The Freemasons

Torakx

I think a middle ground can be found there.
It's not that masons are all bad and keep only bad guys( I must presume).
I think it's that they insist on keeping their secrets, whatever they are, and to betray a brother is to possibly betray an oath.
So while one may have been corrupt, the other betrayed his brother/s and oath/s.
Freemasons are made up of all sorts. What I think they have in common is the oaths they take to protect each other.
Which is probably why people don't want them to be in positions of power anymore. They have a secret oath which may or may not conflict with other responsibilities to state and community.
If it's not secret, I wouldn't mind seeing it. I don't remember if any lodge has published it's oaths.

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

Really has it been 4 years (and no mention of me having a sit down with a masonic sponsor);)

I'm afraid you're responding to a post on a different thread, which leaves you a little out of context here (though it's understandable that you would be too embarrassed to want to continue posting on the other thread).

enno99 wrote: »

That was one of my first posts here. so you trawled through my posts and still neglected to address the one where I showed freemasons involvement in the PEF ( you know if you dig deeper you can find the lodge numbers and how much they donated )

Please don't concern yourself on my behalf; it was hardly trawling I just looked for your first post about Freemasonry.
Now, perhaps you'd like to explain your point about the PEF? As I recall, you were attempting to persuade us that Freemasonry is a sect/cult which is a forerunner of Zionism (in its' classical sense) and shares its' ideologies, and that Freemasons were responsible for 'covering up' the Ripper murders. But the best you could manage was a man who was a Freemason was pivotal to the development of proto Zionism, which obviously pre dated Zionism. And you never did tell us why you seem to be so disdainful of the PEF?

enno99 wrote: »

Hollywood ,Freemasons,pedophiles ,satanists perhaps it might worth a deeper look to see how connected they really are ?
I will post here if I find anything interesting

Brilliant! If you put them all together it implies there is something that connects them, right? Because you don't know of anything, so implying there is something is a good way of making it look like there's something without having to prove anything. It's a cunning ruse, I'm sure no one will ever see through it.

enno99 wrote: »

Good men better :rolleyes:Good to know that you are agree with the junior warden being ostracised from the lodge because he wouldent kowtow to the others who were on the side of the convicted child abuser

Again, you're kind of out on a limb here because you're replying to a post on a different thread. This one, where you kind of overplayed your hand. You may recall it; I didn't actually say I agreed with the junior warden being ostracized from the lodge because he wouldn't kowtow to the others who were on the side of the convicted child abuser (it's wrong to tell porkie pies about what people said, but it's silly to tell them about what people wrote, because it stays written), I said I liked the comment "Obviously these men, the accused and his father, have no understanding of what Freemasonry is to be about. "

enno99 wrote: »

here is another example On the other side of the argument, there have been high-profile examples of Masonic officers fighting corruption. During the Operation Countryman inquiry in the 1980s, it was a Masonic detective chief superintendent, John Simmons, who secretly tape-recorded his brother mason, Detective Chief Inspector Phil Cuthbert, boasting of his villainy and of the involvement of other senior officers in taking bribes and setting up armed robberies. However, Simmons was later ostracised by his lodge, while Cuthbert continued to be welcomed, even after he had been convicted and jailed for three years.

So, why are you unhappy that there are Freemasons who oppose wrongdoing? You keep bringing it up, and it would seem to me that it's a good thing that they would oppose wrongdoing?

enno99 wrote: »

It seems there is no place for good men only good freemasons in Freemasonary

Is there are any chance you can back that up some way? Only, you've just given two examples of good men in Freemasonry, who would also be considered good Freemasons. You've also given examples of bad men in Freemasonry, who you'd imagine most people (and Freemasons) would say are bad Freemasons. You kind of seem to be arguing against yourself?

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

I

'm afraid you're responding to a post on a different thread, which leaves you a little out of context here (though it's understandable that you would be too embarrassed to want to continue posting on the other thread).

On the contrary this thread is about freemasons how could a post pertaining to freemasons be out of context

Please don't concern yourself on my behalf; it was hardly trawling I just looked for your first post about Freemasonry.
Now, perhaps you'd like to explain your point about the PEF? As I recall, you were attempting to persuade us that Freemasonry is a sect/cult which is a forerunner of Zionism (in its' classical sense) and shares its' ideologies, and that Freemasons were responsible for 'covering up' the Ripper murders. But the best you could manage was a man who was a Freemason was pivotal to the development of proto Zionism, which obviously pre dated Zionism. And you never did tell us why you seem to be so disdainful of the PEF?

Oh its all there if you want to see it

Brilliant! If you put them all together it implies there is something that connects them, right? Because you don't know of anything, so implying there is something is a good way of making it look like there's something without having to prove anything. It's a cunning ruse, I'm sure no one will ever see through it

.

how clever of me :cool:

Again, you're kind of out on a limb here because you're replying to a post on a different thread. This one, where you kind of overplayed your hand. You may recall it; I didn't actually say I agreed with the junior warden being ostracized from the lodge because he wouldn't kowtow to the others who were on the side of the convicted child abuser (it's wrong to tell porkie pies about what people said, but it's silly to tell them about what people wrote, because it stays written), I said I liked the comment "Obviously these men, the accused and his father, have no understanding of what Freemasonry is to be about. "
So, why are you unhappy that there are Freemasons who oppose wrongdoing? You keep bringing it up, and it would seem to me that it's a good thing that they would oppose wrongdoing?

No you didnt did you

Is there are any chance you can back that up some way? Only, you've just given two examples of good men in Freemasonry, who would also be considered good Freemasons. You've also given examples of bad men in Freemasonry, who you'd imagine most people (and Freemasons) would say are bad Freemasons. You kind of seem to be arguing against yourself?

