Freemasons - I have a few questions.

Originally posted by jrstock
I find it unsettling to kneel before any man of this earth. Is that required in the process?

The Mason kneels, no longer to present his petition for admittance or to receive the answer, no longer to a man as his superior, who is but his brother, but to his God; to whom he appeals for the rectitude of his intentions, and whose aid he asks to enable him to keep his vows. No one is degraded by bending his knee to God at the altar, or to receive the honor of Knighthood as Bayard and Du Guesclin knelt. To kneel for other purposes, Masonry does not require. God gave to man a head to be borne erect, a port upright and majestic. We assemble in our Temples to cherish and inculcate sentiments that conform to that loftiness of bearing which the just and upright man is entitled to maintain, and we do not require those who desire to be admitted among us, ignominiously to bow the head. We respect man, because we respect ourselves that he may conceive a lofty idea of his dignity as a human being free and independent. If modesty is a virtue, humility and obsequiousness to man are base: for there is a noble pride which is the most real and solid basis of virtue. Man should humble himself before the Infinite God; but not before his erring and imperfect brother.

As Master of a Lodge, you will therefore be exceedingly careful that no Candidate, in any Degree, be. required to submit to any degradation whatever; as has been too much the custom in some of the Degrees: and take it as a certain and inflexible rule, to which there is no exception, that real Masonry requires of no man anything to which a Knight and Gentleman cannot honorably, and without feeling outraged or humiliated submit.

Morals & Dogma, pp 327-328

One of the most interesting speakers on this topic I haver found is Bill Schnoeblen. Here is a link to a great video revealing his knowledge of Freemasonry

video.google.com...=2748614967389038944

He is a great source of info because he was a member of many branches of the mystery religion pot-purri.

One thing to remember about masonry, is how eclectic it's ideas are.

Also, like any gnostic or mystery cult it is layered and cellular.

Also the mystery religions are attempting to expand there ideas to those who are not members of a fraternity, or religion. Once you realise this you can understand more about their prophets.

No matter how you regard their intent, the mystery religions are fascinating, I first began to learn about them through Otto Rahn's books about the Cathars.

Anyway Bill Schnoeblen is fantastic because he is literally a member (former) of so many branches of witchcraft, masonry, Illuminsim etc

I would also reccommend Fritz Springmeier.

And like Bill says, "if you wanna be a mason, ask a mason"... or something to that affect.

NF

reply to post by lyovmyshkin


Ah, Mr. Bill. How can one man be so many things at once? By his own timeline...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5df3b6ce2133.jpg[/atsimg]
In 1980, Bill was an Old Catholic Mormon Hard Core Satanist Vampire Freemason into UFO studies, Wicca and Spiritism. Enough conflicting belief systems to drive someone mad, I would think...

Originally posted by santjime
So a question to freemasons, is there any website i can go to, that has a list of all Scottish Rite freemasons?

No. However, the Supreme Council will publish on their website all names of the members who have been elected to receive the 33° and the decoration of Knight Commander of the Court of Honour. The list will appear there in August after the Supreme Council meets and elects those members.

For those who have been elected to the 33° and Knights Commander of the Court of Honour in the past, the names appear in the biannually published Transactions of the Supreme Council.

reply to post by JoshNorton


Indeed Mr Norton. This "widows son", this polymath surely dabbled in Alchemy and has become a Mad Hatter!

None the less i find him ultimately charming!

I thought it was funny to find a youtube video claiming Bill was none other than John Todd, after a period in hiding!

reply to post by illuminazislayer


Sorry, I thought it was obvious I meant pubescent and post-pubescent sexual hormones. The hormones that are probably responsible for about 99% of all crimes committed. The hormones that will cause a person to risk their lives, livelihoods, families, careers, and prison to satisfy an urge for a few minutes. Infants, newborns, and small children do not have THOSE hormones.

reply to post by lyovmyshkin

Bill is nothing short of a hoax. Many mouth pieces can be charming and good speakers. I've debunked his videos many times on this site and other sites.

Freemasonry is not a religion. 

reply to post by KSigMason


Id be interested in reading them, currently looking for the ones on ATS, would you send me a link to ones outside of ATS?

Thanks KSIG

reply to post by lyovmyshkin


I have been doing some research on Bill and his claims. So far, I have found out that he was most probably a mason and possibly attended the Scottish Rite so that would make him a 32nd degree mason. His timeline is all wrong for most of his other claims. He could not have attained the KCCH let alone the 33rd degree. And he could not have been a member of the clandestine Memphis Misriam at the same time he was an active member of his lodge without going directly against the Oaths he took, although in his defense, he doesn't seem to take any oath serious unless it makes him money. What I do worry about is that he speaks of ritual sacrifice and murder in some of the groups he was in, then he claims he was the "head guy" in those groups, with any 2nd grade logic, it would seem he is admitting to murder at the very least and no amount of bible thumping can change that. The fact that nobody has arrested him speaks volumes as to the truth of some of his claims. And if some of them are made up fallacies, then what should people with IQ's over 55 think about the rest of his claims?

reply to post by getreadyalready

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by illuminazislayer

 

Sorry, I thought it was obvious I meant pubescent and post-pubescent sexual hormones. The hormones that are probably responsible for about 99% of all crimes committed. The hormones that will cause a person to risk their lives, livelihoods, families, careers, and prison to satisfy an urge for a few minutes. Infants, newborns, and small children do not have THOSE hormones.

