Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Guest Post: The Question of Freemasonry and America's Founding

***The following post comes to us from Phil Johnson (a.k.a. Pinky) who is one of American Creation's most regular commentators. Mr. Johnson is a self-proclaimed Mason and has done extensive study on the topic. Thank you, Phil for taking the time to prepare this post and we appreciate your willingness to share it.***
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Question of Freemasonry and America’s Founding

I believe it can be shown that Freemasonry bore a heavy influence on America’s Founding.

Perhaps the most obvious reason why it is so difficult to find any documentation of proof has to do with the nature of the Masonic order itself.

It is a fraternal organization in which the members are sworn to secrecy; but it is not a secret organization. Almost any male over the age of 21 is able to join with one single requirement that he believe in a Supreme Being—God.

I recently purchased a book by David Barton with the purpose of learning something I might not otherwise have known about the fraternity’s history. Right off the start, Barton shows his willingness to twist the truth—or his ignorance--of masonry early in chapter one with, “Within the Scottish Rite are Masons called ‘Shriners’…” Wrong!

The Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine is not a division of Scottish Rite. Here is some readily available history. To apply for membership in the Shrine, a Mason must either be a 32nd degree Scottish Rite Mason or a York Rite Knight Templar. The Shrine is separate from both organizations.

Starting on page 54, Barton plays fast and loose with the facts as he recounts an incident between George Washington and the Reverend G. W. Snyder of Fredericksburg, Maryland. Snyder was concerned about an organization in Europe known as the Illuminati that, according to a book by a John Robinson, Proofs of a Conspiracy &c that dealt with plots to over throw all governments. And, Snyder’s apprehensions were that the Illuminati had infiltrated Masonic lodges on this continent. He wrote a letter to Washington voicing his concerns and here is part of the reply he received, “I have heard much of the nefarious and dangerous plan and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the book until you were pleased to send it to me …[T]hanks for your kind wishes and favorable sentiments – except to correct an error you have run into, of my presiding of the English Lodges in this country. The fact is, I preside over none – nor have I been in one more than once or twice within the last thirty years.”

Barton’s next words are, “(Notice Washington’s strong assertion of his relative non-involvement in Masonry, today, an opposite view is presented – largely by Masonic propagandists who wish to wrap themselves around the patriot-hero in order to make their institution appear as mainstream as possible…”

On the face, Barton shows his willingness to twist the truth here and puts his entire argument in question. He distinctly makes the point in other passages that the English lodges and the America’s were separate from each other. He goes to great length in chapter one to point up the origins of Masonry in different national societies, England, Scotland, and France showing the distinctions.

Going into his anti-Masonic commentaries would be a waste of your time with the exception that he attempts to make it out that Masonic meetings lodge meetings are some sort of conspiratorial gatherings in which members hatch plans of one type or another. Nothing could be further from the truth. All official lodge meetings are one hundred percent ritual. I don’t know how far back the ritual goes; but none of it is written down in any form other than code. Other than that, it is 100 percent oral—everything is done by memorization—nothing is added or subtracted. The claim is made that the exact same words are spoken today in lodges as were spoken in 1776. All degrees are historical reenactments of original activities. As degree levels increase in the Scottish Rite, various aspects of history are reenacted by drama. Many historic events are expertly acted out in full and colorful costume. There is nothing in Masonry that denigrates Christianity. Instead, there is a great deal that gives great support—especially in both York and Scottish Rite degrees.

While I am sworn not to divulge any of the secrets, most if not all are readily available to any intelligent person who knows how to surf the ‘Net.

Masonry is the epitome of secular belief. It gives support to nearly every religious faith without detracting from any. And, secularism is the reason I believe Masonry had such a strong hand in the creation of America’s Founding .It was the single most obvious force calling for strong moderation of denominationalism and in the brotherhood of man. If you decide to enter Masonry, you will find a treasure trove of information on the Founding and learn how the English and American Lodges were separate from each other. You will learn of the part Masonry claims it played in the American Revolution.


The Proof Is In The Pudding

It seems safe to make this point when it comes to saying on what ideals our National Society was founded—the proof IS in the pudding. Our nation, while strongly influenced by our Judeo/Christian heritage, was not founded to be a nation of any particular faith. The pudding shows that we were founded on the values of secularism and Freemasonry was the single most positive force for that.

