Why do some people feel the need to post outright lies about Masons and Masonry?

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
Would I be correct in assuming Jah: Jahweh the God of the Hebrews, Bul: Baal, the ancient Canaanite fertility God associated with 'licentious rites of imitative magic', On: Osiris, the Ancient Egyptian God of the underworld?
How long before you think you'll take the oaths of the York Rite?
I ask this because I would like to hear of any subtle changes in your oaths from the outer portico to being accepted in the Rite.

Hi Nemo

I am a Royal Arch Mason in England and can tell you that that word does not appear anywhere in the Ritual, or indeed anywhere else in the Royal Arch.

You must be careful when you study freemasonry to be aware that there are sometimes quite significant differences between jurisdictions, although how that fact fits in with some peoples' theories is anyones guess

I'd be pleased to answer any question you have rgarding Royal Arch - even the ones you think you know the answers to already

Thankyou Trinityman, Is it possible for you to verify this? As an Englishman you would be quite familiar with who Stephan Knight was. He came across as a very honest reseacher. What was his agenda if his book(The Brotherhood) was full of lies? Was William Morgan a liar? Was John Quincy Adams (arguably the most intelligent of the Presidents) a liar? Are there any bodies of work that a non-mason (anti-mason) can look up to get more information on this?

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
Are there any bodies of work that a non-mason (anti-mason) can look up to get more information on this?

As a U.S. Royal Arch Mason for 15 years and Life-Member of my Chapter,
I can verify that the word "Jah-Bul-on" does not appear in the rituals worked in either of my two jurisdictions. I also collect and study fraternal rituals and have over a dozen other U.S. versions of the Royal Arch Ritual (it, like the Blue Lodge ritual varies from State to State) and I've NEVER seen it (jah-bul-on) used as a "word"

If you're interested in the symbolism of the Royal Arch Degree it's readily available to ANYONE interested enough to invest in a few books. (Sorry but contrary to what most people seem to believe, the internet is NOT the only source of information)

Jah (which at different times has been rendered "Javh, Jao, Jaoth, Java, Juba, Jaa, Jehovah, Juha, and others)

Bul (Bel, Belus, Baal, Buhl)

On (likely derived from "Aum" or "Om") are significant in the history and development of the Royal Arch Degree but they do NOT refer to a God, nor are they "worshipped" at an altar" as I believe you said eariler.

Specifically Macoy Masonic Publishing and Supply (which has a web-site) will sell you the following:

Guide to the Royal Arch Chapter by Sheville and Gould

The Royal Arch: It's Hidden Meaning by Steinmetz

(both excellent books)

also available at used booksellers is:

Freemason's Book of the Royal Arch by Bernard E. Jones

Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (two volumes) by Albert G. Mackey

and numerous others, so if you'd REALLY like to understand what this bastardized word "jah-bul-on" is the info is readily available to anyone.

Regards,




[edit on 5-11-2005 by senrak]

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
I'm afraid I am not a writer, just a humble reseacher. The sources I have quoted are far more able than I to get the message across.

Okie dokie. Fair enough.

The reason I speak of JAH-BUL-ON is not out of some bible thumping fundamentalist rage. I could care less if an individual worships God, Satan, Buddha, Zeus, etc... It is more out of a disgust at the fact that deceit is required to ensure an initiate enters the Lodge. You say that Freemasonry is a non-religious organization and that is a blatant lie.

Ummm, no. I never sid that freemasonry isn't religious, but I do hold the opinion that it is not a religion, and that there is no particular interpretation of Diety that is more or less revered by Masonry. A man's perception of God is his own; the only requirement Masonry has is that the way you see your god must be that you believe Him to be the Creator.

JAH-BUL-ON is a definite deity, one worshipped before an altar, within a temple. Yet you speak of honour? If you decieve your own, what acts do you perpetrate on the profane?

