Masons

[ZionKnight]

I wish I knew how to make those quotes, this would be so much easier. But, here is my input:
Rick Otto, man you ROCK! I have never found my own thoughts about this subject so articulately expressed. I think, so far, you have begun to voice my own conclusions over the whole matter, that the real conspiricy lies in the spirit realm, and that the freemasons are thier best attempt so far.
The mason guy, in all your explanations you only seem to solidify my own belief: that all the agendas of this secret society can be sumed up in the building of a one world religion, (philosophy, form of belief, whatever you want to call it) that encompasses all 'former' systems of belief. That, by definition, is contrary to christianity and was described in Biblical prophesy. It seems to be setting the foundations of a throne that only one man will have claim to (at least for a while).
Now, about the history of masons, I think that the worst of it (and I admit my ignorrance of all the technichal stuff) happened when Albert Pike, whom you have mentioned, joined. I live in Arkansas, which seemed to be his old 'stomping grounds', and came accross a book in the public library that started me on my own personal conspiracy theory. The book (which I don't remember because I didn't think it would go this deep,) described Mr. Pike as a war criminal/ poet/ philosipher who was rumored to be involved in some sort of group sex magic stuff ( not that that would have any thing to do with the subject at hand, unless it was true, but I don't know,) then he joined the freemasonry and revamped the whole thing. I guess what I am trying to say is that whatever it was before him may have been historicaly innocent and simplistic. But, whatever it is now is very dangerous to mankind, and has been around in many forms since the second flood (Noah's). In the Word, it seems to me that God has seen fit to use two people in history to be symbols of what is going on in the spirit realm: Jezebel, and Elijah. The spirit of Jezebel, which was her god/godess Baal and Ashtoroth (also known as Isis and Osiris) and the Spirit and Power of Elijah. If you study these two referances you will see that God isn't talking about either humans but the spirits driving them: the Holy Spirit of God and the spirit of perversion.
But, I suppose I may be going too deep for a candid and 'objective' discusion.

 

[Rick Otto]

I liked what Truthminer had to say in his last post.

But I feel I have to comment on amadeus' thoughts...

I don't meen to be needling you am, but your scapegoat theory on conspiracy theory looks like an attempt to scapegoat conspiracy theorists. What you say may be true about SOME theorizing, but not all of it.

Conspiracy theorists are not "opposed" to anything anyone (Masons) might propose or profess. Conspiracy theory isn't opposed to or in support of, any of the agendas, it merely theorizes that there is a big picture & that all agendas eventualy serve (if not consciously)one or the other side of the Good Vs Evil conflict, which seems to be THE basic Big Picture.

Conspiracy Theory is about how good intentioned organizations get co-opted into paving the highway to hell, information not available in press releases or bulletins to the membership. When Conspiracy theorists flame general members, usualy it is for their ignorant collusion or willfull ignorance, not for conscious evil intent.

"We're Satan worshippers now? I didn't get the memo!"

 

[winslow]

W is a Mason.

George Washington was a mason, along with many of the founding fathers (US). Many presidents were masons.

 

[cwebber]

As a Member of Regular Freemasonry meaning recognized as a Masonic Fraternity I would like to answer some of your questions:

1. Freemasonry as we know it today started in 1717 offically.

2. The Rituals also know as Morality Plays were invited in 1725.

3. Before 1725 you had to be a Christian to join Freemasonry in fact in other Country's such as Sweden you still have to professs a Faith in Christ to join Freemasonry.

4. Albert Pike is onne of the most misused sources on Freemasonry so many things that He wrote are taken out of Context.

5. All Masons believe in a Supreme Being to whom they will be held accountable for thier sins, But not all Masons agree on who that Supreme Being may be.

