ID -> Great Architect -> Masonry -> Non-christian?

[kalen]

I'd just like to throw this out there:

ID purports that the Universe has some grand designer, or in other words, a "Great Architect." These are terms I've heard numerous time when ID is brought up. From what I understand of masonry is that the masons also recognize a "Great Architect."

So, did the ID people get this idea from the masons - ID sounds more masonic than Christian as there is no way to invoke Jeebus specifically as the anonymous grand designer? I find this a little humourous as alot of Christians, especially the fundies, denounce freemasonry as satanic.

Thoughts?

Chick tract: (link (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp))

From a southern baptist website: (link (http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0092.htm))
Some may consider it perfectly harmless, even from a religious point of view because it acknowledges God as "the Great Architect of the Universe" and even displays an open Bible among its symbols. But when Freemasonry is examined under the light of God?s Word, it becomes clear and evident that no child of God should have anything to do with Freemasonry.


FAQ links at chick.com: (link (http://www.chick.com/information/religions/masonry/))

[c4ts]

I think Mr. Chick says all secret societies are devil worship. That includes Illuminata, Skull & Bones, Shriners, Rotarians (etc)... it doesn't matter what they really believe, they're evil because they're exclusive.

That whole "Great Architect" thing is coincidence. Jack Chick loves ID. Just read "Big Daddy."

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by c4ts
I think Mr. Chick says all secret societies are devil worship. That includes Illuminata, Skull & Bones, Shriners, Rotarians (etc)... it doesn't matter what they really believe, they're evil because they're exclusive.
Does that mean that the attorney-client privilege is satanic?

[Disco]

I was very surprised when I found out about the apparent great hatred that some fundies have for masonic organizations. I grew up in the masonic tradition, having many masons in my family & being involved in Jobies for many years. Nicer people you could not find.

My experience with these groups was very positive & really the only time I went to church was in conjunction with Jobies & the masons. I couldn't believe the stuff I was reading on the 'net-Satanic worship & such. Since I had never seen or heard this stuff when I was involved, I realized they were just spouting nonsense.

During my time in Jobies, I was living in a very Mormonized area of Idaho. Many folks in the masonic temple told me that Mormons didn't believe in secret societies, that Joseph Smith had been a mason, & took many of there temple rituals from masonic ritual. So, they didn't want their members finding this out by becoming involved in masonic groups.

MHB

[kalen]

Originally posted by c4ts
That whole "Great Architect" thing is coincidence. Jack Chick loves ID. Just read "Big Daddy."

I don't see anything in "Big Daddy" (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp) that refers to ID. It's just straight-up anti-evolution as far as I can tell (and near the end tells us that atoms are held together by Jesus himself.)

How do the ID people know that the Great Architect of the Universe is Jesus and not Chluthu or Baal or the Masonic GAOTU? ID is pretty fuzzy there.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by kalen
I don't see anything in "Big Daddy" (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp) that refers to ID. It's just straight-up anti-evolution as far as I can tell (and near the end tells us that atoms are held together by Jesus himself.)

How do the ID people know that the Great Architect of the Universe is Jesus and not Chluthu or Baal or the Masonic GAOTU? ID is pretty fuzzy there.

That's what the FSM was all about, but do you see any ID pundits supporting it?

[prewitt81]

Total coincidence. The Grand Architect of the Universe is a term that Masons use to be as inclusive as possible since they come from a variety of beliefs. It is not some seperate god but a catch-all phrase. Nowadays, I think of Physics when I hear the term.

Masonry is not a religion. Foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists disagree and sell lots of books and make money giving lectures about all the bad things that are done in secret. In reality, Masons organize car shows, hog roasts, lectures on George Washington or the US Constitution, and run FREE hospitals for burned and crippled children. Much of our membership is over 60. We couldn't take over a small Arby's if we tried. If the idea ever came up, we would probably argue and lose half our membership in anger over the best way to go about it. :)

One of my first epiphanies in critical thinking came shortly after my father became a Mason. I was very worried and believed lots of things that the antis were saying about satanic influences and things of that nature (this was back when I believed that the horned one was just around the corner waiting to jump into unsuspecting souls). In doing research, I came across the website http://www.masonicinfo.com and the book Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? . Granted both are authored by Masons, but they explain the criticisms against the fraternity and provide reasoned and substantiated responses.

