Why do people insist on calling some symbols Masonic when they are not?

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by sacerd
Not to add fuel to the fire but wasn't it Roosevelt who was a Freemason who insisted that the "All seeing eye" be put on the dollar bill? Back in the the 30's?

During the Roosevelt administration the Great Seal of the United States was added to the reverse of the one dollar bill in 1935. The Eye of Providence is only one part of the Great Seal and by the same logic one could further say, 'Wasn't it Roosevelt who ordered a branch with thirteen olive leaves be put on the dollar bill?'. Roosevelt's Masonic affiliation has nothing to do with the Eye of Providence's use in the Great Seal and he can only be credited with allowing its usage for the first time on United States currency.

Yes, one could indeed use the same logic and say that, It was Roosevelt who ordered the 13 olive leaves be put on the dollar bill", but that is akin to saying that he ordered that a big "one" be put on the one dollar bill as well. In effect it is not relevant as I don't recall him being a member of a "secret mens club of the sacred olive leaves"
I kinda think that is a straw man argument with all due respect.
The olive leaves can represent the 13 original colonies because olive leaves in and of themselves have no significant esoteric connotations as far as I am aware of at least, but the all seeing eye has no other purpose than to represent an esoteric idea, hence the problem.

Originally posted by sacerd
The olive leaves can represent the 13 original colonies because olive leaves in and of themselves have no significant esoteric connotations as far as I am aware of at least, but the all seeing eye has no other purpose than to represent an esoteric idea, hence the problem.

In actuailty, the olive leaves, besides representing the thirteen original colonies, have the additional meaning of conotating peace. The olive leaf/branch was employed by the Romans and Greeks to convey the same messages regarding peace but this does not make the Seal or dollar Hellenic or Romanic.

The basis of my original post was to demonstrate that, while symbols may appear or be used in several groups or societies it does not necessarily and rightly cause that symbol to be properly associated with the aforementioned group or society. An individual, through the absense of knowledge, may tend to formulate an opinion that it is so, but upon further investigation, the true origins will be discovered.

I understand your point regarding the dollar bill, but the Eye of Providence is not a Masonic emblem and can trace it's ancestry to a period before organized Speculative Masonry. The appearance of such on our nations currency is caused not by Masonic motivation, but by the consequence of it being employed previously on the Great Seal and that emblem being utilized on the dollar bill's reverse.

You said... (Because I dont know how to use the quote function. LOL)
"In actuailty, the olive leaves, besides representing the thirteen original colonies, have the additional meaning of conotating peace. The olive leaf/branch was employed by the Romans and Greeks to convey the same messages regarding peace but this does not make the Seal or dollar Hellenic or Romanic."

I feel that the fact that their are specifically 13 olive leaves to represent the states working in "Union" and "Peace" is enough to sufficiently separate the notion among the the general populous that the U.S. is not an extension of a empire that had fallen quite a while a before the United States founding. Unfortunately the Masons as an organization did exist at the time of the 13 colonies did exist in 1935 when the "all seeing eye" was placed on the Dollar Bill and Still exists today.

You Said...
"The basis of my original post was to demonstrate that, while symbols may appear or be used in several groups or societies it does not necessarily and rightly cause that symbol to be properly associated with the aforementioned group or society."

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The point of my post is that some of these rumors have been perpetuated by a segment of the Masons themselves, knowingly or unknowingly, and as I said previously their is evidence to support the rumor...not proof but evidence.

You Said...
"An individual, through the absense of knowledge, may tend to formulate an opinion that it is so, but upon further investigation, the true origins will be discovered."

I still contend that when a group adopts a symbol, an unfortunate side effect is that when others see that symbol they are going to assume, and not without a good rational reason that it is a message or calling card left by the nearest large group who uses that symbol. Again when most people see a swastika they don't instantly think about Norsemen they think about Nazi's even though the Nazi party did not show up till much latter.

You Said...
"I understand your point regarding the dollar bill, but the Eye of Providence is not a Masonic emblem..."

freemasonry.bcy.ca...

