Interesting Place to Find a Masonic Obelisk

reply to post by The Axeman


To add to your comments about Dr. Burns...

begin rant:

So far, the only source that claims all obelisks are masonic seems to be this "Dr." Burns. As someone who...like many of the brethren here...has spent more than his fair share of time in the academy, one should question the veracity of anyone who calls themselves Dr. that much. I don't know of any accredited docotral degree holder that refers to themselves as doctor, its a honorific that others use to address you. When I get a PhD (5 years to go..sigh...), I won't run around calling myself Dr. LightinDarkness or slapping Dr. on everything that I put my name to. Its bad taste. The only people I've known to do it are (a) honorary doctoral degree holders (who aren't supposed to do it to begin with, as an honorary degree does not carry the Dr. title), and (b) people who get fake degrees just to enhance their appearance of credibility.

Upon further investigation, this "Dr." Burns doesn't actually hold a real doctorate at all. ALL of her degrees are from a "distance learning" degree mill. I can't take anything this women says seriously when she can't even get a college degree from a real school, much less a masters or PhD

/rant

[edit on 30-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
claims all obelisks are masonic

That's clever, but who has said that All obelisks are Masonic? Cathy Burns uses the terminology "occultic societies" in reference to the Obelisk, the misconstruance it seems is your own. Is it intentional?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by twitchy]

OK, let me make this VERY clear. The personal BS stops NOW!

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by The Axeman

 

To add to your comments about Dr. Burns...

begin rant:

So far, the only source that claims all obelisks are masonic seems to be this "Dr." Burns. As someone who...like many of the brethren here...has spent more than his fair share of time in the academy, one should question the veracity of anyone who calls themselves Dr. that much. I don't know of any accredited docotral degree holder that refers to themselves as doctor, its a honorific that others use to address you. When I get a PhD (5 years to go..sigh...), I won't run around calling myself Dr. LightinDarkness or slapping Dr. on everything that I put my name to. Its bad taste. The only people I've known to do it are (a) honorary doctoral degree holders (who aren't supposed to do it to begin with, as an honorary degree does not carry the Dr. title), and (b) people who get fake degrees just to enhance their appearance of credibility.

More fool you - in the UK if you have earned a PhD you have earned the right to call yourself Dr, unlike medical doctors for who the title is honorific. In the UK it is certainly used as a title, quite rightly, with pride. And having worked in higher education, I have met many who considered it an insult if their proper title was not used. Perhaps your culture is different, apart from Professor, to me there is few acheivements higher than a Doctorate and I wouldn't be prepared to hide my light under a bushel. (I only scraped my BA so not much likelihood of that happening)

The recipient of a PhD should though only receive the title of doctor for pursuing an original thought or idea to some conclusion. A PhD cannot be taught so much as directed and supported. This is why the title is earnt, while a medical doctor recieves the honorific.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
If you find it so tiresome then why do you continue to subject yourself to the horror that is visiting this forum? Can you actually construct a post which adds to the content of this discussion or will you only continue to reiterate your distatse for Masons and the Fraternity?

My 'distatse' with the behavior of the Masons on this forum has nothing to do with their 'Fraternity'. The whole brotherhood nonsense is against site regulations and the way you overwhelm threads on the S.S. forum has been noticed by regular ATS'ers. It doesn't matter that you continue to attack me for denoting the Masonic pack-mentallity that is destroying this forum, I'm just another average ATS'er who is tired of seeing it.

None of this is 'personal' either. This is related to the forum behavior and I'm just speaking for the rest of the ATS'ers who are tired of this.

Done.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness

To add to your comments about Dr. Burns...
I don't know of any accredited docotral degree holder that refers to themselves as doctor, its a honorific that others use to address you. When I get a PhD (5 years to go..sigh...), I won't run around calling myself Dr. LightinDarkness or slapping Dr. on everything that I put my name to. Its bad taste.

So, you are refuting a source because the person calls themself 'Dr.' I hate to break it to you, but 'real' Doctors are simply graduates as well. You can call their surname distasteful and try to mock their learning institution, but that really doesn't do anything to disprove material presented by said Dr. does it?

Number of points from source refuted : 0

reply to post by twitchy


I am amazed that this has gone on to 18 pages because you simply refuse to acknowledge what everyone - masons, non-masons, even some of your fellow anti-masons admit: obelisks are not masonic, and neither is the original monument in this thread.

I propose that you are an NWO disinfo agent who is here to deflect what the NWO is up to by blaming it all on masons, in order to misdirect attention from real evil to a esoteric organization that likes community charity. Prove me to me that you are not. Remember, you told us that proving a negative is possible.

Source
It is claimed that the word 'obelisk' literally means 'Baal's shaft' or 'Baal's organ of reproduction'. Source: Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, by Dr. Cathy Burns, pg. 341.