Masons are at war with fundamentalism and intolerance. In 1996, members of the Westwood Hill Baptist Church felt "a strong presence of evil" on a "prayer walk" through their graveyard. Seeing Masonic emblems on the tombstone of former church member Arthur Ward, they proceeded to destroy his gravesite. In some ways, it's the same fight the JREF fights, but from a somewhat different viewpoint.

Most Masonic Grand Lodges worldwide require applicants to believe in God, but they do not try to define what God means. The longer I stay here and the more good atheists I meet, the more that requirement bothers me -- but Masonry doesn't turn me off in the way that religion does. Masonry teaches that we are all part of one family and that we should work for liberty, equality and fraternity for all mankind. It's not a perfect fraternity, but I'm proud to be a member.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

[Open Mind]

Although I not that interested in Christianity or Freemasonry …. (I do think some PSI phenomena is real, if not yet scientifically explained but I'm not religious)

It seems some Christians viewing Freemasonry as satanic may be due to Freemasonry and related brotherhoods association with the Gnostic ‘light bearer’.

The word Lucifer means ‘the light bearer’, the bringer of light, the morning (day) star, the planet Venus (traditionally the planet of love?) ……… does this sound satanic?

Why do Christians assume Lucifer = Satan? Probably due to St Jerome who not until around the 4th Century AD decided Lucifer was a fallen angel. The freemason idea of Lucifer - the light bringer- predates Jerome. (Jerome I think was in disagreement with Luciferians over Baptism, but I’m not sure whether that had anything to do with it)

The older translations of the bible only mention the word Lucifer once (in Isaiah 14:12) and later translations remove the word Lucifer altogether and replace with ‘morning star’. This has not pleased some Christians as Jesus in the Book of Revelation (near end) is referred to as the ‘day star’ ……but elsewhere is referred to as ‘the light’ ……. Which perhaps sounds rather light the bearer of the light?

After saying all that I do not approve of Freemasonry being secret.. Freemasonry and Christianity seem to believe ritual has power of magic …. The only difference I see is in freemasonry the magic ritual is secret (some believers in paranormal have suggested that secret ritual works better as there is nothing to oppose it such as scepticism or disbelief)

I think Christians are playing guess the meaning of the ancient symbolism, for example it would be just as easy to portray modern Magicians as satanic even although they are not performing magic ritual but conjuring …….
For example look at the Masonic looking ‘International Brotherhood of Magician Logo’ with handshake, twin snakes on rod symbol and an all seeing eye at the bottom?
http://www.magician.org/Official_Logo.htm

Or even Harry Houdini’s (a master mason) ‘Society of American Magician’ logo with what looks like 2 snakes each biting each other’s tale? http://www.magicsam.com/

:)

[Open Mind]

Incidentally theories of evolution don’t rule out an afterlife, these merely conflicted with creationism. The theory of a soul evolving appears to long predate Darwin/Russel Wallace theory of physical evolution…..

By the 4th century Christians preferred the theory God created things just as they are. ...... e.g. Jesus was created as the perfect son of God ….. , rather than the rival theory (outlawed in 4th century) Jesus was a human who learned or evolved to manifest God. New Age movement (which has connections with Freemasonry) is many ways the latter rival theory.

The debate is not just over Creationism/Intelligent Design VS Evolution ........ there are other possibilities ..... if a consciousness exists without matter then it is quite possible this consciousness would through experience evolve to seek pleasure (good) and avoid pain (evil) through trial and error (not preplanned) …… And Darwin’s evolution becomes rather a more survival of the more pleasant (good) and avoidance of pain (evil) perhaps guided by an collective evolving consciousness (this resembles Sheldrake's idea somewhat)……. Such a theory is neither creationism nor strictly intelligent design nor is it Neo-Darwinism

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Open Mind
there are other possibilities ..... if a consciousness exists without matter
If consciousness exists, and matter exists, either they are the same existent, or you must accept some form of interactive dualism (if you also assume consciousness and matter effect/affect one another).