6. The Highest Degree you can go in Freemasonry is the 3rd Degree or the Blue Lodge degrees. The Scottish Rite and York Rite are govern by the Blue Lodge. So the 33rd Degree mason of the Scottish Rite or the 14th Degree Mason of the York Rite does not have anymore say than a 3rd degree Mason. In fact the Blue Lodge could deside it no longer recognizes the Scottish Rite and they would be considered a Illegal form of Freemasonry.

7. The Only God mentioned in Freemaosnry Ritual is Jehovah no other god is mentioned.

8. The Rituals of Freemasonry are based on Old Testiment Setting using New Testiment teaches Brotherly Love, Being a Good Neighbor, Integrity and Accountablity.

9. You are allowed to witness Christ to others as long as the Lodge is not Open for doing Business. Reason for this is the same with any other Business meeting you are trying to decide how to provide for others and pay your bills. Fighting over religion such as baptist is better than Church of God or Once Saved always Saved and Politics Repulican or Demicrat. Will only cause seperation amoung people of differing faiths joining together in a common goal to provide for others. Not to come together in Worship but come together in friendship. Also to add many churches have started out in MAsonic Lodges in the 1990s it is said that the Biggest Church in Texas at that time started out in a Masonic Lodge so Freemasonry is not against Christianity.

10. Salvation is never taught in the Blue Lodge the only thing that is mentioned about requirements for getting to Heaven are that you must be without Sin in order to enter Heaven. Thou is is stated in a Middle Ages poetic way. It never states how you become sinless. It gives you the problems but not the solution to the Problem. Freemasonry is designed to impress upon the Mind Wise and serious Truths.

Any other question I will be glad to answer to the best of my ability.

And on another note 93% of all Freemasons are Christian.

 

[ZionKnight]

It seems that, the more that I dwell on this subject, the more that I am compelled to give my thoughts. I suppose first, though, I should follow suit with other older, wiser posters and take a more diplomatic tone. In my previous post, I all but demonized the whole organization. I, uh, well... may have been a little over eager that I was not the only one who was concerned about this subject. It may come as a suprise, but I actually began to look into the masons because I found the whole idea appealing. Which, only shows a little of my charachter in that I have a love of all things ironic and paradoxiacal. I have a small discourse to give that will hopfully help both to clarify my oppinion of the dangers of (my understanding of) the masonic standpointand, and maybe even be a help to those who are professing masons. But, I did use the word discourse so, I have decided to dispence it in small doses. My intention is to be considered, not to cause christain fourms to be sued for the spontanious deaths due to boredom.
Now, I would first like to state (very importantly) that all that I am going to say is based completely on speculation. I don't trust the technicalities or the 'historical facts' on either side. In fact, for most of what I have to say about the masons, I think I can use just from what the professing masons on this thread have written. Although I may borrow a little from that handbook stuff posted. I hope that in my next few 'rantings' that I will be informative to the body of Christ, and helpful to the masons reading this.

 

[amadeus72]

Now, about the history of masons, I think that the worst of it (and I admit my ignorrance of all the technichal stuff) happened when Albert Pike, whom you have mentioned, joined. I live in Arkansas, which seemed to be his old 'stomping grounds', and came accross a book in the public library that started me on my own personal conspiracy theory. The book (which I don't remember because I didn't think it would go this deep,) described Mr. Pike as a war criminal/ poet/ philosipher who was rumored to be involved in some sort of group sex magic stuff ( not that that would have any thing to do with the subject at hand, unless it was true, but I don't know,) then he joined the freemasonry and revamped the whole thing. I guess what I am trying to say is that whatever it was before him may have been historicaly innocent and simplistic. But, whatever it is now is very dangerous to mankind

Pike was not a "war criminal". He had served as a US Army Captain in the 1840's, and became a Confederate General in the 1860's. At the Battle of Pea Ridge, he commanded several regiments of Native Americans, and there was an incident of the scalping of a Union officer. Pike did not order the scalping, nor know anything about it until after the battle.

