# Interesting perspectives



## BullDozer Harrell (Jun 30, 2017)

http://masonicencyclopedia.com/topic/?i=5219&topic=ANCIENTS-AND-MODERNS


----------



## Bloke (Jul 1, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> http://masonicencyclopedia.com/topic/?i=5219&topic=ANCIENTS-AND-MODERNS


The Socioeconomic commentary is interesting. I guess "traditions" also covers that, but just beyond masonic practices and workings, the socioeconomic inclusion and exclusion the author talks of also speaks to the composition and attitude of lodges.

I keep meaning to re-read Laurence Dermott's "Ahiman Rezon".   When I first read it, i did not have the knowledge I now do, and "Ahiman Rezon" is term which seems applied to Ritual Books, and I once thought, applied widely in America, but apparently not. A friend here (in the West of USA) said he'd never heard of it.. Dermott's "Ahiman Rezon" is of Course the Ancients equivalent of Anderson's Constitutions, but "Ahiman Rezon" seems to be a term used for other purposes beyond a Constitution. I would like to develop a better understanding of how the term ""Ahiman Rezon" is applied, and why (there are threads here on it, but I've never bumped one).. Should we?



> It also discontinued the Ceremony of Installation of the Master, thereby reducing him to the status of a mere presiding officer with no inherent powers. These alterations in things that ought not to be altered aroused resentment among a large number of Lodges



Is that statement correct ?


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 1, 2017)

"It also discontinued the Ceremony of Installation of the Master, thereby reducing him to the status of a mere presiding officer with no inherent powers. These alterations in things that ought not to be altered aroused resentment among a large number of Lodges."

Indeed a strange couple of sentences that i found myself being puzzled by too. After some thought, i had to remember that this article or paper or whatever we wish to call it is just somebody's commentary on those past events. He interprets that with the removal of the Ceremony, there was a significant reduction of the Lodge Master's power.  An opinion which i don't agree with because it doesn't make sense as written. It presents a bit of a paradox to say that Worshipful Master of a Lodge because of a discontinued Ceremony became a powerless presiding officer over his Lodge. Something that's laughable to more than a few Brothers. 

Secondly, i had to ponder about 'the alterations in things that ought not to be altered' expressed by the author. What Customs or Traditions were immutable back in those early days? We will probably never discover. I imagine since the whole Speculative system was still being hashed out, it was open territory for anything innovative & new. So was this really a type of 'innovation' that would have caused feelings of resentment among some Lodges? Were all the Lodges even uniform yet and operating on one accord? Was the Grand Lodge system that refined and fixed yet?

Personally i have my doubts.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 1, 2017)

"the Irish Masons held meetings among themselves, consulted the Grand Lodge of Ireland, set up a Grand Committee in the 1740's, and in 1751 turned this Committee into a regular Grand Lodge. This action was strictly in accordance with the Ancient Landmarks."

Another strange part within the writing. I think it was expressed in the prior paragraph than the one I was just discussing above.

What do you make of it?


----------



## coachn (Jul 1, 2017)

> "6. *For at least five centuries Freemasonry consisted wholly of working men.* ..."When they began to accept "gentlemen" into membership, the latter met upon the level to masons, smiths, carpenters, farmers. To meet upon To meet upon the level, to leave aristocratic privilege, prerogatives, titles, and snobbishness outside, was of the essence of Masonry, and ever was unanimously accepted as being such - the name "freemasonry" was almost anonymous with meeting upon the level. The 1717 Grand Lodge destroyed that ancient design Its Lodges could if they wished, shut the door on "the lower orders. "The Earls of Moira. Grand Masters of the Ancient, were twitted by Modern Grand Officers because his Grand Secretary had been a house-painter.
> 
> This un-Masonic snobbishness, this denial of brotherliness, was the one great sin of the Moderns, and the one great justification of the Ancient; in comparison with that innovation, irregularities in ceremony were of secondary importance, for where there is no meeting on the level there is no Freemasonry. This social cleavage inside of the Fraternity came to the surface and stood out in bold relief on this side of the Atlantic during the American Revolutionary period, and explains why so many Modern Lodges failed or shifted allegiance, and why the Ancient (especially in New York and Pennsylvania) swept the field ; Modern Lodges here were on the whole Tory, Royalist, Loyalist, aristocratic, pro-British ;Ancient Lodges were democratic, pro-Patriotic, as open to blacksmiths as to Royal Governors."


re: *For at least five centuries Freemasonry consisted wholly of working men.*

*The author made the usual ignorant assumption:* _"Freemasonry" existed long before 1717._ 

_Unbiased researchers know that this is not the case._  Although the _business networking groups_ at the time (_see "The Tavern Lodges", within "The Mason's Words" by Brother Davis_), that Freemasonry eventually replaced, had been around for quite a long time, the new "Freemasonry" itself was wholly different from them, what they did and how they met. Albeit, it did borrow heavily from what these tavern lodges did, as it did from so many other sources.

*The irony of all this is this:* _The moderns started something totally new and the ancients follow suit on this, claimed the moderns were not honoring some of the fundamentals of what these networking groups allowed at the time and summarily attacked them after the ancients formed their own version of what the moderns started.
_
*IMO:* _Moderns and Ancients exist to this day, side by side in cliquish circles of righteous ignorance.  The snobbishness on both sides has yet to abate.  _


----------



## Bloke (Jul 1, 2017)

@bulldozer We Install our Masters here in a closed section of ceremony only open to PMs. Its special and during the ceremony power is formally, specifically and clearly vested in many, but most specially the WM.... so the comment about not doing a ceremony and hence power being eroded makes sense, but im aplying a modern view not what might or might not be happening in the 1700's

@bulldozer Of the Irish Grand Commitee, it says a group met, and then formed a GL. The landmarks ? Who knows but i would imaging that GL required a belief in a Supreme Being and did not admit women. Id say it all sounds standard on forming any organization

@coach Why did these networking groups use a ritual ?


----------



## coachn (Jul 1, 2017)

Bloke said:


> ...@coach Why did these networking groups use a ritual ?


Did I say they did?


----------



## Bloke (Jul 1, 2017)

coachn said:


> Did I say they did?


No you did not... but we're familiar with early rituals and rules which incorporate moral and philosophical rules and teachings. So these "Tavern Lodges" did not have such rules ? If not, were they really Masonic Lodges ?


----------



## coachn (Jul 2, 2017)

Bloke said:


> No you did not...


Good!


> ...but we're familiar with early rituals and rules which incorporate moral and philosophical rules and teachings. So these "Tavern Lodges" did not have such rules ?


It's clear that you're asking a rhetorical question linking these tavern lodges with what we are familiar.  Networking groups usually have some rule base.  Do they have teachings?  Good question.

But let's get into some foundational assumptions.  If we were to believe the lore of our collective organizations, they would have had to since it is assumed we are both a continuation of what they did AND what we have now has been going on since time immemorial.  We know Freemasonry is not a continuation of stonecraft and that Freemasonry started around 1717ish.

But I shall point out that you've gone from "ritual" in your first question to "rules" in your second.


> If not, were they really Masonic Lodges ?



They were likely lodges in the "gathering of men" sense for the purposes of networking and included many complimentary business types.
They could not have been Freemasonic.  They might have included some stonecraft members.
As far as being "Masonic" in the sense of "stonecraft", likely they were not in the sense that we are left to believe by our collective organizational law.


----------



## SimonM (Jul 2, 2017)

@coachn Is there any evidence that the use of rituals that was used from 1717 and onward where new at that point? Or is there just an absence of evidence that these kinds of rituals was used before that?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## Bloke (Jul 2, 2017)

coachn said:


> Good!
> 
> It's clear that you're asking a rhetorical question linking these tavern lodges with what we are familiar.  Networking groups usually have some rule base.  Do they have teachings?  Good question.
> 
> ...



So, according to "The Tavern Lodges", did they have ritual ?


----------



## coachn (Jul 2, 2017)

Bloke said:


> So, according to "The Tavern Lodges", did they have ritual ?


Okay... I just reread the chapter...

Did they (these collective tavern lodges) have ritual?  Well, not collectively due to the wide variety of differing reasons people had for frequenting as members of tavern lodges.  The author asserts that those meeting in taverns as lodges had informal ceremonies and jocularities.  Later on he says that some of the trade union lodges would likely have some sort of trade associated rituals.  (It appears that, at the time, the word "lodge" was used to refer to both the ale/tavern meeting place itself AND the group of men associated with meeting within that establishment.)  He shares that there were very few "lodges" that were founded up and into the 1700s and into the middle of the 18th century that did not meet in taverns; early members of our society would have it no other way (due to the importance of the "tavern" culture at the time).