This guy like yourself says the same in the beginning of this FAQ that the All seeing eye is not Masonic. Although he goes on to say...
"Neither the eye nor the pyramid have ever been uniquely masonic symbols, although a few Grand Lodge jurisdictions incorporate them into their seals."
This in my opinion is the problem.
Because people tend to assume that if an organization incorporates a symbol then that symbol is relevant to them.
Which brings me to my next point. The Masons are a "secret society" so if any Masonic lodge uses that symbol on the outside of a building or structure that they have erected or paid for then what recourse would a non initiate have but to assume that the symbol is used inside any given "temple" itself?
In addition when people hear stories of members pledges of being brutally killed for revealing any Masonic secrets its difficult to trust that, all of a sudden when a Mason says "that symbol is not ours" to believe them considering the amount of unimportance that the freemasons place on the use of symbols.



[edit on 9-4-2008 by sacerd]

I guess the easiest way for me to explain my position is thusly.

1.) The "All Seeing Eye" is used by certain masonic lodges.

2.) Masons make an oath to not reveal masonic secrets.

3.) The non initiate therefore has no reasonable way to become enlightened concerning masonic symbols, secrets and their meanings, without first becoming a mason and is thusly, subject to the same oath of secrecy that caused them to become a member to begin with.

4.) So in order for someone to discover the meanings of masonic symbols and secrets we have to take the word of a mason, which brings us back to point number 2. Because of point number 2 anything the mason says about symbols and secrets of freemasonry becomes instantly suspect.

Its circular and that is the problem.

Originally posted by sacerd
2.) Masons make an oath to not reveal masonic secrets.

3.) The non initiate therefore has no reasonable way to become enlightened concerning masonic symbols, secrets and their meanings, without first becoming a mason and is thusly, subject to the same oath of secrecy that caused them to become a member to begin with.

4.) So in order for someone to discover the meanings of masonic symbols and secrets we have to take the word of a mason, which brings us back to point number 2. Because of point number 2 anything the mason says about symbols and secrets of freemasonry becomes instantly suspect.

Ah, here's the problem. The symbols and their meaning are not secret. Other stuff is secret, but the meaning of the symbols can be bought at any bookstore around the country.

In addition when people hear stories of members pledges of being brutally killed for revealing any Masonic secrets its difficult to trust that, all of a sudden when a Mason says "that symbol is not ours" to believe them considering the amount of unimportance that the freemasons place on the use of symbols.

And when's the last time that happened? 1826? Never proven. or 1982? Speculation is Vatican or Mafia had more motives than P2, and P2 isn't a recognized Masonic body anyway.

Originally posted by sacerd
I feel that the fact that their are specifically 13 olive leaves to represent the states working in "Union" and "Peace" is enough to sufficiently separate the notion among the the general populous that the U.S. is not an extension of a empire that had fallen quite a while a before the United States founding.

While the Greek and Roman civilizations had indeed been eclipsed by history this fact did not stop The Framers from employing Greek, Roman and Egyptian culture, law and symbolism into the newly formed nations design. This employement did not signify an extension of Roman, Greek or Egyptian empire but a desire to emulate what was felt the most desirable attributes of these great civilizations

Unfortunately the Masons as an organization did exist at the time of the 13 colonies did exist in 1935 when the "all seeing eye" was placed on the Dollar Bill and Still exists today.

Unfortunate? I strongly disagree, it was very fortunate that there were Masons present at the founding of the United States as the philosophy proscribed by Freemasonry is one of acceptance of all mankind.

The Eye of Providence's first appearence in Masonry occured in 1797, being depicted in The Freemasons Monitor of Thomas Smith Webb. The aforementioned usage too place fourteen years after Congress adopted the design for the seal.

In regards the Eye of Providence appearing on the one dollar bill I feel that I have sufficiently addressed this situation but if you wish we can revisit the facts and discuss it further.

I still contend that when a group adopts a symbol, an unfortunate side effect is that when others see that symbol they are going to assume, and not without a good rational reason that it is a message or calling card left by the nearest large group who uses that symbol. Again when most people see a swastika they don't instantly think about Norsemen they think about Nazi's even though the Nazi party did not show up till much latter.

The adoption of a symbol by a group or party does not eliminate that emblems ancestry or meaning to others who may have utilized it previously or contemporarily. The Nazi employment of the swastika does not curb its use or appearance by Buddhist monks-despite its improper configuration by the Nationalist Socialist Party.

freemasonry.bcy.ca...