Pike did not join Freemasonry and "revamp the whole thing". After he joined the Scottish Rite, he was asked by the Supreme Council to assist in revising the degree ceremonies as used in the Southern Jurisdiction due to his extensive knowledge of foreign languages (the originals were written in French), philosophy, and drama. Pike's revisions were (and are) used only in the Southern Jurisdiction of the U.S., and affect only the Scottish Rite.

The "rumor" that Pike was involved in "sex magic" seems to be a brand new one, created about 115 years after he died.

 

[amadeus72]

I don't meen to be needling you am, but your scapegoat theory on conspiracy theory looks like an attempt to scapegoat conspiracy theorists. What you say may be true about SOME theorizing, but not all of it.

I suppose it depends on what we mean by "conspiracy theories". By that term, I refer to the conspiratorial worldview, which is not based on facts, but on fantasy and paranoia. The problem here, obviously, is that it indicts innocent people on fraudulent charges. When someone points out that no evidence exists to condemn anyone on those charges, the conspiracy theorist will claim that lack of evidence only goes to show how deep the conspiracy runs. Such a person simply cannot be reasoned with.

Conspiracy Theory is about how good intentioned organizations get co-opted into paving the highway to hell, information not available in press releases or bulletins to the membership. When Conspiracy theorists flame general members, usualy it is for their ignorant collusion or willfull ignorance, not for conscious evil intent.

I'm not saying that conspiracy theorists purposely bear false witness. I am aware that most actually believe what they say, but when someone calls Albert Pike a satanist or the Queen of England a shapeshifting reptilian from another dimension, I wonder at their credulity. If they do not bother to verify the claims they make, but have no problem with accusing people without evidence, then I do believe they themselves are responsible for bearing false witness, and will ultimately be held accountable by a Higher Power.

 

[meganahan]

As a Member of Regular Freemasonry meaning recognized as a Masonic Fraternity I would like to answer some of your questions:......

Thanks for sharing all your knowledge. I appreciate it very much.

 

[ZionKnight]

What I believe to be the appeal of a secret society:

I am sure that there are many reasons as to why a man would join a secret society, particularly one that has such spectacular claims looming around it. The diversity of motivations are, no doubt, as many as there are members. But, I think that I have generalized them fairly efectively into three different catagories based on thier level of involvement.

The ground level mason: I think I can see the initial appeal of a secret brotherhood on a local basis simply in first, that you would just be a part of something, and, that you would be rubbing shoulders with many other (very likely to be prominent) individuals. If I had taken the same sacred oath with the county sheriff or the city judge, I am more likely to get heard about my views on the community, among other less comendable perks. I am sure that the deffenders of the masons would then say something to the effect of 'we are not a corrupt organization, in fact, the primary goal of our fraternaty is to be agianst that very sort of thing.' And, I believe that, for the most part. But, as it is with the christian church, it is , no doubt, with the masons. That, although, the group as a whole may have one agenda, the smaller, more local chapters may be harboring another. Again, the masons would say 'then we would denounce that chapter', and again, I would say 'only if you knew about it'.
From the information that I have read, Amadeus' intentions are entirely noble. (I would say that you stand in the second level of motivation, which I will get to later.) He is acting as a champion for the mason cause. But, even the masons cannot know all of what is going on in thier own world wide membership. And, not all men are going to have the same convictions as Amadeus. And, for that matter, not all convictions are going to agree with others.

The second level of appeal: This one I believe that Amadeus, as I have said, would be a part of. The appeal is to be able to affect communities and make a difference. (This was what appealed to me as well.) The true body of Christ has been commisioned to do the exact same thing, (affecting communities, changing lives, and such,) but, since we do our preaching in the open, we are open for scrutiny... and opposition. There are some things that are much easier to discuss behind closed doors, as our founding fathers have learned.

