The Freemasons

robroy1234

I somewhat remember that the Fraternity I was a member off required one to know the entire Greek Alphabet from memory...

Brown Bomber

A group to make contacts.

robroy1234 wrote: »

- I have ran internationally for over 2 decades

:eek: You must be shattered!

Torakx

LOL BrownBomber, indeed 2 decades is a long time to be running!
I want to know did he run on the boat over seas too or take the tunnel.

RobRoy I would consider some fo those fraternaties as dodgey myself.
Obviously Skull&Bones.
I see them as a way for people to be recruited for many purposes other than fraternal.
Maybe the bussiness aspect is a consequence of the nature of those fraternities.
But I suspect many know already before joining that they will most likely have good bussiness contacts and be setup if they tow the line.

I would imagine that many try to join Freemasonry for exactly the same reason.
Otherwise they are joining for charity? fellowship?
These are things you can find anywhere.
Do they do it to become better men?
Im not sure about that either.
I want to become better.But i feel it silly to rely on an organisation to dictate to me morals or anything really.
I can join a casual club for sports or chess etc if I want fellowship.
So im sure its understandable why people suspect Freemasonry is more than just fellowship and charity and making yourself a better man.


Absolam,I could do a quick google for some oaths.
I could also do a quick google for some beliefs.
But anything I find will be contested if its not acceptable to be associated with it.
So asking me to google something is a little hypocritical I think, or unfair..whatever word suits there.
It is you who knows the oath you took.Google could give me many and who knows which is real and made up.
In that respect it is very hard to get information on it.Extremely hard.
If its so easily divulged you would have just came out and told me one you know is a real oath.
And I would take it with a pinch of salt, but for sure consider it as more than likely true.
Nothing stppping you from lying though lol...or sayying your a mason when your not.
But I dont wish to debate that when it is pointless.
We can make do as is


I have doubts as to my ability to get the oath for Skull&Bones aswell.
I could google it, but that can be fobbed off as speculative at best.

So far I think we have found just,or mainly, fraternal orders having secret oaths.
Or if you rather, oaths that are not so easily known or verifiable outside of the order they were taken.

As Robroy mentioned(regarding the video posted) maybe it is one of the foreign lodges.
The orient? I thought i read mentioned.
I somehow had not noticed women there or the doors open.But then I am a newbie to these rituals.That was the first one I saw.

I would be interested in finding a video of a ritual that one of you or both recognise, so we could maybe talk about it and discuss the symbolic significance of it.
There were other videos on youtube which i havent looked at yet.
Just that one posted and the turkish sounding one with the sword to the chest is all I have watched so far.
Tomorrow I may look more carefully.

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

Absolam,I could do a quick google for some oaths.
I could also do a quick google for some beliefs. But anything I find will be contested if its not acceptable to be associated with it. So asking me to google something is a little hypocritical I think, or unfair..whatever word suits there. It is you who knows the oath you took.Google could give me many and who knows which is real and made up. In that respect it is very hard to get information on it.Extremely hard. If its so easily divulged you would have just came out and told me one you know is a real oath. And I would take it with a pinch of salt, but for sure consider it as more than likely true. Nothing stppping you from lying though lol...or sayying your a mason when your not.
But I dont wish to debate that when it is pointless.
We can make do as is

Absolutely true; my suggestion that you google it was to give you a flavour of the sort of content that is consistent in all versions out there. With regard to the oath I took, there is no rule or obligation to keep me from sharing it. However, it is my oath, an undertaking I didn't make lightly, and that I treat seriously, as with all promises I make. Since it's personal to me, it's not something I'm inclined to share on an internet forum, sorry.

Torakx

Absolam wrote: »

Absolutely true; my suggestion that you google it was to give you a flavour of the sort of content that is consistent in all versions out there. With regard to the oath I took, there is no rule or obligation to keep me from sharing it. However, it is my oath, an undertaking I didn't make lightly, and that I treat seriously, as with all promises I make. Since it's personal to me, it's not something I'm inclined to share on an internet forum, sorry.

I expected no less!!
Except that you would be asleep at this crazy hour.This time is for crazy CTers like myself you know.
I hope my comments arent keeping you away from pleasant dreams hehe.

Im sure too that RobRoy would not like to share his oath either.
Perhaps you know of an oath that other lodges require?
Maybe in other countries, far from here and any connections with yourself.
For your peace of mind.

robroy1234

Some oaths are made public, like that of a President when being sworn in, whereas some oaths are taken in secret. But, it doesn't really matter where and when these oaths are taken, what really matters is whether the person making them adheres to the oath that is made. If you look at the American Presidents who have been very much ardent at making their particular oath as public, and yet do not adhere to their constitution as they pledged to do. Therefore bringing into public whatever oath someone makes pales in significance if that oath is not taken seriously. Now, I take my oath very seriously as it is between me and my supreme being (note that I did not say lodge - and there is a reason for that), and it is the same oath I took when I got married to my gorgeous wife (my bias there).

