces Occultes during the evening of Friday 29 October at University College London and a wine reception, as well as two buffet luncheons over the conference weekend. Tickets for the Saturday evening conference dinner are an additional £40.

The film Les Forces Occultes was made in 1943 by two "former Masons", Jean Marques-Riviere and Jean Mamy. Both men were Vichey supporters and collaborated with the Nazis to produce anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic propaganda. When the war ended, Mamy was sentenced to death for his work with the Gestapo, and was shot in March 1949. Marques-Riviere escaped prosecution, and was condemned to death in absentia. He died in 2000.

The following lectures are scheduled to be presented at the conference:

• Keynote lecture: Protocols of the Elders of Zion Professor Michael Hagemeister, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich

• Anti-masonry and masonic transnationalism: a complex interplay
Dr. Joachim Berger, Institute of European History, Mainz

• Blaming the Great War on the masons' entente: Friedrich Wichtl, 1872-1921
Dr. Reinhard Markner, Berlin

• The anti-masonic writings of General Erich Ludendorff
Jimmy Koppen, Free University of Brussels

• Anti-masonry as political protest: Fascist attitudes to Freemasonry in interwar Romania
Roland Clark, University of Pittsburgh

• Keynote lecture: Franco's persecution of Freemasonry
Professor José Antonio Ferrer Benimeli, University of Zaragoza

• 'Anti-masonry' in nineteenth-century Ottoman Lebanon: an offensive against Anglo-Saxon and protestant missionaries?
Saïd Chaaya, L'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes/Sorbonne

• Anti-masonry among the Ottomans and in contemporary Turkey
Professor Thierry Zarcone, CNRS, Paris

• Trends of anti-masonry in Eastern Orthodox cultures
Dr. Yuri Stoyanov, Research Fellow, SOAS, University of London

• 'The Devil's sons': one century of anti-masonry in the Arab world
Stephan Schmid, American University of Beirut

• Keynote lecture: Professor John Robison (1739-1805)
Professor Andrew Prescott, Hatii, University of Glasgow

• The reception of anti-masonry in the eighteenth-century English press
Dr. Róbert Péter, Senior Assistant Professor, University of Szeged

• Barruel's conspiracy theory - a theoretical approach
Claus Oberhauser, University of Innsbruck

• A Swedish diplomat's recently deciphered perspective on the Unlawful Societies Act of 1799
Dr. Andreas Önnerfors, University of Sheffield

• The voice of Morgan's blood cries from the ground': reading American anti-masonry through anti-masonic almanacs, 1827-1837
Jeff Croteau, MA MLS, National Heritage Museum, Lexington, Massachusetts

• Keynote lecture: War on the Freemasons: the fate of Nazi and Soviet seized books and archives
Dr. Patricia Kennedy Grimsted, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University

• Anti-masonic thought in France: the example of Bernard Faÿ
Jen Farrar, University of Sheffield

• Visual evidence used by Franco's Police in the persecution of Spanish Freemasons Dr. Sylvia Hottinger, Carlos III University, Madrid

• Stolen truth or truth stolen?
Dr. Hans Kummerer, Quatuor Coronati Research Lodge, Austria

• The ongoing restitution of the Norwegian masonic library and archives
Helge Bjørn Horrisland, Norwegian Order of Freemasons

Website: http://www.canonbury.ac.uk

[filterfunker]

wow, you guys are getting desperate!

[kadosh]

No, not desperate. Just the facts!

[grandsecretary]

What is Freemasonry?

In attempting to answer this question, certain appropriate "methods" should be utilised which will be familiar to those engaged in the academic field of "The Study of Religion."

Since this forum seems to often have around 2000 people viewing it and it often appears on Google front page for searches on "Masonioc" subjects, I am quite sure that it will be used as a research source for students and scholars engaged in the study of religion who are researching Freemasonry.

Since I am quite familiar with the process of marking student's papers (I have a post grad in Education), there are a number of common mistakes which are often made when undertaking such a study.

1: Masonry as understood by Masons.

There are numerous Masons on this forum who simply dismiss all criticism and respond with abuse and contradiction (such as "I don't agree with that").

When studying any religious cult, it is important to study the writings of the cultists themselves, however if one writes a comprehensive essay which is based only on the writings of Masonic cultists themselves, this would almost universally be considered biased. It is as if one were to write an essay which claimed to be a comprehensive study of the "Jehova's Witness" cult which only referred to the writings and opinions of the cultists themselves, and which did not take into account the writings of apostates and anti-cultists.

2: Masonry as understood by anti-cultists.

Similarly if one wrote an essay on Masonry which claimed to be a comprehensive study, and "only" referred to the writings and opinions of anti-cultists, this also would be considered biased.

3: Judgement.

Judgement is a subjective discernment of good and evil. Clearly an anti-Capitalist or Communist is unlikely to consider the Masonic cult to be a benevolent influence on society; similarly with the members of competing religious cults such as the Christians and Muslims. Ultimately the more one studies a cult from the perspective of it's cultists and anti-cultist opposition, the more one is able to form a judgement, however such a judgement will also be influenced by the political philosophy, moral philosophy and religious indoctrination of the student.




Since the beginnings of the Internet, more and more articles and information have become universally available to students regarding Masonic cultism; it is my view that this is an entirely good thing and that it will assist in generating international animosity against this Capitalist cult of Capitalists. It also gives Masonic cultists the opportunity to defend themselves against their numerous accusers and for others to judge the "quality" of their defense; however on this particular thread, what we can see is that Masons simply not intelligently respond to their critics and just reply with statements of contradiction and abuse; this is entirely to the advantage of their anti-cult enemies.

Essentially Filterfunker, if you post anti-Masonic essays on this forum or on any forum where there are Masons, and all you get is responses which constitute abuse and contradition, you might consider that to be an indication of victory; certainly in a debate between philosophers using the Socratic method, if a philosopher responds to the criticisms of an opponent with simple contradiction and abuse, then this person would be deemed to have lost the debate by default, and indeed in a live debate with an impartial judge, the debater using such a strategy may well even be silenced and told to "stand down," for such immature behaviour and avoidance of debate.

A football hooligan, a child in a playground or any common fool can always try to shout down a philosopher or scholar with contradiction ("I don't agree with that" one-liners) and abuse; such hooligans may shout louder than the philosopher, but they will still never win the argument from the perspective of other philosophers and scholars.


Lux

As usual ...

Revolutionary Propaganda (education) is the first stage of Revolutionary War. (SOURCE: luciferhorus, David Icke Forum, Illuminati/Secret Societies, Freemason/law enforcement connection, post #17

[luciferhorus]

Canonbury Masonic Research Centre Conference: Anti-Masonry 30th-31st October 2010 - http://www.canonbury.ac.uk/
http://www.canonbury.ac.uk/images/confposter2010.png
London's Canonbury Masonic Research Centre is pleased to announce that tickets for its twelfth annual conference, which this year is on the theme of ‘Anti-Masonry’, are now available.

Tickets for the conference are £100. Price includes entrance to the film screening of the film Les Forces Occultes during the evening of Friday 29 October at University College London and a wine reception, as well as two buffet luncheons over the conference weekend. Tickets for the Saturday evening conference dinner are an additional £40.

The film Les Forces Occultes was made in 1943 by two "former Masons", Jean Marques-Riviere and Jean Mamy. Both men were Vichey supporters and collaborated with the Nazis to produce anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic propaganda. When the war ended, Mamy was sentenced to death for his work with the Gestapo, and was shot in March 1949. Marques-Riviere escaped prosecution, and was condemned to death in absentia. He died in 2000.

The following lectures are scheduled to be presented at the conference:

• Keynote lecture: Protocols of the Elders of Zion Professor Michael Hagemeister, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich

• Anti-masonry and masonic transnationalism: a complex interplay
Dr. Joachim Berger, Institute of European History, Mainz

• Blaming the Great War on the masons' entente: Friedrich Wichtl, 1872-1921
Dr. Reinhard Markner, Berlin

• The anti-masonic writings of General Erich Ludendorff
Jimmy Koppen, Free University of Brussels

• Anti-masonry as political protest: Fascist attitudes to Freemasonry in interwar Romania
Roland Clark, University of Pittsburgh

• Keynote lecture: Franco's persecution of Freemasonry
Professor José Antonio Ferrer Benimeli, University of Zaragoza

• 'Anti-masonry' in nineteenth-century Ottoman Lebanon: an offensive against Anglo-Saxon and protestant missionaries?
Saïd Chaaya, L'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes/Sorbonne

• Anti-masonry among the Ottomans and in contemporary Turkey
Professor Thierry Zarcone, CNRS, Paris

• Trends of anti-masonry in Eastern Orthodox cultures
Dr. Yuri Stoyanov, Research Fellow, SOAS, University of London

• 'The Devil's sons': one century of anti-masonry in the Arab world
Stephan Schmid, American University of Beirut

• Keynote lecture: Professor John Robison (1739-1805)
Professor Andrew Prescott, Hatii, University of Glasgow

• The reception of anti-masonry in the eighteenth-century English press
Dr. Róbert Péter, Senior Assistant Professor, University of Szeged

• Barruel's conspiracy theory - a theoretical approach
Claus Oberhauser, University of Innsbruck

• A Swedish diplomat's recently deciphered perspective on the Unlawful Societies Act of 1799
Dr. Andreas Önnerfors, University of Sheffield

• The voice of Morgan's blood cries from the ground': reading American anti-masonry through anti-masonic almanacs, 1827-1837
Jeff Croteau, MA MLS, National Heritage Museum, Lexington, Massachusetts

• Keynote lecture: War on the Freemasons: the fate of Nazi and Soviet seized books and archives
Dr. Patricia Kennedy Grimsted, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University

• Anti-masonic thought in France: the example of Bernard Faÿ
Jen Farrar, University of Sheffield

• Visual evidence used by Franco's Police in the persecution of Spanish Freemasons Dr. Sylvia Hottinger, Carlos III University, Madrid

• Stolen truth or truth stolen?
Dr. Hans Kummerer, Quatuor Coronati Research Lodge, Austria

• The ongoing restitution of the Norwegian masonic library and archives
Helge Bjørn Horrisland, Norwegian Order of Freemasons

Website: http://www.canonbury.ac.uk


I am very impressed. I will do my best to attend.

I have actually only attended only "one" lecture at the Canonbury Masonic Research Centre some years ago (just out of interest since it is my father's religion) and to be frank my conversations with Masons there were rather cordial, interesting, and had very little in common with the conversations with Masons one finds on Internet discussion forums; the Canonbury crowd are almost certainly the intellectual elites of Masonry.

I have to point out that although I rather consider Masonic esotericism to be mostly nonsense and Kabbalistic sophistry, confusion and heresy, and that my own personal metaphysical beliefs are almost entirely Kabbalistic and that I also experience similar opposition and persecution from Christians and assorted religious fanatics that the Masons experience.

My objections to Masonry are primarly the objections of an ideological Communist and Anarchist, since it is a Capitalist cult of Capitalists and essentially a "Capitalist gang" which includes numerous anti-Communists, loan sharks, police state / state terrorist / narco-terrorist collaborators.

I don't consider all of the Masonic esoteric teachings to be entirely malevolent, but I am disturbed by their general reverence the mythical world of ancient blood sacrifice cultism (Solomonic temple cultism) and their claim to be "Christian Knights," since they seem to be universally hostile and opposed to the teachings and edicts of their alleged Communist mentor (i.e., Jesus) however I do have a serious problem with their moral philosophy, but that is because I am a Communist and anti-religionist.

All militant Communists without exception are human sacrifice cultists; as Lenin argued, if half the world's population have to be eradicated in order that the other half can live in Communist paradise, it would be morally justifiable, but this has nothing to do with Christian Capitalist human sacrifice where most of humanity are enslaved, impoverished and at times tortured and killed for the sake of Capitalist revolution.

If anyone else from the forum is planning on attending, I can assure you that I am quite friendly and in addition to my offer of 144 virgins (I change this number frequently to beat all other prices on salvation) or 144,000 virgins in the afterlife (or your money back), that I am usually capable of buying you a few ales and being entirely civilised and conversational.

Since I have a habit of attending anti-cult meetups and conferences, out of acedemic interest, in the interests of fairness, I would highly recommend all anti-Masons to attend, to be non-confrontational, to observe and to comment afterwards.

"The great general always studies his enemies intensely."

Lux

[kadosh]

Freemasonry is NOT a cult - http://www.masonicinfo.com/cult.htm

[christ4life]

They are not christians either.

http://bibleprobe.com/freemasonry.htm

[phoilhatloonie]

If you really want to find out what Masons are like, call up that friend of yours and tell him you want to visit his lodge and find out more. He'll tell you when and where to show up and you can meet the guys and make your own decisions.

[humason]

They are not christians either.

http://bibleprobe.com/freemasonry.htm

Did we ever claim to be? :confused:

[dunadan]

I've read up a few bits on Freemasons, mostly things that seem fictional though. It's not that I deny the existance of Freemasons, there's evidence for that, but I question some claims made against them.

What is your understanding of Freemasons, if you can explain it using evidence then that would be excellent. I'm open minded about the whole issue, however, I am not willing to blindingly accept everything that is said - no offence.

So, what are Freemasons, what is their common purpose, and what is it that makes them seen as currupt?

Hi all,

After a quick scan through this Thread.....

Freemasonry - these days?

IMHO - A glorified, pat on the back drinking club with a 'if I scratch your back, you can scratch mine' with a 'can do attitude' for the middle and upper classes - discuss?

Apologies in advance, yet I get the feeling from friends and family - and my own experiences - that it was so much more in the past, like everything else these days, it has been hijacked......

Love and light,

D:)

[dunadan]

If you really want to find out what Masons are like, call up that friend of yours and tell him you want to visit his lodge and find out more. He'll tell you when and where to show up and you can meet the guys and make your own decisions.


Or wait for and English Heritage day (in UK).......

That way you will get to visit a lodge and meet masons who are strangers and those without a vested interest in 'recruiting' you, then you may get a more accurate picture of the craft etc....;)

[grandsecretary]

hi all,

after a quick scan through this thread.....

Freemasonry - these days?

Imho - a glorified, pat on the back drinking club with a 'if i scratch your back, you can scratch mine' with a 'can do attitude' for the middle and upper classes - discuss?

Apologies in advance, yet i get the feeling from friends and family - and my own experiences - that it was so much more in the past, like everything else these days, it has been hijacked......

Love and light,

d:)

10/10

[lyricusmagna]

What is called 'Regular Freemasonry' is a fraternity (for men). There are other forms of Masonry that are mixed lodges as well. The only people who see Masonry as corrupt are anti-Masons with an axe to grind. There is so much rubbish posted on the site (all anti-Masonic) it is unbelievable. It needs to be strongly rebutted as some guillible readers begin to believe it. Do not post messages unless the information has been properly researched and can be substantiated. Cut and paste is simply not good enough any longer.

How about for once in your stupid existence, that you admit that not all of your members are sweet little angels like all of you make them to be? At least live up to your own values that you supposedly cultivate, honesty being one of them.

Yeah, I agree, there is a lot of bullshit circling around the net regarding Freemasons, I do not deny that. I also laugh when people claim that all Freemasons are just satanists and devil worshipers. Yes, it might be something to put dirt on the reputation of the Freemasons globally.

BUT, that doesn't mean that there haven't been, or are, rotten apples in each tree, and trust me, the "Freemason tree" has had quite a few of them. Denying that, is only going to make things worse for you as a fraternity that likes to keep things for itself. Even more crazy conspiracy theories will start to fly around, and you are going to be hated by more people globally, and hated in general terms.

Why don't you admit and point out the individuals responsible for ruining the dignity your fraternity once had, so people can speak bad and hate only them, and not the whole order? Be objective when it comes to truth, ok? Just because all the rest of your members are supposed to be regarded as brothers doesn't mean you have to justify their actions and make biased claims just to clear some dirt.

And I think this is the perfect thread for that.

[grandsecretary]

I would appreciate any links from anyone to give me a better handle of freemasonry?

thanks

http://grandlodge.blogspot.com/

[kadosh]

A paper addressed to non-masons - http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/rawal.html

[lyricusmagna]

How about for once in your stupid existence, that you admit that not all of your members are sweet little angels like all of you make them to be? At least live up to your own values that you supposedly cultivate, honesty being one of them.

Yeah, I agree, there is a lot of bullshit circling around the net regarding Freemasons, I do not deny that. I also laugh when people claim that all Freemasons are just satanists and devil worshipers. Yes, it might be something to put dirt on the reputation of the Freemasons globally.

BUT, that doesn't mean that there haven't been, or are, rotten apples in each tree, and trust me, the "Freemason tree" has had quite a few of them. Denying that, is only going to make things worse for you as a fraternity that likes to keep things for itself. Even more crazy conspiracy theories will start to fly around, and you are going to be hated by more people globally, and hated in general terms.

Why don't you admit and point out the individuals responsible for ruining the dignity your fraternity once had, so people can speak bad and hate only them, and not the whole order? Be objective when it comes to truth, ok? Just because all the rest of your members are supposed to be regarded as brothers doesn't mean you have to justify their actions and make biased claims just to clear some dirt.

And I think this is the perfect thread for that.

I repeat, in case it slipped through somebody's eyes.

[ernie]

A paper addressed to non-masons - http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/rawal.html

Hi and thank you for posting this. I was struck by the following:

"In order to agree to the fatherhood of God, one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions. It is this philosophy that makes it a prerequisite that Masons have a firm belief in the Supreme Being. "

In particular:

"One Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions"

Doesn't that fly in the face of the commonly held idea that we are told that the creator gave us free will? Is it your understanding that this is what freemasons must agree on? A Supreme Being that controls our thoughts and actions seems to me to be the opposite of a Supreme Being as I understand "It".

Alternatively, does it suggest that, by becoming a freemason, you agree to give yourself over to have your thoughts and actions controlled by one that you have called and accepted as the One Supreme Being? Why would a "Supreme Being" seek to control your thoughts and actions? I would have thought that the Supreme Being would be happy and content with being supreme.

Or, does it mean that the thoughts and actions of freemasons are guided by the Supreme Being, as through prayer etc.?

At face value, it does stick out as being very odd. Please could you explain what it means to you, if not to be taken literally?

[lyricusmagna]

hi and thank you for posting this. I was struck by the following:

"in order to agree to the fatherhood of god, one must agree that there is one supreme being controlling our thoughts and actions. It is this philosophy that makes it a prerequisite that masons have a firm belief in the supreme being. "

in particular:

"one supreme being controlling our thoughts and actions"

doesn't that fly in the face of the commonly held idea that we are told that the creator gave us free will? Is it your understanding that this is what freemasons must agree on? A supreme being that controls our thoughts and actions seems to me to be the opposite of a supreme being as i understand "it".

Alternatively, does it suggest that, by becoming a freemason, you agree to give yourself over to have your thoughts and actions controlled by one that you have called and accepted as the one supreme being? Why would a "supreme being" seek to control your thoughts and actions? I would have thought that the supreme being would be happy and content with being supreme.

Or, does it mean that the thoughts and actions of freemasons are guided by the supreme being, as through prayer etc.?

At face value, it does stick out as being very odd. Please could you explain what it means to you, if not to be taken literally?

+1000

[thelonious]

Alternatively, does it suggest that, by becoming a freemason, you agree to give yourself over to have your thoughts and actions controlled by one that you have called and accepted as the One Supreme Being? Why would a "Supreme Being" seek to control your thoughts and actions? I would have thought that the Supreme Being would be happy and content with being supreme.


I am a Mason, and agree with you here.

Some theologians, especially of the Calvinist bent, have accepted determinism; they deny the existence of free will, and do believe that God controls people's thoughts and actions.

Masonry does not teach such a thing, although whoever wrote that paper may be a Calvinist or a determinist.

[dunadan]

10/10

Hi GS,

I wish I was wrong - kind of hoped I was..........:(

All the best,

Dunadan:)

[dunadan]

Hi and thank you for posting this. I was struck by the following:

"In order to agree to the fatherhood of God, one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions. It is this philosophy that makes it a prerequisite that Masons have a firm belief in the Supreme Being. "

In particular:

"One Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions"

Doesn't that fly in the face of the commonly held idea that we are told that the creator gave us free will? Is it your understanding that this is what freemasons must agree on? A Supreme Being that controls our thoughts and actions seems to me to be the opposite of a Supreme Being as I understand "It".

Alternatively, does it suggest that, by becoming a freemason, you agree to give yourself over to have your thoughts and actions controlled by one that you have called and accepted as the One Supreme Being? Why would a "Supreme Being" seek to control your thoughts and actions? I would have thought that the Supreme Being would be happy and content with being supreme.

Or, does it mean that the thoughts and actions of freemasons are guided by the Supreme Being, as through prayer etc.?

At face value, it does stick out as being very odd. Please could you explain what it means to you, if not to be taken literally?

I had not read that about masonry before - although it doesnt surprise me as I had come to similar conclusions a while ago.

IMHO, we have been given freedom of choice, and free will by the Source (God), if we hadnt then that would make the Source a 'dictator'.

It is my belief - whilst I dont believe all written in the book the of the same/similar title there are some interesting concepts within, as with Lewis's Cosmic Trilogy - we are, if not the only, a planet with choice.

I guess your comments then begs the question who or what is the - hidden - Supreme Being? Our egos can be - and are - used to control us, sometimes in very simple ways and sometimes in very complex ways....

It is my belief that most religions are like this, using ego to control us and asking us to worship the 'wrong' god or at least a different god to the one we thought that we were worshiping. That is not to say that all church goers/religious types are evil/wrong/bad etc. or indeed all church/religious leaders are....may be just misinformed, just hoodwinked;)......

Think of SUNdays, the day of the church in the UK et al. a bit of SUN worship on a SUNday- or should that be workship - anyone?

We are all being hoodwinked most of the time, I think, whilst I dont agree with all of their beliefs, that the Cathars came pretty close to the truth of the matter.....

I would like to think that complete freedom also includes being inspired and aligned with the Source's will, yet not controlled by it.

Good Post BTW.

[christ4life]

Did we ever claim to be? :confused:

Yes you say your open to all religions joining but you claim to represent christianity, and some of your teachings are blended with whats in the Bible. It is just to distort the truth. The shriners, and the even all the presidents claim to be christian go figure.:rolleyes:

[ernie]

I am a Mason, and agree with you here.

Some theologians, especially of the Calvinist bent, have accepted determinism; they deny the existence of free will, and do believe that God controls people's thoughts and actions.

Masonry does not teach such a thing, although whoever wrote that paper may be a Calvinist or a determinist.

Thank you for responding. I understood the original link was an official description of freemasonry, posted by a freemason in order to answer the question of the thread. It does mention that this belief is essential and forms a central part of becoming a freemason, not merely a view that some Determinists may take.

Although, given your response and, as the writer seems to be of Indian origin, you might take it that the determinstic views of the writer may be influenced by Hinduism, but that is not made clear in the article and the influence and inference would probably not be known to the target audience.

I'd like to know if the link provoded by Kadosh represents any kind of official view and source of information to non freemasons or not? I think, at best it is a PR disaster, at worst, an official admission from the freemason community that in order to be initiated into the freemason fraternity, you must accept control by an entity that they call the supreme being, of your thoughts and actions. Which I am sure you understand, has connotations, for many people, regarding a different entity altogether..

Regardless, I am sure the freemasons on this forum will agree, such information supplied by a freemasonic site does little to counter the argument that freemasonry is sometimes perceived by some as a little bit sinister? I'd have a word with Marketing....

[kadosh]

This type of discussion (like most on this forum) has a goal and that is to simply keep emotions running high.

[ernie]

This type of discussion (like most on this forum) has a goal and that is to simply keep emotions running high.

You seem to have been hoisted by your own petard. I thought I'd been fairly balanced in my response to your post and link. I didn't make anything up or twist the wording. I am not anti freemasonry, as I know nothing about it and merely sought clarification from you.

Your tautological response is very revealing.

[agneau]

I'd like to know if the link provoded by Kadosh represents any kind of official view and source of information to non freemasons or not? I think, at best it is a PR disaster, at worst, an official admission from the freemason community that in order to be initiated into the freemason fraternity, you must accept control by an entity that they call the supreme being, of your thoughts and actions. Which I am sure you understand, has connotations, for many people, regarding a different entity altogether..

Regardless, I am sure the freemasons on this forum will agree, such information supplied by a freemasonic site does little to counter the argument that freemasonry is sometimes perceived by some as a little bit sinister? I'd have a word with Marketing....

No, the link cannot be considered an official view anymore than any one individual Mason’s subjective view on the same matter can be considered an official view. I, for example, maintain the atheist 'faith' and consider myself a true Freemason (and that’s certainly not an official view).

That web-site is a masonic resource – a fan-zine if you like.

Therefore a PR disaster it isn't - it is simply one mans view of his theistic belief, and that is not important to the fundamental teaches of Freemasonry, which is in no way dependant on a man's view of his 'god'. That his view on this matter does not accord with mine, or with perhaps a follower of a different version of god is simply a question of interpretation that does not impact on the fundamental core of Masonic teaching.

Let’s look at the official wording from UGLE official web-site:

Freemasonry is a society of men concerned with moral and spiritual values. Its members are taught its precepts (moral lessons and self-knowledge) by a series of ritual dramas - a progression of allegorical two-part plays which are learnt by heart and performed within each Lodge - which follow ancient forms, and use stonemasons’ customs and tools as allegorical guides.
Freemasonry instils in its members a moral and ethical approach to life: it seeks to reinforce thoughtfulness for others, kindness in the community, honesty in business, courtesy in society and fairness in all things. Members are urged to regard the interests of the family as paramount but, importantly, Freemasonry also teaches and practices concern for people, care for the less fortunate and help for those in need.

Nothing in there about believing in a particular version of god – or even about god at all. Certainly nothing that could suggest any sort of sinister devolution of one’s own thought’s or actions to A N Other - quite the reverse in fact.

I hope that my qualification will now allow you to read the whole of the article in that link with a more rounded perspective?

[lyricusmagna]

This type of discussion (like most on this forum) has a goal and that is to simply keep emotions running high.

When you avoid inconvenient questions, I understand why some would resort to simply stir up people and watch them get all verbally emotional on the screen. I would too, if I wasn't so interested in what you have to say (which doesn't seem much, so I might just join the winding up crowd).

[ernie]

No, the link cannot be considered an official view anymore than any one individual Mason’s subjective view on the same matter can be considered an official view. I, for example, maintain the atheist 'faith' and consider myself a true Freemason (and that’s certainly not an official view).

That web-site is a masonic resource – a fan-zine if you like.

Therefore a PR disaster it isn't - it is simply one mans view of his theistic belief, and that is not important to the fundamental teaches of Freemasonry, which is in no way dependant on a man's view of his 'god'. That his view on this matter does not accord with mine, or with perhaps a follower of a different version of god is simply a question of interpretation that does not impact on the fundamental core of Masonic teaching.

Let’s look at the official wording from UGLE official web-site:

Freemasonry is a society of men concerned with moral and spiritual values. Its members are taught its precepts (moral lessons and self-knowledge) by a series of ritual dramas - a progression of allegorical two-part plays which are learnt by heart and performed within each Lodge - which follow ancient forms, and use stonemasons’ customs and tools as allegorical guides.
Freemasonry instils in its members a moral and ethical approach to life: it seeks to reinforce thoughtfulness for others, kindness in the community, honesty in business, courtesy in society and fairness in all things. Members are urged to regard the interests of the family as paramount but, importantly, Freemasonry also teaches and practices concern for people, care for the less fortunate and help for those in need.

Nothing in there about believing in a particular version of god – or even about god at all. Certainly nothing that could suggest any sort of sinister devolution of one’s own thought’s or actions to A N Other - quite the reverse in fact.

I hope that my qualification will now allow you to read the whole of the article in that link with a more rounded perspective?

The article is titled "WHAT IS FREEMASONRY - A paper addressed to non-masons" It was posted by a freemason, as a link in a thread entitled "Freemasons - What are they? Without any caveat from either the poster, the author of the article or the hosting entity, as to the Masonic complexities that you say underlie this non central theme. In fact he specifically states that it is a fundamental and central part of becoming a freemason.That is why it is at best a PR disaster. We will have to agree to disagree on that point.

We must have been reading a different article. The one posted by Kadosh clearly states that the author isn't saying that "one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions" is a non important subjective side view of his particular deity, he is saying, quite clearly that it is a central and fundamental agreement that must be made in order to become a freemason. That is in the article. What is not in the article is what you said. So no, by you saying that the article said differently than it does, does not give me a more rounded perspective. It tells me you misread it or are misrepresenting what it said.

"Every Freemason believes in God, and asserts this belief. His way of worshipping may be different, and it is never discussed in a Masonic Lodge (“ Lodge” is the place where Masons meet). What is important is the belief in God. Freemasonry is a brotherhood, and the basic premise for the brotherhood of men is the fatherhood of God. In order to agree to the fatherhood of God, one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions. It is this philosophy that makes it a prerequisite that Masons have a firm belief in the Supreme Being.

