# UGLE



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Out of curiosity, Who chartered the Grand Lodge Of England? If a thread of this sort have been discuss feel free to point me to that thread.


----------



## coachn

The warring Grand Lodged of the Antients and Moderns invented it through a merger.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

As I was doing research it states the first Englishman to become a SPECULATIVE mason was Elias Ashmole in the 1600's. But that was before the UGLE which was in 1717. It then goes on to mention that Four Lodges created UGLE, unfortunately nobody know about these four lodges names. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

They were named after the ale houses where the met.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Just the response I needed, but what I'm ultimately getting to is because they refused to name these lodges so we can trace their so called heritage. It comes to the question. Was UGLE every really chartered? Then we have to ask who was the original lodge or lodges to put a charter into play. Which will dismiss the irregular factor? Just random questions and pondering thoughts my Brothers. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Just the response I needed, but what I'm ultimately getting to is because they refused to name these lodges so we can trace their so called heritage. It comes to the question. Was UGLE every really chartered? Then we have to ask who was the original lodge or lodges to put a charter into play. Which will dismiss the irregular factor? Just random questions and pondering thoughts my Brothers.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


GLs aren't necessarily chartered.  They may be formed by three or more regular lodges.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Can we find those names to any lodge that supposedly came together to form UGLE? 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

Are you looking for the provenance of those lodges?  You aren't going to find it (though three still exist). See http://initiatorysubculture.blogspot.com/2012/09/and-under-what-authority-were-those.html


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

I understand your concept about those lodges. A great article by the way, it still lack the most important feature. Evidence. They use the phrase "time immemorial" and in some cases telling us just to have "faith" that these three lodges are connected to another grand lodge or they don't need a warrant or charter because their so ancient. Very interesting debate. Thank you for leading me to that article. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

Actually, they may not have had a charter/warrant, or it may have been from another lodge. Let's say  they weren't chartered. So?


----------



## Bloke

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I understand your concept about those lodges. A great article by the way, it still lack the most important feature. Evidence. They use the phrase "time immemorial" and in some cases telling us just to have "faith" that these three lodges are connected to another grand lodge or they don't need a warrant or charter because their so ancient. Very interesting debate. Thank you for leading me to that article.



Thanks Glenn, that's interesting, esp "The first warrants were issued in 1731 by the Grand Lodge of *Ireland *(1 February 1731 for Mitchelstown, Co. Cork.  That was a feature of the noted revival of Irish freemasonry under the Grand Mastership of  Originally in England there operated an ad hoc arrangement of issuing letters of ‘Deputation’.    "

It's clear "warrants" were a "modern thing", and Grand Lodge of London and Westminster which became Premier GL England then UGLE did not just start issuing them .... indeed even here in Australia in the 1850's, under the tyranny of distance you had unwarranted lodges of regular Freemasons being naughty and making Freemasons...

On a wider "fraternal' note, it was interesting the Buffaloes issued "dispensations" - our equivalent of a warrant.


----------



## Brother JC

Who Initiated the first Apprentice?


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

So, the mind frame of irregular and regular concept has to be destroyed to say the least. (Even though that's not going to happen) I have only been a Master Mason for a couple of months if not that. I love the craft at a early age, but I see many downsides that breaks up a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. This is cause number one. It could be broken if we all meet on the level, and act upright. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Bloke said:


> Thanks Glenn, that's interesting, esp "The first warrants were issued in 1731 by the Grand Lodge of *Ireland *(1 February 1731 for Mitchelstown, Co. Cork.  That was a feature of the noted revival of Irish freemasonry under the Grand Mastership of  Originally in England there operated an ad hoc arrangement of issuing letters of ‘Deputation’.    "
> 
> It's clear "warrants" were a "modern thing", and Grand Lodge of London and Westminster which became Premier GL England then UGLE did not just start issuing them .... indeed even here in Australia in the 1850's, under the tyranny of distance you had unwarranted lodges of regular Freemasons being naughty and making Freemasons...
> 
> On a wider "fraternal' note, it was interesting the Buffaloes issued "dispensations" - our equivalent of a warrant.


 Correct, and if that's the case who are UGLE to say who is recognize or not when it's evident they really don't know either. This goes for every other Masonic organization that links with another body. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## coachn

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Just the response I needed, but what I'm ultimately getting to is because they refused to name these lodges so we can trace their so called heritage. It comes to the question. Was UGLE every really chartered? Then we have to ask who was the original lodge or lodges to put a charter into play. Which will dismiss the irregular factor? Just random questions and pondering thoughts my Brothers.


1) UGLE was created by the two warring GLs - Antients and Moderns - in the early 19th century; not 1717.
2) The four lodges were referenced by the ale-house, tavern, etc. they met in.
3) Regularity is an innovation, from what I understand.


----------



## Bloke

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Correct, and if that's the case who are UGLE to say who is recognize or not when it's evident they really don't know either. This goes for every other Masonic organization that links with another body.



As Coach says, "UGLE was created by the two warring GLs - Antients and Moderns" when those differences were settled and they created a new standard of recognition which many regular GLs use, even the ones in the States. That said, every GL, "regular" or "irregular" are  sovereign entities - recognition only matters when you want to visit outside your own jurisdiction..


----------



## Bloke

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> So, the mind frame of irregular and regular concept has to be destroyed to say the least...I have only been a Master Mason for a couple of months if not that. I love the craft at a early age, but I see many downsides that breaks up a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. This is cause number one. It could be broken if we all meet on the level, and act upright.



I think the idea of "regular" and "irregular" is legitimate.. if there was no concept of regularity, we might, for instance have 12 year old Freemasons or Freemasons who are convicted murderers.


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Correct, and if that's the case who are UGLE to say who is recognize or not when it's evident they really don't know either. This goes for every other Masonic organization that links with another body.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


1.  You are applying today's Masonic jurisprudence to acts of three hundred years ago. Just like the civil law, Masonic law evolves. The principles of recognition were first pronounced some two hundred years after the founding of the Premier GL.  

2.  UGLE is not the arbiter of regularity. Indeed, CGMNA and UGLE GLs do not have an identical recognition list.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

All great answers. Nothing like good education concerning Masonic talk. There has to be a beginning , I just can't connect the dots of what was the real origin? Who warrant those warring Grand lodges? I hope I'm not sounding to far fetch. But eventually we have to start from some where. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> All great answers. Nothing like good education concerning Masonic talk. There has to be a beginning , I just can't connect the dots of what was the real origin? Who warrant those warring Grand lodges? I hope I'm not sounding to far fetch. But eventually we have to start from some where.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


No one warranted those grand lodges.  Grand lodges don't have to be chartered or warranted.  They may be formed by three or more regular lodges.

We don't know the real origin of speculative Freemasonry.  We can point to Elias Ashmole's admission; we have the 16th C records from Scotland. 

Recommend you read Freemasons for Dummies (that is not a reflection on you) and take the Master Craftsman Course through AASR-SJ.


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> ...We don't know the real origin of speculative Freemasonry.  We can point to Elias Ashmole's admission; we have the 16th C records from Scotland. ...


Well, actually we do.  It's privatized morality-based arena theater focused upon conveying allegorical truths using the façade and lexicon of stonecraft lore and such, but we call it "speculative masonry" because it sounds better to us rough and tumble guys.