This guy like yourself says the same in the beginning of this FAQ that the All seeing eye is not Masonic. Although he goes on to say...
"Neither the eye nor the pyramid have ever been uniquely masonic symbols, although a few Grand Lodge jurisdictions incorporate them into their seals."
This in my opinion is the problem.
Because people tend to assume that if an organization incorporates a symbol then that symbol is relevant to them.

Relevant yes, inherent, no.

Which brings me to my next point. The Masons are a "secret society" so if any Masonic lodge uses that symbol on the outside of a building or structure that they have erected or paid for then what recourse would a non initiate have but to assume that the symbol is used inside any given "temple" itself?

They could avail themselves of the numerous forms of media available to our modern society and confirm or disprove the symbols usage or depiction, whether in the lodge or without.

In addition when people hear stories of members pledges of being brutally killed for revealing any Masonic secrets its difficult to trust that, all of a sudden when a Mason says "that symbol is not ours" to believe them considering the amount of unimportance that the freemasons place on the use of symbols.

The operative word in the paragraph being stories. There has not been one documented case of anyone, anywhere being 'brutally killed' for revealing anything about Masonry. All of our 'secrets' are sadly available in many forms, for a Mason it is a matter of character not to reveal them, not from fear of retribution.

I guess the easiest way for me to explain my position is thusly.

1.) The "All Seeing Eye" is used by certain masonic lodges.

Indeed this is true, in many jurisdictions-but not all-the Eye of Providence is employed.

2.) Masons make an oath to not reveal masonic secrets.

This is also true and widely known.

3.) The non initiate therefore has no reasonable way to become enlightened concerning masonic symbols, secrets and their meanings, without first becoming a mason and is thusly, subject to the same oath of secrecy that caused them to become a member to begin with.

If the 'non-initiate' has zero motivation to discover esoteric information regarding Masonic symbolism without joining Masonry then this holds true. Otherwise, a simple perusal of the internet would clearly return the same facts that I have illustrated throughout this thread. It is incumbant upon an individual to, at all times, educate themselves and uncover what information they seek. This will of course lead to truth and a better understanding of the subject in question.

4.) So in order for someone to discover the meanings of masonic symbols and secrets we have to take the word of a mason, which brings us back to point number 2. Because of point number 2 anything the mason says about symbols and secrets of freemasonry becomes instantly suspect.

At the sake of appearing redundant, perform your own research, unearth your own facts, do not take my word, verify what I have posted. When you have you will see that I have attempted to hide nothing from you.

You Said...
The symbols and their meaning are not secret. Other stuff is secret, but the meaning of the symbols can be bought at any bookstore around the country.
Who told these people that wrote these books about symbols and meanings as they relate to freemasonry? My guess would be a freemason which brings us back to point number 2. If they "researched" it themselves how where they able to back up their claims?

You Said...
And when's the last time that happened? 1826? Never proven. or 1982? Speculation is Vatican or Mafia had more motives than P2, and P2 isn't a recognized Masonic body anyway.

The point that I am making here is that they pledge not to revel their "secrets."
I would hope that the people involved in making such pledges to their fellow craftsmen would be true to their word, without the threat of death hanging over their head. I do not think for a minute that masons kill one another, that is not the point, the point is that they make the pledge to begin with, besides if you know that someone broke their trust to tell a random conspiracy theorist the "secrets" of free masonry to feed their simple curiosity how can you trust them to tell you the truth about the meanings of the symbols? LOL

[edit on 9-4-2008 by sacerd]

I'm not really following you, so forgive me if I misinterpret what you're trying to say...

Originally posted by sacerd
Who told these people that wrote these books about symbols and meanings as they relate to freemasonry? My guess would be a freemason which brings us back to point number 2. If they "researched" it themselves how where they able to back up their claims?

Can't the same be said of ANY book written from secondary sources? How many authors of physics textbooks have split atoms themselves? How many historians were able to interview the subjects they studied? You seem to be challenging the belief of any and every thing ever researched. Or is it just Masons because they have a few things that they'd rather not share openly?