*Not from the author: *

_Were these trade union rituals anything like what we have today?_  No.  They were far simpler, less theatrical, and concisely short.
_Were the trade union rituals borrowed and used as a foundation for our theatrical society?_  Absolutely!  There's no doubt that Bro. Anderson borrowed huge swaths of one specific trade's lexicon, symbols, lore and rules from available manuscripts.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 2, 2017)

coachn said:


> Okay... I just reread the chapter...
> 
> Did they (these collective tavern lodges) have ritual?  Well, not collectively due to the wide variety of differing reasons people had for frequenting as members of tavern lodges.  The author asserts that those meeting in taverns as lodges had informal ceremonies and jocularities.  Later on he says that some of the trade union lodges would likely have some sort of trade associated rituals.  (It appears that, at the time, the word "lodge" was used to refer to both the ale/tavern meeting place itself AND the group of men associated with meeting within that establishment.)  He shares that there were very few "lodges" that were founded up and into the 1700s and into the middle of the 18th century that did not meet in taverns; early members of our society would have it no other way (due to the importance of the "tavern" culture at the time).
> 
> ...


How can we deduce that Anderson borrowed heavily from the trade union rituals? 

I can see the influence of the Regius Poem (Halliwell MS) in the 1723 premier edition. Even can see the Influence of the Graham MS in his 1738 edition. 

However i haven't ever came across these trade union rituals in print. Do you have them or can you point a Brother to accessing them?


----------



## Bloke (Jul 3, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> How can we deduce that Anderson borrowed heavily from the trade union rituals?
> 
> I can see the influence of the Regius Poem (Halliwell MS) in the 1723 premier edition. Even can see the Influence of the Graham MS in his 1738 edition.
> 
> However i haven't ever came across these trade union rituals in print. Do you have them or can you point a Brother to accessing them?


As far as I know, "trade union" rituals are latter...

"The United _Brotherhood of Railway Employees_ (UBRE) was an industrial labor union established in Canada in 1898,"
"
The *Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America*, commonly known as the *Brotherhood of Railway Carmen* (BRC), was a fraternal benefit society and trade union established in the United States of America. The BRC united railroad employees involved in the repair and inspection of railroad cars to advance their common interests in the realm of hours of work, wages, and working conditions.

The organization traces its genesis to a seven-member group called the *Brotherhood of Railway Car Repairers of North America* founded late in October 1888 in a railway car in Iowa."

(both the above from wikipedia)

But Coach might be talking more about pronto-uniionists... (?)


----------



## coachn (Jul 3, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> How can we deduce that Anderson borrowed heavily from the trade union rituals?


The paper he put together circa 1721-1722, within a short time after the first PGL dinner gatherings and referred to as "Andersons Constitutions", points toward his having access to stonecraft manuscripts available in his area at that time.

Interesting point to note: eleven pages of that 90+ page creation were songs.


BullDozer Harrell said:


> I can see the influence of the Regius Poem (Halliwell MS) in the 1723 premier edition. Even can see the Influence of the Graham MS in his 1738 edition.


Good! 


BullDozer Harrell said:


> However i haven't ever came across these trade union rituals in print.


An actual "printed" ritual?  Do you really think it is likely that anyone will find many written out rituals prior to Freemasonry's PGL coming into existence in about 1717?


BullDozer Harrell said:


> Do you have them or can you point a Brother to accessing them?


The "rituals" to which I refer are not the scripted plays that were laid out as the foundation for what most Freemasonic lodges use today.  I am talking about the available resources of the day from which Anderson created his work(s).: _The manuscripts that these trade unions used (and there are quite a few) along side the usual banter that one would usually find going on within these groups._

BTW - Trade Unions = Trade Guilds, Trade Association, etc. and not unions as we think of them in modern terms.


----------



## Bloke (Jul 3, 2017)

coachn said:


> The paper he put together circa 1721-1722, within a short time after the first PGL dinner gatherings and referred to as "Andersons Constitutions", points toward his having access to stonecraft manuscripts available in his area at that time.
> 
> Interesting point to note: eleven pages of that 90+ page creation were songs.
> 
> ...



I think a " trade union" in any sense is a post industrial revolution construct Coach.

What is interesting about post industrial trade unions is some did have oaths of secrecy and/ or loyalty and have Masonic Characteristics.... but that does not make them Masonic lodges (despite in some instances the guard at these meetings was sometimes called a "tyler"). For me, the link between fraternalisn  and unionism is murky.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Labor

A famous Australian like Henry Lawson (1867-1922), Australian poet and author, has erroneously been listed as a Freemason because people read of his (probable) membership of the Knights and thing it's a Masonic organization.....

I often wonder if modern unions would have developed as they did without fraternalism as a model...


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 3, 2017)

I feel that when we look for the "where did we come from" answer and try to link it to things like KT and Illuminati and other things its degrades what we are/should be and also fuels the fire of the Alex Jones' of the world.  When guys like him can say, "look even self professed members say theres a link to these things and oh look at this other guy who says hes a Mason, always talking about 'mysticism' or in laymans terms black magic"
 and then before long we're goat riding, sheep sacraficing, magic practicing devil worshipers who wear cloakes and funny hats so we pretend to be the KKK.  Cant we just appreciate Freemasonry for what it is?  A great group of guys that we can get together with, eats some food, bs with and discuss things that interest us and then ever so often make the new guy do some moderately weird stuff in order to be able to call himself a member!

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bloke (Jul 3, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> I feel that when we look for the "where did we come from" answer and try to link it to things like KT and Illuminati and other things its degrades what we are/should be and also fuels the fire of the Alex Jones' of the world.  When guys like him can say, "look even self professed members say theres a link to these things and oh look at this other guy who says hes a Mason, always talking about 'mysticism' or in laymans terms black magic"
> and then before long we're goat riding, sheep sacraficing, magic practicing devil worshipers who wear cloakes and funny hats so we pretend to be the KKK.  Cant we just appreciate Freemasonry for what it is?  A great group of guys that we can get together with, eats some food, bs with and discuss things that interest us and then ever so often make the new guy do some moderately weird stuff in order to be able to call himself a member!
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


LOL

I hear you, but the origins are interesting because they are so murky.. I don't think anyone here is thinking KT or Illuminati, we're taking pubs and trade guilds.. we're trying to explore facts we know, not fancy.. but it does all end up in speculation, but KT/Illuminati speculation does not survive scholarly examination, the Tavern origins Coach is talking about has a lot more evidence (which is why it is of interest), but its all circumstantial. Even the simple statement "the first modern Grand Lodge was formed in 1717 in a pub" is being questioned, even by those who subscribe to it (me), with the date being recently put in doubt..


----------



## coachn (Jul 4, 2017)

Bloke said:


> I think a " trade union" in any sense is a post industrial revolution construct Coach.


I think any sense of the term I used within context would be stripped away upon insertion into another context. 


Bloke said:


> What is interesting about post industrial trade unions is some did have oaths of secrecy and/ or loyalty and have Masonic Characteristics.... but that does not make them Masonic lodges (despite in some instances the guard at these meetings was sometimes called a "tyler"). For me, the link between fraternalisn  and unionism is murky.....
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Labor


Yup.  such things are human in construct hence there would be some Venn overlap to be expected since humans are what each have in common.


Bloke said:


> A famous Australian like Henry Lawson (1867-1922), Australian poet and author, has erroneously been listed as a Freemason because people read of his (probable) membership of the Knights and thing it's a Masonic organization.....


A human tendency, no doubt ;-)


Bloke said:


> I often wonder if modern unions would have developed as they did without fraternalism as a model...


I don't wonder about it often.  However, when I do, I go back to that Human Venn thingy. ;-)


----------



## coachn (Jul 4, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> I feel that when we look for the "where did we come from" answer and try to link it to things like KT and Illuminati and other things its degrades what we are/should be and also fuels the fire of the Alex Jones' of the world.


Agreed!


Ripcord22A said:


> When guys like him can say, "look even self professed members say theres a link to these things and oh look at this other guy who says hes a Mason, always talking about 'mysticism' or in laymans terms black magic" and then before long we're goat riding, sheep sacraficing, magic practicing devil worshipers who wear cloakes and funny hats so we pretend to be the KKK.


You mean, like we have now?  From an ignorant outside view, some actually see us that way.  From an informed inside view, we have done it to ourselves by not be honest and admitting our theatrical role playing roots.


Ripcord22A said:


> Cant we just appreciate Freemasonry for what it is?


A Total-Immersion Virtual-reality Role-playing Theatrical Society where members never break character?


Ripcord22A said:


> A great group of guys that we can get together with, eats some food, bs with and discuss things that interest us and then ever so often make the new guy do some moderately weird stuff in order to be able to call himself a member!


