BS: Freemasonry

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 06:36 PM

I think I hear the sound of one hand crapping...

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: 282RA
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 07:06 PM

>>I AM a member of our forum. I remain one mainly because it is still just about possible to freely air ones views on our forum and party because it is clear that a few of our more vocal members (and guests) would rather not have me as a member and if there were such a process - would certainly have 'black-balled' me.<<

Written by the same poster who also wrote (in the same thread no less):

"I sent the club a wire stating, PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION.
I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER."

Well, it looks like you need to leave Mudcat then.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Oct 06 - 08:48 PM

Yes, well it was worth a try, I suppose, 282RA!

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 02:31 AM

Its interesting that you seem ("...unlike xxx...I AM a member..")to be a bit of an elitist.

An elitist is one who believes in rule by an elite (excusive) group. I do not. All of us are first individuals. Some of us like to try and remain individuals.

Written by the same poster who also wrote (in the same thread no less):

You refer to my later post of explanation as to why I AM a member of our forum - which was a (obviously failed) attempt to pre-empt such observations, comments and personal judgements - as yours from being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Kerux
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 03:12 AM

Sham:

sorry to say I only wrote the first quote. Your italicisation is a mess. Try harder lad, I'm beginning to tire of this.

K

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:30 AM

Before you go - perhaps you may care to explain to our forum why you choose to be proud members of your exclusive organisation but do not choose to become members of our forum?

Or not. It is your choice and it still just about remains a free world for a lucky few at least.

But for what it is worth, my prefence is for groups that will change its requirements to accomodate our individual differences rather than those which expect individuals to suit the group's requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Tinker in Chicago
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 10:42 AM

"But for what it is worth, my prefence is for groups that will change its requirements to accomodate our individual differences rather than those which expect individuals to suit the group's requirements."

But then the group ceases to have any definition and loses its identity. Can an atheist be a Catholic priest? Can I join the University of XYZ Alumni Association if I never attended XYZ? Would a choir be considered unfair and inflexible if it excluded the tone-deaf? Can a white Baptist join the Fruit of Islam?

It actually works the other way. If an organization defines itself by certain criteria and if I don't meet, or don't choose to meet, those criteria, then it's me that needs to move on. The alternative is for every group to admit every applicant, with no requirements, until every group is exactly like every other group--bland and meaningless.
Makes no sense.

(And yes, I'm a guest. I tried to join the forum but for whatever reason the software did not accept my application. Must be some grand Masonic conspiracy.)

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Kerux
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 12:56 PM

Tinker said it all and I endorse his position.

Was I the Mason who scotched the software?

K

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Alan Day
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:42 PM

Do you have proof guest and little Hawk of these wild accusations of course you do not.You both hide behind anonymity and spout a load of rubbish you know nothing about.The first thing that is said to a new mason is "Do you believe in God" does that sound non Christian?
You fear evil men at the top,I fear ignorant people,bigots etc who stir up trouble for innocent people.I welcome discussion about Freemasonary, but at least base your argument on facts not fiction.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:58 PM

Why is it referred to as FREEmasonry?

Was the term originally something to do with masons once again becoming free agents after working on long-team projects like cathedrals?

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Kerux
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 03:24 AM

Freedom of thought
Absence of dogma

K

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 04:39 AM

"When the authentic school [in the 18th C] came to examine the English records they could find no evidence at all of the existence of operative lodges. In medieval times the operatives' lodge had simple been a hut or lean-to on the site in which they stored their tools and took their refreshment and ease.

By the 1600s the guild system, with the exception of the London Livery companies, was virtually moribund. Not was there any evidence of an English Mason word or of the English operatives having had secret modes of recognition....

Accepted masonry simply seems to have appeared in England as a new organization without any prior connections with the operative craft."
    - John Hamill, The Craft, A History of English Freemasonry

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: mandotim
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 04:48 AM

A point was made earlier about the days of 'masons in the dock helping each other'being over. Not so. I witnessed a magistrates court hearing where the defendant was a prominent local professional. Court normally opens at 10 am, but this hearing was arranged for 9am at very short notice (i.e. before the local newspaper reporters got there.) The offence was a particularly nasty public sex offence, made worse by the fact that there was a risk of HIV, and the defendant was a surgeon. Coincidentally, I had just read 'Inside the Brotherhood', and watched in fascination as the defendant made a clear masonic distress signal as the charges were read out. Result? A truly bizarre acquittal that left the attending police officer shaking his head in disbelief. True story, no doubt about what went on.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Kerux
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 02:12 PM

Is this the first time you've told anyone Tim?