How a man worships God is purely his private affair. Masonry is not a religion, but it certainly is about God, since it wants you to affirm your belief in the Almighty. Since it does not interfere with the way you worship, it stands firmly for the freedom of religions."

What is vital in becoming a freemason, a fundamental core, according to this article aimed at non freemasons, is that whichever deity you may believe in (and you must believe in something), in order to become a freemason, you must believe and agree that "there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions"

The article maintains that this underpins the basic tenet that "Freemasonry is a brotherhood, and the basic premise for the brotherhood of men is the fatherhood of God." You say this does not represent the core beliefs of freemasonry, but more than one freemason obviously disagrees with you. Is there anything else in that article that you agree or disagree with?

The question therefore remains:

"Freemasonry is a brotherhood, and the basic premise for the brotherhood of men is the fatherhood of God. In order to agree to the fatherhood of God, one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions"

Is this statement a central tenet of freemasonry, as asserted by the author of the article, or is it not? Are freemasons in disagreement about the very central core tenets of their organisation, or is this an attempt at damage limitation?

Anyway, I can see I am not going to get a straight answer, so I won’t continue. I wouldn’t want anyone’s emotions to run too highly as a result of being asked to clarify something they posted.

[decim]

Oops! That link you posted is a dandy Mr Kain 'N' Knight..

Come on Qadosh answer the gentleman...you're behind the Q'ball.A...que U...Qu'est-ce que c'est?

A paper addressed to non-masons - http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/rawal.html

Hi and thank you for posting this. I was struck by the following:

"In order to agree to the fatherhood of God, one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions. It is this philosophy that makes it a prerequisite that Masons have a firm belief in the Supreme Being. "

In particular:

"One Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions"

Doesn't that fly in the face of the commonly held idea that we are told that the creator gave us free will? Is it your understanding that this is what freemasons must agree on? A Supreme Being that controls our thoughts and actions seems to me to be the opposite of a Supreme Being as I understand "It".

Alternatively, does it suggest that, by becoming a freemason, you agree to give yourself over to have your thoughts and actions controlled by one that you have called and accepted as the One Supreme Being? Why would a "Supreme Being" seek to control your thoughts and actions? I would have thought that the Supreme Being would be happy and content with being supreme.

Or, does it mean that the thoughts and actions of freemasons are guided by the Supreme Being, as through prayer etc.?

At face value, it does stick out as being very odd. Please could you explain what it means to you, if not to be taken literally?

This type of discussion (like most on this forum) has a goal and that is to simply keep emotions running high.

You seem to have been hoisted by your own petard. I thought I'd been fairly balanced in my response to your post and link. I didn't make anything up or twist the wording. I am not anti freemasonry, as I know nothing about it and merely sought clarification from you.

Your tautological response is very revealing.



The article is titled "WHAT IS FREEMASONRY - A paper addressed to non-masons" It was posted by a freemason, as a link in a thread entitled "Freemasons - What are they? Without any caveat from either the poster, the author of the article or the hosting entity, as to the Masonic complexities that you say underlie this non central theme. In fact he specifically states that it is a fundamental and central part of becoming a freemason.That is why it is at best a PR disaster. We will have to agree to disagree on that point.

We must have been reading a different article. The one posted by Kadosh clearly states that the author isn't saying that "one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions" is a non important subjective side view of his particular deity, he is saying, quite clearly that it is a central and fundamental agreement that must be made in order to become a freemason. That is in the article. What is not in the article is what you said. So no, by you saying that the article said differently than it does, does not give me a more rounded perspective. It tells me you misread it or are misrepresenting what it said.

"Every Freemason believes in God, and asserts this belief. His way of worshipping may be different, and it is never discussed in a Masonic Lodge (“ Lodge” is the place where Masons meet). What is important is the belief in God. Freemasonry is a brotherhood, and the basic premise for the brotherhood of men is the fatherhood of God. In order to agree to the fatherhood of God, one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions. It is this philosophy that makes it a prerequisite that Masons have a firm belief in the Supreme Being.

How a man worships God is purely his private affair. Masonry is not a religion, but it certainly is about God, since it wants you to affirm your belief in the Almighty. Since it does not interfere with the way you worship, it stands firmly for the freedom of religions."

What is vital in becoming a freemason, a fundamental core, according to this article aimed at non freemasons, is that whichever deity you may believe in (and you must believe in something), in order to become a freemason, you must believe and agree that "there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions"

The article maintains that this underpins the basic tenet that "Freemasonry is a brotherhood, and the basic premise for the brotherhood of men is the fatherhood of God." You say this does not represent the core beliefs of freemasonry, but more than one freemason obviously disagrees with you. Is there anything else in that article that you agree or disagree with?

The question therefore remains:

"Freemasonry is a brotherhood, and the basic premise for the brotherhood of men is the fatherhood of God. In order to agree to the fatherhood of God, one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions"

Is this statement a central tenet of freemasonry, as asserted by the author of the article, or is it not? Are freemasons in disagreement about the very central core tenets of their organisation, or is this an attempt at damage limitation?

Anyway, I can see I am not going to get a straight answer, so I won’t continue. I wouldn’t want anyone’s emotions to run too highly as a result of being asked to clarify something they posted.

[grandsecretary]

ernie,

The answer to your question is plain and clear.

It IS the most important tenet of Freemasonry, a sincere belief in God and the immortality of the soul. However, it is no longer adhered to, not by a long chalk, sacrificed on the altar of membership subscriptions and it is NOT rescuable.

That is the honest answer.

The seeds of its own destruction were sown in the wording of the Anderson Constitutions of 1738 and modern man has driven his coach and horses through the open door.

[agneau]

Is this statement a central tenet of freemasonry, as asserted by the author of the article, or is it not? Are freemasons in disagreement about the very central core tenets of their organisation, or is this an attempt at damage limitation?

Anyway, I can see I am not going to get a straight answer, so I won’t continue. I wouldn’t want anyone’s emotions to run too highly as a result of being asked to clarify something they posted.

Not at all - I am trying to give you a staright answer - and, trust me, my emotions are very much under control as I recognose the unimportance of my answers or explanations being accepted within this forum (that is forum purposely without a capital 'F').

My point was, and is, that the article is a viewpoint which you nave chosen to place undue importance to as a creed or definition of what constitutes a Freemson.

If I submitted an article to the same site, as a Freemason, and made totally contradictory stements to those which you are taking as a gospel, then which one one hold precedence? The article written by a freemason aimed at freemasons in a Masonic forum that stated that "Freemasonry is a brotherhood, and the basic premise for the brotherhood of men is the fatherhood of God." or the one that stated a contradictory view?

One might, if one was being unkind, suspect that you have cherry-picked - or rather, siezed upon the presented opportunity of - this article because it either supports some pre-defined prejudice you already hold, or enables you to build an anti-Masonic arguement around it.

If you read the rituals of the three degrees of Craft Masonry you should be able to easily see that the teachings of the Craft are NOT esoteric but simply 'vieled in allegory and illustrated by symbols'. It is a profoundly human experience, and the benefits are in no way restricted to theists.

The 'supreme being' belief requirement as maintained by theists is archaic and stems from a less enlightened age. It is only clung to by those who would split mankind into the worthy and unworthy - the clean and unclean - the faithful and the infidel (as defined purely by their parochial enviromental conditioning), and is in so many ways the antithesis of the Masonic ideal.

Theism and Masonry are incompatable - I think this has been recognised from the inception, and one should view any 'immovable' 'landmark' constituitons as being of their time and not at all immutable; they have changed and perhaps our predecesors were more enlightened then we give them credit for bearing in mind the differences in their undertsanding of theworld to ours.

I state again: to be a Freemason you do not need to be a theist. The morality - the humanity - that it stresses is not something that only a Christian or Jew or Buddhist or follower of Islam can strive towards. Any human being is equally capable of trying to improve himself, and the mythical reward of being accepted into heaven should not be necessary carrot to enjoin one to the attempt to be a better man.

There is no God but that which Man strives to become - that he must eternally fail to achieve this ambition does not detract either from the noblity of the attempt or the benefit to us as indivduals, and as a society.

[ernie]

Not at all - I am trying to give you a staright answer - and, trust me, my emotions are very much under control as I recognose the unimportance of my answers or explanations being accepted within this forum (that is forum purposely without a capital 'F').

My point was, and is, that the article is a viewpoint which you nave chosen to place undue importance to as a creed or definition of what constitutes a Freemson.

If I submitted an article to the same site, as a Freemason, and made totally contradictory stements to those which you are taking as a gospel, then which one one hold precedence? The article written by a freemason aimed at freemasons in a Masonic forum that stated that "Freemasonry is a brotherhood, and the basic premise for the brotherhood of men is the fatherhood of God." or the one that stated a contradictory view?

One might, if one was being unkind, suspect that you have cherry-picked - or rather, siezed upon the presented opportunity of - this article because it either supports some pre-defined prejudice you already hold, or enables you to build an anti-Masonic arguement around it.

If you read the rituals of the three degrees of Craft Masonry you should be able to easily see that the teachings of the Craft are NOT esoteric but simply 'vieled in allegory and illustrated by symbols'. It is a profoundly human experience, and the benefits are in no way restricted to theists.

The 'supreme being' belief requirement as maintained by theists is archaic and stems from a less enlightened age. It is only clung to by those who would split mankind into the worthy and unworthy - the clean and unclean - the faithful and the infidel (as defined purely by their parochial enviromental conditioning), and is in so many ways the antithesis of the Masonic ideal.

Theism and Masonry are incompatable - I think this has been recognised from the inception, and one should view any 'immovable' 'landmark' constituitons as being of their time and not at all immutable; they have changed and perhaps our predecesors were more enlightened then we give them credit for bearing in mind the differences in their undertsanding of theworld to ours.

I state again: to be a Freemason you do not need to be a theist. The morality - the humanity - that it stresses is not something that only a Christian or Jew or Buddhist or follower of Islam can strive towards. Any human being is equally capable of trying to improve himself, and the mythical reward of being accepted into heaven should not be necessary carrot to enjoin one to the attempt to be a better man.

There is no God but that which Man strives to become - that he must eternally fail to achieve this ambition does not detract either from the noblity of the attempt or the benefit to us as indivduals, and as a society.

OK, firstly you can put the idea that I have cherry picked this article or seized upon it, out of your head. I just wandered by this part of the Icke site and checked out the thread. I already stated that I am not anti freemasonry, as I don't know what it is and don't understand it. Although, it must be said, you guys have got off to rather a bad start in helping me understand.

I am not anti things I don't understand, but neither am I stupid. That's why I asked the questions and pointed out the incongruous areas, as well as pointing out where you had either misread or misrepresented what the article actually said. I could have, if I had wanted to, made much more of that. Neither have I any notion to build any kind of anti masonic argument around it. I believe you and Kadosh have contributed much more to that than I have or could.

There's no reason to get upset about it, in the grand scale of the omniverse, your views are as relevant as anyone elses. Although, you will, I hope, acknowledge that your convictions about the central tenets of freemasonry do differ fundamentally from some other freemasons?

I have a suggestion; Why don't you do exactly what you mentioned, write an article outlining everything you have said about your views on freemasonry and ask that site to publish it, in fact, ask as many different masonic sites as you can to publish it? Then see which way the wind blows and where the dust settles. It does seem to me that your argument is with other freemasons, rather than me, don't you think?

Love and Peace to you.

[thelonious]

One cannot be an atheist and a Freemason. No regular Masonic body knowingly admits atheists. If an atheist is entered, he has done so under false pretenses, and has lied to the Lodge. There is no escaping this obvious fact.

[stewart edwards]

Agneau you have given me pause for thoughtIf you read the rituals of the three degrees of Craft Masonry you should be able to easily see that the teachings of the Craft are NOT esoteric but simply 'vieled in allegory and illustrated by symbols'. It is a profoundly human experience, and the benefits are in no way restricted to theists.While I have done my level best not to read your rituals agneau, clearly I have come across bits now and again in the likes of the books of Knight and Lomas etc, from what Ihave read it is plainly obvious to me that you are correct. The rituals (and I rather suspect the floorwork as well from the limited discussions that I have had re this) reflect well the challenges and tests imposed by life on each and every one of us. From the hare and tortoise lesson of entry into the lodge to passing the veils in Chapter. The single benefit that I can see that Freemasons have over us profane folk is that because you have these tools, keys and signposts, it shouldbe far easier for you to navigate the path and hurdles of life. Though clearly with that comes a responsibility. About the only place that I would disagree with you here agneau is that it is all highly esoteric, for it reveals itself only to those who are ready, and those who are not may simply see it as some sort of mummery. Now whether these benefits were even intended for athiests, or whether a religious man would get more out of them are separate issues, but the fact remains that there are Grand Lodges in our world that do accept athiests, including it would seem UGLE with you, and you seem to be doing ok.


Theism and Masonry are incompatableDepends on which God you worship. If you, as some masons in our world do, consider that freemasonry today is the modern day wrapper of the ancient mystery schools, and if you consider that ancient Gods created said schools, then there is a strong argument for saying in essence that masons today are priests of holy orders serving God through perpetuating the Divine mysteries through time, making them available to those who are ready to receive them. Clearly though many masons would consider this to be nonsense. Even though other masons do firmly believe that the roots of masonry go back further than Ancient Egypt to Atlantis and before.


Any human being is equally capable of trying to improve himself, and the mythical reward of being accepted into heaven should not be necessary carrot to enjoin one to the attempt to be a better man. This is where I have the advantage Agneau, for having been down that white tunnel I know what is there, even if it was simply a hospital drug fever fuelled hallucination. I dont think that judgement is mythical.


There is no God but that which Man strives to become - that he must eternally fail to achieve this ambition does not detract either from the noblity of the attempt or the benefit to us as indivduals, and as a society.Why must man eternally fail agneau?

[grandsecretary]

One cannot be an atheist and a Freemason. No regular Masonic body knowingly admits atheists. If an atheist is entered, he has done so under false pretenses, and has lied to the Lodge. There is no escaping this obvious fact.

thelonius,

There are hundreds of thousands of Freemasons who do NOT believe in God.

Furthermore you have not addressed the Buddhist question which is particularly important because for a period of a recent 6 years The United Grand Lodge of England was managed by Lord Northampton, Deputy Grand Master, a leading English Buddhist.

Buddhists do NOT believe in God or the immortality of the soul.

What you may not realise is that candidates are interviewed and schooled to say "In God" in answer to the question "In Whom do you put your trust?" but they are also told "Just say it, you don't have to mean it, but you will not get in unless you do." I have heard it dozens of times in several lodges.

So, the door is wide open and it cannot be closed. Masonic oaths for ALL of these hundreds of thousands of your colleagues are totally meaningless and the Moderns system of freemasonry has been rendered a mere social network with no moral base and no aim in life.

That is why the original religious system was revived in December 2005 and why it MUST remain separate.

[grandsecretary]

... there is a strong argument for saying in essence that masons today are priests of holy orders serving God through perpetuating the Divine mysteries through time, making them available to those who are ready to receive them. Clearly though many masons would consider this to be nonsense. Even though other masons do firmly believe that the roots of masonry go back further than Ancient Egypt to Atlantis and before.

A Freemason IS ...

a descendant of Noah in possession of religious truths received from their common father and derived from the line of patriarchs who preceded Noah. The transmitters of his religious dogmas, which are the unity of God and the immortality of the soul.

Ergo: anyone who is not and does not therefore, by definition, is not a Freemason.

"Every chronicle, and history, and many other clerks, and the Bible in principal, witnesses of the making of the tower of Babel, and it is written in the Bible, Genesis Chapter X, how that Ham, Noah’s son begot Nimrod, and he waxed a mighty man upon the earth, and he waxed a strong man, like a giant, and he was a great king. And the beginning of his kingdom was true kingdom of Babylon, and Arach, and Archad, and Calan, and the land of Sennare. And this same Nimrod began the tower of Babylon and he taught to his workmen the craft of measures, and he had with him many masons, more than 40 thousand. And he loved and cherished them well. And it is written in Policronicon, and in the master of stories, and in other stories more, and this in part witnesseth Bible, in the same X chapter where he saith that A sur, that was nigh kin to Nimrod, went out of the land of Senare and he built the city Nineveh, and Plateas, and other more, this he saith "de tra illa et de Sennare egressus est Asur, et edificavit Nineven et Plateas civitatum et Cale et Jesu quoque, inter Nineven et hoec est Civitas magna."

"Reason would that we should tell openly how, and in what manner, that the charges of mason-craft was first founded and who gave first the name of it of masonry." (SOURCE: Additional M.S. 23,198 British Museum, c. 1450)

[stewart edwards]

Peter

Funnily enough I first postulated this on thefreemason.com approaching a decade ago now.

To me it seems obvious that freemasonry is a Divine gift to our world, a gift that has sadly been diverted by darkness. As you can imagine Peter I have taken a lot of ridicule and grief from masons for this view over the years. Mind you having fallen into darkness myself before walking myself out of it I am perhaps more sensitive than most to the current plight of the masonic world.

[grandsecretary]

Well you have studied this subject without the baggage of membership of the modern equivalent of Free Masonrie, with its political indoctrinations and rewriting of English history.

[psquared]

"Ergo: anyone who is not and does not therefore, by definition, is not a Freemason."

Or at least not by your definition. Which..while you are entitled to it, does not make it the gospel. I respect your right to believe so though. The fact is that you do not recognize me or my GL as a brother/brothers, and my lodge does not recognize you as a brother/brothers. That aside..I have no personal issue with you, so please do not take it as such. Different groups, that's all.

[thelonious]

Furthermore you have not addressed the Buddhist question

Yes, I did.


What you may not realise is that candidates are interviewed and schooled to say "In God" in answer to the question "In Whom do you put your trust?" but they are also told "Just say it, you don't have to mean it, but you will not get in unless you do."

As I already said, an atheist could lie and say he believes in God in order to become a Freemason. But in doing so, he has been a made a Mason under false pretenses, and I cannot for the life of me see why an atheist would want to become a Mason anyway. It's sort of like an atheist lying to become a Catholic. Surely this has happened numerous times, and atheists have no doubt been baptized and confirmed in the Church.

But what for?

[agneau]

As I already said, an atheist could lie and say he believes in God in order to become a Freemason. But in doing so, he has been a made a Mason under false pretenses, and I cannot for the life of me see why an atheist would want to become a Mason anyway. It's sort of like an atheist lying to become a Catholic. Surely this has happened numerous times, and atheists have no doubt been baptized and confirmed in the Church.

But what for?

Nope - wrong, wrong, wrong. An atheist can very truthfully say he believes in god and/or a supreme being without lying. Your definition of god is simply different to mine (and no, I'm not getting into dictionary definitions - that's just plain peurile). I've explained my reasoning for asserting this both here and on the Freemasonry forum at some length.

And as to why would an atheist want to become a Mason - are you too saying that only theists can have a moral base?

If you want a church - go to church.

If you want to strive to be a better man, do a little good along the way, and, yes, enjoy the social side, then the only qualification is that desire itself. There is nothing to be learned in Craft Masonry that requires a delusional belief in any sort of boogie-man.

[grandsecretary]

"Ergo: anyone who is not and does not therefore, by definition, is not a Freemason."

Or at least not by your definition. Which..while you are entitled to it, does not make it the gospel. I respect your right to believe so though. The fact is that you do not recognize me or my GL as a brother/brothers, and my lodge does not recognize you as a brother/brothers. That aside..I have no personal issue with you, so please do not take it as such. Different groups, that's all.

I accept that and reciprocate. BUT this is not my definition, it is Dr James Anderson's definition. He wrote YOUR books of constitutions in 1723 and 1738.

[luciferhorus]

Quote:
a descendant of Noah in possession of religious truths received from their common father and derived from the line of patriarchs who preceded Noah. The transmitters of his religious dogmas, which are the unity of God and the immortality of the soul.

Ergo: anyone who is not and does not therefore, by definition, is not a Freemason.

Frankly the myth of Noah is simply a myth. Certainly the evidence of global flooding at the end of the last ice age is rather beyond doubt, however this would have occurred around 10,000 BC, whereas the myth of Noah and the Torah itself was probably authored in it's current form around 600BC.

With regards to the religions of pre-history, there is very little worth preserving, as the further back in history we go, we find that religion was a rather barbaric practice.

With regards to "the unity of God and the immortality of the soul" in the Israelite religion their deity was just one of many competing deities; certainly this faith evolved into it's current monotheism, but there are very few passages in the Old Testament which imply monotheism; the god of the Israelites was simply a "better" and "badder" jealous god who demanded exclusive worship.

Much of the Old Testament has been translated into the English and other local languages to imply that the Israelite god is a monotheistic deity, but this is an entirely anachronistic (out of historical context) deception. Even the original "God" who allegedly created the world in Genesis and is referred to in the singular in English is referred to as Elohim (plural; i.e., the gods) in the Hebrew.

"The concept of monotheism develops gradually throughout the various books of the Hebrew Bible."In the oldest sections - some of the Psalms, for example - Yahweh, the God of Israel, is shown as a member of a larger divine council of which El is the head; by the time of the Torah, written most probably around 700-450 BC, Yahweh reveals himself as the national deity to be worshipped alone, but without excluding the existence of other gods"
Monotheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further, since you are allegedly an ordained Christian priest (as well as claiming to be of a tradition of Moloch (a Phonecian deity) worshipping Druids (a Northern European tradition) and Celtic Catholics, etc., etc) I should point out that that is not a monotheistic religion either.

There is often a tendency for New Religious Movements to claim some ancient heritage, and of course the easiest ancient heritage to claim is a pre-historical heritage, since pre-history (which refers approximately to the period prior to aroiund 1000 BC) is perhaps one of the most difficult subjects to study since there is not much to go on apart from the propaganda of prophets and tyrants, myths and legends.

http://www.2think.org/images/noah.jpg

There are quite a number of strange things in the story of Noah which should arouse suspicion among those of the modern world; he allegedly lived to be 950 years old; we are supposed to believe that he took on board pairs of all 10,000 animal species and 30,000 insect species onto a wooden boat, with sufficient staff and food to feed them for the journey lasting around 10 months; perhaps he stacked them several miles high. Then we are supposed to believe that after 10 months of flooding that the soil was sufficiently fertile to plant a vineyard, which requires well drained soil free of salt pollution. And then there is the strange sexually implied relationship with his son Ham and so forth, and so forth.

"Every chronicle, and history, and many other clerks, and the Bible in principal, witnesses of the making of the tower of Babel, and it is written in the Bible, Genesis Chapter X, how that Ham, Noah’s son begot Nimrod, and he waxed a mighty man upon the earth, and he waxed a strong man, like a giant, and he was a great king. And the beginning of his kingdom was true kingdom of Babylon, and Arach, and Archad, and Calan, and the land of Sennare. And this same Nimrod began the tower of Babylon and he taught to his workmen the craft of measures, and he had with him many masons, more than 40 thousand. And he loved and cherished them well. And it is written in Policronicon, and in the master of stories, and in other stories more, and this in part witnesseth Bible, in the same X chapter where he saith that A sur, that was nigh kin to Nimrod, went out of the land of Senare and he built the city Nineveh, and Plateas, and other more, this he saith "de tra illa et de Sennare egressus est Asur, et edificavit Nineven et Plateas civitatum et Cale et Jesu quoque, inter Nineven et hoec est Civitas magna."

"Reason would that we should tell openly how, and in what manner, that the charges of mason-craft was first founded and who gave first the name of it of masonry." (SOURCE: Additional M.S. 23,198 British Museum, c. 1450)

Oh I see, so according to some 15th century writer, all such ancient legends must be true; might I suppose that on the basis of this text that you are now making the case that your Lodge (founded 2005) represents all of Masonry (stone cutting, Temple construction etc.,) stretching back to the first stone-cutter (in addition to your ancient Christian Capitalist - Druidic - Celtic Catholic heritage).

Lux


"BLOOD & THUNDER PROPHET: ...And the bezan shall be huge and black, and the eyes thereof red with the blood of living creatures, and the whore of Babylon shall ride forth on a three-headed serpent, and throughout the lands, there'll be a great rubbing of parts. Yeeah...

FALSE PROPHET: ...For the demon shall bear a nine-bladed sword. Nine-bladed! Not two or five or seven, but nine, which he will wield on all wretched sinners, sinners just like you, sir, there, and the horns shall be on the head, with which he will...

BORING PROPHET: ...Obadiah, his servants. There shall, in that time, be rumours of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things wi-- with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment. At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock. Yea, it is written in the book of Cyril that, in that time, shall the third one..." From Monty Python's "Life of Brian."

[grandsecretary]

Yes, I did.



As I already said, an atheist could lie and say he believes in God in order to become a Freemason. But in doing so, he has been a made a Mason under false pretenses, and I cannot for the life of me see why an atheist would want to become a Mason anyway. It's sort of like an atheist lying to become a Catholic. Surely this has happened numerous times, and atheists have no doubt been baptized and confirmed in the Church.

But what for?

Fair enough, you bracketed Buddhists with other atheists rather than dealoing with the issue separately.

"Why did a leading English Buddhist, Lord Northampton, become a Freemason?" is a question for you to answer, not me. A man who was less of a Freemason I have never met and yet he was appoonted to the highest ranks in Freemasonry, including a seat on the Supreme Council of the A&ASR.

You see I am not questioning your sincerity. What I am saying is that you are in the wrong bed.

[psquared]

I accept that and reciprocate. BUT this is not my definition, it is Dr James Anderson's definition. He wrote YOUR books of constitutions in 1723 and 1738.
Even so...it still means we are just different. I have no issue with it. I have far more people I am friends with that are not Masons than I have that are. No reason we can't be friends. I have friends that are all races and creeds. They are not my Masonic Brothers, and I have Masonic Brothers who are not necessarily "friends".

[stewart edwards]

At risk of stating the obvious, and apologies to those that this will upset, but a belief in God is simply that. A belief. Some people believe in God simply because their parents told them to. Others because they have had a time in their life that they needed comfort and religion was there for them. Knowledge of God is a much better thing to have.

I am again in a rather unusual place here for without meaning to or trying to two people have found their way to the Church (one Roman Catholic and one Church of England) because of my words. One is a freemason who wrote to me to let me know how my words on a masonic forum helped him find his way back to the Church, and the other is an Army lad who needed some reassurance before deployment. I said some things to him, out in a hot place he found his way to the Army priest and on his return joined his local church and when he was confirmed he rather touchingly spoke of my prior words to him and how they had helped him find his way. To say the congregation wanted to know me after that was an understatement but that is an aside.

So on two distinct and proveable occassions my bumbling and stumbling has helped people refind and find their faith. Which makes the masonic rejection of me over my religious beliefs somewhat funny.

I will be pope yet:eek:

[thelonious]

An atheist can very truthfully say he believes in god and/or a supreme being without lying. Your definition of god is simply different to mine (and no, I'm not getting into dictionary definitions - that's just plain peurile).

Yet you say you are an atheist. The definition of "atheist" is "one who does not believe in God". Therefore, if you are an atheist, your definition of God is "something that does not exist". If this is not your definition of God then perhaps you did meet the religious requirements of Freemasonry, and did not lie upon your initiation. But if that was the case, you would not be an atheist.

And as to why would an atheist want to become a Mason - are you too saying that only theists can have a moral base?

Not at all. However, Freemasonry, as you know, is not limited to general morality. It has a theology. It accepts only men who put their trust in God. It teaches the immortality of the soul, even in the first degree, when the initiate is presented the apron. Meetings are opened and closed in invocation to the Great Architect of the Universe, and the obligations are assumed in the name, and in the presence, of the Deity.

In the Lecture of the First Degree, it also explained why no avowed atheist can be made a Mason, and the clause concerning this in the obligation of the Third Degree is obvious. Furthermore, each degree Lecture stresses the role of God in Freemasonry, not to even mention the Legend of the Third Degree, or the higher degrees, which are much more theological than even the Blue Degrees.

If you want a church - go to church.

We aren't talking about church. We're talking about Freemasonry.

If you want to strive to be a better man, do a little good along the way, and, yes, enjoy the social side, then the only qualification is that desire itself.

Not in Freemasonry. The requirement of belief in God is solid, concrete, pointed out in the Constitutions, and the candidate is even required to make a confession of faith during the initiation. If you do not believe in God, how did you proclaim that your trust was in God without lying? When you knelt at the altar and invoked the blessing of Deity, did you think it was only a joke?

[grandsecretary]

Frankly the myth of Noah is simply a myth.

This is part of an article that I wrote a few years ago in cooperation with Richard Martin Young:

Myth, Legend and Fact

Myth, legend and the proper interpretation of fact form essential conceptual tools for understanding the fundamental and characteristic role of Freemasonry within England, and English society. Failure to utilise these tools weakens the relevance of Freemasonry and aids those who desire and work towards its irrelevance.

Myth represents the use of a real or fictional story in which a recurring theme embodies in a consistent manner cultural ideals or emotions. Consistency is essential, and realised as the situation then, and now. The reality or fictional status of the material is not considered crucial, or even material.

We subscribe to the view expressed by Childs that at one level, "The reality of the mythical, timeless event enters into the present moment of time."

Legend differs from myth in that here one is concerned with an unverified or unverifiable story or event handed down from an earlier time.