Oh, yeah, well, there's is always that ;-)


Bloke said:


> LOL... I hear you, but the origins are interesting because they are so murky..


Not when you strip away the fantasy and connect the dots of reality.


Bloke said:


> I don't think anyone here is thinking KT or Illuminati, we're taking pubs and trade guilds.. we're trying to explore facts we know, not fancy..


Agreed!


Bloke said:


> ...but it does all end up in speculation, but KT/Illuminati speculation does not survive scholarly examination, the Tavern origins Coach is talking about has a lot more evidence (which is why it is of interest), but its all circumstantial.


Occam's Razor is a good tool to cut off the fat of fanciful.  From its creation around 1717, it was always a fanciful fabrication intended to bring people together.  It has morphed so much since then due to continual fabrications that it's near impossible to discern what is real and what is made up.  That's the problem with theatrical constructs, when they are done well, you want to suspend disbelief and let the fantasy sweep you away.  Not being honest about this is the major problem that we face as an organization.


Bloke said:


> Even the simple statement "the first modern Grand Lodge was formed in 1717 in a pub" is being questioned, even by those who subscribe to it (me), with the date being recently put in doubt..


Agreed!


----------



## Bloke (Jul 4, 2017)

coachn said:


> ...I don't wonder about it often.  However, when I do, I go back to that Human Venn thingy. ;-)



I think there is a more than a Venn overlap reflecting how people examining the problem think,  I think the Venn overlap is actual operational and actual in the history of Trade Unionism... you can see it (evidence) in England and Australia (Trades Hall Melbourne even has a lodge room in it).....  Anyway, I kinda digress because it is a topic I am interested in... To be clear, we're talking in a post 1717 world, not pre it, and I think the development of Freemasonry probably influenced Trade Unionism more than the other way around... but it goes to the socioeconomic point in the Tavern Lodges, and formation of the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster and the social classes represented within its 4 founding lodges... I think its interesting, but only tells us a small (but important part) of the story, some lodges were comprised of (non-stonemason) trades people, others were comprised more of aristocrats and the wealthy..

Occam's Razor is good, but it is not a definitive test, only a paradigm , using it, for example, some will conclude that photos claimed as showing a human on the moon in 1969 is because  a man was sent to the moon, others will conclude the photos were staged. Both conclusion might claim Occam's Razor. The use of Occam's Razor is good, but it only provides a hypothesis and not a evidence based conclusion..


----------



## coachn (Jul 4, 2017)

Bloke said:


> I think there is a more than a Venn overlap reflecting how people examining the problem think,  I think the Venn overlap is actual operational and actual in the history of Trade Unionism... you can see it (evidence) in England and Australia (Trades Hall Melbourne even has a lodge room in it).....  Anyway, I kinda digress because it is a topic I am interested in... To be clear, we're talking in a post 1717 world, not pre it, and I think the development of Freemasonry probably influenced Trade Unionism more than the other way around... but it goes to the socioeconomic point in the Tavern Lodges, and formation of the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster and the social classes represented within its 4 founding lodges... I think its interesting, but only tells us a small (but important part) of the story, some lodges were comprised of (non-stonemason) trades people, others were comprised more of aristocrats and the wealthy..


Of course there's more too it.  However, not having time or incentive to write a best selling book upon the subject, I presented information concisely and without the usual footnotes that would accompany such efforts. 

I see the two as inseparable enmeshments brought about by human tendencies.  They emerged as a result of what humans do.  We get them not because of the end results influencing the whole, but because of human tendencies that bring forth both.


Bloke said:


> Occam's Razor is good, but it is not a definitive test, only a paradigm , using it, for example, some will conclude that photos claimed as showing a human on the moon in 1969 is because  a man was sent to the moon, others will conclude the photos were staged. Both conclusion might claim Occam's Razor. The use of Occam's Razor is good, but it only provides a hypothesis and not a evidence based conclusion..


As I said, it is a tool.  And as with all tool use, the results of its use depend upon the mastery and intent of the user.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 4, 2017)

coachn said:


> A Total-Immersion Virtual-reality Role-playing Theatrical Society where members never break character?
> 
> Oh, yeah, well, there's is always that ;-)


I was thinking of you when I wrote those parts! 


Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bloke (Jul 4, 2017)

coachn said:


> ....However, not having time or incentive to write a best selling book upon the subject.....


Think of the cash you might make though


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2017)

Bloke said:


> Think of the cash you might make though


LOL!  If Only!  Do you know what you call Masonic Authors?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 5, 2017)

coachn said:


> LOL! If Only! Do you know what you call Masonic Authors?


I'll bite, what?


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> I'll bite, what?


in debt.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 5, 2017)

coachn said:


> in debt.


Lol!


----------



## Bloke (Jul 5, 2017)

coachn said:


> in debt.


Hehehehe


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2017)

Bloke said:


> Hehehehe


Funny in a very sad way.  So many Brothers mistakenly believe that masonic authors are making money. 

The truth is painfully sobering.  Rare is the Brother who ever breaks even on what he produces in writing for sale, much less profits.  You have to truly love writing with a passion, because surely you will suffer for your efforts.


----------



## Bloke (Jul 5, 2017)

coachn said:


> Funny in a very sad way.  So many Brothers mistakenly believe that masonic authors are making money.
> 
> The truth is painfully sobering.  Rare is the Brother who ever breaks even on what he produces in writing for sale, much less profits.  You have to truly love writing with a passion, because surely you will suffer for your efforts.



I hear you, but it's a naive bro who thinks otherwise. I wonder if Landmarks of our Fathers or Know Thyself made money. They got a lot of exposure and created a buzz. The few authors I know  who self publish break even because they balance production quality, demand, the market width, price and value. But that's a tricky equation.

That's where the web is good, because  u can self publish almost for free like you and i do, but that means your not likely to get paid..... I've often thought of putting a publication on the Google Bookshelp for $1 or $2 and seeing how it goes....the only way to be a truly professional author in Freemasonry is via a history department at uni, but that narrows the topic. Or maybe writting great fiction with Masonic elements....Even someone like Chris Hodapp would not be earning a sustained living from Masonic authoring.... but he is here and might chime in....

( thread drift!!!!)


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 5, 2017)

coachn said:


> The truth is painfully sobering. Rare is the Brother who ever breaks even on what he produces in writing for sale, much less profits. You have to truly love writing with a passion, because surely you will suffer for your efforts.


That IS sad.


----------



## coachn (Jul 5, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> That IS sad.


What's sadder still is being accused by some KIA-FIA* of masonic profiteering... Profiteering!!! Gimme a break!  Don't you have to get beyond breaking even before you can be accused of being in that category?  And this doesn't even begin to touch upon the other aspects that are part and parcel of profiteering that have to do with unfairness, illegality and black marketeering. 

Geez!  Just when I thought craft ruffians could not sink any lower in their overall ignorance... 

*Know-It-All Freemasonic Assumptive Ignoramus and pronounced: Kee'-ya-Fee'-ya


----------



## GKA (Jul 6, 2017)

I agree coachn,  but surely you know brother that you do not fall into that catagory, the profiteering comes from those publications which are not helpful to the brethren, they only serve to bolster the egos of the writers as they attempt to impress others with their abundant knowledge of our craft.
I have even seen this at the GL level and it was confirmed to me by the GM himself, so sad.


----------



## coachn (Jul 6, 2017)

GKA said:


> I agree coachn,  but surely you know brother that you do not fall into that catagory, the profiteering comes from those publications which are not helpful to the brethren, they only serve to bolster the egos of the writers as they attempt to impress others with their abundant knowledge of our craft.
> I have even seen this at the GL level and it was confirmed to me by the GM himself, so sad.


Thanks! 

BTW - I had one past grand master take a look at just one of my books and state blatantly and quite emphatically, "You're making a killing on your books".  He did so based upon what he was charged for it in relation to the material costs alone.  He took absolutely no consideration whatsoever of the 2 years of my life putting in the research, writing, editing, illustrating and getting it to market.

I wanted to call him a jerk.  The truth is, he simply is constitutionally incapable of seeing and valuing the effort required to produce what he had in his hands.

A more suitable word is ignorant ruffian; calling him a smart ruffian would be an insult to ruffians that actually have discerning abilities.

The irony, he put his own books out a year or so later and charged even more.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 6, 2017)

GKA said:


> I agree coachn, but surely you know brother that you do not fall into that catagory,


Agreed.


coachn said:


> He took absolutely no consideration whatsoever of the 2 years of my life putting in the research, writing, editing, illustrating and getting it to market.


That's why I try to refrain from commenting on subjects that I know nothing about.


coachn said:


> calling him a smart ruffian would be an insult to ruffians that actually have discerning abilities.