----------



## Glen Cook

coachn said:


> Well, actually we do.  It's privatized morality-based arena theater focused upon conveying allegorical truths using the façade and lexicon of stonecraft lore and such, but we call it "speculative masonry" because it sounds better to us rough and tumble guys.


But that's not a "when" answer.  We don't know "when" our theatre was adopted.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> No one warrented those grand lodges.  Grand lodges don't have to be chartered or warranted.  They may be formed by three or more regular lodges.
> 
> We don't know the real origin of speculative Freemasonry.  We can point to Elias Ashmole's admission; we have the 16th C records from Scotland.
> 
> Recommend you read Freemasons for Dummies (that is not a reflection on you) and take the Master Craftsman Course through AASR-SJ.


I understand the concept that grand lodges doesn't have to be charted or warrant. In order for a grand lodge to became a grand lodge there must first be a lodge. Now due to warrants wasn't necessary back then that's understandable. With warrants being the new age of who's regular or not now is when we have a big problem. Because it's relative new, the conversation of irregular and regular is really not valid. Why? Because the origin of the UGLE didn't carry those type of documents and didn't care for them. And I'm PHA, I'm just interested in how it started on the other side of the fence. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> But that's not a "when" answer.  We don't know "when" our theatre was adopted.


That's where Im coming from therefore making it invalid there isn't enough solid evidence to confirm the whereabouts. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I understand the concept that grand lodges doesn't have to be charted or warrant. In order for a grand lodge to became a grand lodge there must first be a lodge. Now due to warrants wasn't necessary back then that's understandable. With warrants being the new age of who's regular or not now is when we have a big problem. Because it's relative new, the conversation of irregular and regular is really not valid. Why? Because the origin of the UGLE didn't carry those type of documents and didn't care for them. And I'm PHA, I'm just interested in how it started on the other side of the fence.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


It was the same side of the fence for PHA as well. 

Well, your belief that the concept of irregularity is not valid would be at variance with your own GL and a couple hundred other GL's, but it's a free country.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> It was the same side of the fence for PHA as well.
> 
> Well, your belief that the concept of irregularity is not valid would be at variance with your own GL and a couple hundred other GL's, but it's a free country.


Oh yes I know prince hall went through mainstream. I'm fully aware of that. Now that doesn't mean I will break my obligation n discuss masonry with so-called clandestine groups of today. The whole focus point is being able to know more. Ask questions. Be a critical thinker. I mean isn't that one of our seven liberal arts and science. Thinking outside the box. To paint the picture more clearly, if Mason's can become aware of the real true meaning of a mason this topic wouldn't exist. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## dfreybur

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> In order for a grand lodge to became a grand lodge there must first be a lodge.



FreeMasonry evolved from the guild system.  The guild system evolved from previous historical systems.  The chain of history and prehistory goes back to the point there were enough inventions in the field of architecture that a master/apprentice system was needed.



> Now due to warrants wasn't necessary back then that's understandable. With warrants being the new age of who's regular or not now is when we have a big problem. Because it's relative new, the conversation of irregular and regular is really not valid.



The Grand Lodge system will be three hundred years old next year.  Think about the expression "In America a hundred miles is considered a short distance and a hundred years is considered a long time."  It stopped being a new system by the time the GL of Antients, the GL of Scotland, and the GL or Ireland were organizes.



> Why? Because the origin of the UGLE didn't carry those type of documents and didn't care for them.



Historical detail.  The United Grand Lodge of England was formed in 1812 when the Antients and Moderns merged.  By then the Grand Lodge system was approaching a hundred years old.

You mean the 1717 foundation of the first Grand Lodge.  Variously called the Moderns, the Premiere GL, the GL of Manchester and so on.

The Moderns were created out of thin air.  The current set of rules about chartering a new jurisdiction can't be applied to them.  They invented something new.  The first Moderns were pioneers who created a system that did not exist before them.



> And I'm PHA, I'm just interested in how it started on the other side of the fence.



The organization of the first Prince Hall GL had a different situation.  The GL system already existed but they were rejected for reasons outside of Masonic principles.  The first PH GL founders were pioneers of a different sort.  They stuck to their principles in the context of an existing system that had rejected them.

This history gives context to clandestine jurisdictions that use the term Prince Hall.  A specific lineage has been adopted back into the family.  For any one brother there is the (ad)option of healing into that lineage.  For any one lodge there is the (ad)option of rechartering into that lineage.  For any one jurisdiction there is the (ad)option of uniting/consolidating/merging into that lineage.


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> But that's not a "when" answer.  We don't know "when" our theatre was adopted.


Our "theater" was adopted during the mystery play era.  It became privatized during the GL Era.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

dfreybur said:


> FreeMasonry evolved from the guild system.  The guild system evolved from previous historical systems.  The chain of history and prehistory goes back to the point there were enough inventions in the field of architecture that a master/apprentice system was needed.
> 
> 
> 
> The Grand Lodge system will be three hundred years old next year.  Think about the expression "In America a hundred miles is considered a short distance and a hundred years is considered a long time."  It stopped being a new system by the time the GL of Antients, the GL of Scotland, and the GL or Ireland were organizes.
> 
> 
> 
> Historical detail.  The United Grand Lodge of England was formed in 1812 when the Antients and Moderns merged.  By then the Grand Lodge system was approaching a hundred years old.
> 
> You mean the 1717 foundation of the first Grand Lodge.  Variously called the Moderns, the Premiere GL, the GL of Manchester and so on.
> 
> The Moderns were created out of thin air.  The current set of rules about chartering a new jurisdiction can't be applied to them.  They invented something new.  The first Moderns were pioneers who created a system that did not exist before them.
> 
> 
> 
> The organization of the first Prince Hall GL had a different situation.  The GL system already existed but they were rejected for reasons outside of Masonic principles.  The first PH GL founders were pioneers of a different sort.  They stuck to their principles in the context of an existing system that had rejected them.
> 
> This history gives context to clandestine jurisdictions that use the term Prince Hall.  A specific lineage has been adopted back into the family.  For any one brother there is the (ad)option of healing into that lineage.  For any one lodge there is the (ad)option of rechartering into that lineage.  For any one jurisdiction there is the (ad)option of uniting/consolidating/merging into that lineage.


I have to disagree with free masonry starting with the guild system. The craft dates back in ancient time. Warrants wasn't relevant in the two warring lodges which came about out of know where to now warrants are relevant. That sound very strange. Yes, I know it's up to each jurisdiction. I'm just stating if those warring lodges didn't care why UGLE cares about warrants now. So Mason's shouldn't be asking permission if it's ancient. Haha, to me it's crazy. But in any way am i going against the grain or going against what UGLE and PHA laws say. Laws are always changing in the political world so I see no wrong with Masonic law at all. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first who thought about it. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## coachn

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I have to disagree with free masonry starting with the guild system. The craft dates back in ancient time. ...


I have to agree with your disagreement.  Free_Masonry has been around ever since mankind started whacking rocks masterfully. 

However, Freemasonry has only been around since the Premier Grand Lodge merged the two words and started charging people to go through their morality plays to obtain titles and rights to participate in the same with others.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

coachn said:


> I have to agree with your disagreement.  Free_Masonry has been around ever since mankind started whacking rocks masterfully.
> 
> However, Freemasonry has only been around since the Premier Grand Lodge merged the two words and started charging people to go through their morality plays to obtain titles and rights to participate in the same with others.