And both were shown the door
and the bad guys got to stay

enno99

Torakx wrote: »

I think a middle ground can be found there.
It's not that masons are all bad and keep only bad guys( I must presume).
I think it's that they insist on keeping their secrets, whatever they are, and to betray a brother is to possibly betray an oath.
So while one may have been corrupt, the other betrayed his brother/s and oath/s.
Freemasons are made up of all sorts. What I think they have in common is the oaths they take to protect each other.
Which is probably why people don't want them to be in positions of power anymore. They have a secret oath which may or may not conflict with other responsibilities to state and community.
If it's not secret, I wouldn't mind seeing it. I don't remember if any lodge has published it's oaths.

Surely the instance I gave where the good man was ostracised for being good the rest of the lodge went along with it knowingly that makes them complicit
you can hardly call them good men ?

Torakx

enno99 wrote: »

Surely the instance I gave where the good man was ostracised for being good the rest of the lodge went along with it knowingly that makes them complicit
you can hardly call them good men ?

I guess what I mean is that there is I'm sure room for good men among masons, just not good men who put their virtue before the brotherhood.
So the good and bad men seems to sit to the side for me(or on the same side) and the brotherhood circumventing both good and bad as a higher authority is the issue.
In another situation a "bad" mason might break his oaths while doing something good or bad and possibly get expelled.
I believe this happened in Scotland with a group abusing a young girl along a beach. The mason/s involved were supposedly expelled from the order or lodge etc.

So if both good and bad people are accepted, the common factor seems to be that they all are tied to this oath.
Until I know exactly what the oath is, I couldn't say what they are giving up to that society. What seems apparent is that they are accepting all males who are willing to give up a part of themselves for a higher power.
Be that their "soul", mind, body, free will, loyalty till death/expulsion etc

I think focussing on the fact they accept people who break the law and are up to no good is moot. It is well established they accept all types who have been caught doing all types of things, as have others outside of this society, like the other churches who also hide their black sheep.
So just another church with it's hands dipped deeply into politics and business.

Anything else like illuminatti or child abuse, I couldn't say is a done thing all over. More like a subset of masons taking advantage of their positions, like priests have done in the past. Then getting expelled or moved on if they have dirt on someone or have some sort of use somewhere.
At least thats the best case scenario I can figure off the topof my head.
I won't bother with the worst, it would give Absolam ammo to try goad me into a long winded conversation on semantics that might just waste both our energy.
I must be getting too old to be dancing around issues lol
Or maybe more likely I found a new home with philosophy
Highly reccomended for all people questioning or interested in conspiracy theories or looking into these things and questioning ethics, morales and intentions etc.
I have been learning tosit on the fence more and more, and I find that my questions and answers even more sothan before come without any judgement really, which I hope allows me to see clearer than I would have even a year ago.

Damn.. I wrote a crap load there, sorry haha

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

On the contrary this thread is about freemasons how could a post pertaining to freemasons be out of context

Because you're replying to a quote from a different thread? Replying to the quote on the thread it's from would be in context.

enno99 wrote: »

Oh its all there if you want to see it

Yes, I saw it then and I've seen it now, it hasn't changed, which is why I'm asking the question.

enno99 wrote: »

how clever of me :cool:

Yes, I imagine that's what you thought.

enno99 wrote: »

No you didnt did you

No, I didn't. Since you knew that, and still posted that I did, it really does reflect poorly on the integrity of your other posts as well...

enno99 wrote: »

And both were shown the door and the bad guys got to stay

Eh, no. In neither story you've presented did the 'good men who are good Freemasons' get 'shown the door'.
In your first story the 'good man who is a good Freemason' specifies that the bad Freemason was, in fact, shown the door.
In your second story we only have the non Masonic authors' account (Nick Davies, who has been repeated on many conspiracy websites, despite presenting no evidence whatsoever) of what happened in the Masonic Lodge, for which he provides no evidence, only his opinion. I wonder why he didn't cite a source for his supposed knowledge of events he couldn't have witnessed?

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

I guess what I mean is that there is I'm sure room for good men among masons, just not good men who put their virtue before the brotherhood.

I'm not sure why you imagine there is no room for men who put their virtue before the brotherhood; there's no reason in Freemasonry not to put virtue first (as nebulous a concept as that may be). Given t he millions of Freemasons around the world who join expecting to be treated as good men desiring to become better men, it would seem that discovering they must put brotherhood before virtue would mean many millions leaving the fraternity immediately. Yet they don't?

Torakx wrote: »

In another situation a "bad" mason might break his oaths while doing something good or bad and possibly get expelled.

I can't really imagine a situation where a Mason might break his oaths whilst doing something good and get expelled? Maybe you can expand on that idea a bit?

Torakx wrote: »

So if both good and bad people are accepted, the common factor seems to be that they all are tied to this oath.

Surely the common factor is that they're people? Freemasons are not infallible, nor have they mystical powers, so inevitably it will turn out that some candidates who are believed to be 'good' will be in fact 'bad'. But the selection takes place before any oaths are taken, so the oath cannot be a common factor?

Torakx wrote: »

Until I know exactly what the oath is, I couldn't say what they are giving up to that society.

The oaths have been discussed previously on this thread (and others on Boards, this one was particularly good), and of course there are myriad variations available for perusal online. However, suffice to say in the modern Irish Constitution oaths nothing is 'given up' to the society. The oath does not even include a requirement to 'give up' membership dues.

Torakx wrote: »

What seems apparent is that they are accepting all males who are willing to give up a part of themselves for a higher power.Be that their "soul", mind, body, free will, loyalty till death/expulsion etc

Why does that seem apparent? I have certainly never given up anything of myself for any higher power; neither soul, mind, body, free will, or loyalty til death/expulsion. Or anything else.