Torakx

robroy1234 wrote: »

Some oaths are made public, like that of a President when being sworn in, whereas some oaths are taken in secret. But, it doesn't really matter where and when these oaths are taken, what really matters is whether the person making them adheres to the oath that is made. If you look at the American Presidents who have been very much ardent at making their particular oath as public, and yet do not adhere to their constitution as they pledged to do. Therefore bringing into public whatever oath someone makes pales in significance if that oath is not taken seriously. Now, I take my oath very seriously as it is between me and my supreme being (note that I did not say lodge - and there is a reason for that), and it is the same oath I took when I got married to my gorgeous wife (my bias there).

I have no doubts at all that most Freemasons take their oath very seriously.
I also have no doubts that the American president and probably all presidents or most others, do not take their oath seriously in the slightest.
I presume as soon as they take it they run to the whitehouse to break it, maybe even literally.
Money does some strange things to sick people.I mean sickness of the mind of course,relating to greed,power,plundering, when they have more than they need already.
Its dangerous to society, I hope most would agree.

You might be able to understand my curiosity on the oath of Freemasons.
Im told its not a secret oath.But it is taken in secret.
I can inquire as to what the oath is at a lodge or any masonic body, but they will not inform me of it.

All the members I have communicated with to date do not wish to enlighten me in this regard.
For all that is said, it is as good as a secret.

The thing about the presidents oaths and other public ones, is that it is transparent and because oaths are very important, it is important that the supposed representative of the body the oath hailed from speaks it publically so the public know what his commitments are.

I do not know for sure what Freemasons are really about.
They are quite secretive and so the oath that appears to be secreted seems like a big deal to me.
Especially since all members are required to believe in a supreme being.

This means to me, they are in many respects lowering themselves before a higher power and are not fully independant of mind.
Anyone not independant of mind is in some manor vunerable to being a party to somebody elses agenda.

This isnt to say the masonic agenda is malicious or negative to the outside world.
But there is no proof I have seen yet to show it isnt either.

Thank you though for giving me at least some hint about the nature of the oath.
I did not realise that and it is very telling if applicable to all members as a rule or standard.
I would love to know more about that aspect if possible.
If not I guess I will have to try do some digging at some stage.

robroy1234

The Masonic oath is just like any other oath, one just pledges to be faithful, honest and respectful. Like the oath of the President we do so on the bible (or whatever religious book that is the accepted religion chosen). Even though we take it seriously I wouldn't get too caught up in it - it is not exactly life or death scenario.

Torakx

robroy1234 wrote: »

The Masonic oath is just like any other oath, one just pledges to be faithful, honest and respectful. Like the oath of the President we do so on the bible (or whatever religious book that is the accepted religion chosen). Even though we take it seriously I wouldn't get too caught up in it - it is not exactly life or death scenario.

What do Athiest Freemasons swear on?

Absolam

A money making group.

Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being, so there are no atheist candidates. Agnostics swear on their honour, or in a way that they deem to be binding on their conscience.

Torakx

Absolam wrote: »

Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being, so there are no atheist candidates. Agnostics swear on their honour, or in a way that they deem to be binding on their conscience.

Now im confused again lol

Going back to our earlier conversation on supreme being.
Your view on it was this.

Here's another...
Definition of supreme
adjective
1 highest in rank or authority:
2 very great or the greatest:
Definition of being
1 [mass noun] existence:
2 [in singular] the nature or essence of a person:
3a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one

So I'm pretty happy with 'the very great or greatest real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one'.

Then can an Athiest believe in the very greatest known living scientist of great intelligence,who was or is a living creature for example and still reach the requirements?
What is it about an Athiest that makes them unsuitable?
Surely you can make good men of them too.
Maybe under these conditions you actually can join as an athiest, its just very rare right?

Otherwise it seems unfair that because someone does not believe in arguably imaginary beings they cannot join.
I would think too that swearing an oath on a known personage of supreme authority would be much more reliable than swearing on somethign that may not even exist and bears no consequences for breaking your oath, only those you give it.

For these reasons I still have some doubts about the actual reasons for the supreme being belief.
Or have I discovered a loophole and it is just dealth by blackballing anyone who does not believe in an entity that is invisible and possibly imaginary.