Lol....funny but true.


coachn said:


> he put his own books out a year or so later and charged even more.


Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 6, 2017)

coachn said:


> *The author made the usual ignorant assumption:* _"Freemasonry" existed long before 1717._


I'm likely one of the ignorants but I think that the author is correct, at least till fourteenth / fifteenth century. It is true that from 1717 Freemasonry has changed and the modern type of Freemasonry is likely different from the old one, but I think that at least till Ashmole ancient Freemasonry was still alive. The so called "Antients" and the so called "Moderns" were both likely "modern Freemasons".


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 6, 2017)

coachn said:


> You have to truly love writing with a passion, because surely you will suffer for your efforts.


This is absolutely true !


----------



## coachn (Jul 6, 2017)

Luigi Visentin said:


> I'm likely one of the ignorants but I think that the author is correct, at least till fourteenth / fifteenth century. It is true that from 1717 Freemasonry has changed and the modern type of Freemasonry is likely different from the old one, but I think that at least till Ashmole ancient Freemasonry was still alive. The so called "Antients" and the so called "Moderns" were both likely "modern Freemasons".


It's a matter of definition and the meaning that most freemasons place upon the words "mason" and "freemason'.

Freemasons think of the two as synonymous and are taught through inculcation and lore that they are the same.

Masons understand that there is "masonry" and there is "freemasonry".  The former has existed since man began chipping rocks.  The latter since they started putting theatrical plays called ritual together using masonic lexicon.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 7, 2017)

coachn said:


> Masons understand that there is "masonry" and there is "freemasonry". The former has existed since man began chipping rocks. The latter since they started putting theatrical plays called ritual together using masonic lexicon.


True, and as another Brother stated since for lodges banded together in 1717 to for the GLE obviously Freemasonry existed before 1717.


----------



## coachn (Jul 7, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> True, and as another Brother stated since for lodges banded together in 1717 to for the GLE obviously Freemasonry existed before 1717.


<cough> Lodges were obviously meeting before 1717.  

However, "Freemasonic" lodges could not have met prior to this time since the word "freemason" was only invented and used shortly after 1717 to refer to members of the "Society of Free & Accepted Masons".


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> True, and as another Brother stated since for lodges banded together in 1717 to for the GLE obviously Freemasonry existed before 1717.



It is my personal belief that Freemasonry has an origin much earlier than 1717, I try to refrain from taking that position in discussions because it almost always leads to a heated debate which deviates significantly from the original context of that discussion, however, for those brothers  so inclined to research this facinating aspect of  "OUR" history, may I suggest a look into the ancient arts of cartography, surveying and architecture.


----------



## coachn (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> ... for those brothers  so inclined to research this facinating aspect of  "OUR" history, may I suggest a look into the *ancient arts of cartography, surveying and architecture*.


None of which have anything to do with what members have collectively done within the Freemasonic order since the beginning of the PGL era.  Prior to that time, Stone Craft Masons would have aspects of this involved in their work.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 7, 2017)

coachn said:


> However, "Freemasonic" lodges could not have met prior to this time since the word "freemason" was only invented and used shortly after 1717 to refer to members of the "Society of Free & Accepted Masons".



If Trinity Tripos is not a forgery its use is at least dated 1688.
Honestly I do not believeve that the use of "free" makes any difference. Also the "free companies" which fought in Italy in the fourteenth century did not use always the "free" in front of the name of their companies but their underlined that they were "free companies".


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

True, but I think that the math precedes the application, recall that there was a wood henge before the Stone henge, both requires a high level understanding to build, 
Point is this......nearly all of the skilled crafts formed guilds, the stone mason guild must have come after those of surveying and cartography, the tools are the same, the application is different.


----------



## coachn (Jul 7, 2017)

Luigi Visentin said:


> ...Honestly I do not believeve that the use of "free" makes any difference. Also the "free companies" which fought in Italy in the fourteenth century did not use always the "free" in front of the name of their companies but their underlined that they were "free companies".


Once you do not believe the use of "free", and more importantly how it is used within context, doesn't make a difference, any further conversation along those points is pointless.


----------



## coachn (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> True, but I think that the math precedes the application, recall that there was a wood henge before the Stone henge, both requires a high level understanding to build,
> Point is this......nearly all of the skilled crafts formed guilds, the stone mason guild must have come after those of surveying and cartography, the tools are the same, the application is different.


Yes.  But the use of these tools for totally different reasons seems to not discourage those zealots seeking to tie these entirely different groups together as if one turned into the other. 

Freemasonry is no more a speculative version of Stonecraft than actors plying their art portraying civil war characters on the silver screen are speculative forms of civil war solders.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 7, 2017)

Likely my use of the word "believe" is wrong. My "believe" is simply what I have got from my researches which do not indicate a particular difference if it is used with the "-" or without or when the term "free" has started to be used massively. In any case I do not make religious wars therefore the matter is closed for me too.


----------



## LK600 (Jul 7, 2017)

coachn said:


> However, "Freemasonic" lodges could not have met prior to this time since the word "freemason" was only invented and used shortly after 1717 to refer to members of the "Society of Free & Accepted Masons".



If a few lodges came together in 1717 to form "X"...... than how can there be any form of an argument that some *version* of speculative "freemasonic" organization(s) didn't take place prior?  You kind of need one for the other to take place.  Is the argument that although these "lodges" did exist prior to 1717, they have little resemblance to present day?


----------



## Elexir (Jul 7, 2017)

LK600 said:


> If a few lodges came together in 1717 to form "X"...... than how can there be any form of an argument that some *version* of speculative "freemasonic" organization(s) didn't take place prior?  You kind of need one for the other to take place.  Is the argument that although these "lodges" did exist prior to 1717, they have little resemblance to present day?



In all fairness this is most likley, we must remember that things changed a lot in the early years. The most famous after the GL system was added was the addition of a third degree.


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

coachn said:


> .....Freemasonry is no more a speculative version of Stonecraft than actors plying their art portraying civil war characters on the silver screen are speculative forms of civil war solders.



Those actors kinda are in some ways, acting out an imagined reality to convey a message and/Or entertainment... in some ways the actors and Freemasons are very similar - both proxies of an imagined, often idealised reality.

( mind you, I might not like the above when I read it later, but it's a first reaction thought)
*content in brackets edited for meaning just after post


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

I like to think that Freemasonry is greater than the sum of its parts, it has been boiled down to what we have today, but it must have come from something far greater


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

coachn said:


> Once you do not believe the use of "free", and more importantly how it is used within context, doesn't make a difference, any further conversation along those points is pointless.



I think there should be no difference between the words Freemasonry vrs Masonry.... and the difference is a construct not all see or use. That does not make them ignorant, just different. I don't use the nomenclature  the way you do Coach, but it certainly is a useful paradigm.


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> I like to think that Freemasonry is greater than the sum of its parts, it has been boiled down to what we have today, but it must have come from something far greater



I agree, and that "something" does not have to be a "mystery school" just deep and beautiful philosophy... at the core, i think that's what all Freemasons should struggle to understand and practise.


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

Luigi Visentin said:


> If Trinity Tripos is not a forgery its use is at least dated 1688...



http://www.irishmasonichistory.com/the-trinity-tripos-1688.html


----------



## coachn (Jul 7, 2017)

Bloke said:


> I think there *should* be no difference between the words Freemasonry vrs Masonry.... and the difference is a construct not all see or use. That does not make them ignorant, just different. I don't use the nomenclature  the way you do Coach, but it certainly is a useful paradigm.


Obviously, one can prescribe the nomenclature as one may like to. 

However, what I have done is not prescribe.  I have merely described and documented clear differences in usage over the years, especially when it comes to the society in relation to what it professes is its origins. To most members there is no difference. 

Moreover, there is a clear difference for those who have taken the time to venture further into the research than the majority.


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

coachn said:


> Obviously, one can prescribe the nomenclature as one may like to.
> 
> However, what I have done is not prescribe.  I have merely described and documented clear differences in usage over the years, especially when it comes to the society in relation to what it professes is its origins. To most members there is no difference.
> 
> Moreover, there is a clear difference for those who have taken the time to venture further into the research than the majority.



My mistake, should have been "prescribe" not "prescribe".

Either way, I think we agree the primary work of Freemasonry is not learning ritual, but using it as a tool (and anything else honest) for self improvement..


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 7, 2017)

JamestheJust said:


> Why do brethren consider that the outer form of Freemasonry is its most important aspect?
> 
> What does it matter what its modern name is when the essence is so largely ignored.
> 
> ...