I can say I've only been in the craft or freemasonry just a couple of months. The vast knowledge thats available it's outstanding. This topic alone have taught me a lot. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## coachn

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I can say I've only been in the craft or freemasonry just a couple of months. The vast knowledge thats available it's outstanding. This topic alone have taught me a lot.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


A word of advice, the romantic notions are what get you into Freemasonry, but don't buy into the BS.  It'll interfere with the Masonic Work to be done.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

coachn said:


> A word of advice, the romantic notions are what get you into Freemasonry, but don't buy into the BS.  It'll interfere with the Masonic Work to be done.


No doubt, thanks for that. There aren't many who can keep it straightforward. You surely bypass the shortcuts. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

coachn said:


> Our "theater" was adopted during the mystery play era.  It became privatized during the GL Era.[/QU





JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> No doubt, thanks for that. There aren't many who can keep it straightforward. You surely bypass the shortcuts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


i accept that the operatives had mysterie plays.  Many guilds did.  However, the were speculative Masons before the GL era.  I think the privatization occurred before " GLE".  That was the beginning of the monopoly era.


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> i accept that the operatives had mysterie plays.  Many guilds did.  However, the were speculative Masons before the GL era.  I think the privatization occurred before " GLE".  That was the beginning of the monopoly era.


But that is the whole point Brother.  "Speculative" masonry is an illusion.  There's nothing that these non-operative masons were doing other than to pay for the rite and the rights.  There was no "apprenticeship" served.  These "speculative" members at best merely paid membership, obligated themselves with a rudimentary ceremony, maybe learned a few words and grips and they were members.  These elaborate privatized morality plays began around the GL era.  

If we define "Speculative" masonry to be a membership in an operative-speculative lodge that didn't require serving the usual operative-speculative  apprenticeship, then we can say that it began with operative-speculative masonry since there were always those lodge willing to have paying patrons be members to support the business of the lodge...  Occum's Razor Bro. Glen.

But if we were to define it based upon what is required today, it started with the franchising highly restrictive-regulated GL Era.


----------



## Glen Cook

coachn said:


> ....
> 
> If we define "Speculative" masonry to be a membership in an operative-speculative lodge that didn't require serving the usual operative-speculative  apprenticeship, then we can say that it began with operative-speculative masonry since there were always those lodge willing to have paying patrons be members to support the business of the lodge...
> a.


The issue would be when this began.


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> The issue would be when this began.


And the answer is... <drum roll>

When lodges began selling membership that had nothing to do with operative work and everything to do with titles, rites and rights. 

If you're looking for a date, the answer is obvious.... Since time immemorial


----------



## mrpierce17

Look to the East


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

mrpierce17 said:


> Look to the East


Lol, right my brother. The beginning and the end. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> So, the mind frame of irregular and regular concept has to be destroyed to say the least. (Even though that's not going to happen) I have only been a Master Mason for a couple of months if not that. I love the craft at a early age, but I see many downsides that breaks up a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. This is cause number one. It could be broken if we all meet on the level, and act upright.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



That is a slippery slope. PHA has been vigilant about clandestine lodges and regularity. This is actually one of their preferred arguments.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> That is a slippery slope. PHA has been vigilant about clandestine lodges and regularity. This is actually one of their preferred arguments.


Yes of course, but it seems there are very few that don't study enough to figure out that in some cases irregular and regular doesn't naturally exist when figuring out the first lodge, NOT THE CRAFT. And that's on both mainstream and prince hall. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Yes of course, but it seems there are very few that don't study enough to figure out that in some cases irregular and regular doesn't naturally exist when figuring out the first lodge, NOT THE CRAFT. And that's on both mainstream and prince hall.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Someone had to establish the rules. It doesn't matter if the first lodge was irregular or not.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> Someone had to establish the rules. It doesn't matter if the first lodge was irregular or not.


The craft already establish the rules. The lodges came in with other rules. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> The craft already establish the rules. The lodges came in with other rules.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


 
The craft? Are you referring to speculative masonry?


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> The craft? Are you referring to speculative masonry?


Yes, my brother. The original question or thought was the upcoming of the grand two lodges that created the UGLE. Who charter those lodges and so forth. Only speaking of speculative masonry. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Yes, my brother. The original question or thought was the upcoming of the grand two lodges that created the UGLE. Who charter those lodges and so forth. Only speaking of speculative masonry.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-freemasonry/history-of-freemasonry

What rules are you referring to when you say the craft already established them?


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-freemasonry/history-of-freemasonry
> 
> What rules are you referring to when you say the craft already established them?


We have already discuss this link above. Yes I know these three lodges came together to make up UGLA. Neither of these lodges was warranted making them irregular but due to the fact it wasn't necessary then and they was considered, "time immemorial" which is a made up word. Then UGLE or any lodge should be using the word regular or irregular if we are going off the ancient time. And when I say craft I mean the work, the character, the making of the man, which can be found in the early days of Egypt. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> We have already discuss this link above. Yes I know these three lodges came together to make up UGLA. Neither of these lodges was warranted making them irregular but due to the fact it wasn't necessary then and they was considered, "time immemorial" which is a made up word. Then UGLE or any lodge should be using the word regular or irregular if we are going off the ancient time. And when I say craft I mean the work, the character, the making of the man, which can be found in the early days of Egypt.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



The UGLE was not formed until later in 1813. There were no grand lodges before 1717. The first ones gave themselves the authority. That is usually how it works. Your argument doesn't make sense. 

When the UGLE declared the Prince Hall grand lodge in Massachusetts regular in 1992, some would question why they could do that as well.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> The UGLE was not formed until later in 1813. There were no grand lodges before 1717. The first ones gave themselves the authority. That is usually how it works. Your argument doesn't make sense.
> 
> When the UGLE declared the Prince Hall grand lodge in Massachusetts regular in 1992, some would question why they could do that as well.


You might want to click on that link again UGLE came together by four lodges in 1717-1723. My argument is No one should be protesting regular and irregular when it wasn't did back then. Usually in 1717 in today's time is considered somewhat ancient. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> You might want to click on that link again UGLE came together by four lodges in 1717-1723. My argument is No one should be protesting regular and irregular when it wasn't did back then. Usually in 1717 in today's time is considered somewhat ancient.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


No. Not UGLE. That occurred later. This was the Premier Grand Lodge or Grand Lodge of London and Westminster.

Let me ask, did you take an obligation regarding clandestine Masons?  If so, to whom do you believe that refers?


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> You might want to click on that link again UGLE came together by four lodges in 1717-1723. My argument is No one should be protesting regular and irregular when it wasn't did back then. Usually in 1717 in today's time is considered somewhat ancient.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



I would suggest you look at the year 1813 before suggesting that someone should reread something. There might be some light there,


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> .... And when I say craft I mean the work, the character, the making of the man, which can be found in the early days of Egypt.



Ahh.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> I would suggest you look at the year 1813 before suggesting that someone should reread something. There might be some light there,


Your right my regards, I read it wrong. But that doesn't regard the fact that those first four lodges wasn't chartered. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Your right my regards, I read it wrong. But that doesn't regard the fact that those first four lodges wasn't chartered.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Were there any grand lodges then before the one was formed in 1717?


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> No. Not UGLE. That occurred later. This was the Premier Grand Lodge or Grand Lodge of London and Westminster.
> 
> Let me ask, did you take an obligation regarding clandestine Masons?  If so, to whom do you believe that refers?