34 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

The use of "secular" is confusing here. "Non-sectarian" seems more accurate, since Freemasons require[d] a belief in God. The internet indicates that Masonry's early emphasis on Christianity was loosened so as to allow the entrance of Jews. Which seems to be Judeo-Christianity again, but we shall leave that for now...

Barton's first error about the Shriners seems minor [there is a connection with being a Scottish Rite Mason although he misses the York angle]. However, it does appear that he misreads Washington's statement as that he'd barely been in a Masonic Lodge for years. It seems apparent that Washington was referring only to the English rite lodges.

Our Founding Truth said...

Brad:There is nothing in Masonry that denigrates Christianity.

Really? Unbelievable! This blog's lack of biblical understanding is amazing, lol!

Tom Van Dyke said...

OFT, Phil Johnson wrote the piece, not Brad Hart. Please take your time. If you have an argument to make that Masonry denigrates Christianity, please make it.

But keep in mind that since George Washington was openly a Mason, and was sworn as president by a Mason, putting Masonry and Christianity at loggerheads completely subverts your argument that America was founded as an orthodox Christian nation.

Go for it.

Brad Hart said...

OFT,

Hey dumbass, take Van Dyke's advise and actually READ the posts, not the titles.

You are worse than a joke!

Magpie Mason said...

Respectfully, there are numerous errors in my brother Phil Johnson's post. Fortunately most of them are not germane to the purpose of American Creation.

However I will clarify a few finer points:

1. I may be reading too much into the Barton quotation, but Washington's Masonic lodge was not an English lodge. It was a Scottish lodge (and it still exists today as a Virginia lodge). So if he said he never presided over an English lodge, he is correct. He did preside (title: Worshipful Master) over his lodge in Alexandria, Virginia, which has Scottish origins.

Other facts that refute Washington's alleged non-involvement include his employing Masonic ceremony during the cornerstone-laying of the U.S. Capitol, and other high profile, public events.

Beautiful and historic pieces of Masonic regalia owned and worn by George Washington are on display in the museums of the grand lodges of Pennsylvania, New York, and I'm sure elsewhere, like the George Washington Masonic Memorial.

2. On the matter of religion, I must correct Bro. Johnson in that Freemasonry does not support any sectarian faith. In fact, Freemasons are compelled to keep their particular religious opinions to themselves. This has been the secret to our success in uniting men of numerous religious backgrounds. This tradition dates to about 1723, when the first constitution of the first grand lodge was published. The first of its six Charges to Freemasons overturned centuries of Trinitarian belief in Masonry, not really to make room for Jewish men, but more for the purpose of allowing Catholics and Protestants to be friends as Masons. (And also to allow the followers of the various Protestant denominations to get along.)

I very much enjoy American Creation, and if the topic of Freemasonry is renewed I would be happy to consult or edit. It is a very confusing subject that is ripe for misinterpretation.

Cordially,
Jay Hochberg, PM
New Jersey Lodge of Masonic Research and Education, No. 1786
Trenton, New Jersey

bpabbott said...

Phil, Thanks for the post. I've been curious about Feemasonary for several years, but have found it difficult to obtain info on it ... now I have some, and have an understanding for why there isn't more!

Jay: "Freemasons are compelled to keep their particular religious opinions to themselves."

I had not understood this. Thanks for the education.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I have a footnote I may want to check with Mr. Hochberg; though it's a very obscure point which he may not be able to answer.

I don't think it's fair to say that Freemason's were "deistic" -- an argument used by secular scholars to prove GW was a deist. I think they were uniters and indifferent, as long as you believed in God. The Book of Constitutions does take a pretty strong anti-atheist stance, but not an anti-deist stance.

Since 1723, there were Christian Masons, Deist Masons, Unitarian Masons. Peter Lillback manages to find one Book of Constitutions that slams Atheists AND Deists, and then he tries to connect GW with that book. I'll blog more about this later. But it was another point were I saw Lillback grasping at straws. From my knowledge, GW endorsed the regular Book of Constitutions which reads:

I. Concerning GOD and RELIGION.

A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.


Which tells us not much about whether he were a Deist, an orthodox Christian, or something else, other than he took an oath to a religious group that adopted a VERY indifferent attitude towards religious differences.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Here is a URL to the Book of Constitutions:

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/anderson/charges.html

Magpie Mason said...

Hello Mr. Rowe,

The Masonic understanding of "stupid atheist" etc. is a big subject that I promise to address in detail before long.