We finally have something we agree on again brother except that we differ on how and what these things are. 
What you have just quoted is essentially what coach has been trying to say, i think and i dont mean to put words in his mouth.  The ritual is just there to help tell a story and if you listen amd study the story you will eventually get the moral of it and be able to make yourself a better version of yourself

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 7, 2017)

Bloke said:


> "prescribe" not "prescribe"


???


Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> ???
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app



Just ignore me... I was doing gazillion things at once and proscribe and prescribe are at the core of another discussion via email.. nothing to do with this thread !


----------



## coachn (Jul 8, 2017)

Bloke said:


> ...Either way, I think we agree _the primary work of Freemasonry is not learning ritual, but using it as a tool (and anything else honest) for self improvement_.


I'll default back to description, not prescription here. 

The primary work of Freemasonry is to make more members (and I call these members "Freemasons").  This has been its goal since day one when the PGL came into being and franchised out its version of plays.  To do this it must train members to act so they can recreate plays that give paying patrons what they believe they are paying for. 

Although Freemasonic organizations have all sorts of rules, guidelines, traditions and principles that they espouse ad nausea, they have no actual program for self-improvement, much less any quality control system that enforces improvement sans moral watchdogs that are trained more by their own religious upbringing than missing organizational programs.  In truth, The society only has programs that enforce systems that make more members.

The self-improvement outlines hidden within Freemasonry's rituals and lectures, and that are espoused by it each time a paying patron received a ritual, are not recognized as self-improvement outlines, not understood as self-improvement outlines, and are not applied as self-improvement outlines.

Furthermore, if a sane soul took a look at the guidelines, restrictions, and rules that applied to stonecraft masonic apprentices to move them to fellow craft and compared them to what freemasonic apprentices are required to do to move from apprenticeship to fellow craft, it would be clear to the comparator that the two processed would not have near next to any similarities whatsoever, even when the operative/speculative claims were applied.

Let's be clear:

Masonry (Stonecraft) cultivated maturity in apprentices and trained them in a trade that allowed them to Travel, Work, Earn, Support and Contribute Masterfully.
Freemasonry (Acting; Role-Playing) cultivates memorization, reenactment and playing parts.
I do not see that we agree that "the primary work of Freemasonry is not learning ritual, but using it as a tool (and anything else honest) for self improvement...".  If anything, what you describe to be Freemasonry's primary work is more akin to what stonecraft masonry did for those who apprenticed themselves to that trade. 

Freemasonry talks a great game.  But when you are action sensitive, and do not get hypnotized by its sweet words, it is clear that it does not support the self-improvement to which it alludes.

IMO


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 8, 2017)

coachn said:


> I'll default back to description, not prescription here.
> 
> The primary work of Freemasonry is to make more members (and I call these members "Freemasons").  This has been its goal since day one when the PGL came into being and franchised out its version of plays.  To do this it must train members to act so they can recreate plays that give paying patrons what they believe they are paying for.
> 
> ...


I have a question for you coach....why are you still a Freemason?  And also couldnt the same thing be said about anything that says it teaches anything?  If its not studied, applied and practiced by the student the student wont learn anything.

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## coachn (Jul 8, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> I have a question for you coach....why are you still a Freemason?


Great question!

I enjoy role-playing with my close circle of friends.  It's a lot of fun practicing and putting on plays for paying patrons who might stick around to do the same.
I enjoy examining the claims of the organization and its members and contrasting these claims with actual practices.  It's more entertaining that reality tv and a rich resource upon which to write and teach those who have a passion to learn, even from folly.
I like toward what the organization's misunderstood roadmaps point and I actually follow them.  This even though mine is a solitary journey that I share with a select few.  I'm on a path that is less traveled by most and like what it is doing for me as I find more and more things to work upon.
I enjoy helping those members make sense of the nonsense.  There's a huge reward for all involved when a member passionately rips his chains away from the Freemasonic wall to seek more than the shadows upon its walls.  Most of the time it is a self-inflicted painful experience.  I try to ease that pain by letting them know that they are not alone in what they have awoken to.
[edit] I'm a perpetual member (all dues are paid up for life and beyond) and the _powers that be_ have not thrown me out, yet. 
Sure I could do this within other organizations. But I don't.  It would be more of the same.



Ripcord22A said:


> And also couldnt the same thing be said about anything that says it teaches anything?


Yes.  Freemasonry is no different than any other organization that ask its members to play roles and profess things that are unfounded and unsupported.


Ripcord22A said:


> If its not studied, applied and practiced by the student the student wont learn anything.


Agreed.  However, Freemasonry differs in this respect: _ It has no large-scale widely-practiced educational self-improvement programs based upon what it professes other than those instructional programs that focus upon supporting the organization, its maintenance and its propagation.  _


----------



## GKA (Jul 8, 2017)

I see strong parallels between what coachn stated and my own reasons for remaining a Freemason, I love the history, even that which is questionable, I find it difficult to believe that people, in general, need allagory to be moral. True, many today are not and it is clearly evident, but you cannot teach morality in the basic sense, you either have morals or you don't and you act accordingly


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 8, 2017)

GKA said:


> I see strong parallels between what coachn stated and my own reasons for remaining a Freemason, I love the history, even that which is questionable, I find it difficult to believe that people, in general, need allagory to be moral. True, many today are not and it is clearly evident, but you cannot teach morality in the basic sense, you either have morals or you don't and you act accordingly


I like this. Goes toward the "Making Good Men Better" theme IMHO.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 9, 2017)

JamestheJust said:


> "a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols"
> 
> Why is it necessary to veil morality in allegory?  Would it not be simpler just to tell the brethren what the morality is?
> 
> Is there something peculiar concealed by the allegory - that the brethren are not to be told?


The brain retains things better when it must figure it out

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## GKA (Jul 9, 2017)

JamestheJust said:


> So any clues as to what is peculiar about the morality of Masons?



Sure, we keep our morality hidden, we conceal it in ritualistic leasons that few fully understand, and when anyone ask, the answer usually given is that it means something different to each individual


----------



## Elexir (Jul 9, 2017)

JamestheJust said:


> That might well be the case if it is never explained openly.
> 
> Still, Masonry is full of moralistic injunctions about how to treat brethren and others.  So what sort of morality is veiled?  Is it a morality that would attract the attention of the Holy Inquisition?



Considering that freemasonry as well know it today apeard in a country that was not Catholic I doubt they had any fear from the inquistion.

Does freemasonry bother the church? 
Yes and no, some of the problems are related to geo-political conflicts between freemasons and the church. Another problem is that freemasonry in most rituals dont teach the superiority of the Christian god.


----------



## coachn (Jul 9, 2017)

Just James said:
			
		

> "a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols"...Why is it necessary to veil morality in allegory?


You have done here what so many others do. You assume what "morality" means in this statement and hence you think “morals” are being “veiled”. They are not.


			
				Just James said:
			
		

> Would it not be simpler just to tell the brethren what the morality is?


Sure.  Morality (a.k.a. "Morality Play") is "_a kind of drama with personified abstract qualities as the main characters and presenting a lesson about good conduct and character, popular in the 15th and early 16th centuries_".

Not knowing this one would assume, _just as you have_, that this statement is talking about "_morals_" and not "_plays_".  It is an ingenious statement that misleads the majority due to language and cultural ignorance.


			
				Just James said:
			
		

> Is there something peculiar concealed by the allegory - that the brethren are not to be told?


Yes. But not to what you continually allude. Once again, you do what so many others do. You assume what "_peculiar_" means in this statement and hence you believe "_something odd or unusual_" is being concealed. Nothing odd or unusual is being concealed. However, if one takes the time to educate one’s self, everything intentional is being revealed!

BTW - Peculiar: belonging exclusively to; private property

ORIGIN_: _late Middle English (in the sense 'particular, special'): from Latin _peculiaris _'of private property,' from _peculium_ from _pecu_, 'cattle' (cattle being private property)


----------



## coachn (Jul 9, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> The brain retains things better when it must figure it out
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


If it doesn't mislead itself in trying to do so. ;-)


----------



## Elexir (Jul 9, 2017)

coachn said:


> You have done here what so many others do. You assume what "morality" means in this statement and hence you think “morals” are being “veiled”. They are not.
> 
> Sure.  Morality (a.k.a. "Morality Play") is "_a kind of drama with personified abstract qualities as the main characters and presenting a lesson about good conduct and character, popular in the 15th and early 16th centuries_".
> 
> ...



Somwhow Im reminded of how old stories (atleast here in Europe) where partly used to teach children life lesson.


----------



## coachn (Jul 9, 2017)

Elexir said:


> Somwhow Im reminded of how old stories (atleast here in Europe) where partly used to teach children life lesson.


