# History of Freemasonry



## RHS (Apr 19, 2012)

Is there a thread on here or can anyone enlighten me onto what they think the origin of Freemasonry is and when and where do they think it was created? I know the GL of England was founded in the 1700s but how far back do you think it goes?

Thanks.


----------



## Benton (Apr 19, 2012)

Good luck with that broad of a question, heh. Truth is, we don't really know how far back it goes. There are pretty clear records of lodges in Scotland (as I understand it) going into the 1600's. Of course, then there's the Regius Poem, which seems to have early Freemasonic connections, and its been dated back as far as the late 14th century, depending on who you ask.

Unfortunately, the exact origins of Freemasonry are somewhat lost to history, at least thus far. But its definitely an interesting topic to research, and there are many well written books with theories (some plausible and well documented, others not so much...) as to its origins.


----------



## promason (Apr 19, 2012)

Aren't Masonry roots Solomonic and related to King Solomon Temple spiritual symbolism?Thanks for lightening my modest lamp on the most fascinating spiritual matter and wisdom of all times


----------



## RHS (Apr 19, 2012)

So all the Dan Brown or National Treasure theories aren't plausible? bummer...

On a side note, why do you think there are so many farfetched theories or conspiracy ideas out there? 

Thanks!


----------



## Benton (Apr 19, 2012)

I think its partially because people like the romantic. 

The knight templar theory, for example. It has a certain romanticism. It's semi-plausible. And lacking hard evidence otherwise, you can't truly disprove it. Even if its all circumstantial evidence, and mostly coincidental, its something people like to grasp onto. (You can read _Born in Blood_ by John J. Robinson for a rundown of this theory. It didn't really convince me, but it raised some interesting points.)

But aside from the romanticism from all the far fetched theories, its also because we just don't know beyond a certain date. We can only trace things back so far, and before that, there is nothing. And if the organization truly was avoiding persecution in the early days (for whatever reason) and truly was avoiding written records, it would explain the complete void of information before a certain point. It would also mean the likelyhood of us ever discovering the 'truth' is slim. 

On a side note, I wish there really was a national treasure. I'd retire now. (At 24. :001_rolleyes


----------



## RHS (Apr 19, 2012)

Seems weird that the organization would just 'spring up' from no where. I'm sure that it had to of existed before the official formation of lodges in the 1700s. 

Interesting to learn and hear about all the ideas out there. Thanks!


----------



## Benton (Apr 19, 2012)

Well, it definitely existed before that. The lodges simply became public in (I believe it was) 1717. Before that, Freemasonry had been a 'secret society'. No one doubts it existed before that. But because of its relatively secretive nature before that, remaining records of its origins are sketchy at best, and we are forced to piece together guesses based on what we do have.


----------



## JJones (Apr 19, 2012)

I find the idea that Freemasonry originally stemmed from the Dionysians to be particularly interesting:

Dionysian Artificers index


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 19, 2012)

*That is a great question, Brother. I just called the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Montana and received permission to post this article which first appeared in the Montana Freemason Magazine, March 2012, copyright GL Montana and author. This might provide some additional food for thought.

SOME MASONIC MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS

* *H*ave you ever heard someone say, *â€œNobody really knows when Masonry began,â€* or *â€œNo-one knows who wrote our Masonic rituals, and where?â€*
*O*r have you heard (this one seems to be a more recent, in-our-lifetime,  phenomena), *â€œThe allegory or symbolism in Masonry can mean whatever you want it to mean,â€* and *â€œWe donâ€™t know what the emblems mean?â€*

*P*robably you have heard someone claim that, *â€œFreemasonry uses the symbols of the ancient Egyptians or Phoenicians,â€* or that *â€œThe Knights Templar discovered secrets beneath King Solomonâ€™s Temple, and, after being disbanded, they joined the medieval stonemasons, whose traditions we preserve?â€ *

*I*f any of the above statements seem familiar to you, have you ever asked on what facts they stand? Letâ€™s see if we can determine anything at all factual regarding those six statements, and, if found, consider what those facts may mean.