None. All the profane must do to learn is show the initiative and seek the Mysteries. That's it. The biggest misconception is that there is some Masonic secret that is hoarded and protected by Masons, when in reality, the secrets are the changes that are affected on the man from the experience of going through the degrees and having fellowship such as Freemasonry affords. It is something you have to find for yourself; no one can tell it to you or otherwise expose you to it. It is a personal journey, and a personal change. It is different for eveyone.

What was Albert Pike's reaction upon learning the sacred name?

Why don't you tell me?

Axeman -- In answer to your question: WHy do some people feel the need to post outright lies about Masons and Masonry?

Here's my answer.

1. Because they want you to think it's something that it's not.
2. Because they are liars and can't help themself.
3. Because they want people to think well of them even though there is no reason to think well of them -- in spite of the "charities" they do. Even Al Capone and the Mafia do charities.
4. Because they want to flaunt their bullying power and demonstrate how far they can go and what they can get away with, that they have superior rights and privileges and are held in higher regard by ATS than is Christianity.


There's probably a few other reasons I can think of but that will do for now. Last time I posted here I lost 90 points by the moderator who "just happens" to be a Freemason. Nice place ya got here, ATS.

Bye for now. I only got a few points so I can't stick around very long.

Thankyou Senrak, I shall definately look into these publications.

Originally posted by resistance
1. Because they want you to think it's something that it's not.

Then what is it, if it's not what we say it is? And how do you know this to be a fact?

2. Because they are liars and can't help themself.

I take offense, sir. I am not a liar.

3. Because they want people to think well of them even though there is no reason to think well of them -- in spite of the "charities" they do. Even Al Capone and the Mafia do charities.

Ummmmm... I can think of lots of reasons to look favorably upon Masonry; I've listed many of them on this very forum. How can you know without being privy to the teachings of Masonry?

4. Because they want to flaunt their bullying power and demonstrate how far they can go and what they can get away with, that they have superior rights and privileges and are held in higher regard by ATS than is Christianity.

Am I a bully? All I ask is that people elaborate on why they say bad things about Masonry... seeing as it's usually a very strong sentiment, I wouldn't think it would be such a daunting task as it seems to be.

There's probably a few other reasons I can think of but that will do for now. Last time I posted here I lost 90 points by the moderator who "just happens" to be a Freemason. Nice place ya got here, ATS.

Bye for now. I only got a few points so I can't stick around very long.

Well, as long as you don't break the T&C's, your points should be safe. Post away!

[edit on 11/6/05 by The Axeman]

I am only pretty new here so dont know much about the T&C's that you mentioned axeman but it is my belief that if a range of people have formulated an opinion on masonry based on what they see on the internet or read in a book then they are forming a very uneducated opinion. based on the way that people seem to articulate their opinions on these forums i believe that the majority of people who are involved here seem relatively well educated and curious to increase their knowledge so ratehr than posting gut reaction posts, take the time to personally speak to someone involved or even a local lodge near you and formulate your own educated opinion. In one sentence people state that the media is controlled etc etc yet people formulate their opinions on a variety of subjects purely based on a controlled or biased point of view.

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
Thankyou Trinityman, Is it possible for you to verify this? As an Englishman you would be quite familiar with who Stephan Knight was. He came across as a very honest reseacher. What was his agenda if his book(The Brotherhood) was full of lies? Was William Morgan a liar? Was John Quincy Adams (arguably the most intelligent of the Presidents) a liar? Are there any bodies of work that a non-mason (anti-mason) can look up to get more information on this?

Hmm. How would you like me to verify this? My Chapter uses 'Aldersgate' ritual; which is available for purchase on any number of masonic sites and a search should set you on the right path.

I am familiar with Knight and his book, and am afraid to report that there are a number of factual errors in it. To me he came across as an opportunist, building upon the known problems within the police at that time a case against freemasonry. It read to me very much like Von Daniken's 'Was God A Spaceman?' in the sense that a theory is developed first and then facts made to fit the theory. This is the wrong way round, as theories should always be drawn from facts first.

I can't comment on who was or wasn't a liar as I don't know. I suspect eveyone tells at least one lie in their life, even if it's the answer to the question "are you on that bloody ATS AGAIN!!!!!?"

