Masonry at it's finest!

Ladies and gents: Take a look at what happens when a brother Mason decides to reveal too much:

groups.google.com...

"The foolish and ignorant anti who produced this is in error. A due examination
includes more than grips and words. You must walk the Tilers sword and pass
HIS examination.


As you have so denoted, many of the secrets of Masonry have been divulged,
therefore the examinations are more stringent, being necessary to weed out
those unworthy professing to be Masons.


May the GAOTU exact due retribution upon your soul for divulging Masonic
information in such a manner, and for the sole purpose of being mean spirited.


May you find yourself paying due penance in the afterlife, as one unworthy to
enter the gates of Heaven.


May your inability to hold your tongue leave you without one, where it shall be
buried in the sands of the sea, between low and high tides--an unholy place
preventing future repentance and entrance into heaven.


May your heart be eaten by buzzards, and other predatory birds. May the
remainder of your viscera be taken and burned and scattered over vast
distances.


Such is the holy and noble curse I may place upon you. May your nightmares
come true.

Jason C. Russo
Blandford #3
A.F.&A.M. "




[edit on 25-11-2005 by markusjharper]

So what else (do you think) I can dig up? Wanna get serious? I want you to know that I have been having fun thus far.

so are you implying that threatening people who revealed the handshaje of doom with highly imaginatives words spoken in a elaborate english isnt cool? masons sure know how to have fun!

[edit on 25-11-2005 by moonchild]

Originally posted by markusjharper
May you find yourself paying due penance in the afterlife, as one unworthy to enter the gates of Heaven.

I especially like that bit, bit of an odd thing to say for a group that allegedly supports Satan as you like to promote, don't you think?

Oh by the way, I don't think you're supposed to take it all literally and I fail to see what the problem is your trying to point out.

Our readers might like to look at this in context as it is a reply to someone divulging secrets they should not be - or do you agree with betraying people's trust? Is that the sort of code you live your life by?

Entire thread

Besides, from a quick read some of the other Mason's posting are more forgiving.
I think you take it all more seriously than they do at times too.

If you think that's threatening, then take a walk at night in some ghetto area somewhere and that'll bring things into perspective.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons...and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him...It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping your obligations.

Ronayne
Handbook of Masonry, page 183

I intend to rout you out - all in good sport of course.

The Scottish Rite Third-Degree Master Mason Oath

This commits the occult initiate to commit murder, if necessary:
I do promise and swear upon the Holy Bible never to reveal where I have received this degree . . . and in failure of this I consent to have my body opened perpendicularly and to be exposed for eight hours in the open air, so that the venomous flies may eat my entrails, my head to be cut off and put on the highest pinnacle of the world, and I will always be ready to inflict the same punishment on those who shall disclose this degree and break this obligation. So may God help and maintain me. Amen.
Later if he 'advances' in his Masonic career he will learn the secret identity of the God of the Lodge.

Watch careful - see how they will react.

Disobedience and want of respect to Masonic superiors is an offense for which the transgressor subjects himself to punishment."

Mackey's Masonic Jurisprudence , p. 511

Originally posted by markusjharper
Watch careful - see how they will react.

Disobedience and want of respect to Masonic superiors is an offense for which the transgressor subjects himself to punishment."

Mackey's Masonic Jurisprudence , p. 511

Not being a Mason myself I cannot speak for them, but I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to prove with this?
That it's wrong to have respect for one's superiors or one another?
This seems like a fundamental rule in all walks of life, from at home, work, the services, clubs, etc...
I'm a little concerned with the ethics you live your life by if you think something like this is an example of evil at work...

This commits the occult initiate to commit murder, if necessary:
I do promise and swear upon the Holy Bible never to reveal where I have received this degree . . . and in failure of this I consent to have my body opened perpendicularly and to be exposed for eight hours in the open air, so that the venomous flies may eat my entrails, my head to be cut off and put on the highest pinnacle of the world, and I will always be ready to inflict the same punishment on those who shall disclose this degree and break this obligation. So may God help and maintain me. Amen.
Later if he 'advances' in his Masonic career he will learn the secret identity of the God of the Lodge.