Of course I did and it refers to every regular Mason concerning clandestine. But that doesn't mean I can't think of something like this. Like its ban. We have agreed those four lodges didn't care for regular or irregular because they are "time immemorial" which means in today's time they can be considered clandestine lodges that later in 1813 came to form UGLE. My point is to get a universal brotherhood to become one and stop throwing around terms like regular and irregular hopefully in the future. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> Were there any grand lodges then before the one was formed in 1717?


Yes the London lodge. The link you provided states in the 1660's that's when non-operative lodges was existing without a charter or warrant. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Of course I did and it refers to every regular Mason concerning clandestine. But that doesn't mean I can't think of something like this. Like its ban. We have agreed those four lodges didn't care for regular or irregular because they are "time immemorial" which means in today's time they can be considered clandestine lodges that later in 1813 came to form UGLE. My point is to get a universal brotherhood to become one and stop throwing around terms like regular and irregular hopefully in the future.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


Question : Do you not consider anyone clandestine or irregular ?


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Travelling Man91 said:


> Question : Do you not consider anyone clandestine or irregular ?


Yes I do. I will not go against my obligation. I will not share the secrets with those clandestine or irregular. This is only a thought or debate I considered interesting. Hopefully can be establish in the future because from this debate it want happen universal or as a unity too many Egos. And that's from both sides. PHA and Mainstream. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Yes the London lodge. The link you provided states in the 1660's that's when non-operative lodges was existing without a charter or warrant.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



It was not a grand lodge. This is much tougher than I thought it would be.


----------



## mrpierce17

MRichard said:


> It was not a grand lodge. This is much tougher than I thought it would be.


The rabbit hole just goes deeper and deeper turn after turn


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> It was not a grand lodge. This is much tougher than I thought it would be.


Lol, I didn't say it was a grand lodge. Forget about the lodges, grand lodges. A charter was not present then for those non-operative lodges whatever they were. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Lol, I didn't say it was a grand lodge. Forget about the lodges, grand lodges. A charter was not present then for those non-operative lodges whatever they were.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


Don't miss the motive. I'm not here to learn about the UGLE lodge, only here to say a universal brotherhood is deeply missing. I can see some changes but we have a long way to go to stand on the square. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Of course I did and it refers to every regular Mason concerning clandestine. But that doesn't mean I can't think of something like this. Like its ban. We have agreed those four lodges didn't care for regular or irregular because they are "time immemorial" which means in today's time they can be considered clandestine lodges that later in 1813 came to form UGLE. My point is to get a universal brotherhood to become one and stop throwing around terms like regular and irregular hopefully in the future.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


I don't quite understand everything you wrote, but no, we don't agree that those lodges didn't care about regularity. It would be more accurate that we don't know whether they did or the standards they used.  They may have been warranted by other lodges, as seen by the example of Mother Kilwinning.  Or they may not have been.  The concept of regularity then doesn't reflect in the concept of regularity now.  Law changes and evolves.  We find the same in the progression of the law in the recognition of nation states. 

If the Masonic fraternity did not evolve, we might still be conferring two degrees. 

Would you recognize every GL?  Even those which haze and engage in physical abuse?

And...may I ask for your reference that all four of the lodges of the Premier GL were still there at the founding of UGLE?


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Lol, I didn't say it was a grand lodge. Forget about the lodges, grand lodges. A charter was not present then for those non-operative lodges whatever they were.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


How do you know a warrant wasn't present?


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> How do you know a warrant wasn't present?[/QUOTE.        It doesn't say on the UGLE site. Can you give me a direct link that says it was?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> I don't quite understand everything you wrote, but no, we don't agree that those lodges didn't care about regularity. It would be more accurate that we don't know whether they did or the standards they used.  They may have been warranted by other lodges, as seen by the example of Mother Kilwinning.  Or they may not have been.  The concept of regularity then doesn't reflect in the concept of regularity now.  Law changes and evolves.  We find the same in the progression of the law in the recognition of nation states.
> 
> If the Masonic fraternity did not evolve, we might still be conferring two degrees.
> 
> Would you recognize every GL?  Even those which haze and engage in physical abuse?
> 
> And...may I ask for your reference that all four of the lodges of the Premier GL were still there at the founding of UGLE?


Your right laws change everyday. So why is it so difficult for a brother like me to want change now. There's nothing wrong with that. No wrong or right. The UGLE don't recognize PHA right now because of racial concerns in Georgia. We don't do hazing or that sort. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Your right laws change everyday. So why is it so difficult for a brother like me to want change now. There's nothing wrong with that. No wrong or right. The UGLE don't recognize PHA right now because of racial concerns in Georgia. We don't do hazing or that sort.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


Note: I'm a young brother, there are many young eager brothers who will want the same objective as me. This is the new generation. This is true brotherhood, if lodges want to do hazing they will not be included. Soon every lodge will be on the square together not worrying about white or black, which is a color crayon color. Equality is what need to be practice. The craft does not belong to any lodge but to the Supreme being. He who sets the standards for ancient and modern man. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> I don't quite understand everything you wrote, but no, we don't agree that those lodges didn't care about regularity. It would be more accurate that we don't know whether they did or the standards they used.  They may have been warranted by other lodges, as seen by the example of Mother Kilwinning.  Or they may not have been.  The concept of regularity then doesn't reflect in the concept of regularity now.  Law changes and evolves.  We find the same in the progression of the law in the recognition of nation states.
> Once again you don't know either. Because of the lack of evidence this conversation can be noted as unnecessary.
> If the Masonic fraternity did not evolve, we might still be conferring two degrees.
> 
> Would you recognize every GL?  Even those which haze and engage in physical abuse?
> 
> And...may I ask for your reference that all four of the lodges of the Premier GL were still there at the founding of UGLE?





Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Your right laws change everyday. So why is it so difficult for a brother like me to want change now. There's nothing wrong with that. No wrong or right. The UGLE don't recognize PHA right now because of racial concerns in Georgia. We don't do hazing or that sort.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


No problem with wanting change, and that is a desire if many of us.    

To be more precise, UGLE is not in amity because of a lack of treaty between GLGA and PHA GA, which is in part due to racism, but problematic based on an understanding that PHA GA is in amity with GLdF.


----------



## Glen Cook

As indicated a number of times, including in the link I previously posted, we don't know if a warrant (the current term in this jurisdiction) was I present.


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro





JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Note: I'm a young brother, there are many young eager brothers who will want the same objective as me. This is the new generation. This is true brotherhood, if lodges want to do hazing they will not be included. Soon every lodge will be on the square together not worrying about white or black, which is a color crayon color. Equality is what need to be practice. The craft does not belong to any lodge but to the Supreme being. He who sets the standards for ancient and modern man.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


The ageism is noted.  As you gain experience, you will find some brothers agree with you regardless of age, and some disagree with you regardless of age.  Try the Deception of International Masons FB page and see the response of young brothers there to some of your views (be sure and mention your theory on Egyptian origination).  

Your comments as to colour are at best mislaid, if not misleading. This is not an issue of colour, as PHA has been vocal in its condemnation of clandestine GLs within the black community, even devoting a website to it.  Yes, equality does need to be practiced, and many of us have been doing so since  around the time you were born. I sat on the board of my local NAACP and was the attorney of the year in 1996.  I sat as a pro tem officer in a PHA lodge in 1997.  I argued to allow our PHA lodges to meet in our Utah GL buildings--successfully. It was at my instance that my mother GL recognized PHA NC before UGLE did so.   It was my direction that letters be sent to PHA GLs seeking recognition?  Please don't presume to lecture me about equality. 