The point that I am making here is that they pledge not to revel their "secrets."
I would hope that the people involved in making such pledges to their fellow craftsmen would be true to their word, without the threat of death hanging over their head. I do not think for a minute that masons kill one another, that is not the point, the point is that they make the pledge to begin with, besides if you know that someone broke their trust to tell a random conspiracy theorist the "secrets" of free masonry to feed their simple curiosity how can you trust them to tell you the truth about the meanings of the symbols? LOL

The oath has been changed in a lot of places recently, from what I understand. (Not where I'm from, but someone was talking about it recently...) I think the current phrasing is more along the lines of "if I break this oath, may I lose all honor and be considered a worthless person" or similar. Honestly, secrets aren't a bad thing; the ability to keep a secret is a virtue and should be respected.

You Said...
While the Greek and Roman civilizations...

Agreed.

You Said...
Unfortunate? I strongly disagree...

I feel like you are trying to make me out to be a bad guy here. By unfortunate I don't mean it is unfortunate that the Masons existed at the time, of the founding of the U.S. but rather that it is unfortunate as it relates to your argument of the Masons had no role in the founding of the United States because there is an assumption of Masonic influence. Some of said assumption is perpetuated by a segment of Masons themselves.

You Said...
The Eye of Providence's first appearence...

I am not sure that this is relevant to my argument. You as a Mason tell me when the Eye of Providence was first used in Masonry. I personally believe you. Although I am not sure how anyone can prove that with any credibility. After all you are sworn to secrecy, and therefore would have a vested interest as a mason not to reveal to me or anyone else if the symbol was used prior to that publication inside a temple or lodge.

You Said...
In regards the Eye of Providence...

I was never in disagreement with you about that topic. You asked why people attribute symbols to the masons that are not exclusively masonic and I am telling you why.

You Said...
The adoption of a symbol by a group or party does not eliminate that emblems ancestry...

Agreed and I never claimed otherwise, I am not sure what you are getting at here. My point is that when people see a swastika they think Nazi SS not Buddhist monk. As unfortunate as that may be, it is indeed human nature to associate a given symbol to those who are best "advertised" using it. Hence the reason I brought it up.

You Said...
Relevant yes, inherent, no.

Again you are correct nor have I claimed otherwise.

You Said...
They could avail themselves of the numerous forms of media available to our modern society and confirm or disprove the symbols usage or depiction, whether in the lodge or without.

How would they do this exactly? I am not sure what the media has to do with a group of guys having their secrets? How does watching T.V. or Listening to the Radio keeping people from information that the keepers of are not supposed to talk about? when in order to get this information they would either have to trust a mason to give up the secret or make a pledge to a group that they are not by all rights supposed to know enough about to make an informed decision.

You Said...
The operative word in the paragraph being stories. There has not been one documented case of anyone, anywhere being 'brutally killed.'

Again I personally believe you. The pledge I am certain is indeed symbolic. That is not the point. The point is that the Masons take a vow not to reveal their secrets, and because of this vow any information supplied by a mason to a non mason is suspect.
As I said in the post above this one, and I am only playing Devils Advocate here, how can you trust someone to tell you the truth when by telling you said truth, they have broke their trust to someone else?

Understand this if I am not clear on anything else.
I don't think that Masons control the world.
I don't think that the Masons founded the U.S.
I dont think that the Masons hold any deep dark secrets.
What damns the Masons in the public image is not what the "Secrets" are but rather that they have them in the first place.
I do know something about this group and understand the reasons for the secrets to begin with, I am also aware that the Masons only have secrets present day as a tradition.
In summation I don't Distrust/Hate or Fear the masons. I am merely trying to and apparently unsuccessfully answer your question as to why people assign symbols to the Masons that are not exclusively Masonic

Originally posted by sacerd
I feel like you are trying to make me out to be a bad guy here.

Certainly not, I feel we are having a lively discussion and do not feel you are a 'bad guy'. I do not hold any animoisty towards you for your opinions and statements.

By unfortunate I don't mean it is unfortunate that the Masons existed at the time, of the founding of the U.S. but rather that it is unfortunate as it relates to your argument of the Masons had no role in the founding of the United States because there is an assumption of Masonic influence. Some of said assumption is perpetuated by a segment of Masons themselves.

