# 300th Birthday



## Warrior1256 (Jun 24, 2017)

Today we celebrate the 300th birthday of Freemasonry in its Grand Lodge form. However, I understand that some disagree as to the actual date. Any comments?


----------



## goomba (Jun 24, 2017)

Even if it's not the actual date a symbolic one fits just fine.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 24, 2017)

I'm a member of a Rite which celebrates this day as the decision in 1312 for the Templars to adopt the symbols of Freemasonry


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jun 24, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> I'm a member of a Rite which celebrates this day as the decision in 1312 for the Templars to adopt the symbols of Freemasonry


Wow! Nice!


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 24, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> I'm a member of a Rite which celebrates this day as the decision in 1312 for the Templars to adopt the symbols of Freemasonry


Could you elaborate?

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 25, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


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


Knights Benificent of the Holy City (CBCS/ Rectified Scottish Rite).  We conferred the Sixth and Fifth Degrees yesterday in Dallas.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jun 25, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Knights Benificent of the Holy City (CBCS/ Rectified Scottish Rite). We conferred the Sixth and Fifth Degrees yesterday in Dallas.


Sounds very interesting!


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 25, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Knights Benificent of the Holy City (CBCS/ Rectified Scottish Rite).  We conferred the Sixth and Fifth Degrees yesterday in Dallas.


Did all that junk with koon get taken care of?

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## GKA (Jul 4, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> Today we celebrate the 300th birthday of Freemasonry in its Grand Lodge form. However, I understand that some disagree as to the actual date. Any comments?



No one can dispute the date of the formation of the GLE, however, there is a small amount of evidence which strongly suggest that freemasonry started prior to 1717, at least in some limited form and in my opinion, it depends upon how you define Freemasonry, is it personal? or fraternal? or both, these questions are at the root of the debate on just when Freemasonry started, regardless, we live in the present, and freemasonry is what it is today, not what it was in 1717


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 4, 2017)

GKA said:


> No one can dispute the date of the formation of the GLE, however, there is a small amount of evidence which strongly suggest that freemasonry started prior to 1717, at least in some limited form and in my opinion, it depends upon how you define Freemasonry, is it personal? or fraternal? or both, these questions are at the root of the debate on just when Freemasonry started, regardless, we live in the present, and freemasonry is what it is today, not what it was in 1717


I've seen the minutes from 1599.  Clearly, if the GL was formed, there had to br lodges to form it.  Further, the Grand Lodge at Westminster did not first seek to govern lodges outside London.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 4, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> Did all that junk with koon get taken care of?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


A discussion held over a Diet Coke.


----------



## MarkR (Jul 4, 2017)

GKA said:


> No one can dispute the date of the formation of the GLE...


Actually, it is in dispute.  It's being further researched now, but apparently the evidence is pointing to 1721.


----------



## GKA (Jul 4, 2017)

Can you quote a source for that info brother?


----------



## goomba (Jul 4, 2017)

MarkR said:


> Actually, it is in dispute.  It's being further researched now, but apparently the evidence is pointing to 1721.



I was waiting on 1721 to show up.  That's why I believe a symbolic date serves our purpose just as well as an actual date.  Granted the symbolic one needs to at least make some sense .  

If we just throw caution to the wind I say we go for March 5th, 7 as our symbolic date.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 4, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> A discussion held over a Diet Coke.


If you ever get to Iowa/where ever i get staioned next or if i ever make it thru Utah

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 4, 2017)

GKA said:


> Can you quote a source for that info brother?


http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2016/09/is-official-date-of-our-founding-wrong.html


----------



## GKA (Jul 4, 2017)

Since the UGLE staes that they were founded in 1717 on their own web site, I will take  date over anything the dummed down version has to offer.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 4, 2017)

GKA said:


> Since the UGLE staes that they were founded in 1717 on their own web site, I will take  date over anything the dummed down version has to offer.


Quator Coronati and Dr Prescott are not usually considered dumbed down. You must indeed work in rarified heights.


----------



## GKA (Jul 4, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Quator Coronati and Dr Prescott are not usually considered dumbed down. You must indeed work in rarified heights.



My reference was to "Freemasonry for Dummies" of which I am obviously not a fan, the work of Dr Prescott is good work, but inconclusive, where the above publication states that it is conclusive that the Grand Lodeg was formed in 1721, which is at the least, an over statement since Dr. Prescott makes no such claim.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 4, 2017)

GKA said:


> My reference was to "Freemasonry for Dummies" of which I am obviously not a fan, the work of Dr Prescott is good work, but inconclusive, where the above publication states that it is conclusive that the Grand Lodeg was formed in 1721, which is at the least, an over statement since Dr. Prescott makes no such claim.


Hodapp used a question mark. It was Mark Tabbert who made the declarative statement.