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

Then can an Athiest believe in the very greatest known living scientist of great intelligence,who was or is a living creature for example and still reach the requirements?

Well, firstly he wouldn't believe in the scientist, he would know about the scientist. A profession of belief to my mind requires some sort of faith, as opposed to knowledge. However, if he believes the scientist is a/the supreme being, then he's not an atheist, and satisfies the requirement. Obviously you can play with words Believe, Supreme, and Being, and create interesting sophistic arguments. An atheist who wants to be a member and tries that simply won't meet the requirement. An atheist who lies and professes a belief will pass the requirement. Unfortunate, but true.

Torakx wrote: »

What is it about an Athiest that makes them unsuitable?
Surely you can make good men of them too.
Maybe under these conditions you actually can join as an athiest, its just very rare right?

What makes them unsuitable is they don't profess a belief in a supreme being. Certainly, there must be many good men who are atheists, who are capable of being better. But they can't become Freemasons. Or maybe I should say Regular Freemasons. Which are, of course, the only proper Freemasons

Torakx wrote: »

Otherwise it seems unfair that because someone does not believe in arguably imaginary beings they cannot join.
I would think too that swearing an oath on a known personage of supreme authority would be much more reliable than swearing on somethign that may not even exist and bears no consequences for breaking your oath, only those you give it.

. It does seem unfair, particularly in a modern secular society. Presumably, that's why secular Irregular Lodges were formed, which allow atheist members. I'm not sure how swearing an oath on a known personage of supreme authority is in any way more reliable though, unless that person is present to witness and exact consequences?

Torakx wrote: »

For these reasons I still have some doubts about the actual reasons for the supreme being belief.
Or have I discovered a loophole and it is just dealth by blackballing anyone who does not believe in an entity that is invisible and possibly imaginary.

. I don't think invisibility was mentioned as a criteria. The potential non-existance of any given supreme being is not something we tend to worry about. I also think you may be putting too much emphasis on one entrance criteria; it's not like someone can argue their case for their belief in a visible and tangible supreme being, and his scrutinisers report to the Lodge 'his logic was impeccable, we could not rebuff his argument. Sorry, we have to put him forward, and you'll just have to blackball him instead'. More likely they'll report back 'we met this guy who was mad for arguing about supreme beings and religious stuff. We don't think he'll be a good member, so we're not putting him forward'.

Torakx

Yeah sorry, I am to an extent, pulling everything apart to look at it.
Thats my learning process I suppose.
I can never have too much info and then ussually its not enough haha
I would say im Agnostic myself.

I think the supreme being criteria gets me, because you say its not a religion, which I can believe may be true and is probably very likely.

But when I think about the overall picture, it seems to be a society that requires its members to believe in something I would consider not real.
And my intuition is telling me there is a reason this is part of the foundations, that may be apart from the idea it is just about earlier fear of immoral characters like atheists of the past(in a predominantly religious world) entering the fold.

This may be some bias rearing is head.
And intuition is based on past experience and your unconscious thoughts.
But I would explore that further, if I can, to be sure.

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

But when I think about the overall picture, it seems to be a society that requires its members to believe in something I would consider not real.
And my intuition is telling me there is a reason this is part of the foundations, that may be apart from the idea it is just about earlier fear of immoral characters like atheists of the past(in a predominantly religious world) entering the fold. This may be some bias rearing is head. And intuition is based on past experience and your unconscious thoughts. But I would explore that further, if I can, to be sure.

That's a fair point, but all it really means is Freemasonry is an organisation that you wouldn't like to be part of, which is perfectly valid. There is certainly a bias; Freemasonry is biased towards people who profess a belief in a Supreme Being. It's not neccasarily a logical, or even needful bias. It exists, and the current membership are happy to keep it, so it continues.

Torakx

Maybe that is all it amounts to.
But, supposing you wanted to control people in some way.

Maybe it is there to make sure all members are sympathetic to religion.
I am for a minute thinking of a CT, that the Freemasons were created by the Vatican.
Something I dont think I have really looked into or maybe at all.
Do you think in theory it would have been possible?
Im not saying likely....But possible?

And right now im asking myself why would they do that.
One motive off the top of my head would be a need to control other religions or infiltrate them maybe.
Or setup a one world religion for a future date or next age of enlightenment.
See the age of aquarius thread maybe for inspiration hehe.

In a book I read called "The Secret History Of The World" if I remember correctly, the writer was saying that Freemasonry was in opposition to the church at the time.
I hope i am remembering that correctly from the book.