The story or event may well be vital in a particular context. It may be desired, it may be consistent with some known fact or facts, or even acted upon, but it cannot in its entirety be established. Indeed a legend does not need to be verified for it to have relevance or potency, because it is to some extent connected with a reality.

Both King Alfred and Robert the Bruce were in their own time, and particular situations, preoccupied with war and matters of state. The elements of the cakes and the spider, central to each of the well-known legendary stories, need not be verified for the instructional value or context of the supposed events to be recognised.

A legendary event may be connected with the recurring theme found in a myth, or be considered along with and in the context of a factual assertion. The possible nexus in which these conceptual devices operate is itself worthy of study.

Fact, refers to something which is asserted to be true.

It is not credible to maintain that a historical or evidential fact can ever be put forward in the same manner as a mathematical fact. The former are clearly subject to interpretation and it is perfectly reasonable for a fact to be disputed. The mere recitation of a number of facts does not in itself guarantee truth although it may lead to the acceptance of a proposition.

Truth is attainable, but facts currently in our possession may not secure truth. We are mindful of Francis Bacon’s observation contained in his essay, Of Truth. "What is truth", said jesting Pilate, "and would not stay for an answer."

In terms of Myth, the answer was present in the story itself. Freemasons in common with everyone else are impelled to believe, but firm belief is often the companion to irrationality.

Russell highlights our dilemma by paraphrasing David Hume’s empirical philosophy, although drawing a conclusion not actually reached by Hume, "We cannot help believing, but no belief can be grounded in reason. Nor can one line of action be more rational than another, since all alike are based upon irrational convictions."

Given the nature and extent of the surviving evidential material available to us with regard to the origins of Freemasonry, the contribution of philosophers such as William James can assist us in our search for truth.

James counsels us that, "We cannot reject any hypothesis if consequences useful to life flow from it."

Although recognizing inadequacies in James’s view, one can see the relevance of that view in the context of English Freemasonry. Why should a Masonic tradition uniquely founded upon Anglo-Saxon principles not be the tradition best placed to serve the needs of the people of England?

History has three elements: Myth, Legend and Fact.

[luciferhorus]

This is part of an article that I wrote a few years ago in cooperation with Richard Martin Young:

History has three elements: Myth, Legend and Fact.

Yes, well your article clearly distinguishes these three elements, thus when you state that a Freemason is a:

a descendant of Noah in possession of religious truths received from their common father and derived from the line of patriarchs who preceded Noah. The transmitters of his religious dogmas, which are the unity of God and the immortality of the soul.

Well this statement that a Mason is in possession of religious truths which derive from Noah and a line of Patriarchs which transmit some fixed body of religious thought which refer to the "unity of God" is neither, myth, legend nor fact. I suspect it is an invention entirely of your own creation.

The historical evidence points to the Israelite Patriarchs originally being devotees of a tribal deity (YHVH); it was certainly not originally a monotheistic faith, nor was it created in a vacum, and like almost all faiths it developed over time and probably due to the influence of other religions and philosophies.

With regards to the immortality of the soul; this is a general view held by billions of people today, including most of our ancient ancestors including the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, all of whom would have had an influence on Israelite culture, however Judaism originally did not have an fixed afterlife beliefs; the subject of death and the afterlife is almost entirely avoided throughout the Old Testament.

http://film.umwblogs.org/files/2009/04/backdrop_-_life-of-brian1_poster.jpg

By the time of Jesus 2000 years ago the Sadduceess (the Solomonic Temple priesthood) who essentially ran a Temple based blood sacrifice cult rejected resurrection / afterlife beliefs while the Pharisees, in common with Jesus appeared to have more widely held beliefs that the soul exists after death, in common with the Romans, Greeks and most other surrounding cultures of that region.

http://billcherryjr.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/draft_lens1987190module9535136photo_12354143351998 sacrificiallamb1.jpg


Lux

[grandsecretary]

Well this statement that a Mason is in possession of religious truths which derive from Noah and a line of Patriarchs which transmit some fixed body of religious thought which refer to the "unity of God" is neither, myth, legend nor fact. I suspect it is an invention entirely of your own creation.

No. It is fact. You constantly comment on Freemasonry and yet it is obvious by this uneducated comment that you have not even read the Gothic Constitutions. You certainly have not read Masonic ritual which dates back to time immemorial. You ignore Anderson, and you also reject his and our view that Free Masonrie pre-dates Christianity and is the font of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You need to think for yourself rather than remain shackled by your own prejudices.

You cannot judge Freemasonry per se by what goes on today within the ambit of the Moderns system which broke with the original and genuine form of Free Masonrie which requires a sincere belief in God and the immortality of the soul.

Now you can challenge it, disagree with it, ridicule it, but you cannot personalise it. I am but a member, temporary servant and the public voice of this Grand Lodge.

[luciferhorus]

No. You constantly comment on Freemasonry and yet it is obvious by this uneducated comment that you have not even read the Gothic Constitutions.


The Gothic constitutions are relatively modern from the last millenium and mostly more recent and have nothing to do with your claims that you represent an ancient legacy of monotheism which stretches back to Noah and the Israelite Patriarchs (who were certainly not monotheists), the Celtic Catholics (who were similarly not monotheists) and the Druids (who were also not monotheists).

You certainly have not read Masonic ritual which dates back to time immemorial.

Wel "time immemorial" is a very vague term: I suppose that the foundation of your Lodge in 2005 also happened in "time immemorial."

You ignore Anderson, and you also reject his and our view that Free Masonrie pre-dates Christianity and is the font of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You need to think for yourself rather than remain shackled by your own prejudices.

I am quite capable of thinking for myself and am totally free of the prejudices of despicable religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam; primitive blood sacrifice cult religions which I am entirely dedicated to eradicating.

There is no question that the craft of stone cutting is more ancient than the three religions of the book, and there is no question that various mystery cults also have an ancient legacy, however I no more accept your claims that your cult (founded in 2005) of two or three persons (As Ed KIng has alleged) or at least of an unknown membership represents are, simply based on your claims, master craftsmen of stonecutting or representatives of ancient faiths any more than I would accept that Greek College Campus fraternity of hooligans is the direct representative of the traditions of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Under the laws of religious freedom in the UK, any person can start a cult religion today and claim to represent the ancient legacy of Jesus, Moses, Noah or whatever and point to some ancient document, myth, legend, blood sacrifice cult or theological ramblings and claim to represent that.

To "claim" something is not quite the same as offering historical evidence. If you could produce some photos of your sacrificing two goats per day (as the Law demands) in your Temple, executing people for working on a Saturday and some explanation of how you manage to cut your beard without a razor (as the Law demands), and that (as an alleged Christian priest) you have abandoned shoe wearing, carrying money, wearing more than one robe, and that you have sold all and given all your wealth to the poor, etc., etc., I might be "slightly" less convinced of your obvious hypocrisy and your rather common (common among new religious cults) attempt to claim an ancient heritage and legacy. Just because you have read some historical document, Holy Book or ancient text does not necessarily mean that you represent such primitive legacies and traditions.

Lux

[grandsecretary]

The Gothic constitutions are relatively modern from the last millenium and mostly more recent and have nothing to do with your claims that you represent an ancient legacy of monotheism which stretches back to Noah and the Israelite Patriarchs (who were certainly not monotheists), the Celtic Catholics (who were similarly not monotheists) and the Druids (who were also not monotheists).



Wel "time immemorial" is a very vague term: I suppose that the foundation of your Lodge in 2005 also happened in "time immemorial."



I am quite capable of thinking for myself and am totally free of the prejudices of despicable religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam; primitive blood sacrifice cult religions which I am entirely dedicated to eradicating.

There is no question that the craft of stone cutting is more ancient than the three religions of the book, and there is no question that various mystery cults also have an ancient legacy, however I no more accept your claims that your cult (founded in 2005) of two or three persons (As Ed KIng has alleged) or at least of an unknown membership represents are, simply based on your claims, master craftsmen of stonecutting or representatives of ancient faiths any more than I would accept that Greek College Campus fraternity of hooligans is the direct representative of the traditions of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Under the laws of religious freedom in the UK, any person can start a cult religion today and claim to represent the ancient legacy of Jesus, Moses, Noah or whatever and point to some ancient document, myth, legend, blood sacrifice cult or theological ramblings and claim to represent that.

To "claim" something is not quite the same as offering historical evidence. If you could produce some photos of your sacrificing two goats per day (as the Law demands) in your Temple, executing people for working on a Saturday and some explanation of how you manage to cut your beard without a razor (as the Law demands), and that (as an alleged Christian priest) you have abandoned shoe wearing, carrying money, wearing more than one robe, and that you have sold all and given all your wealth to the poor, etc., etc., I might be "slightly" less convinced of your obvious hypocrisy and your rather common (common among new religious cults) attempt to claim an ancient heritage and legacy. Just because you have read some historical document, Holy Book or ancient text does not necessarily mean that you represent such primitive legacies and traditions.

Lux

The Gothic Constitutions date from 11th August AD 926 and they are quite clear. Whether or not you accept them is neither here nor there because you value your opinion far higher than anyone else does and frankly I/we couldn't care less. In addition we know that you colour everything for your own purposes.

Revolutionary Propaganda (education) is the first stage of Revolutionary War. (SOURCE: luciferhorus, David Icke Forum, Illuminati/Secret Societies, Freemason/law enforcement connection, post #17

[decim]

Freemasons - what are they?

I's & E R's

[luciferhorus]

The Gothic Constitutions date from 11th August AD 926 and they are quite clear. Whether or not you accept them is neither here nor there because you value your opinion far higher than anyone else does and frankly I/we couldn't care less. In addition we know that you colour everything for your own purposes.

It is not a question of "accepting or rejecting" the contents of some ancient document which exists in a library and which is considered a genuine historical document. King Athelstan and his government made numerous foreign and domestic treaties and one could spend one's entire life reading through the numerous documents left behind by the various tyrants of England.

You own cult, the Grand Lodge of All England is certainly not the only cult to claim that they represent this ancient historical legacy of stonemasons; for example the Royal Grand Lodge of all England (another non regular body) also makes this claim, and ineed under the laws of religious freedom in the UK, anyone can make this claim and indeed I could make such a claim and start a cult on this basis.

"Soone after the Decease of St. Albones, there came Diverse Warrs into England out of diverse Nations, so that the good rule of Masons was dishired (disturbed) and put down vntill the tyme of King Adilston. In his tyme there was a worthy King in England, that brought this Land into good rest, and he builded many grat workes and buildings, therefore he loved well Masons, for he had a Sonne called Edwin, the which loved Masons much more then his ffather did, and he was soe practized in geometry, that he delighted much to come and talke with Masons and to learne of them the Craft. And after, for the loue he had to Masons and to the Craft, he was made Mason at Windsor, and he gott of the King, his ffather, a Charter and Comission once every yeare to have Assembley within the realms where they would within England, and to correct within themselves ffaults & trespasses that weere done as touching the Craft, and he held them an Assembley at Yorke and there he made Masons and gave them Charges, and taught them the Manners and Comands the same to be kept ever afterwards. And tooke them the charter and Comission to keep their Assembley, and Ordained that it should be renewed from King to King, and when the Assembley were gathered together he made a Cry, that all old Masons or young, that had any Writeings or Vnderstanding of the charges and manners that weere made before their Lands, wheresoever they were made Masons, that they should shew them forth, there were found some in ffrench, some in greek, some in Hebrew, and some in English, and some in other languages, and when they read and over seen well the intent of them was vnderstood to be all one. And then he caused a Booke be made thereof how this worthy Craft of Masonrie was first founded, and he himselfe comanded, and also then caused, that it should be read in any tyme when it should happen any Mason or Masons to be made to give him or them their Charges, and from that time vntill this day Manners of Masons have been kepte in this manner and omen, as well as Men might governe it, and ffarthermore at diverse Assemblyes have been put and Ordained diverse Charges by the best advice of Masters and ffellows."

http://www.rgle.org.uk/RGLE_Mother_Grand_Lodge_York.htm

It seems perfectly clear to me that by "Masonry" the document refers to a union of "Stone-Masons" who practiced a certain archtectural craft which required a knowledge of geometry and stone cutting. You have yet to provide an iota of evidence of your architectural qualifications or stone Masonry skills, and it seems to me from reading your former web site for the GLAE which you appear no longer to consider worthy of maintaining (it currently reads "This account has been suspended.Either the domain has been overused, or the account balance has not been paid.) that this is not a technical or "Craft" guild which has anything whatsoever to do with the architectural profession; neither do any of your comments here convince me of this; indeed whatever "Freemasonrie" is to you is apparently really only known to yourself, but it does seem to me to be purely "speculative Masonry" of the sort we are used to with the UGLE Masons who similarly receive no architectural training and in my judgement constitute little more than a gang of organised Capitalists.

Even were to produce some remarkable piece of carved stone in the manner of the apprentice's Pillar at Rosslyn, this would still not be sufficient to establish that your name brand of Masonry (founded 2005) is the one true Masonic religious cult which stretches back in time (as you claim) to Noah, the Druids, the Celtic Catholics the Israelite Patriarchs, and ancient Temple builders and just about any other piece of historical legend you can throw in there. Such claims are entirely typical of many new religious movements.

Lux

[psquared]

GS...how is it that you can speak officially for your GL? I noticed it inyour disclaimer, or statement of fact, at the bottom of your sig.

I know no one speaks for Freemasonry exclusively in the US. Just curious?
Maybe I misunderstand, but are you the be all end all of the GLOE?

[grandsecretary]

You own cult, the Grand Lodge of All England is certainly not the only cult to claim that they represent this ancient historical legacy of stonemasons; for example the Royal Grand Lodge of all England (another non regular body) also makes this claim, and ineed under the laws of religious freedom in the UK, anyone can make this claim and indeed I could make such a claim and start a cult on this basis.

We are not a cult (propaganda).

If you, or anyone else claims to be The Grand Lodge of All England we will sue in the high courts and we will win.

There is NOTHING to stop any group from setting up a Masonic Grand Lodge and to work according to the Gothic Constitutions of King Athelstan. However, they could NOT claim to be The Grand Lodge of All England which we have established in law is ours and ours alone. Also, by law, our Grand Master is the Grand Master Mason of All Free Masons who work under the jurisdiction of The Gothic Constitutions. There can be no other. He is the rightful heir and successor to Prince Edwin of York. Again, established in law.

I have never heard of this Royal Grand Lodge of All England. I will investigate and if they are attempting to pass themselves off as The Grand Lodge of All England then they will receive a high court injunction forthwith.

You would not know what was regular or not regular if it bit you on the rear end pal. And, of course, you have no say in the matter.

[psquared]

I have never heard of this Royal Grand Lodge of All England. I will investigate and if they are attempting to pass themselves off as The Grand Lodge of All England then they will receive a high court injunction forthwith.

You would not know what was regular or not regular if it bit you on the rear end pal. And, of course, you have no say in the matter.

In Theory though one could start a "Royal GLOE" and claim no afflilaition with the GLOE and call themselves whatever they choose , and view you (as you would view them) as irregular or unaffiliated and you would have no say on the matter. True?
Nothing prevents anyone from starting their own version of Freemasonry...you claim the Moderns did it and and the Moderns claim you did it and some claim others did it. Right?

[luciferhorus]

We are not a cult (propaganda).

"Cultus" is simply a Latin term to describe a group of worshippers or a religion; the cult of Venus, the cult of the Emperor, the cult of Jesus, the cult of Roman Catholicism, the cult of Islam, etc. It is also the origin of "cultivate," to care, to tend, etc.

However since you claim that your Lodge is "religious but not a religion (whatever that means in your own private language)" you could always claim to be cultish but not a cult and then only you yourself would understand what you are talking about.

If you, or anyone else claims to be The Grand Lodge of All England we will sue in the high courts and we will win.

There is NOTHING to stop any group from setting up a Masonic Grand Lodge and to work according to the Gothic Constitutions of King Athelstan. However, they could NOT claim to be The Grand Lodge of All England which we have established in law is ours and ours alone. Also, by law, our Grand Master is the Grand Master Mason of All Free Masons who work under the jurisdiction of The Gothic Constitutions. There can be no other. He is the rightful heir and successor to Prince Edwin of York. Again, established in law.

Well when we are speaking about Enlish Law, I form a Capitalist business (inlcuding religion business) which has a non generic title then I can appeal to the courts if someone else tries to use the same name. However it must be a very unique title or the courts will throw the matter out. For example if one opens an Indian restaurant called "The Raj (the King)" or a church called "The Christian Church" one cannot sue any other restaurant or business for using the same names because are common terms in language.

What you are really referring to is the law governing the titles of corporations and businesses.

However when you claim that your cult leader (Grand Master) "is the rightful heir and successor to Prince Edwin of York. Again, established in law" you are simply speaking legal nonsense, since anyone could make such a claim.


I have never heard of this Royal Grand Lodge of All England. I will investigate and if they are attempting to pass themselves off as The Grand Lodge of All England then they will receive a high court injunction forthwith.

You would not know what was regular or not regular if it bit you on the rear end pal. And, of course, you have no say in the matter.

This all simply constitutes a distraction fallacy (diversion tactics), you are just rambling on about something else and avoiding argument regarding the numerous criticisms against your many statements here.

Lux



The Gothic constitutions are relatively modern from the last millenium and mostly more recent and have nothing to do with your claims that you represent an ancient legacy of monotheism which stretches back to Noah and the Israelite Patriarchs (who were certainly not monotheists), the Celtic Catholics (who were similarly not monotheists) and the Druids (who were also not monotheists).



Wel "time immemorial" is a very vague term: I suppose that the foundation of your Lodge in 2005 also happened in "time immemorial."



I am quite capable of thinking for myself and am totally free of the prejudices of despicable religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam; primitive blood sacrifice cult religions which I am entirely dedicated to eradicating.

There is no question that the craft of stone cutting is more ancient than the three religions of the book, and there is no question that various mystery cults also have an ancient legacy, however I no more accept your claims that your cult (founded in 2005) of two or three persons (As Ed KIng has alleged) or at least of an unknown membership represents are, simply based on your claims, master craftsmen of stonecutting or representatives of ancient faiths any more than I would accept that Greek College Campus fraternity of hooligans is the direct representative of the traditions of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Under the laws of religious freedom in the UK, any person can start a cult religion today and claim to represent the ancient legacy of Jesus, Moses, Noah or whatever and point to some ancient document, myth, legend, blood sacrifice cult or theological ramblings and claim to represent that.

To "claim" something is not quite the same as offering historical evidence. If you could produce some photos of your sacrificing two goats per day (as the Law demands) in your Temple, executing people for working on a Saturday and some explanation of how you manage to cut your beard without a razor (as the Law demands), and that (as an alleged Christian priest) you have abandoned shoe wearing, carrying money, wearing more than one robe, and that you have sold all and given all your wealth to the poor, etc., etc., I might be "slightly" less convinced of your obvious hypocrisy and your rather common (common among new religious cults) attempt to claim an ancient heritage and legacy. Just because you have read some historical document, Holy Book or ancient text does not necessarily mean that you represent such primitive legacies and traditions.

Lux



It is not a question of "accepting or rejecting" the contents of some ancient document which exists in a library and which is considered a genuine historical document. King Athelstan and his government made numerous foreign and domestic treaties and one could spend one's entire life reading through the numerous documents left behind by the various tyrants of England.

You own cult, the Grand Lodge of All England is certainly not the only cult to claim that they represent this ancient historical legacy of stonemasons; for example the Royal Grand Lodge of all England (another non regular body) also makes this claim, and ineed under the laws of religious freedom in the UK, anyone can make this claim and indeed I could make such a claim and start a cult on this basis.

"Soone after the Decease of St. Albones, there came Diverse Warrs into England out of diverse Nations, so that the good rule of Masons was dishired (disturbed) and put down vntill the tyme of King Adilston. In his tyme there was a worthy King in England, that brought this Land into good rest, and he builded many grat workes and buildings, therefore he loved well Masons, for he had a Sonne called Edwin, the which loved Masons much more then his ffather did, and he was soe practized in geometry, that he delighted much to come and talke with Masons and to learne of them the Craft. And after, for the loue he had to Masons and to the Craft, he was made Mason at Windsor, and he gott of the King, his ffather, a Charter and Comission once every yeare to have Assembley within the realms where they would within England, and to correct within themselves ffaults & trespasses that weere done as touching the Craft, and he held them an Assembley at Yorke and there he made Masons and gave them Charges, and taught them the Manners and Comands the same to be kept ever afterwards. And tooke them the charter and Comission to keep their Assembley, and Ordained that it should be renewed from King to King, and when the Assembley were gathered together he made a Cry, that all old Masons or young, that had any Writeings or Vnderstanding of the charges and manners that weere made before their Lands, wheresoever they were made Masons, that they should shew them forth, there were found some in ffrench, some in greek, some in Hebrew, and some in English, and some in other languages, and when they read and over seen well the intent of them was vnderstood to be all one. And then he caused a Booke be made thereof how this worthy Craft of Masonrie was first founded, and he himselfe comanded, and also then caused, that it should be read in any tyme when it should happen any Mason or Masons to be made to give him or them their Charges, and from that time vntill this day Manners of Masons have been kepte in this manner and omen, as well as Men might governe it, and ffarthermore at diverse Assemblyes have been put and Ordained diverse Charges by the best advice of Masters and ffellows."

http://www.rgle.org.uk/RGLE_Mother_Grand_Lodge_York.htm

It seems perfectly clear to me that by "Masonry" the document refers to a union of "Stone-Masons" who practiced a certain archtectural craft which required a knowledge of geometry and stone cutting. You have yet to provide an iota of evidence of your architectural qualifications or stone Masonry skills, and it seems to me from reading your former web site for the GLAE which you appear no longer to consider worthy of maintaining (it currently reads "This account has been suspended.Either the domain has been overused, or the account balance has not been paid.) that this is not a technical or "Craft" guild which has anything whatsoever to do with the architectural profession; neither do any of your comments here convince me of this; indeed whatever "Freemasonrie" is to you is apparently really only known to yourself, but it does seem to me to be purely "speculative Masonry" of the sort we are used to with the UGLE Masons who similarly receive no architectural training and in my judgement constitute little more than a gang of organised Capitalists.

Even were to produce some remarkable piece of carved stone in the manner of the apprentice's Pillar at Rosslyn, this would still not be sufficient to establish that your name brand of Masonry (founded 2005) is the one true Masonic religious cult which stretches back in time (as you claim) to Noah, the Druids, the Celtic Catholics the Israelite Patriarchs, and ancient Temple builders and just about any other piece of historical legend you can throw in there. Such claims are entirely typical of many new religious movements.

Lux

In Theory though one could start a "Royal GLOE" and claim no afflilaition with the GLOE and call themselves whatever they choose , and view you (as you would view them) as irregular or unaffiliated and you would have no say on the matter. True?
Nothing prevents anyone from starting their own version of Freemasonry...you claim the Moderns did it and and the Moderns claim you did it and some claim others did it. Right?

Yes you are quire correct. I did have to get myself up to "A" level law standards to get accepted on a Law degree at one point, however I chose a different degree, however I always seem to be surrounded by (friendly) lawers and discussions about the law.

Yes one could start a Lodge called the Royal GLOE, the Druidic GLOE, the Catholic GLOE, Noah's GLOE, etc., etc. and I am quite sure there would be no problem with that. For example there are numerous competing Christian churches in the Jesus business market place all with very similar titles such as the "Church of Christ," the "United Church of Christ" the "International Church of Christ," and in fact it may well even me that the term "Church of Christ" is too common to be considered private property; similarly almost certainly with the term "Mason."

I have for many years considered registering a tax exempt charity called the "Church of Lucifer" or "The Temple of Satan" or some similar provocative title, not because I wish to start a cult of course, I just rather like the fact that the religion business is tax exempt and provides manses (mansions), automobiles, robes (clothing), computers travelling expenses, dining out expenses and various entertainment for it's clergy without having to bother about VAT (reclaimable) or tax. Of course for my "Temple of Lucifer" since it would essentially be a sex cult, I would have to employ many cult prostitutes, and frankly I have never had to pay for sex, but religion seems to be the only business where it is possible to pay for sex and put it down as a clerical expense for the purposes of religious ritual.

http://billsmovieemporium.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/tn2_eyes_wide_shut_2.jpg

I certainly think I would have a better chance of success than the GLOE which sounds rather boring and seems to be an "all male" gathering. I am not opposed to homo-erotic cults, but I would just prefer to have an army of naked priestesses.


Lux

[grandsecretary]

No I am not.

I am talking about being the legal heirs, successors and title holders to the Grand Lodge of All England and I am fed up with your know it all, know nothing baiting.

We have a team of exceptionally well qualified lawyers advising and representing us thank you. I take their advice which means that I ignore you ... again. I am NOT interested in your opinion on this issue.

THE Grand Lodge of All England.

[gonzo75]

The freemasons are nought but dishwashers

or

'lautus of epulae' in its classic latin expression.

:D:p:D:p:D:p:D:p:D:p

[kadosh]

If an institution uses the word 'Royal' in its title, does it mean that it has been granted a charter?

No. The use of the prefix 'Royal' does not necessarily denote the existence of a Charter, it can be granted at the prerogative of the Monarch. For example, Queen Victoria gave permission for 'The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' to become 'The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' in 1840.

Issues relating to the use of the word "Royal" are administered by the Ministry of Justice. Please contact the Constitutional Settlement Division whose details can be found at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/royal-and-constitutional.htm.

[kadosh]

I have never heard of this Royal Grand Lodge of All England. I will investigate and if they are attempting to pass themselves off as The Grand Lodge of All England then they will receive a high court injunction forthwith.
It seems to me that the poster meant to write "Regular" and not "Royal".

[grandsecretary]

It seems to me that the poster meant to write "Regular" and not "Royal".

The poster is a blithering idiot. What do you expect?

[lyricusmagna]

- Liars? ...

[grandsecretary]

- Liars? ...

Thank you for your pseudo unintelligent contribution.

[gonzo75]

http://www.juliahailes.com/images/Things-FairyWashingLiquid.jpg

http://www.poundland.co.uk/images/105/original/20-scourers.jpg

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rth0329l.jpg

:D:p:D:p:D:p:D:p:D:p

[grandsecretary]

Got to go. Dishes to wash. I hope this advertisement gets you some free Fairy Liquid.

I take it Mummy washes your dishes for you?

[gonzo75]

Thank you for your pseudo unintelligent contribution.

"pseudo unintelligent"??????????

That does not make any sense peter.
Think about it son.
'Pseudo' means 'pretend'.

Never mind. Some of us were just born to scrub pots and pans.
And a grand job you make of it old son.

[lyricusmagna]

Thank you for your pseudo unintelligent contribution.

Thank you for not responding to my previous posts (which were actually somewhat a contribution here). Ignoring things you don't like seems to be a habit amongst a lot of your group.

[luciferhorus]

It seems to me that the poster meant to write "Regular" and not "Royal".

Yes, my apologies; a confusion of Lodges; so many Lodges, so little time.

It is the "Regular Grand Lodge of England" a/k/a "THE MASONIC HIGH COUNCIL, THE MOTHER HIGH COUNCIL (of the) ANCIENT AND HONOURABLE FRATERNITY OF FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS. According to the Old Constitutions granted by His Royal Highness Prince Edwin at York A.D. 926 a/k/a the "World Governing body of Craft Freemasonry."

They also recognise as Regular the following lodges:

"Europe

| REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF SLOVENIA | GRAND LODGE OF REGULAR FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS OF FRANCE | MHC OF ENGLAND |

| MHC OF SPAIN | MHC OF ITALY | MHC OF ROMANIA | MHC OF GERMANY | MHC OF SERBIA |

| MHC OF BELARUS | MHC OF BELGIUM | MHC OF IRELAND |

North America

| MHC OF UNITED STATES AMERICA | REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF VIRGINIA | REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF NEVADA |

| REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF ILLINOIS | REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF NEW JERSEY | REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF NORTH CAROLINA |

| REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF NEW YORK | REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF TEXAS | REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF CALIFORNIA |

| REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF MARYLAND | MHC OF FLORIDA | MHC OF UTAH |

South America

| MHC OF BRAZIL | MHC OF PERU | MHC OF ECUADOR | REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF BOLIVIA | REGULAR GRAND LODGE OF VENEZUELA |

| GRAND LODGE MULTIRITUALISTICA OF PARAGUAY |

Central America

| MHC OF MEXICO |

Africa

| MASONIC HIGH COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA |

Asia

| MHC OF SINGAPORE | MHC OF MALAYSIA | MHC OF INDIA |

Oceania

| MHC OF AUSTRALIA |

Middle East

| MHC OF LEBANON | MHC OF SAUDI ARABIA | MHC OF SYRIA | MHC OF JORDAN | MHC OF QATAR | MHC OF EGYPT | MHC OF UAE | MHC KUWAIT |

Grand Royal Arch Chapters

| GRAND ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER ENGLAND | GRAND ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER PARAGUAY | GRAND ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER OF VIRGINIA |

| GRAND ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER OF PERU |ROYAL ARCH APRONS | ROYAL ARCH JEWELS | ROYAL ARCH DOCUMENTS |

| GRAND ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER OF ILLINOIS | GRAND ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER NEW JERSEY | GRAND ROYAL ARCH CHAPTER MEXICO |"

http://www.rgle.org.uk/RGLE_Mother_Grand_Lodge_York.htm


I am quite sure that probably all these Lodges are considered "irregular" by the United Grand Lodge of England.