I call them "Grimm" experiences.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 9, 2017)

In Italy we say that Freemasonry "teach a method". A Mason should learn it and particularly should learn its application in its life inside and outside the Lodge. The strange thing is that more you try to apply it and more you realize that you do not know it well and the only way to find a remedy to this is to improve your knowledge about it and to apply it as much as possible. Masonic meetings should help you in this effort, but this is true till a certain point because, in my experience, for the Masonic method is valid what Louis Armstrong said about jazz: "Man, if you have to ask what jazz is, you’ll never know".

Unfortunately, there are many Brothers that learn rituals and symbols well, but that are like players that play jazz songs but they are not doing any jazz at all. At the end, they play simply a game were the targets are to advance in Masonic career believing that this means that they have become "better". I do not believe this. Like jazz, even if you know it, you can play it well or bad, but who plays really jazz, will always try and exercise to play it better, independently from the level reached. I think that it is the same of the "Masonic method". I have seen Apprentices that were really "Masters" and Masters, also with high degrees in the Rites which were not Masons at all. I prefer to try to learn something from the first rather than from the latter.


----------



## Elexir (Jul 9, 2017)

High degrees are only a messure of how many tool one has, not how he applies it.


----------



## coachn (Jul 9, 2017)

Just James said:
			
		

> It is certainly difficult to know when one is assuming.


I disagree.  It's fairly easy to know when someone is making an assumption when it takes them down flights of fancy that have nothing to do with what is put forth and they clearly do not know it.


			
				Just James said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that Mackey knows the above statement as a *science of morality.   *


Mackey played to an audience.  He was no less an actor than most other members of his time. 


			
				Just James said:
			
		

> I wonder if we use _system _as a veiling of _science_  - to avoid having to explain what is a science of morality.


Freemasonry points to the science.  It is not the science.


			
				Just James said:
			
		

> If Mackey is correct that it is a science, then perhaps you are correct that the term _morality _ is also a veiling.


"If" assumes much.  You once again misunderstand.  The term "morality" used within this context is not veiled.  It is simply misunderstood by uninformed readers.


			
				Just James said:
			
		

> Perhaps morality is only the entry price to the Masonic science.


Stage productions all.  The price of admission is joining.  But all that you'll get from joining as it relates to the subject at hand is a map to find the science; not the science itself.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 9, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> The brain retains things better when it must figure it out


I like this too.


coachn said:


> If it doesn't mislead itself in trying to do so. ;-)


True, although this has NEVER happened to me (snicker snicker).


----------



## FriendshipCube (Jul 31, 2017)

_ "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set." _
-Proverbs 22​


----------



## SimonM (Jul 31, 2017)

FriendshipCube said:


> _ "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set." _
> -Proverbs 22​


Ok, but is it possible to add a new landmark or change an existing one?


----------



## coachn (Jul 31, 2017)

> Ok, but is it possible to add a new landmark...


Yep!


> ... or change an existing one?


Of course!


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 31, 2017)

FriendshipCube said:


> _ "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set." _
> -Proverbs 22​



....once they have told us what that landmark is.


----------



## SimonM (Jul 31, 2017)

coachn said:


> Yep!
> 
> Of course!


Sounds like we will have an ever expanding number of landmarks as people will add new ones to the already existing


----------



## coachn (Jul 31, 2017)

> Sounds like we will have an ever expanding number of landmarks as people will add new ones to the already existing


Not likely.  More likely that they will change to suit the times.


----------



## SimonM (Jul 31, 2017)

coachn said:


> Not likely.  More likely that they will change to suit the times.


So what will remain is the number of landmarks, but the content of them will change.. not really what you think of when you hear the term "ancient landmarks"


----------



## Kenneth Munn (Jul 31, 2017)

Bloke said:


> I think a " trade union" in any sense is a post industrial revolution construct Coach.
> 
> What is interesting about post industrial trade unions is some did have oaths of secrecy and/ or loyalty and have Masonic Characteristics.... but that does not make them Masonic lodges (despite in some instances the guard at these meetings was sometimes called a "tyler"). For me, the link between fraternalisn  and unionism is murky.....
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Labor
> ...


Greetings Brethren,  Mr. Blake I would definitely agree with you. If any one has been in the industrial apprenticeship trades, Plumbing/Pipefitting, Welding, Machinist and Tool and Die etc. you would notice the heavy symbolism as well as the similarities. We are taught character building, how to treat our fellow brother, how to separate unjust work from just work (real and unreal) and we are taught gradually how the liberal arts are within the sacredness of the trade.(Internal make up of the individual) while evolving from one class(degree) to the next. When we finish(raised) of course we are invested with our diploma(lambskin) and yes we do have a ceremony just as well. In my research for the youth I use this model to bridge the gap. The gap was disproportionally widen when NAFTA came on the scene. Some of my work is devoted to the Trades and the Young Future a paper and book that I'm putting together to reach the technical hands on minds of tomorrow.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 31, 2017)

coachn said:


> Not likely. More likely that they will change to suit the times.


True!


Kenneth Munn said:


> Greetings Brethren, Mr. Blake I would definitely agree with you. If any one has been in the industrial apprenticeship trades, Plumbing/Pipefitting, Welding, Machinist and Tool and Die etc. you would notice the heavy symbolism as well as the similarities. We are taught character building, how to treat our fellow brother, how to separate unjust work from just work (real and unreal) and we are taught gradually how the liberal arts are within the sacredness of the trade.(Internal make up of the individual) while evolving from one class(degree) to the next. When we finish(raised) of course we are invested with our diploma(lambskin) and yes we do have a ceremony just as well. In my research for the youth I use this model to bridge the gap. The gap was disproportionally widen when NAFTA came on the scene. Some of my work is devoted to the Trades and the Young Future a paper and book that I'm putting together to reach the technical hands on minds of tomorrow.


Oooooookayyyyyyyyy!


----------



## grayflannelsuit (Sep 22, 2017)

coachn said:


> BTW - Peculiar: belonging exclusively to; private property
> 
> ORIGIN_: _late Middle English (in the sense 'particular, special'): from Latin _peculiaris _'of private property,' from _peculium_ from _pecu_, 'cattle' (cattle being private property)



Apologies for bumping an old thread, but I ran across this today while going down an etymological rabbit hole and am intrigued. Coach (or anyone else), regarding the original meaning of the word peculiar - while I certainly do not dispute the correctness of this, how can we be certain that this is the definition of "peculiar" meant in the well-known _peculiar system of morality_ slogan? Since this slogan almost certainly was first espoused after "peculiar" also came to be a synonym for "unusual," which was the early 17th century, what leads you to believe it is the definition of private property that was meant?


----------



## coachn (Sep 22, 2017)

grayflannelsuit said:


> Apologies for bumping an old thread, but I ran across this today while going down an etymological rabbit hole and am intrigued. Coach (or anyone else), regarding the original meaning of the word peculiar - while I certainly do not dispute the correctness of this, how can we be certain that this is the definition of "peculiar" meant in the well-known _peculiar system of morality_ slogan? Since this slogan almost certainly was first espoused after "peculiar" also came to be a synonym for "unusual," which was the early 17th century, what leads you to believe it is the definition of private property that was meant?


Simply look at how rabidly the organization has tried to keep it under lock and key...


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 22, 2017)

coachn said:


> Simply look at how rabidly the organization has tried to keep it under lock and key...


coachn; I'm a little intellectually challenged right now. Don't quite understand this. Please explain.


----------



## coachn (Sep 22, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> coachn; I'm a little intellectually challenged right now. Don't quite understand this. Please explain.


Look at the mechanics!  The organization did everything in the beginning to protect these plays from outsiders and to keep these plays privately owned and out of the hands of non-members. It still does.  If that doesn't scream private ownership, I don't know what does.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 23, 2017)

coachn said:


> Look at the mechanics! The organization did everything in the beginning to protect these plays from outsiders and to keep these plays privately owned and out of the hands of non-members. It still does. If that doesn't scream private ownership, I don't know what does.


Got it. Thanks.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Sep 24, 2017)

coachn said:


> Freemasonry points to the science. It is not the science.


I have read this post of some time ago and I'm sorry but I cannot agree about this point: Freemasonry is a science ... but in the old meaning of this word, not in the modern (that is from Galileo to present time). We can discuss about how much of the old meaning has been conserved and I can agree in the fact that from beginning of 1700 some things have been changed, but the basics are still existing.


----------



## grayflannelsuit (Sep 24, 2017)

coachn said:


> Look at the mechanics!  The organization did everything in the beginning to protect these plays from outsiders and to keep these plays privately owned and out of the hands of non-members. It still does.  If that doesn't scream private ownership, I don't know what does.



While the argument is compelling it's ultimately circumstantial if that's the case for defining "peculiar" in this manner.