I don't think you should take this literally.. We know some Masons do divulge secrets but I have yet to hear of poles with heads on them stuck on top of Mount Everest.
It's called tradition, ritual, etc.... Have you read the Christian Bible? It's not much different.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Markus, you are right. Although most lodges today dont follow those ''i kill you if you reveal the secrets'' rules anymore. In mine, A criminal record check is performed on anyone who wants to join, and if criminal activity was found, the person is denied access to our ''temple''. Although we still swear to do the same, exactly as described in Agent Smith's link, it is more in a symbolic manner than anything else.

Originally posted by markusjharper
Watch careful - see how they will react.

Disobedience and want of respect to Masonic superiors is an offense for which the transgressor subjects himself to punishment."

LMAO. I'll react like any other sane person would. When somebody breaks the rules of any organisation that they belong to, they are punished.

As I had posted above:

The first duty of the reader of this Synopsis is to obey the edicts of his Grand Lodge. Right or wrong, his very existence as a Mason hangs upon obedience to the powers immediately set above him. Failure in this must infallibly bring down expulsion, which, as a Masonic death, ends all. The one unpardonable crime in a Mason is contumacy, or disobedience."

Webb's Freemasons' Monitor, p. 196

Please render into existence the notion of impunity; provided that the Mason will be provided with enough rope to eventually hang himself. I am happy to direct the reader to carefully examine my post above regarding the areas noted in bold, and take into consideration the comments made by the rather confused AgentSmith for application as same.

AgentSmith wrote:

Sounds similar to the rules of life in general to me and I see nothing wrong with promoting loyalty and a respect for chain of command.

He mentions a chain of command but fails to mention that commands made by the Superior must be obeyed in order to remain a Mason. Thus the Mason is capable of carrying out a command that is not necessarily in the interests of what is lawful, good or "right", yet could be justified in a particular fashion, and thus could be so inclined to do what is knowing fully wrong, in order to thereby preserve the status quo.

AgentSmith wrote: (yet without clarification)

The rules are not something to be concerned about as such, it's how they are used.. Find some examples of them being mis-used and then you'll have something worth discussing.

I once again I direct the reader to take note:

"The one unpardonable crime in a Mason is contumacy, or disobedience." Thus it must be said that the one unpardonable crime upon its very own revelation, justifies any other crime in so long as it was done in obedience.

I guess that the military, police force, etc are all equally evil then (don't even think about it).

God calls for complete obedience in the Bible so he must be evil too.

Like I said, it's not the rules that are bad - it's how they are used that has the potential to be.

In the military you have to follow your COs orders, 99% of the time this is not a problem but if he/she becomes corrupt then you might have one.
This does not make the military evil by default.

And these rules are the internal rules of Masons, they do not override common law.
You are generally not even allowed to join if you have a criminal record.

[edit on 25-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

moonchild wrote:

Markus, you are right. Although most lodges today dont follow those ''i kill you if you reveal the secrets'' rules anymore. In mine, A criminal record check is performed on anyone who wants to join, and if criminal activity was found, the person is denied access to our ''temple''. Although we still swear to do the same, exactly as described in Agent Smith's link, it is more in a symbolic manner than anything else

Please note the comment in bold above, as posted by moonchild. I would ask that the readers take into account that a) moonchild may be speaking truthfully regarding his particular lodge - they in fact may no longer follow the tenants of ''i kill you if you reveal the secrets". Thus, it leads us to b) in that it is verifiable to assume that the rules were once followed at a prior time, in at least some lodges. Also it should be noted that the rules written in Mackey's Masonic Jurisprudence , p. 511, may still be used in some lodges.