K

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 04:18 PM

Hey Tim, what is the signal? I was a Mason and no one taught it to me. Maybe I wasn't in the lodge long enough to need it. Will my tongue be cut out etc if I tell the secrets I was told?

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 05:21 PM

Ms Lemon - if you are really Ms you were not a freemason. Mandotim, I would be interested to hear more about that sign. PM a letter or a half if appropriate. I may tell you more in PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:27 PM

Mandotin...I know the distress signal and have seen it used before. It is a last straw, and no fellow mason can ignore it. It is the reason for some truly bizarre judgements.

Alan Day...It's been a while since I've been over the information and sources on the masonic stuff, but here's where I looked at first:

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bloodlines/

"Bloodlines of the Illuminati" by Fritz Springmeier. It's still some of the more fascinating reading I've come across on the topic. All of you should find an online copy of this online and save it to your hard drive for casual reading. Sure, the guy who wrote is has been locked up for a dog's age as an "enemy of the state," but he and his researchers have uncovered some fascinating things.

For instance, open the chapter on one of the Illuminati families and do a "find" search of the word "mason" and read each paragraph you come to. Here's something I found in the "Russell Family" chapter:

As with all occult organizations a veil of secrecy is maintained by requiring initiates to take secrecy oaths on penalty of death. As in Witchcraft, Masonry repeatedly demands secrecy oaths at every new level. Charles T. Russell began participating in this secrecy when he took the Entered Apprentice (first Masonic degree) oath on penalty of mayhem and violent death, "I ... do hereby and hereon most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will always hail, ever conceal and never reveal any of the arts, parts or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry which I received, am about to receive, or may hereafter be instructed in ..."

Springmeir has done a hell of a lot of verifiable research, and even if a lot of it is questionable, what about the part that isn't? Even if you believe 90% of this stuff is nonsense, what about the 10% you DO believe. That alone should be enough to convince you a really twisted elite is running things.

Continuing with my search of the word "mason," I find in the chapter on the Onassis bloodline:

...It was this Turk, Khedive Ismail Pasha, who gave the famous Obelisk to the United States. This Obelisk was called Cleopatra's Needle and was originally erected in the city of the sun, Heliopolis, about 1500 B.C. The Obelisk is a representation of a human penis, because sun worship, worship of regeneration (sex) and worship of the sun god Satan were all tied together. Masons helped with the moving of the obelisk, and its dedication when it arrived in New York City. Large obelisks have been erected by Masons in New York, Washington D.C., Paris, the Vatican, and London. (If my memory serves me correct Berlin received one too at one time.)...

...Aristotle (Onassis) worked within the drug/porn/political/business management area Aristotle's power was so pervasive that some researchers of his activities concluded that he was absolutely the most powerful man on earth. This is because they were not aware of the shared power of the Illuminati "kings". Aristotle did have world-wide power, but that appearance of power was there because he was part of Moriah (the Satanic hierarchy which controls the world.) ...

...Onassis was an extremely close friend of Winston Churchill. The Freemason Winston Churchill is a descendent of a family that has been part of the elite that have secretly run the world. Winston Churchill on several occasions told Onassis that the only one he could trust in W.W. II was Joseph Stalin. (This is a far cry from the picture given in history books.) Winston Churchill spent a great deal of time on Onassis's yacht Christina. Onassis was also friendly with Winston Churchill's friend of Bernard Baruch. It was Bernard Baruch who convinced Winston Churchill to join the Illuminati conspiracy. He asked Churchill to come watch something important in NY in 1929, and then he showed Churchill how they could destroy the Stock Market. That show of power brought Churchill on board....

It goes on and on. I DO believe there are controlling forces in humanity, and they would naturally seek out one another in order to form alliances and/or to do battle. Springmeier has an explanation that makes sense. The masons are just part of the sick mix.

Now do you really want me to go on with this, Alan Day? I satisfied MY curiosity about the influence of masons long ago, but if you want me to educate others on your club of perverts, I'd be glad to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Kerux
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 03:11 AM

Tim:

You've not answered my question yet. Richard's right, we need to know more about what took place.

Please describe the sign that you think you saw being used.