----------



## GKA (Jul 4, 2017)

The way I see it, the question of 1717 vs 1721, comes down to simply this, what was the main motive for the formation of a GL in the first place, is it prudent to assume that the dae of 1717 was selected only for the purpose of establishing an early lineage,  or were the founders in need of creating a formal legitimacy, the main event at that the contest of succession and the movement to return the house of Stuate  the throne.
The political climate was intense at that time and most influential people involved themselves in the politics of the day, as did the Masons.
The real need for the formation of a Grand Lodge was evident in 1717, somewhat more so than 1721


----------



## GKA (Jul 4, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Hodapp used a question mark. It was Mark Tabbert who made the declarative statement.



My criticism is directed to the publication, not the author


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 4, 2017)

Wow, some really spirited debate. I like this.


----------



## goomba (Jul 4, 2017)

GKA said:


> My criticism is directed to the publication, not the author



Out of curiosity why don't you like the publication?


----------



## GKA (Jul 4, 2017)

goomba said:


> Out of curiosity why don't you like the publication?



It describes the ritual in too much detail, specifically, the MM degree, knowing what to expect deminishes the impact of the experience in my opinion, and the argument that it was written for non masons is nonsensical.
Freemasonry uses a plethora of symbols to express a concept in simple terms, it pains me to see our fraternity compaired with devil worshipers and new world illuminati by those who do not understand masonry, the casual divulgence of our mysteries to the profane only adds fuel to an already raging inferno, plus.....................
I hate the title.


----------



## goomba (Jul 4, 2017)

GKA said:


> It describes the ritual in too much detail, specifically, the MM degree, knowing what to expect deminishes the impact of the experience in my opinion, and the argument that it was written for non masons is nonsensical.
> Freemasonry uses a plethora of symbols to express a concept in simple terms, it pains me to see our fraternity compaired with devil worshipers and new world illuminati by those who do not understand masonry, the casual divulgence of our mysteries to the profane only adds fuel to an already raging inferno, plus.....................
> I hate the title.




Thanks for the thoughtful reply!


----------



## Brother JC (Jul 6, 2017)

GKA said:


> ...there is a small amount of evidence which strongly suggest that freemasonry started prior to 1717, at least in some limited form...


The GL was founded by the members of four lodges... I'd say that's more than a "small amount of evidence" that Freemasonry had already started.


----------



## GKA (Jul 6, 2017)

.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 7, 2017)

Brother JC said:


> The GL was founded by the members of four lodges... I'd say that's more than a "small amount of evidence" that Freemasonry had already started.


Good point!


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

I could have said that there was a lot of evidence for freemasonry prior to 1717 and even included the kirkald scroll as evidence.
Probaby would have gotten the same response from someone


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 7, 2017)

Brother JC said:


> The GL was founded by the members of four lodges... I'd say that's more than a "small amount of evidence" that Freemasonry had already started.


Indeed, and, given that we have minutes from 1599, it might even be a modicum of evidence


GKA said:


> I could have said that there was a lot of evidence for freemasonry prior to 1717 and even included the kirkald scroll as evidence.
> Probaby would have gotten the same response from someone


But doesn't Cooper date the Kirkwall Scroll to lat 18th C?  See Cooper RLD _The Rosslyn Hoax?, Viewing Rosslyn Chapel from a new perspective_; Lewis Masonic 2007 ISBN 0-85318-281-7


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Indeed, and, given that we have minutes from 1599, it might even be a modicum of evidence
> 
> But doesn't Cooper date the Kirkwall Scroll to lat 18th C?  See Cooper RLD _The Rosslyn Hoax?, Viewing Rosslyn Chapel from a new perspective_; Lewis Masonic 2007 ISBN 0-85318-281-7



Like I said, lol


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

I have actually read that book, and Cooper is wrong one at least one count, unless you consider the York Rite order of  Knight Templar to be outside of Freemasonry.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> I have actually read that book, and Cooper is wrong one at least one count, unless you consider the York Rite order of  Knight Templar to be outside of Freemasonry.


Well, KT is not YR in The UK, but I did not gather that to be his meaning. If you have time, his quote would be of interest


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Well, KT is not YR in The UK, but I did not gather that to be his meaning. If you have time, his quote would be of interest



He makes the statement that there is absolutly nothing in the design or decoration of Rosslyn Chapel that is masonic, in fact the whole book is based upon that idea,
In the chapel, there is a lentil, with an inscription referring to one aspect of the legend of Zerubabel, I think t comes from the book os Ezdra, forgive my spelling, 
When I get home, I will provide a reference


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> He makes the statement that there is absolutly nothing in the design or decoration of Rosslyn Chapel that is masonic, in fact the whole book is based upon that idea,
> In the chapel, there is a lentil, with an inscription referring to one aspect of the legend of Zerubabel, I think t comes from the book os Ezdra, forgive my spelling,
> When I get home, I will provide a reference


How is the story of Zerubabel Masonic?  See http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/zerubbabel/


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

It is part of the York Rite


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> It is part of the York Rite


Yes, it is. Chapter, Royal Arch.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> It is part of the York Rite


The story of Zerubel is in HRA and KT. That does not make it Masonic. The word "master" is in Masonic ritual. That does not make it Masonic
 Now, if you were to argue that Sinclair had it included because it alludes to the Temple, I could see the argument. But simply because there is a common element between a Masonic story borrowed from the Bible and the edifice, does not make the ritual the source for the decoration. 

