# Ancient "Freemasonry"?



## MasonomroM (Sep 19, 2018)

"In the depiction of the culminating rites shown in [this figure], the king, accompanied by a guardian with arms raised in the traditional attitude of prayer and worship, comes into the most sacred space of the palace where he would have received royal insignia from the hand of a representation of Ishtar, in the presence of other gods and divinized ancestors. The king’s hand is extended to receive these insignia while his arm is raised in a gesture of oath making. As also seen in biblical practice, the solemn nature of the oath was confirmed by touching the throat. Note that the Mesopotamian royal insignia of the rod and the coil as they were depicted here in 1800 bce, had a basic function of measurement similar to the square and compass in later times."

(See Bradshaw, J., [2015], Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances, The Interpreter, 15, 59-237).

I realize that it isn't popular in most modern-era masonic circles to suggest that masonry has some ancient antecedents, but wouldn't this be an example of one?

I personally don't think freemasonry is 100% ancient, but it seems to me that some of the symbols (square and compasses, for example) and other actions (penal oaths) are ancient.

Thoughts?


----------



## Elexir (Sep 19, 2018)

MasonomroM said:


> "In the depiction of the culminating rites shown in [this figure], the king, accompanied by a guardian with arms raised in the traditional attitude of prayer and worship, comes into the most sacred space of the palace where he would have received royal insignia from the hand of a representation of Ishtar, in the presence of other gods and divinized ancestors. The king’s hand is extended to receive these insignia while his arm is raised in a gesture of oath making. As also seen in biblical practice, the solemn nature of the oath was confirmed by touching the throat. Note that the Mesopotamian royal insignia of the rod and the coil as they were depicted here in 1800 bce, had a basic function of measurement similar to the square and compass in later times."
> 
> (See Bradshaw, J., [2015], Freemasonry and the Origins of Modern Temple Ordinances, The Interpreter, 15, 59-237).
> 
> ...



I would say that masonic ritual has been inspired by many diffrent ideas and thoughts so its not just one line of traditions.


----------



## coachn (Sep 19, 2018)

MasonomroM said:


> ...I realize that it isn't popular in most modern-era masonic circles to suggest that masonry has some ancient antecedents, but wouldn't this be an example of one?...


Nope


MasonomroM said:


> ...Thoughts?


Freemasonry started around 1717.  Masonry started when man started building with rocks.


----------



## LK600 (Sep 19, 2018)

MasonomroM said:


> I realize that it isn't popular in most modern-era masonic circles to suggest that masonry has some ancient antecedents, but wouldn't this be an example of one?



Only in that our rituals were inspired / based on pre-existing historical rituals that were based on other historical rituals at least in part, popularity being a non issue.  



MasonomroM said:


> I personally don't think freemasonry is 100% ancient, but it seems to me that some of the symbols (square and compasses, for example) and other actions (penal oaths) are ancient.



Of course in reference to the symbols.  There is no data (that I am aware of) directly tying Freemasonry to ancient anything, other than our adoption of specific items.  It also depends on where you draw a line as to what constitutes Freemasonry.  The first Grand Lodge?  1717 (approx).   The first speculative members?  1600's (give or take, and again, that I'm aware of).  The age of some of our symbols and rituals?  per-Solomon's Temple.


----------



## CLewey44 (Sep 19, 2018)

I think it's a really good picture but I don't think it is any more Masonic than any other picture of four or five people standing next to each other. If anything, it's more Golden Dawnish than anything.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 19, 2018)

Elexir said:


> I would say that masonic ritual has been inspired by many diffrent ideas and thoughts so its not just one line of traditions.





coachn said:


> Freemasonry started around 1717. Masonry started when man started building with rocks.





LK600 said:


> Of course in reference to the symbols. There is no data (that I am aware of) directly tying Freemasonry to ancient anything, other than our adoption of specific items.





CLewey44 said:


> I think it's a really good picture but I don't think it is any more Masonic than any other picture of four or five people standing next to each other. If anything, it's more Golden Dawnish than anything.


Agreed.


----------



## texanmason (Sep 24, 2018)

coachn said:


> Nope
> 
> Freemasonry started around 1717.  Masonry started when man started building with rocks.



If by "around 1717," you mean "well before 1717," then yes, that's when Freemasonry started.


----------



## CLewey44 (Sep 24, 2018)

This should get interesting lol


----------



## coachn (Sep 24, 2018)

texanmason said:


> If by "around 1717," you mean "well before 1717," then yes, that's when Freemasonry started.


LOL!  I meant exactly what I wrote.  No need to distort it to fit your paradigm. The role playing society now called "freemasonry" started around 1717.  The word "freemason" didn't even get coined till after that date.


----------



## MarkR (Sep 25, 2018)

coachn said:


> The role playing society now called "freemasonry" started around 1717.  *The word "freemason" didn't even get coined till after that date*.


http://www.themasonictrowel.com/Articles/Freemasonry/other_files/origin_of_the_word_freemason.htm


----------



## coachn (Sep 25, 2018)

MarkR said:


> http://www.themasonictrowel.com/Articles/Freemasonry/other_files/origin_of_the_word_freemason.htm


My point exactly!  Shoddy Scholarship. This author _rewrites_ history every time he took liberty and rendered the terms "free_manson" and "free-mason" as "freemason".

Look at the _original documents_!  The original documents show the terms "free_manson" or "free-mason", not "freemason".  The compound word "freemason" didn't come together until _after_ 1717!

Two questions should be raised...

1) Why were the terms written like this _prior_ to 1717 by those either involved in stonecraft of those writing about those involved in stonecraft?
2) Why would any_ legitimate scholar_ take such liberty in rendering them differently than they were originally written?