*Fi*rst Statement: Modern, Grand Lodge Era Freemasonry began at a London Tavern in 1717. Perhaps that isnâ€™t old enough for you. (300 years isnâ€™t enough?!) I hear you saying, â€œBut we have minutes from a Lodge in Scotland from 1598. We have the â€˜oldest Masonic document,â€™ the Regius MS, from about 1390.â€  I ask you: Were the Masons of _that_ time practicing what _we_ do now?
*C*onsider this: prior to the early 1700â€™s, it seems that there were only two ceremonies - not three - one of which, the Masterâ€™s Part, seems to have been very less widely known. So, no â€œthree degreesâ€ for the men of 1598. Also, the Old Charges â€“ the collection of documents to which the Regius MS belongs â€“ are agreed to have been one of the main focuses in the ceremony of admission through the beginning of the 1700â€™s. A copy of them acted like a modern Charter/Warrant/Dispensation. The story they tell is of a series of widely         divergent times, places, and people, with King Solomon and his Temple getting a brief treatment. If King      Solomon, and the building of his Temple, were _not_ the primary story-telling device pre-Revival of 1717, and if there werenâ€™t even three degrees widely known (at least one Lodge in the 1750â€™s still hadnâ€™t been aware of the division into three Degrees!), shouldnâ€™t we instead ask â€œwhen did _our_ typeâ€ of Speculative Masonry begin? It seems fair to note that â€œsomething different happenedâ€ after the Revival of 1717. At least, for the Masonry that we practice now. *Go ahead, look it all up*.

* S*econd Statement: I think that we have a pretty good idea who wrote much of our Masonic ritual, and where. You know that section in our Monitors during the Second Degree, about Geometry, that says, â€œBy    Geometry, we may curiously trace Nature..?â€ That was first delivered by a Bro. named Charles Leslie, a writer, at the founding of his Lodge in Scotland, in 1741. We know the name of the Lodge, the date; records exist of him visiting other Lodges. â€œAlright,â€ you say, â€œbut thatâ€™s just one thing.â€ Let us consider the Apron Lecture in the First Degree. You know, the one about how, â€œIt may be, in the coming years, upon your head...?â€ That was written by Bro. Robert F. Stobo in New York City. Stobo belonged to a Lodge in Brooklyn, among others, and wrote that in the 1870â€™s. Whole parts of the Installation Ceremony were written by Brothers Calcott and Hutchinson, in the 1760â€™s and 1770â€™s respectively.  The Prayer at Initiation (â€œâ€¦and be a true and faithful Brother among usâ€) is derived from one first printed in 1730 in Ireland by Bro. Pennell, and part of that also ended up in the Opening Prayer. The First Degree Charge ("Ancient, as having existed/subsisted from time immemorialâ€¦â€ depending on which is given) is derived from one first printed in 1735 by Bro. Smith, also in Ireland. *Go ahead, look them up*.

 â€œ*O*k, so thatâ€™s fine,â€ I hear you saying now, â€œbut those Old Charges, thereâ€™s no way anybody could know who wrote them or where they derived _their_ sources.â€ Perhaps. Or, perhaps we do know. The â€œoldest Masonic document,â€ the Regius? Parts of it are taken from â€œInstructions for Parish Priests,â€  written about 1382 by John Mirk, a canon from Lilleshall Abbey. Other parts come from â€œUrbanitatis,â€ (parts of which were printed in â€œThe Babyâ€™s Book,â€) and is a selection on proper â€œurbaneâ€ manners. The â€œsecond oldestâ€ Masonic document, the Cooke MS (possibly of 1420-ish), also takes whole sections from other works, notably the Polychronicon, a popular medieval encyclopedia written by Ranulf Higden. These are just some of the selections. So, I think it is very fair to say that we actually do have a pretty good idea of who wrote much of our Masonic ritual. *Go ahead, look it up*
.
*T*hird Statement: The Masonic ritual does NOT â€œmean whatever you want it to mean.â€ This one ties in closely with the Fourth Statement, that â€œnobody knowsâ€ what the emblems mean. Both also have some links with â€œrelativism,â€ a parasite on critical thinking.
*L*et us consult our Masonic emblems and ask them what they might mean. â€œThe Lambskin Apron is an emblem of innocence.â€ Huh. Well, does that seem at all vague to you? Does that seem like it is open to a whole lot of interpretation? It is an emblem of innocence. You know: purity. Sounds pretty straight-forward to me. â€œBut thatâ€™s only one emblem,â€ you say. Fine, I grant you that. Letâ€™s examine some others. A square, which has an application to an actual stonemason, is, in Masonry, an emblem of true morality, virtue. Hmm. Well, letâ€™s look at some other working tools. We are taught that the twenty four inch gauge teaches us to wisely use our time; that the plumb teaches us to walk uprightly; that the level reminds us that we are all on the same level (and that though we rise up and may walk upright like the plumb, we will all be leveled again, in Death); the common gavel teaches us to remove the vices from ourselvesâ€¦ and on and on. What about the emblems in the Third Degree, then? The Pot of Incense â€œis an emblem of a pure heart;â€ It is not, â€œan emblem of some mystic from 3,000 years ago,â€ it is not, well, anything _else_. The   Beehive is an emblem of industry. Working together. Several workers, building together, _inside_ of a    structure and hidden from _outside_ eyes - like a lodge.  That sure doesnâ€™t seem hard to grasp. These, and the other ones in our Lectures, are the only ones that we teach. And they are pretty plain-spoken in telling us what they mean. *Go ahead, look them up.
*
*S*o, when someone says â€œwe donâ€™t knowâ€ what the symbols mean, perhaps what is meant is, â€œI, _myself_, do not know what they mean,â€ which is not at all the same. You can lead a horse to  water, and a Mason to Masonic meetings, but you canâ€™t make it drink, or him learn. When a man says that the symbols are open to interpretations and that they can mean â€œwhatever you want them to mean,â€ he is saying that _he_ canâ€™t be bothered to accept the meanings that they already have, and again, that is not at all the same.