----------



## coachn (Sep 24, 2017)

Luigi Visentin said:


> I have read this post of some time ago and I'm sorry but I cannot agree about this point: Freemasonry is a science ... but in the old meaning of this word, not in the modern (that is from Galileo to present time). We can discuss about how much of the old meaning has been conserved and I can agree in the fact that from beginning of 1700 some things have been changed, but the basics are still existing.


Freemasonry started around 1717, as a dinner oriented role-playing theatrical society that incorporated the symbolism and lexicon of Stonecraft for its members to use as a foundation upon which to interact.  If you do not believe this, then you shall likely disagree.  Freemasonry is not a science.  It is an art and that art is acting.  There was never an old meaning for this word that wasn't put forth until after circa 1723.  The basics of Stonecraft and the basics of freemasonry are in two entirely different directs, even when you make every effort to mask those differences by using the operative-speculative" red herring.  Nothing changed other than the originators of Freemasonry using Stonecraft as a foundation for its plays.


----------



## coachn (Sep 24, 2017)

grayflannelsuit said:


> While the argument is compelling it's ultimately circumstantial if that's the case for defining "peculiar" in this manner.


The definition already exists.  The behavior backs up the definition. 

You consider this ultimately circumstantial.  It's lazy to dismiss without suitable argument. I challenge you to prove that the other "definition" is more suitable.


----------



## grayflannelsuit (Sep 24, 2017)

coachn said:


> The definition already exists.  The behavior backs up the definition.
> 
> You consider this ultimately circumstantial.  It's lazy to dismiss without suitable argument. I challenge you to prove that the other "definition" is more suitable.



Who said anything about dismissing? I actually _prefer_ the idea of what you proposed over the traditional understanding. But the evidence you have provided seemingly amounts to 1) "Peculiar" used to mean "private property" in centuries past and 2) Freemasons treat their ritual like private property so clearly whoever penned the idiom meant it that way, even though the definition of "peculiar" as "odd or unusual" has also been in use since the early 17th century. You were the one who made the claim, I am simply asking to see how you got there.

If this comes across as confrontational then I apologize, as this is not my intent. But if I am to accept the conclusion you have reached, I certainly need to see more than I have. If that makes me lazy or ignorant, well that certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been called either.


----------



## coachn (Sep 24, 2017)

grayflannelsuit said:


> Who said anything about dismissing? I actually _prefer_ the idea of what you proposed over the traditional understanding. But the evidence you have provided seemingly amounts to 1) "Peculiar" used to mean "private property" in centuries past and 2) Freemasons treat their ritual like private property so clearly whoever penned the idiom meant it that way, even though the definition of "peculiar" as "odd or unusual" has also been in use since the early 17th century. You were the one who made the claim, I am simply asking to see how you got there.
> 
> If this comes across as confrontational then I apologize, as this is not my intent. But if I am to accept the conclusion you have reached, I certainly need to see more than I have. If that makes me lazy or ignorant, well that certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been called either.


Forgive me if I came across "in your face" on this.  I TRULY want to see an argument for the "odd or unusual" supported.  I have yet to see one put forth that was well supported.  It was not a directed comment toward you.  It is a directed comment toward the "odd or unusual" being espoused over "private ownership".  I see the former being (lazily) espoused all the time but with very little support for it other than how the word meaning changed about that time.  If you could provide a convincing argument, I'm all ears.  The latter argument has sound premise and firm support as to our organization's overall behaviors and attitudes from its Premier GL beginnings.  Even the ritual's words support it.


----------



## grayflannelsuit (Sep 24, 2017)

coachn said:


> Forgive me if I came across "in your face" on this.  I TRULY want to see an argument for the "odd or unusual" supported.  I have yet to see one put forth that was well supported.  It was not a directed comment toward you.  It is a directed comment toward the "odd or unusual" being espoused over "private ownership".  I see the former being (lazily) espoused all the time but with very little support for it other than how the word meaning changed about that time.  If you could provide a convincing argument, I'm all ears.  The latter argument has sound premise and firm support as to our organization's overall behaviors and attitudes from its Premier GL beginnings.  Even the ritual's words support it.



Thank you for the reasoned reply. Since you have already done much research on the topic allow me to ask a related question: Do you know from whom or from when this "Freemasonry is a peculiar system..." saying originates? I do not, and the best I have been able to do in a quick search is to find references to it in the mid-19th century.


----------



## Bloke (Sep 24, 2017)

grayflannelsuit said:


> Thank you for the reasoned reply. Since you have already done much research on the topic allow me to ask a related question: Do you know from whom or from when this "Freemasonry is a peculiar system..." saying originates? I do not, and the best I have been able to do in a quick search is to find references to it in the mid-19th century.



(I'm interested in the reply as well. "Sportsman bet" that  Bro Coach will either supply the answer, or reply with "why does it matter?", both are responses of merit.).


----------



## grayflannelsuit (Sep 24, 2017)

I should interject that in reading a little more on this topic, another definition of peculiar -- that being "special or unique" -- offered to me another possible way to view things.


----------



## Bloke (Sep 24, 2017)

grayflannelsuit said:


> I should interject that in reading a little more on this topic, another definition of peculiar -- that being "special or unique" -- offered to me another possible way to view things.


Ah. Yep, you need to look not just at what the current meaning of a word is... not just with words like "peculiar" but also words you might think you know what they mean. "Stupid" is a good one, or "awful" - the common use of which today might not reflect what the composers of ritual intended in using the word.


----------



## coachn (Sep 25, 2017)

grayflannelsuit said:


> Thank you for the reasoned reply. Since you have already done much research on the topic allow me to ask a related question: Do you know from whom or from when this "Freemasonry is a peculiar system..." saying originates? I do not, and the best I have been able to do in a quick search is to find references to it in the mid-19th century.


Sure.  Here's what I have...

*Sources*

*I:*   Other than “a Moral science”, how else is Masonry referred?
*R:   *It is referred to as_ “a peculiar system of Morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."_
*I:*   When was it first referred to in this way?
*R:   *Around 1813.
*I:*   And who was first noted as making this reference.
*R:   *Brother Samuel Hemming.
*I:*   Who was he?
*R:   *One of the leaders who helped unite the Antients and the Moderns into the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813 and one of its first Senor Grand Wardens.
*I:*   What else?
*R:   *He was Master of the Lodge of Reconciliation from 1813-1816, which he formed to bring about the union of the two groups.
*I:*   What is he credited for?
*R:   *He is credited with defining “Freemasonry” as _“a beautiful system of Morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.”_
*I:*   What’s more?
*R:   *He formed a new set of lectures known as the "Hemming Lectures," which was adopted after the Prestonian system was abandoned at that time.
*I:*   What’s further?
*R:   *Since its origin, Hemming’s phrase has been quoted in Rituals Worldwide; sometimes the word “peculiar” substitutes “beautiful,” depending upon the Jurisdiction Ritual used.
*I:*   What Mason is known to using the word “peculiar” in this phrase?
*R:   *Brother Albert Pike.



 
*Privately Owned*

*I:*   What is peculiar?
*R:   *Anything distinctive and differentiated from the usual or norm.
*I:*   What’s more?
*R:   *The Character of only one person, group or thing which distinguishes it from others.
*I:*   What’s further?
*R:   *Denoting special or particular qualities.
*I:*   What is its root meaning?
*R:   *Its root comes from Latin and means, “Privately Owned.”
*I:*   How does this latter root meaning play into Masonry today?
*R:   *Masonry is privately owned by the Body of Masons of each Jurisdiction.
*I:*   What then is “Peculiar” to Masons?
*R:  *Their Rituals, Lectures, Charges, Modes of Recognition, Character and Culture.

(FROM: Building Boaz: Uncommon Catechism for Uncommon Masonic Education -- Dr. John S. Nagy, second printing, pages 19-21)


----------



## LK600 (Sep 25, 2017)

_peculiaris = (more or less) privately owned or Special (Latin).  The words' history has morphed over time, to include an attribute of a certain group (ie.. The wearing of apron's is peculiar to Freemasons.)  Where in time the word(s) shifted is the fun part.  _


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Sep 25, 2017)

coachn said:


> Freemasonry started around 1717, as a dinner oriented role-playing theatrical society that incorporated the symbolism and lexicon of Stonecraft for its members to use as a foundation upon which to interact.


For sure that I disagree. Accusing us that we meet in order to estabilish a NWO is surely less insulting than this. At least Rosicrucians had more valid reasons to meet that to play a "role playing game dinner oriented".
In any case not only the word "science" has had an evolution, but also the word "art". Not to relate the meaning of a word to the time in which was used create only confusion and misunderstanding. Freemasonry was a "science" based on the study and practice of the "liberal arts" and, among them, of the Geometry (see the many documents prior to 1717 that state this). However "liberal arts" was used to indicate the whole range of the knowledge and obviously they should be intended now in more wide sense, also because the most important part of the sentence above is not the object but "the study and practice".
Saying that the "art" of Freemasonry is "acting" means that basically a Mason practices being someone who is not (exactly like an actor). I do not know how this sounds in English but in Italian sounds very bad as it means that basically a Mason is a false person. I do not believe this.