Torakx wrote: »

I think focussing on the fact they accept people who break the law and are up to no good is moot. It is well established they accept all types who have been caught doing all types of things, as have others outside of this society, like the other churches who also hide their black sheep.

Sorry, but I don't think that it's well accepted at all. Freemasonry quite clearly states what it looks for in candidates, and whilst we may sometimes fail to divine the true nature of a candidate, we deliberately try to avoid accepting the sort of 'types who have been caught doing all types of things'

Torakx wrote: »

So just another church with it's hands dipped deeply into politics and business.

But not a church.
And discussion of politics is not allowed.
And use of the order for business is not allowed.
So, not at all, really?

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

Eh, no. In neither story you've presented did the 'good men who are good Freemasons' get 'shown the door'.
In your first story the 'good man who is a good Freemason' specifies that the bad Freemason was, in fact, shown the door.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ostracised

Verb 1. ostracize - expel from a community or groupostracize - expel from a community or group
banish, blackball, cast out, ostracise, shun, ban
expel, kick out, throw out - force to leave or move out; "He was expelled from his native country"

My postings to The Burning Taper have been scant lately. I've had business and personal issues to deal with, and frankly, lately my interest in Freemasonry has waned a bit.

It's now been over a year since I was ostracized by my “brothers” in my local blue lodge. Only a couple have I kept in touch with, and they were friends before I was a Mason.

As I was thinking of writing this article — about how I feel today about Freemasonry — I read an email backchannel that was sent by a Mason out West to a blue lodge secretary and to the Grand Master of Texas, informing them that one of their members had recently been arrested in a sting operation involving solicitation of sex from a minor.

That brought back memories of my experiences in my own blue lodge in 2005, when a member pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor in my hometown.

As then-webmaster of our lodge's website, I posted the news online (pursuant to Georgia Masonic Code, which states that information of that sort should be publicized to show the community that the lodge doesn't tolerate such behavior), and met with a torrent of criticism from my lodge brothers saying, “You can't put that online!” They didn't want the lodge, or the child exploiter's father, a Past Master, “embarrassed.”

As Junior Warden, it fell to me to “be in charge” when the lodge finally voted — remorsefully, as if it was the lodge's fault — to bring charges of unmasonic conduct against the brother who was by then a registered sex offender.

As JW, I signed the paperwork that led to the Masonic trial. The offender, and his Past Master Big-Shot-in-Town father took offense at me personally for having written up the charges, though I had never even met either one of them. Neither had attended a lodge meeting in years.

The full story can be found in parts 1-4 of “Small Town Freemasonry.”

Eventually, in a great imitation of Don Corleone, the father succeeded in having bogus charges of unmasonic conduct threatened against me. He even attended the meeting where another Past Master (who is in line to be Georgia's Grand Master in a few years) stood and accused me of unmasonic conduct for posting the information online. No official charges were ever filed, just threatened, to keep me “in line” until my term as Junior Warden officially ended in December, 2005.

Though of course advancement to the next chair is not guaranteed, here in the South, it's virtually assured. I've seen some most unqualified men advance to the East just because “it was his turn.”

Naturally, before all this happened, it was assumed I would become Worshipful Master when “my turn” came.

But at the election last December, I was unceremoniously dumped from the line by a vote of 27-4. The Godfather and the Heir to the Grand Master's Chair had called in their markers... brothers I'd never seen showed up to vote against me. (I'd missed only two meetings in three-plus years; I knew all the “regulars.”) I was also “deposed” as Director of Masonic Education, a position I'd held with pride for a couple of years. I was replaced by a “team” that could be controlled — a pig farmer who thinks of himself as a minister of God, and a new brother I had helped raise about two months before. I can only imagine the education those two have provided this past year since I've been gone.

It was a given that the Powers That Be didn't want me to come back to lodge meetings after that, and so I haven't.

Tuesday, December 11, is another election, the one I'd looked forward to for years, the one where I would most likely have received the honor of serving as Worshipful Master for 2007.

Ain't gonna happen.

I assume the Powers That Be (unaffectionately remembered as Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, plus Big Daddy and his pal Bro. Heir to the Grand Master's Throne) are still running things at the lodge, making sure they have their yes men in the Chairs and on their committees.

Same as it ever was.

“Making Good Men Better,” my ass. More like “Making Good Men Stop Attending.”

Image: The state of Masonry in the southern United States today — empty and devoid of any real meaning


http://burningtaper.blogspot.ie/2006/11/why-ill-never-be-worshipful-master.html



some replies from other masons

Big City FellaFriday, December 01, 2006 4:46:00 PM

I must say that you are right. I am a Mason of the Grand Lodge of New York.

In the institution I have found everything from the trite to the disgusting. Individual Blue Lodge officers and others that steal money, Grand Lodge cronies and insiders that skim millions from real estate deals, and dues, a fetid hostility to youth and diversity, a sort of reverse classism (most Lodge folks tend to come from "lower working class" backgrounds), misuse of charitable entities (and Brotherhood fund monies that support them)...

For all of these egregious sins, it is the petty sins, such as pushing young men away, effective segregation, filling up Camp Turk slots with GL leaders' grandchildren and children, giving money and "jobs" in the Lodge and charitable endeavors to children and cronies, the general abscence of healthy, across the board tangible efforts at mutual support, etc.

I am not disgruntled with Masonry, and I am not an ex-Mason. I am disgruntled with the awful sort of people who have taken over some part of our institution.