K

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Alan Day
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:04 AM

So Guest because you read an interesting theory by somebody about Masonry ,from that you deduce that all Masons are perverts.
It is people like you who used to burn little old ladies as witches.
If you take part in a discussion again try to gather all the facts and not spoil your argument by sweeping accusations and rudeness.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: mandotim
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:19 AM

Hi Sal! I'm not a Mason, so I don't know about the oral surgery! Guest Kerux; I don't spend my whole life by the computer; please be patient, I will get back to you. No, this isn't the first time I've spoken about it; what I saw corresponds to a number of accounts of masonic ritual and symbolism that can be found in both paper and electronic form. I checked my interpretation at the time with a close friend (without naming the defendant)and as a Mason he confirmed my observation as being correct. He also condemned the use of the signal in these circumstances wholeheartedly.
I hold no view either for or against Freemasonry, the same attitude I have to lots of societies of which I'm not a member. I'm not a Mason, nor have I ever sought to become one. All I have done is report what I saw, in a clear and unembellished form; and I know what I saw.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 07:52 AM

He also condemned the use of the signal in these circumstances wholeheartedly.

The wrong thing then is for any freemason to use it in such circumstances?

When one feels distressed - is that not exactly the circumstances for them to use it?

And if it used by one freemason in such circumstance - does the signal have to be recognised and acted on?

I have a feeling that it is only judged wrong (by freemasons) TO BE SEEN to use this signal in such circumstances.

If you were a freemason 'distressed' in these circumstances (or as other may discribe it - guilty as charged) and you thought its use may avoid or limit the extent of your punishment - it would be a temptation - wouldn't it.

A temptation you could be seen to avoid, as an honourable person - by not becoming a freemason.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Alan Day
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:46 AM

I remember this discussion taking place regarding a murderer who was supposed to have used signs in a court case.The judges response was that he was hanged.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:02 AM

I remember this discussion taking place regarding a murderer who was supposed to have used signs in a court case.The judges response was that he was hanged.

The good thing about being open is that if or when you are wrongly accused of doing something underhand - it is ALWAYS possible to demonstrate that the accusation has no substance. That may be the situation in the case you refer to or are you suggesting that the poor unfortunate suspected murderer was hanged because he used the signal. I do hope he was tried and convicted first?:-}

Alan -I would be interested in reading your answers to my questions about the use of this signal in these circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 11:37 AM

I recollect discussion of a murderer (so found) who swore an oath upon the name that most masons would have been likely to use that he was innocent, and the judge crying but still puttin on the black cap.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:00 PM

You better give up on this Alan Day. Look up the meaning of mayhem (first usage in the Webster's dictionary). Your club buddies wouldn't take kindly to you discussing this stuff. lol

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Kerux
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:15 PM

Tim:

Thanks for your reply. I would concur with your friend that if indeed the act you saw took place between two Masons, both were doing something which Masonry forbids in the most absolute terms. They should be expelled from their lodges and prosecuted if what took place could be proved illegal.

I'm at one with the hanging Judge and when from time to time people (not necessarily Masons) tried to influence me by the use of handshakes and such, I always ensured that they got the opposite of what they wanted. I never wept though.

K

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Alan Day
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 01:22 PM

As interested Shambles in the last explanation I gave you ?
If I had verbally attacked your friends, Guest, as you have done mine, then you would have reacted in the same way as I did.I have decided to pack this in,I find it difficult having discussions with anonymous people,go forth and wind up some other charitable organisation.
You will be happy for the donated equipment by Masons to be used on you should you ever be committed to Hospital,I presume? Or as it has been donated by the organisation you hate perhaps you will turn it down.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 02:55 PM

As interested Shambles in the last explanation I gave you ?

Yes - I was very interested in reading that. Just because I may not be seen to agree with you does not mean that I am not interested in reading them.

My experience has been that I have liked many freemason that I have known and have always wondered why such people would wish to become freemasons. As I have usually liked them before I knew they were freemasons and knowing this - has made little real difference to our relationship.

If there were me and a fellow freemason in equal distress but they could signal theirs - I may find out that as a non-freemason I would be second choice for my friend's assistance - but that senario has
yet to be tested.