----------



## coachn (Sep 25, 2017)

Luigi Visentin said:


> For sure that I disagree.


'Tis your right.


Luigi Visentin said:


> Accusing us that we meet in order to estabilish a NWO is surely less insulting than this.


LOL!  Sounds like your buttons got pushed.


Luigi Visentin said:


> At least Rosicrucians had more valid reasons to meet that to play a "role playing game dinner oriented".


You might want to re-examine this some day.


Luigi Visentin said:


> In any case not only the word "science" has had an evolution, but also the word "art".


In what ways?


Luigi Visentin said:


> Not to relate the meaning of a word to the time in which was used create only confusion and misunderstanding.


I agree!


Luigi Visentin said:


> Freemasonry was a "science" based on the study and practice of the "liberal arts" and, among them, of the Geometry (see the many documents prior to 1717 that state this).


Although Freemasonry encourages these studies, these studies are not supported by the organization as a whole.  The fantasy and romantic notion that it does is no where near the truth.  Freemasonry was never a science.  It was, is and shall always be an art that encourages studies of the 7 LAs&Ss, but does not practice it within the organization.

Those "document" were very likely not "Freemasonic".  If they were Stonecraft, we are talking entirely different beast.


Luigi Visentin said:


> However "liberal arts" was used to indicate the whole range of the knowledge and obviously they should be intended now in more wide sense, also because the most important part of the sentence above is not the object but "the study and practice".


Unfortunately, not even the basics are taught by the whole of the organization.


Luigi Visentin said:


> Saying that the "art" of Freemasonry is "acting" means that basically a Mason practices being someone who is not (exactly like an actor).


Agreed!  Unless of course that person actually IS the Word he professes.  Then he has transcended the act and has become the role authentically!


Luigi Visentin said:


> I do not know how this sounds in English but in Italian sounds very bad as it means that basically a Mason is a false person. I do not believe this.


A Freemasonic "Master" who is not Masterful does wear the title falsely, but still in the spirit of the acting fraternity.


----------



## grayflannelsuit (Sep 25, 2017)

coachn said:


> Sure.  Here's what I have...
> 
> *Sources*
> 
> ...



Thank you!


----------



## LK600 (Sep 26, 2017)

coachn said:


> Freemasonry started around 1717, as a dinner oriented role-playing theatrical society that incorporated the symbolism and lexicon of Stonecraft for its members to use as a foundation upon which to interact.  If you do not believe this, then you shall likely disagree.  Freemasonry is not a science.  It is an art and that art is acting.  There was never an old meaning for this word that wasn't put forth until after circa 1723.  The basics of Stonecraft and the basics of freemasonry are in two entirely different directs, even when you make every effort to mask those differences by using the operative-speculative" red herring.  Nothing changed other than the originators of Freemasonry using Stonecraft as a foundation for its plays.



I'm not sure I agree with you or not on this Coachn, but I'm not certain is matters.  What's more important to me is what we've become, and for many, it's definitely not as described above lol.  Organizations morph more often than meaning of words do I'd wager.  What matters I'd think is whether or not we all hold similar beliefs on the meaning of the term brother.   

ps... you would make a fierce debater!


----------



## coachn (Sep 26, 2017)

LK600 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with you or not on this Coachn, but I'm not certain is matters.


It only matter if you truly want to see how far we have come! ;-)

BTW...

_"At the organizational meeting, the four Lodges elected Anthony Sayer, as the 'oldest Master Mason and then Master of a Lodge', as its Grand Master, agreeing to hold a 'Grand Feast' once a year. Sayer appointed his Grand Wardens and 'commanded the Master and Wardens of Lodges to meet the Grand Officers every Quarter in Communication.' *It is worthy to note that the organization started, with only those two purposes.* The modern "Craft" started with a planned party!"
_​


LK600 said:


> What's more important to me is what we've become, and for many, it's definitely not as described above lol.


AGREED!!!!!


LK600 said:


> Organizations morph more often than meaning of words do I'd wager.  What matters I'd think is whether or not we all hold similar beliefs on the meaning of the term brother.


AGREED!


LK600 said:


> ps... you would make a fierce debater!


<snicker> No I wouldn't...


----------



## LK600 (Sep 26, 2017)

coachn said:


> It only matter if you truly want to see how far we have come! ;-)
> 
> BTW...
> 
> ...


HA!  that's awesome!


----------



## coachn (Sep 27, 2017)

JustJames said:
			
		

> It seems that the genuine secrets are in no danger of discovery - even after 300 years.


Nor does it equally seem that there is any possible danger of having someone earnestly and sincerely remind us that the so-called fictitiously genuine secrets are lurking maliciously out there, ready to spring out and ponce zealously upon reasonably unsuspecting but ignorantly gullible members at a moment's notice and without any spontaneous warning thereof.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Oct 31, 2017)

Sorry for the late reply, but I have had busy days. I know that Freemasonry is practiced in different ways around the world, but about instruction I can tell you that in Italy each Lodge take care of the instruction of apprentice and fellows. The symbols in the Lodge are not stage furniture and there is a specific improvement path that is clearly reminded by the specific symbols present in the Lodge itself. I can admit that some brothers achieve a very superficial knowledge about it, but this is their fault, not a system fault. If the Works are well done, the Works themselves are part of this instruction. I do not think that a "manual" would be necessary. Freemasonry is indeed a "Science", a word whose true meaning is "Knowledge". "Knowledge" is not a memorization of a set of rules, neither a well organized training curse: there are people that have learnt everything about a matter but that have not a minimal "knowledge" about what they have learnt, that is that they do not have the "Science". But this is a very wide matter that could be discussed in another thread.

Referring instead to the birth of Freemasonry, if something would have started only in the beginning of 1717, the story would have been more or less: “there were a group of gentlemen that meet in the Tavern _The Goose and Gridiron Ale-House_ and decided to create a recreational association named Freemasonry and divide themselves in four Lodges for organizational reasons”. The story instead is that 4 existing Lodges met by the tavern _The Goose and Gridiron Ale-House_ and decided to join in a greater associations that they called Grand Lodge (after about one year of preparation). It is very likely that these Lodges made something, if not equal, to what they did later and that they kept also a name equal (or very similar) to the one before. Moreover, the same things are reported by Dr. Plot about thirty years before and about a place 200 km far away (that means about 1 week travel at that time). For this reason, or we have to assume that, at the end of sixteen century, and for some tenths of years, there was a strange habit in England that is to have dinner parties dressed and acting like a sort of stonemasons and, tired to do this all alone, different groups decide to join together to have a sole association which organized these meetings, or the explanation is another one.

My idea is a little different. Indeed the beginning of seventeenth century was a period of change for Freemasonry but the Society existed already as a group of separated Lodges, which were in contact or interconnected among them without having a central organization (this can be clearly explained based on the real nature of ancient Mansory which had nothing to do with real stonemasons except that remind to ancient romand soldier/builder, about which I have written a post). Every Lodge had its own organization and likely what they did was more or less what we do currently, with many probabilities with much less "frilles", but based on a different "form" or "philosophy".

The existing documents indicate that Masonry existed in fourteenth century even if, its “legend” claims the effective birth was in Romans’ time (I have also found in Italy a fresco which is a sort of “middle age selfie” in a period when Masons were operating close to Siena in Italy, around 1365). On the beginning of 1700 it was obliged to change as the birth of modern England did not allow them to survive in the ancient form. In 1717 four Lodges decided to join and likely to make some changes, for various reasons, surely making the Society more “popular” and attractive to non-Masons. This was made by altering the original form, which however, was kept abroad by Lodges composed mainly by expatriated for political reasons with few contacts with homeland. Some years later, the two forms joined together and after some time Freemasonry received its final and actual form erasing the memory of the antiquated form.

A proof of this change can be found in the _The Plain Dealer_, No. 51, of 14 September 1724, where a Brother expresses contrariety to the changes introduced and also gives a hint about the real nature of Freemasonry which at that time was likely still alive. This pamphlet is only 7 years older than the "beginning" of Freemasonry (and only one year after the "Constitutions") and this makes the critic pretty strange: how it is possible to be against innovations in a matter that was "new"? The ironic aspect is that this author also thought that the new Brothers thought too much of conviviality. However this does not means that this is what Freemasonry has become. Conviviality exists, but Works are another thing as every Brother knows.


----------