Tubulcain420Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:25:00 PM

Yes, Brother, sad indeed!
I myself,with about 4 or 5 other brethren havrun into the same mentality in our neck of the woods.
It really is disheartening......
And the statement I can't stand is" oh, just wait , and a cuple of masonic funerals will go by and these people will be gone", well, that is un masonic and BS. Why, because only anointed lemmings fill in when that happens and status quo ensues.
bleak future


ENKIMASONSaturday, February 02, 2008 2:15:00 AM

THIS IS B.S. ANTIMASONS ALREADY SAY WE RITUALLY MOLEST CHILDREN. WE DON'T NEED THIS! I FEEL THAT MOLESTING MASONS SHOULD BE KILLED BY THE BRETHREN. ONE DAY, THEY JUST DISAPPEAR. THERE ARE THINGS A MASON JUST DOES NOT DO. OF COURSE WE KNOW WHAT WOUNDS WILL BE FOUND ON THE BODY, DON'T WE? MORE THAN THE TONGUE SHALL BE REMOVED! MASONRY OCCURRS IN THE "GRAY AREA" OF LIFE, WHERE SOMETIMES A COP MIGHT LET US SLIDE FOR FRATERNAL REASONS. HOWEVER THE BALANCE SHOULD BE A HIGHER PENALTY THAN THE PROFANE RECIEVE FOR SUCH DISGUSTING OFFENSES THAT WILL FUEL ANTIMASONRY FOR DECADES! A DEMON REALLY HAS ENETERED THE LODGE,THE DEMON OF IGNORANCE!

In your second story we only have the non Masonic authors' account (Nick Davies, who has been repeated on many conspiracy websites, despite presenting no evidence whatsoever) of what happened in the Masonic Lodge, for which he provides no evidence, only his opinion. I wonder why he didn't cite a source for his supposed knowledge of events he couldn't have witnessed?

Do you have evidence to the contrary
Because if you dont

You see the conundrum here. We have an award winning and respected investagitve journalist (as far as I can tell)
who wont reveal his sources which I think attests to his integrity
And we have You

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ostracised

And you can see how that has a different meaning from 'shown the door'?

enno99 wrote: »

Do you have evidence to the contrary
Because if you dont

I refer you to Russell's Teapot.

enno99 wrote: »

You see the conundrum here. We have an award winning and respected investagitve journalist (as far as I can tell) who wont reveal his sources which I think attests to his integrity And we have You

Not really, I can't see a conundrum. You have an unsubstantiated story which refers to events that could only be witnessed by someone who was not the author, yet the author doesn't even claim to have a source; he just presents his statement as a fact. He may have more integrity than every other journalist in the world rolled up into one; but he has not presented anything to show his story is true (nor has he even implied he has any). And you have me, who will happily acknowledge any factual evidence presented. Then we have you. So here's a little test; another story.
John Simmons and Phil Cuthbert (who was never convicted of any crime) both went back to their Lodge, made up and became fast friends, everyone had tea and crumpets and lived happily ever after.
Both of these stories are entirely unsupported by evidence. The fact that you are prepared to believe one rather than the other says more about you than the stories I'm afraid.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

And you can see how that has a different meaning from 'shown the door'?

Your not embarrassed to post that

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

Not really, I can't see a conundrum. You have an unsubstantiated story which refers to events that could only be witnessed by someone who was not the author, yet the author doesn't even claim to have a source; he just presents his statement as a fact. He may have more integrity than every other journalist in the world rolled up into one; but he has not presented anything to show his story is true (nor has he even implied he has any). .

You know that had me puzzled for days till it dawned on me
He didnt need to imply anything maybe he named his source perhaps he got it straight from the horses mouth
chief superintendent John Simmons

On the other side of the argument, there have been high-profile examples of Masonic officers fighting corruption. During the Operation Countryman inquiry in the 1980s, it was a Masonic detective chief superintendent, John Simmons, who secretly tape-recorded his brother mason, Detective Chief Inspector Phil Cuthbert, boasting of his villainy and of the involvement of other senior officers in taking bribes and setting up armed robberies. However, Simmons was later ostracised by his lodge, while Cuthbert continued to be welcomed, even after he had been convicted and jailed for three years.

Now given that the above was printed in the the guardian newspaper




Flat Earth News

An award-winning reporter exposes falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media. “Finally I was forced to admit that I work in a corrupted profession.” When award-winning journalist Nick Davies decided to break Fleet Street’s unwritten rule by investigating his own colleagues, he found that the business of truth had been slowly subverted by the mass production of ignorance.

Im sure he stepped on the toes of a few journalists with his book Flat Earth News
They would have loved to expose him for a BS story

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

You know that had me puzzled for days till it dawned on me He didnt need to imply anything maybe he named his source perhaps he got it straight from the horses mouth chief superintendent John Simmons

You're suggesting that because he never named his source, or even implied that he had a source, that his source was 'probably' someone he had named in the story, but he neglected to mention that was where he got his information? Do you imagine he didn't think it was salient, or that possibly because Simmons account could conceivably be biased it might require some corroboration before being presented as fact?
I suppose it's just as possible a reason as he simply made it up, if a little less probable (since he doesn't claim to have ever even met John Simmons). On balance though, I think I'd like to see some evidence for the 'facts' presented in the story.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

.

You're suggesting that because he never named his source, or even implied that he had a source, that his source was 'probably' someone he had named in the story, but he neglected to mention that was where he got his information? Do you imagine he didn't think it was salient,

you have three options as a source

(A) John Simmons...most likely

(B) Phil Cuthbert ... not likely at all

(C) Mason/s from the lodge... possible it would expalin him not revealing his source as it could be whittled down to a hand full of members in the lodge and expose them to the same treatment as Simmons

A & C combined would cover all the bases

or that possibly because Simmons account could conceivably be biased it might require some corroboration before being presented as fact?

(B) & (C) are the only options here (C) being the most likely

I suppose it's just as possible a reason as he simply made it up, if a little less probable (since he doesn't claim to have ever even met John Simmons)

Then we have your explanation

That the Guardian Newspaper and Nick Davies concocted a story and printed a tissue of lies about high level police officers, Its littered with the names of commissioners, commanders reference to a House of Commons Select Committee,court cases, etc

And they never got called out on it

.