Originally posted by Nemo me impune lacessit
Would I be correct in assuming Jah: Jahweh the God of the Hebrews, Bul: Baal, the ancient Canaanite fertility God associated with 'licentious rites of imitative magic', On: Osiris, the Ancient Egyptian God of the underworld?

In those versions of the Royal Arch in which a similar word is used, it is said that they are three words which denote the English word "Lord" in three different ancient languages. The word "Jah", spelled in Hebrew Yod Heh, is found several times in the Old Testament, translated into the KJV as "Lord". "Ba'al" also meant "lord" in several Semitic languages, and although it referred to a Semitic fertility deity, when used by the Prophets, it referred to Jehovah; its meaning depending upon the context in which it was used.

As for "On", this word never applied to Osiris. It is only found one in the Bible, in Genesis, where it is said that Joseph, after having been sold into slavery by his brethren, was later freed while in Egypt, and married the daughter of "the Priest of On".

However, "On" in this context did not refer to an Egyptian word for "God", but rather to a city. It is possible that the author of the Royal Arch degree mistakenly believed "On" to be an Egyptian name for "Lord".

Regardless, this infamous "word" used in some versions of the Royal Arch is never said to be a name of God, or the name of some sort of secret Masonic god.

How long before you think you'll take the oaths of the York Rite?

Technically, the Blue Lodge Degrees are part of the York Rite.

I ask this because I would like to hear of any subtle changes in your oaths from the outer portico to being accepted in the Rite.

There is very little fundamental differences in the obligations of the several degrees of the York Rite. Some would possibly even consider them just a formality, since the candidate has already pledged himself to honor, virtue, secrecy, and charity while in the Blue Lodge. The York Rite obligations (and Scottish Rite ones as well) merely reinforce the obligations of the Blue Lodge.

i would like to thank this individual for a frank and honest and informed posting to the frankly uneducated ramblings of those who denounce freemasonry and those who practice in ignorance of any real knowledge.

My family have been and are practicing Freemasons for 7 generations practised in both rites and are law-abiding, steadfast men of true hearts who are loving fathers, husbands and grandfathers who through the fruits of their own labour are well respected and have reached the highest ranks of both their communities, masonic and otherwise.

I think to any who immediately must slander, judge or in any way shape or form think poorly of Freemasons, please remember.

"Freemasonry is not a secret society but a society with secrets"

I hope this elightens those who clearly speak from the darkness. And incidentally there is no reference intended to the Illuminati, deliberate or otherwise.

Originally posted by crispii75
i would like to thank this individual for a frank and honest and informed posting to the frankly uneducated ramblings of those who denounce freemasonry and those who practice in ignorance of any real knowledge.

Thank you (assuming you meant me... ). I do my best. I still have alot to learn, however.

I'm still waiting for responses to my recent requests and queries, but someting tells me I shouldn't hold my breath.

You'd think that people who have such strong anti-Masonic opinions wouldn't have so much trouble explaining why they personally feel that way. I guess it's easier to copy and paste, but it sure doesn't do much to further the discussion without personal commentary.

[edit on 11/8/05 by The Axeman]

The Axeman, did you ever know Freemason on here? I read his stuff alot in middle school, ALOT. He argued with ppl, but that's beside the point, since the Freemason have allowed their brotherhood to disobey the rule about not using them for business, and most of them in some areas leaving their spouses because of "Success" through them(keep in mind I'm not talking about hire ups or ppl who wealthy, just average masons.). Some ppl find them easier to blame, instead of actually working for the answers, it's easy revenge, because 1. The masons can be an easy tool to manipulate the public through all kinds of business, and 2. When manipulated correctly by those scumballs at the top it allows for democracy to disapper by destroying mason family and american Christian moores and ethics. So ppl see them as easy targets.

BTW, sorry if I offended you by another post on another topic. Night.

Why do some people feel the need to post outright lies about Masons and Masonry?

The short answer is that when people attack good, they have nothing more in their arsenal than evil. You will note this in almost all conflicts.

I canot belive this thread is still opened.
Further more this thread is going to create more hate and more intolarance.