----------



## jermy Bell (Sep 25, 2018)

The more I try to understand the history of freemasonry, the more I'm confused. .... everyone seems to be obsessed with 1717, but with nothing carved in stone ( forgive the pun) it has to go way back somewhere. But there are tons of questions and a lot I have that no one can answer. So we speculate what, who, when, and where. I would really like to believe that future generations will find the right.


----------



## texanmason (Sep 25, 2018)

John, if we want to throw around the term "shoddy scholarship," then you should remember that spelling was not always as standardized as it is now. The terms "free mason" , "free-mason" , and "freemason" are context-based, and more often than not, refer to men who are members of Freemasonry. 

As an example, I would point you towards the name "Shakespeare," which did not standardize until the 1860s, but in every spelling, referred to the same individual. Did William Shakespeare not exist until the 1860s? See also: Sir Walter Raleigh, Thomas Dekker, etc.

Claiming that Freemasonry did not exist until 1717 because the spelling was not standardized until 1717 is simply not consistent with what we know about the Craft.


----------



## coachn (Sep 25, 2018)

texanmason said:


> John, if we want to throw around the term "shoddy scholarship," then you should remember that spelling was not always as standardized as it is now.


And while we're throwing around "shoulds", you should remember that the shoddy scholarship I referred to is changing the spelling of words that are reported rather than reporting what is actually written.  To claim the word "freemason" was used in a document when it was clearly written as "Free Mason" or "free-mason" misleads and falsifies what is reported.


texanmason said:


> The terms "free mason" , "free-mason" , and "freemason" are context-based,...


Thank you! Yes!  Absolutely!  Context is everything... ...and within context, the first two terms were used to refer to stonecraft solely prior to 1717 - not our theatrical role-playing society.  The last term was never used prior to around 1717 AND became exclusive to our organization of role-playing actors soon after it was created... around 1717!


texanmason said:


> ...and more often than not, refer to men who are members of Freemasonry.


Yes, but only after about 1717.


texanmason said:


> As an example, I would point you towards the name "Shakespeare," which did not standardize until the 1860s, but in every spelling, referred to the same individual. Did William Shakespeare not exist until the 1860s? See also: Sir Walter Raleigh, Thomas Dekker, etc.


<snicker> Straw man argument...


texanmason said:


> Claiming that Freemasonry did not exist until 1717 because the spelling was not standardized until 1717 is simply not consistent with what we know about the Craft.


It is based upon what Freemasonry has done since its beginning, circa 1717, versus what stonecraft did before, during and after 1717; they are totally unrelated activities aside from the use of stonecraft lexicon, lore and symbols by Freemasons in their morality plays and organizational roleplaying.  Spelling, within context, is merely an indicator.


----------



## texanmason (Sep 25, 2018)

coachn said:


> It is based upon what Freemasonry has done since its beginning, circa 1717, versus what stonecraft did before, during and after 1717; they are totally unrelated activities aside from the use of stonecraft lexicon, lore and symbols by Freemasons in their morality plays and organizational roleplaying.  Spelling, within context, is merely an indicator.



I'm sure Elias Ashmole got up to a lot of stonecrafting.


----------



## Elexir (Sep 25, 2018)

JamestheJust said:


> Most Masonic historians study the outer form:  records, organizational structures and members
> 
> A few study the soul of Masonry: ritual, brotherhood, teachings.  The soul of course may inhabit bodies (organizations) that differ greatly over the ages.
> 
> Hardly any study the spirit of Masonry.  This spirit remains unchanged while rituals and brotherhoods come and go and organizational structures flash by.



Actully the spirit of freemasonry differs depending on ritual used.


----------



## coachn (Sep 25, 2018)

texanmason said:


> I'm sure Elias Ashmole got up to a lot of stonecrafting.


LOL!  He certainly didn't get any role-playing theater.


----------



## texanmason (Sep 26, 2018)

coachn said:


> LOL!  He certainly didn't get any role-playing theater.



... and?


----------



## coachn (Sep 26, 2018)

texanmason said:


> ... and?


Not much to add.  The usual assumptions made by Freemasonic members that men joined these operative lodges to do speculative work is not a fantasy that I buy into.  The evidence is simply not there, but tons of conjecture on the part of members is.  More likely these men joined for the social and business connections since the entire group benefited by the synergy of these connections.  The evidence points to this being the case.

As an aside, true speculative masonry would be an analogues equivalent of the operative form.  That reality and practice has yet to come to fruition within the 1717 GL era Freemasonic system.


----------



## LK600 (Sep 26, 2018)

1646 is the date I am most comfortable pointing to (in relation to documentation).  1717 (disputed) is only the date of the 1st Grand lodge.  IMO, if a person considers our current system as its beginning... then the date would be 1717.  If a person considers speculative Masonry, the date is 1646.  There are earlier dates with documents which suggest much earlier, but again, things tend to get very murky with leaps of faith.  As always, just like everyone else here, Just my opinion.


----------



## coachn (Sep 26, 2018)

LK600 said:


> 1646 is the date I am most comfortable pointing to (in relation to documentation).  1717 (disputed) is only the date of the 1st Grand lodge.  IMO, if a person considers our current system as its beginning... then the date would be 1717.  If a person considers speculative Masonry, the date is 1646.  There are earlier dates with documents which suggest much earlier, but again, things tend to get very murky with leaps of faith.  As always, just like everyone else here, Just my opinion.


*The problem with the 1646 date is this:* 
_
You assume that a man joining an operative lodge and who has no interest in working upon stone and learning the hands on aspects of the trade is a speculative freemason *rather than the more realistic explanation of being merely just another member of a stonecraft lodge who simply wants the social and business benefits of membership in a stonecraft lodge.* 
_
That requires a leap of faith that far too many Freemasons willingly make.  Just because someone joined these stonecraft lodges doesn't automatically make them speculatives in an operative world.  There were many advantages of membership that had nothing to do with speculative assumptions.

Occum's Razor:  The simplest explanation is usually the correct.


