> Yep, whatever. Masons have no hierarchy. There is no growth in knowledge within the group.
That’s right. Each Freemason is free to devise and develop his own views based upon the basic Freemasonic framework of morality, and to draw what lessons are appropriate to his own situation and belief system.
Once you get to Third Degree, that’s it really. You will have opportunity to take on various roles within the Lodge, and you may choose to enhance your Masonics by pursuing a side-degree (as Pike did), but your Third Degree is as high as it gets.
> You all are just a bunch of good ol’ boys sitting together chewin’ the fat and nothin’ more to it. Uh huh.
We don’t sit together and chew the fat until after our rituals are worked, at Refectory. And neither Religion nor Politics are permitted to be discussed in Lodge — that is one of our rules, and it is very strictly enforced. Worldwide. Neither are we permitted to tout for business or seek any financial gain or advantage thru our Membership.
So if you are looking for conspiracy theories within Freemasonry you are going to be disappointed: you are far more likely to encounter them at the local Bowling Club. Many prospective candidates find it disappointing when they are advised of this before they join: yet they are (or at least should be) told this at their first interview — prior to being asked to keep any secrets.
> Glad to hear it. He wasn’t the only one saying such things, which leads us non-initiates to believe where there is smoke, there is fire, but okay, if you say so.
I guess that is one of the risks of trying to delve into things that are really none of your concern: you are unlikely to understand that which is none of your business. That is why we have Secrets and that is why we keep them.
> Then Pike was a liar?
No — he was writing his viewpoint on what Freemasonry meant for him. Nothing more. And — as I have also pointed out — his views are not reflective of Freemasonry in general nor are they necessarily shared by all: he is free to say whatever he likes, even if what he says is thoroughly daft and sinister-sounding, and even if he sounds like he is calling all the shots. The plain and simple fact is that he isn’t — any more than John McCain calls the shots for all Conservatives on the FRee Republic.
I don’t know if I can put it any simpler or plainer than that — I am certainly trying to help you understand, and I am certainly trying to be patient.
> Any other Mason who wrote about what Freemasonry was all about is a liar?
No, similarly they are merely men with opinions of their own, too.
> You may call it opinion if you like, but folks like Pike were speaking of the whole of Freemasonry.
No, he wasn’t. Pike was speaking on behalf of Pike and nobody else.
> He is either telling the truth or he is a liar. If he is a liar then Freemasons should sue the owner of his copyright to keep his books off the market.
Why should we do any such thing? He is entitled to Free Speech, and he is entitled to his opinions. He has revealed none of our Secrets — which is the only thing ever required of a Freemason — so why should we care what he has written?
Your Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by Freemasons. They incorporate many of the concepts that I just outlined for you in the paragraphs above: free speech, the right to an opinion, equality, &tc. This is probably not a coincidence: Freemasonry and The Enlightenment blossomed and flourished at about the same time.
It may interest you to know that each of your US States has a “Grand Lodge” with its own Constitution. Freemasonry is a very decentralized organization.
In many ways that is one of its strengths: because it is so loosely-knit it is necessary for there to be fundamental agreement on only a very few fundamental principles: get it too complicated and then there can be no amity. Interestingly that is one reason why it is unlikely that women will ever be allowed to join a Regular Lodge anywhere in the world: every one of the Lodges in every Constitution worldwide would need to agree to it. In practical terms this will never happen.
> If I were to join, I wouldn’t be allowed to talk. No thanks, I don’t give up my freedom of speech that easily.
Not so: talk as much as you like. Just don’t reveal the confidences entrusted to you (the “Secrets”), and don’t cause friction amongst your friends by arguing Religion or Politics at the dinner table, don’t slander another Mason or speak ill of your country. In other words, do nothing that a decent gentleman and good citizen wouldn’t do. Outside of that, talk about whatever you want.
Even in a non-Masonic world you are expected to keep confidences and behavioral norms, and “freedom of speech” is no excuse for violating those.
> I said you do not understand cult dynamics.
Freemasonry isn’t a cult: it is a society of men concerned with moral and spiritual values. Members are taught its precepts by a series of ritual dramas, which follow ancient forms, and use stonemasons’ customs and tools as allegorical guides.
Nothing more sinister than that.
Convince yourself if you like: it is all spelled out in plain English here, at the UGLE website:
http://www.ugle.org.uk/masonry/what-is-freemasonry.htm
> What I meant by that is when you have a cult like situation (which Freemasonry does if for no other reason than the severe social pressure to keep the workings of the group secret and only for the initiated),
No. You are asked to keep your word because that is an essential part of moral behavior, upon which all that follows is built upon.
> men (or women) are drawn closer and closer into the group’s social setting and ill find it difficult to leave.
I know very little about how cults work because I have no direct experience in cults. If this is how a cult works, then I can certainly tell you that Freemasonry does not work like that.
> In some cases, they will find this difficult due to external pressure. In others, it is their internal gage that won’t let them do it.
Plenty of Freemasons leave the Craft for a whole variety of reasons. Nothing bad happens to those who leave, and usually the Craft is better off for it. Those who stay want to be there and find the experience valuable.
Nothing sinister about that, either.
> As to “talking down” to other groups such as Catholics, Freemasons, or Mormons - I speak to them based upon what the Word of God says. I don’t speak in my own authority or the authority of the church.
The word of God is silent concerning Freemasonry. In the same way as it is silent about Conservative values. Concepts espoused by both are spelled out and alluded to by Scripture, but there is no Scriptural fiat that requires a Christian to blast away at Freemasons. Or Catholics, for that matter. Or Latter-Day Saints.
This raises the question “is doctrine important, then?” Insofar as it allows you to properly conduct yourself as Christ has commanded, then yes as a Christian doctrine is important.
But we are not going to be given a multiple-choice quiz about doctrine, surely? Christ is going to be looking at how we have conducted ourselves, what we have done with the talents invested in us, whether we have hid our light under a bushel or let it shine forth, whether we have visited the sick or imprisoned and comforted the sorrowful. If we learn nothing else from his teachings, we learn that — surely?
> You tend to attack the person personally. We are discussing a subject. We disagree. I’m not a big name-caller. But frequently I find that those who protest that I’m calling names tend to be the biggest offenders themselves.
Throwing around terms like “cult” is certainly a form of name-calling, isn’t it? It carries with it really ugly connotations like the Jonestown group and the Branch Davidians and others of their ilk, and really ugly images of mind control and mindless obedience. If mindless obedience were a Freemasonic trait then there would be no United States of America because many of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and many concepts in your Constitution are Freemasonic concepts. Believe it or not! So “cult” is definitely an unfair label, one that is bound to cause offense.
Accusing people of telling lies is never a pleasant thing to do, particularly when they are not. It is difficult not to take that as a personal attack: indeed it is another form of name-calling, isn’t it? And a particularly nasty one as it carries with it the bearing of false witness.
And speaking on a subject about which you are ignorant is ignorance. There is no other word that fits. And professing to know something with authority when you are in no real position to do so is arrogance. And there is no other word for that, either. And if you are not amongst the initiated then you are amongst the profane (those who are not initiated). ‘Tis an old-fashioned form of the word, but then Freemasonry IS OLD FASHIONED by definition: we have been around a very, very long time.
Some would argue we have been around alot longer than Christianity. Me, I am not certain of that: we have certainly been around alot longer than any Protestant sect, and possibly as long as the Catholics. Certainly longer than any political party anywhere, and much longer than any modern political dynasty anywhere.
I regret if any of these terms offended you.