The choice remains; 1) consciousness exists or 2) matter -- shall we say not-consciousness -- exists.


then it is quite possible this consciousness would through experience evolve to seek pleasure (good) and avoid pain (evil) through trial and error (not preplanned) …… And Darwin’s evolution becomes rather a more survival of the more pleasant (good) and avoidance of pain (evil) perhaps guided by an collective evolving consciousness (this resembles Sheldrake's idea somewhat)……. Such a theory is neither creationism nor strictly intelligent design nor is it Neo-Darwinism
It's a thought that can be in agreement with objective idealism.

Note also that for choice 2) some flavor of darwinism is the only possible answer to "life" in what we perceive of the universe, and darwinism must also assume matter (not-life)morphing to life by abiogenesis. Evolutionists prefer to disagree with my comment on abiogenesis, yet if they are correct in substance, that is a logical requirement.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
The choice remains; 1) consciousness exists or 2) matter -- shall we say not-consciousness -- exists.
Unfortunately, no experiment can be devised to distinguish these two, nor these two from the third:

3) Snorkulorium exists, and both matter and consciousness are emergent properties of it.

Not only can no experiment be devised, but apparently no logical argument can be presented, either.

Evolutionists prefer to disagree with my comment on abiogenesis, yet if they are correct in substance, that is a logical requirement.
Sorry, what comment is that?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Unfortunately, no experiment can be devised to distinguish these two, nor these two from the third:
Agree. Now all that is needed is for you to assert and defend the thesis that all questions on issues that effect or affect the universe can be decided by the application of the scientific method.


3) Snorkulorium exists, and both matter and consciousness are emergent properties of it.
Sorry, but no. Snorkulorium will either have the properties associated with what we usually term "substance with intent -- consciousness" or "substance without intent -- matter".


Sorry, what comment is that?

Life(intent) is a property of non-life(no intent) would be another way to put it. Feel free to argue that "matter" also has inherent intent (although it would no longer be the inert & lifeless stuff we perceive as "matter").

[Open Mind]

Incidentally, I forgot to mention something amusing rather earlier ...... look again at the International Brotherhood of Magicians Logo again .....

http://www.magician.org/Official_Logo.htm

Look inside the man's head ...... is that a snake head inside his shadowed head? :D How did the Christian conspiracy theorists miss that one? :)

Open Mind

BTW hammegk, you have given me something interesting to think about, I will perhaps reply later

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
Agree. Now all that is needed is for you to assert and defend the thesis that all questions on issues that effect or affect the universe can be decided by the application of the scientific method.
Give me at least one other methodology for investigating such questions, so that I can choose which to defend. In any case, there may certainly be questions that are not decidable by any method.

Sorry, but no. Snorkulorium will either have the properties associated with what we usually term "substance with intent -- consciousness" or "substance without intent -- matter".
But we agree that whatever properties it does not have "intrinsically" (whatever that means) can simply emerge from it. Otherwise the universe would either be entirely consciousness-like or entirely substance-like, depending upon which metaphysic is correct (whatever that means).* So I can claim that snorkulorium would have any old combination of consciousness/substance/something-else properties and the remaining properties emerge from it.

And surely you agree that consciousness/substance is a false dichotomy?

Feel free to argue that "matter" also has inherent intent (although it would no longer be the inert & lifeless stuff we perceive as "matter").
"Intent" is a word we use to describe certain actions of living creatures. There is no need for it to be an intrinsic property of anything.

~~ Paul

* If the universe were all one or the other, we wouldn't even have a term for the one that it wasn't.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Give me at least one other methodology for investigating such questions, so that I can choose which to defend.
Thought ... and Logic.