Lets see. Someone with a fake doctorate writing a book ABOUT MASONIC *AND* OCCULT SYMBOLS - she is the one making a link where none exists. There is no relationship between the institution of masonry and the occult. The obelisk is not a masonic symbol - even though she states it is. Of course she is factually wrong, but she still makes the fallacious claim. That must be what they taught her to do during her fake PhD - how to make outrageous claims to get rabid conspiracy theorists to buy your books.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Perhaps you should learn a little bit about higher education. Anyone can call themselves a university, and give out degrees. You can create the University of Anti-Masonry, and immediately begin giving everyone a Doctor of Philosophy in Anti-Masonry degree.

Because people can and do this, there is a system set up to accredit universities. Accreditation means the institution and its programs have been reviewed by an outside third party to ensure that students are actually earning a degree, and are receiving an education sufficient enough to grant them the knowledge that their degree level indicates. While you must meet certain minimal standards to be accredited and it is a very serious endeavor, it is not difficult. Your local podunk state community college accredited, and so is Harvard. This "seminary" is non-accredited, which means it cannot even meet the most basic minimal requirements for accreditation. Why? One reason is that it's not real, its a degree mill: it gives "credit" for "life experience" (classic sign of a degree mill) and strangely, all the faculty have all their degrees from...the same degree mill.

Learn the facts. It's not a real university. Anyone who gets fake degrees like this and then throws around a title that people who ACTUALLY HAVE A REAL DOCTORATE don't even do is and should be subject to suspicion. She has no real credentials, and trying to fake them shows she has nothing when it comes to her little conspiracy theories.

You should learn about the world of self publishing. Anyone can publish a book that says anything. I can publish a book decrying you to be the chief of the New World Order. That doesn't mean its true. She offers no evidence for her beliefs, because she has none - she's feeding the rabid foaming a the mouth conspiracy crowd. And they are buying it.

No credibility? Check.
Number of source points refuted: All.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Its very unlike you to insult people, so I'll hold off on reporting that post until you respond. I just returned from a conference on political science where a great deal of the professors there were from the UK. None of them referred to themselves as Dr. As I said - perhaps you didn't read - it is a title that others use to address you, you don't use it to address yourself. Anyone who runs around calling themselves Dr. has issues with their own self-worth.

But of course..the point to my post is that its a fake doctorate. Its not real. Its the same as me handing out Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Masonry.

I do recognize the UK is more caught up in titles than the US. It seems to be common practice over there to list off degrees after your name, where as here it is only acceptable if the degree is a doctorate or a professional masters/doctorate degree (not an MA or MS). I've seen UK people list their college degree after their name, while here it would be laughed at if someone did that.

The point to this thread is this: Anyone who gets degree from a fake university should be questioned. The "source" here did that. Not even her college degree is from a real university.

LightinDarkness, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science (Summa Cum Laude), Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy (Summa Cum Laude), Bachelor of Arts in Religion (Summa Cum Laude), Master of Public Administration

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

Its very unlike you to insult people, so I'll hold off on reporting that post until you respond. I just returned from a conference on political science where a great deal of the professors there were from the UK. None of them referred to themselves as Dr. As I said - perhaps you didn't read - it is a title that others use to address you, you don't use it to address yourself. Anyone who runs around calling themselves Dr. has issues with their own self-worth.

I didn't realise that was an insult and I apologise if you read it as such. I was simply pointing out that if you have a PhD you should be proud to carry the title Dr, it is earned. I am sure that I know as many PhDs as you, I have worked for and with them, some I referred to by their first names because we were on familiar and equal terms, but this is the UK and we do status. If I was a subordinate or student I used their full title until invited to do otherwise.

I won't go into the pedantics as it is inappropriate but simply put I am not questioning your position just offering my own view. I don't think that either of us are wrong.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I think the insult was the referring to the "fool" part, but its unlike you to insult anyone, so I'm sure it was a typo or some sort of language issue on my part. Anyways, apology accepted

I realize there are cultural differences between the UK and US, and as I said, I think the UK is more into titles than the US is - its a culture thing. Also, at the graduate school I went to, everyone called all of the faculty by first name. Undergrads didn't, but graduates did. And this was a top research school, so we're not just talking about your average university. In fact, one faculty member got mad at me for saying "Thats an excellent question, Dr. Faculty Member..." during my thesis defense. She demanded I call her by her first name, and I didn't know her all that well at all.

Anyways, I agree with you that neither of us are right are wrong, its just two different perspectives. I think you would agree though that using unaccredited doctoral degrees that are fake to give yourself a title is not professional - which is what one of the sources for the Anti-Mason side in this thread has done.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Very off topic of course, but every professor I had in college that had a PhD usually introduced themselves as Doctor, then from there on it was more laid back and informal.. though I had one or two that you could only address them as Doctor.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Appak]

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Appak]

Originally posted by Appak
Sorry folks. Apparently I was moderated for telling the truth.

No, you were "moderated" for circumventing the clearly stated rules for avoiding vulgarities and rudeness.

If you're not able to tell the truth in a civilized way, you'll not be doing it here.