I did not see a response to whether you would recognize GLs  which allow hazing and abuse. Would you also recognize feminine and co-ed GLs?  What about GLs which are Christian?  

nb. I make no claim that the Craft belongs to the Supreme Being.  It is a man made organisation and makes no pretense of divine origination or even sanction.  

Please understand, I have no objection to any Master Mason giving an opinion as to what he wishes Freemasony to be; what he wants it to be.  That is different than declaring what Freemasonry is.  

But other than that I have no strong feelings


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Note: I'm a young brother, there are many young eager brothers who will want the same objective as me. This is the new generation. This is true brotherhood, if lodges want to do hazing they will not be included. Soon every lodge will be on the square together not worrying about white or black, which is a color crayon color. Equality is what need to be practice. The craft does not belong to any lodge but to the Supreme being. He who sets the standards for ancient and modern man.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



You will find that others want change as well. Nothing will happen overnight but there are only 9 states left that do not recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state. Ten years ago, that number would have been higher. So there has been change.

Each grand lodge is sovereign. They set their own standards for the most part. The Supreme Architect doesn't set the standards for the craft. Grand lodges do. You were asked if you believe in a higher power cause your Obligation would be worthless if you didn't. Unfortunately, some grand lodges are influenced by the religious beliefs of their members. That has become a divisive issue lately in a few grand lodges.


----------



## Ripcord22A

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> . The craft does not belong to any lodge but to the Supreme being. He who sets the standards for ancient and modern man.



Saying things like this on am open forum, and speaking as a Master Mason, someone might think you speak for the craft and it sounds like you are saying the Craft is a religion.  

Also I too am a younger Mason and my recomendation to you is to step back and look at tue craft for what it is...a fraternity with moral teachings to help you be a better person.  Really no.differnt then going to shrink so to speak.  Dont turn in to someone like a member or two on here is think that god is invested in FM and is taking an active  part in the degree ceremonies.



Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Saying things like this on am open forum, and speaking as a Master Mason, someone might think you speak for the craft and it sounds like you are saying the Craft is a religion.
> 
> Also I too am a younger Mason and my recomendation to you is to step back and look at tue craft for what it is...a fraternity with moral teachings to help you be a better person.  Really no.differnt then going to shrink so to speak.  Dont turn in to someone like a member or two on here is think that god is invested in FM and is taking an active  part in the degree ceremonies.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


I don't think the craft to be a religion. I'm sorry if you think that. I'm only pointing out the Egocentric attitudes that I believe can be erased. My Egyptian theory is accepted by more than just me. The Supreme Being is the one who laid out the plan for man to stand upright in the beginning not just all of a sudden in three degrees. I'm not speaking on him dwelling in the midst of the ceremonies, I don't feed into that kind of spookism so to speak. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> You will find that others want change as well. Nothing will happen overnight but there are only 9 states left that do not recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state. Ten years ago, that number would have been higher. So there has been change.
> 
> Each grand lodge is sovereign. They set their own standards for the most part. The Supreme Architect doesn't set the standards for the craft. Grand lodges do. You were asked if you believe in a higher power cause your Obligation would be worthless if you didn't. Unfortunately, some grand lodges are influenced by the religious beliefs of their members. That has become a divisive issue lately in a few grand lodges.


And that's a good start. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> The ageism is noted.  As you gain experience, you will find some brothers agree with you regardless of age, and some disagree with you regardless of age.  Try the Deception of International Masons FB page and see the response of young brothers there to some of your views (be sure and mention your theory on Egyptian origination).
> 
> Your comments as to colour are at best mislaid, if not misleading. This is not an issue of colour, as PHA has been vocal in its condemnation of clandestine GLs within the black community, even devoting a website to it.  Yes, equality does need to be practiced, and many of us have been doing so since  around the time you were born. I sat on the board of my local NAACP and was the attorney of the year in 1996.  I sat as a pro tem officer in a PHA lodge in 1997.  I argued to allow our PHA lodges to meet in our Utah GL buildings--successfully. It was at my instance that my mother GL recognized PHA NC before UGLE did so.   It was my direction that letters be sent to PHA GLs seeking recognition?  Please don't presume to lecture me about equality.
> 
> I did not see a response to whether you would recognize GLs  which allow hazing and abuse. Would you also recognize feminine and co-ed GLs?  What about GLs which are Christian?
> 
> nb. I make no claim that the Craft belongs to the Supreme Being.  It is a man made organisation and makes no pretense of divine origination or even sanction.
> 
> Please understand, I have no objection to any Master Mason giving an opinion as to what he wishes Freemasony to be; what he wants it to be.  That is different than declaring what Freemasonry is.
> 
> But other than that I have no strong feelings


Note: you can't base the color agenda off of one particular state without actually being in it or around it regardless of what PHA have with other clandestine lodges. Those are truly great achievements. That's all I'm saying is working together as a unit can solve a lot of things. Complacency can became a regular road if not careful. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Ripcord22A

What GL doesnt think SAotU isnt still around always watching, knowing all?

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## dlacaille

I make absolutely no claims to the truth of the referenced book below or the reputation of its authors. I also sincerely hope that I break no laws regarding copyright here as I'm excerpting only a few sentences.

But regarding the first 4 lodges, I recently read this in the book "Freemasonry: Rituals, Symbols & History of the Secret Society" By Mark Stavish & Lon Milo DuQuette:


Masons met in taverns and coffeehouses, naming their lodges after the places they met. In February 1717, the Apple Tree, the Crown, the Goose and Gridiron, and the Rummer and Grapes lodges met in the Apple Tree Tavern on Charles Street in the Covent Garden district of London. Of the four lodges present, three of them were composed primarily of Operative erative Masons, with some Accepted Masons in the ranks. Rummer and Grapes was a different story, composed exclusively of Accepted Masons, all gentlemen, and a few nobles as well. Their discussion centered around the future of Freemasonry in England.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Ripcord22A

JamestheJust said:


> Refusal of candidates based on religion or color might also be issues on which the GAOTU takes umbrage.


I disagree....he made us speak different languages to drive us appart so we couldn't finish the tower of babel....so essentially we are just carrying on exactly what he wanted




Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## dlacaille

If you are Christian, Muslim or Jewish perhaps.  


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Bloke

dlacaille said:


> ..I also sincerely hope that I break no laws regarding copyright here as I'm excerpting only a few sentences.



Nope, it's called "Fair Use" and does not break copyright


----------



## Ressam

JamestheJust said:


> I agree with that proposition.  The next question is whether the Supreme Being hung around watching or went off to play elsewhere.
> 
> Grand Lodges seem to like the latter hypothesis.



The Supreme Being is -- inside you, Mr.James!
Piece of GAOTU! And it's called -- soul! Which is immortal.


----------



## Ripcord22A

JamestheJust said:


> I agree - although I would distinguish soul from spirit


James I have to thank you...this is the first post youve posted that made me think....i started to react and then I realized that ive always used those words interchangeably and I didnt know if they were the same...I also thought that the Soul is who the person is and the spirit is what the person is...i was kinda right but not really.......