In any case, there may certainly be questions that are not decidable by any method.
Sorry again. Real questions get real answers that effect and affect the world. Would you aver that morals and ethics have no effect or affect?


But we agree that whatever properties it does not have "intrinsically" (whatever that means) can simply emerge from it.
Emergent property, huh? Not for a monist. There is one, or the other.


Otherwise the universe would either be entirely consciousness-like or entirely substance-like, depending upon which metaphysic is correct (whatever that means).*
Dualists believe otherwise.


So I can claim that snorkulorium would have any old combination of consciousness/substance/something-else properties and the remaining properties emerge from it.
Well, if you feel comfortable doing so, do so.


And surely you agree that consciousness/substance is a false dichotomy?
Actually, I don't agree, although I'm sure we can play semantic games with the definitions.


"Intent" is a word we use to describe certain actions of living creatures. There is no need for it to be an intrinsic property of anything.
~~ Paul
That is an accepted dictionary definition. However, for an idealist, it is not an intrinsic property of something else: rather, it is a way to name the property that defines all existence.

[Nick Bogaerts]

hammegk, I'm having trouble parsing your sentences. What is a 'property', what is 'intrinsic' to a 'property', and how does a 'property' 'define' something?

Could you please speak English?

[hammegk]

Sorry, but that is English.

Wittgenstein mentioned the problem in a general sense. ;)

[Nick Bogaerts]

Well, it seems all the words used are part of the English language, the grammatical structure looks familiar as well, but it is missing one crucial component, in that, as far as I can tell, it is utterly devoid of meaning.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
Sorry again. Real questions get real answers that effect and affect the world. Would you aver that morals and ethics have no effect or affect?
Oh, you're talking about opinions. Yes, I agree that science cannot necessarily answer questions of opinion.

Emergent property, huh? Not for a monist. There is one, or the other.
Then the monist has twisted himself up in a false dichotomy and has somehow forgotten about neutral monism.

Dualists believe otherwise.
Yes, but we are assuming monism, since you started the conversation with:
The choice remains; 1) consciousness exists or 2) matter -- shall we say not-consciousness -- exists.

Actually, I don't agree, although I'm sure we can play semantic games with the definitions.
So you would insist that there is either consciousness or substance and no other choices? Are you sure you're not being just a tad human-centric with this assumption?

That is an accepted dictionary definition. However, for an idealist, it is not an intrinsic property of something else: rather, it is a way to name the property that defines all existence.
So a bacterium has intent?

~~ Paul

[prewitt81]

Open Mind - whoever has given you information on Freemasonry has misled you (whether intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know). There are some fringe groups that call themselves Masons that are really deep into esoterica, but the vast majority of Masons, and the entirety of Regular Masons (those both in amity with and descended from the United Grand Lodge of England) do not practice magic or believe in paranormal powers (at least not in Lodge - what they do at home is their own business).

The only Masonic secrets are the modes of recognition. This is a holdover from Operative Masonry where actual stonemasons devised a way of recognizing each other for mutual aid and support (in a sense, it was an early example of a worker's union). Anyone who meets the qualifications of being a Mason can learn those secrets by petitioning a Lodge and becoming a member.

I sometimes wonder why there is a demand for Masons to reveal the secret signs, handshakes, etc. Some people feel it is their right to know the business of a private organization simply because they are curious. I disagree. I do not have the right to know how you spent your evening at home or your vacation this year. Perhaps more appropriately, it would be wrong of me to demand that Mr. Randi give me the secrets behind the stage magic he has performed in the past.

Masonry keeps to itself for the most part. When it is visible in the community, it is usually for something philanthropic.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
So you would insist that there is either consciousness or substance and no other choices? Are you sure you're not being just a tad human-centric with this assumption?

So a bacterium has intent?

~~ Paul
Why stop at bacterium? And yes I'd say a bacterium clearly has intent. ie. "consciousness".

You are ignoring quarks, leptons, bosons ... ? er, and gravitons ? ... and a number of other candidates before we even reach (what humans perceive as) the complexity of a virus ... and you think I'm human-centric?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
Why stop at bacterium? And yes I'd say a bacterium clearly has intent. ie. "consciousness".
Then you be using a different definition of intent from most people.