----------



## LK600 (Sep 26, 2018)

coachn said:


> Occum's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct.



Yes sir, but the problem I have is, I do not believe your stance is the simplest explanation.  In some respects, I feel in order to claim all of Freemasonry started in 1717 requires almost the same mental acrobatics as would claiming Freemasonry started with the Templar's.  As my grandfather use to say... that dog don't hunt.    (of course the fun part about this is, none of us can prove anything regardless, so we can keep poking each other lol)


----------



## coachn (Sep 26, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Yes sir, but the problem I have is, I do not believe your stance is the simplest explanation.


Well understood.


LK600 said:


> In some respects, I feel in order to claim all of Freemasonry started in 1717 requires almost the same mental acrobatics as would claiming Freemasonry started with the Templar's.


I don't have the same mental acrobatic requirements on this as you do. I don't believe Freemasonry has anything to do with the Templars, other than borrowing from them as they did with stonecraft to create their morality plays.


LK600 said:


> As my grandfather use to say... that dog don't hunt.    (of course the fun part about this is, none of us can prove anything regardless, so we can keep poking each other lol)


LOL!  Yep.

That being said, all that one has to do is look at the evidence...

Freemasonry is total-emersion virtual-reality role-playing done within arena-style theater, all with a moral purpose.  Everything they do has this basis.  The fact that Freemasonry uses the backdrop, lexicon, lore and symbols of a variety of different eras -- stonecraft, Templars, etc. -- doesn't make any of those source material professions Freemasonry's origins.  That would be likened to calling the actors of Dragnet policemen.  Those dogs are audience trained!

Add to this Freemasonry's actual practices.  Freemasons do nothing speculatively.  There is no activity, schooling or training to support this claim - although there is a heck of a lot of conjecture!

What Freemason's practice is all geared toward is theater...
1) memorization of scripts and choreography,
2) putting on arena-style morality plays and lectures,
3) having patrons be part of the show,
4) training the next run of actors to replace the current ones.​All of it has nothing to do with actual speculative Work and everything to do with theater.

Once you get past the illusion that has been brilliantly put forth, you can only begin to appreciate how well that illusion has been painted by generations who hadn't a clue!


----------



## LK600 (Sep 26, 2018)

coachn said:


> Freemasonry is total-emersion virtual-reality role-playing done within arena-style theater



I need you to know that every time you describe the craft like that I die a little inside.


----------



## coachn (Sep 26, 2018)

LK600 said:


> I need you to know that every time you describe the craft like that I die a little inside.


I need you to know that any time someone leaves of "with a moral purpose" from my description, I roll my eyes and realize my description was not heard and very likely so was the entire point of the morality plays.


----------



## LK600 (Sep 26, 2018)

coachn said:


> I need you to know that any time someone leaves of "with a moral purpose" from my description, I roll my eyes and realize my description was not heard and very likely so was the entire point of the morality plays.


Alright smart guy lol.  Yes, I completely agree with the moral purpose part!                                                                        


even if your slightly off on your dates....


----------



## coachn (Sep 26, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Alright smart guy lol.  Yes, I completely agree with the moral purpose part!


If I were to just dismiss Freemasonry as an theatrical troop, I would do it a disservice.  The fact is, by characterizing it as, *"total-emersion virtual-reality role-playing done within arena-style theater, all with a moral purpose",*  it joins the ranks of all well intentioned societies who go to great lengths to:

1) Totally immerse its membership into moral lessons
2) Create tailored realities that support the moral lessons being conveyed and to do so without any outside distractions
3) Engage all participants in playing the roles that support these moral lessons
4) Surround the focus of the lesson - the patron (candidate) - within an arena to engage them further in these lessons​
It's brilliant!  It's genius!  It's a living testament to what was intended for all who joined.  It's also what ALL GUILDS participated in during the age of "mystery plays", aka "occupational plays", that are the basis for what we do as Freemasons.

I don't use the statement lightly!




LK600 said:


> even if your slightly off on your dates....


<snicker> You'd be surprised to find out who was the first man to practice what we do as Freemasons


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Sep 26, 2018)

With all the bashing that you have done, why did you become a a Mason? We believe in the Bible without proper proof, why not anything else that requires a lot of faith?  The tenets of Freemasonry teaches us to try to live a moral life, but many missed that part of the lessons. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 26, 2018)

I believe that Freemasonry was created by the inhabitants of Atlantis! ***snicker snicker***


----------



## jermy Bell (Sep 26, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> I believe that Freemasonry was created by the inhabitants of Atlantis! ***snicker snicker***


Warrior,  we've had this discussion before. It's was the lizard people,  I think , idk. Lol !


----------



## coachn (Sep 26, 2018)

jermy Bell said:


> Warrior,  we've had this discussion before. It's was the lizard people,  I think , idk. Lol !


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 27, 2018)

jermy Bell said:


> Warrior, we've had this discussion before. It's was the lizard people, I think , idk. Lol !


Lol!


----------



## Keith C (Sep 27, 2018)

It was most assuredly Aliens.  Since Time Immemorial they have been attaching their spaceships to the underside of the flat Earth and burrowing up at night to build pyramids, install Nazca lines and generally influence human behavior and development.  They are likely in Lizard like form, hence the reference to "Lizard People." We are all pawns in their galactic chess game!

All kidding aside, I do have an issue with the 1717 date.  The formation of a "Grand" Lodge presupposes the prior existence of more than one Lodge.  It makes zero sense to me that this new Grand Lodge would suddenly come up with a totally new form of working.  It may have amalgamated practices of the several existent Lodges and even added some elements, but it doesn't add up to me that they fundamentally changed what was going on previously.  Therefor I think the essentials of what takes place was already established prior to 1717.  What that date may be I have no opinion.

And I will state this is just deductive from my point and an opinion I have not researched much.