The third level of appeal: This level, I fear, is the most dangerous. On the surface, it may seem noble and right in that their goal is to build and shape an entirely new world system, and unite all hearts and minds under that infallible and universal truth that they call 'god'. You might say that sounds a lot like the world domination mentioned in an earlier post, but I would say that it is more like world renovation. (at least to them.) And this too is actualy noble, if they truly believe in what they are doing, (please understand that I make a difference between 'noble' and 'right.) Why shouldn't they want to (as they believe it) make the world a better place? Isn't that what we as christians want as well? We sing about it, and we pray for it. We do, however, know that the new day cannot come until this one is over. We believe that, although we can make a difference in the lives of the people and nations for the better today, we also know that there is a chain of events fortold that will happen regardless of what we do.
My concern is that, although your mission is to share the 'fruit of knowledge', what if your fruit was tainted?
What if there was a traitor among the ranks? And, most importantly, what if you were wrong?
I realize that you could say 'isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?', well I hope to adress this in a later post.
until then, I will cease ranting for now.

 

[amadeus72]

From the information that I have read, Amadeus' intentions are entirely noble.

Thanks!

My concern is that, although your mission is to share the 'fruit of knowledge', what if your fruit was tainted?
What if there was a traitor among the ranks? And, most importantly, what if you were wrong?

This is exactly why the Masons have always stressed the importance of individual liberty. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, and so could anyone else, on practically any issue. Since nobody knows everything, the possibility for error is often great.

Therefore, freedom of conscience MUST be the rule. I know what I believe with absolute certainty, but I can't prove all of it. For example, in religion as you mentioned, I'm an Episcopalian. I cannot prove to a Pentecostal that my doctrines are more "correct" than his, much less to an atheist, who denies God's very existence. Therefore, I don't have the right to persecute anybody else for disagreeing with me, any more than they have the right to do the same to me.

And this is what has always been a Masonic ideal, taken straight from the Age of Enlightenment, immediately following an era of the most brutal and gruesome torture and murder, all performed in the name of Christ.

 

[Rick Otto]

with you Ama, re: the right to persecute, I wuold encourage you to study doctrine enough to "prove" it.
I find it valuable to study the history of the teachers of the doctrines & the social climate of their times as well.

 

[amadeus72]

with you Ama, re: the right to persecute, I wuold encourage you to study doctrine enough to "prove" it.

Study doctrine to prove history? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you denying the Holy Inquisition occured, or the persecution and murder of Protestants under Mary Tudor (a/k/a "Bloody Mary"), or Calvin's persecutions of Servetus and the Catholics, or Louis XIV's crackdown on the Huguenots, or (insert a million other examples here)?

 

[ZionKnight]

Study doctrine to prove history? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you denying the Holy Inquisition occured, or the persecution and murder of Protestants under Mary Tudor (a/k/a "Bloody Mary"), or Calvin's persecutions of Servetus and the Catholics, or Louis XIV's crackdown on the Huguenots, or (insert a million other examples here)?

Wow! It's like you guys are setting me up for my next ranting. Now, before I begin, I would like to point out the obvious before anyone else. I realize that in the course of these next few disscusions, I start with pretty solid reasoning and move to statments that have to be accepted more with faith then Knowledge, but, that is just how I want it and I won't argue about it..... so there.


I'm sure all of you who are still reading this thread have heard the old adadge: History is written by the successors. How true that saying used to be! But, now even that isn't true these days. It's more like this: History is written by anyone with a pen and a PHD!
I have a little riddle. It is my own morality play of sorts.
I will present it now and elaborate more latter, (as time permits, I am a factory worker and a father of three, the oldest being three! )