*F*ifth Statement: Freemasonry does NOT use the symbols of the ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians,  Pythagoreans, or anybody else. It already has a theme: that of actual stone masons. The symbols are chosen to â€œimprint on the mind.â€ A common illustration may suffice:

*T*he â€œall-seeing-eyeâ€ is often a starting point for some men to reach into their top hat and pull out an Egyptian    rabbit. â€œWell, the Egyptians had the Eye of Horus or Ra.â€ Or, some point to _other_ religions and cultures and, by    stacking up every single possible instance of the use of _that_ symbol, seek to demonstrate some syncretic mystical  melting pot of symbolism that Freemasonry supposedly preserves. Let us put on our thinking caps, and do some      critical thinking.

*T*he Book of Constitutions, guarded by the Tylerâ€™s Sword, says that we should have Right Thoughts, Right Words, Right Actions. Thatâ€™s pretty straight-forward. Think rightly, speak rightly, do rightly. The All-Seeing-Eye says that ALTHOUGH our Thoughts, Words, and Actions might be hidden from the _eye of man(kind)â€¦._ that all-seeing-eye pervades the innermost recesses of the human heart. Remember the Pot of Incense from earlier?  It is an emblem of a Pure Heart, which is always an acceptable sacrifice to the deity. Therefore, _our_  Masonic â€œall-seeing-eyeâ€ isnâ€™t an emblem of any specific culture or religion, but of the   Deity, able to look into our hearts. Even though your Thoughts, Words, and Actions may be hidden from the eye of MANâ€¦ etc. This does not open the door into every other culture that used an eye.

*A*nother common mistake is found in the 47th Problem of Euclid, â€œan invention of our ancient friend and brother, the great Pythagoras.â€ Firstly, it was actually Archimedes who famously issued that phrase, Eureka, which we attribute to Pythagoras in our Lecture on the 47th Problem. *Go ahead, look it up*. But, and most importantly, the entire        digression into Euclid, Pythagoras, or even Archimedes, entirely misses the point, which is summed up by the final sentence: â€œIt [the 47th Problem] teaches Masons to be general lovers of the arts and sciences.â€ That sentence tells us all that we need to know, at least for immediate purposes, about that emblem â€“ *what the emblem teaches us*. So, again, there is no   mystery there. It is not â€œwhatever you want it to be,â€ and it isnâ€™t that â€œnobody knowsâ€ what it means. The 47th Problem of Euclid teaches us to be lovers of the arts and sciences; it does not teach us to draw comparisons with other myths and stories around those men. *Go ahead, look it up.*

*S*ixth Statement: There is an ongoing belief among a few Masons that Freemasonry began at King Solomonâ€™s     Temple. In light of the forgoing, I hardly think King Solomonâ€™s Temple to have been the predominant feature in Masonry several hundred years ago. However, letâ€™s, like above, use some critical thinking and see what we can deduce.

*P*hilosophy â€“ Western Philosophy, specifically, but even generally â€“ did  not quite exist as such thousands upon   thousands of years ago. And that matters because a Speculative Mason is a _philosophical_ Mason â€“ one Masonic in spirit, but not usually in every day profession. To speculate here is to philosophize. Philosophy is the medium that Freemasonry uses, and philosophy did not exist as such at the time of King Solomon (assuming he and his famous Temple existed, which not all biblical scholars are agreed upon). Thales is considered the first â€œ Ancient philosopher,â€ and among the Greeks, using the methods that we now find so  common, philosophy did not really come about until the revolutionary thought of Socrates.

*B*ut, setting aside all of philosophy â€“ pretty much setting aside all _Speculative _Freemasonry â€“ letâ€™s ask ourselves: Did Solomon speak English? Did he pay dues? Wear an apron? (And if so, what shape? The length and general shape of aprons has changed significantly!) Where did he and his buddies, Hiram, and Hiram, and his other Brother, sit in the Lodge? East, West, and South. Right? Wrong. The arrangement of officers at the Revival of 1717 had the Master in East, but both Wardens in the West â€“ the Northwest and the Southwest. One of the many competing Grand Lodges in England, the â€œAncientsâ€ Grand Lodge, favored the East, West, and South. If your Lodge officers sit in this position, thank the Ancients.