But for now, let me quickly clarify the importance of constitutions within the Masonic fraternity:

What you've found on the web (and I strongly endorse that website as a reliable source of information) comes from the original Book of Constitutions of what was called the Premier Grand Lodge of England. The organization was established June 24, 1717; the Book of Constitutions was published in 1723.

George Washington never was a member of this English grand lodge. He probably was familiar with the book (Benj. Franklin published it in Philadelphia in the 1730s), but I don't know a reason why he would endorse it.

At any rate, the Premier Grand Lodge of England ceased to exist in 1813 upon the formation of the United Grand Lodge of England (which still exists). Therefore this particular Book of Constitutions has no governing authority. Its value is philosophical and historical.

Anyway, following this English precedent of publishing a Book of Constitutions, every Masonic grand lodge since has published its own.

They are all different, but nearly all of them retain some phraseology about each member having to believe in deity, in whatever terms he personally uses to define deity. The most famous exceptions are the grand lodges in Scandanavia, which restrict membership to Christians, and the Grand Orient of France, which extends membership to atheists. Freemasonry inevitably adapts to local values. Contrary to the conspiracy kooks, there is no global Masonic authority.

(Incidentally, I was delighted the other day by the post on John Calvin's 500th birthday. It was Calvin who originally coined the term "Grand Architect of the Universe," which Freemasonry adopted in that 1723 book as our ecumenical ritual term for deity. It is used to this day in lodges all over the world.)

I'm starting to ramble, but before I go on too long, I must explain that it is crucial to understand that there is NO dogma or theology in Freemasonry. This is why it is impossible to say things like "Freemasons are deistic."

Without a doubt, INDIVIDUAL Freemasons held deist views, but in no way could it be accurate to say that a lodge or grand lodge of Masons was deist (or Roman Catholic or Jewish or Lutheran).

Mr. Rowe, when time permits I certainly will post a real blog entry here on the subject of the "stupid atheist" clause. It has enormous implications for 18th century Anglo-American culture.

Jonathan Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Rowe said...

Thanks much for this. I want to track down the BOC from GW's Freemasonic group to confirm that they did not refer to "deists" as stupid or otherwise in a negative sense (or maybe they did).

On page 505 of "George Washington's Sacred Fire" Lillback quotes one Episcopalian Clergyman Rev. Dr. William Smith of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania who quotes from his BOC as stating:

"he cannot tread in the irreligious paths of the unhappy Libertine, the Deist, nor stupid Atheist...."

Lillback then suggests it was this kind of Masonry that GW was into. Indeed he uses this one source to assert "The Masons of Washington's day explicitly rejected Deism."

My independent research showed the general BOCs didn't slam "deists" like it did atheists and libertines. And Lillback, if I read him correctly, didn't present ANY evidence connecting GW to this particular BOC that slammed deism.

Explicit Atheist said...

Some videos (nine parts of what is a single narrative) about David Barton's character, compiled by Chris Rodda, can be found on the internet and should be viewed by anyone who is citing his writings.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewwWM4psFo8

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIS7Gu-H9V0

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geVUqOGh_js

Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvymZoKm1-A

Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzWuzZ1CxGc

Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIFSY_BjxsY

Part 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYPI7jcxyw

Part 8:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE1_Yr8mz9E

Part 9:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NomUm6t2-qM

Jonathan Rowe said...

Thanks for this EA. We are going to have to discuss this on American Creation. I didn't know about this.

Tom Van Dyke said...

More Barton-bashing. You can't swing a cat around here without hitting some.

Lindsey Shuman said...

Be careful what you say, Tom. Rodda absolutely destroys Barton in these videos. Watch and you will see for yourself. And if not, I'd love to hear how you twist it.

All upcoming in a new post.

Pinky said...

.
It was correct for me to claim that Freemasonry supports different religious faiths. No applicant to Masonry is turned away because he is a Christian, a Jew, or any other belief that holds there is a Supreme Being. In that sense, support is given to various religions. I know Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are Masons and they are supported for their beliefs. And, degree work in both the York and Scottish Rites support Christianity is specific ways. In fact, the York Rite can be seen as a Christian organization. Knights Templar? There is much more to Freemasonry than the first three degrees.
.
To give support does not mean that every detail of this or that denomination is upheld.
.
The Past Master is incorrect that there were numerous errors in my post. I wrote with some generalities and was careful not to divulge any particular private concerns of Masonry.
.
We could argue all day long over the meanings of the word, secular, and not come to agreement.
.
Freemasonry was the outstanding force for the toleration of various beliefs about the Creator in colonial times. That is the proof of the pudding that Masonry had a powerful impact on America's Founding.
.
You are free to learn about it for yourself. I'm sure there is a lodge near by every one.