Furthermore, it would be foolish to conclude that should these rules be followed now; they would be disclosed to the general public. Thus, the possibility leads us to the understanding that moonchild cannot be of an authority to decide what percentage may or may not be engaged in the said illegal activity, should it be literal.

Henceforth, a final consideration of the symbolic aspect of the rule, which may or may not be still occurring in "some" lodges, should warrant an investigation and a deeper look into historical murder, as was in possible connection to the said activity.

Dear moonchild - A Mason is taught to avoid engaging in this kind of discussion, thus it is wise for you to deny.

Originally posted by markusjharper

He mentions a chain of command but fails to mention that commands made by the Superior must be obeyed in order to remain a Mason. Thus the Mason is capable of carrying out a command that is not necessarily in the interests of what is lawful, good or "right", yet could be justified in a particular fashion, and thus could be so inclined to do what is knowing fully wrong, in order to thereby preserve the status quo.

What you fail to mention (big suprise - not) is that all rulings have to be voted on and accepted by each and every single Freemason. If a Grand Lodge hands down an edict, it is put before the members of every Lodge and then subject to a vote.
So in reality (and not in the fuzzy world of intrigue that you inhabit) when a Freemason breaks a rule, he goes against his own word - not that of a superior.

it is verifiable to assume that the rules were once followed at a prior time, in at least some lodges.

You've screwed up yet again. See the word verifiable? This means that something can be proven.

So yet again, I ask you for proof. Maybe one day you will supply it. I sincerely doubt it. But instead, I reckon you'll carry on hiding and skirting around the issue of evidence. So come on dude - you used th word "verifiable - let's see you do some "verifying.

Dear Leveller,

In my own words: In a Republic the idea of voting is to induce a change in a political venture with a few basic protections set into place, to thereby ensure that if a vote should be made and it would turn out to be a mob-rule, the one voter at the end of the rope would still be protected and ensure his or her basic freedoms as a Sovereign American and Child of God. Having noted your example below it appears to resemble a form of democracy; which by a FAIR acceptance by all, could render the neck or sever the limbs of the one on trial and thus it is no longer a rule, but becomes law or rather, a crime.

I ask the reader to pay careful attention to the potential danger of what Leveller has just admitted to:

What you fail to mention (big suprise - not) is that all rulings have to be voted on and accepted by each and every single Freemason. If a Grand Lodge hands down an edict, it is put before the members of every Lodge and then subject to a vote.

Rules, not Laws can be agreed upon by a private party. To violate the Rights granted within the Constitution to all men, whether they are Mason-Apostate who spilled his guts on inner secrets, or the non Mason as same, is a crime. There shall be no difference under “Alla-ha” as to our "Unalienable Rights" granted to each and every fellow brother. A democratic vote is perfectly acceptable however, only if it does not violate the Constitution & Bill of Rights etc.

So in reality (and not in the fuzzy world of intrigue that you inhabit) when a Freemason breaks a rule, he goes against his own word - not that of a superior.

If what you say is true - that if you say there is no punishment for those who break the rules other than breaking your own word, could you please explain then why you said this a couple posts earlier:

“LMAO. I'll react like any other sane person would. When somebody breaks the rules of any organisation that they belong to, they are punished”

And according to you I must somehow have not offered enough proof, yet I just quoted your own words and also stated (most importantly) what is written in Mackey's Masonic Jurisprudence , p. 511, in which supposedly you only read esoterically, correct?

Now, you’d like me to prove what exactly Leveller?




[edit on 25-11-2005 by markusjharper]

jolly good show markus, jolly good

The banned books about freemasonry are full of stuff like this, and theres plenty of them too....you just gotta love the internet

...now what was that password again...

Markus old chap, stop trying to hide behind fuzzy wordplay.
Your comments are a basic denunciation of Democracy.

If people vote for the rules and then break them, they are punished. This works in every social system in the world. The people of democracies create the rules and therefore are liable to punishment when they break them.The fact that you see Freemasonry as an exception to the rule only further displays your illogical bias. Blathering on about symbolic penalties only continues to muddy the water of your argument. Contrary to your claims, the Constitutions can be changed - but again, only with the agreement of all Freemasons. Individually, each Lodge also has a set of it's own Constitutions that are agreed upon by members of that specific Lodge.