Frankly I find it all rather tiresome and silly.

It is much like the conflict between the 'People's Front of Judea' the "Judean People's Front," and Judean Popular Peaple's Front" in Monty Python's "Life of Brian."

How fortunate we have the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of all England (founded 2005, allegedly by a few drunks in a pub) here to assure us that his Masonic cult is the one true Masonic cult above all others whose ancient legacy goes back far beyond the Old Constitutions (of the stone Masons Craft) of York in A.D. 926 to the First Mason, Noah.

GS apparently is not even a stone mason, but then of course neither was Noah; he was apparently a totally insane carpenter who believed that he could fit all 10,000 animal species, 30,000 insect species and enough food for 10 months into a wooden boat.

The incredulity of such claims of course seem to be all too common in the world of cult religion, where one can claim almost anything one wishes.

Thank you for not responding to my previous posts (which were actually somewhat a contribution here). Ignoring things you don't like seems to be a habit amongst a lot of your group.

Yes, you are quite correct. The ability to construct intelligent arguments and defend one's cult against critics does not seem to be a qualification for joining the one true Grand Lodge of All England and defending it's ancient legacy stretching back to Noah, the Israelite patriarchs, the Druids, the Celtic Catholic Christians, His Royal Highness Prince Edwin at York, John Stuart Mill and probably just about anyone else GS has read about in the News of the World or wherever it is he does his historical research.

Lux

[jdierbeck]

Obviously this forum is masonic controlled propaganda.

33rd° is by invite only, so those below that rank are ignorant of the true nature of 33rd°. Good guys never get past 32nd°.

Is it not intimidation by freemasonry, with hoodwinks over the head and a rope around the throat and a blade to the chest? Are not the oaths enforced? The case of captain William Morgan in 1825 indicates the oaths are enforced with extreme prejudice.

The oaths require secrecy and mutual protection, and service of masonic policies. Though I've taken no oath, I've been threatened with being made a "shrine" on display as I die before an audience of masonics, tortured with burns. I know too much,about gov corruption being masonic, protected in the name of national security.

Freemasonry is but one faction of the conspiracy; one tentacle of the global beast gov. SMOM Knights of Malta, B'nai B'rith (of which ADL is a branch), and all the comasonic lodges. Even islamic nations are ruled by comasonic guilds.

Zechariah 5:2-3 describes a cylinder UFO, then tells of the extermination of looters and them that swear oaths. Christ said "Swear not at all". Ephesians 5:11-12 also. The NWO is the global beast gov predicted.

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org
http://www.ralphepperson.com
http://www.vaticanassassins.org
http://www.leozagami.com

The globalization agenda has resulted in curtailed rights and worse living conditions, as people compete with untarriffed chinese slave labor products, losing jobs and benefits on the way.

For those who deny corruption exists, google the banned tv documentary "Conspiracy of Silence", showing the Las Vegas mafia (P2 Lodgers) child auctions to those with diplomatic immunity or national security immunity.
Google "Franklin Cover Up" by ex senator DeCamp.

The masonic world disorder is slavery and tyranny and corruption.

[kadosh]

Another anti-masonic message from someone who just joined the forum. I guess this was the only reason they joined. Yawn.

[grandsecretary]

I am afraid so kadosh. You know that we are wasting our time here don't you? These morons are helpless and hopeless.

[luciferhorus]

Obviously this forum is masonic controlled propaganda.


No, it is not. The existence of Masons on this forum allows them to defend against criticisms from anti-cultists and against those from competing Christian cults and other brands of religion.

Frankly many of the criticisms against Masonry do not appear to be based upon fact and represent more of a Christian "witch hunt" mentality which seeks to unjustly demonise all competing faiths.

An example of this is the belief that Masons "shape shift" into reptiles, for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Similarly with the accusation that they are covert Communists who seek the economic liberation of humanity, since the evidence clearly indicates that they are generally a Capitalist cult of Capitalists and assorted Anglo-American state terrorist / narco-terrorist collaborators who with very few exceptions are more likely to defend debt slavery / usury / loan sharking and the enslavement of humankind under the International Dictatorship of Capitalism, in common with their cult leader the Field Marshall, the Duke of Kent. Of course frankly I would make the same criticism against most Capitalist Chrisitians and as far as I am concerned the Masons are just another Capitalist Christian "cult" or "gang of Capitalists."

Lux

[kadosh]

I am afraid so kadosh. You know that we are wasting our time here don't you? These morons are helpless and hopeless.
I suspect that is correct.

This explains part of their problem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonry

"The enemies of Freemasonry are the enemies of democracy ....... " - http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/gazzo_antimasonry.html

[lyricusmagna]

No, it is not. The existence of Masons on this forum allows them to defend against criticisms from anti-cultists and against those from competing Christian cults and other brands of religion.

Every single forum that has a "Mystery"/"Conspiracy" section has at least two or three masons constantly spamming the same topics involving masonry. Every single forum that I know of, with such section.

I am afraid so kadosh. You know that we are wasting our time here don't you? These morons are helpless and hopeless.

You know, if it wasn't for the picture, I'd guess you were an angry teenager unable to provide answers, so in emotional response calls the other people morons. But this is even more embarrassing :rolleyes:

[stewart edwards]

"The enemies of Freemasonry are the enemies of democracy ....... "Kadosh there is truth in this statement. However only if the masonic world acts democraticly. Otherwise the enemies of freemasonry may be trying to encourage democracy by rooting out darkness.

Consider the following:-

While I am sure it never happens consider a lodge that uses its position in a community in undemocratic ways. For example if I remember correctly the example once given by a Scots mason on I think tfm some years ago about how in the 1960s to get a job in shipbuilding in his town you got interviewed in lodge. Presumably at the harmony I give you. Hardy a democratic state of affairs from a community perspective. I realise that was then and this is now, and the chap may have been lying or I may be misremembering but it will I am sure be in the archives and is on the public record, but hopefully you see my point.

The masonic world does not operate in isolation, its members are part of the fabric of society. But society has changed. People do now question, stand up, expect, want to do the right thing, or simply have had enough Kadosh. Religious objectors aside obviously.

Rightly or wrongly a lot of people dont like freemasonry because of how undemocratic it appears to be in practice, in the community. You do do many good things Kadosh, but the harsh reality is that large segments of the public has by and large lost faith in you, over issues such as democracy, when you look at it from a community/society perspective.

Simply blaming others does freemasonry no credit. Much better to do exactly what every individual has to do to move forwards, myself included a decade ago remember, and ask "where have I gone wrong?" If you can find the courage to recognise that you have a problem, you will find the solution staring you in the face Kadosh. But until you realise that freemasons blaming and attacking others is not the way forwards, you will not achieve your true potential. It is a simple esoteric truth.

[grandsecretary]

Every single forum that has a "Mystery"/"Conspiracy" section has at least two or three masons constantly spamming the same topics involving masonry. Every single forum that I know of, with such section.



You know, if it wasn't for the picture, I'd guess you were an angry teenager unable to provide answers, so in emotional response calls the other people morons. But this is even more embarrassing :rolleyes:

Not emotional at all, and certainly not embarrassed by you or anyone else. My assessment of you and people like you, the David Icke's Fellow Nutters is a stone cold, well thought out appraisal based upon the idiocies that I have stupidly endured over many months.

My opinion, which I am entitled to hold.

I don't agree with everything that kadosh posts, but in this he is quite right. You cannot be educated because you are blind with prejudices caused by your own failures and your desparation to blame others for your own shortcomings fuelled by the abuse of illegal drugs.

[lyricusmagna]

My assessment of you and people like you, the David Icke's Fellow Nutters is a stone cold, well thought out appraisal based upon the idiocies that I have stupidly endured over many months

The bold: What are you still doing here anyway? Defending your boys club?

[grandsecretary]

The bold: What are you still doing here anyway? Defending your boys club?

Because it annoys bigots and morons like you.

bigot: obstinate and intolerant adherent of creed or view
moron: stupid person

No emotion, a considered evalutation based upon the abusive nature of your postings which are based upon rabid prejudice, a pathological hatred for all that you envy, and probably drug induced paranoia to boot.

[kadosh]

Freemasonry never was, nor ever will be, for everyone.

[grandsecretary]

Amen, Amen, S.M.I.B.

[kadosh]

So say we all for charity.

[agneau]

Yet you say you are an atheist. The definition of "atheist" is "one who does not believe in God". Therefore, if you are an atheist, your definition of God is "something that does not exist". If this is not your definition of God then perhaps you did meet the religious requirements of Freemasonry, and did not lie upon your initiation. But if that was the case, you would not be an atheist.



Not at all. However, Freemasonry, as you know, is not limited to general morality. It has a theology. It accepts only men who put their trust in God. It teaches the immortality of the soul, even in the first degree, when the initiate is presented the apron. Meetings are opened and closed in invocation to the Great Architect of the Universe, and the obligations are assumed in the name, and in the presence, of the Deity.

In the Lecture of the First Degree, it also explained why no avowed atheist can be made a Mason, and the clause concerning this in the obligation of the Third Degree is obvious. Furthermore, each degree Lecture stresses the role of God in Freemasonry, not to even mention the Legend of the Third Degree, or the higher degrees, which are much more theological than even the Blue Degrees.



We aren't talking about church. We're talking about Freemasonry.



Not in Freemasonry. The requirement of belief in God is solid, concrete, pointed out in the Constitutions, and the candidate is even required to make a confession of faith during the initiation. If you do not believe in God, how did you proclaim that your trust was in God without lying? When you knelt at the altar and invoked the blessing of Deity, did you think it was only a joke?

Not in Freemasonry. The requirement of belief in God is solid, concrete, pointed out in the Constitutions, and the candidate is even required to make a confession of faith during the initiation. If you do not believe in God, how did you proclaim that your trust was in God without lying? When you knelt at the altar and invoked the blessing of Deity, did you think it was only a joke?[/QUOTE]


Unfortunately, you suffer from the same narrow view common to all theists; that ‘god’ can only mean ‘god’ as you understand the term. I do not believe in the ‘god’ of any theist.

That there can exist a meaning, to an atheist, of the word ‘god’ (or the words ‘supreme being’) that does NOT have a theistic interpretation is something that you (as in you in the broader sense of theists) seem unable to grasp.

Please believe that I do not mean that insultingly or in any way rudely; I think it is just the way that theists must, or are conditioned to, think.

However, once this is understood, then your arguments above necessarily fail.

The defining word in the avowals you place so much emphasis on is ‘’faith’ – although I would contend that it more a ‘belief’ or ‘place your trust in’ issue. But in any event I broadly agree with you; one must have a belief in god – aka a supreme being - in order to become a Freemason.

I do have that belief. What I do not have is a belief in any of your theistic gods.

[decim]

The 'ministry of justus' administers 'issues' in the use of 'Words'?..

What a bunch of Bacon dodging pedants, you sociopaths are..

Cue the 'Ministry of Funny Walks'...thanks for the laughs, you are a Card-osh..


Issues relating to the use of the word "Royal" are administered by the Ministry of Justice. Please contact the Constitutional Settlement Division whose details can be found at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/royal-and-constitutional.htm.

[lyricusmagna]

Freemasonry never was, nor ever will be, for everyone.

Yeah, its a proven fact. Even on this forum :rolleyes:.

[thelonious]

Unfortunately, you suffer from the same narrow view common to all theists; that ‘god’ can only mean ‘god’ as you understand the term. I do not believe in the ‘god’ of any theist.

You do not know what my view of God is, and therefore are clueless whether or not it is "narrow". Your problem is, as an atheist, you don't believe in ANY view of God. That's what the word "atheist" means.

Now if I'm wrong, and you do believe in some sort of concept of God, then fine: but that would also mean you're not really an atheist.

That there can exist a meaning, to an atheist, of the word ‘god’ (or the words ‘supreme being’) that does NOT have a theistic interpretation is something that you (as in you in the broader sense of theists) seem unable to grasp.

I can't grasp it because your assertion is absurd. "Theo" literally means "God". There's no such thing as a non-theistic concept of God.

Please believe that I do not mean that insultingly or in any way rudely; I think it is just the way that theists must, or are conditioned to, think.

I'm conditioned to understand what words actually mean before I use them. You saying that you have non-theistic view of God is similar to me saying I have a non-agneauist view of agneau. Such a statement is meaningless.


But in any event I broadly agree with you; one must have a belief in god – aka a supreme being - in order to become a Freemason.

I do have that belief. What I do not have is a belief in any of your theistic gods.

Then you obviously contradict yourself.

[decim]

Demockracy? Run by you lot...with controlled thoughts & actions of 'A' supreme being that you have sold yourselves over to...

You is ra 3lights really do have delusions of grandeur..

Busy busy little B's....problem is you let the Giant Whorenets into the HI5...and you know what happens then..

30 hornets vs. 30,000 bees - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M

A paper addressed to non-masons - http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/rawal.html

"In order to agree to the fatherhood of God, one must agree that there is one Supreme Being controlling our thoughts and actions. It is this philosophy that makes it a prerequisite that Masons have a firm belief in the Supreme Being. "

I suspect that is correct.

This explains part of their problem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonry

"The enemies of Freemasonry are the enemies of democracy ....... " - http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/gazzo_antimasonry.html

[agneau]

You do not know what my view of God is, and therefore are clueless whether or not it is "narrow". Your problem is, as an atheist, you don't believe in ANY view of God. That's what the word "atheist" means.

Now if I'm wrong, and you do believe in some sort of concept of God, then fine: but that would also mean you're not really an atheist.



I can't grasp it because your assertion is absurd. "Theo" literally means "God". There's no such thing as a non-theistic concept of God.



I'm conditioned to understand what words actually mean before I use them. You saying that you have non-theistic view of God is similar to me saying I have a non-agneauist view of agneau. Such a statement is meaningless.




Then you obviously contradict yourself.

I am sorry if I have upset you; that truly was not my intention, and you are obviously annoyed by my comments. I was simply trying to explain why we must always disagree. I never made claim to know what your view of god is other than a theistic view – and again we come back to a narrow interpretation of what god can mean. To you it can ONLY mean the accepted theistic definition. To me it means something totally different.

The word god is not the preserve of theists – even dictionary definitons acknowledge this: ‘money was their god’ does not mean that they believed that money was ‘A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions’.

But perhaps that’s a flippant way of explaining my view so let me try again: take the capitalisation off of ‘God’ and reduce it to ‘god’. You are right that there can be no such thing as a non-theistic concept of ‘God’, but there can be such a thing as a non-theistic concept of ‘god’.

I believe in god, in a supreme being. In simplistic terms that supreme being is man himself in his idealistic state – that which we attain to be. In other words, it is an aspiration, a dream, or a hope. That is what I believe in and what I call god. It has no material substance and does not exist and is not a deity.

[grandsecretary]

agneau, I suspect you either do not understand what a sacred oath is, or you are not willing to face the truth.

A sacred oath requires a promise, calling upon God both as the witness to that promise and the punisher if that promise is broken.

With a sacred oath it is the loss of your immortal soul, something that no truly religious man would contemplate.

On your interpretation of God, what is the punishment, and what is so sacred that the punishment for breaking your word has a similar serious consequence?

sacred: connected with religion; dedicated or appropriated to a god or to some person or purpose; safeguarded or required by religion or tradition etc. (SOURCE: Oxford English Dictionary)

Question: In Whom do you put your trust?
Answer: In God. (capital G)

[agneau]

[QUOTE=grandsecretary;1059246626]agneau, I suspect you either do not understand what a sacred oath is, or you are not willing to face the truth.

A sacred oath requires a promise, calling upon God both as the witness to that promise and the punisher if that promise is broken.

With a sacred oath it is the loss of your immortal soul, something that no truly religious man would contemplate.

QUOTE]

What sacred oath would that be?

[thelonious]

I am sorry if I have upset you

You have not upset me, friend. My purpose was only to explain that there cannot be, by definition, a non-theistic concept of God.

I was simply trying to explain why we must always disagree.

There is nothing wrong with disagreement. I have absolutely no problem with someone being an atheist; that is certainly his right to be so. But obviously, an atheist cannot say he does not believe in God, and then turn right around and say that he does, and that he puts his trust in God. Such a thing is paradoxical.

I never made claim to know what your view of god is other than a theistic view – and again we come back to a narrow interpretation of what god can mean. To you it can ONLY mean the accepted theistic definition. To me it means something totally different.

All views of God are theistic. That's what "theism" means, a view or belief in God. Christianity is theistic. So is Hinduism, Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism, etc. Atheism, however, literally means "no God".

The word god is not the preserve of theists – even dictionary definitons acknowledge this: ‘money was their god’ does not mean that they believed that money was ‘A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions’.

This is why Masonry also uses the terms "Supreme Being" and "Great Architect of the Universe". So there is no misunderstanding.


I believe in god, in a supreme being.

Then you are, by definition, not an atheist.

In simplistic terms that supreme being is man himself in his idealistic state – that which we attain to be. In other words, it is an aspiration, a dream, or a hope. That is what I believe in and what I call god. It has no material substance and does not exist and is not a deity.

If it does not exist and is not a deity, then it is neither a god nor a supreme being. How can something that does not exist be supreme to things that do?

[grandsecretary]

[QUOTE=grandsecretary;1059246626]agneau, I suspect you either do not understand what a sacred oath is, or you are not willing to face the truth.

A sacred oath requires a promise, calling upon God both as the witness to that promise and the punisher if that promise is broken.

With a sacred oath it is the loss of your immortal soul, something that no truly religious man would contemplate.

QUOTE]

What sacred oath would that be?

Read your ritual. "So help me God (capital G) and keep me steadfast in this my sacred and solemn oath or obligation etc."

Q. In Whom (capital W) do you put your trust?
A. In God. (Capital G)

For these and all Thy mercies given
We bless and praise Thy Name (capital N), O Lord;
May we receive them with thanksgiving,
Ever trusting in Thy word;
To Thee alone be honour, glory,
Now and henceforth for evermore.

As a Freemason, I recommend to your most serious contemplation the Volume of the Sacred Law; charging you to consider it as the unerring standard of truth and justice and to regulate your actions by the divine precepts it contains. Therein you will be taught the important duties you owe to God (capital G), to your neighbour, and to yourself.

To GOD: by never mentioning His (capital H) name but with that awe and reverence which are due from the creature to his Creator (capital C); by imploring His aid on all your lawful undertakings; and by looking up to Him in every emergency for comfort and support.

divine: of from or like God; (SOURCE: Oxford English Dictionary)

Ring any bells?

[thelonious]

Peter, one thing that hasn't crossed my mind until now:

I don't remember agneau stating under which obedience he holds membership. If it is one of the lodges in accord with the Grand Orient of France, there are no allusions to the Deity in their ritual and catechism, as you probably already know.

[grandsecretary]

You may be right, in which case I cannot understand why he doesn't make that clear, in which case he will be asked to complete this sentence: A Freemason IS...

By asking, I am not getting at anyone, I am merely trying to demonstrate to the non-Masons here that there are several very different and unconnected strains of Freemasonry.

Most of them have a legitimate position to express, but IMHO with the proviso that if they do not know what a Freemason IS, then how can they expect members of the DI forum to know?

[decim]

Expectations of the DI Forum, great...IS a masonFree...or knot two free...yn th Ark Hives..they Noah lott moor than iz lea beth nicht...Da da da, uhuh...Da da da...uhuh...uhuh

There is no vice, that doth so cover a man with shame, as to be found false and perfidious. And therefore Montaigne saith prettily, when he inquired the reason, why the word of the lie should be such a disgrace, and such an odious charge?

Saith he, If it be well weighed, to say that a man lieth, is as much to say, as that he is brave towards God, and a coward towards men.

For a lie faces God, and shrinks from man.

Surely the wickedness of falsehood, and breach of faith, cannot possibly be so highly expressed, as in that it shall be the last peal, to call the judgments of God upon the generations of men; it being foretold, that when Christ cometh, he shall not find faith upon the earth.Smoked Brightish Bacon

A musical interlude now follows for those vexed valets of venality & longed for viscitude...

What do you know?

The birds and the bees they're all wise to the lies
So they took to the trees and took to the skies
On top of the chain and safe from the rain
Whatcha' know about the ways of the underside?

What do you know?

Bought a hot shot gat from a north end guinea
'Cause they're hip to the bull and hip to the lies
Ante up with your ass 'cause you ain't got a penny
Whatcha' know about the ways on the underside?

The Mission (M is for Milla mix) - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrQOBcFfEj0

[psquared]

That's weird...in my version of Freemasonry we do not discuss our Obligations in public Peter.

[grandsecretary]

That's weird...in my version of Freemasonry we do not discuss our Obligations in public Peter.

Not my version of Free Masonrie and they are in the public domain. Anyone can buy the books of ritual from any masonic bookshop. No checks are made or questions asked. Or they may be read, in full, on the internet.

I thought you said that your only secrets were the modes of recognition?

[psquared]

Not my version of Free Masonrie and they are in the public domain. Anyone can buy the books of ritual from any masonic bookshop. No checks are made or questions asked. Or they may be read, in full, on the internet.

I thought you said that your only secrets were the modes of recognition?Just because it can be bought does not mean it is to be discussed either, let them buy them. Secondly even though it is not your version, I can assure you this SIR...If I were initiated into your version and took an oath and decided thatyour version no longer suited me and I joined the moderns I would still hold my word to you. Out of respect. Secrets are the secrets...the modes. But you know the rest as well. Obviously you are free to do what you like.

[psquared]

Besides that Peter, you know what I mean. I understand you have no affiliation or respect for the UGLE or any Modern form of Freemasonry..but you still took an obligation none the less. Carry on though...I am sure you will anyway.

You never answered my previous question earlier in this thread about speaking on behalf of the GLOE by the way.

[grandsecretary]

Just because it can be bought does not mean it is to be discussed either, let them buy them. Secondly even though it is not your version, I can assure you this SIR...If I were initiated into your version and took an oath and decided thatyour version no longer suited me and I joined the moderns I would still hold my word to you. Out of respect. Secrets are the secrets...the modes. But you know the rest as well. Obviously you are free to do what you like.

As I have said meny times I did not decide that it did not suit me. It was far more fundamental than that, as you know, because we have discussed it before.

So the rituals are also secret ... are they? If so, why does the United Grand Lodge of England allow Toye, Kenning and Spencer to print them willy nilly and the sell them to anybody, male or female, who walks in off the street? Do you criticise them too?

[psquared]

As I have said meny times I did not decide that it did not suit me. It was far more fundamental than that, as you know, because we have discussed it before.

So the rituals are also secret ... are they? If so, why does the United Grand Lodge of England allow Toye, Kenning and Spencer to print them willy nilly and the sell them to anybody, male or female, who walks in off the street? Do you criticise them too?

I know my obligation . Maybe I interpret a little more seriously. I know it word for word and follow it as closely as I can. I cannot speak for any other Mason or what he or his GL chooses to do...I know what I have obligated myself to. To me...the key words are there ANY being one of them. So yes as I see it, and was taught the rituals are private to the lodge and the initiated brothers..not that they are necessarily "secret" ( as they are not) but that I feel it makes the initiations even better...that people going in do not know the words ahead of time. Personally< i will not reveal them.

All I am saying is that regarless of what you left for you as a MAN gav your word...I take that seriously. Even if another doesn't. Maybe the UGLE didn't keep its word to you , but your word Peter is still yours.

[psquared]

Not necessarily critcizing you ..just found it strange. I was taught differently.

[stopthemadness]

If you guys are done arguing the secrets of your He-Man-Woman_Hater's-Club can we get back to discussing who/what exactly are the Masons?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RB2EBocHk_I/Svd0Bjbw8lI/AAAAAAAAAok/xyIGBvQxs0o/s400/he-man-woman-haters-club.jpg

[psquared]

If you guys are done arguing the secrets of your He-Man-Woman_Hater's-Club can we get back to discussing who/what exactly are the Masons?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RB2EBocHk_I/Svd0Bjbw8lI/AAAAAAAAAok/xyIGBvQxs0o/s400/he-man-woman-haters-club.jpg

It depends who you ask...on this site...there is no acceptable or agreed upon answer to those questions. Some say we are a cult..like David Icke runs here.
Some say we are child molesting, illuminati, capitalist devil,reptilian, baby raping, devil worshiping bunch of sickos...(most of the people who think that are members of the Icke Cult).

Me, I am a Mason. I am also a Golf Professional in the US. I have a beautiful wife and two kids. I believe in God but NEVER go to church (another cult). I work six days a week and have never been a reptilian, baby raper, child molestor, or devil worshiper. I am a regular guy who likes the fraternal bonds that Freemasonry offers me. Most of the people who hate Freemasons on here, if they met me, would probably like me. I am a regular guy (who just happens to be an incredible golfer and am fortunate to make my living ai something I love).

That's my answer. Flame away!

[stopthemadness]

Me, I am a Mason. I am also a Golf Professional in the US. I have a beautiful wife and two kids.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kugbfrD2JR1qa01abo1_500.jpg


Hey Tiger, I've heard that cucumbers & raw steaks can help. Those white women are crazy when they get mad aren't they.

Also, what's up with the whole destroying-the-US-and_Europe thing? If you guys weren't doing stuff like that, then there wouldn't be Icke's out there exposing you. The Masons don't exactly poop ice cream sundaes.

And yes, Masons are Luciferians. Manly Hall, Pike, Bailey, Blavatsky and dozens of others have already shown that.

I'm not judging you on that. In fact, I find it odd that a clearly Jewish institution such as the Masons would go against Yahweh in supporting the other team. It must have to do with the dualistic Kabbalah stuff.

Masonry could make a fantastic world order. But instead they focus on crushing humanity into slavery via wars, economic manipulations, engineered famines, and imperialism under the disguise of "spreading democracy" and the "War on Terror."

What we need are the old-school Masons like George Washington. He would have NEVER allowed 911, or the subsequent illegal wars waged using it as an excuse. He would have NEVER allowed the fascist Patriot Act. He would have NEVER allowed the terrorist state of Israel to dictate our policies. And he certainly would have NEVER deliberately destroyed the U.S. via illegal immigration, unjust taxation, and economic manipulation.

[grandsecretary]

Besides that Peter, you know what I mean. I understand you have no affiliation or respect for the UGLE or any Modern form of Freemasonry..but you still took an obligation none the less. Carry on though...I am sure you will anyway.

You never answered my previous question earlier in this thread about speaking on behalf of the GLOE by the way.

That is NOT true. What I do not respect is the false claim by the United Grand Lodge of England on behalf of all of its satellite Grand Lodges to be the sole arbiter of Masonic regularity throughout the entire world which is based on a gratuitous falsehood.

I must have missed your previous question. As you know I try to answer all questions so I will look it up and get back to you.

By the way the rituals of the United Grand Lodge of England are NOT considered to be secret by the United Grand Lodge of England and they have repeatedly stated that the ONLY secrets are their modes of recognition. I have not referred to modes of recognition in conversations with agneau.

I will answer your question, but I note that you have not answered mine.

Do you approve of rituals being sold by Toye, Kenning and Spencer (and Masonic retailers in the United States of America) to anyone, male or female, who simply walk in to their shops off the street with no questions asked?

[grandsecretary]

GS...how is it that you can speak officially for your GL? I noticed it inyour disclaimer, or statement of fact, at the bottom of your sig.

I know no one speaks for Freemasonry exclusively in the US. Just curious?
Maybe I misunderstand, but are you the be all end all of the GLOE?

Because I am the Grand Secretary of The Grand Lodge of all England. The Grand Master Mason and The Grand Chancellor are also authorised to speak on behalf of The Grand Lodge and have done so on many occasions, but not on the David Icke Forum which has been allocated to me.

Our Fellows are forbidden to reveal themselves as Free Masons outside of the Grand Lodge and it is also against our rules for one Free Mason to reveal, name or even describe another Free Mason without being in possession of written permission from the Grand Master Mason. They are also forbidden to advertise their Free Masonrie including but not exclusively by wearing or using badges, stickers, rings or any other jewelry.

Any premises used or owned by the Grand Lodge does not display any public signs or notices.

I hope that this is clear and I apologise for missing your question earlier.

[stopthemadness]

Where's the guy with the Not This Shit Again avatar?

Zionists run the Freemasons. Maybe they didn't in the past. But they do now. And Zionists pulled off 911, started two illegal wars in the Middle East, and are destroying the American Middle Class via the unconstitutional Federal Reserve & its associated economic manipulations.

So, as a non-Mason, that's all I care to know about the "Brotherhood."

Actions speak louder than words. While all the pie-eyed idealistic Masons were out marching in parades, the dark ones were busy destroying the world behind their backs.

Zionism=Masonry=Black Nobility=New World Fascism

And until the "renegade" Masons take back their institution that equation is going to remain valid.