On balance though, I think I'd like to see some evidence for the 'facts' presented in the story.

Oh I think the only evidence that would sate your appetite here is the minutes from the lodge meeting of a secret society

We all know what the chances of that are

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

you have three options as a source (A) John Simmons...most likely(B) Phil Cuthbert ... not likely at all(C) Mason/s from the lodge... possible it would expalin him not revealing his source as it could be whittled down to a hand full of members in the lodge and expose them to the same treatment as Simmons A & C combined would cover all the bases
(B) & (C) are the only options here (C) being the most likely Then we have your explanation That the Guardian Newspaper and Nick Davies concocted a story and printed a tissue of lies about high level police officers, Its littered with the names of commissioners, commanders reference to a House of Commons Select Committee,court cases, etc And they never got called out on it

So you're saying if you assume the story is true, then it must have come from someone who witnessed it? That's not really great evidence for it being true though is it? And if Evans didn't just fabricate the whole thing, since he hasn't told us we've no way to know did he hear it 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th, or 5th, or even 6th hand? That's a lot of room for errors to creep in don't you think?

enno99 wrote: »

Oh I think the only evidence that would sate your appetite here is the minutes from the lodge meeting of a secret society

Actually, the minutes from a specific lodge of a society with secrets would be pretty handy, if they showed both names as members being present at the same time.

enno99 wrote: »

We all know what the chances of that are

It looks pretty slim; whilst Davies mentions the names of Lodges investigated by other journalists in his article, he inexplicably fails to mention the name of the one he investigated, despite your own idea that he must have spoken to someone from the Lodge. Curious, eh?
Of course, there could be other evidence that might support the story. For instance:
1) Evidence that a Detective Chief Superintendent John Simmons existed, and gave evidence against fellow officers in Operation Countryman. That would be a good start. I can certainly find evidence of a Detective Sergeant John Symonds that gave evidence against fellow officers in Operation Countryman (bit of a coincidence there?), and had good reason to be ostracised by police officers, never mind masonic police officers.
2) Evidence that a Detective Chief Inspector Phil Cuthbert existed, and was jailed as a result of Operation Countryman. That would be a good follow up. From what I have read, no one was convicted or jailed as a result of Operation Countryman. The British press love stories abut police officers getting 'sent down', there's tons of them. But I can't see one about Cuthberts conviction? There's pages and pages about Detective Chief Inspector April Casburn when she got convicted...
3) Evidence that they were Freemasons, and members of the same Lodge. As I said, knowing what Lodge might be a good start in that direction?
4) Evidence that Simmons was ostracised by his Lodge for his actions against Cuthbert. I think the only person likely to provide that is Simmons, if he existed, and even then his account might well be biased? Perhaps he was ostracised for being a poor loser at cards, or being particularly annoying at the festive board.
5) Evidence that Cuthbert remained a member of the Lodge after his conviction and imprisonment; once we establish he existed, and when he was released from prison, all we need is the minutes of a Lodge meeting afterwards to establish he was a member in good standing.

All of these things if presented by an investigative journalist would convince me that he had investigated a story, and that it might have some credibility.

Of course, this is the CT forum, so we don't need to concern ourselves with evidence overmuch. All things considered, there is a good chance that Nick Davies was a 99th degree Illuminati with access to Annukai mind reading technology that allowed him to pluck all necessary information from the minds of those involved, and publish his stories for his own amusement. Other Illuminati found it so entertaining that they ensured he won three awards, just to demonstrate their appreciation. Oh yes, and they silenced those begrudgers in the Guardian too. It all works if you assume it's true....

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

.

Of course, this is the CT forum, so we don't need to concern ourselves with evidence overmuch. All things considered, there is a good chance that Nick Davies was a 99th degree Illuminati with access to Annukai mind reading technology that allowed him to pluck all necessary information from the minds of those involved, and publish his stories for his own amusement. Other Illuminati found it so entertaining that they ensured he won three awards, just to demonstrate their appreciation. Oh yes, and they silenced those begrudgers in the Guardian too. It all works if you assume it's true....

Very mature you'll be wanting to take your ball back next

It looks pretty slim; whilst Davies mentions the names of Lodges investigated by other journalists in his article, he inexplicably fails to mention the name of the one he investigated, despite your own idea that he must have spoken to someone from the Lodge. Curious, eh?

Oh I see the article on the whole is correct except for the part that would validate my earlier point

On the other side of the argument, there have been high-profile examples of Masonic officers fighting corruption.

I find it interesting that you vehemently dispute the only part of the article that wants to show a masonic police officer in a good light
You seem to think he couldn't find a genuine case and had to make one up

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

Very mature you'll be wanting to take your ball back next

So it was you took my ball? Yes I'd like it back please. It's not nice to take other people's stuff without asking.
If you're just trying to be sarcastic however, allow me to point out that there is just as much evidence to support my theory as there is to support yours.

enno99 wrote: »

Oh I see the article on the whole is correct except for the part that would validate my earlier point

Actually, I didn't say any of it was correct. I was merely discussing the portion of it that you posted to illustrate your derision at the idea that Freemasonry aims to make good men better.

enno99 wrote: »

On the other side of the argument, there have been high-profile examples of Masonic officers fighting corruption. I find it interesting that you vehemently dispute the only part of the article that wants to show a masonic police officer in a good light You seem to think he couldn't find a genuine case and had to make one up

I haven't vehemently disputed the story; I've inquired as to what makes you believe it's true. You seem to accept it as factual because it accords with your point of view, I'll happily accept it as fact as soon as you show some evidence to demonstrate it's not fictional. I'm sure if the author had made the effort he could have found a genuine case of a Masonic Police Officer behaving well, and a genuine case of Freemasons behaving badly. He could have provided verifiable links and external resources to prove the veracity of both; it's not like either one is hard to find. You yourself could put in some effort and post both on this thread quite easily. Unfortunately for you it really wouldn't prove there's no place for good men in Freemasonry as you say, only that there are both good and bad men in Freemasonry, just like in life.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

I didn't say any of it was correct.