You are ignoring quarks, leptons, bosons ... ? er, and gravitons ? ... and a number of other candidates before we even reach (what humans perceive as) the complexity of a virus ... and you think I'm human-centric?
Sorry, no idea what you're saying.

~~ Paul

[kevin]

Originally posted by c4ts
I think Mr. Chick says all secret societies are devil worship. That includes Illuminata, Skull & Bones, Shriners, Rotarians (etc)...

Don't forget the catholic church too!

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5023/5023_01.asp

Jack Chick cracks me up.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Then you be using a different definition of intent from most people.
Perhaps ...

in·tent
Something that is intended; an aim or purpose

Or perhaps not ...

You at least feel that anthropomorphism of some extent is intended. Does a chimp have "intent"? A carnivore? A bacterium? An idealist would say 'yes'.

How do you defend where you draw a line between Life, and not-Life (Idealists believe "life" itself demonstrates intent) ?


Sorry, no idea what you're saying.
Where did you say you draw that line?

[Hellbound]

Where did you say you draw that line?


Why draw a line?

Where do you draw the line between black and white? Where do you draw the line between shallow and deep? Where is the line between high and low?

Your question assumes a dualistic position, that life is something discreet, seperate, or special. There's a pretty good scale of variation from Non-life to Life...you're using a variant of a false dichotomy. It's more of a scale, from self-replicating inorganics, to self-replicating organics, to virii, simple cells, multicellular organisms, and so forth.

Exactly the situation one would expect if one assumes intelligence and/or consciousness to be an emergent property of the material.

[c4ts]

The picture of "The Angry Jesus in Heaven" cracks me up the most.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Why draw a line?


Strangely, life and not-life appear to date to be a dichotomy. On what basis would you care to debate it is not?

I don't think you will like your worldview if A and ~A are both simultaneously true.


Idealists of course do not draw the line.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by prewitt81
[B]Open Mind - whoever has given you information on Freemasonry has misled you (whether intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know). There are some fringe groups that call themselves Masons that are really deep into esoterica, but the vast majority of Masons, and the entirety of Regular Masons (those both in amity with and descended from the United Grand Lodge of England) do not practice magic or believe in paranormal powers (at least not in Lodge - what they do at home is their own business).


For modern times I think you are right, Freemasonry probably bears little resemblance to what it probably originated from. However it does seem the origins of freemasonry were mystery schools, teaching to initiates ancient mysticism, borrowing Egyptian symbolism, Greek geometric mysticism, other, etc. Perhaps these are more obvious in related brotherhoods to Freemasonry like Rosicrucians

I suppose one could argue these masonic symbolic rituals were not attempts at changing reality by paranormal means (magic) but surely they must have at least felt the secret ritual and symbolism did something important? Otherwise why use these at all? In a period of belief in such things as alchemy I do still think these rituals probably did have a mystical magical intention, at least originally.

Ancient symbolism have generally been labeled ‘pagan’ and ‘witchcraft’ by some in Christianity but it might be fair to say Greek ‘pagan’ mixture of philosophy and reasoning led to the birth of modern science. Nor can we assume the common ancient symbolism of a serpents were always evil as implied in the Christian Bible. For example in the future our decendants may wonder why the Christian cross, a symbol of a human torture device, was worshipped? It sounds evil yet that is not the intended meaning, quite the opposite meaning to Christians ……similarly the Eucharist ‘except ye drink the blood and flesh of the son of man, ye have no eternal life’ nor does this mean Christians are cannibals ……. The Christians I know or have personally met were amongst some of the nicest people I have had the pleasure to meet (and I still have all my limbs :) )

The point, I am sure you will agree with, is that it is easy to protray symbolism as something quite different from what the followers actually believed. Having said that I think organizations like the International Brotherhood of Magicians using serpent symbolism when the meaning has changed in public opinion, isn't wise. (Christian conspiracy theorists don't usually mention the bible says 'be ye wise as serpents and as harmless as a dove' ;) So possibly the winged serpent in ancient mysticism was a symbolic representation of man's lower nature (snake near ground) with the the higher nature too (wings near heaven) I don't know, nor does it matter today what exactly was meant )



The only Masonic secrets are the modes of recognition. This is a holdover from Operative Masonry where actual stonemasons devised a way of recognizing each other for mutual aid and support (in a sense, it was an early example of a worker's union). Anyone who meets the qualifications of being a Mason can learn those secrets by petitioning a Lodge and becoming a member.