[grandsecretary]

Where's the guy with the Not This Shit Again avatar?

Zionists run the Freemasons. Maybe they didn't in the past. But they do now. And Zionists pulled off 911, started two illegal wars in the Middle East, and are destroying the American Middle Class via the unconstitutional Federal Reserve & its associated economic manipulations.

So, as a non-Mason, that's all I care to know about the "Brotherhood."

Actions speak louder than words. While all the pie-eyed idealistic Masons were out marching in parades, the dark ones were busy destroying the world behind their backs.

Zionism=Masonry=Black Nobility=New World Fascism

And until the "renegade" Masons take back their institution that equation is going to remain valid.

You are mistaken as far as The Grand Lodge of All England is concerned. I do not speak on behalf of the Grand Lodge on this issue but I have been crystal clear about my views.

I am opposed to the State of Israel which is an apartheid regime and I have stated on this forum many times that I support the policy of the Palestine Liberation Organisation: a single federal state with power sharing and an open Jerusalem available to all Jews, Muslims and Christians with each community taking turns to appoint a Mayor to govern Jerusalem in a similar manner that the Pope governs the Vatican State, for a period of 3 to 5 years.

A two state solution is asking for trouble and it will not work.

Over the years I have demonstrated on the streets of London in support of the PLO and when I was actively involved in politics I spoke out against Zionism. I am opposed to prejudice in all of its forms.

Other Freemasons on this forum must speak for themselves, as I am sure they will.

[stopthemadness]

Then you are the rare exception. Perhaps you should try to organize more of your fellow Masons and take back the tarnished name of your organization.

For a non-Mason like myself all I can see, everywhere, is the relentless jackbooted march of globalization at the hands of Zionists.

And for whatever reason these same Zionists are quite often Freemasons. Are the Zionists using it as a smokescreen? Undoubtedly so, at least in the U.S. The whole separate lodge, B'nai B'rith, being the most glaring example of this subversion.

So as independent humans, how do you expect us to react? Masons have lost control of Masonry. It is now just another tentacle of the Zionist octopus. Washington and his fellow Masonic Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their fraternal graves.

[kadosh]

The author, researcher and member of Quatuor Coronati Lodge of London, Robert Cooper, the Curator of the library of the Grand Lodge of Scotland has this to say on the subject of conspiracies surround Freemasonry:

"I strongly suspect it’s our fault. People asked us questions and we didn’t answer because it wasn’t their business. That is no longer sustainable but you can see the problems it’s caused. Because we didn’t respond 100 years ago to these allegations there has been 100 years of belief that we’re hiding something, no matter how open we are now."

[stewart edwards]

Do you approve of rituals being sold by Toye, Kenning and Spencer (and Masonic retailers in the United States of America) to anyone, male or female, who simply walk in to their shops off the street with no questions asked?The shop in UGLE itself will even offer to sell you a copy of the ritual without you asking for it. Once when (I think) I was buying "Way of the Craftsman" byMacNulty there I got talking to a staff member and he did offer to sell me a copy. I declined. I just think that it is wrong. Daft as that may sound to some.

[grandsecretary]

Then you are the rare exception. Perhaps you should try to organize more of your fellow Masons and take back the tarnished name of your organization.

For a non-Mason like myself all I can see, everywhere, is the relentless jackbooted march of globalization at the hands of Zionists.

And for whatever reason these same Zionists are quite often Freemasons. Are the Zionists using it as a smokescreen? Undoubtedly so, at least in the U.S. The whole separate lodge, B'nai B'rith, being the most glaring example of this subversion.

So as independent humans, how do you expect us to react? Masons have lost control of Masonry. It is now just another tentacle of the Zionist octopus. Washington and his fellow Masonic Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their fraternal graves.

My Grand Lodge does discuss politics and I have a certain amount of influence on our Fellows in this matter. A formal statement of Grand Lodge policy on this issue is due later this year.

The Moderns system does not allow political discussion. Indeed it was founded on that principle. I don't agree with it, but I have no say in how the Moderns system organises itself or in its day to day affairs.

The Grand Orients of France and Italy do make their position clear on these political issues as well.

So, it would be a big mistake to suggest that Freemasonry per se is in favour of Zionism. No doubt a significant number of Jewish Freemasons are in favour, but not all. I am afraid that you may be expressing a prejudiced view based upon rumour and innuendo.

[grandsecretary]

The shop in UGLE itself will even offer to sell you a copy of the ritual without you asking for it. Once when (I think) I was buying "Way of the Craftsman" byMacNulty there I got talking to a staff member and he did offer to sell me a copy. I declined. I just think that it is wrong. Daft as that may sound to some.

Well it does happen and it has been happening for decades. Indeed, the sales of ritual books are seen as a major source of revenue for the United Grand Lodge of England and the many other retail businesses that rely upon the sale of books. Indeed the copyright in most of the craft rituals is in the hands of a private company, Toye, Kenning and Spencer and not the Grand Lodge itself. Yet I have been criticised here, but not them.

The fact of the matter is that almost all of the rituals of the Moderns system are in the public domain and freely available to any interested member of the general public. Additionally the United Grand Lodge of England and its satellite Grand Lodges state quite clearly that their ONLY secrets are the modes of recognition (the signs, tokens and passwords).

[psquared]

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kugbfrD2JR1qa01abo1_500.jpg


Hey Tiger, I've heard that cucumbers & raw steaks can help. Those white women are crazy when they get mad aren't they.

Also, what's up with the whole destroying-the-US-and_Europe thing? If you guys weren't doing stuff like that, then there wouldn't be Icke's out there exposing you. The Masons don't exactly poop ice cream sundaes.

And yes, Masons are Luciferians. Manly Hall, Pike, Bailey, Blavatsky and dozens of others have already shown that.

I'm not judging you on that. In fact, I find it odd that a clearly Jewish institution such as the Masons would go against Yahweh in supporting the other team. It must have to do with the dualistic Kabbalah stuff.

Masonry could make a fantastic world order. But instead they focus on crushing humanity into slavery via wars, economic manipulations, engineered famines, and imperialism under the disguise of "spreading democracy" and the "War on Terror."

What we need are the old-school Masons like George Washington. He would have NEVER allowed 911, or the subsequent illegal wars waged using it as an excuse. He would have NEVER allowed the fascist Patriot Act. He would have NEVER allowed the terrorist state of Israel to dictate our policies. And he certainly would have NEVER deliberately destroyed the U.S. via illegal immigration, unjust taxation, and economic manipulation. LOL..no. not a Tiger Woods.

I Your last paragraph I agree with.

[psquared]

That is NOT true. What I do not respect is the false claim by the United Grand Lodge of England on behalf of all of its satellite Grand Lodges to be the sole arbiter of Masonic regularity throughout the entire world which is based on a gratuitous falsehood.

I must have missed your previous question. As you know I try to answer all questions so I will look it up and get back to you.

By the way the rituals of the United Grand Lodge of England are NOT considered to be secret by the United Grand Lodge of England and they have repeatedly stated that the ONLY secrets are their modes of recognition. I have not referred to modes of recognition in conversations with agneau.

I will answer your question, but I note that you have not answered mine.

Do you approve of rituals being sold by Toye, Kenning and Spencer (and Masonic retailers in the United States of America) to anyone, male or female, who simply walk in to their shops off the street with no questions asked?

I am aware of your feelings towards UGLE, you have explained them to me before.

Again, I know that the rituals are not secret. I thought I explained that I look at my obligation word for word and take it as such. If the UGLE sees that differently and wishes to sell the ritual..then that is their obligation issue, not mine. I see it differently, it should not be mentioned. That's MY opinion, based on MY obligation as I see it personally. I would argure that I am correct, but certainly not here.

[decim]

In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts
I'm afraid these don't grow on trees,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two.

More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/o/oliver/#share

http://londonparticulars.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/ron_moody_as_fagin1.jpg

the UGLE sees that differently and wishes to sell the ritual...

[psquared]

In my GL..NOTHING is in writing to be sold in the first place. So maybe that is why I disagree.

[grandsecretary]

In my GL..NOTHING is in writing to be sold in the first place. So maybe that is why I disagree.

Oh I disagree too. It's the same with us. Which Grand Lodge would that be?

[psquared]

Oh I disagree too. It's the same with us. Which Grand Lodge would that be?

I am in Georgia. All of our learning is mouth to ear..no cyphers. it is challenging, but I believe that's how it should be. Again, not necessarily criticizing, I suppose everyone has a 'right' (for lack of a better term) to view their obligation differently. I view mine to mean that the ritual is included in what I should not discuss with anyone whom I know not to be a brother. Not saying I am correct, just how I choose to do it.

[grandsecretary]

Is that The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Georgia or the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Georgia?

[psquared]

Is that The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Georgia or the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Georgia?

Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Georgia

[grandsecretary]

Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Georgia

The Grand Lodge of Georgia Masonic Principles

"Freemasonry is a charitable, benevolent, educational and religious society ..." (first sentence)

"It is religious in that it teaches monotheism; the Volume of the Sacred Law is open upon its altars whenever a Lodge is in session; reverence for God is ever present in its ceremonial, and to its brethren are constantly addressed lessons of morality; yet it is not sectarian or theological." (paragraph 5)

(SOURCE: current website of The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Georgia)

I am sorry but I cannot debate with those who seek to deceive in this way.

[luciferhorus]

"It is religious in that it teaches monotheism; the Volume of the Sacred Law is open upon its altars whenever a Lodge is in session; reverence for God is ever present in its ceremonial, and to its brethren are constantly addressed lessons of morality; yet it is not sectarian or theological."



"Sect" and Sectarian.

A "sect" like a "section" of a cake is a "piece" of the whole.

In Christianity there are many "sects."

Masonry is clearly one of many Christian sects.

Some sects also "claim" to be non-sectarian, but they are still sects. For example one may join a certain sect and the masters of the sect may welcome persons of all other sects and not care if they are also members of other sects.

It seems that the UGLE sect does not permit it's members to join certain "irregular" Masonic lodges, and thus cannot make the claim that it is open to all faiths and sects; never the less even if UGLE Masons were allowed to join GS's new sect, UGLE woud still be a Christian sect.

These arguments between the UGLE Masons and irregular Masons are very much like the arguments between the Roman Catholic Church cultists and cultists who are members of Catholic churches which are unrecognised by Rome. It just seems to be the age old "my religion is better than yours" argument, rather than an attack on all organised religion itself, which is an important revolutionary act upon which the salvation of humankind is dependent.

Lux

[grandsecretary]

"Sect" and Sectarian.

A "sect" like a "section" of a cake is a "piece" of the whole.

In Christianity there are many "sects."

Masonry is clearly one of many Christian sects.

Some sects also "claim" to be non-sectarian, but they are still sects. For example one may join a certain sect and the masters of the sect may welcome persons of all other sects and not care if they are also members of other sects.

It seems that the UGLE sect does not permit it's members to join certain "irregular" Masonic lodges, and thus cannot make the claim that it is open to all faiths and sects; never the less even if UGLE Masons were allowed to join GS's new sect, UGLE woud still be a Christian sect.

These arguments between the UGLE Masons and irregular Masons are very much like the arguments between the Roman Catholic Church cultists and cultists who are members of Catholic churches which are unrecognised by Rome. It just seems to be the age old "my religion is better than yours" argument, rather than an attack on all organised religion itself, which is an important revolutionary act upon which the salvation of humankind is dependent.

Lux

Free Masonrie is NOT a Christian sect. We have Fellows who are Christians, Jews and Muslims. Free Masonrie pre-dates Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It is the fount of all of these religions.

I have told you many times and I will not allow you to tell your lies here so that you can spread your cancerous philosophy.

Revolutionary Propaganda (education) is the first stage of Revolutionary War. (SOURCE: luciferhorus, David Icke Forum, Illuminati/Secret Societies, Freemason/law enforcement connection, post #17

A self confessed liar. We know what you are up to. You are fooling nobody but your grubby self.

[kadosh]

The Ancient Landmarks of the Order - http://www.camberleylodge.org.uk/ANCIENT%20LANDMARKS%20Lecture%20Issue%201.pdf - A more cynical comment is made by Robert Freke Gould:
"Of the ancient landmarks it has been observed with more or less foundation of truth:
'Nobody knows what they comprise or omit as they are of no earthly authority, because everything is a landmark when an opponent desires to silence you; but
nothing is a landmark that stands in his own way.”

[grandsecretary]

Come off it kadosh ...

These are not the Ancient Landmarks of a Free Mason at all. They are the ones made up by Desaguliers and his successors FOR The United Grand Lodge of England. What Albert Pike called "the newcomers to Masonry".

The immoveable and unchangeable Ancient Landmarks date from many hundreds of years before 1717 or 1723 or 1738 or whatever.

The first of these, and the most important is that a Free Mason MUST have a sincere belief in God and the immortality of the soul.

This immoveable and unchangeable Landmark is implicit in ALL of the written and oral Ancient Masonic teachings and manuscripts. The first extant manuscript copy dates from the early 15th century and merely repeats the Landmarks in all of the previous manuscripts dating back to 11th August AD 926. This AD 926 manuscripot refers to the Landmarks many hundreds of years prior to it.

You might wish to ignore them, but Free Masons themselves ignore them at their peril. They are the road map for Freemasonry.

What of Masonry? I believe that as membership continues to fall and costs continue to rise there is every possibility that masonry will once again become the preserve of the better off ... " (SOURCE: Richard Gan, Editor of The Square Magazine, September 2010)

He gives membership figures in this article to show a 60% reduction in membership over the past 12 years! Now, he forecasts contining losses. He knows the figures, as you do. Catastrophic.

More of the same will not do kadosh. Rome is burning.

[luciferhorus]

Free Masonrie is NOT a Christian sect. .

I note that according to Ed King, "Free Masonrie" is a term you have only started to use of late as a reference to your own possibly defunct cult (since your profits from religious cultism seems to be insufficient to even maintain your cult's internet site) which was allegedly founded by a few drunks in a pub in 2005 and which claims to have an ancient legacy which includes Druids, Catholics, the ancient Israelites and even Noah (who was not alive in 2005 by the way).

I was referring to Freemasonry, which while it may admit non-Christians, they are excluded from the higher degrees of the Christian knight's Templars. It is thus ultimately one of numerous Christian sects.

If your own little cult or former cult is entirely non-Christian, that is of very little interest to the study of Free Masonry as a subsection of the "Study of Religion."

Lux

[grandsecretary]

One lonely propagandist quoting another. Here in England crutches are supplied for free on the National Health Service.

[decim]

How many hundred's of years before 926AD?

Come off it kadosh ...

These are not the Ancient Landmarks of a Free Mason at all. They are the ones made up by Desaguliers and his successors FOR The United Grand Lodge of England. What Albert Pike called "the newcomers to Masonry".

The immoveable and unchangeable Ancient Landmarks date from many hundreds of years before 1717 or 1723 or 1738 or whatever.

The first of these, and the most important is that a Free Mason MUST have a sincere belief in God and the immortality of the soul.

This immoveable and unchangeable Landmark is implicit in ALL of the written and oral Ancient Masonic teachings and manuscripts. The first extant manuscript copy dates from the early 15th century and merely repeats the Landmarks in all of the previous manuscripts dating back to 11th August AD 926. This AD 926 manuscripot refers to the Landmarks many hundreds of years prior to it.

You might wish to ignore them, but Free Masons themselves ignore them at their peril. They are the road map for Freemasonry.



He gives membership figures in this article to show a 60% reduction in membership over the past 12 years! Now, he forecasts contining losses. He knows the figures, as you do. Catastrophic.

More of the same will not do kadosh. Rome is burning.

[grandsecretary]

The first manuscript refers to the times of Noah and the Great Flood.

It is known as "time immemorial" because it is so old that it cannot be dated. It is beyond memory ... that old.

Compared to that, 1717 is yesterday evening.

[luciferhorus]

One lonely propagandist quoting another. Here in England crutches are supplied for free on the National Health Service.

Well on this forum the subject is "secret societies" which frankly I don't think really necessarily includes your cult, which according to Ed King has only ever had three persons associate with it, and is one of numerous Masonic sects and denominations.

However it is of some intrest with regards to how new sects appear to challenge established sects and the new sects claim to have an ancient legacy.

With regards to the farcical debates between yourself and the UGLE sect members here, I find it all very amusing and I hae done everything I possibly can to encourage this comical sectarian fighting, which is really almost as good as "Life of Brian."

I do not wish in any way to take sides in the matter, since I am on neither side, however I do think it might be time to update my GLAE post here with Ed King's latest comments;just for the sake of encouraging infighting.

How many hundred's of years before 926AD?

Both the Grand Secretary's sect and the UGLE sect both claim an ancient heritage going back to "Noah." The earliest possible date for global flooding after the last ice age is somewhere around 11,000 BC approxmately. However any bunch of drunks in a pub can start a cult relgion and claim to be carrying on the legacy of Noah, who was apparently insane enough to believe that he could fit 10,000 animal species and 30,000 insect species (all in pairs) onto a wooden boat and keep them alive for 10 months.

Lux

[decim]

Is there no specific time/date reference or number of years?

An personal estimate of the flood date?

The first manuscript refers to the times of Noah and the Great Flood.

It is known as "time immemorial" because it is so old that it cannot be dated. It is beyond memory ... that old.

Compared to that, 1717 is yesterday evening.

[grandsecretary]

Our system of Free Masonrie is pre-Davidic. The Inner Temple claims to have been in continuous existence for over 2,000 years. That is the best I can do.

The Great Flood is mythical. It has its place in history but it cannot be accurately reported or dated.

[decim]

Yes I know that, they play polytricks...they forget the toc's, with the constant Tic, Tac, Toe..

If GS or his current org, is in possession of Ancient documentation it might have a date for 'The flood'.

The 'Ark', is a story that has always intrigued me & leads you down some interesting research routes.
If in the time of Knower they had DNAAND technology then the feat of encapsulating a humongous amount of species would not be implausible. It would also tie in with the Oannes 'legend/myth'..

A pre flood 'high' civilization...is a plausible possibility I am willing to entertain...also the possibility of it occurring again...

NoahaoN - Sounds suspiciously like New Aeon..don't you think?

All is veiled in allegory, where 'mystery's' are concerned..


Both the Grand Secretary's sect and the UGLE sect both claim an ancient heritage going back to "Noah." The earliest possible date for global flooding after the last ice age is somewhere around 11,000 BC approxmately. However any bunch of drunks in a pub can start a cult relgion and claim to be carrying on the legacy of Noah, who was apparently insane enough to believe that he could fit 10,000 animal species and 30,000 insect species (all in pairs) onto a wooden boat and keep them alive for 10 months.

Lux

[grandsecretary]

Well on this forum the subject is "secret societies" which frankly I don't think really necessarily includes your cult, which according to Ed King has only ever had three persons associate with it, and is one of numerous Masonic sects and denominations.

However it is of some intrest with regards to how new sects appear to challenge established sects and the new sects claim to have an ancient legacy.

With regards to the farcical debates between yourself and the UGLE sect members here, I find it all very amusing and I hae done everything I possibly can to encourage this comical sectarian fighting, which is really almost as good as "Life of Brian."

I do not wish in any way to take sides in the matter, since I am on neither side, however I do think it might be time to update my GLAE post here with Ed King's latest comments;just for the sake of encouraging infighting.



Both the Grand Secretary's sect and the UGLE sect both claim an ancient heritage going back to "Noah." The earliest possible date for global flooding after the last ice age is somewhere around 11,000 BC approxmately. However any bunch of drunks in a pub can start a cult relgion and claim to be carrying on the legacy of Noah, who was apparently insane enough to believe that he could fit 10,000 animal species and 30,000 insect species (all in pairs) onto a wooden boat and keep them alive for 10 months.

Lux

Look mate. Every time you try to annoy me you quote this idiot Ed King. He is like you, a little nobody with a very large axe to grind.

I can't be bothered with either you. You are both as mad and as bad as each other. You cry on his shoulder and I have no doubt he will cry on yours.

[grandsecretary]

Both the Grand Secretary's sect and the UGLE sect both claim an ancient heritage going back to "Noah." The earliest possible date for global flooding after the last ice age is somewhere around 11,000 BC approxmately. However any bunch of drunks in a pub can start a cult relgion and claim to be carrying on the legacy of Noah, who was apparently insane enough to believe that he could fit 10,000 animal species and 30,000 insect species (all in pairs) onto a wooden boat and keep them alive for 10 months.
Lux

Noah is not just my claim. It is the same historic claim, backed by records and manuscripts, going back many hundreds of years as that of Dr James Anderson in Ed King's brand of Freemasonry's own Second Book of Constitutions (1738)

Can't fathom him out at all. Obviously terrified of something. Certifiably mad. Nuts. Any fool can open a website and say anything at all.

Your comments about Noah and the Great Flood are risible. You know very well that the story of the Great Flood is mythical and I have dealt with the important part that myth plays in history.

You keep going mate. Kleenex at the ready.

[stewart edwards]

He gives membership figures in this article to show a 60% reduction in membership over the past 12 years! Now, he forecasts contining losses. He knows the figures, as you do. Catastrophic.

More of the same will not do kadosh. Rome is burning.Well they cant say nobody warned them some years back.;)

But dont worry Stewart me lad I was told in the pub opposite ugle is like a giant tanker, it takes time to change direction, but the rudder is moving!!

Actually let me apologise for this I really take no pleasure in ugle walking into a period of financially painful downsizing (less members = higher overhead costs per member and ugle is somewhat grander than glos for example in terms of physical stuff) which could easily spiral into further membership losses due to affordability issues self-feeding the spiral. But I did warn them, by letter years ago of this looming problem. And now with the credit crunch the effects could easily be compounded very quickly over the next few years depending on what the chancellor and the banks do next.

But do they ever listen to me?

Verifiable by anyone in ugle who has access to my letters. Kadosh or Mike Martin be a good chap, check and confirm this (or prove me to be a liar - theres your motivation). As you read my letters, also read subsequent grand master speeches, you could be forgiven for thinking that there are some similarities. Pure coincidence I am sure (seriously, I do recognise the possibility of different minds thinking alike at the same time).

[decim]

Ah..ok..

NoaHaoN - Sounds suspiciously like New Aeon..don't you think?

Our system of Free Masonrie is pre-Davidic. The Inner Temple claims to have been in continuous existence for over 2,000 years. That is the best I can do.

The Great Flood is mythical. It has its place in history but it cannot be accurately reported or dated.

[grandsecretary]

Ah..ok..

NoaHaoN - Sounds suspiciously like New Aeon..don't you think?

A VERY big subject decim. the Great Flood myth, or more accurately myths are very ancient indeed. The Masonic manuscripts use the story of Noah to try to date Free Masonrie rather than just saying "time immemorial". The manuscripts also use the story, as the Holy Bible does, in order to illustrate man's relationship with the ancient civilisations, priest kings, religions, the transition over time to monotheism, mortality, life after death and a host of other things.

Have your read a Masonic manuscript? If you would like to I can let you see one, or at least a translation of one. It is clearly a blueprint for what is known as "The Stone Religion" which has strong Druidic influences.

[decim]

As you know there is veiled allegory in some myth, there are other key words that reflect differently when mirrored. I was contemplating Druidism in West Kennett Barrow only a few weeks ago.

I accept your offer to view the translated blueprint, is it online?

A VERY big subject decim. the Great Flood myth, or more accurately myths are very ancient indeed. The Masonic manuscripts use the story of Noah to try to date Free Masonrie rather than just saying "time immemorial". The manuscripts also use the story, as the Holy Bible does, in order to illustrate man's relationship with the ancient civilisations, priest kings, religions, the transition over time to monotheism, mortality, life after death and a host of other things.

Have your read a Masonic manuscript? If you would like to I can let you see one, or at least a translation of one. It is clearly a blueprint for what is known as "The Stone Religion" which has strong Druidic influences.

[grandsecretary]

As you know there is veiled allegory in some myth, there are other key words that reflect differently when mirrored. I was contemplating Druidism in West Kennett Barrow only a few weeks ago.

I accept your offer to view the translated blueprint, is it online?

I will dig out a proper translation and post it here for you and anyone else who wants to read it. Give me until Monday because I am working tomorrow. I am in pantomime and I have a full day of press photos and interviews tomorrow followed by a read through with the cast.

I will put it in a new thread so that we can have a deep discussion on the historical context and the religious meanings.

[kadosh]

"The landmarks must be discerned from the Old Charges." - http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/athena1.html

[decim]

It's Behind You!!


Yeh, ok..should be interesting..

I will dig out a proper translation and post it here for you and anyone else who wants to read it. Give me until Monday because I am working tomorrow. I am in pantomime and I have a full day of press photos and interviews tomorrow followed by a read through with the cast.

I will put it in a new thread so that we can have a deep discussion on the historical context and the religious meanings.

[grandsecretary]

"The landmarks must be discerned from the Old Charges." - http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/athena1.html

This is an excellent academic paper by Athena Stafyla, one we have recommended for general reading for a number of years. However, it must NOT be selectively quoted. Here are full quotations so that there are NO misunderstandings:

The most incontestable point is that the landmarks embody the unalterable and inviolate rules of the Masonic organization.

II. The Landmarks and the Old Charges

The landmarks must be discerned from the Old Charges. Under the last term are meant all medieval texts of the pre-speculative Masonic history, which described the rules of the inner organisation of the Guilds as well as their beliefs and attitudes. Some Old Charges have been considered and qualified as Masonic landmarks simultaneously, because they prove their incontestable usage and validity from time immemorial and became very significant for Masonic philosophy at a later time. The belief in the Supreme Being is such a Landmark and an Old Charge at the same time. We find it in the Constitutions of masons of Strasbourg dated from 1459 ...

B. The second Landmark consolidates the belief in a Supreme Being and of the immortality of souls as an unalterable and incontestable requirement. Grand Lodges who tried to introduce Atheism as an acceptable philosophical attitude in the Craft, by omitting this Landmark and the letter G, definitely renounced being masons. It is the strongest form of irregularity, because it destroys the inner esoteric meaning of the words of the rituals and the purpose of the exisntence of Freemasonry. The belief in the immortality of souls and of resurrection to a future life is a subcategory of this landmark and not a separate one.

The contestable Landmark of the division of masonry into three degrees cannot be sustained. Historically an absolute rule of the division of masonry into three degrees has never existed.

I am pleased that Athena confirms that the Freemasonry of the United Grand Lodge of England is NOT regular Freemasonry at all. It cannot be interpreted in any other way. It is as clear as crystal.

It is a requirement of Free Masonrie to have a sincere belief in God (THE Supreme Being) coupled with a sincere belief in the immortality of souls for Freemasonry to be regular according to the Ancient Landmarks of a Free Mason as quoted in ALL of the Gothic Manuscripts.

Now this is not me saying this. It is Athena Stafyla, Jurist, LL.M, PH.D, University of Munich, who has made a study of this, and she is absolutely correct.

[sofa king]

Our system of Free Masonrie is pre-Davidic. The Inner Temple claims to have been in continuous existence for over 2,000 years. That is the best I can do.

The Great Flood is mythical. It has its place in history but it cannot be accurately reported or dated.



"claims" is the best you can do?

Sounds like the GLAE doesn't have much of a leg to stand on either.

[grandsecretary]

"claims" is the best you can do?

Sounds like the GLAE doesn't have much of a leg to stand on either.

My friend "claim" is a legal term enshrined in English Law. In the law, a cause of action or claim is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party which if uncontested remains the status quo.

In 1832 "time immemorial" was re-defined in English Law as "Time whereof the Memory of Man runneth not to the contrary." The plan of dating legal memory from a fixed time was abandoned; instead, it was held that rights which had been enjoyed for twenty years (or as against the Crown thirty years) should not be impeached.

claim: demand as one's due; right or title. (SOURCE: Oxford English Dictionary)

Please do not try to use words that you do not understand the meaning of in order to try to undermine the Laws of England and Wales which govern Freemasonry per se.

Everything that we do or say is ratified by a team of the most distinguished team of international Masonic and Constitutional lawyers. If you are not a distinguished Masonic or Constitutional lawyer I suggest that you consult at least one before you cross swords with us in the future and quote him or her as a reliable source for your stated opinion.

Time immemorial is a legal claim to historical fact, dating back to a time when human memory and experience no longer exists. Actual records of the Inner Temple, which refer to much earlier times, date back to the early 5th century. The legal "claim" therefore is older than 1,400 years.

By comparison, the United Grand Lodge of England was formed in December 1812, 198 years ago.

[terrier]

your social club is 5 years old, whatever you say

chris

love and light

logia anaza 33

[grandsecretary]

your social club is 5 years old, whatever you say

chris

love and light

logia anaza 33

Another modern plastic imitation with 16 posts under his belt. Read 6,047 of mine and then come back with a reasoned argument. Otherwise thank you very much for the inane contribution from Ninearife. What are you so afraid of?

[terrier]

pobresito hahahahahahaha :D me das pena gran secretariooo

[sofa king]

Another modern plastic imitation with 16 posts under his belt. Read 6,047 of mine and then come back with a reasoned argument. Otherwise thank you very much for the inane contribution from Ninearife. What are you so afraid of?