Sir, the secretion of sexual hormones by various glands during pubescent and post-pubescent periods happens in every human being in this world. But, all of humanity does not becomes antisocial or violent and starts to engage in criminal activities. Testosterone is one of the major hormone produced during puberty, and it has been falsely linked with aggressive and violent behavior.

Guardian.co.uk

Nevertheless, if the number one risk factor for homicide is maleness (as it is) and the second is youth, and given that boys have loads of testosterone, and girls don't (or certainly not nearly as much), surely this must put testosterone in the dock as the cause of aggressive adolescent behaviour?

Actually not. First, there is no consistent relationship between normal circulating testosterone levels and violence in teenagers. In fact, there is a rather better correlation between high testosterone levels and levels of popularity and respect from peers.

Time.com

But it is too easy to say that biology is destiny and that all violent youths are simply captives of their physiology or "raging hormones." Society has generally been able to control and channel aggressive impulses through its basic institutions -- home, schools and church. But these moral pillars are crumbling.

Too many children are growing up in families headed by one overburdened parent, usually the mother. Even when two parents are present, both often have demanding jobs and are absorbed in their own concerns. Sometimes the parents are strung out on alcohol or drugs. The result is that children do not get the nurturing, guidance or supervision necessary to instill a set of values and a proper code of behavior.

books.google.co.in...=onepage&q&f=false

Indeed, there is no evidence to support a clear cause-effect relation between sex hormones and any form of criminal behavior.

serendip.brynmawr.edu...

To come full circle and reiterate this discussion's opening declaration: we do not know for sure whether or not testosterone leads to aggression. Therefore, any assertion of a causal relationship between the two is instantly problematic.

Scientific American.com

Indeed, the latest research about testosterone and aggression indicates that there's only a weak connection between the two. And when aggression is more narrowly defined as simple physical violence, the connection all but disappears.

"What psychologists and psychiatrists say is that testosterone has a facilitative effect on aggression," comments Melvin Konner, an anthropologist at Emory University and author of The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit. "You don't have a push-pull, click-click relationship where you inject testosterone and get aggressiveness."

So, even if someone gets himself injected with so called "bad" hormones he will not become aggressive and antisocial. Sir, you are a ardent believer of god/supreme being you should ask him why he created such hormones, that you think makes a person to engage in immoral acts. The function of THOSE hormones is to enhance our mental abilities and physical strength, they do not make us corrupt.

Our environment or society and the belief systems that a person adopts from it, is the sole decider of moral and immoral behavior of a human being, A person living in an abusive, poverty stricken or any other type of stressful environment will definitely engage in antisocial acts, as compared to a person who is living in a loving and caring environment. In-fact our body secrete various hormones, according to how our mind perceives the environment, so if we perceive environment as stressful, stress hormones will be released and if we perceive it as loving and supportive love hormones (oxytocin, serotonin etc.) will be released in the body. And now through media, we are constantly fed violence and fear-mongering which is playing a major role in the creation of a stressful environment.

www.goipeace.or.jp...

When your mind is in a state of love, your brain releases hormones such as oxytocin (the love hormone), serotonin which causes the body to be calm and supports maintenance of the body’s tissues and organs, and growth hormone which regenerates the body’s structures. In contrast, when your mind is in fear, the brain releases a completely different set of hormones into the blood and profoundly changes the fate of the cells and the body. The stress hormone, cortisol, shuts down growth and invests the body’s energy into protection, it also shuts off the immune system to conserve energy for fight and flight. Stress also causes the release of both norepeinephrine that suppresses body maintenance and histamine, which engages defense mechanisms. Your mind is the chemist. The words you say in your mind release the chemistry.

The conscious mind is related to the prefrontal cortex, and it is the home of our personal identity, our source or spirit. Neuroscience reveals that we only operate our life 5 percent of the time with our conscious creative mind, while we operate our life 95 percent of the time with the habits in our subconscious mind.So while we think we are running our lives, we are actually often creating life with invisible programs acquired from others. When we understand this, it changes life for all of us.

Nobody is a victim of genes and hormones, but almost everyone is a victim of his own mind. Sir, we don't need to learn morality, as it is inherently present in our spirit. We have distanced ourselves from our spirit by running our lives based on the belief systems that are not ours and that is the reason why so many people have become immoral.