Is it all lies?
If not can you highlight what parts you think are ?

enno99

cant remember if this was posted before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aDmtK17gN4

After Dark - Beyond the Law (19.2.1988)

The guests discuss the relationship between Freemasonry and policing in Britain

haven't watched it yet kill a few hours this evening 3hrs long

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

Is it all lies? If not can you highlight what parts you think are ?

Is there a particular reason you now think we should discuss his entire article? Other than the part you quoted, is there another part that you believe may support your assertion that there's no place for good men in Freemasonry, or do you think you've discovered a profound new point in his article that you hadn't noticed before?

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

Is there a particular reason you now think we should discuss his entire article? Other than the part you quoted, is there another part that you believe may support your assertion that there's no place for good men in Freemasonry, or do you think you've discovered a profound new point in his article that you hadn't noticed before?

Fairly simple question/s really
You either cant or wont answer
leaves me to conclude its only the part about the good Freemason that you think is made up

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

Fairly simple question/s really You either cant or wont answer

They are, and being so simple, you'd think it wouldn't be too difficult for you to explain the reasoning behind them?

enno99 wrote: »

leaves me to conclude its only the part about the good Freemason that you think is made up

I'd much rather you didn't tell me what I think, thanks.
Especially when I've already said; I'm not saying it's made up, I'm asking you to show why I should believe it's true.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not saying it's made up.

No neither am I
glad we cleared that up

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

No neither am I glad we cleared that up

And since you've demonstrated your comprehension of the first part of my sentence so admirably, I look forward to you navigating the second part with equal cheer.

degrassinoel

Ease up on the hostility folks, it isn't contributing to the discussion.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

I'm asking you to show why I should believe it's true
.

I guess that the fact that your not saying its made up should help you determine what you believe
Maybe it is that you find the content unpalatable and would rather not believe it

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

I guess that the fact that your not saying its made up should help you determine what you believe Maybe it is that you find the content unpalatable and would rather not believe it

Why would I believe anything? If there is evidence then we're talking about facts; no need to believe in anything. If there is no evidence then it's just another story, and no more worthwhile of factual consideration than Goldilocks.
Whether or not the content is palatable should not influence how credible it is, but it seems you want to 'believe' the story because it suits your preferred narrative. I'd rather know the facts. If it turns out to be true, then you have an account of a group of people I'd consider to be bad Freemasons. So far, however, you've provided no reason to think it is true.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

Why would I believe anything? If there is evidence then we're talking about facts; no need to believe in anything. If there is no evidence then it's just another story, and no more worthwhile of factual consideration than Goldilocks.
Whether or not the content is palatable should not influence how credible it is, but it seems you want to 'believe' the story because it suits your preferred narrative. I'd rather know the facts. If it turns out to be true, then you have an account of a group of people I'd consider to be bad Freemasons. So far, however, you've provided no reason to think it is true.

I have no reason to believe its false
He published it in a national newspaper
It was probably read by every police officer (including those who worked the operation mentioned) ,freemason the length and breath of the country
I bet it was the talk of every lodge and nobody contradicted him

Also you have

He broke the story that destroyed a 168-year-old newspaper, humiliated one of the world's most powerful media moguls and cast a spotlight on a phone hacking scandal that has embroiled politicians, police and journalists.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/the-journalist-who-brought-down-a-newspaper-20110714-1hf5f.html

Im sure Murdoch and his minions would have loved to expose him as a liar

If it turns out to be true, then you have an account of a group of people I'd consider to be bad Freemasons.

A little bit more than a group I think a whole lodge would be more accurate

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

I have no reason to believe its false He published it in a national newspaper It was probably read by every police officer (including those who worked the operation mentioned) ,freemason the length and breath of the country I bet it was the talk of every lodge and nobody contradicted him Also you have He broke the story that destroyed a 168-year-old newspaper, humiliated one of the world's most powerful media moguls and cast a spotlight on a phone hacking scandal that has embroiled politicians, police and journalists. Im sure Murdoch and his minions would have loved to expose him as a liar

So you believe it's true because you're not aware of anyone who may have contradicted him, despite the fact that you're not aware of evidence that backs the story up. As I said, by that measure you must agree that the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is also true, since we're not aware of anyone who has contradicted it?

enno99 wrote: »

A little bit more than a group I think a whole lodge would be more accurate

How many people were in the lodge at the time?

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

So you believe As I said, by that measure you must agree that the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is also true,

I think the fairy tales would be more your department
whats your evidence of a supreme being ?

So in finishing as you have not given me any reason to doubt the veracity of it

It seems there is no place for good men only good freemasons in Freemasonary

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

I think the fairy tales would be more your department whats your evidence of a supreme being ?

I'm not proposing that you accept the existence of a supreme being, so I've no idea why you want evidence for one? Whereas you are proposing that we accept this story is true, with no more evidence than there is for a fairy tale....

enno99 wrote: »

So in finishing as you have not given me any reason to doubt the veracity of it

Again, I have to refer you to Russells Teapot...

Tesco TripleChicken

The puppet masters.

I've been to the freemason lodge in Dublin which is supposedly one of the oldest lodges. The guys there were pretty nice but they had this kind of evil look - old rich men in expensive suits and gold freemason symbol jewellery. The said they were giving a tour of the lodge next week (at the time we went). Seem like normal people, it's just the people on youtube that make them out to be satan worshipping baby sacrificing world dominating elite.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

A group to make contacts.