6,047 posts of lies, backstabbing, deceit, playing sides against each other.


Yes, an entertaining read indeed.

[grandsecretary]

"Manners makyth man."

William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester (1324-1404), Grand Master Mason, Gand Lodge at York, AD 1353.

Debe hacer mejor 1/10

[grandsecretary]

6,047 posts of lies, backstabbing, deceit, playing sides against each other.


Yes, an entertaining read indeed.

Not interested mate.

[terrier]

Debe hacer mejor 1/10

manners you will learn one day

love and light

[grandsecretary]

Child.

[terrier]

hahahahahaha like your christian religion says,be like the children :D

still feel sorry for you lol

love and light

[grandsecretary]

No need to be. My soul is safe. MY Christian religion? Well, well, well. That shows how little you know.

luciferhorus keeps calling me a Christian too. You are just as ignorant as he is.

I have said this time and time again. Our religion is pre-Davidic. That means that it precedes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I have also said many times it is the fount of all religions that believe in one God in unity and the immortality of souls. That is all you need to know. :o

[dunadan]

No need to be. My soul is safe. MY Christian religion? Well, well, well. That shows how little you know.

luciferhorus keeps calling me a Christian too. You are just as ignorant as he is.

I have said this time and time again. Our religion is pre-Davidic. That means that it precedes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I have also said many times it is the fount of all religions that believe in one God in unity and the immortality of souls. That is all you need to know. :o

The one true religion?

:)

[luciferhorus]

I have said this time and time again. Our religion is pre-Davidic. That means that it precedes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I have also said many times it is the fount of all religions that believe in one God in unity and the immortality of souls. That is all you need to know.

The one true religion?

:)

A: The religion of the Old Testament is not monotheistic. YHVH was simply the tribal god of the Israelites and one of many tribal gods. The "Creators," are referred to in Genesis as "Elohim" which is plural (i.e., more than one). Judaism certainly transformed into monotheism, but there is nothing in the Old Testament which indicates this to be the view of the authors of the various books of the Old Testament.

http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/AssemblyTeachingPractice/Trinity2ndPersonCartoon.jpg

B: Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. There is simply no such thing as monotheistic polytheism (trinitarianism); it is simply a distrortion of the defintions of mathematical language. Jesus is worshipped as an object of idolatry and as of one of three gods. While he was alive on earth he never referred to himself as god in the first person, but rather he referred to his god in the second person (i.e., you) and third person (i.e. he), thus there are "at least" two gods in Christianity, through traditionally there have been three, in addition to the cult of the saints who are certainly "gods (ancestral spirits)" and objects of worship to whom prayers are made, however they are not the three Christian Creators.

C: Islam is certainly monotheistic, but it is still the barbarian, savage, misogynistic, genocidal and tyrannical religion of a 7th century slave trader.

D: Druidism: since GS's cult also claims to be Druidic in origin, there is no evidence whatsover, from what little we know of the Druids that they were monotheists; on the contrary; further like the ancient Israelites, historical descriptions indicate that they were blood sacrifice cultists, including human sacrifice cultism. Further the Druids did not worship a deity called "Moloch (as GS has previously claimed)" which was a Phonecian deity; Phonecia was essentially modern day Lebanon and part of modern day Syria, while the Druids were Northern Europeans.

E: Celtic Catholicism: Since GS's cult also claims to represent ancient Celtic Catholicism, this too was not a monotheistic faith, despite Catholicisms claim to be both polytheistic and monotheistic (three gods and yet one god.).

So much for the "The one true religion." GS's cult (allegedly a cult which has never had more than three persons associated with it) seems to make more of an appeal to "many" different religions, or at least GS's non-historical anachronistic misinterpretations of them.

Bear in mind also that application for a tax exempt charity scam (a religion business) is not dependent on having a large membership or even a credible system of belief; mum, dad and a couple of kids are quite sufficient as membership for a religious cult and an ahistorical anachronistic understanding of the history of religion is no barrier either; one can claim to be Moloch worshipping Catholic Israelite Muslims whose central Creator is referred to as Mickey Mouse if one chooses to, and then claim "freedom of belief" and "religious freedom," etc.

Religion as Anachronistic Projection.

For example, if we were watching a historical film about Jesus, and he was depicted riding a Harley Davidson, we could say that this was Anachronistic (Against Chronology, against time, non-historical for that period), since Harleys were not around in that era.

Similarly the modern Christian who is a Capitalist and anti-Communist, is simply projecting their modern views onto the historical Jesus, who himself was an anti-Captialist and anti-propertyist (i.e., a proto Communist) and falsely misrepresenting him.

Similarly a modern person who might be a monotheist, may claim to represent all manner of ancient religious traditions which were not at all monotheisitic; this is similarly an anachronistic appeal to authority.

The "appeal to authority" is a common strategy used in cult religions, where a cult which was only invented recently by a few drunks in a pub might claim to represent many ancient authorities. It is an entirely anti-Anarchist and regressive way of thinking; such individuals are probably not very sure of themselves and thus they have to refer to ancient historical authorities whose teachings and traditions they usually misrepresent and distort in order to fit their own personal beliefs, much as the Capitalist Christians of the Jesus business do; that Jesus has been transformed into a Capitalist, anti-Communist deity and a justification for all manner of human evil, wars, economic slavery, Capitalist imperialism, crusades, genocides, Inquisition, tyranny and today Anglo-American Christian state terrorism, etc.

Lux

http://www.godlessblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Holytrinity.jpg

[grandsecretary]

The one true religion?

:)

The one true God in unity.

Followers of religious denominations that share a sincere belief in the one true God in unity and the immortality of souls are free and entitled to petition The Grand Lodge at York for initiation into Outer or Craft Free Masonrie in the first instance.

This is what was reclaimed and revived in December 2005.

Depending upon progress, Fellows of The Grand Lodge at York may in time be set aside for ordination in the Inner Temple of Free Masonrie.

The Inner Temple has enjoyed continuous existence and was first recorded in Scotland in 37AD. Its Culdee and Druidic predecessors inhabited Ireland some considerable time prior to 37 AD.

NOTE: We do not use the Old Testament in our lodges luciferhorus, we have our own books of Holy Scripture. I suggest that you ask questions rather than continue guessing and getting it so wrong LH. I know that it is difficult for you to comprehend, but your really do not know EVERYTHING.

A tiny amount of humility would make a nice change. :)

"From the very beginnings of the new Church there was a body of doctrine stemming from John (sic John the Baptist) to whom, it was said, the true secrets of Christianity had been communicated by Jesus. This teaching was strongly tinged with gnosticism. The Apocryphon of John, or the secret book of John, purports to reveal the 'mysteries concealed in silence' that Jesus taught him. The book was cited by Irenaeus, and a version of it was also found at Nag Hammadi. Many gnostic schools claimed the canonical gospel of John as a work embodying their own doctrines, and used it as a primary source of their teachings ... It presents a mystical rather than a historical Jesus, with concepts derived from Alexandrian philosophy." (SOURCE: Gnosticism: Its History and Influence by Benjamin Walker, 1983)

[luciferhorus]

The one true God in unity.

Followers of religious denominations that share a sincere belief in the one true God in unity and the immortality of souls are free and entitled to petition The Grand Lodge at York for initiation into Outer or Craft Free Masonrie in the first instance.



A genocidal mass murdering state terrorist such as the Field Marshall, the Duke of Kent, the current Masonic cult leader is welcome to join Masonry if they believe in the existence of a Creator and in the immortality of the soul; just the usual perverting thinking of religious fanatics which considers persons who have metaphysical "beliefs" somehow, by virtue of such beliefs, to be a "good" or "moral" person.

This is what was reclaimed and revived in December 2005.

Depending upon progress, Fellows of The Grand Lodge at York may in time be set aside for ordination in the Inner Temple of Free Masonrie.

The Inner Temple has enjoyed continuous existence and was first recorded in Scotland in 37AD. Its Culdee and Druidic predecessors inhabited Ireland some considerable time prior to 37 AD.

Just the same old "appeal to ancient authority" which many cults claim.

NOTE: We do not use the Old Testament in our lodges luciferhorus

The primitive and barbaric collection of texts refferred to as the Bible is used as a "sacred book of the Law" in Masonic Lodges. You yourself claim that your cult of three persons (allegedly) has an ancient legacy stretching back to the Israelite Patriarchs.

we have our own books of Holy Scripture.

The central books of scripture of the Israelite Patriarchs are those contained in the Old Testament. You have referred prior to your sacred books as those of Celtic Catholicism, and the "central" texts of Celtic Catholicism were the various books which have been compiled into the Old and New Testaments.

I suggest that you ask questions rather than continue guessing and getting it so wrong LH.

I am simply basing my responses on your own ridiculous, anachronistic and pompous claims.

I know that it is difficult for you to comprehend, but your really do not know EVERYTHING.
A tiny amount of humility would make a nice change. :)

It would seem to me that you have a habit of accusing others of what you are most guilty of yourself.

Lux

[terrier]

dear peter,
wanted to investigate your lodge and went simply on google. dont know if it has been here posted,but it made my day :D.

http://www.masonicinfo.com/allengland.htm

http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2007/11/another-lodge-appears.html


the best of all:
Meeting since time immemorial in the City of York, The Grand Lodge of All England at York is the governing body of Freemasonry in England, Wales, The Channel Islands and its Districts and Lodges Overseas.


All enquires should be made via our website www.grandlodgeofallengland.org or our Grand Secretary on 0113 203 7233

http://www.communigate.co.uk/york/gloae/

i wonder who from us both the child is ?

gran secretario, i wish you the best and i will do the same
,what you said to luciferhorus.
you will be just, a long scroll down.
i am not a writer and never will be,neither dont really have the time for it.


saludos de un brujo

[grandsecretary]

masinicinfo?

Freemasons for dummies?

That's like me going to the local sewerage farm to find out about Chanel No.5

[grandsecretary]

A genocidal mass murdering state terrorist such as the Field Marshall, the Duke of Kent, the current Masonic cult leader is welcome to join Masonry if they believe in the existence of a Creator and in the immortality of the soul;

Propaganda ...

I said he would be welcome to petition for membership. You gauge what his chances are. Start at zero and work your way down! You live in a fantasy world old lad.

[terrier]

masinicinfo?

Freemasons for dummies?

That's like me going to the local sewerage farm to find out about Chanel No.5

google and you shall find,it is sometimes interesting what others write about somebody.
like i said,i just wanted to find about your lodge and there just came this stuff up,well ,i had a laugh. and i just recemend it ,to have a laugh.

spass muss sein mein bruder

try it yourself, write in google: grand lodge of all england :D

and the article about "you" in the masonicinfo, is worth a read !!!

[grandsecretary]

I have rarely bothered with masonicinfo unless it is brought to my attention for legal reasons and I have to as part of my job. I haven't looked at it for at least 3 or 4 years.

When I did, I must agree with you. It made me laugh too. :cool:

Freemasonry for Dummies is what it says it is. Not a very good marketing title in my view and we have no interest in the dummy market.

[bowtiedaddy]

No need to be. My soul is safe. MY Christian religion? Well, well, well. That shows how little you know.

luciferhorus keeps calling me a Christian too. You are just as ignorant as he is.

I have said this time and time again. Our religion is pre-Davidic. That means that it precedes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I have also said many times it is the fount of all religions that believe in one God in unity and the immortality of souls. That is all you need to know. :o

Just one point. Some people sacrificed people to please inatimate objects in the sky in ancient times, while some were adept in science. Does age really mean anything? Age is relative. Just like today, there are a lot of people who have beliefs of varying credibility. People have always made things up for whatever reason, and the Davidic religions weren't the first to do so. I'm not saying that you're wrong, because I don't likely know enough about it to judge, but it's not really a very good argument to say that because your belief came first it must be better, just the same as someone saying if something is newer it must be better. I think both are logical fallacies. It's not that likely that anyone really has a clue, not you, not the fundamentalist Christians, not the Jews, not anyone. I'm all for belief if it improves your life, and speculation as it's interesting, but that's all it is. Just because something is ancient, doesn't mean someone somewhere didn't just make it up for some purpose.

[grandsecretary]

Is age important?

Not of itself.

It only matters when somebody, or some entity, claims to be the first, the only, the owners, the controllers, the sole arbiters, when it is obviously untrue, and then has the audacity to try to damage the original in order to usurp its status and position to such an extent that the original disappears leaving the field clear for the abuser to follow its own nefarious ends without opposition.

The original is bound to defend itself by using historical evidence to prove its true position, thereby exposing the abuser to full public scrutiny.

In addition, we all want to know where we came from, and it is important to set the record straight.

[moon monkey]

Pointless.

[grandsecretary]

I was asked a question and I answered it. You should try it sometimes moon monkey.

Here is one.

Q. What it the point of commenting upon the pointless?

A. To minimise and pretend that it is pointless when in fact it makes the point and strikes a raw nerve.

[moon monkey]

I was asked a question and I answered it. You should try it sometimes moon monkey.

Here is one.

Q. What it the point of commenting upon the pointless?

A. To minimise and pretend that it is pointless when in fact it makes the point and strikes a raw nerve.

GS I hope you understand I wasn't in fact attacking you?

I was merely answering the question that the title of this thread refers to.

[grandsecretary]

Ok moonmonkey, accepted.

But the thread is, in fact, asking an important fundamental question. Freemasons - what are they? Very few answers you will notice. Not because of a lack of interest but because the question is far too difficut for too many who should know.

It's not rocket science.

Since the 24th June 1717 there have been two main types of Freemasons:

1) By far the biggest grouping is the Moderns system which was self started in a London Alehouse on the 24th June 1717. Nowadays it is simply a social networking, fraternal organisation, very similar to The Round Table or The Lions Clubs but with initiation ceremonies and a hirerachy based upon a degree system supported by a system of honours (preferment or promotions). It has since split into many factions: Grand Orients; Women's Freemasonry; Male and Female Co-Masonry; Prince Hall Masonry; etc., etc., etc.

2) The oldest system of Free Masonrie dates back far longer than anyone can remember. It consists of Outer (or Craft) Free Masonrie and Inner (or Templar) Free Masonrie. It is a religion which is Pre-Davidic by date and the fount of all of the Abrahamic religions that believe in God and the immortality of souls. The Grand Lodge, and all local lodges meet in ecclesiastical premises. The long term object of membership is to either prepare oneself for ordination to the Masonic Priesthood or to remain a lay Fellow of the Craft.

[moon monkey]

Ok moonmonkey, accepted.

But the thread is, in fact, asking an important fundamental question. Freemasons - what are they? Very few answers you will notice. Not because of a lack of interest but because the question is far too difficut for too many who should know.

It's not rocket science.

Since the 24th June 1717 there have been two main types of Freemasons:

1) By far the biggest grouping is the Moderns system which was self started in a London Alehouse on the 24th June 1717. Nowadays it is simply a social networking, fraternal organisation, very similar to The Round Table or The Lions Clubs but with initiation ceremonies and a hirerachy based upon a degree system supported by a system of honours (preferment or promotions). It has since split into many factions: Grand Orients; Women's Freemasonry; Male and Female Co-Masonry; Prince Hall Masonry; etc., etc., etc.

2) The oldest system of Free Masonrie dates back far longer than anyone can remember. It consists of Outer (or Craft) Free Masonrie and Inner (or Templar) Free Masonrie. It is a religion which is Pre-Davidic by date and the fount of all of the Abrahamic religions that believe in God and the immortality of souls. The Grand Lodge, and all local lodges meet in ecclesiastical premises. The long term object of membership is to either prepare oneself for ordination to the Masonic Priesthood or to remain a lay Fellow of the Craft.

Understood.

[kadosh]

1) By far the biggest grouping is the Moderns system which was self started in a London Alehouse on the 24th June 1717. Nowadays it is simply a social networking, fraternal organisation, very similar to The Round Table or The Lions Clubs but with initiation ceremonies and a hirerachy based upon a degree system supported by a system of honours (preferment or promotions). It has since split into many factions: Grand Orients; Women's Freemasonry; Male and Female Co-Masonry; Prince Hall Masonry; etc., etc., etc.
The official UGLE explanation - http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-masonry/

[psquared]

So, GS...you have the "Moderns" (UGLE)and The GLOE (Free MAsonrie).

What do you "consider" American Masonry, obviously I know you look at us as Moderns.

Do you have Freemasons you deem irregular?

[stewart edwards]

Kadosh

You have given the theory, whereas GS I think has given what he sees as being the current day practice.

It reminds me of about 15 years ago in my own perosnal life. I had high and worthy ideals, but was so broken/in darkness that I could not for all of my effort live up to them. I was fortunate for I was able to see this myself and over a period of years walk myself out of it.

Can you consider the possibility that for all of the good words and deeds, freemasonry may actually have left ugle as it tries to reconcile its relative place in the twenty first century?

[grandsecretary]

So, GS...you have the "Moderns" (UGLE)and The GLOE (Free MAsonrie).

What do you "consider" American Masonry, obviously I know you look at us as Moderns.

Do you have Freemasons you deem irregular?

American Freemasonry has both systems. We have members in 23 States of the Union.

We do not insult any Freemason by using such words as "regular/irregular" and we have no need to. We only meet as Free Masons with our own Free Masons. We do not advertise our membership in any way or discuss our involvement outside of a lodge.

Those who do feel that it is necessary to use such insults do so entirely as a public expression of their own insecurities.

[psquared]

American Freemasonry has both systems. We have members in 23 States of the Union.

We do not insult any Freemason by using such words as "regular/irregular" and we have no need to. We only meet as Free Masons with our own Free Masons. We do not advertise our membership in any way or discuss our involvement outside of a lodge.

Those who do feel that it is necessary to use such insults do so entirely as a public expression of their own insecurities.

But you advertise your membership and make your involvement known...don't you? Just asking, not judging.

[bowtiedaddy]

Is age important?

Not of itself.

It only matters when somebody, or some entity, claims to be the first, the only, the owners, the controllers, the sole arbiters, when it is obviously untrue, and then has the audacity to try to damage the original in order to usurp its status and position to such an extent that the original disappears leaving the field clear for the abuser to follow its own nefarious ends without opposition.

The original is bound to defend itself by using historical evidence to prove its true position, thereby exposing the abuser to full public scrutiny.

In addition, we all want to know where we came from, and it is important to set the record straight.

Of course the Davidic religions weren't the first. All religions try to claim that. They also all claim to be the only true religion. Certainly they can't all be correct. How would you determine which one was? The one that's got the best rituals? The one with the most charasmatic progenitors? The one that promises you the best goodies as a reward if you're faithful?

I find myself looking at religion in pieces; pieces of various philosophies in which I use to understand various world views, so as to strengthen my own views and possibly increase insight into other variables that I had never thought of before (to at least consider them reasonable).

The original is not even provable. For all we know there could have been no religion originally and some guy just made it all up one day and people just caught on to the idea. I personally believe in some kind of intelligent source of the universe. What that is? Don't ask me. . . just like the other billions of people on the planet, I haven't a fucking clue - even if I try to pretend that I do. We'll find out when we die. Until then, let's all speculate. . . but to trash one belief as false and yours as "the one true belief"? How the hell do you know? Some guy told you? It predates the competing belief? Maybe so, maybe not. . . just wait and find out. I mean, how do you know that some guys in the 18th century didn't just make it all up that it goes back that far? Who would be around to correct it? This is not to say that it doesn't, but you at least have to question the fact. Question everything I say, even your own reason (even if to fully reinforce your own worldview).

[bowtiedaddy]

But you advertise your membership and make your involvement known...don't you? Just asking, not judging.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm not even going to begin to play the guilt by association game. Many wonderful human beings have been masons and many absolute nightmares have also. I personally see it as an overly-superstitious belief system that makes Christianity seem rational, but who am I to judge (unless you do criminal shit, then. . . fuck you- rot in prison, you fuck)?

Typically the masons that advertise their membership tend to be the good ones, while the evil scumbags tend to deny that they're masons. Is that a recruitment tool? (hide the bastards and promote the good ones?)

As I always say: Come on. If what you do is great, share it. Why would it have to be secret if it actually stands up to reason? That makes no sense. The only reason to keep something secret is either in self protection, or to escape intellectual scrutiny.

[psquared]

As I always say: Come on. If what you do is great, share it. Why would it have to be secret if it actually stands up to reason? That makes no sense. The only reason to keep something secret is either in self protection, or to escape intellectual scrutiny.

I have not hidden for one single second on here or anywhere else that I am a Freemason. I have no secrets other than how I would recognize another brother, and he would recognize me.

[sofa king]

As I always say: Come on. If what you do is great, share it. Why would it have to be secret if it actually stands up to reason? That makes no sense. The only reason to keep something secret is either in self protection, or to escape intellectual scrutiny.



Not necessarily. The most obvious role Masonry plays in the betterment of general society is benevolence and charity. Some groups, such as the Lions, are quick to slap their name on everything they do. Masons do not. .

The question to ask "is it charity if you seek recognition of the deed?"


Masonry believes that true charity is quiet and confidential to the parties involved. Our basic view is that we do not wish to broadcast to the world those acts.

[psquared]

Not necessarily. The most obvious role Masonry plays in the betterment of general society is benevolence and charity. Some groups, such as the Lions, are quick to slap their name on everything they do. Masons do not. .

The question to ask "is it charity if you seek recognition of the deed?"


Masonry believes that true charity is quiet and confidential to the parties involved. Our basic view is that we do not wish to broadcast to the world those acts.

We have had this discussion... the question is always would it not be beneficial to the Lodge to show what we do in the form of Charity, but then does the charity become promotion with a self serving agenda as opposed to charity for the sake of nothing more than being charitable. I think true charity seeks no reciprocation or reward.

[decim]

Vanity & pride in not seeking recognition?

Maysons often cite 'tzade (http://www.bje.org.au/learning/hebrew/alphabet/18tzade.html)'/tubalcain as a primary motivator for their existence...recognition is but a shakey hand away..Knochen..Knochen..WHO's there..MaryLeBone..Watt?


Not necessarily. The most obvious role Masonry plays in the betterment of general society is benevolence and charity. Some groups, such as the Lions, are quick to slap their name on everything they do. Masons do not. .

The question to ask "is it charity if you seek recognition of the deed?"


Masonry believes that true charity is quiet and confidential to the parties involved. Our basic view is that we do not wish to broadcast to the world those acts.

[psquared]

Vanity & pride in not seeking recognition?


I make personal, and anonymous, donations and always have even before I was involved in Freemasonry. I do it because I was raised to believe that charity is a good thing, also because I had to accept charity as a child so it is my way to repay for what was given to me. I prefer to remain anonymous because it shouldn't really matter who gave, I seek no thanks, and want no recognition. To me...any other form of charity is motivated by some return on the investment.

[thelonious]

American Freemasonry has both systems. We have members in 23 States of the Union.

We do not insult any Freemason by using such words as "regular/irregular" and we have no need to. We only meet as Free Masons with our own Free Masons. We do not advertise our membership in any way or discuss our involvement outside of a lodge.

Those who do feel that it is necessary to use such insults do so entirely as a public expression of their own insecurities.

The terms "regular" and "irregular" are not used as insults. They are simply used to distinguish pure ancient Masonry from modern non-affiliated groups who have adopted the name "Freemasonry" for their own purposes, such as your own.

[sofa king]

American Freemasonry has both systems. We have members in 23 States of the Union.

We do not insult any Freemason by using such words as "regular/irregular" and we have no need to. We only meet as Free Masons with our own Free Masons. We do not advertise our membership in any way or discuss our involvement outside of a lodge.

Those who do feel that it is necessary to use such insults do so entirely as a public expression of their own insecurities.




For a 5 year old group, you certainly have been building your network.

Careful GS, with stats like that your group will soon become what you claim UGLE masonry is.

[dunadan]

The one true God in unity.

Followers of religious denominations that share a sincere belief in the one true God in unity and the immortality of souls are free and entitled to petition The Grand Lodge at York for initiation into Outer or Craft Free Masonrie in the first instance.

This is what was reclaimed and revived in December 2005.

Depending upon progress, Fellows of The Grand Lodge at York may in time be set aside for ordination in the Inner Temple of Free Masonrie.

The Inner Temple has enjoyed continuous existence and was first recorded in Scotland in 37AD. Its Culdee and Druidic predecessors inhabited Ireland some considerable time prior to 37 AD.

NOTE: We do not use the Old Testament in our lodges luciferhorus, we have our own books of Holy Scripture. I suggest that you ask questions rather than continue guessing and getting it so wrong LH. I know that it is difficult for you to comprehend, but your really do not know EVERYTHING.

A tiny amount of humility would make a nice change. :)

I, for one, see the Source as the 'one true god in unity' and believe that the Soul is indeed immortal - would this original masonic god be the same as the one workshipped by Akhenaten?

Dunadan:)

[grandsecretary]

The terms "regular" and "irregular" are not used as insults. They are simply used to distinguish pure ancient Masonry from modern non-affiliated groups who have adopted the name "Freemasonry" for their own purposes, such as your own.

Silly boy!

[grandsecretary]

For a 5 year old group, you certainly have been building your network.

Careful GS, with stats like that your group will soon become what you claim UGLE masonry is.

God forbid.

[kadosh]

A phenomenon of the internet is that some masonic groups have representation out of proportion to their true numbers.

[grandsecretary]

Don't be so hard on the UGLE kadosh.

[kadosh]

The UGLE is still the largest GL in the world. That will not be changing.

[stewart edwards]

The UGLE is still the largest GL in the world. That will not be changing.Boys please stop the willy waving. :D

Even big willies risk becoming a bit impotent in old age with smaller willies being more effective in doing the job:eek:

If history has taught anything it is that mightly empires can easily fall when their members rest on their laurels and neglect the basics kadosh. Whether you realise it or not if you want ugle to even be able to maintain its relative position in our rapidly changing world, you have a lot of work to do (the sort of stuff that I have beleated on about for a decade up until the turn of this year). I hope that you manage to do it. But if you really believe what you wrote above Kadosh, you could easily find that you have made the same mistake that the Roman empire, and many others, made. And that would be a real shame as England needs you now.

Also, as an aside, I guess not since the various split offs over recent years in the comasonic world, but if you go back a few years prior to this wasnt the truly global comasonic LDH fraternity bigger than ugle? Something like 500,000 members wasnt it at one time? Perhaps one of the comasons here could clarify this?

[grandsecretary]

The UGLE is still the largest GL in the world. That will not be changing.

And that is your measure of success is it? I prefer quality to quantity any time kadosh, but each to his own. And, of course you have no comparison to call upon to know which is better ... have you?

So long as we are both happy people, that is what really matters.

[psquared]

And that is your measure of success is it? I prefer quality to quantity any time kadosh, but each to his own. And, of course you have no comparison to call upon to know which is better ... have you?

So long as we are both happy people, that is what really matters.

Personal happiness is the most important thing. Let me ask you this GS...does the GLOE consider/recognize/acknowledge "moderns" as brothers? Curious to know that.

[grandsecretary]

No.

[kadosh]

Why?

[grandsecretary]

"York being the established Place of Masonic Government, the whole fraternity successively paid Allegiance to its Authority, and whereas the Sacred Art flourished so much, that masonry in the South came to require some Nominal Patron to Superintend its Government.

A person under the Title of Grand Master for the South was appointed, with the Approbation of the Grand Lodge at York, to which the whole fraternity at large were still bound, as they were before, to pay Tribute and acknowledge Subjection. And thus Masonry flourished for many years in the South, as well as in the North, but afterwards became again at so low a Ebb in the South that in the year 1717, only four Lodges remained extant in those parts, but those Lodges ever glorified in Originating from the Ancient York Masons, which they constantly testified. And whereas those very lodges cemented under a new Grand Master for the South, and hence arose what is now called the Nominal Grand Lodge in London, whose meetings have been by some considered as General Meetings, but without any Constitutional Authority to give such Meetings a Sanction to that Title.

"And whereas the Grand Lodge of All England, still existing at York, is the Supreme Legislature of Masonry in this kingdom. And hath, with Lamentations, beheld that the Nominal Grand Lodge, in London, have not only forgotten the Allegiance due to this Parent State of Masonry in England, but have proceeded to insult its Dignity, and depart from every ancient Landmark of the Order, assuming such arbitrary and unmasonic Measures, as ought not to be found among Maceons.

"Besides, which, many Masters and Lodges under their Sanction have been struck off their Books on trifling occasions, and particularly on Pecuniary ones, Motives which Masons ought to blush at, and, in fine, they have adopted Measures altogether arbitrary and repugnant to the principles of the Masonic Institution, whereby the true Spirit of Free Masonry in the South of England hath been subverted, and if not timely supported by the Masonic Legislature might become totally destroyed.

"Hence however, the Grand Lodge in London, from its Situation, being encouraged by some of the Principal Nobility of the Nation, arose at Great Power, and began to despise the origin from whence it sprang. In an unbrotherly manner, wishing the Gr. Lodge at York annihilated, which appears by one of their Almanacks, insinuating, that although there are some Brethren remaining, who act under the Old Constitution of York, yet that they are few in number, and will soon be annihilated.