*S*o: no philosophy, no English, no dues (and paid to whom?) no apron, and no sitting in the East, West, and  Southâ€¦ surely he, King Solomon knew all of our Due Guards and Signs, then, right? Err, well, remember above: there were probably NOT three distinct degrees more than 300 years ago, let alone around 3,000 years ago. But, let us, for the sake of argument, consider the Due Guards and signs â€“ and let us pretend that all three â€“ wait, donâ€™t we also have Grand Hailing Signs, and Public Grand Honors, and Private Grand Honors andâ€¦ well, letâ€™s stick to the three degrees. Many of those who favor the Masonic syncretism and relativism path will look at, for example, the Due Guard of a   Fellowcraft and say, â€œThat sign has been given by ancient Egyptian rulers thousands of years ago. It was given by other cultures,â€ and then point to a picture of an Egyptian pharaoh giving what appears to be the Fellowcraft Due Guard, and so on. It is given as â€œevidenceâ€ that Masonry is old, and derived from some â€œunderground streamâ€ of ancient mysticism, because, well, those examples given are old. Laying aside the fact that logic does NOT tell us that, â€œbecause those examples are old, and our sign looks like those examples, ergo, our signs must be old and from those examples,â€ let us consider this fact: our Due Guards and Signs were changed in America in 1843.
*W*ait, what?! *Go ahead, look it up.*

*I*t was at the Baltimore Convention, and hereâ€™s what one of the leading figures of that assembly had to say about making the change, â€œI had the honor to be a member of the Committee, and to report the amendments and the lectures as amended, to the Convention. This I did without alterations from the original; and these are now in my possession. They are mostly verbal, few in number, and not material in their results. The only change of consequence was in the due guards of the second and third degrees, which were changed and made to conform to that of the first degree in position and explanation. This was analogically correct.â€ Soâ€¦ you mean to tell us, Bro. Moore, that you just changed the modes of recognition? Yep. Hmm, well, at least they didnâ€™t change anything _else_ at that Conventionâ€¦.  Unless, maybe, they did?! Bro. Moore, you reversed the three â€œmovableâ€ and the three â€œimmovableâ€ jewels in the EA Lecture - surely you guys have a good reason, right? Mooreâ€™s answer: â€œâ€¦the decision of the Convention, which we  believe now to be the general practice of the country. We are free to admit we do not attach much importance to the reasoning; nor do we think it very essential whether the first or the last three be considered the immovable Jewels.â€ Hmm, fantastic answer, sir.

*T*here were plenty of other changes at that Convention. But, laying _those_ aside for a moment, just consider that   Montana jettisoned its previous â€œesotericâ€ ritual in the 1880â€™s, for one given by Rob Morris in his illegal cipher, the  Mnemonics â€“ thatâ€™s right, the same Bro. Morris who had been banned from self-promoting in several states twenty years earlier, including Montana. So, when we ask â€œ_which Masonry that King Solomon was supposed to be practicing_,â€ we can open up that field pretty widely.  Which jewels did King Solomon consider â€œmovable,â€ and what did his Fellowcraft Due Guard look like? â€“ certainly not like that supposed ancient Egyptian example. *Well, go ahead, look all of that up for yourself*.

*S*oâ€¦ if King Solomon (if he existed) didnâ€™t practice what we think of as Speculative Masonry, and if King Solomon wasnâ€™t even the leading character in the Old Chargesâ€¦ _what, exactly, did the Knights Templar supposedly find and then transmit to stone masons?_
*F*inally, in that regard, look up â€œRamsayâ€™s Oration,â€ and then ask yourself when and where the Knights Templar may have entered popular Masonic consciousness. *Really, go ahead, look that one up, too.*

*W*hich brings us back to the question: when did _our_ type of Masonry really take off?
*A*ll of this should get you to thinking, and, in thnking, asking yourself more questions.
*H*ave you ever heard it claimed that Freemasonry has some relationship to generic, vaguely defined, â€œmysticism?â€ Or that it uses things from the Kabbalah, or Sufism, or Gnosticism, or  alchemy? Or preserves a secret bloodline of Jesus? If you have â€“ and even if you havenâ€™t, be aware that all of this, and more, has been claimed by Masons, and is out there *â€“   go ahead, do yourself a favor and look this all up*.

*     Go ahead, look me up*: (406) 442-7774, BroDan@GrandLodgeMontana.org Tell me what _you_ found.