----------



## CLewey44 (Sep 27, 2018)

Keith C said:


> It was most assuredly Aliens.  Since Time Immemorial they have been attaching their spaceships to the underside of the flat Earth and burrowing up at night to build pyramids, install Nazca lines and generally influence human behavior and development.  They are likely in Lizard like form, hence the reference to "Lizard People." We are all pawns in their galactic chess game!
> 
> All kidding aside, I do have an issue with the 1717 date.  The formation of a "Grand" Lodge presupposes the prior existence of more than one Lodge.  It makes zero sense to me that this new Grand Lodge would suddenly come up with a totally new form of working.  It may have amalgamated practices of the several existent Lodges and even added some elements, but it doesn't add up to me that they fundamentally changed what was going on previously.  Therefor I think the essentials of what takes place was already established prior to 1717.  What that date may be I have no opinion.
> 
> And I will state this is just deductive from my point and an opinion I have not researched much.



That's a good point about the GL, assuming there were 'normal' lodges already. Unless they assumed there would be normal, blue lodges. Tough to say. Good points tho.


----------



## LK600 (Sep 27, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> That's a good point about the GL, assuming there were 'normal' lodges already. Unless they assumed there would be normal, blue lodges. Tough to say. Good points tho.



Not sure if the existence of a normal blue lodge matters, other than the preexisting existence of some form of speculative masonry.  Any documentation would dismiss the 1717 date (again unless one refers to the system).  The only thing I can see that supports the "1717-ish" date might be the Copiale cipher, but even then, most believe it is a blind or anti-masonic chatter. 

"How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop... the world may never know."


----------



## Elexir (Sep 27, 2018)

Actully they could not be the blue lodges we know today becuse they did not have the three degree system.


----------



## coachn (Sep 27, 2018)

Elexir said:


> Actully they could not be the blue lodges we know today becuse they did not have the three degree system.


Bingo!  

Which should raise the question: _What exactly were these lodges if they were not blue lodges?_


----------



## coachn (Sep 27, 2018)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> With all the bashing that you have done, ...


What bashing?  Done by who?


Bro. David F. Hill said:


> ...why did you become a a Mason?


I was a Mason _long before_ I joined the Freemasonic Order. 

I remain a Freemason to help other members ...
1) realize that ritual only points to Masonry, but is not Masonry itself.
2) practice the Masonry for which they joined Freemasonry.


Bro. David F. Hill said:


> We believe in the Bible without proper proof, ...


But of course, that is the essense of Faith!


Bro. David F. Hill said:


> ...why not anything else that requires a lot of faith?


Yes!  Why not?


Bro. David F. Hill said:


> The tenets of Freemasonry teaches us to try to live a moral life, but many missed that part of the lessons.


Agreed!  But I would not have used "to try" in that statement!  There is no try here - only DO!


----------



## MarkR (Sep 28, 2018)

coachn said:


> Look at the _original documents_!  The original documents show the terms "free_manson" or "free-mason", not "freemason".  The compound word "freemason" didn't come together until _after_ 1717!


Base ball, base-ball, and finally baseball.  The way the term was presented evolved.  To say that the word freemason didn't exist because they used to hyphenate it or express it as two words just doesn't hold water.


----------



## coachn (Sep 28, 2018)

MarkR said:


> Base ball, base-ball, and finally baseball.  The way the term was presented evolved.  To say that the word freemason didn't exist because they used to hyphenate it or express it as two words just doesn't hold water.


LOL!  Getting a bit wet in your metaphors there Bro. Mark. You're eagerness to assume is saddening.  When you get a chance, look at the difference between the Hebrew letters shin and sin.  Attention to detain is what the fellow craft staircase lecture is all about and when you assume minor details mean nothing, you've gone from seeing abundance to being burdened.

Details Brother Mark!  It's about looking at what was _originally_ written and not modifying it to suit your narrative - which has unfortunately been done by generations of eager men wanting to create a narrative that is fantasy based.

The compound word was only used _after 1717; _that is a fact_._  To claim it was used before 1717 is fabricating history.

To assume the terms are all synonymous and that the term's use evolved to keep the same meaning is conjecture; the evidence doesn't back it unless further conjectures are put forth to support the _narrative of fabrication_.

When you examine what was done when the original stonecraft terms were used and overlay what is done currently, the conclusions should be obvious, unless you want to keep the fabricated narrative and evidence be damned.  And there are a lot of members who do just this.

Ancient Free Masonry was about superior stonecraft.  The word "free" meant "superior"; not "unrestrained".  And Masonry was about "Building".

Freemasonry is about as far from Free Masonry as Dragnet is from actual police work.  Freemasonry is not a speculative form of operative masonry; even though the scripts claim it is.  It is something that points to its possibility though.  Which is all that you can truly offer to a population of individuals who need to be invited to improve, not forced. Much like what I do here in challenging the status quo; invite members to think beyond the veil and see the truth behind Freemasonic conjecture.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 28, 2018)

Keith C said:


> The formation of a "Grand" Lodge presupposes the prior existence of more than one Lodge. It makes zero sense to me that this new Grand Lodge would suddenly come up with a totally new form of working. It may have amalgamated practices of the several existent Lodges and even added some elements, but it doesn't add up to me that they fundamentally changed what was going on previously. Therefor I think the essentials of what takes place was already established prior to 1717. What that date may be I have no opinion.


Valid point.


----------



## coachn (Sep 28, 2018)

Keith C said:


> ... It makes zero sense to me that this new Grand Lodge would suddenly come up with a totally new form of working.


Unless everything that was done before was used to create the illusion of continuance.  _Then all the disjointed lore and nonsensical claims make perfect sense!_


Keith C said:


> ...It may have amalgamated practices of the several existent Lodges and even added some elements, ...