"Upon the whole, let every dispassionate Mason but weigh impartially the several Facts here stated, and he must spurn at the daring Innovation offered by the Nominal Grand Lodge in London, to so sacred an Institution.

"If he wishes to partake of Masonry in its Original Purity, he will turn his attention to that source, where it hath been Inviolably maintained and continued for Successive Ages to this Day, and where the Legislature of Masonry for this Kingdom stands fixed by its true Title 'The Grand Lodge of All England, Established at the City of York.' "

YORK 1779

This remains Grand Lodge policy, unchanged, as have the attitude and actions of The London Grand Lodge and its members. We are TOTALLY incompatible. There is NO advantage to either party.

[kadosh]

GS - I cannot see that the text above actually explains why the GLoAE does not recognise the "Moderns" as Free Masons. Please provide a one sentence reason why it does not in your own words please.

[psquared]

No.

So we are "irregular"?

[psquared]

GS - I cannot see that the text above actually explains why the GLoAE does not recognise the "Moderns" as Free Masons. Please provide a one sentence reason why it does not in your own words please.As I understand it ...those ARE his words...he speaks for his GL and all within it. NO?

[kadosh]

No, I do not think they are the words of the GS. They seem to me to be a copy of some old document (York 1799). That is why I have asked the GS to provide us his reason in his own words.

[grandsecretary]

GS - I cannot see that the text above actually explains why the GLoAE does not recognise the "Moderns" as Free Masons. Please provide a one sentence reason why it does not in your own words please.

You are Freemasons. Moderns Freemasons. The Statement of York tells you EXACTLY what our position is ... separate and distinct.

[grandsecretary]

So we are "irregular"?

You are your own system of Freemasonry. Nothing whatsoever to do with us. The wording of The Statement of York explains our position. Nothing has changed.

The words "regular" and "irregular" are only used in these circumstances by those who wish to interfere in private affairs that do not concern them, and in order to falsely claim supremacy over a perfectly good English word ... "Freemasonry". It is the rhetoric of guilt, insecurity and monopoly thinking.

You were entitled to start your own system of Freemasonry using your own new rules and Modern Landmarks. It makes no difference to the incumbent system, based upon the immoveable and unchangeable Ancient Landmarks of a Free Mason and you gave up the right to have any say or interest in it.

"If he wishes to partake of Masonry in its Original Purity, he will turn his attention to that source, where it hath been Inviolably maintained and continued for Successive Ages to this Day, and where the Legislature of Masonry for this Kingdom stands fixed by its true Title 'The Grand Lodge of All England, Established at the City of York."

YORK 1779

There is no need to add anything further. Please read the disclaimer at the bottom of this and all of our postings.

[kadosh]

There is no need to add anything further.
GS - With respect there is! Please explain in your own words only why Modern Masons are not recognised by the GLoAE.

By the way - who wrote the words for the 1799 text you are quoting from and does the document have a name?

[grandsecretary]

With respect there isn't. What you get up to is your modern unrelated business, not ours.

The Statement of York is an official document issued under the hand and seals of The Grand Master of the time, William Siddall Esq.

In 1767, William Siddall bought a house in Coney Street, York where he carried out his drapery business, Siddall, Rhodes and Co., Woollen Drapers and Taylors. A Merchant Taylor, he was a City Alderman and Collector of Stamp-Duties for the East Riding of Yorkshire. He was installed Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of All England at York in 1776. William Siddall was twice Lord Mayor of York.

if it will help, the following is a statement issued by The Grand Lodge of All England after its Annual Convocation of December 2007:

Genuine Anglo-Saxon Free Masonrie in England, since time immemorial, has been profoundly religious in nature. The Grand Lodge of All England carefully maintains these religious aspects. Its ceremonies reflect these religious elements, and it may be said that religion forms the context of its rituals.

It must be noted that the rituals of The Grand Lodge of All England are the oldest rituals in existence, and include the pre-Davidic element eschewed by the Moderns system of freemasonry.

By their very nature, the rituals of the Grand Lodge of All England are universally compatible with all religions that maintain a belief in God and the immortality of souls, including, but not exclusively, Judaism, Christianity, Islam.

Unlike the Moderns system, it has not been necessary for us to eliminate the religious component, including the vital elements removed by the Hanoverian appropriation of English Free Masonrie during the 18th and early 19th centuries, which has led to the alienation of the established churches.

Artifice and innovations on Free Masonrie, particularly the lack of this vital religious component so important to genuine Free Masonrie, precludes as it always has done, any desire for "recognition" by the Moderns system of freemasonry.

YORK 2007

[kadosh]

What year did the 'revived' GLoAE start using the word Free Mason/Masonrie instead of Freemason/ry? The reason I ask is because the word with the usual spelling of 'Freemasonry' was used liberally on your own blog website. When will the new website be up and running? Also see - http://www.communigate.co.uk/york/gloae/

The GLAE@Y say they are meeting by authority of the original Constitutions granted by Prince Edwin at the General Assembly of Masons in York in AD 926. Sorry, but there is no proof that either the Constitutions nor Prince Edwin existed and the Assembly never took place. The GLAE@Y further claim to be a revival of the Grand Lodge of All England formed in York in 1705, and therefore older than the premier Grand Lodge, formed in London in 1717. That an independent Lodge met in York, and there are records for it dating from 1705, is true. It was not, however, a Grand Lodge at that stage. Its records are still preserved in the Masonic Hall at Duncombe Place in York. These clearly show that it had no pretensions to being a Grand Lodge until 1725 when, because of the success of the premier Grand Lodge in London, it decided to call itself a Grand Lodge and adopted 19 Articles to govern the Craft. It went dormant in 1740, was revived in 1761 and petered out in 1791, never to meet again.

[kadosh]

GLAE@Y - http://www.cornerstonesociety.com/Insight/Articles/york.pdf

"Most English Freemasons today are probably quite unaware what I am going to speak about - the 18th century phenomenon of a Lodge at York that both regarded itself, and acted, as a distinct Grand Lodge able to rule over the Freemasons North of the River Trent. Claiming a traditional origin from a so-called Charter for working masons issued by Athelstan, the first Anglo-Saxon monarch called King of All England, this Masonic unit was known as the Grand Lodge of All England at York. Such a title did not mean what it seems, a claim to oversee Freemasonry in all parts of this realm. All it meant was the area once known as Northumbria, stretching from the Humber to Dunbar. Indeed, one of its Grand Wardens is on record in 1725 as saying that just because of the respective areas of responsibility which were exercised by the two Grand Lodges, one in the North and the other over London and Westminster, there could surely be nothing but peace and amity between the two bodies. Brotherly Love ought to direct them to work with each other in their separate jurisdictions.

Whilst that was certainly the overall desire of the older Freemasons of York in the 18th century it can be well understood, with hindsight, why there should have developed during this century a steadily mounting concern on the part of the Premier Grand Lodge founded in 1717 as to the nature of this distinctive Masonic body in the northern region. What was manifest in the Grand Lodge of All England at York was a continuing attachment to certain older fashions of belief and practice that sat oddly with the rather more liberal and comprehensive approach that was soon established by the Premier Grand Lodge through its fresh Constitutions. ........

There the situation took an interesting turn. Because there were now those seeking entry to Freemasonry who had not been apprenticed in any trade a form of admittance to that status had to be introduced. Non-Freemen and the gentry were now made apprentices symbolically but initially, up to 1770, this was not done on a separate evening. Such candidates for Masonry were made an apprentice and a Fellow on the same occasion. What is more, even when there was pressure at last to make someone an apprentice on a separate evening the lodge was still opened in the Fellow grade. For York there was never a separate opening or closing in an Apprentice degree. The old Masons of York were maintaining their ancient usage. When you joined Freemasonry you were a Fellow and I must add that the Scottish term ‘fellowcraft’ never entered the York working. Moreover the Old Charges were still being used when the Grand Lodge of All England fades from the records in the 1790s. Conservatism also revealed itself in the fact that if men could apply to join Freemasonry in the Grand Lodge at York this did not automatically entitle them to membership of the Lodge. What happened at their initiation was that they became Freemasons. Another vote on another evening decided whether they were fit and proper persons to be admitted as full members of the Lodge. The old distinction between men being made ‘Masons’ and being ‘accepted’ into a specific Lodge was retained. .......

What we find in York right up to the end of the 1790s is that it was the York Charges, of which we still have 5 extant original copies, that were used in the ritual of this Grand Lodge. Yet their use was distinctive as I will now explain. When there was a 17th century Guild Lodge in York attached to the Masons' Company every person who was admitted to the Lodge had to belong to one of two categories. Either they were working stonemasons who were Freeman of their Trade or they were Freemen of some other Trade who were ‘accepted’ as members of the Freemasons’ lodge. ..... "

[grandsecretary]

What year did the 'revived' GLoAE start using the word Free Mason/Masonrie instead of Freemason/ry? The reason I ask is because the word with the usual spelling of 'Freemasonry' was used liberally on your own blog website. When will the new website be up and running? Also see - http://www.communigate.co.uk/york/gloae/

It's interchangeable. We use the word Masonrie as often as we do because that is the spelling of the word used in the York Constitutions.

The look for the new website is being designed for us. We are having some You may remeber that we had to take the old website down because of two incidents of website hijacking. Subsequently, some deep discussions about the function and benefits of a Grand Lodge website, whether we need one, and/or what we want to put on it have taken place.

You may remember that there were those who said that The Grand Lodge of All England was only a website. Well, the fact that we are relaxed about it and have taken plenty of time over this issue proves otherwise. We have left our blog on line which provides access to useful articles.

We must also take account of the election of a new Grand Master Mason after his 5 years of continuous office, which takes place in just three months time. The new Grand Master Mason may wish to appoint a new Grand Secretary and it is only right to leave decisions on the question of the website to them.

[grandsecretary]

What year did the 'revived' GLoAE start using the word Free Mason/Masonrie instead of Freemason/ry? The reason I ask is because the word with the usual spelling of 'Freemasonry' was used liberally on your own blog website. When will the new website be up and running? Also see - http://www.communigate.co.uk/york/gloae/

We have always used various spellings. About three years ago we decided to standardise in order to avoid confusion with other forms of Freemasonry. The words Freemasonry and Free Masonrie are interchangeable. We use the word Masonrie as often as we do because that is the spelling of the word most used in the York Constitutions and on our official documents.

The "look" for a new website is being designed for us this time rather than using a standard template. You may remember that we had to take the old website down, without notice, because of two serious incidents of website hijacking by malign forces.

Subsequent to these incidents some deep discussions about the function and benefits of a Grand Lodge website, whether we need one, and/or what we want to put on it, have taken place.

You may remember that there were those who said that The Grand Lodge of All England was only a website. Well, the fact that we are relaxed about it and have taken plenty of time over this issue proves otherwise. We have left our blog on line which provides access to useful articles.

We must also take account of the election of a new Grand Master Mason after John Graves's 5 years of continuous office. This will take place in just three months time. The new Grand Master Mason will appoint his own Grand Secretary and it is only right and sensible to leave decisions on the question of a website to them.

[humason]

We must also take account of the election of a new Grand Master Mason after John Graves's 5 years of continuous office. This will take place in just three months time. The new Grand Master Mason will appoint his own Grand Secretary and it is only right and sensible to leave decisions on the question of a website to them.

Ah, should we then prepare to transition from Grand Secretary to Grand Master?

[grandsecretary]

No.

[humason]

No.

Without sarcasm - how so?

You are by far the most vociferous and visible member of Free Masonrie and - according to what I've read - have exactly, or near as makes no difference, the same qualifications as mr. Graves, to the point of being a member of the Templar Masonry, as well as - what was it? - being baptized under the Holy and Royal Arch? Surely, you should at least be considered a candidate?

[grandsecretary]

GLAE@Y - http://www.cornerstonesociety.com/Insight/Articles/york.pdf

"Most English Freemasons today are probably quite unaware what I am going to speak about - the 18th century phenomenon of a Lodge at York that both regarded itself, and acted, as a distinct Grand Lodge able to rule over the Freemasons North of the River Trent. Claiming a traditional origin from a so-called Charter for working masons issued by Athelstan, the first Anglo-Saxon monarch called King of All England, this Masonic unit was known as the Grand Lodge of All England at York. Such a title did not mean what it seems, a claim to oversee Freemasonry in all parts of this realm. All it meant was the area once known as Northumbria, stretching from the Humber to Dunbar. Indeed, one of its Grand Wardens is on record in 1725 as saying that just because of the respective areas of responsibility which were exercised by the two Grand Lodges, one in the North and the other over London and Westminster, there could surely be nothing but peace and amity between the two bodies. Brotherly Love ought to direct them to work with each other in their separate jurisdictions.

Whilst that was certainly the overall desire of the older Freemasons of York in the 18th century it can be well understood, with hindsight, why there should have developed during this century a steadily mounting concern on the part of the Premier Grand Lodge founded in 1717 as to the nature of this distinctive Masonic body in the northern region. What was manifest in the Grand Lodge of All England at York was a continuing attachment to certain older fashions of belief and practice that sat oddly with the rather more liberal and comprehensive approach that was soon established by the Premier Grand Lodge through its fresh Constitutions. ........

There the situation took an interesting turn. Because there were now those seeking entry to Freemasonry who had not been apprenticed in any trade a form of admittance to that status had to be introduced. Non-Freemen and the gentry were now made apprentices symbolically but initially, up to 1770, this was not done on a separate evening. Such candidates for Masonry were made an apprentice and a Fellow on the same occasion. What is more, even when there was pressure at last to make someone an apprentice on a separate evening the lodge was still opened in the Fellow grade. For York there was never a separate opening or closing in an Apprentice degree. The old Masons of York were maintaining their ancient usage. When you joined Freemasonry you were a Fellow and I must add that the Scottish term ‘fellowcraft’ never entered the York working. Moreover the Old Charges were still being used when the Grand Lodge of All England fades from the records in the 1790s. Conservatism also revealed itself in the fact that if men could apply to join Freemasonry in the Grand Lodge at York this did not automatically entitle them to membership of the Lodge. What happened at their initiation was that they became Freemasons. Another vote on another evening decided whether they were fit and proper persons to be admitted as full members of the Lodge. The old distinction between men being made ‘Masons’ and being ‘accepted’ into a specific Lodge was retained. .......

What we find in York right up to the end of the 1790s is that it was the York Charges, of which we still have 5 extant original copies, that were used in the ritual of this Grand Lodge. Yet their use was distinctive as I will now explain. When there was a 17th century Guild Lodge in York attached to the Masons' Company every person who was admitted to the Lodge had to belong to one of two categories. Either they were working stonemasons who were Freeman of their Trade or they were Freemen of some other Trade who were ‘accepted’ as members of the Freemasons’ lodge. ..... "

The Cornerstone Society is an organ and the creature of The United Grand Lodge of England. This article is, of course, pure nonsense, published with the object of re-inventing English History to the advantage of the newcomers to Masonry.

There was NEVER a Guild Lodge attached to the Masons Company. This is a lie perpetrated in order to try to fool people into believing that Free Masonrie prior to 1717 was not speculative.

This is what R F Gould says about this lie:

From the circumstances, that Ashmole records his attendance at a meeting of the Freemasons held in a hall of the Company of Masons, a good deal of confusion has been engendered, which some casual remarks of Dr Anderson, in the Constitutions of 1723, have done much to confirm. By way of filling up a page, as he expresses it, he quotes from an old Record of Masons, to the effect that, "the said Record describing a Coat of Arms, much the same with that of the LONDON COMPANY of Freemen Masons, it is generally believ'd that the said Company is descended of the ancient Fraternity; and that in former Times no Man was Free of that Company until he was install'd in some Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, as a necessary Qualification." "But" he adds, "that laudable Practice seems to have been long in Dissuetude."

Preston, in this instance not unnaturally, copied from Anderson, and others of course have followed suit; but as I believe myself to be the only person who has been allowed access to the books and records of the Masons' Company for purposes of historical research, the design of this work will be better fulfilled by a concise summary of the results of my examination, together with such collateral information as I have been able to acquire, than by attempting to fully describe the superstructure of error which has been erected on so treacherous a foundation. (SOURCE: History of Freemasonry Its Antiquities, Symbols, Constitutions, Customs, Part 2)

And, of course, kadosh knows this fair well.

[grandsecretary]

I have neither the time nor the inclination for the role of Grand Master. I am not a candidate humason and as the new Grand Master will appoint his own Grand Secretary I may well disappear from this forum during December.

[kadosh]

THE GRAND LODGE OF ALL ENGLAND AT YORK AND ITS PRACTICES by V.W. Bro. The Revd. Neville Barker Cryer, P.G.C. - UGLE Prestonian Lecturer 1974. SGCE Batham Lecturer 1996/7, P.M. Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076 EC (The Premier Lodge of Masonic Research).

The subject of this talk is one that has occupied me fairly consistently for the last five years. Having started to reside in York and then meeting the term 'York Rite' whilst giving lectures abroad led me to examine much more closely the history and background of what many Masonic historians have regarded as the distinctive part played by the style of Freemasonry that started here. What struck me from the start of my search was that whilst numerous writers had tackled parts of the subject no-one had ever attempted any overall survey and even those works which have made a contribution to the subject are now long out of date and far from easy to obtain.

It is indeed high time that this significant part of our English Masonic heritage should be recovered and recorded as a whole so that students of the future will at least have a firm base from which to pursue further research. To understand where the Grand Lodge Of All England at York came from we must start in the 17th century. Following the almost complete demise of the local building site lodges between 1530 and 1630 there appeared in York and Chester new lodges which were attached to the Stone Masons' Guilds / Companies in those cities.

These lodges were initially intended for the Freemen Masons who belonged to the Trade Company but evidence reveals that the lodge in York in 1663 also had members who were Free-men of other trades. What we also know is that after the Restoration of 1660 the stone mason trade had so recovered in the country at large that in both York and Chester there were applications by the working masons to have a new Charter for a Stone Masons' Guild.

Quite naturally the municipal authorities in each case pointed out that as there was already such a body for that trade it was not possible to consider another such grant. It is worth our noting, however, that the operative masons gave such proof in both cities that the existing medieval trade guild was not able any longer adequately to represent their cause that it was necessary for another body to be appointed. In 1673 in York and in 1690 in Chester the stone masons were granted a charter for a new trade Company though they were ordered to combine with the bricklayers and carpenters.

Whilst the detail of this development is of no immediate concern here the implications of such a step for the Guild Lodge were important. It meant first that any claim that the Guild Lodge was attached to a recognised Company of the craft of stonemasons, or was effectively governed by that Company's rules and regulations, was no longer true. The Lodge, therefore, was now on its own in a way that had not hitherto been the case and so faced two new questions - first, by what authority was it to function and how was it to develop; and second, in what proper sense could it be considered a Lodge of Freemasons when it was no longer attached to an operative stone masons' craft association?

The other implication that followed was that if this lodge was no longer attached to a body that required its members to be Freemen of at least some trade did it mean that its membership could be open to anyone, whether a Freeman of the City or not? If being a Freeman of some trade was not henceforth to be a requirement then how was Apprenticeship to be viewed? When the members were Freemen they had automatically been apprentices before they could be admitted to the Freedom but if that rule was removed the whole matter of a candidate's preliminary trade status was reopened. This information about the change in the 17th century is invaluable for proper understanding of the Grand Lodge to which we now turn.

By 1705 we know that there was a minute book of a Masonic lodge in York and that this was not the first such to be used by that body. That this lodge was the direct descendant of the lodge of 1663 cannot be proved as yet but it does seem likely to have had some sort of connection for the names of those who belonged to the later lodge are in some cases from the same families as those known to have been associated with the Stone Masons' Company or its lodge in the preceding century. That is a matter that need not occupy us here. What are of particular interest are three features of this early 18th century Masonic lodge which suggest its 'ancient' form and ancestry.

First, this Lodge had clearly worked out its pattern of authority. Following the style of the old operative Grand Lodge which ruled the district North of the River Trent this York Lodge believed that it possessed the right to inaugurate other bodies of Free Masons elsewhere in that area. We know that before 1710 it had authorised meetings of gentlemen in both Scarborough and Bradford. It was indeed acting as a Grand Lodge and one which was noticeably different from the local London one that emerged in 1717. The main difference was that whilst the London Premier Grand Lodge was formed by certain private and independent lodges which agreed to accept its authority in certain matters the York Grand Lodge of All England claimed authority from an ancient tradition dating back to immemorial times. Moreover it viewed any new lodge as actually a part of itself rather than an attached but independent private unit. This was marked by three features:

1) any new lodges were known as the Grand Lodge of York in Bradford, in Scarborough, etc;

2) the new units were required to record their members names in the lodge book of the parent body and to contribute annually to the York charitable fund;

3) one of the documents known as the York Old Charges was used for the obligation of any potential initiate. If the sub -ordinate lodge were to cease working this copy was to be returned to the York Grand Lodge. Five such original copies are still extant in the Duncombe Place library there.

The Grand Lodge at York's ancient credentials were said to date from the reign of King Athelstan. He was believed to have granted a first Masons' charter to his half-brother, Edwin, from around 926 A.D. This claim was said to be substantiated by its being recorded in those Ancient Charges of the 15th century that they still used. It is also from Athelstan's reign that there derives the peculiar name of the Grand Lodge as being 'of All England'. Let me explain.

It was in the reign of Athelstan's grandfather, King Alfred, that the Saxons at last began to construct their own lasting kingdom by conquering and uniting the tribes of the southern counties in a realm called Wessex. Alfred's son, Edward, took matters further by uniting Wessex with the kingdom of Mercia which was made up of the Midland counties, and Athelstan, Edward's son, who was brought up in Mercia, then took up arms against the Vikings who held the vast northern kingdom of Northumbria, which stretched from the River Humber as far north as Dunbar.

When in the year 927 Athelstan captured the ancient Viking capital of York and completed his conquest of the North he began to be called "King of All England" which was meant to indicate that he was now the ruler of all that remained beyond Wessex and Mercia. That title persisted and when there was at last an Archbishop of York his first title was 'Archbishop of All England' meaning of the Northern Province.

After the Norman Conquest the Archbishops of Canterbury began to be specially, favoured by the Crown and they resented the title used by York as implying that the latter were more important than their southern counterpart. After a long dispute that even involved the Pope it was agreed that whilst the title of 'All England' should pass to Canterbury both Archbishops were to be regarded as of equal status and authority in their respective Provinces.

When it came to Freemasonry, however, the old title was retained as was first intended. 'All England' only meant the Old Northumbria with York as its central focus. That is how the members of the Grand Lodge of All England at York understood it and all they were implying was that whilst a Grand Lodge was later established in London and Westminster they had from very early times been the Grand Lodge of Northern England. It was when the Grand Lodge of London began to extend its influence and boundaries that difficulties and conflict were to arise.

Having shared the bare outline of this Grand Lodge's origin and background it is time to turn to the matter of its practice and ritual. Our source for these matters are the surprisingly informative minutes up to 1790 and the Lodge Rules which are included with them. As a result of reading through this unique record I now want to share with you some 10 items that is all that the rest of our time will permit. For the full story of this ancient Masonic body I hope you will eventually have my longer published work.

1) From the outset we note that this Lodge has at its head a member called 'President'. This in itself is unusual and suggests that what we are dealing with was a body that did not regard itself simply as a private lodge. When we learn that the holders of this special office were from the outset those of noble ancestry it seems clear that some special role was associated with the York Lodge. When, further, we find that these Presidents also had a named Deputy, and that Deputy was the Mason who presided over the normal meetings of the lodge, the double nature of what we are dealing with becomes even more obvious.

2) A perusal of the membership lists from 1712 onwards makes quite clear that the main bases of lodge membership were that candidates must be Freemen of a trade in the City of York or be of noble or gentlemanly status. There is little doubt that this became an increasingly awkward requirement in the years following the Grand Lodge's revival in 1761 and it was almost certainly one of the factors that led to the resignation of several members in the late 1760s and the creation of rival Moderns lodges in the City. This was not the only factor but as we proceed we shall note others. What this membership requirement implied was that if a man was a Freeman he must at some previous stage have served an apprenticeship and therefore there was no need for that grade of membership to be repeated in this Lodge's practice. Indeed, we know that throughout the period of its existence the Grand Lodge of All England normally opened in only one degree, that of the Fellow (the Scottish term Fellowcraft never being used there). Whilst the exclusion of an Apprentice grade had been quite acceptable, whilst the lodge was held in conjunction with the Mason's Guild, this exclusion was not agreeable to the working masons who continued to attend the Grand Lodge after its severance from the parent body. The working mason members then insisted that, apart from themselves who had served as apprentices in this trade, all those who henceforth entered the Craft through this Lodge should be required to undergo some sort of obligation and instruction. What is interesting as far as this Grand Lodge is concerned is that the grade of Apprentice was conferred within a Lodge of Fellows and until about 1770 brethren were then at once made Fellows on the same evening. At the latter date it was decided to admit men as Apprentices on a separate evening but the Lodge was still opened in the degree of a Fellow. This was quite contrary to Premier Grand Lodge practice where a separate opening and ceremony were devised for the 2 grades.

3) Another distinctive feature of this York Grand Lodge throughout its existence was that it distinguished between being a member of the Craft and a member of the Lodge. This distinction reverted, of course, to the time when in order to join the Guild Lodge a candidate had to affirm his nominal membership of the Mason's Craft to which the parent Guild belonged. This Grand Lodge maintained that when a candidate had been made an Apprentice/Fellow he was simply an acknowledged Freemason so a separate ballot had to be taken on another evening, and then by no means always successful, as to whether this new Mason could be accepted into this prestigious Lodge. This was to be another source of irritation for certain municipally important brethren.

4) From 1730 onwards the influence of what was happening elsewhere spread to York. The Fellows Lodge was regarded as the normal place of meeting but we now find in the Minutes the calling of a quite separate Master Masons Lodge on a different day. This must have been another cause for irritation because not every member of the Fellows Lodge was apparently considered fit for acceptance in the Master Mason degree. It is clear that those who had been rulers of this Grand Lodge, whether as President or Deputy, were influential in the choice of M.M. candidates and the mere fact that a Brother had discharged his obligations to the Lodge as a Fellow was no guarantee that he would be advanced to the next grade. What was also noticeable was that it was at the Master Masons Lodge that the names and election of a new President now took place. This must have again disturbed those who believed that as Fellows they had every right to participate in such an important decision. Moreover, as we see from the Lectures, there was Masonic knowledge that was restricted to the Master Masons so the exclusion of faithful Fellows must have caused further division. It is worth noting here, however, that in North America and Scandinavia to this day Constitutions restrict the right to vote in Lodge to Master Masons.

5) One of the most distinctive features of York Grand Lodge working was the predominance of 'Lectures'. Whilst this was the term used we would more naturally describe them as catechismal dialogues. What we know took place at meetings when a candidate was admitted was that, after being taken round the square table at which the Lodge members sat, he was tested by the Wardens, presented to the R.W.M. who obligated him on the Bible and using the Ancient Charges. He was given the grip and sign, clothed with a lodge apron and then shown to a place at the table. In the early days the R.W.M. or a Past Master then began to ask the catechismal questions around the table, addressing each member in turn. These Lectures became more lengthy and detailed and eventually required substantial memory skills, so that by the 1760s they became the sole responsibility of the Past Masters. Yet they were regarded as so important that after 1765 a jewel was donated to the York Grand Lodge to be presented annually to the most competent P.M. It is likely that William Preston, who negotiated with York to form a possible Grand Lodge South of the River Trent, derived the idea of an annual Lecturer from this York practice.

6) Once a year on the Feast of St. John the Evangelist a special and impressive Installation of the Grand Master took place. Following Divine Service, conducted in the church in Coney Street by the Grand Chaplain, election to the office was confirmed by the Master Masons in the Lodge meeting at their usual Inn. From here, around midday, a procession of the Lodge members in full regalia was formed under their banner and, led by the Town Waites, they marched to either the Hall of the Merchant Adventurers in Piccadilly or of the Merchant Taylors in Aldwark. Here the full and formal Installation took place after which there was a proper banquet. After 1761 it was often the case that non-Masons and ladies were invited to the banquet, so that kind of practice has a long precedent in York Masonic history. It was at just such an Installation that a famous address was delivered by Dr. Francis Drake, the Junior Grand Warden.

7) This address is of paramount importance for our proper understanding of this Grand Lodge's ethos and tradition. What sadly seems to have happened in the 19th century was that attention was almost solely focussed on the Doctor's emphasis on the ancient credentials claimed by this Grand Lodge. Whilst it is true that he did underline this antiquity there are 3 other significant matters mentioned by him which seem to have been overlooked. One is that there was specific reference to the tripartite make-up of this Grand Lodge, working masons, the trading or professional members, and the gentry. For each of these groups he had a specially directed message, making clear the social strata that existed even in their Lodge. He also spelt out the relationship that was then intended to exist between their Grand Lodge and that of London. As each had their respective areas of operation so complete amity and respect could exist between them. And thirdly he lets us into not only what are obviously quotes from contemporary ritual but no less a secret than that York respected both the Josiah and Zerubbabel legends. I cannot say more here but this speech deserves more consideration than it is usually given.