The soul and the spirit are the two primary immaterial aspects that Scripture ascribes to humanity. It can be confusing to attempt to discern the precise differences between the two. The word “spirit” refers only to the immaterial facet of humanity. Human beings have a spirit, but we are not spirits. However, in Scripture, only believers are said to be spiritually alive (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26), while unbelievers are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing, the spiritual was pivotal to the life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19;Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in humanity which gives us the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word “spirit” is used, it refers to the immaterial part of humanity that “connects” with God, who Himself is spirit (John 4:24).

The word “soul” can refer to both the immaterial and material aspects of humanity. Unlike human beings having a spirit, human beings are souls. In its most basic sense, the word “soul” means “life.” However, beyond this essential meaning, the Bible speaks of the soul in many contexts. One of these is humanity’s eagerness to sin (Luke 12:26). Humanity is naturally evil, and our souls are tainted as a result. The life principle of the soul is removed at the time of physical death (Genesis 35:18; Jeremiah 15:2). The soul, as with the spirit, is the center of many spiritual and emotional experiences (Job 30:25; Psalm 43:5;Jeremiah 13:17). Whenever the word “soul” is used, it can refer to the whole person, whether alive or in the afterlife.

The soul and the spirit are connected, but separable (Hebrews 4:12). The soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are. The spirit is the aspect of humanity that connects with God.....http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html

While the two words are often used interchangeably, the primary distinction between soul and spirit in man is that the soul is the animate life, or the seat of the senses, desires, affections, and appetites. The spirit is that part of us that connects, or refuses to connect, to God. Our spirits relate to His Spirit, either accepting His promptings and conviction, thereby proving that we belong to Him (Romans 8:16) or resisting Him and proving that we do not have spiritual life (Acts 7:51)..
http://www.compellingtruth.org/difference-soul-spirit.html

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## coachn

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> I disagree....*he made us speak different languages to drive us appart so we couldn't finish the tower of babel*....so essentially we are just carrying on exactly what he wanted



It's so easy to blame others for our own shortcomings.  God doesn't have to do anything to make us speak different languages.  We do this to ourselves by our arrogance, ignorance, preconceived notions and assumptions.  Even when we supposedly speak the same language, there's still confusion in our temples.  Yet we create scriptures blaming God for what we do to ourselves.


----------



## coachn

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> James I have to thank you...this is the first post youve posted that made me think....i started to react and then I realized that ive always used those words interchangeably and I didnt know if they were the same...I also thought that the Soul is who the person is and the spirit is what the person is...i was kinda right but not really.......
> 
> The soul and the spirit are the two primary immaterial aspects that Scripture ascribes to humanity. It can be confusing to attempt to discern the precise differences between the two. The word “spirit” refers only to the immaterial facet of humanity. Human beings have a spirit, but we are not spirits. However, in Scripture, only believers are said to be spiritually alive (1 Corinthians 2:11; Hebrews 4:12; James 2:26), while unbelievers are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13). In Paul's writing, the spiritual was pivotal to the life of the believer (1 Corinthians 2:14; 3:1; Ephesians 1:3; 5:19;Colossians 1:9; 3:16). The spirit is the element in humanity which gives us the ability to have an intimate relationship with God. Whenever the word “spirit” is used, it refers to the immaterial part of humanity that “connects” with God, who Himself is spirit (John 4:24).
> 
> The word “soul” can refer to both the immaterial and material aspects of humanity. Unlike human beings having a spirit, human beings are souls. In its most basic sense, the word “soul” means “life.” However, beyond this essential meaning, the Bible speaks of the soul in many contexts. One of these is humanity’s eagerness to sin (Luke 12:26). Humanity is naturally evil, and our souls are tainted as a result. The life principle of the soul is removed at the time of physical death (Genesis 35:18; Jeremiah 15:2). The soul, as with the spirit, is the center of many spiritual and emotional experiences (Job 30:25; Psalm 43:5;Jeremiah 13:17). Whenever the word “soul” is used, it can refer to the whole person, whether alive or in the afterlife.
> 
> The soul and the spirit are connected, but separable (Hebrews 4:12). The soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are. The spirit is the aspect of humanity that connects with God.....http://www.gotquestions.org/soul-spirit.html
> 
> While the two words are often used interchangeably, the primary distinction between soul and spirit in man is that the soul is the animate life, or the seat of the senses, desires, affections, and appetites. The spirit is that part of us that connects, or refuses to connect, to God. Our spirits relate to His Spirit, either accepting His promptings and conviction, thereby proving that we belong to Him (Romans 8:16) or resisting Him and proving that we do not have spiritual life (Acts 7:51)..
> http://www.compellingtruth.org/difference-soul-spirit.html
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


KUDOS!  Although I add:
_The soul is immortal; the spirit is eternal.
The soul is bound to space-time; the spirit transcends time-space._​


----------



## mrpierce17

I'm going to just pass this here collection basket  around  we want a good offering today folks


----------



## SimonM

coachn said:


> Although I add:
> _The soul is immortal; the spirit is eternal.
> The soul is bound to space-time; the spirit transcends time-space._​


I disagree, the soul dies when the body does, but the spirit lives on. 
The soul is life, our memories, personality, emotions etc and does not go on after our bodies die. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

SimonM said:


> I disagree, the soul dies when the body does, but the spirit lives on.
> The soul is life, our memories, personality, emotions etc and does not go on after our bodies die.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


My faith, OTH, believes that the soul is the spirit and body combined. At death they are divided; at the resurrection they are again combined to form the soul.


----------



## coachn

SimonM said:


> I disagree, the soul dies when the body does, but the spirit lives on.
> The soul is life, our memories, personality, emotions etc and does not go on after our bodies die.


I like that you disagree.  I used to think and believe as you do.  I thought:  Soul is our thoughts and feelings.  When we die, we stop thinking and feeling.  End of story.  The soul is dead.

Further reflection (yea "further perpending!!!!") had me reconsider this. 

Spirit is a non-life form.  Spirit does not exist as life.  It cannot be alive or live.  It only causes life.  therefore, it cannot "live on".  Furthermore, spirit is not dead either since it was never alive.

My personal understanding of the soul is that spirit animates the body and produces the soul.  What you called "life, our memories, etc.".  I agree with this. 

I go one step further though and say that this animation impacts, influences and actually lives beyond the body even while that body is alive.  It can't help but do this for the spirit that drives that animation cannot keep it contained within the body that is animated by it. 

In other words, the body is the seat of the soul, but the soul once created transcends the body that generates it.  It can't help but happen!

An example of this is as follows: the soul (life) of Joseph Campbell is still alive and ever present in the lives of millions of his followers even though his body is dead.  In fact, we might be tempted to say, "His works have taken on a life of their own", but that is merely our way of making effort to separate the man from his work.  This is an artificial division and the fact is, his life WAS his work and his work was his life.  We may also say that the spirit of Jo Campbell is kept alive by his followers, but this too is not the case since Joe never has a personal spirit; he just had a soul that was generated by spirit.

Although a body eventually dies, the animation and what caused the animation, doesn't.  Once a soul is created, it continues to live long after the body that generated it expires.  Is it exactly the same as it was while the body was generating it?  No.  It gets transformed and lives within whatever it influenced while the body was alive.  It seeds itself within the fabric of time and space and is nurtured by the very body that generated it while it is alive.

These are some thoughts for you to consider.


----------



## acjohnson53

You Brothers getting Deep. Keep Grinding like what i'm reading...