*It was an amalgamation in this aspect:* All the Freemasonic scripts that were put together were for theatrical effect - to provide each patron with an authentic feel in the hopes that one day each would get the message that the theatrical performance was intended to convey - _improve yourself!_


Keith C said:


> ...but it doesn't add up to me that they fundamentally changed what was going on previously. ...


But they DID fundamentally CHANGE from what was going on previously!  All one has to do is examine Operative versus Freemasonic practices - they are worlds apart, even when you make every effort to claim the latter is a speculative form of the former.  _Things simple do not add up._


----------



## MarkR (Sep 29, 2018)

coachn said:


> The compound word was only used _after 1717; _that is a fact_._  To claim it was used before 1717 is fabricating history.


And I still contend that the difference between free-mason and freemason is no more significant (as words) than the difference between base-ball and baseball.  A lot of compound words evolved through a hyphenated stage.  And I wasn't discussing the meanings assigned to free-mason and freemason; I was only addressing your contention that the word didn't exist until they removed the hyphen.

But you feel free to continue to laugh at and mock anyone who disagrees with anything you say.


----------



## MarkR (Sep 29, 2018)

x


----------



## coachn (Sep 29, 2018)

MarkR said:


> And I still contend that the difference between free-mason and freemason is no more significant (as words) than the difference between base-ball and baseball.


As is you right to do.  I disagree and my disagreement is based upon careful examination of the words used within context over the years, not the disputed terms as they compare to other terms used throughout the years.


MarkR said:


> A lot of compound words evolved through a hyphenated stage.


Yes, however you are comparing how other terms evolved with how these words were used within context over the years.  Context and case specific!  You're generalizing and saying your generalization is valid.  It is not in this case.


MarkR said:


> And I wasn't discussing the meanings assigned to free-mason and freemason; I was only addressing your contention that the word didn't exist until they removed the hyphen.


You have every right to ignore the details.  You have every right to come up with a conclusion based upon that ignoring of details.  I shall not dismiss the evidence and conclude anything that fits a narrative that doesn't support the evidence.  There's more going on behind the curtain than meets the eyes!


MarkR said:


> But you feel free to continue to laugh at and mock anyone who disagrees with anything you say.


Good Lordy Mark, you know darn well that my laughter was at the metaphor you used, not you.  Stop acting like a victim seeking a persecutor.

Details Mark!  Taking laughter out of context and reframing in to suit a victim narrative is just sad!  If you're feeling frustrated, perhaps your energies would be better suited looking at the details!  They are there and in abundance!  All you have to do is train your mind to recognize patterns and not assume the dogma you were gleefully and ignorantly handed is the actual story that unfolded.


----------



## MasonomroM (Oct 1, 2018)

Well, this thread really got some legs....


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 1, 2018)

MasonomroM said:


> Well, this thread really got some legs....


Yep....**sigh**


----------



## texanmason (Oct 1, 2018)

coachn said:


> All you have to do is train your mind to recognize patterns and not assume the dogma you were gleefully and ignorantly handed is the actual story that unfolded.



The Craft can do without this kind of condescending attitude.


----------



## coachn (Oct 1, 2018)

texanmason said:


> > All you have to do is train your mind to recognize patterns and not assume the dogma you were gleefully and ignorantly handed is the actual story that unfolded.
> 
> 
> The Craft can do without this kind of condescending attitude.


The Craft could do with a healthy dose of reality and far fewer encouragers of fantasy.

That being said, you're _virtue signaling_ with your comment. A very old tactic to take focus off the substance of the topic and redirect it like a smelly red herring to avoid facing serious discourse about our Craft's shortcomings. By _virtue signaling, _you've taken focus off the topic and redirected it upon me.  Rather than look at what I wrote and take it as _a prescription for success_, one that is _tried and true_, you've painted it in a offensive light - and me as well - one that is of your own making, and taken it as an insult and responded in kind.  You are your own victim here.

Fortunately, your comment has more to do with your nature when faced with such prescriptions than the substance offered.

We'll have to disagree on your attacking comment as well.


----------



## LK600 (Oct 2, 2018)

MarkR said:


> And I still contend that the difference between free-mason and freemason is no more significant (as words) than the difference between base-ball and baseball.



I can not speak to this exact issue, but historically spelling was not standardized.  There was no dictionary or anything similar in nature throughout the years (specifically speaking about Europe).  The spelling of a word could take numerous forms, so basing anything (for or against) should be done with a grain of salt.


----------



## texanmason (Oct 2, 2018)

coachn said:


> The Craft could do with a healthy dose of reality and far fewer encouragers of fantasy.
> 
> That being said, you're _virtue signaling_ with your comment. A very old tactic to take focus off the substance of the topic and redirect it like a smelly red herring to avoid facing serious discourse about our Craft's shortcomings. By _virtue signaling, _you've taken focus off the topic and redirected it upon me.  Rather than look at what I wrote and take it as _a prescription for success_, one that is _tried and true_, you've painted it in a offensive light - and me as well - one that is of your own making, and taken it as an insult and responded in kind.  You are your own victim here.
> 
> ...



Sorry John, calling out your conduct towards other brothers isn't "virtue signaling." No-one is encouraging fantasy, or dismissing reality. In fact, we're trying to encourage realistic understandings of history. Your condescending remarks don't help anyone, and they don't foster learning.


----------



## coachn (Oct 2, 2018)

texanmason said:


> Sorry John,...


No, you are not.


texanmason said:


> ...calling out your conduct towards other brothers isn't "virtue signaling."


Actually, it is _"virtue signaling"._  You're framing this as an attitude and moral issue.  It is neither.  However, you'll continue to frame it that way so that you can continue to make it sound like conduct unbecoming toward others when what it actually is: _Sound advice that upsets you enough to attack me rather than address the issues the statement points toward._


texanmason said:


> No-one is encouraging fantasy, or dismissing reality.