A democratic vote is perfectly acceptable however, only if it does not violate the Constitution & Bill of Rights etc.

You state this as if it were an anomaly. But the reality is that every democratic vote for every organisation has a set of guidelines and a framework in which votes and elections are held. This basic structure is put into place to ensure a fair vote and is totally contrary to the implication that you are making. Would you like to justify to me what right a nation would have to create a vote which specifically violates the rights of it's Constitution and therefore the rights of it's citizens, without the full support of it's citizens? Sadly, some nations do actually partake in this distasteful action (ie: the Patriot's Act in the US) but Freemasonry can not even be accused of coming close to doing so.

You can sugarcoat your words and hide behind semantics all you like - but the facts remain.



[edit on 25-11-2005 by Leveller]

Markus old chap, stop trying to hide behind fuzzy wordplay.
Your comments are a basic denunciation of Democracy.

If people vote for the rules and then break them, they are punished. This works in every social system in the world. The people of democracies create the rules and therefore are liable to punishment when they break them.The fact that you see Freemasonry as an exception to the rule only further displays your illogical bias. Blathering on about symbolic penalties only continues to muddy the water of your argument. Contrary to your claims, the Constitutions can be changed - but again, only with the agreement of all Freemasons. Individually, each Lodge also has a set of it's own Constitutions that are agreed upon by members of that specific Lodge.

A democratic vote is perfectly acceptable however, only if it does not violate the Constitution & Bill of Rights etc.

You state this as if it were an anomaly. But the reality is that every democratic vote for every organisation has a set of guidelines and a framework in which votes and elections are held. This basic structure is put into place to ensure a fair vote and is totally contrary to the implication that you are making. Would you like to justify to me what right a nation would have to create a vote which specifically violates the rights of it's Constitution and therefore the rights of it's citizens, without the full support of it's citizens? Sadly, some nations do actually partake in this distasteful action (ie: the Patriot's Act in the US) but Freemasonry can not even be accused of coming close to doing so.

If what you say is true - that if you say there is no punishment for those who break the rules other than breaking your own word

The above makes absolutely no sense. Why does it follow that if you break your word you aren't punished? Where do I say that there is no punishment? Quite simply, I didn't. There are Freemasons who have been excluded - by far the majority are made up of people who haven't paid their dues - something they gave their word to do when they signed the Constitutions. Yet again an illogical argument from your side.

You can sugarcoat your words and hide behind semantics all you like - but the facts remain.





[edit on 25-11-2005 by Leveller]

Actually, this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I don't know how it is for lodges outside of my state (Kentucky), but I am a Master Mason and I never swore any oaths like the ones listed above. I most certainly would not cover up a crime like what is listed above; indeed, committing crimes is un-Masonic and I would expect someone engaging in that sort of activity to be promptly expelled from their lodge.

Originally posted by JustMe74
Actually, this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. I don't know how it is for lodges outside of my state (Kentucky), but I am a Master Mason and I never swore any oaths like the ones listed above. I most certainly would not cover up a crime like what is listed above; indeed, committing crimes is un-Masonic and I would expect someone engaging in that sort of activity to be promptly expelled from their lodge.

Hmmm...you bring up a very good point there JM74. In fact, I guess ol' Markusj in all his (ahem) research missed the Charge given to a FIRST DEGREE Mason, huh?

In Kentucky (where I also became a Mason) part of that Entered Apprentice Charge goes like this:

"In the state, you are to be a quiet and peaceful citizen, true to your government and just to your country. You are not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion, but patiently submit to legal authority, and conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live."

source-The Kentucky Monitor, by Henry Pirtle

Sure sounds like we are to OBEY the law...not cover up crimes, huh?
(shrug)