The riddle of the looking glass: Imagine you are transported to a room wearing only enough to cover the basics, and nothing else. (No shoes either, I'll explain later.) In this room you see two girls that look a lot like Lewis Carol's Alice from Through the looking glass. Now you somehow know in your heart that only one of the girls is real and the other is just a mirror image. Eventualy, curiousity gets the better of you, and you want to know which is the real Alice. "Simple," you say, "I'll just walk over there and touch them both. Then I will be able to feel for myself which is real and which is fake." Bravo! You did it! You are very clever. But, what if..... what if there were thousands, even hundreds of thousands of looking glasses, ( it is a very big room,)?
What if there were so many mirrors that, if you spent all day every day touching them, you would eventually spend the rest of your life and, maybe, find her but, probably not? How then, would you find the real Alice? (seeing that she either, doesn't want to be found, or she really likes to play games, hence the mirrors and all.)
I won't take too much time before I post my answer to this mess, and futher elaborate. There is a point to it I promise. Now, for those lovers of technicalities and legal loop holes: I am sure you could find some off the point way of discovering her, and it would be a testament of your exceptional out-of-the-box thinking, but, it would be just that, off of the point.
have fun.

 

[KEPLER]

Ummmm...break all the mirrors? Of course, I'm barefoot at this point, so I have to be careful...

And, BTW, I'm one of those guys with a pen and a Ph.D. (in History, no less!)

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[KEPLER]

Thanks!

This is exactly why the Masons have always stressed the importance of individual liberty. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, and so could anyone else, on practically any issue. Since nobody knows everything, the possibility for error is often great.

Ah...this is the nugget, isn't it. Freemasonry learned this lesson from the Thirty Years War: people disgree about religion, and we can never know for sure who is right. Therefore, let's dump all that doctrine stuff, and just agree that we should all behave nicely towards one another. Hence, the "ethics and morals" of the Freemasons, and the emphasis on republican and democratic values.

The problem, of course, is that Christianity is not a faith about ethics and morality. Never was. Yes, some people have turned it into that and nothing more than that...but they are (quite simply) wrong.

Therefore, freedom of conscience MUST be the rule. I know what I believe with absolute certainty, but I can't prove all of it. For example, in religion as you mentioned, I'm an Episcopalian. I cannot prove to a Pentecostal that my doctrines are more "correct" than his, much less to an atheist, who denies God's very existence. Therefore, I don't have the right to persecute anybody else for disagreeing with me, any more than they have the right to do the same to me.

And this is what has always been a Masonic ideal, taken straight from the Age of Enlightenment, immediately following an era of the most brutal and gruesome torture and murder, all performed in the name of Christ.

Baby and the bathwater, eh? Masonic ideals had spread all across Europe and America by the early 20th century, and yet a war far more brutal than the thirty years war erupted in 1914. (And Zion, the "triumphalist" mode of writing history that you mentioned began its decline immediately following WW1).

As a Christian, I hold to one truth, and one truth alone. Freemasonry denies this. Freemasonry is the incarnation of Pilate's words: "What is truth?"

Kepler

 

[amadeus72]

Ah...this is the nugget, isn't it. Freemasonry learned this lesson from the Thirty Years War: people disgree about religion, and we can never know for sure who is right. Therefore, let's dump all that doctrine stuff, and just agree that we should all behave nicely towards one another. Hence, the "ethics and morals" of the Freemasons, and the emphasis on republican and democratic values.

But Masonry doesn't "dump doctrine". It simply states that no one has the right to force his own doctrine on anyone else. That's a huge difference.

And, yes, Masonry does claim we should behave nicely toward each other regardless of our personal doctrines, and emphasizes morality and democratic values. Instead of being stumbling blocks, I see them as self-apparent truths.

The problem, of course, is that Christianity is not a faith about ethics and morality. Never was. Yes, some people have turned it into that and nothing more than that...but they are (quite simply) wrong.

If Christianity is not a faith about ethics and morality, then it would seem that Christ spent His entire ministry wasting His breath. I mean, when I open my Bible to verses printed in red, I get a completely different picture than the one you painted, and it seems to me His entire effort in teaching was directed toward the proper way to live, leading to eternal life, and He certainly included a system of ethics.

Baby and the bathwater, eh? Masonic ideals had spread all across Europe and America by the early 20th century, and yet a war far more brutal than the thirty years war erupted in 1914.