The writer claimed his source was a contact from within Freemasonry, but I really doubt that.
It was an interesting read though.Very speculative in many parts I would imagine too.

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

Maybe that is all it amounts to.
But, supposing you wanted to control people in some way.
Maybe it is there to make sure all members are sympathetic to religion.
I am for a minute thinking of a CT, that the Freemasons were created by the Vatican. Something I dont think I have really looked into or maybe at all.
Do you think in theory it would have been possible? Im not saying likely....But possible?

Ensuring that members are sympathetic to religion, or at least faith, would certainly have been beneficial to the Freemasons early on, when the Church wielded so much temporal power and being seen to be overtly sympathetic would have been good protection from denunciation. But the flip side is that back then there was no need to ensure it, as there was no substantial non-religious position; only variations on religious positions, and Freemasonry was open to all variations.
Of course most things are possible; taking that line you might say the Vatican created the Reformation and Protestantism to keep people sympathetic to Christianity. It's possible, just very improbable. The Catholic Church has repeatedly taken positions against Freemasonry; possibly that's a double blind to make it appear they're against Freemasonry when they secretly support it. But you could say the same about Protestantism, abortion, contraception etc etc. They're all improbabilities.

Torakx wrote: »

And right now im asking myself why would they do that.
One motive off the top of my head would be a need to control other religions or infiltrate them maybe. Or setup a one world religion for a future date or next age of enlightenment. See the age of aquarius thread maybe for inspiration hehe.

I can't really see why the Catholic Church would want to infiltrate or control other religions... what benefit would accrue? The idea of secretly creating a one world religion seems to ignore the fact that there are people involved; once their religion moved sufficiently away from their personal faith position people would leave and start their own version of the religion, which is why we have so many variants of the major religions today. Schism would constantly prevent a one world religion.

Torakx wrote: »

In a book I read called "The Secret History Of The World" if I remember correctly, the writer was saying that Freemasonry was in opposition to the church at the time. I hope i am remembering that correctly from the book.
The writer claimed his source was a contact from within Freemasonry, but I really doubt that. It was an interesting read though.Very speculative in many parts I would imagine too.

I don't know the book, or the time being discussed. Probably more accurate to say that the Catholic Church has opposed Freemasonry. Freemasonry doesn't take a position on religion, either to endorse or oppose. There may have been a point in history where one Grand Lodge or another opposed the Catholic Church on some point, but I'm not aware of it, and I think it's highly unlikely.

robroy1234

Torakx - I relation to the Atheist and the Supreme Being - you could actually visualize that the Supreme Being as Energy. Energy as a scientific concept does and can fit the requirement as the Supreme Being.

Yitzhak Rabin

A money making group.

robroy1234 wrote: »

Torakx - I relation to the Atheist and the Supreme Being - you could actually visualize that the Supreme Being as Energy. Energy as a scientific concept does and can fit the requirement as the Supreme Being.

I joined with a belief similar to this. I explained it in detail either in this thread or another freemasonry one a few years ago.

King Mob

robroy1234 wrote: »

Torakx - I relation to the Atheist and the Supreme Being - you could actually visualize that the Supreme Being as Energy. Energy as a scientific concept does and can fit the requirement as the Supreme Being.

I'm not sure how this makes sense. Surely "being" implies some sort of intelligence or will does it not?

What are the requirements for a Supreme Being?

Attabear

A money making group.

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure how this makes sense. Surely "being" implies some sort of intelligence or will does it not?

What are the requirements for a Supreme Being?

It seems that the requirement is to profess belief in a supreme being.

You wont have to quantify this being or indeed qualify your belief.

The flying spaghetti monster would suffice.

This is my reading and is not any way authoritative.:)

Absolam

A money making group.

That's effectively true, as there are no codified requirements as to what is and what isn't a Supreme Being. In practice however, I think it would vary greatly according to the person doing the asking, and the geographical place where the question is being asked. I think more secular areas, like Ireland and Europe, would be more relaxed and broad in interpretation, and less secular areas could be more strict. That's just an opinion, since my experience of scrutinising candidates is in Ireland only.

Torakx

Quick question here.
If one member of a lodge disagrees with a candidate becoming initiated, is that candidate blackballed straight out?
Or how does that process work, if you can talk about it.

Absolam

A money making group.

If a member doesn't want a candidate in the Lodge, they might voice their disagreement prior to the candidate being balloted, or simply vote against (blackball) the candidate during the ballot. It is generally considered poor form to wait until the formal ballot; objections should be made early to save time and embarrassment all round.