8) Reference has already been made to the central table in the lodge room around which any ceremonies took place. We know that the Master sat at the apex of the square table and behind him was a rod carrying a letter G. When voting took place the ballot box was placed behind the R.W.M., whilst in front of him were 3 candles in the form of a triangle around the open Bible. A cushion was placed on the ground for the candidates to kneel on. There were no Deacons or Inner Guard but there were Stewards who of course served the brethren in the periods of refreshment that interspersed the ceremonies. During my time in Yorkshire I have often been invited to old lodges in the two Provinces where I was told that I would witness 'Old York working'. I now have to say that what is meant by such well-intentioned invitations is that I will see old Antients Grand Lodge working for they called themselves 'Old York Masons'. What I can tell you is that if you really want to witness the only remaining authentic pattern of York Grand Lodge practice then you have to go to Pennsylvania to see what they do. As they have no printed rituals you cannot read about their practice or ritual.

9) By the 1770s the Grand Lodge at York had devised a very precise pattern of working a five degree system which meant that all its members knew exactly what ceremony was to be presented on any Lodge night each quarter. This system comprised the 3 basic degrees, the Royal Arch and the Knight Templar. The Lodge in each case was opened only in that form of degree that was announced and those not involved or qualified stayed away. The ceremonies were all held under the rule of the R.W.M. or a Past Master and the same lodge room was the setting in each case. The conduct of these ceremonies was in exactly the same fashion as for the Apprentice
and Fellow, i.e. examination, obligation, vesting and Lectures.

10) In this latter arrangement we see the origin of what was later to be called in North America the 'York Rite'. What distinguishes that practice from what took place in York, prior to the Grand Lodge's demise in the latter years, was that instead of continuing the original method of presenting the Old Lectures new ceremonies were devised and added to the 5 degrees named above. Those additional steps were largely what we would now describe as the Cryptic and Allied systems. It is because of these additional ceremonies that we now more correctly call the York Rite there the American Rite.

[stewart edwards]

Emphasis mineThe main difference was that whilst the London Premier Grand Lodge was formed by certain private and independent lodges which agreed to accept its authority in certain matters the York Grand Lodge of All England claimed authority from an ancient tradition dating back to immemorial times.
Kadosh this being so why do some ugle masons take real issue with current day private and independent lodges that do operate in our communities?:confused:

I am assuming that it is not simply jealousy, fear, or a desire to control all based.

[kadosh]

THE ROLE OF GRAND LODGES by Richard Martin Young, Grand Chancellor of the Grand Lodge of All England - June 2007

Grand Lodges, whenever and wherever they have been established represent a development in Freemasonry, whether the development has been beneficial or otherwise. Their establishment has always been in the form of markers in the long history of Freemasonry. Regular Grand Lodges have never confined the philosophy, principles and practice of Freemasonry absolutely within their own organisational structures. To suggest that they could do so is an affront to the very nature and practice of Freemasonry.

Regular Grand Lodges are the guardians of Freemasonry, not its owners or possessors. Their executive and judicial functions are to be exercised with care and concern for their members in particular and in the interests of Freemasonry in general, recognising that they are a part of the whole, not a monolith. Grand Lodges exist to assist Masons, not to enslave them.

Englishmen, and men of many other nations have practiced their Freemasonry even as prisoners of war, adapting themselves to conditions beyond the reach of jurisdiction of any Grand Lodge.

Freemasonry in England, as earlier indicated, was practiced and organised in the 10th century. The genesis of the Grand Lodge of All England at York lies in the Charter granted to the Masons at York by King Athelstan, in AD 926. Freemasonry did not come into being with the formation of a Grand Lodge for London in 1717. On the contrary, in 1725, the adoption by the Old Grand Lodge at York of the name "The Grand Lodge of All England" was by way of a declaration and a warning that it would not accept further attempts by the London Grand Lodge to encroach upon its long established jurisdiction.

The Articles of Union in 1813 between the Moderns Grand Lodge of London and the Antients Grand Lodge which produced the United Grand Lodge of England, represents merely a typically Hanovarian attempt at rationalisation and control for the benefit of that dynasty, rather than a development designed for the benefit of Masons and Freemasonry.

The attempt by the United Grand Lodge of England to monopolise English Freemasonry and to exclude The Grand Lodge at York was an early attempt at hegemony, designed to stifle the development of a philosophy it could not otherwise control.

The "rationalisation" of Freemasonry under The Duke of Sussex and for the Hanovarian cause involved the unnecessary removal of whatever Christian aspects within Freemasonry the Duke disapproved of, as well as the removal of the Holy Royal Arch (amongst others) as a constituent degree of Craft Masonry.

The extensive use of control exerted through the means of repression and influence characterised the Hanovarian approach to all English constitutional structures, including the Church and Parliament.

The Articles of Union (1813) made possible the development of the entirely bogus and wholly un-Masonic doctrine of "Recognition". This pernicious doctrine which continues to divide Mason from Mason today, in all parts of the Masonic world, and is inimical to the notion of a free Mason, had its apogee in that sad point in English history when Masons who accepted the dominance of the Hanovarian appropriation of major parts of English Freemasonry were exempted from the crushing repression of Acts such as The Unlawful Societies Act, 1799, whilst other Masons, including those who clung to much earlier traditions were not.

The Grand Lodge of All England, at York remains to this very day true to its Constitutions and to the universal principles of Freemasonry. It recognises its unique ability to represent Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry to the world, to maintain the Holy Royal Arch in its proper place, and to make Masons irrespective of race, nationality or religion.

Richard Martin Young is a retired Law Lecturer, Historian and a member of Renaissance Lodge at London.

[kadosh]

The Athelstan/Assembly of Masons at York legend is just that - a legend. It didn't happen. It couldn't happen because in 926, King Athelstan was not in York, it was ruled by the Danish king Sihtric. Refer to The York Legend in the Old Charges by Bro. Alex Horne, published by Lewis Masonic in 1978.

Cetainly the Regius Peom from the 1300's states that it did. That poem is still extant. There is some disagreement on the exact year - it could have been as late as 928 A.D.

Bro. Eric Ward a PM of QCL 2076 (EC) in his review of Alex Horne's book states:

"Between the departure of the Romans and the Norman Conquest of 1066, church and secular buildings including fortified castles were with few exceptions made of wood. Indeed, for centuries after the Conquest minor buildings continued to be made of this material. The reasons why timber preponderated in Anglo-Saxon building were firstly that the land was covered with oak forests and therefore wood was incomparably cheaper than stone which not only had to be hewn but transported. Secondly, the tools required for cutting stone were lacking, especially those needed to hew, square and carve the harder materials, e.g. the magnesian limestones common in the North of England.

When the Normans came they embarked upon a construction programme which was so far beyond the capacity of the native masons that it was necessary to employ vast numbers of unskilled workers and reduce to a minimum the skilled work of chiselling stone. Hence the original parts of the early Norman buildings, e.g. Durham, St. Albans, Winchester, Ely and Norwich are characterized by simple, crudely finished stonework hewn with primitive tools. Sometimes rough hewn blocks were placed in position and dressed in situ, the whole being later covered over on the inside by a layer of plaster which was then painted.

So in the time of Athelstan, King of the West Saxons 925-940 and ruler of the Kingdom of York 927-940, nearly 500 years before the earliest surviving example of the Old Charges, there was no Anglo-Saxon stone working industry of sufficient substance to stage 'masonic' assemblies and conferences of the magnitude implied. No doubt the legend arose from the appeal of Athelstan's name, which in old English means noble stone. It is significant that a royal palace at Cheddar in Somerset, considered to have been rebuilt in the reign of Athelstan, has been the subject of recent archeological investigation. The hall was constructed wholly of wood and the chapel made of limestone rubble covered with stucco painted to simulate dressed masonry. (P. A. Rahtz, Medieval Archeology, vols. 6 and 7.) The palace at Cheddar was not a good advertisement for Athelstan's supposed love of masons."

Athelstan did not make the United Kingdom "united" He did eventually rule over what is now known as England. However the northeastern parts (Northumbria) returned to Danish rule after his death. He never lived in York.

He was a very well known historical character in mediaeval England, there were popular sagas and stories about him, an English Charlemagne figuring in several 14th century poetic romances and to connect the Craft with him was an astute way of giving masonry the popular perception of an extremely high class and regal beginning.

[grandsecretary]

THE GRAND LODGE OF ALL ENGLAND AT YORK AND ITS PRACTICES by V.W. Bro. The Revd. Neville Barker Cryer, P.G.C. - UGLE Prestonian Lecturer 1974. SGCE Batham Lecturer 1996/7, P.M. Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076 EC (The Premier Lodge of Masonic Research).

These lodges were initially intended for the Freemen Masons who belonged to the Trade Company but evidence reveals that the lodge in York in 1663 also had members who were Free-men of other trades. What we also know is that after the Restoration of 1660 the stone mason trade had so recovered in the country at large that in both York and Chester there were applications by the working masons to have a new Charter for a Stone Masons' Guild.

Total nonsense. Primarily for stone masons, be jiggered. They had, and still have their own separate and distinct trade guild in York.

Just as this book was going to press the news broke that a move was being made to revive the Grand Lodge of All England as a rival to the United Grand Lodge. The author wishes it to be understood that this book was written with no such move in mind and that it has no connection whatsoever with that step. (SOURCE: York Mysteries Revealed by the Revd Neville Barker-Cryer, Chapter 1, Introduction)

This followed telephone conversations between Neville and me. I know what motivates Neville. He is an avowed propagandist on behalf of the newcomers to Masory and his disclaimer reproduced above defending his position as a UGLE man is thoroughly revealing. Of course he is not an historian and therefore does not have to comply with normal academic rigours.

[kadosh]

The Rev'd Neville Barker Cryer, MA (Oxon) CCTH (Cantab) is a well-known Masonic author and international lecturer. He is a member of the oldest Lodge in York and a Past Master and Secretary of Lodge Quatuor Coronati, and thus has had every incentive and opportunity to learn about the distinctive contribution York Masonry has made in building the Craft and English Freemasonry. Neville Cryer is also a senior member of the SRIA, The Royal Order, the Operatives and the Order of Eri. His books include: I Just Didn't Know That, What Do You Know about Royal Arch? Did You Know This, York Mysteries Revealed, Tell Me More About the Mark Degree, The Arch and the Rainbow, A Commentary On The Knights Templar And The Knights Of Malta Ritual, Masonic Halls of England & Wales, Compendium of Masonic Prayers and Graces, Delving Further Beyond the Craft, The Royal Arch Journey, Cornwallis Family History (The), 1225-2006, Understanding More About the Knight Templar and Malta Degrees, Let Me Tell You More, and Belief and Brotherhood.

[grandsecretary]

The Athelstan/Assembly of Masons at York legend is just that - a legend. It didn't happen. It couldn't happen because in 926, King Athelstan was not in York, it was ruled by the Danish king Sihtric. Refer to The York Legend in the Old Charges by Bro. Alex Horne, published by Lewis Masonic in 1978.

Cetainly the Regius Peom from the 1300's states that it did. That poem is still extant. There is some disagreement on the exact year - it could have been as late as 928 A.D.

Bro. Eric Ward a PM of QCL 2076 (EC) in his review of Alex Horne's book states:

"Between the departure of the Romans and the Norman Conquest of 1066, church and secular buildings including fortified castles were with few exceptions made of wood. Indeed, for centuries after the Conquest minor buildings continued to be made of this material. The reasons why timber preponderated in Anglo-Saxon building were firstly that the land was covered with oak forests and therefore wood was incomparably cheaper than stone which not only had to be hewn but transported. Secondly, the tools required for cutting stone were lacking, especially those needed to hew, square and carve the harder materials, e.g. the magnesian limestones common in the North of England.

When the Normans came they embarked upon a construction programme which was so far beyond the capacity of the native masons that it was necessary to employ vast numbers of unskilled workers and reduce to a minimum the skilled work of chiselling stone. Hence the original parts of the early Norman buildings, e.g. Durham, St. Albans, Winchester, Ely and Norwich are characterized by simple, crudely finished stonework hewn with primitive tools. Sometimes rough hewn blocks were placed in position and dressed in situ, the whole being later covered over on the inside by a layer of plaster which was then painted.

So in the time of Athelstan, King of the West Saxons 925-940 and ruler of the Kingdom of York 927-940, nearly 500 years before the earliest surviving example of the Old Charges, there was no Anglo-Saxon stone working industry of sufficient substance to stage 'masonic' assemblies and conferences of the magnitude implied. No doubt the legend arose from the appeal of Athelstan's name, which in old English means noble stone. It is significant that a royal palace at Cheddar in Somerset, considered to have been rebuilt in the reign of Athelstan, has been the subject of recent archeological investigation. The hall was constructed wholly of wood and the chapel made of limestone rubble covered with stucco painted to simulate dressed masonry. (P. A. Rahtz, Medieval Archeology, vols. 6 and 7.) The palace at Cheddar was not a good advertisement for Athelstan's supposed love of masons."

Athelstan did not make the United Kingdom "united" He did eventually rule over what is now known as England. However the northeastern parts (Northumbria) returned to Danish rule after his death. He never lived in York.

He was a very well known historical character in mediaeval England, there were popular sagas and stories about him, an English Charlemagne figuring in several 14th century poetic romances and to connect the Craft with him was an astute way of giving masonry the popular perception of an extremely high class and regal beginning.

This is such ahistoric desperate childish twaddle that has been demolished, in detail, many times before, here on this forum.

I could post photographs of 200 stone buildings including churches, abbeys, monasteries, towers, and many other buildings of this time. Wooden buildings indeed.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/StPetersChurchThorington.jpg

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/StPetersChurch.jpg

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/AllsaintsChurchBrixworth.jpg

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/stMaryChurchStow.jpg

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/AllSaintsEarlsBarton.jpg

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/StAndrewsinBywell.jpg

My God, why do I have to deal with such morons?

Let me just deal with one issue:

Athelstan did not make the United Kingdom "united" He did eventually rule over what is now known as England. However the northeastern parts (Northumbria) returned to Danish rule after his death. He never lived in York.

NOBODY has EVER claimed that King Athelstan united the United Kingdom. In fact he ruled as "Bretwalda" over the whole of England, Wales and parts of Scotland.

Our own dear Queen does not "live" in Scunthorpe, or Caerphilly kadosh. Think about it.

For some reason you are suddenly becoming desperate and dragging up all the old hoary UGLE propaganda chestnuts that were dealt with and demolished nearly 5 years ago. I am bored now.

If anyone here, including kadosh wishes to educate themselves about King Athelstan I recommend:

The Age of Athestan, Britain's Forgotten Monarch by Paul Hill. ISBN 978-0-7524-2566-5

Now Paul Hill is an historian. A real one.

He was Athelstan, the first King of England. His piety, strength of leadership and international reputation quickly made him a legend to people at home and abroad. (SOURCE: Page 9 Foreword)

Proper academic historical use of the word "legend".

[grandsecretary]

Emphasis mine
Kadosh this being so why do some ugle masons take real issue with current day private and independent lodges that do operate in our communities?:confused:

I am assuming that it is not simply jealousy, fear, or a desire to control all based.

No Stewart this is a deliberate misuse of the word lodge. As now, all Fellows were members of the Grand Lodge itself, but met locally. Local Free Masons, in possesion of their individual copy of the Grand Lodge's Charter, could meet anywhere in a temporary meeting place. A lodge was a grouping of people, not a building.

The newcomers use of Moderns Lodges are different animals. It's just another piece of propaganda.

They changed the definition, not pure Free Masonrie, and then they try to say that because their system of fixed Lodges were not used, then they were "private" unconnected lodges.

OF COURSE THEY WERE PRIVATE! What do these idiots think they should have done, met on the village green?

Quite a sustained attack this time isn't it Stewart?

[stewart edwards]

As someone who knows how much can be gained form diversity it seems like common sense to me that the masonic world should respect differences and work togther for the common good.

That said, as you know Peter, I do sympathise with ugles plight, for it does reflect fairly well my own journey through life (in terms of conceptual problems and challenges), and I can only hope that the Royal who takes over from The Duke of Kent has the experience, vision and drive necessary to help guide ugle through the next stage of its life in the unique challenges of the 21st century. The real world is moving on fast even if ugle appears to failing to keep up with changing society. But this is just my perception.

[grandsecretary]

I agree with you Stewart. We respect the rights of a Masonic Grand Lodge that was constituted in December 1812 as The United Grand Lodge of England, but unfortunately as you have seen here, yet again, these newcomers to Free Masonry do not respect anyone else's and will use ANY measure of dishonesty, misinformation, disinformation, lies and innuendo to attack, denegrate and damage what THEY see as a rival, or any other opposition. Anything goes.

This is what their own Lodge of Antiquity published and it deserves careful reading because nothing changes:

"... to preserve the Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry, Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth."

MANIFESTO OF THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL LODGE OF ANTIQUITY, 1778
TO ALL REGULAR FREE and ACCEPTED MASONS.

I. WHEREAS the Society of Free Masons is universally acknowledged to be of ancient standing and great repute in this kingdom, as by our Records, and Printed Constitutions, it appears that the first Grand Lodge in England was held at York, in the year 926, by virtue of a Royal Charter, granted by King Athelstan; And, under the patronage and government of this Grand Lodge, the Society considerably increased; and the ancient charges and regulations of the Order so far obtained the sanction of Kings and Princes, and other eminent Persons, that they always paid due allegiance to the said Grand Assembly.

II. AND WHEREAS it appears, by our Records, that in the year 1567, the increase of Lodges in the South of England being so great as to require some Nominal Patron to superintend their government, it was resolved that a person under the title of Grand Master for the South should be appointed for that purpose, with the approbation of the Grand Lodge at York, to whom the whole Fraternity at large were bound to pay tribute and acknowledge subjection. And, after the appointment of such Patron, Masonry flourished under the guardianship of him and his successors in the South, until the Civil Wars and other intestine commotions interrupted the assemblies of the Brethren.

III. AND WHEREAS it also appears that, in the year 1693, the meetings of the Fraternity in their regular lodges in the South became less frequent, and chiefly occasional, EXCEPT in or near Places where great works were carried on. At which time the Lodge of Antiquity, or (as it was then called) the Old Lodge of St. Paul, with a few others of small note, continued to meet under the patronage of Sir Christopher Wren, and assisted him in rearing that superb Structure from which this respectable Lodge derived its Title. But on completing this Edifice in 1710, and Sir Christopher Wren's retiring into the country, the few remaining Lodges, in London and its suburbs, continued, without any nominal Patron, in a declining state for about the space of seven years.

IV. AND WHEREAS, in the year 1717, the Fraternity in London agreed to cement under a new Grand Master, and with that view the Old Lodge of St. Paul, jointly with three other Lodges, assembled in form, constituted themselves a Nominal Grand Lodge pro temperore, and elected a Grand Master to preside over their future general meetings, whom they afterwards invested with a power to constitute subordinate Lodges, and to convene the Fraternity at stated periods in Grand Lodge, in order to make Laws with their consent and approbation, for the good government of the Society at large - BUT SUBJECT to certain conditions and restrictions then expressly stipulated, and which are more fully set forth in the 39th article of the general regulations, in the first book of Constitutions. This article, with 38 others, was afterwards, at a meeting of the Brethren in and about the cities of London and Westminster, in the year 1721, solemnly approved of, ratified and confirmed by them and signed in their prescence by the Master and Wardens of the Four Old Lodges on the one part; and Philip Duke of Wharton, then Grand Master, Dr. Desaguliers D.G.M., Joshua Timson, and William Hawkins Grand Wardens, and the Masters and Wardens of sixteen Lodges which had been constituted by the Fraternity, betwixt 1717 and 1721, on the other part. And these articles the Grand Master engaged for himself and his successors, when duly installed, in all time coming to observe and keep sacred and inviolable - By these prudent precautions the ancient Landmarkds (as they are properly styled) of the Four old Lodges were intended to be secured against any encroachments on their Masonic rights and privileges.

V. AND WHEREAS, of late years, notwithstanding the said solemn engagement in the year 1721, sundry innovations and encroachments have been made, and are still making on the original plan and government of Masonry, by the present nominal Grand Lodge in London, highly injurious to the institution itself, and tending to subvert and destroy the ancient rights and privileges of the Society, more particularly of those members of it under whose sanction, and by whose authority, the said Grand Lodge was first established and now exists.

VI. AND WHEREAS, at this present time, there only remains one of the said four original ancient Lodges - The Old Lodge of St. Paul, or, as it is now emphatically styled, The Lodge of Antiquity. Two of the said four ancient Lodges having been extinct for many years, and the Master of the other of them having, on the part of his Lodge, in open Grand Lodge relinquished all such inherent rights and privileges which, as a private Lodge acting by an immemorial Constitution, it enjoyed. - BUT, the Lodge of Antiquity, conscious of its own dignity, which the members thereof are resolutely determined to support, and justly incensed at the violent measures and proceedings which have been lately adopted and pursued by the said nominal Grand Lodge, wherein thay have assumed an unlawful prerogative over the Lode of Antiquity, in manifest breach of the aforesaid 39th article, by which means the peaceable government of that respectable Lodge has been repeatedly interrupted, and even the original independent power thereof, in respect to its own Internal Government, disputed.

VII. THEREFORE, and on account of the Arbitrary Edicts and Laws which the said nominal Grand Lodge has, from time to time, presumed to issue and attempted to enforce, repugnant to the ancient Laws and principles of Free Masonry, and highly injurious to the Lodge of Antiquity.

VIII. WE, the Master, Wardens, and Members of the Lodge of Antiquity, considering ourselves bound in duty, as well as honour, to preserve inviolable the ancient rights and privileges of the Order, and, as far as in our power, to hand them down to posterity in their native purity and excellence, do hereby, for ourselves and our successors, solemnly disavow and discountenance such unlawful measures and proceedings of the said nominal Grand Lodge; and do hereby declare and announce to all our Masonic Brethren throughout the Globe, That the said Grand Lodge has, by such arbitrary conduct, evidently violated the conditions expressed in the aforesaid 39th article of the general regulations, in the observance of which article the permanency of their authority solely depended.

IX. AND in consequence thereof, WE, do by these presents retract from, and recal, all such rights and powers, as We, or our predecessors, did conditionally give to the said nominal Grand Lodge in London; and do hereby disannul and make void all future Edicts and Laws which the said Grand Lodge may presume to issue and enforce, by virtue of such sanction, as representatives of the ancient and honourable Society of Free and Accpeted Masons.

X. AND WHEREAS, we have, on full enquiry and due examination, happily discovered, that the aforesaid truly ancient Grand Lodge at York does still exist: and have authentic Records to produce of their antiquity, long before the establishment of the nominal Grand Lodge in London, in the year 1717; We do, therefore, hereby solemnly avow, acknowledge, and admit the Authority of the said Most Worshipful Grand Lodge at York, as the truly ancient and only regular governing Grand Lodge of Masons in England, to whom the Fraternity all owe and are rightfully bound to pay allegiance.

XI. AND WHEREAS, the present Members of the said Grand Lodge at York have acknowledged the ancient power and authority of the Lodge of Antiquity in London as a private Lodge, and have proposed to form an alliance with the said Lodge, on the most generous and disinterested principles, - We do hereby acknowledge this generous mark of their friendship towards us, and gratefully accept their liberal, candid and ingenuous offers of alliance:- And do hereby, from a firm persuasion of the justice of our cause, announce a general union with all Regular Masons throughout the world, who shall join us in supporting the original principles of Free Masonry,- in promoting and extending the authority of the said truly ancient Grand Lodge at York, under such respectable auspices in propogating Masonry on its pure, genuine and original plan.

XII. AND LASTLY, we do earnestly solicit the hearty concurrence of all regular Lodges of the Fraternity in all places where Freemasonry is legally established, to enable us to carry into execution the aforesaid plan, which is so apparently beneficial to our most excellent institution, -and at the present critical juncture, so essentially necessary to curb the arbitrary power which has been already exerted, or which hereafter may be illegally assumed, by the nominal Grand Lodge in London, -and so timely prevent such un-Masonic proceedings from becoming a disgrace to the Society at large.

By order of the Right Worshipful LODGE OF ANTIQUITY,
in open Lodge assembled, this 16th day of December, A.D. 1778. A.L. 5782

J. SEALY, Secretary.

*** As a few Expelled members of the Lodge of Antiquity have presumed to associate as Masons at the Mitre Tavern, in Fleet Street, under the denomination of this Lodge, - Notice is hereby given, that the Right Worshipful Lodge of Antiquity, acting by Immemorial Constitution, is removed from the said Mitre Tavern, to the Queen's Arms Tavern, in St. Paul's Church-Yard; where all letters to the Lodge are requested to be directed.

Incidentally: Notice the spelling of the words Free Masons.

[truth teller]

They where originally a society dedicated to finishing the Great Work of the physical and spiritual pefection of man via the enlightenment process. They where carrying on the Pagan mysteries.

But they where later on corrupted and take over by the Rothchilds and now serve to bring in their global system.

[stewart edwards]

Well the words of the masons here, or at least claimed masons here, speaks volumes. Sadly it is not only here, but also on masonic forums over the past decade.

It gives me no pleasure in writing this, for I do think that our world dearly needs freemasonry just now, England certainly does. But tolerance and striving for truth appear to have become a bit neglected.

It must be a heartache for the high hied yins who can "feel the pulse". Can only hope that they can find the inner courage to dispel the darkness that has sadly seemingly penetrated. Safe pairs of hands are important to stop things falling apart but without leaders who can inspire in the changing climate of the 21st century, the outlook is bleak.

I can only imagine that there have been times in GQS where the high hied yins have dropped their heads into their hands and almost cried at the public behaviour of their and amity members.

Its easy to turn a blind eye and deny things that happen in real life, without paperwork etc, but when masons act unmasonicly on the net there is a permanent record in the backup servers.

Sort of reminds me of an incident yesterday in Oxford. I was behind a posh car and in the back seat was a robed student who had a hissy fit punching, screaming and throwing stuff in the back of daddys car, before he stormed out of the car in a jam and strutted off. Leaving daddy to drive away, presumably a bit sad at his sons behaviour. In a poor family some would say bad parenting etc, but for someone with all of those privilidges....Anyhow it sort of reminded me of how some masons act on the internet. Terribly sad. Apologies now if you are the dad or the son, but I did have a very good view in the traffic jam.

[grandsecretary]

They where originally a society dedicated to finishing the Great Work of the physical and spiritual pefection of man via the enlightenment process. They where carrying on the Pagan mysteries.

Correct, except that the pagan religions were converted to Culdeeism. The snakes of Ireland, for instance, were driven out by St Patrick, a Culdee High Priest. Here he is dressed as a High Priest in the Stained Glass window of Armagh Abbey. Notice the Beehive shaped Culdee Monks lodge upon the Holy Book in his left hand.

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/StPatrickofArmagh-1.jpg

The symbol of the pagan religions of that day in Ireland was a snake.

[navallodge87]

First of all, freemasonry is not for everyone and each lodge represent itself, you may visit certain lodges and not feel welcome at all or you feel like you are in a retiree club. While other lodges try to become more relevant to today environment.

Here is an excellent article about freemasonry and young men

It is time to align our lodges to the needs of a new century and a new generation of masons.

It is time to speak clearly to young men. The Masonic Lodge is a fraternity. That means it is exclusively for men. It is often referred to as the Blue Lodge. Worshipful master tool

There are various groups that are related to the Blue Lodge. There is Eastern Star for the women and interested Masons, Demolay for the boys and Jobe’s Daughters and Rainbow for the girls. In addition, there are many other groups for the men that require Blue lodge membership first. Among these there is the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, and the Shriners. There are others but these are the main groups. All of these groups related to the Blue Lodge are called concordant bodies.
The full article is here:
http://www.navallodge87.org/young-men-in-masonry/

[stewart edwards]

navallodge87

Hello.

Are you prepared to comment on UGLEs public statement that women can not only be freemasons (just not with ugle) and that members are encouraged to point this out? See for example http://www.hfaf.org/ugle.htm

[armoured_amazon]

Sexist. Or at least, the movement is. What's all this duality bullcrap, when they don't follow through?

[bowtiedaddy]

You know. . . my big issue, are you into freedom or not? I don't care what you worship, or what rituals you do. Do you want a society of freedom and peace or do you want the opposite?

[stewart edwards]

You know. . . my big issue, are you into freedom or not? I don't care what you worship, or what rituals you do. Do you want a society of freedom and peace or do you want the opposite?I hope that it is fairly clear that I want freedom and peace.

To achieve this however you need to eliminate war and enable free movement of people. This requires a federal planet, where strength is gained through treasuring our diveristy. Some sort of Earth Union (A big European Union) or a United States of Earth (a big USA). THe European union is growing. Mind you so is China with its growing global influence though aid etc.

The problem is ensuring that positions of power are held by those who genuinely have the best interests of this planet at heart. But even with all of the alleged corruption and inefficiencies in the European Union, Germany is unlikley to declare war on the rest of Europe ever again, so perhaps corruption and inefficiency is the price to pay for peace and freedom. In which case it is all about minimising it and again ensuring that key positions are held by more enlightened folk who are able to touch hearts and inspire others to take positive steps forwards.