I would guess the secrecy in Freemasonry evolved from earlier groups having to be kept secret to avoid persecution from whatever the current state religion or authority happened to be. ……but surely caution and secrecy was more justified in the past than today?


I sometimes wonder why there is a demand for Masons to reveal the secret signs, handshakes, etc. Some people feel it is their right to know the business of a private organization simply because they are curious. I disagree. I do not have the right to know how you spent your evening at home or your vacation this year.


I am more concerned at the multiple level secrecy in Freemasonry, does this really exist? If those at the low levels of initiation know what those higher up are doing or planning, fine …. Then I don’t think I can complain about the rights of consenting people to meet in privacy or secret. If however there are multiple levels of secrecy well then I think it is leaving itself open to misuse and possibly even a front for activity those lower down might not agree with. So my question is, do these multiple levels of secrecy exist in freemasonry? Tell me, I don't know.

[Francois Tremblay]

Standard anti-materialist rhetoric... equating consciousness with fundamental particles. No, consciousness is not a fundamenta particle... it is a property of the brain, which is made of very elaborate structures of matter. There is no contradiction between consciousness and matter. Read a basic text on the brain and its functions and come back to us, willya ?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Standard anti-materialist rhetoric... equating consciousness with fundamental particles. No, consciousness is not a fundamenta particle... it is a property of the brain, which is made of very elaborate structures of matter. There is no contradiction between consciousness and matter. Read a basic text on the brain and its functions and come back to us, willya ?
Whatever, bunkie.

The question -- at animal level -- asks if the brain we perceive is matter, or ~matter.

Your assumption is "matter".

My assumption is not-matter, may I name it Thought, which is something I at least am 100% certain exists.

[kevin]

Originally posted by hammegk
My assumption is not-matter, may I name it Thought, which is something I at least am 100% certain exists.

Being certain something exists and proving something exists are seperate issues. You've convinced us YOU believe it exists, that doesn't make it reality.

[prewitt81]

Open Mind, you ask great questions and make interesting observations that I would be honored to address.

For modern times I think you are right, Freemasonry probably bears little resemblance to what it probably originated from. However it does seem the origins of freemasonry were mystery schools, teaching to initiates ancient mysticism, borrowing Egyptian symbolism, Greek geometric mysticism, other, etc. Perhaps these are more obvious in related brotherhoods to Freemasonry like Rosicrucians
While there can be no doubt that Freemasonry borrows from earlier organizations and societies in its symbols, thoughts of descent from the Knights Templars or the mystery schools were abandoned when the Romantic school of thought, which was very vocal in the 1800s, found no factual historical support. The theory of descent from operative stonemason lodges in the late middle ages seems to fit the evidence we have now. For one example, the Regius Poem (http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/regius.html) of circa 1390 seems to portray the craft as a very simple system of morality.

I suppose one could argue these masonic symbolic rituals were not attempts at changing reality by paranormal means (magic) but surely they must have at least felt the secret ritual and symbolism did something important? Otherwise why use these at all? In a period of belief in such things as alchemy I do still think these rituals probably did have a mystical magical intention, at least originally.
Here's how I've always thought of it -- In symbolism there existed a tool more powerful than words to reach the mainly illiterate audience common at that time. You might not be able to give a man a book of Greek thought on morals and ethics, but you could show him how to properly form a stone and carry that meaning symbolically to morality (keeping yourself upright and working together with others for a common goal, etc.). If the operative stonemason theory is to be believed, the thought of Christian churchbuilders practicing ritual magic at a time of great religious persecutions and inquisitions seems more unlikely.