The aspect of the distress signal and its use in the circumstances earlier described - is perhaps a crucial one in answering my main question.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:02 PM

Yeah, pack it in Alan. Wise move. I guess you momentarily forgot about that death and mayhem clause. And no hard feelings. I have lots of family members who are masons, and they absolutely freeze when I ask them about the society. Scared to death. Otherwise brave and open men rendered helpless and mute by that freakin' oath. And they have no clue why the oath was necessary, and never will, because they're too good to rise to the level of the ritualistic sacrifices. They'll never be invited into the inner circle.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:27 PM

Maybe thats so Guest, but whats keeping YOU anonymous when you go on about all this stuff?

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:58 PM

Couldn't care less if I'm anonymous, Paul from Hull. If the masons don't get me old age will. Might as well tell the truth, as well as I'm able to see it, while I'm here.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Kerux
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 03:24 AM

I think this thread has run its course. It's been a good opportunity to talk about a subject which, had it not already existed, would have had to have been invented.

I've been a little saddened by some of the rhetoric, but heartened by the openeness and receptivity of some of the contributors.

Once again and finally I would encourage anyone who has an honest curiosity about Masonry should consider joining, and indeed to adopt a similar approach to anything else in life of which they are presently ignorant, and as a consequence fear.

Adieu

K

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 03:45 AM

I don't think the OP's questions about the merit if any of the marching about and transparently foolish pseudo-historical mumbo-jumbo have been addressed - or seem likely to be addressed.

Some of the rantings about black magic and human sacrifice on this thread are pretty comical too.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST, A Widow's Son
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 03:53 AM

I'd also add that at least one allegedly informed post quotes from (frankly) obsolete workings.

But thank you all for your perspectives. I didn't find any of the enlightenment I thought I might find on this forum where at least some posters seem well informed on many things. I did find (curiously, mostly in anti-masonry rants) enough about which to continue to be curious that I think I will swallow my impatience with the silly ritual for a while longer and see where I get to.

At least I might. At one recent night of instruction we were in an attic room where there had been a new window installed, and it had not yet been curtained. Some members were seriously suggesting that we should rehearse without the use of signs, presumably in case a starling with a good memory might fly past, and learn the "secrets". That is the sort of twaddle that greatly encourages me to quit.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Alan Day
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 04:13 AM

I will just come out of retirement and say to you Widows Son that I felt the same about Masonry when I joined ."What the hell have I got myself into here" as you progress however the ritual,the regalia,the signs etc start to become clear,the tradition etc There should be many members in your lodge who will answer your concerns.You have joined a society Worldwide ,you will be welcomed into any Lodge Worlwide.Stick with it and ignore the likes of Guest and many others who's only aim is to discredit the fine work that Masons do.Like me decide for yourself,stick it out,visit other lodges ,enjoy the subtle differences in the ritual from one lodge to another and make new friends.
Goodbye to this discussion
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Slag
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 04:28 AM

Are you aware that the free meson is implicated directly in the broken symmetry of the SU sub 3? Where will it all end? I mean, they did create the universe, didn't they? Their secret handshake is in another dimension whereas they just string you along here.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 02:53 PM

Richard Bridge: I was a member of the Masonic Lodge for women called Cefnllys in Newport, Gwent. I swore to have my tongue torn out and buried 25 leagues from the shore, where the tide ebbs and flows, if I talked about what I whitnessed within the lodge when I was initiated. My left breast was bare and I was slip shod, with a stocking rolled down to my ankle for the ceremony with a blindfold and a noose around my neck. I felt the dagger at my throat. If I'm not a mason how would I know these things??? And yes, I'm a Ms!

Sal (probably never to sing again!!!)

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 03:56 PM

What is the lodge number in the United Grand Lodge of England? There are other things that pretend to be freemasonry that are not approved, and it sounds a bit like one of them. Sorry, they don't count.

Here is an example of sisters trying to do it for themselves - a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4629813.stm">BBC article

Yeah right.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Bonecruncher
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 08:46 PM

Guest - A Widow's Son
Once you have been raised to become a Master Mason try to get hold of a copy of the book "The Lectures of the Three Degrees of Freemasonry". My copy is dated 1947 and was published by A. Lewis, who still sell Masonic Regalia.
The full lectures are rarely done in Lodge due to restrictions of time, but the full version does explain how and where the ritual as done in Lodge fits in with the history. I found that it answered most of the questions, probably similar to yours, and enabled me to fit things together.
Otherwise PM me with a letter or a half and I may be able to help you.
Colyn.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Bonecruncher
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 08:57 PM

For those who wish to know more about Freemasonry in the UK go to www.grandlodge-england.org
Colyn. (Who is unable to do the blue clicky thing)

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 10:41 PM

Masons...you join so others can control you. That is it. That is the whole of it. And you're a fool if you join a club that threatens you with death on day one.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: bobad
Date: 14 Oct 06 - 10:46 PM

Hey GUEST, there are many folks out there looking for a "family", why begrudge them?