And another, even worse, in 1939. But obviously, those who were the perpetrators had completely rejected any Christian or Masonic ideals, regardless of the fact that both were spread across the continent. During WWI, it was common for German soldiers to carry copies of Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" on their person into battle, and we all know of Hitler's love of Nietzsche, regardless how much he twisted him. Masonry is a part of the Enlightenment, and Christianity is spiritual truth. Nietzsche rejected both the Enlightenment and spiritual truth, as did those who followed him (albeit, as mentioned, his followers twisted him as badly as Stalin did Marx).

 

[KEPLER]

If Christianity is not a faith about ethics and morality, then it would seem that Christ spent His entire ministry wasting His breath. I mean, when I open my Bible to verses printed in red, I get a completely different picture than the one you painted, and it seems to me His entire effort in teaching was directed toward the proper way to live, leading to eternal life, and He certainly included a system of ethics.

No. Christianity is not a faith about ethics and morailty.

Christianity is a faith which believes in a God who saves unethical immoral people who HATE Him.

Ethics and morality are NOT a path to salvation; they are the result of salvation.

What Jesus taught was that God's REAL ethics ("Be ye Holy as I AM Holy") are WAAAAAAAY out of reach. Jesus was not the Kantian that modern theology has turned him into: just because He taught us to live perfectly does NOT therefore imply that we are capable of living perfectly. His teaching, in fact, is the exact opposite. The Rich Young Ruler (self-righteous little prick) came to Jesus and claimed that he had done everythign to fulfill the law. But Jesus saw his evil heart and said, "Oh yeah? You think you've fulfilled the law? Try this on for size: go and sell everything, give it to the poor and follow me."

Pace the silly Marxists who think that Jesus is advocating socialism here, Jesus is actually exposing the particular evil that this man had hidden deep in his heart, and telling him, "Pal, no matter how hard you try not to be, you're still a sinner!"

No. Christianity is not a faith about ethics and morailty.

 

[Rick Otto]

was prove doctrine by internal structural integrety & efficient interaction with other doctrines.
Knowing the attendant history, the story of the origins & editing of doctrines gives insight into the motives for misunderstandings &/or outright changes.

Another interesting society with a secret element on conspiritorial par w/the Masons would be the Jesuits.
I wonder if there's any published info on how those two interacted. Wasn't Napolean involved with both?

 

[ZionKnight]

Ummmm...break all the mirrors? Of course, I'm barefoot at this point, so I have to be careful...

And, BTW, I'm one of those guys with a pen and a Ph.D. (in History, no less!)

Cheers,

Kepler

It is an entirely valid solution, one which I did anticipate, and yes, that is why you don't get shoes. I find it once again uh.... coincidental? that you and Mr. Amadeus have set me up. With you mentioning this solution and he mentioning Nietzsche, I am beginning to suspect that I am on to something. Which, prevokes me to this prayer:

Dear Jesus, steady my hand
and make my heart true
let me shine with the light
that comes only from You
that I may reveal this 'something'
as You intend me to.​

But, the point of this post is so that I may recognize the hard work and sacrifice that you went through to get that degree. I do not wish to, by any means, belittle that which you or any other historian has earned. I realize that you guys have been working to get those degrees for more years then I have just been out of high school! Now, having said that, let me also say this:
I think that I can also say with the same confidence that what you, as an accredited historian, will write about history, and what an atheistic, liberal historian may say about the very same history will, at the very least, sound different. The same effect is true in journalism. It seems that, no matter how 'objective' we try to be, our own personal beliefs and political standpoints (Is there a difference?) bleed through. And, what are historians but journalists of ancient news? And what is 'news' but the basis of our world view? It seems to me that the burden of the historian is to inform the 'we that are' of 'that which was' so that the 'we that are' may better shape the 'that which ought to be'. But, not all historians agree on what 'ought to be', do they? ​

 

[ZionKnight]

As I wrote in my previous post, I have been set up to rant some more. I will in this post list a few representatives of various religions and philosophical standpoints and how I think that they, if transported to this room of mirrors, would react, and end with what I think the masons would say. I am sure that you could insert just about any of these into my riddle, but, I can only write about the ones that I have (at least a hint of) understanding about.