----------



## BullDozer Harrell

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> As I was doing research it states the first Englishman to become a SPECULATIVE mason was Elias Ashmole in the 1600's. But that was before the UGLE which was in 1717. It then goes on to mention that Four Lodges created UGLE, unfortunately nobody know about these four lodges names.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


A good starting point in your research is to acknowledge that the Grand Lodge of 1717 was titled, the Premier Grand Lodge of England.
The title United Grand Lodge of England came into existence 97 yrs later with the merger of the Antients & Moderns in 1813.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> So, the mind frame of irregular and regular concept has to be destroyed to say the least. (Even though that's not going to happen) I have only been a Master Mason for a couple of months if not that. I love the craft at a early age, but I see many downsides that breaks up a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. This is cause number one. It could be broken if we all meet on the level, and act upright.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


Unfortunately there will always be 3 classes of Freemasonry; Regular, Irregular and Clandestine.

But no sweat for Prince Hall. 

The issue of regularity was settled a looooooong time ago. PGM Upton of Washington State Freemasons wrote a book on the issue which publicized the Regular origins of PHA Freemasonry.

The last issue which was recognition has recently been settled as well except in 9 Southern States of the U.S. 

You're fairly new to Freemasonry so i must ask, are you aware of the difference between the concepts of Freemasonic Regularity & Recognition?

They're  two very different issues.


Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> All great answers. Nothing like good education concerning Masonic talk. There has to be a beginning , I just can't connect the dots of what was the real origin? Who warrant those warring Grand lodges? I hope I'm not sounding to far fetch. But eventually we have to start from some where.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


The men are trying to explain that the Premier Grand Lodge of England established itself as the governing body of Freemasonry at that time.
They had followed an agreed  principle of organizing in Freemasonry at that time which still holds true today that 3 or more lodges can assemble to form a Grand Lodge.

It's at this time that those lodges agree to be known as a GL. They can declare themselves to the world to be a Sovereign organization unto itself.
Then set about creating their Constitution and By-laws.

Also at this stage of forming and establishing themselves, there is no such document as a Charter or Warrant. THEIR CONSTITUTION & BY-LAWS ARE THEIR WARRANT.
The Law which they've created is their Charter,so to speak.

Although to use Charter at this stage of organization is out of place. A Grand Lodge is usually not chartered but instead issues Charters(Warrants) to subordinate lodges later.

Is this clear?

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell

Glen Cook said:


> No problem with wanting change, and that is a desire if many of us.
> 
> To be more precise, UGLE is not in amity because of a lack of treaty between GLGA and PHA GA, which is in part due to racism, but problematic based on an understanding that PHA GA is in amity with GLdF.


This might be too complex for the new MM to understand. 



Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook

BullDozer Harrell said:


> This might be too complex for the new MM to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Possibly, but they are always welcome to ask questions.


----------



## The Traveling Man

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Can we find those names to any lodge that supposedly came together to form UGLE?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



The 4 Lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge of London and Westminster were:

- Goose and Gridiron Lodge (which then became West Indian and American Lodge and then Lodge of Antiquity # 2)
- Crown Ale-house Lodge
- Apple Tree Tavern Lodge (which then became Lodge of Fortitude and then Lodge of Fortitude and old Cumberland # 12)
- Rummer and Grapes Lodge (which then became Horn Lodge, merged with Somerset House Lodge and then Royal Inverness Lodge, then became Royal Somerset House and Inverness Lodge # 4)


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

BullDozer Harrell said:


> The men are trying to explain that the Premier Grand Lodge of England established itself as the governing body of Freemasonry at that time.
> They had followed an agreed  principle of organizing in Freemasonry at that time which still holds true today that 3 or more lodges can assemble to form a Grand Lodge.
> 
> It's at this time that those lodges agree to be known as a GL. They can declare themselves to the world to be a Sovereign organization unto itself.
> Then set about creating their Constitution and By-laws.
> 
> Also at this stage of forming and establishing themselves, there is no such document as a Charter or Warrant. THEIR CONSTITUTION & BY-LAWS ARE THEIR WARRANT.
> The Law which they've created is their Charter,so to speak.
> 
> Although to use Charter at this stage of organization is out of place. A Grand Lodge is usually not chartered but instead issues Charters(Warrants) to subordinate lodges later.
> 
> Is this clear?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Yes of course I understand regularity and recognition. I'm not bashing the start time of that at that particular time. I know during that set time that grand lodge was praised as the first. But my only concern was really lets get down to acknowledging the "Real" first grand lodge or lodges. I've done more research which is leading me towards Prince Edwin. I'm sure it goes past his time as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## The Traveling Man

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Yes of course I understand regularity and recognition. I'm not bashing the start time of that at that particular time. I know during that set time that grand lodge was praised as the first. But my only concern was really lets get down to acknowledging the "Real" first grand lodge or lodges. I've done more research which is leading me towards Prince Edwin. I'm sure it goes past his time as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



You are referring to the York Legend. I'm not sure if any Grand Lodge existed in 926, but that Grand Lodge does seem to have existed in 1705. Not sure of how it was formed or how it operated, but it doesn't appear to have ever been a real force in Freemasonry.


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Yes of course I understand regularity and recognition. I'm not bashing the start time of that at that particular time. I know during that set time that grand lodge was praised as the first. But my only concern was really lets get down to acknowledging the "Real" first grand lodge or lodges. I've done more research which is leading me towards Prince Edwin. I'm sure it goes past his time as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


I'm unaware of any reliable source for Prince Edwin


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

The Traveling Man said:


> You are referring to the York Legend. I'm not sure if any Grand Lodge existed in 926, but that Grand Lodge does seem to have existed in 1705. Not sure of how it was formed or how it operated, but it doesn't appear to have ever been a real force in Freemasonry.


I believe Legends have to be based on some type of authentic story. In relation to the York legend that's something the freemason world hasn't paid attention to because we settle for 1705 and 1817. You mention you wasn't sure of how it was form, actually everyone's answer about that lodge was the same. Who gave them power to the craft? Where's their charter? But we still acknowledge them cause of "time immemorial". This doesn't fit right in my book. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> I'm unaware of any reliable source for Prince Edwin


There's many reliable source and unreliable sources about many things. I think Prince Edwin and his father or brother has a big part in where the craft was really formed. I go back to the word "time immemorial" a made up word to fit a certain time period. It's deem a unreliable word because of the circumstances we have been talking about for months on this topic and many others.  


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## coachn

The Traveling Man said:


> The 4 Lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge of London and Westminster were:
> 
> - Goose and Gridiron Lodge (which then became West Indian and American Lodge and then Lodge of Antiquity # 2)
> - Crown Ale-house Lodge
> - Apple Tree Tavern Lodge (which then became Lodge of Fortitude and then Lodge of Fortitude and old Cumberland # 12)
> - Rummer and Grapes Lodge (which then became Horn Lodge, merged with Somerset House Lodge and then Royal Inverness Lodge, then became Royal Somerset House and Inverness Lodge # 4)


The operative phrase being: formed the Premier Grand Lodge of London and Westminster

The UGLE was formed as a result of two warring GL's coming together, one was the Premier Grand Lodge of London and Westminster.


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I believe Legends have to be based on some type of authentic story. In relation to the York legend that's something the freemason world hasn't paid attention to because we settle for 1705 and 1817. You mention you wasn't sure of how it was form, actually everyone's answer about that lodge was the same. Who gave them power to the craft? Where's their charter? But we still acknowledge them cause of "time immemorial". This doesn't fit right in my book.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Yes, the craft has paid attention to this legend. 