Type in Freemasonry and the Occult into google and you will literally get millions of hits. Don't be fooled by the show these misguided fools put on.

Absolam

A money making group.

Harlow Chubby Swimmer wrote: »

Type in Freemasonry and the Occult into google and you will literally get millions of hits. Don't be fooled by the show these misguided fools put on.

Absolutely true, but I wouldn't worry, I reckon most people won't be fooled by these hits. It's fairly obvious from a quick glance that many of the sites are the domain of individuals with a tenuous grip on reality at best.

By the way, type Golf and the Occult into google and you will literally get millions of hits. Food for thought, eh?

Tesco TripleChicken

The puppet masters.

Absolam wrote: »

Absolutely true, but I wouldn't worry, I reckon most people won't be fooled by these hits. It's fairly obvious from a quick glance that many of the sites are the domain of individuals with a tenuous grip on reality at best.

By the way, type Golf and the Occult into google and you will literally get millions of hits. Food for thought, eh?

Yeah you could literally put any word in front of "and the occult" and you will get millions of results.

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

By the way, type Golf and the Occult into google and you will literally get millions of hits. Food for thought, eh?

There is no doubt that the 'Speculative Freemasons' played a key role in the formation of the golf clubs. Until 1789, the Royal Blackheath GC was open only to Freemasons and for many years afterwards it still contained a clique of masons called the Knuckle Club who played out-of-season to avoid the non-mason members. They died out for lack of support in 1825.

The Grand Master Mason of Scotland was captain of both the Leith golfers and St Andrews golfers four times in the eighteenth century and laid the foundation stone for the clubhouse at Leith in the presence of 'all masons'. Alexander McDougall, elected secretary of Gentlemen Golfers at Leith in 1764, was the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Scotland

http://www.scottishgolfhistory.org/origin-of-golf-terms/fairways/freemasons-in-early-golf-history/


GMM stands for Grand Master Mason. The St Clairs of Roslyn were hereditary patrons of the Masons in Scotland for centuries and William St Clair was the first elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotlandin 1736. He was Captain and prominent member of both the Leith and the St Andrews golf clubs. Apart from laying the foundation stone of the world's first golf clubhouse, his name is on the St Andrew’s minute shortening the Old Course to be eighteen holes in 1764. He died in 1778 and is buried in Roslyn Chapel

http://www.lodge76.wanadoo.co.uk/scottish_golf_history.htm

Always wondered why the masons here bring golf and golfclubs in to the mix

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

There is no doubt that the 'Speculative Freemasons' played a key role in the formation of the golf clubs.

When you say 'the speculative freemasons' do you mean 'some freemasons' or do you mean 'all freemasons'?
When you say 'the golf clubs' do you mean 'all golf clubs' or 'some golf clubs'?

It's just that if you're saying that some freemasons have played key roles in the formation of some golf clubs, that's hardly surprising, and hardly worthy of pointing out really? Unless you think there's a gross disparity between this and other groups, some of whose members might have played key roles in in the formation of some golf clubs? Like say, Rotarians, or Lions, or Scouts, or Methodists, or squash players or Trekkers?

If on the other hand you're saying that Freemasonry as an organisation is responsible for the existence of all gold clubs it's definitely an astonishing assertion and I'd love to see how you arrived at the conclusion (and of course why you think we decided to invent gold clubs).

Or are you just repeating someone else's paragraph verbatim without considering it's context? If so, perhaps I might continue to quote from the same web page?
"The main reason that the members of early (Scottish) golf clubs were Freemasons was because, in the century after 1717, virtually all middle class men of ability in Scotland were Freemasons from senior law officers to skilled artisans as well as poets and writers, as listed here. (Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott were masons). This was apparently because, from 1717, the Scottish 'stonemason' Freemasons, called Operative Masons, began to allow merchants and professional people, termed Speculative Masons, to join Lodges or create their own."


I actually thought this part was quite appropriate to your own recent thoughts;
The Freemasons' core traditions of self-improvement ('making a good man better') and the self-determination for artisans and professionals, as well as quality of service and service to others, were adopted by our modern educational institutions, trade associations and professional bodies.

enno99 wrote: »

Always wondered why the masons here bring golf and golfclubs in to the mix

Just speculating here, but maybe because both golf clubs and masonic lodges are private members clubs? With all the rules, voting, committees and suchlike that go with being a private members club making them often quite comparable in some ways...

Or maybe we're secretly trying to influence you into joining a golf club which is an undercover recruitment agency for what we call "masonry lite" the minion organisation that does all the secret masonic knocking balls into holes with sticks work. Because we don't have time for it what with all the effort involved in the other super secret stuff, so we had to sort of contract it out so to speak....

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

I actually thought this part was quite appropriate to your own recent thoughts;
The Freemasons' core traditions of self-improvement ('making a good man better') and the self-determination for artisans and professionals, as well as quality of service and service to others, were adopted by our modern educational institutions, trade associations and professional bodies.

How much corruption would you guess runs through the above mentioned

Just speculating here, but maybe because both golf clubs and masonic lodges are private members clubs? With all the rules, voting, committees and suchlike that go with being a private members club making them often quite comparable in some ways...

So are the Hells Angles
( they probably have a lower percentage of criminals though)

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

How much corruption would you guess runs through the above mentioned

Are you guessing there's corruption because they adopted traditions of self-improvement, self-determination, quality of service and service to others? Because that really appears to be reaching beyond even your usual clutching at straws to support your antipathy.

enno99 wrote: »

So are the Hells Angles ( they probably have a lower percentage of criminals though)

When you say probably, do you think that might be just wishful thinking based on your own bias? Or are you actually going to provide us with a factual basis for your 'probability'?