----------



## felix_mason (Apr 20, 2012)

Thanks for that post, Brother Ron. 

Daniel


----------



## Brother Jason Eddy (Apr 20, 2012)

I respectfully disagree with what seems to be the overriding premise of the article which is that Masonic ritual should simply be taken at face value. That we are not intended to look beyond what has been published by various Grand Lodge Officers and/or Masonic bodies.

In my short time as a Mason, I have found there to be two main types of Masonic writers.  Those who are very “literal” who constantly quote other books, documents and writings.  Then there are those who are more “speculative” that seek to find deeper connections that may (or may not depending on your stance) be veiled.  It seems that this author is very much a “literal” Mason.  He frequently quotes from various conventions and uses dates of ritual modification as a means of disproving any ancient ties or meaning.  To be clear, I am not a believer that ancient=better.  Masonry could have come into existence last week and in my eyes carry the same significance and meaning.  As such, I think it is presumptuous to remove any connection between, for example, the due guard of the second degree and the ancient Egyptians simply because it was changed in 1843.  Or more importantly, if it were mere coincidence that Brother Moore changed the due guard to something that looked Egyptian, does that make the moral lesson any less meaningful when a connection is made?  In my eyes, there is much more to Masonry than is “written” in the pages of our ritual.  If not, are we to believe that the only “veil” is the book-cover on the ritual?  What are we supposed to “speculate” on if we can simply read the book?

While I am not quite in the camp of “Symbols mean different things to different people”, I do believe that they can have many different levels of meaning to different people.  There are connections that can be made throughout our ritual…are they by the design of man or the design of the GAOTU?  Who knows.  But that doesn’t make them any less meaningful. 

At a higher level, it can certainly be said that “Masonry means different things to different people”.  I take no offense by those that see it as something that can be understood simply by reading the ritual and accepting what is written.  If a Brother can glean something positive from this form of Masonry then I will certainly support him on his journey.  I do, however, take offense by those that seek to discredit those that seek a deeper meaning to its symbols.

As to the original poster.  The answer to your question depends on its wording.

When was Freemasonry created?  I would say in London in the early 1700’s.

When was Masonry created? As soon as man placed value on morality, equality and rectitude of life.

In Brotherhood,

Jason


----------



## promason (Apr 21, 2012)

That definition may be the most correct and perhaps the most exact


----------



## RHS (Apr 21, 2012)

Jason, Thanks. I liked that last quote.


----------



## felix_mason (Apr 25, 2012)

Brother Jason Eddy said:


> Masonry could have come into existence last week and in my eyes carry the same significance and meaning.


 
Outstanding. I was thinking the same thing!



Brother Jason Eddy said:


> As such, I think it is presumptuous to remove any connection between, for example, the due guard of the second degree and the ancient Egyptians simply because it was changed in 1843.


 
ok, now you lost me. If it makes no difference if it came into existence last week, it shouldnt matter if there is no ancient egyptian connection, right? 

And remember, nobody was making claims about it being an egyptian sign before... that came after the change. I have also seen folks try and claim it is some Hermetic sign, with a meaning of "As Above, So Below." which, of course, only works if it looked that way prior to the change, and had that meaning. It didnt have that meaning beforehand, or after, and it didnt look that way. So, invalid either way.

It is a three-fold sign previously. 

And not Egyptian. And meaningful without being Egyptian.



Brother Jason Eddy said:


> Or more importantly, if it were mere coincidence that Brother Moore changed the due guard to something that looked Egyptian, does that make the moral lesson any less meaningful when a connection is made?


 
Moore himself did not call it Egyptian, others did later. Also, it wasnt changed to look egyptian, it was changed to match the format of the EA sign.

If you read the article, you will notice that it was made that way so that it matched the supposed reason in the 1st Degree, ie position/hand placements, and to be given a sign according to squares, levels, and plumbs. And, since the EA was two separate signs, given in that manner, the other two were changed accordingly. The signs are meant as a reminder and a means of identification, they dont need any elaborate children's fables to be meaningful. 



Brother Jason Eddy said:


> In my eyes, there is much more to Masonry than is “written” in the pages of our ritual. If not, are we to believe that the only “veil” is the book-cover on the ritual? What are we supposed to “speculate” on if we can simply read the book?


 
You may need to consult your minister on what more you need/want to believe.

As to speculation, masonry is a speculative science, one of moral architecture. You speculate on that.

You do not speculate, at least as a Mason, on other things, such as Kabbalah, Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Martinism, Rosicrucianism, or any other isms. 