I may have been rude (but no more so than some of the others, particularly those who post nonsense and conjecture as "fact" and expect the rest of us to be stupid enough to believe it. Now THAT is rude!)

I certainly was not "vulgar"

If someone took me to be vulgar, I apologize.


[edit on 30-1-2008 by Appak]

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
proving a negative is possible.

Maybe so, but if you can't argue against an assertion, in this case the assertion being that there is a Masonic Obelisk at the Trinity Memorial, then you aren't going to convince anyone of anything.
Can't proove a negative, I've seen that used so many times here that it has gone beyond the ridiculous cliche' it was to begin with, and ballooned into some kind of mantra for skeptics and the like.
It isn't about prooving a negative, it's about refuting an assertion, or at least arguing your position effectively.
I took Debate, and was on a debate team for about a year (many moons ago) and I can tell you, without a doubt, that if you were to walk into a debate saying you didn't bring any notes or research and try to construe some affirmative defense that you don't have to because you can't proove a negative, they are all going to laugh at you, or cry if they are on your team.
Obelisks aren't masonic. That's your assertion, and I've addressed it. It's up to the judges (readers) to decide here unless you have something definitive.
Is it not a reasonable assumption that you may not know everything there is to know about all the various institutions within your organization? Who amung you can honestly claim that you do? Some Masons don't officially recognise other masons, Prince Hall, OTO, French Masonry, you guys who claim that Obelisks aren't masonic because you've never seen them used in your lodge. You've got one guy on this thread trying to tell us that Operative Freemasonry is a guild of literal Stone Masons for example. According to Pike, deceiving the lower degrees is intentional, do you honestly think that kind of deceptive nature so elequently called hoodwinking, is disregarded as soon as you obtain that third degree?

[edit on 31-1-2008 by twitchy]

reply to post by twitchy


I refuse to go round and round with you, others have far more patience with this example of obvious trolling than I do. I cannot prove a negative, but since you can, I again ask you to prove to me that you are not a NWO disinformation agent deflecting what the NWO is up to onto masonry. Prove it. You can prove a negative, so you've said.

Can't prove a negative. I know, so cliche. In the way that 1+1=2 is cliche.

I am happy that you had a debate class. I, and others here, have _taught_ debate and philosophy. There is even one member here who has a masters degree in the field (I only have a bachelors). Yet, somehow, we all know: you can't prove a negative.

I can tell you if you walked into a debate and demanded that the other side prove a negative, especially when you have failed to prove anything at all, you'd get laughed out of the room.

This whole bounded rationality fallacy falls on its face because HOW IS IT THAT YOU know more about masonry and all its parts than the actual masons? How could it be that you somehow know this monument is masonic (though you provide no proof), and yet, you know it is masonic and know more about what is masonic...than masons?

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
I refuse to go round and round with you

Then don't. Excellent, head out, or do us both a favor and simply add me to your ignore list. I can add you to mine, either way, that would be a quick and easy cure for alot of ailments on this thread.
There's plenty of threads from plenty of posters who would appreciate your input. Thanks for the bump, and the points, but honestly, if this thread is such an eyesore why linger here just to go on and on accusing me of trolling for 19 pages?
If you don't have any proof, or indeed anything really relevant at all to the discussion here, that's fine, can we at least try discussing the Obelisk. What lodges were in the White Sands area? What does the Obelisk mean to you? Do you have an Obelisk in your town? How many Obelisks would it take to screw in a lightbulb, you know, something relevant.

Originally posted by twitchy
Is it not a reasonable assumption that you may not know everything there is to know about all the various institutions within your organization? Who amung you can honestly claim that you do? Some Masons don't officially recognise other masons, Prince Hall, OTO, French Masonry, you guys who claim that Obelisks aren't masonic because you've never seen them used in your lodge.

You have had a varied strata of Masons posting in response to your initial assertion. They have run the gamut from Blue Lodge members to 33rd degree Scottish Rite Masons and everyone of them has stated to you that obelisks are not found in Masonic lodges or used in Masonic ritual. They were open enough to inform you of the one appearance that an obelisk makes in Masonry at all, in reference to Hiram Abiff's heart.

While I do not have the vast resovior of Masonic knowledge that many of my much more informed Bretheren hold I can, if I so choose, opt to locate this unknown esoteric information in various forms of media and educate myself, and you may also do the same.

As far as the recognition of Prince Hall (which are in fact recognized by many jurisdictions), Oriental and French lodges they are not relavant to the topic you created as they obviously had nothing to do with the White Sands monument. If the Trinity Site obelisk was indeed erected by Masons why would the choose an object from a non-recognized branch of Masonry?

As a side note, but a fairly important one, I would like to address the comments and admonishments that were directed at the posters on the Secret Societies forum. If I have offended you twitchy, or anyone else, with my responses, I apologise and hope to have a civil discourse on many other topics with you. With that being said, I would like to ask you once again to answer my question that has remained unanswered from the second post in your thread; Why do you think the Trinity Memorial is Masonic?

[edit on 31-1-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]