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

Are you guessing there's corruption because they adopted traditions of self-improvement, self-determination, quality of service and service to others? Because that really appears to be reaching beyond even your usual clutching at straws to support your antipathy.

Not at all
but you seem to imply that because they adopt these so called masonic traits they are paragons of virtue



One of the primary purposes of trade groups, particularly in the United States and to a similar but lesser extent elsewhere, is to attempt to influence public policy in a direction favorable to the group's members. This can take the form of contributions to the campaigns of political candidates and parties through Political Action Committees (PACs); contributions to "issue" campaigns not tied to a candidate or party; and lobbying legislators to support or oppose particular legislation. In addition, trade groups attempt to influence the activities of regulatory bodies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_association

The ethics and morality of lobbying are dual-edged. Lobbying is often spoken of with contempt, when the implication is that people with inordinate socioeconomic power are corrupting the law (twisting it away from fairness) in order to serve their own conflict of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

professional body

Such bodies generally strive to achieve a balance between these two often conflicting mandates. Though professional bodies often act to protect the public by maintaining and enforcing standards of training and ethics in their profession, they often also act like a cartel or a labor union (trade union) for the members of the profession, though this description is commonly rejected by the body concerned.

Therefore, in certain dispute situations the balance between these two aims may get tipped more in favor of protecting and defending the professionals than in protecting the public.

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

Not at all but you seem to imply that because they adopt these so called masonic traits they are paragons of virtue

I must have missed where I implied that, perhaps you can quote it for me?

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

I must have missed where I implied that, perhaps you can quote it for me?

seem
intransitive verb \ˈsēm\

: to appear to be something or to do something : to have a quality, appearance, etc., that shows or suggests a particular characteristic, feeling, etc.

Full Definition of SEEM
1
: to appear to the observation or understanding
2
: to give the impression of being

The Freemasons' core traditions of self-improvement ('making a good man better') and the self-determination for artisans and professionals, as well as quality of service and service to others, were adopted by our modern educational institutions, trade associations and professional bodies.

Was there some other point you were trying to make

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

Was there some other point you were trying to make

That wasn't a point I made at all; it was a quote from the website you chose. Nor do they seem (per your definition) to be saying these organisations are paragons of virtue, they seem to be saying that the core traditions of Freemasonry, being positive traditions, were adopted by other institutions. But if you could show where they seem to claim those institutions became paragons of virtue as a result, I'd be happy to read it? Otherwise I think you should just admit you made it up. Again.
How are you getting on with the Hells Angels criminal statistics by the way?

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

That wasn't a point I made at all; it was a quote from the website you chose. Nor do they seem (per your definition) to be saying these organisations are paragons of virtue, they seem to be saying that the core traditions of Freemasonry, being positive traditions, were adopted by other institutions. But if you could show where they seem to claim those institutions became paragons of virtue as a result, I'd be happy to read it? Otherwise I think you should just admit you made it up. Again.
How are you getting on with the Hells Angels criminal statistics by the way?

Yea I read it
I want to know why you posted it

If not to equate these institutions that adopt these core traditions of Freemasonry as being of the highest moral standards as you say Freemasonry is

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

Yea I read it
I want to know why you posted it

That's not what you said. What you said was

enno99 wrote: »

you seem to imply that because they adopt these so called masonic traits they are paragons of virtue

If you wanted to know why I posted it, you could have asked rather than attributing a pejorative statement don't you think? Anyway, the reason I quoted the website was directly above the quote.

Absolam wrote: »

I actually thought this part was quite appropriate to your own recent thoughts;

Having cleared that up for you, perhaps you'll tell us why you're trying to make it seem that corruption in modern educational institutions, trade associations and professional bodies can be associated with the core values of Freemasonry and how far you've gotten with demonstrating that there is a lower percentage of criminals in the Hells Angels than the Freemasons?

enno99

Absolam wrote: »

That's not what you said. What you said was
If you wanted to know why I posted it, you could have asked rather than attributing a pejorative statement don't you think? Anyway, the reason I quoted the website was directly above the quote.


Having cleared that up for you, perhaps you'll tell us why you're trying to make it seem that corruption in modern educational institutions, trade associations and professional bodies can be associated with the core values of Freemasonry and how far you've gotten with demonstrating that there is a lower percentage of criminals in the Hells Angels than the Freemasons?

Load of bollocks

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

Load of bollocks

That's what I thought, I just didn't want to express it so crudely so I asked you nicely instead.

degrassinoel

these last few posts are enough to give anyone a headache - both of you stay on topic or take it to PM.

enno99

degrassinoel wrote: »

these last few posts are enough to give anyone a headache - both of you stay on topic or take it to PM.

Your right sorry about that

AnonymousBosch

Anyone know?
They seemed to have a few lodges going near and far, then their main website seemed to be going under reconstruction, then they just had a facebook page, and then not long ago - poof! They were gone! Only sign of them online now is a couple of newspaper items from a couple years back, and Pillars of Dublin No. 8 Lodge.

Now there's fertile ground for conspiracy mongering...

Emme

AnonymousBosch wrote: »

Anyone know?
They seemed to have a few lodges going near and far, then their main website seemed to be going under reconstruction, then they just had a facebook page, and then not long ago - poof! They were gone! Only sign of them online now is a couple of newspaper items from a couple years back, and Pillars of Dublin No. 8 Lodge.

Now there's fertile ground for conspiracy mongering...

A family friend is a mason and was giving out recently that there is too much masonic information available online. He said that there was no point in joining now because "everyone can get the secrets on the internet". I didn't think people became freemasons just to get the secrets but maybe the Grand Orient lodge decided it was better not to have an online presence.