Thanks for replying.

reply to post by lyovmyshkin

I have done a few here on ATS. You could look around for threads based on him and you'll probay find some. I'll look on a few other sites, but it'll be a few days as I'm on my iTouch and won't be on my laptop for another 8 hours but i havent talked to my nephew in weeks so I'll be Skyping tonight.

Pike! Your namesake has appeared on a 1960's television show. Star Trek. Christopher Pike was indeed the 1st man at the helm of the U.S.S. Enterprise, before Capt. James T. Kirk assumed command. Question: Was the creator, cast or anyone on the production team a Mason? Was the studio apparatus masonic, malta, ect.?

Originally posted by jrstock
Pike! Your namesake has appeared on a 1960's television show. Star Trek. Christopher Pike was indeed the 1st man at the helm of the U.S.S. Enterprise, before Capt. James T. Kirk assumed command. Question: Was the creator, cast or anyone on the production team a Mason? Was the studio apparatus masonic, malta, ect.?

I know not…

Morals & Dogma, Ch. XVII, p 259

Dragged down by the heaviness produced by this inebriating draught, the soul falls along the zodiac and the milky way to the lower spheres, and in its descent not only takes, in each sphere, a new envelope of the material composing the luminous bodies of the planets, but receives there the different faculties which it is to exercise while it inhabits the body.

In Saturn, it acquires the power of reasoning and intelligence, or what is termed the logical and contemplative faculty. From Jupiter it receives the power of action. Mars gives it valor, enterprise, and impetuosity. From the Sun it receives the senses and imagination, which produce sensation, perception, and thought. Venus inspires it with desires. Mercury gives it the faculty of expressing and enunciating what it thinks and feels. And, on entering the sphere of the Moon, it acquires the force of generation and growth. This lunary sphere, lowest and basest to divine bodies, is first and highest to terrestrial bodies. And the lunary body there assumed by the soul, while, as it were, the sediment of celestial matter, is also the first substance of animal matter.

Morals & Dogma, Ch. XXV, p 439

So many prime ministers, presidents, and top ranking political leaders around the world, as well as leading business leaders, bankers and judges are either freemasons or are continually linked to the brotherhood. A lot of masons react very hostile to this asking anti masons to prove it but of course this is extremely hard to do. So here's the question, members on here who are masons have come forward and are open about their membership to the freemasons- why wouldn't a prime minister or president do the same? After all it's nothing to be ashamed of is it?

reply to post by RufusDriftwood


I believe most have. Who has hid their affiliation?

reply to post by RufusDriftwood


I would wager that the politicians who are Masons are proud of their Masonic affiliation. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that a majority of the people you believe are hiding Masonic ties aren't actually Masons at all.

Pres. Truman in Masonic garb:
www.officialbhuldahcompany.com...
www.eburgmasons.com...

President Ford in a Shriner's Fez:
www.eburgmasons.com...

Teddy Roosevelt in his apron:
www.eburgmasons.com...

No hiding here...

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by RufusDriftwood

 

I believe most have. Who has hid their affiliation?

Well that, to the antimasons, is the million dollar question which is very hard for the masons to deny. If someone says Tony Blair, for instance, is a freemason a mason has a right to ask for proof. But the antimason will say it's being covered up because the society's membership is secret. So many of the accusations thrown randomly at the brotherhood revolve around a similar pretence that if you can't prove that some world leader is a mason then you can assume he is but its being kept secret!
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

Originally posted by RufusDriftwood
Well that, to the antimasons, is the million dollar question which is very hard for the masons to deny. If someone says Tony Blair, for instance, is a freemason a mason has a right to ask for proof. But the antimason will say it's being covered up because the society's membership is secret. So many of the accusations thrown randomly at the brotherhood revolve around a similar pretence that if you can't prove that some world leader is a mason then you can assume he is but its being kept secret!
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

But as a whole, Masonry is proud of the accomplishments of our members. Hell, you've got entire Masonic research society with members writing papers about the Masonic careers of famous men who've been Masons.

If, as an anti-Mason might argue, ALL US Presidents have been Masons, then why would the Masons only acknowledge 14 out of 44? Why brag about Ford if Nixon & Carter were also members? Why only admit Jesse Jackson was a Mason if Obama was also?

THAT seems to be the question anti-Masons avoid. We put the guys who are Masons on the covers of our magazines; on our websites; we have them make promotional videos for us. Why would we hide it?

Originally posted by JoshNorton

If, as an anti-Mason might argue, ALL US Presidents have been Masons, then why would the Masons only acknowledge 14 out of 44? Why brag about Ford if Nixon & Carter were also members? Why only admit Jesse Jackson was a Mason if Obama was also?

My favorite is J. Edgar Hoover. He's every bit as controversial as the other supposed Masons, and yet neither the AASR SMJ or the Grand Lodge of DC "hide" his membership.

reply to post by OnTheLevel213


Or Michael "Kramer" Richards. Before his whole heckling fiasco he was on the cover of the Scottish Rite Journal. We may not brag about him any more, but I've never heard a Mason deny that he was a member since that incident.