Brother Jason Eddy said:


> *I respectfully disagree with what seems to be the overriding premise of the article which is that Masonic ritual should simply be taken at face value*. *That we are not intended to look beyond what has been published by various Grand Lodge Officers and/or Masonic bodies*.


 
See above.

It is a self-contained system. One need not spend much of their time on this earth learning Coptic Egyptian in order to learn to read first-hand 2nd Century texts in order to understand Freemasonry. 

Now, if a mason enjoys those things as a personal hobby or interest, or practices those as his religion, so be it. However, that does not make them Freemasonry, no matter how much he wants them to.

The lambskin apron is an emblem of innocence. Not an emblem of Hermes Trismegistus. Not an emblem of Iamblichus. Not... etc. And we are given an apron as part of our heritage of employing the moralizing upon the trade in architecture.

We are not invested with a Cadeuces, and said that we, as free and accepted masons, are taught to make use of it for... whatever I guess you would use one for. We are not invested with an alembic or other alchemical glassware and told that, the alembic is an instrument made use of by operative alchemists to put things in, but we, as ancient free and accepted alchemists are taught to make use of it for the more noble and glorious purpose of...

... well, anything.

So, I disagree. 

Masonry is a self-contained eco-system, so far as that goes. It utilizes ethics and philosophy, science and investigation through reason and the senses. But it does not need outside aides, be they voodoo, gematria, dowsing, astral projection, crystals, or anything else.

Masonry does not require adepts who spend years of their lives in their basements working on laboratory beakers, or investing in thousand dollar annotated texts of long dead heretical sects. A man will have to expel body waste, consume food, and live, regardless.

Oh yeah, and die.

In the meantime, you make the best you can with what youve been given.

So, I still disagree. When I present a candidate with a common gavel, and moralize upon it, i dont do so with the caveat that he must also then learn shamanism to get its full benefits; when I invest a candidate with a 24 inch guage, I dont insist that he learn numerology, otherwise he wont be getting the "full benefit" of the teaching (and that, therefore, others who do, are).



Brother Jason Eddy said:


> While I am not quite in the camp of “Symbols mean different things to different people”, I do believe that they can have many different levels of meaning to different people. There are connections that can be made throughout our ritual…are they by the design of man or the design of the GAOTU? Who knows. But that doesn’t make them any less meaningful.


 
Um, no. God did not write our Masonic ritual. 

A moral science. Created by man, for man. Which is why it is ok if we dont always meet the expecations that it spells out for us - if we didnt need it, we wouldnt belong to it. We are fallible creatures.

So, as you say, since it simply man-made, it doesnt make it any less meaningful.

       ...right?

So -- "are they the design of man?" and "who knows?" Well, did you do any fact checking to see if you could corroborate what the author of the article claimed about who wrote what? Because it is all verifiable in top ten google searches. 

If you would like to claim that Bro. Charles Leslie was laboring under the muse of the Holy Spirit while writing the speech he gave that has later been re-printed and adapted, I would love to see your evidence for this.

Perhaps he had massaged some chicken bones he had shaken out of a cup to read an augury and after meditating, drawing blood from his palm, and casual conversation with a daemon, he was moved by Deity to write that.

Also, he could have just written that as a man. 

Who knows, right? 

As for myself, I choose to go with the evidence provided, seeing no reason to be unsatisfied with it as a man-made institution, one that does not need thousands of years of unbroken lineage. The words were designed to evoke powerful feelings and imagery. That doesnt make them divine. It makes them beautiful, relevant, and well-crafted. 

and man-made. not semi-godly man-made, not quasi, or anything else. just man. even if it had been an egyptian thousands of years ago, he was mortal, too. It wouldnt have conferred any more divinity or demigodness simply because of his culture, the age, or the feeling that his aged culture evokes in modern minds.

although... it wasnt an egyptian, it was a modern man named charlie.



Brother Jason Eddy said:


> _There are connections that can be made throughout our ritual…are they by *the design of man* or the design of the GAOTU? Who knows. *But that doesn’t make them any less meaningful.*_


 
Still cool with it being written by humans, right? Alright, great! Not divinely intervened, but still meaningful.

By humans, for humans.

And still really cool and awesome.


----------



## Brother Jason Eddy (Apr 26, 2012)

felix_mason said:


> Outstanding. I was thinking the same thing!


 
I am glad we can agree on that.