Your words don't reflect reality.  And I am not the only one seeing the encouragement of fantasy and the dismissal of reality within the Craft!  Here's another Brother's comment upon the subject:

_“Masonic authors have been known to abandon all reason in their reveries upon Masonic symbolism. Their flights of fancy have produced such ludicrous outrages as the theory that Freemasonry originated with Adam in the Garden of Eden, or perhaps in ancient Egypt, or possibly even fabled Atlantis. The latter notion is especially appealing to these dreamers as there is no evidence of the existence of that legendary continent, and, more importantly, there is no evidence to contradict their hypothesis. ” 

 “I am not from Missouri, but I do firmly subscribe to that state's motto in regard to Masonic research: "Show me!" There is more than enough antiquity and honor connected with our Craft to make references to unfounded claims and fanciful digressions unnecessary (and downright embarrassing!). Nonetheless, such speculations have had a profound effect upon the history of the Craft.”_ -- Bro. S. Brent Morris

He is not alone.  He echoes what Bro. Mackey said years ago:

_“How is the history of Freemasonry to be written, so that the narrative shall win the respect of its enemies, and secure the assent and approbation of its friends? In the first place, we must begin by a strict definition of the word Masonry. If we make it synonymous with Freemasonry, then must we confine ourselves closely to the events that are connected with the Institution in its present form and organization. …

“… No greater honor could accrue to any man than that of having been the founder of a new school of Masonic history, in which the fictions and loose statements of former writers would be rejected, and in which the rule would be adopted that has been laid down as a vital maxim of all inductive science, — in words that have been chosen as his motto by a recent powerful investigator of historical truth: 

'Not to exceed and not to fall short of facts — not to add and not to take away. To state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'" –  Bro. Albert  C. Mackey 33°  (History of Freemasonry; Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, 1917 edition)_




texanmason said:


> In fact, we're trying to encourage realistic understandings of history.


If that were true, especially of you, you would not find the prescription I said condescending.  Yet, here you are once again saying...


texanmason said:


> Your condescending remarks don't help anyone, and they don't foster learning.


A prescription for learning _... _
_All you have to do is train your mind to recognize patterns and not assume the dogma you were gleefully and ignorantly handed is the actual story that unfolded..._​not fostering learning?  It sounds like you have a lot more going on here than the surface issues in this thread.


----------



## Bevan Jones (Oct 3, 2018)

I believe the below is the clearest explanation of the emergence of Speculative Freemasonry from the Operatives....

In December 1583, James I of England appointed William Schaw as principal Maister o' Wark (“_Master of Works_”) to the Crown of Scotland for life, responsible for all royal castles and palaces. Schaw, a loyal Catholic, replaced the Protestant Robert Drummond, most likely as a direct result of the Gowrie Regime. Around the time of Schaw’s installation as master, the 7th Lord Seton was sent as ambassador to France, accompanied by his son Alexander Seton and William Schaw, known to be friends due to their shared interest in architecture. Returning the following year, Schaw was intimately involved in building the Seton Collegiate Church and Seton Palace. George Seton remained in France, not liking the pro-Protestant turn of events in Scotland.

The First Schaw Statutes, written in December 1598, were rooted in the “_Old Charges_” of stonemasonry, typically describing the duties, charges and regulations of a mason’s lodge. However, many also included a prayer and description of the Seven Liberal Arts, followed by a romantic history of the operative craft. Schaw included additional material to describe a hierarchy of wardens, deacons and masters. Apprentices joining a guild would be bound to their masters for seven years. Within Freemasonry, an initiate symbolically rolls up his trouser leg to show that he is not bound with chain irons, and is coming to the lodge of his own free will and accord.

Schaw spent more time in Edinburgh than Glasgow and his earlier trip to France with Lord Seton had been funded by the town of Edinburgh, considering the kings lack of funds at the time. This loyalty, and the fact that his great friend, Alexander Seton, had now become Provost of Edinburgh, goes a long way to explaining why Schaw favoured the Operative Lodge of Edinburgh (“_Mary’s Chapel Lodge No. 1_”) over Mother Kilwinning Lodge No. 0 near Glasgow, in his Statutes. Mary’s Chapel Lodge is in possession of the oldest known operative masonic lodge records, dating back to July 1599, shortly before the publication of Schaw’s Second Statute.

In his Second Statute, Schaw attempted to make up to Kilwinning by declaring it the “_head_” lodge for the operative craft and giving it regional authority for west Scotland, whilst confirming all its previous practices. Interestingly the officials of the lodge were recommended to ensure that all fellows and apprentices "_take trial of the art of memorie_". Having placated operative lodges in the West of Scotland, Schaw now also encountered problems from the St. Clair Family. Over 100 years prior, William St. Clair, the builder of Rosslyn Chapel, had been a great employer of stonemasons, notably the Tironesian experts in gothic architecture. The St. Clair descendants thus felt they had some say in the matter of how operative masonic lodges should be run, even though the surviving male line of the family had fallen out of favour with the ruling elite of the time.