What are you going to do if a milion people comes and says"masonary is evil" are you going to wait for all of them to come and say it, it would take u'r hole life you know.

This thing "masonari" is for you like pepsi to me.
It seems masonary to you is more than just a brother hood.

Axe man show me u'r posts have you posted even one post besides about
masonary i am just curios.
You join here not cause of the fascination of the site, you joined here to defend "they think we are evil let's get on that site i hear it is called ATS and defend our selfs"
So what if we think masonary is evil learn to grow and live with it.




[edit on 13-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I am suprised that the ATS moderators didn't close this thread myself, what happen to them are they asleep? We are going around in circles on this topic, longtime dread!!! We will never get anywhere, because the Masons think they are right, and we know we are right, so peace..

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Why do some people feel the need to post outright lies about Masons and Masonry?

The short answer is that when people attack good, they have nothing more in their arsenal than evil. You will note this in almost all conflicts.

Me say masonry GOOOOOOOD. Me say if you say masonry not GOOOOOOOOD me say you EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL. Me righteous Light-Bearer baking Biscuits of Knowledge and making Gravy of Secrecy for Meals of Tarot.

Just when I swear I won't post on a thread again, that thread has to go and get entertaining again. As if everything is black and white without any grey. As if the world is made only of leftist democrats and rightist republicans. Masons and non-masons. Good and evil. So simple so truthful.

All I'm trying to say is that you picked up the "evil" stone and have thrown it back again and it will return again.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

This is my official “First Post”, and I thought I’d make it worthwhile. For those who won’t figure it out, I am proud to be a member of the brotherhood of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons. I’m a voracious reader, and consider a good argument (read: reasoned, cogent, intelligent discussion) to be a sport. These characteristics led me to join the Lodge to begin with – in spite of my Fundamentalist family’s objections – after reading everything I could find (pro and con) it was plain to me that there was nothing in Masonry which could possibly threaten my obligations to God, my family, my country, my neighbor, or myself. I am currently the Senior Deacon of my lodge and was recently honored to receive the 32nd Degree in the Scottish Rite. I am proud to say that after careful study of masonic ritual and symbolism (and even memorization of much of it) my faith and trust have been proven to have been well-founded.

That said, I am fascinated by the sheer volume of anti-masonry material that exists. Having read this entire thread (all 34 pages!) and the vast majority of the rest of the Masonic subjects on ATS, I find this thread characterizes everything I've found in every anti-masonic writing and website I have read. I've managed to place these intractable opponents into several neat categories, which I list in no particular order:

(1) Juvenile: Whether so in age or intellect, their postings are inevitably breathless, emotional, and uninformed attacks, most of which are or at least seem to have been written by semi-literate teenage "experts." These posts are inevitably void of grammar and punctuation and fail to present any credible "evidence" in support of their verbal hyperventilations.

Challenges to these posts are usually met with childish tantrums, further betraying the immaturity of the poster. These posts seem primarily motivated by either the joy of trolling or an inflated sense of "knowledge" fueled by a healthy dose of paranoia and gullibility, and hence the posters are likely to be living in Mommy's basement for a long (LONG!) time.

As they are generally incapable of rational discussion, these can be very frustrating to deal with, especially for those of us who have made it our endeavor to keep our passions in due bounds. When I find my ire being aroused by one of these kiddies, I simply remind myself that it is fruitless to allow my zeal for the Institution to lead me into argument with those who, through ignorance, may ridicule it.

(2) Adolescent intellect: These attacks often seem on the surface to be cogent and supportable. Upon even the most cursory examination of "sources" however they prove to be based on other websites which would be treated as of questionable veracity by an average public high-school student who has been taught even the rudiments of "research" and "documentation." These poster usually slink away in silent embarassment when forced to examine (for example) Pike or Hall's quotes in context, where they cannot be misconstrued.