Athiest: I will start with these since Nietzsche was already mentioned. In my wanderings, I have found three different kinds of athiests, they are as such:
The scientific athiest, who would probobly, at first, follow the same method that I originally stated, walk from image to image touching each, until they found her. But, they would eventually conclude that there is no alice. And, maybe even that the whole ordeal is just a psychotic episode of a schitzophrenic mind in need of serious medication.
The philosophcal athiest, where Nietzsche would fall, and since he is the only athiestic philosopher that I know about, I will let him 'represent'. I believe that he would smash through as many of the mirrors as he could, declaring that 'if the image can be broken, then it should not stand anyway'. My little brother, who adopted much of our perception of Niezsche's philosophy, (if there was a smilie that rolled his eyes and twirled his finger sardonically, I would have inserted him here,) coined his own phrase: Philobusting (not filerbustering) which means to take any system of belief and try to find holes in it. If there are holes to be found, then that system of belief must be rejected. My brother used to throw those infamous quotes around any chance he could. "God is dead" and "what does not kill me, only makes me stronger." To which, I would reply, "Bub, Neitzsche is dead, something killed him, why would you follow the philosophy of a man who couldn't even follow his own?"
But back to the point, I believe that if Nietzsche was brought to this room, (which, in a way, he was,) he would break as many mirrors as he could, (which, in a way, he did,) and would eventually bleed to death, (he did,).
And, the defiant atheist, who is an athiest just to spite the world, would just hang out in some corner thinking of ways to ridicule those who are searching.

Buddha: I think, would say "Whoah, now that, by all means, is the best mushroom I have eaten so far!"

Buddhist: I think, would say: "You must keep searching, for seaching's sake, until you have exhasted all of your ability search. Then, and only then, will be able to truly say that the mirrors are meant to reflect, and when you 'reflect' within yourself, the State of Alice will find you."

Hindu: I think, would say: Something very simular but, would add, "the mirrors reflect the Alice from which you came. They still reflect the Alice wherever you go because, you have never really ceased to be a part of the Alice. When you can truly grasp hold of this, you may return to the Alice.

George Lucas' Yoda: I think would say, (and why not? Lucas' view of the force has influenced many people and still influences the minds of young people today.): "Use the force, you must. Trust your eyes, you cannot. Are told what they can see, your eyes do. Use the force, you must. In all things, the force is. Knows all things, the force does. Use the force, you must. Used by the force, you must be. Then, revealed to you, the path will be. (eeeeeehhh, sort of close.)

The Kawalski brothers: (The writers of The Matrix,): I think would say, "The powers that be, (whoever they are,) have constructed this 'house of mirrors' just to keep you preoccupied, so that, they may ennact whaever plans they have for your mind. You must free your mind of the initial governing pradigm, (the sheer curiosity,) and keep telling yourself, 'There is no room,'. Then, you must disregard the images altogether, and find a way out of this illusionary box." (even closer, but, it's not the neo, [the one.])

The Mason: I think would say, "You must first, understand that the mirrors, you, and even alice, for that matter, are reflecting some singular source of light. You must see that every reflection has that one commonaltiy, that they share some part of the original light. When we cease to look to the 'reflections' and look instead to the source of light, then we will have found a better answer, ( and, again, for that matter, you could then use simple trigonometry to find the first alice, if you wanted to.)

That is all I have time for, and , like I said, you could insert just about any doctrine into this 'formula'. And, yes, you could insert Christianity into it as well, but, I am saving that one for my final ranting.
Until then, take care, and be careful.