Originally Posted by *Brother Jason Eddy* 
*As such, I think it is presumptuous to remove any connection between, for example, the due guard of the second degree and the ancient Egyptians simply because it was changed in 1843.*

Originally Posted by *Brother Jason Eddy* 
*Or more importantly, if it were mere coincidence that Brother Moore changed the due guard to something that looked Egyptian, does that make the moral lesson any less meaningful when a connection is made?*



felix_mason said:


> ok, now you lost me. If it makes no difference if it came into existence last week, it shouldnt matter if there is no ancient egyptian connection, right?
> 
> And remember, nobody was making claims about it being an egyptian sign before... that came after the change. I have also seen folks try and claim it is some Hermetic sign, with a meaning of "As Above, So Below." which, of course, only works if it looked that way prior to the change, and had that meaning. It didnt have that meaning beforehand, or after, and it didnt look that way. So, invalid either way.
> 
> ...


 
I think that you may be missing my point, Brother.  Or perhaps I am not explaining it well.  As you quoted me above, I stated that even if it were mere coincidence that the result of Brother Moore’s change looked Egyptian, it would not make it any less meaningful.  What I mean is that whether or not he intended it to have an “Egyptian connection” means nothing to the Brother who has made that connection on his own.  I may find a connection between the winding steps of 3, 5 and 7 steps that is powerful and meaningful to me that never even crossed the mind of the man who wrote the ritual.  That means nothing to me or the connection that I have made.  Nor does it lessen the Light that is gleened from that connection. The compasses were not invented to help man circumscribe his passions, but that makes the speculative application no less valuable.



felix_mason said:


> Moore himself did not call it Egyptian, others did later. Also, it wasnt changed to look egyptian, it was changed to match the format of the EA sign.
> 
> If you read the article, you will notice that it was made that way so that it matched the supposed reason in the 1st Degree, ie position/hand placements, and to be given a sign according to squares, levels, and plumbs. And, since the EA was two separate signs, given in that manner, the other two were changed accordingly. The signs are meant as a reminder and a means of identification, they dont need any elaborate children's fables to be meaningful.


 
Again, I did not claim it to have been changed to have an Egyptian connection.  I am very familiar with the position and hand placements that it mimics.



felix_mason said:


> Originally Posted by *Brother Jason Eddy*
> *In my eyes, there is much more to Masonry than is “written” in the pages of our ritual. If not, are we to believe that the only “veil” is the book-cover on the ritual? What are we supposed to “speculate” on if we can simply read the book?*
> 
> You may need to consult your minister on what more you need/want to believe.
> ...


 
I am perfectly comfortable Brother with what I believe, thank you.

Again, if a Mason can find connections to things such as Kabbalah, Hermeticism, Gnosticsm, Martinism, Rosicrucianism or any other isms then that is great for him!  There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.  Speculating involves introspection and study.  I believe that this goes beyond just reading the top ten google searches, but again take no offense by those who disagree.




felix_mason said:


> Originally Posted by *Brother Jason Eddy*
> *I respectfully disagree with what seems to be the overriding premise of the article which is that Masonic ritual should simply be taken at face value*_. *That we are not intended to look beyond what has been published by various Grand Lodge Officers and/or Masonic bodies*._
> 
> See above.
> ...


 
Your writing, both here and in other forums, suggests that you have an extensive knowledge of the ritual and the “children’s fables” that I and others have connected to Masonry. It would seem that you have not only chosen to ignore these connections, but made it your mission to convince others to do the same.  How tragic.

If a man seeks to find deeper connections with the symbolism with which he has been presented, then why would you seek to discourage that?  How does the application of “As Above, So Below” negatively impact a Brother’s journey in Masonry?   

Notice that I wrote “Masonry” and not “Freemasonry”.  If you read my initial post, I clarified the difference between the two.



felix_mason said:


> Originally Posted by *Brother Jason Eddy*
> *While I am not quite in the camp of “Symbols mean different things to different people”, I do believe that they can have many different levels of meaning to different people. There are connections that can be made throughout our ritual…are they by the design of man or the design of the GAOTU? Who knows. But that doesn’t make them any less meaningful.*
> 
> Um, no. God did not write our Masonic ritual.
> ...


 
Sadly, Brother you have once again missed the point.  I never said that G-d wrote our ritual.  I suggested that it could be by His design.  I think that many would agree that G-d did not make the tree growing in my front yard, but He did design it. 

As to the fact checking, I did not dispute any of the Brother’s facts.  If you read my post I simply stated that he was a “literal” Mason, as it would seem you are as well.  I take no offense to this stance.  I take offense to those who seek to discredit those who are “speculative” Masons and look beyond the top ten google searches.  If you are content with what you find in the top ten google searches on Masonry, then so be it.  I would never seek to belittle you simply because I seek more.



felix_mason said:


> Still cool with it being written by humans, right? Alright, great! Not divinely intervened, but still meaningful.
> 
> By humans, for humans.
> 
> And still really cool and awesome.


 
Again, I never suggested that it was not written by humans.  As to whether Divine intervention was at play, only G-d knows that.  I would suggest that in many noble undertakings He has a place in making it happen….and it is really cool and awesome.