Pinky said...

.
Check it out!
.
Scroll down to the Cross.

Magpie Mason said...

Pinky, it is not my intention to embarrass you or disparage your essay, and I certainly will not go tit-for-tat down a checklist, but because your subject matter is important to American Creation, I must clarify your mischaracterization of Freemasonry's role in the religious lives of its members and its significance in America's religious freedom.

Freemasonry does not support any religious faith, and religious faiths do not support Freemasonry. Freemasons are enjoined from discussing their religious opinions in lodge. Period. That is Basic Freemasonry 101.

(Paranthetically, let me explain that it is not uncommon for a lodge or a grand lodge to participate in a church service, but these are ad hoc ceremonial events that do not define the character of the fraternity.)

When a man initiates the process of becoming a Freemason -- and this applies to more than 99 percent of the lodges in the world -- he is not asked about his religious affiliation. (Or at least he shouldn't be asked.) The question concerns only a belief in deity, which must be answered in the affirmative for the process to continue.

Furthermore, to state that Freemasonry supports various religions is to suggest that every Freemason somehow is an ambassador of his faith, which I'm sure you'd agree is not the case. Freemasonry considers its petitioners for membership according to their individual moral characters, a practice that transcends sectarian divisions. This allows the fraternity to be as widely inclusive as possible, so that it never risks rendering an opinion, however favorable, on any particular faith.

I think what you are perceiving as thoughtful religious tolerance actually is something far more profound: the practice of brotherhood without consideration of anyone's religious identity. The two are not the same. The former view sees a man as a member of a faith; the latter looks beyond manmade identity to see the content of one's character.

Freemasons are individuals who are united through their voluntary obligations to each other. Their personal religious beliefs (and, for that matter political opinions) are to be kept outside the fraternity's doors.

I suggest we leave the Scottish and York rites out of this particular discussion because they do not figure largely into Colonial America. Those Orders, as we know them today, are 19th century constructs, despite their 18th century roots.

In conclusion, your insistence that "Freemasonry was the outstanding force for the toleration of various beliefs about the Creator in colonial times" lacks perspective. Neither Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, nor James Madison, who introduced the Bill of Rights, was a Mason.

Pinky said...

.
I'm not here to argue with you, Magpie.
.
Masonry, like all other organizations to which human beings belong, has a lot of nut cases in it. In the final analysis, all of us are individuals and we are influenced by the associations we have with each other. Just yesterday, the Nut Gingrich faulted the University of Notre Dame for inviting our President to speak at the commencement exercises because he isn't a Catholic. Should we argue about anti-Protestantism or anti-Catholicism?
.
I wrote we could argue about the meanings of the word, secular, all day long.
.
You obviously have an agenda and I suggest you make your points.
.
You are misrepresenting what I have stated. and obviously are reading into my comments something I have not written. Perhaps you have another person in mind to whom you should be directing your criticisms--one of your lodge brothers? I don't have any problems with any expertise you might want to express.
.
I believe my point about Freemasonry and its symbolism having a strong impact on America's Founding as a secular society is well made.
.
That is my point, period.

Pinky said...

.

A little more source information.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Hmmm. After reading your remarks on David Barton, does this mean one of you is a liar, Phil?

bpabbott said...

Tom: "Hmmm. After reading your remarks on David Barton, does this mean one of you is a liar, Phil?"

Have a different perspective of the same topic doesn't mean anyone is lying.

Barton has been documented of fraudulent representation.

I think you're being dishonest here, and twisting the circumstances to suit your disposition.

Pinky said...

.
Barton committed a prima facia lie on page three of
his book

Check it out.
.
He claims to be using pure sources; but, he says that the AAONMS is a part of Scottish Rite Masonry. That might be a minor problem for you; but, it puts his entire thesis in question. Then, he twists the truth of George Washington's involvement in Masonry by claiming that Washington's statement that he never visited an English lodge more than once or twice in thirty years to mean that he was uninvolved in Freemasonry. Yet in other parts of the book, he shows that the English lodges and the American lodges were separate from each other. In my thinking, that shows purposeful action on Barton's part.