I have never stated that Masons had no influence in founding the United States, on the contrary, I am proud of said influence as it espouses Masonic morals and ideas of enlightenment.

I am not sure that this is relevant to my argument.

As the Eye of Providence was first recorded in Masonry in 1797 and it appeared on the Great Seal of The United States more than a decade earlier it is extremely germain to the issue. It can not have a preminent Masonic pedigree if it was used so prominently prior to its Masonic usage. Perhaps the question is should it be considered that the Eye of Providence was co-opted due to its employement in the Great Seal and what it stood for in that emblem.

You as a Mason tell me when the Eye of Providence was first used in Masonry. I personally believe you. Although I am not sure how anyone can prove that with any credibility.

This is a circular and irrelevant arguement. How can you prove anything to those who wish undue burdens of proof?

After all you are sworn to secrecy, and therefore would have a vested interest as a mason not to reveal to me or anyone else if the symbol was used prior to that publication inside a temple or lodge.

I am sworn to protect the Modes and Manners of my initiation, not esoteric symbols. The provenance of the Eye does not fall under these bounds.

How would they do this exactly? I am not sure what the media has to do with a group of guys having their secrets? How does watching T.V. or Listening to the Radio keeping people from information that the keepers of are not supposed to talk about?

You conveniently overlooked written media and the internet as these are far more valuable sources of information then television and radio.

when in order to get this information they would either have to trust a mason to give up the secret or make a pledge to a group that they are not by all rights supposed to know enough about to make an informed decision.

There are unbiased sources to peruse if you cared to investigate them. I have repeatedly asked you to do so and perform your own research. As to the latter portion of your statement the premiss of the oaths has already been addressed.

Again I personally believe you. The pledge I am certain is indeed symbolic. That is not the point. The point is that the Masons take a vow not to reveal their secrets, and because of this vow any information supplied by a mason to a non mason is suspect.
As I said in the post above this one, and I am only playing Devils Advocate here, how can you trust someone to tell you the truth when by telling you said truth, they have broke their trust to someone else?

Our vows as Masons do not include 'misleading the non-initiate' as regards the Insitution. Once more, please do not take 'my word' for anything, verify and fact check what I have said to you, then come and tell me if I have mislead you.

You role as Devil's advocate is beneficial when the subject is opinion or hypothectical, I have delivered facts and numbers to you which afford only one outcome.

Hi Sacerd

Originally posted by sacerd
Who told these people that wrote these books about symbols and meanings as they relate to freemasonry? My guess would be a freemason which brings us back to point number 2. If they "researched" it themselves how where they able to back up their claims?

Your guess would be correct. The most reliable sources for this sort of thing are freemasons themselves. There are many masonic books and sources available - my personal favorite is "The Freemasons Guide and Compendium" by Bernard E Jones (a freemason) - try the local library or eBay for a copy of this book.

As far as point #2 is concerned - symbols are not masonic secrets. The only thing a freemason is specifically obliged not to discuss or divulge are the modes of recognition, much else is private, but I think you will find that genuine inquiry will yield genuine results. As perhaps you are already discovering

Originally posted by Trinityman

Hi Sacerd
Hey how is it going?
You said...
As far as point #2 is concerned - symbols are not masonic secrets. The only thing a freemason is specifically obliged not to discuss or divulge are the modes of recognition, much else is private, but I think you will find that genuine inquiry will yield genuine results. As perhaps you are already discovering

See this is what I have been trying to get across, as soon as any society of people declare their activities secret, anything else they say becomes suspect concerning their modes and motivations.
People don't like secrets, and tend to distrust people who keep them, for good or ill. People as general rule only like secrets when they hold the answer.
I am not saying it is just I am simply saying that it is so.
A good example of this in action is the C.I.A. The very fact that the masons have secrets is what makes their explaining anything else about the craft suspect in the eyes of alot of the non initiate. Basically people will assume that information given freely by a mason about masonry is a work of deliberate disinformation.
Mind you I don't believe that, but I am attempting to answer the question posted on the original thread.

Originally posted by sacerd
The very fact that the masons have secrets is what makes their explaining anything else about the craft suspect in the eyes of... the *paranoid* non initiate[s].