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

That's effectively true, as there are no codified requirements as to what is and what isn't a Supreme Being. In practice however, I think it would vary greatly according to the person doing the asking, and the geographical place where the question is being asked. I think more secular areas, like Ireland and Europe, would be more relaxed and broad in interpretation, and less secular areas could be more strict. That's just an opinion, since my experience of scrutinising candidates is in Ireland only.

But that's what's I'm confused about. Personally I don't believe in anything that could be considered a supreme being or a higher power in the sense of a God.
I do believe in forces that are "higher" such as gravity or the other laws of physics, but I would specifically not consider them intelligent or beings or in any way applicable to the common interpretations to God.

So would I be able to join the freemasons?

At the moment my guess is that the rule is more of a hold over from a time when a supreme being was more strictly defined.

Torakx

Absolam wrote: »

If a member doesn't want a candidate in the Lodge, they might voice their disagreement prior to the candidate being balloted, or simply vote against (blackball) the candidate during the ballot. It is generally considered poor form to wait until the formal ballot; objections should be made early to save time and embarrassment all round.

I was more curious to know if one guy can block another from joining, on personal issues.
You know it being a fraternity, they kind of have to get along too.

Absolam

A money making group.

King Mob wrote: »

But that's what's I'm confused about. Personally I don't believe in anything that could be considered a supreme being or a higher power in the sense of a God.
I do believe in forces that are "higher" such as gravity or the other laws of physics, but I would specifically not consider them intelligent or beings or in any way applicable to the common interpretations to God.
So would I be able to join the freemasons?
At the moment my guess is that the rule is more of a hold over from a time when a supreme being was more strictly defined.

My answer would be no; you categorically state that you don't believe in anything that could be considered a supreme being. Admitting the existence of great forces isn't the same thing, by a long chalk, to my mind. So you would not meet that particular requirement of membership.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the rule is a holdover from a time when a supreme being was more generally accepted, rather than strictly defined, as it would have been something that was perfectly obvious to everybody (except unfortunate madmen of course), and didn't require defining.

Torakx wrote: »

I was more curious to know if one guy can block another from joining, on personal issues. You know it being a fraternity, they kind of have to get along too.

Yes, someone can block someone else from joining their Lodge on personal grounds. That candidate is free to apply to join a different Lodge though, and could only be blocked from joining that Lodge by the Freemason on the grounds that he has reason to believe the candidate would not be a good candidate for Freemasonry.

robroy1234

King Mob - in terms of a higher power, that cannot be destroyed nor created, and that is omnipresent, that could range from an all-seeing God, Allah, Jehovah, a divine being, one God to rule over other lesser gods, or energy. However assigning intelligence to a higher power or to another being is beyond our capabilities. It reminds me of people that portray animals having human traits despite these animals following a set pattern of behaviour. Considering that a higher power - Supreme Being would be far more intelligent than ourselves.

However the requirement for entry into Freemasonry is a belief in a Supreme Being, regardless of what the Supreme Being is. There is no requirement to justify one's belief, or to assign any characteristic or intelligence to that Supreme Being.

robroy1234

Before any confusion - what I am trying to point out is that we as humans have the tendency to ascribe Intelligence as the same as having human characteristics. This anthrocentric projection leads many people to assume that certain animals are more intelligent than other animals based on what is perceived as shared characteristics.

King Mob

robroy1234 wrote: »

King Mob - in terms of a higher power, that cannot be destroyed nor created, and that is omnipresent, that could range from an all-seeing God, Allah, Jehovah, a divine being, one God to rule over other lesser gods, or energy. However assigning intelligence to a higher power or to another being is beyond our capabilities. It reminds me of people that portray animals having human traits despite these animals following a set pattern of behaviour. Considering that a higher power - Supreme Being would be far more intelligent than ourselves.

However the requirement for entry into Freemasonry is a belief in a Supreme Being, regardless of what the Supreme Being is. There is no requirement to justify one's belief, or to assign any characteristic or intelligence to that Supreme Being.

To clarify I was using intelligence as a short hand for the idea of an entity being able to make decisions/moral judgements and be able to take actions. All of which I think are implied by the word being and all I think necessary for
something to be a higher power in the sense you are referring to.
And most importantly, that energy or physical forces do not have that intelligence, so they cannot really be considered beings, supreme or otherwise.

Dynamo Roller1

I know someone from Oz whose father was in the Freemasons. He's dead now. She has all his uniform, belts, medals etc. I picked her brain about all the Freemason crack and she remembers meetings at their place and such but never anything cultist or odd basically a committee meeting type setting. She said they operated like a local co-op and supported each other.

I saw the the garb and it was quite something to see it in the flesh.

thats my only experience with the Freemason thing.