By the way, you wrongly called me a liar when I first came here; so, I take much of what you have to say with a grain of salt when it comes to such things. Although, I respect you when you come up with documentation.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, I remember the occasion clearly, Phil. It was about Harry Truman. If I used the word "liar," I'm very disgusted with myself. But that doesn't sound like me as I have a strong aversion to the word and the imputation against another man's reputation and character.

If you want to revisit the details of that contretemps, OK. I see no purpose in it.

The use of the word "liar" on the Barton thread---and you used it yourself---is what spurred this aside. I found it unnecessarily ugly. Neither is your characterization of "Nut" Gingrich's remark remotely accurate. He said that President Obama's views are anti-Catholic, and in the context of abortion, they certainly are.

So the irony is that you opened the door to our present unpleasantness with your bash of Barton as twisting the truth. But your own claims about Masonry have been disputed by a credible witness, and of course you clearly and provably misrepresented Gingrich's remarks.

And so, I put it to you, Phil---Who is the Liar?

Actually, what I'm saying is perhaps the word has no place in polite and fruitful discussion. OK, Ben?

As to the substance of your post, Phil, I do believe Magpie Mason is attempting to illustrate the difference between secularism and non-sectarianism. This is no small distinction, either in the Founding or in Masonry.

Pinky said...

.
Hey Tom.
.
Since when have you come to be so concerned about calling a pot black?

Each one of us falls short including you. I certainly do. In rereading my post again, I saw that I had given the false impression that Freemasonry was so highly structured that even the current business of a lodge was all ritual. Of course, Masons see to the current business and emergent necessities and interests--lodge work is not 100% ritual. How else could the fraternity function? It was stupid of me to not allow for that in my comments. I apologize for giving any false impressions.
.
The Past Master was correct and I was in error. But, I was correct in what I wrote and am correct regarding the support Masonry gives to religion. I have given references to prove that. I can give them again if need be.

But, my point was not about the activities of the day to day activities of official Masonry. Rather, it was about the secular sense that Masonry provides to society. The Past Master claims the sense was more "profound" than it was secular. Okay, his perceptions differ from mine in that I see any group in which Christians, Jews, and Muslims are able to enjoy each other's company as simply secular. Profound? Maybe; but, that's a matter of opinion.

Secularism, as such, does not in and of itself denigrate any religious belief. And, individuals that are not religious do not necessarily in and of their personal beliefs put religion down. Secularism is not anti-religious.
.
The question comes down to a definition of the word, secular. Whatever a person might call it, the sense of mutual acceptance of one Mason for the personal "God Beliefs" of another Mason gave support to the idea of a non-sectarian government at the Founding of the United States. THAT was profound.
.

Magpie Mason said...

It's hard to believe that in a group like this there can be so much debate over terms that are defined in every dictionary.

(It's also kind of hard for me to believe anyone else is still following these comments.)

Bro. Johnson, the word I think you are looking for is "ecumenical," or a synonym that also makes sense in a religious context, like universal.

"Secular" is not a word that comes to mind in describing an organization that uses temples, altars, holy texts, prayers, funerary rites, etc. for its own idiomatic, ritual uses. (These elements do not make Freemasonry a religion either. The fraternity is spiritual, but is not a religion. It has no theology, priesthood, organized services, etc.)

"Secular" has several definitions, but the primary definition, which is determined by etymology, continued standard usage, and contemporary use, does not apply to Freemasonry. To wit:

sec-u-lar 
–adjective


1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.


Freemasonry in America is not described by either of these definitions. Freemasonry in America is nonsectarian because it is not affiliated with any religious sect; and it is ecumenical for its inclusion of men of many different faiths. Freemasonry is not secular because it IS concerned with spiritual matters, and its rituals are informed by Jewish and Christian Scripture.

I don't think I can say more on this particular subject. It's too basic to merit prolonged disagreement.

Pinky said...

.
Thanks to the Worshipful Master for his explanations.
.
That provides an opportunity to give thanks to the founders of this blog site for allowing it to have a Pro/Am mission in that professionals and amateurs can interact with each other.
.
I appreciate the Past Master's points.
.
I guess, in my amateurish way, I was saying that Freemasonry--by its nature--promotes the idea of a secular society.
.
Hopefully that can be accepted.
.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Amazing.

Pinky said...

.


For What It’s Worth:.

fotocopy murah jakarta said...