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,A Widow's Son
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 03:31 AM

Yes I have been raised and actually leapfrogged in the order of offices so someone thinks I am heading in the right direction. But it still looks like a lot of foolish amateur dramatics.

I assume we are agreed that the idea that there were operative masons who actually built King Solomon's Temple, with real secrets known only to three people, that Hiram Abith was killed because he would not reveal the secrets and that the other two went to their graves with the secrets because it needed three to consent to their disclosure is simply a load of fairy tales?

And that there is no trace of any operative lodges with anything resembling masonic ritual prior to the 16/1700s(ish)?


Grand Lodge Website

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 01:42 PM

My understanding is that masons ordered themselves into a guild to protect the "secret" of the keystone...the last stone set in place at the top of an arch. Must have seemed like magic when arches of that type started appearing. And the men who knew how to build them wanted to exclude others (like the oil refiners today limiting the number of refineries). The masons had good P.R. and sold builders on the idea that if it wasn't union-built, the arch would come crashing down. They probably even tore down arches that didn't have the proper symbols carved into them.

Centuries passed, and like all bureaucracies, the masons grew into much more than the simple organization they first were. Like conglomeration in business. The masons had a strong networking service and sought to bring new blood into it (professional blood, like lawyers, politicians, etc.), so the mission of the organization changed. It was opened up to men of other professions.

But then the masons started getting greedy. They wanted CONTROL over various aspects of society, and the quickest way to get that control is through politics. So that's where their focus is now. And over the centuries they've merged with some pretty unsavory other clubs in order to achieve political power. Luciferians, for example. And since the stronger will prevail, the masons are now under the control of some bad, bad people.

Or that's what I've been able to piece together. Like I said, 99.9% of masons are what Lenin called "useful idiots." They serve a cause they know nothing about. They do their good deeds, and that's commendable. But they do it under threat of death, and that's bad. The upper .1% knows what's going on, and those people are mucho bad. Sworn to kill their own families if the masons order it. That's about as low as you can sink.

Don't join, that way you can speak out against the organization and not violate their oath. And push for the barring of masons in politics. That'll never happen, of course, so question them when they are in public, campaigning. Make them SAY they belong to a club they can't talk about. Membership in such clubs may have awed voters a hundred years ago, but today it's the kiss of death. Drive masons out of their offices by turning over their rocks. Expose them to honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Beelzebub
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 02:57 PM

Now don't you go associating us honest fallen angels with the Masons. They won't let us Luciferians join.

666

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:54 PM

Shambles, if you want to join the Knights of Columbus, they'll take you.
They specialise in guys who wouldn't be members of clubs that would take the likes of them.

Wait a minute....are you a Catholic?


Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 15 Oct 06 - 11:55 PM

Ancient Order of Hibernians?

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 02:26 AM

Wait a minute....are you a Catholic?

Am I a catholic? - I'm the bloody Pope.

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,Lucifuge Rofocale
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 03:07 AM

We're in good company then

Subject: RE: BS: Freemasonry
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 16 Oct 06 - 01:46 PM

I remember arguing with some dumbass named JDENNIS in some other forum. Mr. I'm-a-Freemason-and-you're-not. He kept trying to put over on me that the Masonic secrets are unknown outside the organization. He, of course, is full of shit. Anyone can learn these secrets. His contention was that if anyone could learn them there would be no point to the secrecy. But there is a point to it: I know many of these so-called secrets but I've not been sworn to secrecy. That's the difference. When you take an oath, it has this binding effect on all who have taken it. That's what builds this feeling of belonging, of brotherhood. Doesn't mean shit what these secrets are as long as the organization to which you've joined swears you to secrecy concerning them.

As for the death threats, they're symbolic. Nobody is going to kill you for divulging them. I belonged to a secret club once where I took oaths that WERE and ARE enforced. I could lose my freedom for divulging them. I refer, of course, to the military. They are far more secret and serious about that than the Masons and I guarantee a layman does NOT know these secrets and never will. Now who's more of a threat?