----------



## felix_mason (Apr 26, 2012)

My Brother, I apologize for coming across so strongly. Your raising the example of the compasses is very much a reminder that I can and should subdue my passions and keep them within limits. I can be more moderate about this. 

While I will be more temperate and discrete, I stand by the facts, which are still amazing things in themselves, and infinitely interesting and in no way less or cheapened by the fact that they are not paranormal, supernatural, etc.

As to the top ten google search, I only mention that as a matter of convenience, not to say that there is not immediate evidence to hand in person by way of books and other ephemera. Out of curiosity - and I dont know what prompted me to do this - I once found on the Android market (where I can find apps for my phone) a copy of John Mirk's Instructions for Parish Priests. Now, the fact that I could (and did) download a copy of that work by an actual, once-living man, who's Instructions were incorporated into 

_"the oldest masonic document" that we are aware of_

should in no way diminish the facts. That it is handy, convenient, and freely available, doesn't alter anything. The facts alluded to in that article are things that others may investigate quickly and easily online. Or they may,for example, pick up a photographic reproduction of the Regius MS itself (that oldest document referred to) and seek out commentary from reputable scholars. 

And if they DO look for the tangible evidence, they still find out about John Mirk. 

And this is something demonstrable throughout much of masonic ritual, catechisms, exposures, and Old Charges - we know MORE about them than we claim to. It is not an "up-in-the-air" matter at all, a sort of free-for-all shootout in the Wild West, where nobody is sure where right and wrong lays, as there is no established civil government, locally, etc. So yes, perhaps you are correct in characterizing my writing as attempting to shine some light on some things claimed to be in darkness. It isnt so, and it isnt fair to our new brothers to exploit that purported darkness, and so I challenge it with less speculation and more evidence. As brothers, I appreciate your position in wanting there to be something to the contrary of the evidence. Masons sometimes make that choice. 

Congratulations on your being Senior Warden in your lodge in Ohio. I did a little poking around about you after you mentioned being familiar with my presence online!  I have never been to Monroe, (though Ive been to OH) but Ive heard ohio has one of the largest populations of masons in the country, in the top 5 at least. It seems like your lodge is very active and has a lot to look forward to. Also, congratulations on your meeting on Tuesday with the Lions and your Lodge together, and your discussion on the role of charity within your community - it was consistent with your article on another Mason's blog site that was, of course, very to the point, and I agree with you - working on ourselves, and then banding together, we can contribute to broad social uplift.


----------



## Brother Jason Eddy (Apr 26, 2012)

Brother,  I think that we have found solid agreement here.  I learned early on that “My Masonry” was not necessarily the Masonry of all of my Brothers.  I spent a fair amount of time initially trying to show my Brothers what they were missing in the areas “claimed to be in darkness”.  I soon realized that they were not missing it.  They knew that it was there, they just had no interest in it.  They were content with reading the ritual and taking things at face value and that is their right.  When we are asked “What came you here to do?” we will all reply with slightly different answers.  Therefore I always make an effort to respect “their Masonry” and simply share with them what I have found within “my Masonry”.  Some of the things they get a kick out of….others they have no interest at all.  That is ok.  But it is not my place to tell them that they are less of a Mason simply because they do not seek what I seek.  We all meet on the Level and that is how it should be.

I didn’t realize that there was so much information about me online :mellow:  I thank you for your congratulations.  We do have a large population of Masons here in Ohio.  If you are ever in or near Monroe, please feel free to drop me a line and I would be happy to show you around a bit or even sit in Lodge with you.  Until then, I wish you well.

Your Brother,

Jason


----------



## felix_mason (Apr 26, 2012)

Brother Jason Eddy said:


> *I didnâ€™t realize that there was so much information about me online* :mellow:


 
I know, right?! Probably how Charles Leslie and John Mirk felt ! :w00t:

* Or would,... if they hadnt been dead for a few hundred years. 

But in all seriousness, I appreciate brotherly love prevailing, and every moral and social virtue cementing us.


----------



## Brother Jason Eddy (Apr 26, 2012)

felix_mason said:


> But in all seriousness, I appreciate brotherly love prevailing, and every moral and social virtue cementing us.


 
So mote it be.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Apr 26, 2012)

RHS said:


> So all the Dan Brown or National Treasure theories aren't plausible? bummer...
> 
> On a side note, why do you think there are so many farfetched theories or conspiracy ideas out there?



When others press me about that, I tell them that the National Treasure does indeed exist...  We just forgot where we put it.  Thus, Freemasons are continually looking for "that which was lost."

It makes for a good story, anyway...


----------