There you go, fixed that statement for you.

I was a non-initiate when I came here, and I had no problem taking the word of the Masons here as legitimate. Why? Because it matched up with my own independant research.

Not everyone is out to get you, homie. Least of all Masons.

reply to post by sacerd


Who would you rather believe? The people who say "we have specific secrets and these are what they are and everything else is fair game" or the people who say " No No we have no secrets "

Freemasonry is extremely specific about what can and cannot be discussed. It is one of the most transparent organizations you are likely to come across, and certainly one of the most heavily scrutinized!

Unless you are one of the people who believe that no-one should have any secrets and everything about your private life should be made fully known to everyone else (including the State), then surely you can see the merits in a symbolic test of honor which asks the simple question "can you keep a secret?".

You Said...
I have never stated that Masons had no influence in founding the United States, on the contrary, I am proud of said influence as it espouses Masonic morals and ideas of enlightenment.

How did the Masons influence the foundations of the U.S. exactly? Surly it is not via the morals and ideals of enlightenment...because those would not be exclusively Masonic, not unlike the all seeing eye of providence is not exclusively Masonic. And masonic ideas where surly coincidental.
(This is a Joke mind you I am only being partially snarky, to make a point here about the all seeing eye.)

You said...
As the Eye of Providence was first recorded in Masonry in 1797 and it appeared on the Great Seal of The United States more than a decade earlier it is extremely germain to the issue. It can not have a preminent Masonic pedigree if it was used so prominently prior to its Masonic usage.

Because the VAST majority of people associate the "All seeing eye" with Masons. That is all that is relevant to answer your question about people assigning Masonic symbols to freemasonry that are not exclusivly masonic.
Thats it, no logic needed, no magic trick no nothing. People have never had to research anything to come up with their own conclusions that is a shame but that is human nature.

You Said...
Perhaps the question is should it be considered that the Eye of Providence was co-opted due to its employement in the Great Seal and what it stood for in that emblem.

Yes I think that would be a better question. And I would answer in the affirmative.

You Said...
This is a circular and irrelevant arguement. How can you prove anything to those who wish undue burdens of proof?

Yes it is and no You cant prove anything, and no its not fair, but that is something people of any group have had to deal with throughout history. Again this is an answer to the question posted originally, not my feelings on the subject at hand.

You Said...
I am sworn to protect the Modes and Manners of my initiation, not esoteric symbols. The provenance of the Eye does not fall under these bounds.

So says a person who belongs to a secret society. Again not fair but such is life to any organized group of people, who claim to be a part of a secret society.

You Said.
You conveniently overlooked written media and the internet as these are far more valuable sources of information then television and radio.

I did not overlook anything, I have had to crop your quotes to dispose of extra characters as I kept running out I assumed you would get my point, which is the only way someone can know for sure what goes on behind closed doors is to go behind said doors.

You Said...
There are unbiased sources to peruse if you cared to investigate them. I have repeatedly asked you to do so and perform your own research.

I have and as I have said repeatedly, I don't espouse any major Masonic conspiracy theory's.

You Said...
You role as Devil's advocate is beneficial when the subject is opinion or hypothectical, I have delivered facts and numbers to you which afford only one outcome.

My role as devils advocate is to answer your question, I am sorry that you don't like the answer but I am only relating the effects of human nature as to a segment of the non initiates perception of the Masons.

reply to post by The Axeman


Thanks for your input, and yes I feel you are correct.

Originally posted by sacerd
You Said...
I am sworn to protect the Modes and Manners of my initiation, not esoteric symbols. The provenance of the Eye does not fall under these bounds.

So says a person who belongs to a secret society. Again not fair but such is life to any organized group of people, who claim to be a part of a secret society.

See above, but also...

The whole point is that you do not need to take the work of anyone - if you are that seriously interested then you can find a copy of the ritual and read the whole obligation for yourself - you will be able to see in black and white that only the "modes of recognition" are regarded as "secrets".

And you might be interested to know that freemasons themselves do not regard freemasonry as a secret society. It has fallen to others to make that determination. Personally I don't see how anyone could possibly regard freemasonry as a secret society, since it doesn't exhibit any of the characteristics associated with one.