I would guess the secrecy in Freemasonry evolved from earlier groups having to be kept secret to avoid persecution from whatever the current state religion or authority happened to be. ……but surely caution and secrecy was more justified in the past than today?
It is true that the ideas espoused by Masonry did not sit well with some rulers in the early days of the Fraternity (it is still not well-received in countries that oppress their people). I think we are talking about two different types of secrecy though. The ritual is not something we advertise or say much about because it is our private business. However, I think what you're referring to is the "Secret Society" aspect of Masonry. I argue that a secret society and a society with secrets are two distinct things. Freemasonry makes no secret of her meeting places. Lists of Lodges and members are available to the public (through most Grand Lodge offices) each year after annual communications. Members openly wear rings, have bumper stickers, I even have a Masonic liscense plate. A secret society, and I am sure these do exist, would be one that goes out of its way to hide its membership and/or philosophy and whose members actively deny its existance when questioned. (Interestingly, Freemasonry actually met these conditions under the Nazis in Germany, when toleration, equality of all mankind, and relief were not high on the agenda by the government.)

I am more concerned at the multiple level secrecy in Freemasonry, does this really exist? If those at the low levels of initiation know what those higher up are doing or planning, fine …. Then I don’t think I can complain about the rights of consenting people to meet in privacy or secret. If however there are multiple levels of secrecy well then I think it is leaving itself open to misuse and possibly even a front for activity those lower down might not agree with. So my question is, do these multiple levels of secrecy exist in freemasonry? Tell me, I don't know.
To answer this, one must understand the structure of Freemasonry. The starting point for all Masons is the "Blue Lodge" which confers the three original degrees of Masonry. Once a man has reached the third degree (Master Mason), there are other Appendant Bodies (Scottish Rite, York Rite, Shriners, etc.) that he can join, but most men do not advance past the third degree. Joining these appendant bodies does not make you more of a Mason, or a better Mason than those who stopped in the Blue Lodge. Appendant bodies hold no power over the Blue Lodge - in fact, the opposite is true. A Grand Master (head Mason elected annually in most states and countries) who has only reached the third degree can shut down the business of the Scottish Rite (whose members are called thirty-second and thirty-third degree Masons) in his jurisdiction if he feels they are working contrary to the goals of the Fraternity.

If Masons are trying to take over the world, they have a horrible track record. They have existed in their current form for almost 300 years now. As for a Masonic agenda, there is a reason religion and politics are not discussed during our meetings. My state alone has Masons from every political party and just about every religious denomination. The whole spectrum of personal philosophies is represented (except, fortunately, foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists). The idea that men with great power and influence would use our fraternity for their own gain seems a little unnecessary. If the men were already powerful and influential, why would they need a group whose ideals are so opposed to such things?

I hope this is helpful to you.

[kevin]

Originally posted by Open Mind
For modern times I think you are right, Freemasonry probably bears little resemblance to what it probably originated from. However it does seem the origins of freemasonry were mystery schools, teaching to initiates ancient mysticism, borrowing Egyptian symbolism, Greek geometric mysticism, other, etc. Perhaps these are more obvious in related brotherhoods to Freemasonry like Rosicrucians

I'm far from an expert on freemasonry, but reading the recent article in US News I got the feeling that the original freemasonry was more like a union or fraternity for masons (the bricklayer profession). Masonry work was some of the first civil engineering done and freemasonry became an organization with a large number of scientific members and from there more an athiestic society than a religion of some sort.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050905/5masons.htm

[hammegk]

Originally posted by kevin
Being certain something exists and proving something exists are seperate issues. You've convinced us YOU believe it exists, that doesn't make it reality.
The alternate would be to aver that Thought does not exist. Note that "Thought Exists" is not the statement "I Think" (of course I think I do ... and that you do also -- think you think, that is).

Yet, feel free to think Thought does not exist your tautology. That's materialism.