mortagesandforeclosures

by Simon Gray

Throughout the years, there has been a controversy of whether the Freemasons are a fraternity for the betterment of humanity or whether they are just a secretive cult. Much emphasis has been put on what renowned figures were members of this Society. It would seem that if a prominent leader of the Country were pro Freemasons then it should automatically speak highly of the Freemasons reputation. In recent years, we have come to realize that not everything our government leaders do is always right. One wonders if much credence would be given to an organization in today's age just because some high government official endorses them.

These prominent figures have their weaknesses today just as they must have back in time. The major difference is that the lives of the leaders of today are much more in the public view than they were years ago. Speculation is that mistakes made by leaders in the past went much more unnoticed. Based on this theory then does it really matter whether George Washington was a Freemason or not? Their credentials should be based on what they stand for openly and not secretively to support their cause.

There has been much talk that Freemasonry is a religion. Noted individuals like Albert Pike and Henry Coil had put much thought into this matter and wrote much about it. History tells us that they were anti Freemason. Some Freemasons refute their writings based on the subject of religion because they were not men of the cloth. They also suggest the writings of these men were taken out of context. The Freemasons do not want to be dubbed as a "religious group". Freemasons argue that there have been thousands of ministers that stand behind the Freemasons claims that they are not a religious group.

The Freemasons stipulate that they are religious but not a religious group. Is this just a play on words or is there a distinction between the?. It is perceived that one has to have a belief in a "higher being" in order to become a Freemason. There are indications that the Lodges have their own holy books. If these are two true facts then what is the need for their own Holy Books. If there is no practice of religion why would they have what is considered as religious data? Most likely, the real answer to this question will not be answered until a Freemason speaks on what specifically is carried out in respect to the "Holy Book". Perhaps if no reference is made to this item at any of their meetings, then it could be considered a symbol. Symbolism seems to be the whole venue of the Freemasons.

This brings us to the issue as Freemasonry being called a "secret society". They themselves deny this. They stand on the issue that every meeting held is well documented and open for public viewing. They stipulate that if they were a secret society that the world would no know if they existed. Is this factual or a half-truth though? Knowing they exist is one thing, but knowing what they do is another. In other words the full details of their rituals. Perhaps their public documentation may state that they held a specific ritual on a particular night, but does it tell you the details of the meaning or nature of the ritual? So again, they are open in saying they are performing some act, but are the act explained?

No matter which way we view the topic of the Freemasons and what they stand for, or practice, or how secret they are, it makes for the most intriguing conversation and thought.

About the Author:

Be among the rare few to own this highly-exclusive ancient freemason initiation book collection. Visit the official site now and see the collection of freemason masonic secrets.

Get all the information and photos:: http://mortgagewide.info/should-you-join-the-freemasons-the-truth-exposed/