Originally posted by sacerd
How did the Masons influence the foundations of the U.S. exactly? Surly it is not via the morals and ideals of enlightenment...because those would not be exclusively Masonic, not unlike the all seeing eye of providence is not exclusively Masonic.

I never said these ideals were exclusive to anyone particular group, only that they were more widely held and espoused by Masons.

Because the VAST majority of people associate the "All seeing eye" with Masons. That is all that is relevant to answer your question about people assigning Masonic symbols to freemasonry that are not exclusivly masonic.
Thats it, no logic needed, no magic trick no nothing. People have never had to research anything to come up with their own conclusions that is a shame but that is human nature.

Which is the difference between being subjective and objective.

So says a person who belongs to a secret society. Again not fair but such is life to any organized group of people, who claim to be a part of a secret society.

Which is also easily verifiable if a person were so inclined to research the point.

I did not overlook anything, I have had to crop your quotes to dispose of extra characters as I kept running out I assumed you would get my point, which is the only way someone can know for sure what goes on behind closed doors is to go behind said doors.

There have been numerous Masonic 'exposes' published throughout history, availing ones self of them might help illuminate the statements we have iterated.

have and as I have said repeatedly, I don't espouse any major Masonic conspiracy theory's.

This was not implied, the implication was to perform your own research to validate any statements made by the Masons on this forum.

My role as devils advocate is to answer your question, I am sorry that you don't like the answer but I am only relating the effects of human nature as to a segment of the non initiates perception of the Masons.

You speak soley for yourself as your statement is very general in its implication. Your relation is only your opinion and you can not presuppose to speak for others.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by AugustusMasonicus]

You Said...

See above, but also...
The whole point is that you do not need to take the work of anyone - if you are that seriously interested.

I am not interested my curiosity has been satiated as I have indeed read it. I am answering the question originally asked nothing more and nothing less which was why do people associate symbols to freemasonry that are not inherently masonic.

You said...
And you might be interested to know that freemasons themselves do not regard freemasonry as a secret society.

I understand this as well but considering the thread was started in the "secret society board I can only assume that we are going to proceed with the discussion as if it were. I have heard it referred to as a society with secrets and not a secret society.

You Said...
I never said these ideals were exclusive to anyone particular group, only that they were more widely held and espoused by Masons.

Again I ask, how did the masons influence the founding of the U.S.? I mean that does sound like a conspiracy theory LOL.

You Said...
Which is the difference between being subjective and objective.
How is this relevant to paranoid people making paranoid conclusions?


You Said...
Which is also easily verifiable if a person were so inclined to research the point.

Again I stress I am answering the question in the title of this thread nothing more and nothing less. We spoke at length about the all seeing eye for example. You said that it is not masonic because the masons did not create the image. I contend that that is irrelevent because it was latter used and adopted by the Freemasons of certain lodges and that is the reasons why people call it masonic.

You Said...
There have been numerous Masonic 'exposes' published throughout history, availing ones self of them might help illuminate the statements we have iterated.

That is true but the sad fact of reality is that people tend to focus more on paying the bills than researching the motivations and means of the local masonic lodge, and so they rely on popular media to tell them what to think. I don't like it anymore than you do. Don't forget we live in a world where Hollywood tells us who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and if Nick Cage tells us that the Masons are a secret society in "National Treasure" then by God the masons are a secret society. If Dan Brown Says that the Opius Day hires assassins to keep holy grail secrets then that is what people will believe. Dont take my word for it ask members of Opius Day

You Said...
This was not implied, the implication was to perform your own research to validate any statements made by the Masons on this forum.

Again I have done my own research you are preaching to the choir at this point.

You Said...
You speak soley for yourself as your statement is very general in its implication. Your relation is only your opinion and you can not presuppose to speak for others.

You Are right I can technically only speak for myself, So why do you think that people assign symbols to the masons when they are not inherently masonic?
Can I guess at your answer? Because they have not done the research right?
Well if you think that might be the answer than why are you asking the question? Were you expecting another answer? Did you even want an answer to the question?
If you would like to continue this discussion pm me and I will give you my home number because I apparently cannot convey my message to you in text for whatever reason.





[edit on 10-4-2008 by sacerd]