In spite of first impressions, I believe that with time and education there is hope for these posters. As the good book says "when I was a child, I thought as a child and spake as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things." It is my opinion that a few years and a few books (hopefully those with progressively bigger words and smaller pictures) may add some wisdom to their outlook on life, the universe and everything, and the justifiable embarrassment they feel today may serve as a valuable lesson that will guide them into higher plains of thought and discussion in the future.

(3) Fundamentalists: These are perhaps the saddest of all to me, as I was raised in a fundamentalist household. Inevitably well-intentioned people, who truly believe they "know" what is best and are privy to "the ONLY keys to the Kingdom" these posts demonstrate not intellectual dishonesty, but rather quasi-religious intellectual irrationality.

Their posts are usually poorly critiqued parroting of the "work" of some "leader" who often uses selective and out-of-context quoting of "masonic literature" supported by selective and out-of-context quoting of "scripture" to make their "argument" against that which they have chosen not to understand.

Usually attributing anything which doesn't fit their narrow teaching as the work of some malevolent spirit, these folk are usually ineducable -- they'll say that a third degree mason doesn't know about the "real" masonry and claim such knowledge is reserved for "the high degrees" thus demonstrating the purity of their ignorance of the subject of Masonry. Inform them that you have, for example, received the 32nd degree in the S.R. and they'll say you still don't know because your not "a 33rd." If "a 33rd" they'll reject you as a sworn liar, revealing their circular reasoning and inability to think for themselves.

These folks deserve our pity more than any other group, for as Christ said "woe unto you blind guides." The thought that God endowed his creations with freewill and intellect, and has charged them to use it, is a threat to their fragile ego. Without absolutes to rely upon, and lacking faith to accept the "evidence of things not yet seen" they are unable to deal with the chaos of unanswerable questions that a stronger intellect sees as simple evidence of the incomprehensible majesty of God. It is for these reasons they so carefully repress their freewill with the heavy weight of sectarian Dogma (ie: as Christ said following their "blind guides") to the exclusion of the intellect with which Hen endowed them. It saddens me beyond my feeble grasp of the English language to express how sad I feel to see my fellow man so soundly reject the only thing that God gave man to separate him from the animals.

(4) Opportunists: These "false prophets" are rarely found on Internet forums, unless they've found a way to make a buck by posting. Most of the commercial "exposures" and other anti-masonic publications fit this category, and are used by the gullible or dishonest to support their conclusions. They've been around for 200+ years, and haven't yet failed to find an audience willing to enrich them for their talented fiction. It is my opinion that they are actually a benefit to Masonry, as they drive away the weakest and most easily swayed, thus helping to ensure that they don't weaken the strength of our fraternity.

(5) The “Sensitives” – these folk simply “feel” that “there’s something wrong with it” These people are sometimes capable of recognition of the fact that they are feeling instead of thinking. They may make intellectual mistakes that appear to place them in one of the other categories in their attempt to justify what their emotions are telling them. There’s no point in arguing with these people, as their perception is their reality and no amount of logic can change a feeling. On the bright side, they are usually the least offensive to us Brethren and hence we can simply agree to disagree.

As this is simply my opinion, additions, corrections, and especially reasoned critique are more than welcome. Trolls will be summarily ignored.

May the blessings of heaven rest upon us – ALL of us!

Sincerely,

DD


[edit on 14-11-2005 by Dedicated_Dad] for minor grammar mistake

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Dedicated_Dad]

dedicated dad, why stoop down to our level? A big 32nd degree like yourself - surely you have better things to do than mix in with the obnoxious drivel of all us internet whiners. -kidding.

If you havent already labled me, ixnayed me and put me on ignore; would you answer me a question?

In complete honesty, were your reasons for joining freemasonry born of genuine selflessness, or selfishness?

Should you choose to answer and discover your answer lies somewhere in between the two, please feel free to give a long drawn out explanation - however do your best to narrow your answer into one of these two catagories; 'Selfless' or 'Selfish'.

Remember; *honest. Thanks.

LOL! dedicated Dad, I knew a kid once who said he never turned in one single book report in his entire school career, not one. I wonder if he might be guilty of ruffling a few perfect feathers here on ATS?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by TgSoe]