However, the Setons and St. Clairs were still close and Dunfermline Lodge was supported by both the St. Clairs and Alexander Seton, Earl of Dunfermline. Schaw now placated them as well, by confirming the role of the Lairds of Rosslyn as “_patrons and protectors of the Craft_”, in his St. Clair Statutes of 1600 and 1601. Schaw died in 1602 and his tomb inscription, written by his great friend Alexander Seton, begins as follows:
“_This humble structure of stones covers a man of excellent skill, notable probity, singular integrity of life, adorned with the greatest of virtues – William Schaw, Master of the King's Works, *President of the Sacred Ceremonies*, and the Queen's Chamberlain._”

*As well as having the oldest operative lodge minutes, Mary’s Chapel Lodge No. 1 also records the admission of Lord Alexander into the lodge in 1634. Was this Lord Seton? And did Schaw, Seton and Dickson introduce the Art of Memory into masonic ritual? It’s certainly a strong possibility. We thus know that speculative masonry must have emerged sometime between the 1599 operative minutes and the 1634 initiation of a Lord into the lodge, who clearly would not have been an operative stonemason. *

Although baptised as a Roman Catholic, James I of England was brought up Presbyterian and, following the Union of the Crowns, he leaned towards Anglican practise. James had great trouble with both Protestants and Catholics in Scotland. Anglicanism seemed like a reasonable compromise. Speculative Freemasonry may have emerged from Scots Protestant and Anglican families, such as Hamilton and Murray, splitting from the traditional Templar / Catholic families of Seton and St. Clair. The rift between David Seton (Catholic aligned and allegedly the last Scots Templar) and Sandilands (Protestant and the last Prior of the Hospitallers before surrending the Order to the Catholic Queen at the time) is well documented. The current Queen is Church of England and still head of the Order, under new brand and management of course.

Certainly, Robery Moray (direct descendant of the Tullibardine Murrays) was a prominent Scots Mason and founder of the Royal College, whilst several Hamiltons and Murrays are later recorded in Scots Masonic minutes. HRH The Queen, Duke of Lancaster is also directly descended from the Tullibardine Murray's but that's another story...

The Protestant / Catholic debate was raging, around the same time that Rosicrucianism (hermetic mystery schools) and Francis Bacon was defining his New Atlantis and scientific empiricism. It must have been a fascinating time to be alive and equipped with a brain and a soul. As Freemasonry tried to provide a united platform for reconciling science with spirit, it may have tried to reconcile the many differing religious views, with a united reference to the “_Great Architect of the Universe_”.

Would Lords have associated with stone masons at this time? Very unlikely, considering the social structures prevailing. However, the operative lodges already had convenient meeting places and could have offered the perfect recluse for the gentry interested in discussing the emerging sciences, especially considering that stonemasons had always been open to the liberal arts, with maths and geometry being skills required for a master builder at the time.

James I would have had much insight into historical and emerging developments, being close to the major role-players at the time and having the benefit of the inheritance of Lord Sandiland’s Templar collection, via the Hospitallers. We will of course never know the exact course of events but the above is at least a reasonable guess, when considering the sequential timeline of events and interplay of the key characters at the time.


----------



## Elexir (Oct 3, 2018)

Bevan Jones said:


> traditional Templar Catholic families.



What is a traditional templar catholic family as opposed to a catholic family?


----------



## Bevan Jones (Oct 3, 2018)

Elexir said:


> What is a traditional templar catholic family as opposed to a catholic family?



A Catholic-aligned family that traditionally supported the Templar narrative, such as the St. Clairs and Setons. But of course the situation was very fluid and family members married into opposing families at the time, as well as changed their alliances as power shifted. However, it was clear that Sandilands, under pressure from the Setons, had to give up being Hospitaller Prior to the Catholic Queen, due to his Protestant allegiance. Up until this point, one can track clear lines of descent from Robert de Brus and several Flemish Templar families, to the Earls of Atholl and Argyll. These families then appear to split along Protestant / Catholic lines and almost all prominent Scots Freemasons, including the famous Dukes of Atholl (who head the Atholl lodges), as well as the Queen Mother's Scots ancestral lines, come from the Protestant / Anglican line.  The Setons and St. Clairs fade into relative obscurity. One cannot unfortunately do justice to the massive amount of genealogical and historical research required in short quotes on a forum such as this. As an aside, the current (reluctant) Duke of Atholl now lives in South Africa and has little to no interest in his family's role in all of this. I know because he's told me so. Bah, history, what good is it huh?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 3, 2018)

Bevan Jones said:


> Bah, history, what good is it huh?


Lol....Good narrative Brother. Very interesting.


----------



## Elexir (Oct 3, 2018)

JamestheJust said:


> >What is a traditional templar catholic family as opposed to a catholic family?
> 
> It may be that Templar Catholics followed John the Baptist rather than Jesus



Considering that the templars did not break away from traditional catholic dogma it is off.


----------



## Elexir (Oct 4, 2018)

JamestheJust said:


> >templars did not break away from traditional catholic dogma
> 
> So all those burnings were wasted.



Well Philiph the fair didnt have to worry about the money he owed them so I dont think he thought it was a waste of time.
Its not anything new really, the vatican published the complete documentention of the trials in 2007 if Im not misstaken where apperantly Clement V absolves them.


----------



## Bevan Jones (Oct 4, 2018)

King Philip had several reasons for his Templar witch-hunt (the "_burnings_") and he was finally freed to act immediately after Edward I's death, having ensured his daughter also married Edward's son. The writing was clearly on the wall for the Flemish Templars already by 1305 and the migration to Scotland had already started. Other Templar factions were moving to Portugal and the rest of Europe already. Around 1305 the following facts were becoming very clear to most Templars, following the loss of their man in Acre, Guillaime de Beaujeu, and the fall of the city in 1291:-

- Both Edward I and Philip IV were lusting after Templar wealth, not caring that funds held in the London and Paris Temples were held in trust on behalf of others.
- They were both also trying to secure Flanders for themselves, and gain control over lucrative taxes from the Scots / English / Flemish wool trade.
- The Angevin Dynasty was over and the key Flemish Templar leaders, Guy de Dampierre and Guillaume de Beaujou, were dead.
- Needing to assert royal power, Philip IV was seeking to undermine the common rule of law as enacted through charters such as Magna Carta, and he had a pliable Pope on his side, albeit having to be forced to carry out his actions.
- Guillaume’s successor as Grand Master, Thibaud Gaudin, had fled to Cyprus, and his successor, Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master, was not Flemish aligned, but was closer to Otto de Grandson, Edward I's best friend and the most likely Templar to lead the exodus to Switzerland. The country's banking prowess arose out of the Carthusian charterhouses, Otto's favoured charity.
- The Order was rebuilding and performing a largely administrative role from its base in Cyprus, having lost its military and financial raison détre, with the Italians now acting as the preferred bankers to the nobility and Papacy.
- The prevailing Scottish king, John de Balliol, who had enjoyed traditional Templar support from Balantrodoch on the East of Scotland, had effectively sided with Philip IV as part of the Auld Alliance, in defence against Edward I. This is one of the key reasons for the Scots Templars to support Robert de Brus, who up until that time was also toying with English loyalty.
- Edward I was becoming increasingly desperate to take Scotland, for both strategic military reasons and an increasing suspicion that Templar wealth and influence was being moved there.