Additionally, the time line for HRA ritual and the building of Rosslyn must be considered.


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> The story of Zerubel is in HRA and KT. That does not make it Masonic. The word "master" is in Masonic ritual. That does not make it Masonic
> Now, if you were to argue that Sinclair had it included because it alludes to the Temple, I could see the argument. But simply because there is a common element between a Masonic story borrowed from the Bible and the edifice, does not make the ritual the source for the decoration.
> 
> Additionally, the time line for HRA ritual and the building of Rosslyn must be considered.



This is against my better judgement, but here goes,
Please explain how something can be part of a masonic ritual and yet, not be masonic?
And I do not mean the use of individual words


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

I did not intent to imply that the ritual was the reason or source of the inscription, however, the inscription is specific as is its use in the ritual, it is not beneficial to debate which came first, but, within the context of the discussion, a blanket statement like that made by Cooper is at least brazen, even if he is the local expert.
I wonder if I could get away with making such a statement?
Probably not.


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

As I recall, I have traveled down this road before, and I do not like where it goes.
All are free to believe what they wish and justify it as they need.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> This is against my better judgement, but here goes,
> Please explain how something can be part of a masonic ritual and yet, not be masonic?
> And I do not mean the use of individual words


A hat is worn by the fielders in a baseball game, that does not make it all hats with a bill in the front "baseball" hats.  Just because a story was borrowed from the bible due to its lessons taught doesnt make it masonic.  Ecclesiastes is used in my Jurisdictions for the 3rd degree, its not Masonic...its biblical with a lesson taught within that degree.

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

Take the capitular degrees, then we can discuss it further


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> ....Please explain how something can be part of a masonic ritual and yet, not be masonic?
> And I do not mean the use of individual words



Corn, Salt, Oil & Wine and different  combinations of the same often used in Masonic Dedications.... that does not make dinner at a Mexican Resturant or the Last Supper a Masonic function..... all or some of the ingredients might be common, but that does not make the dish the same not signify they're even being used in the same kitchen!


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

Bloke said:


> Corn, Salt, Oil & Wine and different  combinations of the same often used in Masonic Dedications.... that does not make dinner at a Mexican Resturant or the Last Supper a Masonic function..... all or some of the ingredients might be common, but that does not make the dish the same not signify they're even being used in the same kitchen!



I completely agree with you on this point, however, the inscription is specific as is its use in the ritual, a bit more than just common ingredients as I see it


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> I completely agree with you on this point, however, the inscription is specific as is its use in the ritual, a bit more than just common ingredients as I see it



I was fascinated with Rosslyn for a time as a Masonic artifact but lost interest because many 'Masonic' elements were common to other traditions and because the chapel was used as primary evidence of theories which seemed weaker when u looked closely, remove the chapel as prima facie evidence and they fall over...

Was the line originated by Freemasonry or just incorporated into it ? (It's probably from an order I'm not a member of)


----------



## goomba (Jul 7, 2017)

"Historical facts do not explain themselves.  They need to be placed in proper relation to one another so that a patter can emerge.  The chronological order of events needs to be established.  For example, the automobile was invented in the late nineteenth century.  The Interstate Highway System  was built beginning in the 1950s.  Without knowing the order of these two developments, we would not be able to explain the building of all those highways."

A Student's Guide to History by Jules R. Benjamin 13th edition, page 5


----------



## GKA (Jul 7, 2017)

Bloke said:


> I was fascinated with Rosslyn for a time as a Masonic artifact but lost interest because many 'Masonic' elements were common to other traditions and because the chapel was used as primary evidence of theories which seemed weaker when u looked closely, remove the chapel as prima facie evidence and they fall over...
> 
> Was the line originated by Freemasonry or just incorporated into it ? (It's probably from an order I'm not a member of)



I never intended to imply that the inscription proves a link between the chapel builders and Freemasonry, but, it is interesting that both groups found that inscription significant, in that fact alone, there is a clue to the early stirings of our fraternity.


----------



## Bloke (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> I never intended to imply that the inscription proves a link between the chapel builders and Freemasonry, but, it is interesting that both groups found that inscription significant, in that fact alone, there is a clue to the early stirings of our fraternity.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jul 7, 2017)

GKA said:


> Take the capitular degrees, then we can discuss it further


I've taken the degrees and I've conferred them in both the US and England.


----------