I think this is a very good post. not every day I get to see posts like this.

wellis mabel said...

The Illuminati is real and I will proudly say I am a member ,this organization of great minds have members all over the world ,it's also a home to many musicians ,footballers,politicians,doctors etc . I got initiated last two years April 28 2014 and since then my life has been better because I do receive 1,000,000,00$ from the brotherhood every month and other wonderful life changing experience that comes with it ,I own three restaurants in France and USA living a simple life living in my dream house owning cars I never think of buying. life has been good to me ,I want to use this medium to warn scams to desist from using the great Illuminati to dupe people it is very bad and to those out there who are really ready to live the life of there dreams and to own lots of properties join this great organization we do not discriminate because to be rich does not matter if you are black or black contact the agent who got me initiated on email: illuminatikingdom01@yahoo.com or whats app +2348056399931 ....I assure after u speak with him and get into the brotherhood your life we not remain the same.......

AGENT CURTIS BROWN said...


AGENT CURTIS BROWN
. JOINING THE

ILLUMINATI BRINGS YOU INTO THE LIMELIGHT

OF THE WORLD IN WHICH YOU LIVE IN TODAY.

YOUR FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES ARE BROUGHT TO

AN END. WE SUPPORT YOU BOTH FINANCIALLY

AND MATERIALLY TO ENSURE YOU LIVE A

COMFORTABLE LIFE. IT DOES NOT MATTER

WHICH PART OF THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN. FROM

THE UNITED STATES DOWN TO THE MOST

REMOTE PART OF THE EARTH, WE BRING YOU ALL

YOU WANT. BEING AN ILLITERATE OR A LITERATE

IS NOT A BARRIER TO BEING A MILLIONAIRE

BETWEEN TODAY AND THE NEXT TWO WEEKS.

YOU BEING IN THIS OUR OFFICIAL PAGE TODAY

SIGNIFIES THAT IT WAS ORDERED AND

ARRANGED BY THE GREAT LUCIFER THAT FROM

NOW ON, YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE THAT REAL AND

INDEPENDENT HUMAN YOU HAVE ALWAYS

WISHED YOU WERE Now, for the FIRST TIME IN

HISTORY, we are opening our doors to the

masses. If you would like to Join Freemasonry/

ILLUMINATI, Just register with us today.

ILLUMINATI RECRUITMENT/REGISTRATION

PORTAL EMAIL: illuminati666brotherhoodtemple@gmail.com

or you can also CALL via: (+44-703-196-8466) or whatsapp +2348100352928, REGISTRATION : illuminati666brotherhoodtemple@gmail.com.

Tony Smith said...

WELCOME TO THE ILLUMINATI CHURCH OF SATAN ,Are you a businessman, musician, a student and you want to be rich and famous in the society search know no further this is an opportunity to be a member you can contact the great order on this email address famousworldilluminati666@gmail.com or call me on my phone number +2349073943105 NOTE:If you are not ready to join don't add up,if you are on whatsapp you can whatsapp us on that number

Anonymous said...

Dear Influential Individual, We are delighted that your life’s journey has led you to discover our organization. Maybe you have met one of our members in the flesh. Or perhaps not; we value anonymity. We see and know all just as a shepherd sees and knows all of the flock, our eyes peering over the masses to identify any threat. We are the bringers of new dawns, the guardians of the human species. We are the Pyramid, the Eye, the Light, the Eternal. We are the Illuminati. The Illuminati is a collective of prominent figures throughout the world who have united to guard the human species from extinction. Our members bear the burden of a planet’s leadership with the lives of 7 billion in their hands. As the human continues to rise above its other animal counterparts, governing of the planet has turned into a daunting task. In return for their loyalty, our ranking members are presented the opportunity for lives of limitless wealth and opportunity. Once a member, the requirements are unimposing and often spaced between many years. Our requests are simple and therefore may be hard to comprehend, but disloyalty is not tolerated. You must understand this before applying. Members must fulfill their oaths to the Illuminati under every circumstance and recognize that they are merely one part of a much larger Universal Design. For centuries, our organization has separated individuals of outstanding political, financial, or cultural influence from the flock, and established them as shepherds of the human species. Perhaps you have already proven yourself in these fields. For that, the Illuminati officially congratulates you. Your dedication gives hope to us for the future of the human species. If you would like to continue to become a member kindly contact the following for more information-
Call, +2348115531558
email- oyeyetemple@gmail.com