----------



## CLewey44 (Oct 4, 2018)

Glad to see civility restored on this thread!


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 5, 2018)

JamestheJust said:


> >templars did not break away from traditional catholic dogma
> 
> So all those burnings were wasted.


Not at all. It was still a fun evening out for the wife and kids.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 5, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> Glad to see civility restored on this thread!


Yes!


Glen Cook said:


> Not at all. It was still a fun evening out for the wife and kids.


lol!


----------



## CLewey44 (Oct 5, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Not at all. It was still a fun evening out for the wife and kids.


I turned over this morning and looked at my phone. It was the first thing I saw and literally chuckled out loud.


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Oct 6, 2018)

I believe that it is time to move on. Like Facebook, this site has lost its relevance. Sad. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 6, 2018)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> I believe that it is time to move on. Like Facebook, this site has lost its relevance. Sad.


Yeah, we've flogged this subject almost unto death.


----------



## Elexir (Oct 24, 2018)

Timothy McGuire Jr said:


> I will say that a thorough reading of the Kybalion will show you a clear synchronization of the Hermetic Philosophy and the Freemasons in ancient times. This knowledge that we hold has been known for ages by those wise enough to see the symbols and hear the voice of the Grand Architect.



The big concensus is that William walker atkinson (pioner of the new thought movment) was one of the authors so its not really anything ancient.


----------



## CLewey44 (Oct 24, 2018)

It's rumored Bro. Paul Case was one of the "3 Initiates".


----------



## Winter (Oct 24, 2018)

Except it isn't what you know, it's what you can prove! The Kybalion is a very important work, but any evidence that it predates maybe the late 19th century (Trying to remember wjat the agreed upon date is, someone correct me if I'm wrong) just isn't there. I'm not saying a vein of hidden wisdom hasn't survived till today or been a part of our Masonic teaching. I'm just saying that stating categorically that this is the case just doesn't work. At least for me.


----------



## Elexir (Oct 25, 2018)

Timothy McGuire Jr said:


> Please read my comment carefully. I did not say the book was ancient but that the knowledge handed from mason to mason has its roots in ancient times.
> 
> Also, the ORIGINAL Kybalion was written by Hermes, hence the name Hermetic. The revised version we have now is a combined effort of the Hermeticist interpreting the writings of Hermes.
> 
> ...



The problem is that its been worked through the new thought movment.
http://www.nickfarrell.it/kybalion/ puts it rather well.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 25, 2018)

Winter said:


> I'm not saying a vein of hidden wisdom hasn't survived till today or been a part of our Masonic teaching. I'm just saying that stating categorically that this is the case just doesn't work. At least for me.


Same with me.


----------



## Winter (Oct 25, 2018)

Never said Heremticism isn't ancient. But you cannot point to any Hermetic text and say with any certainty that it is ancient. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Winter (Oct 25, 2018)

Timothy McGuire Jr said:


> Agreed. Too much corruption of documentation to be 100% sure about ANY document being ancient..... Including the bible.
> 
> Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


Except that the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Jews have a pretty reliable form of transmission of the Torah to the present day. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Winter (Oct 25, 2018)

Sorry. My phone randomly submits my posts while I am typing since the Samsung update yesterday


----------



## Winter (Oct 25, 2018)

Looks like he nuked his posts. Which is also very bad form! LoL 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 25, 2018)

Winter said:


> Looks like he nuked his posts. Which is also very bad form! LoL


Yep!


----------



## MasonicHermit (Oct 25, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> Yep!


I didn't nuke my post. I got banned for spam.

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MasonicHermit (Oct 25, 2018)

MasonicHermit said:


> I didn't nuke my post. I got banned for spam.
> 
> Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


Who are the admins here???

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Winter (Oct 25, 2018)

MasonicHermit said:


> I didn't nuke my post. I got banned for spam.
> Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app





MasonicHermit said:


> Who are the admins here???
> Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app



I doubt making a new profile the same day you were kicked out and posting in other threads like nothing happened will get you off the hook for your previous behavior.


----------



## MasonicHermit (Oct 25, 2018)

Winter said:


> I doubt making a new profile the same day you were kicked out and posting in other threads like nothing happened will get you off the hook for your previous behavior.


I said I was sorry and I admitted I was wrong. But that doesn't matter does it? Its ok. I get out what I put in. I have no discord, just wish I could be forgiven.

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MasonicHermit (Oct 25, 2018)

Winter said:


> I doubt making a new profile the same day you were kicked out and posting in other threads like nothing happened will get you off the hook for your previous behavior.


What do I need to do to make it right?

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MasonicHermit (Oct 25, 2018)

Winter said:


> I doubt making a new profile the same day you were kicked out and posting in other threads like nothing happened will get you off the hook for your previous behavior.


And that's fine. At least my apologies were read. I tried to reconcile the situation.....

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MasonicHermit (Oct 25, 2018)

Winter said:


> I doubt making a new profile the same day you were kicked out and posting in other threads like nothing happened will get you off the hook for your previous behavior.


BTW I'm not trying to get off the hook. In trying to make things right which is really hard with comments like these.

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------