Yes, we have told you repeatedly there is no evidence of a charter for the original English speculative lodges. You fail to get past the "so what" standard.


----------



## coachn

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> There's many reliable source and unreliable sources about many things. I think Prince Edwin and his father or brother has a big part in where the craft was really formed. I go back to the word "time immemorial" a made up word to fit a certain time period. It's deem a unreliable word because of the circumstances we have been talking about for months on this topic and many others.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


"Time Immemorial" is not a made up term to fit a certain time period.  It is a legal term that has specific meaning, depending upon the legal system that uses it. 

However, it is also a term used in story telling that allows the story tellers to take huge liberties and tremendous license in making things up where no one can dispute what is conveyed due to the claim of "Time Immemorial".


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> ...You fail to get past the "so what" standard.


A standard embraced, exercised and relied upon since "Time Immemorial".


----------



## Ripcord22A

Glen Cook said:


> Yes, the craft has paid attention to this legend.
> 
> Yes, we have told you repeatedly there is no evidence of a charter for the original English speculative lodges. You fail to get past the "so what" standard.


I've been a Mason almost three years now, I don't see what is so hard for people to understand that a long time ago some people formed a club, started to expand the membership of that club and in doing so started to make up some rules to go along with that club and how it could be expanded and who could actually call themselves members of the club.
   Of course the first lodges aren't going to have charters cause there was no such thing needed at the time.  Also there wasn't a need to write down what was going on in the club until fairly recently.  yes true some lodges do have minutes dating back a couple centuries, but not consistently like we do now.  I think minutes are more for GL then for the individual members.  Yes true some brothers, my self included like looking at turn of the century  and earlier minutes but most don't care what the lodge did some random Wednesday in 1896.


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> There's many reliable source and unreliable sources about many things. I think Prince Edwin and his father or brother has a big part in where the craft was really formed. I go back to the word "time immemorial" a made up word to fit a certain time period. It's deem a unreliable word because of the circumstances we have been talking about for months on this topic and many others.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


Well, yes, there are reliable and unreliable sources about many things.  However, the subject here is Prince Edwin.  I'm not aware of any reliable source indicating this is more than a legend. Further, you claim that the legend has not been paid attention to.  That would appear to be at odds with your statement that there are many reliable and unreliable sources.  Which is it?  Has the craft ignored the legend, or are there many sources, reliable or otherwise?


----------



## MRichard

Glen Cook said:


> Yes, the craft has paid attention to this legend.
> 
> Yes, we have told you repeatedly there is no evidence of a charter for the original English speculative lodges. You fail to get past the "so what" standard.



Does this somehow surprise you given his posting history? Lol.


----------



## The Traveling Man

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I believe Legends have to be based on some type of authentic story. In relation to the York legend that's something the freemason world hasn't paid attention to because we settle for 1705 and 1817. You mention you wasn't sure of how it was form, actually everyone's answer about that lodge was the same. Who gave them power to the craft? Where's their charter? But we still acknowledge them cause of "time immemorial". This doesn't fit right in my book.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



So, according to your statement, the Hiram Legend, as well as the Noah Legend are factual too, right?  If you believe that then you've forgotten what Freemasonry is, a 'peculiar system'....'veiled in allegory'. 
And I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that were no charters at the time because the practice hadn't been created yet. The Grand Lodge set the standard.


----------



## Ripcord22A

And really I think that the practice started because the club got to big to keep track of any other way.  With charters ttheres names and signatures .  Imagine back then when there wasn't a full time staff at the Grand/lodges, new lodge asks become part of group while drinking with a few members at the local pub, a couple of senior members say they join the new Lodge to get it set up, and the members present agree...Bam new lodge is created but they forgot to write it down so that others would know.....bring in a charter to the situation...dated and signed and if it was forgotten to be wrote down all that would have to happen is check those sigs and dates to BAM lodge is verified.


----------



## coachn




----------



## MRichard

Somebody always want to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## dfreybur

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I believe Legends have to be based on some type of authentic story.



For the origin of Parliament it's almost documented history.  In the Norse and Saxon traditions there were regional assemblies called "Thing" that conducted court cases and that also served as markets.  Each region elected/appointed a representative to the national "Althing" annual meeting that served as a prototype legislature and appeals court and market.  The traditions of both county fair and trial by jury evolved out of the regional assemblies.  The tradition of Parliament evolved out of the national assemblies.  Variations on this theme happened farther south named Assembly and Senate, names still in use.

This pattern was very likely mimicked before 1717.  Each lodge elected or appointed its leaders.  Lodges sent representatives to national meetings.  We'd call them conferences.


----------



## Bill Lins

I always thought "trial by jury" came from the AASR 11th Degree.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

The Traveling Man said:


> So, according to your statement, the Hiram Legend, as well as the Noah Legend are factual too, right?  If you believe that then you've forgotten what Freemasonry is, a 'peculiar system'....'veiled in allegory'.
> And I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that were no charters at the time because the practice hadn't been created yet. The Grand Lodge set the standard.


Listen I don't care about the Charters, that's not my motive that only came about as a thought. It's not a crime to think the way I'm thinking. Let's not be to mighty and not any earthly good because someone is so textbook savvy. For the gentleman who says someone is trying to convey a new wheel. So what!? I respect everyone's opinion so do the same to mine. My only concern is the start. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

dfreybur said:


> For the origin of Parliament it's almost documented history.  In the Norse and Saxon traditions there were regional assemblies called "Thing" that conducted court cases and that also served as markets.  Each region elected/appointed a representative to the national "Althing" annual meeting that served as a prototype legislature and appeals court and market.  The traditions of both county fair and trial by jury evolved out of the regional assemblies.  The tradition of Parliament evolved out of the national assemblies.  Variations on this theme happened farther south named Assembly and Senate, names still in use.
> 
> This pattern was very likely mimicked before 1717.  Each lodge elected or appointed its leaders.  Lodges sent representatives to national meetings.  We'd call them conferences.


I think we forgot the script as Brothers. Post like yours is very acceptable. Hit me with facts or points thats relatable to the topic. All the others with the misconception stay out of it. Don't get frustrated because someone stand on something others don't believe in. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Listen I don't care about the Charters, that's not my motive that only came about as a thought. It's not a crime to think the way I'm thinking. Let's not be to mighty and not any earthly good because someone is so textbook savvy. For the gentleman who says someone is trying to convey a new wheel. So what!? I respect everyone's opinion so do the same to mine. My only concern is the start.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


But that's the point we are trying to make: you don't appear to be using the (text) books which discuss these matters.

And, yes, I'm reckoned to be textbook savvy


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Glen Cook said:


> But that's the point we are trying to make: you don't appear to be using the (text) books which discuss these matters.
> 
> And, yes, I'm reckoned to be textbook savy


Using YOUR books only. No point is being made I have stated countless of times my main concern 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Glen Cook

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Using YOUR books only. No point is being made I have stated countless of times my main concern
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro[/?




So, to what books do you refer?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

Question : If this has been answered on another thread I want to apologize in advance. I noticed multiple brothers refer to GMHA as a legend. In stating this are you implying that he is a myth ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Listen I don't care about the Charters, that's not my motive that only came about as a thought. It's not a crime to think the way I'm thinking. Let's not be to mighty and not any earthly good because someone is so textbook savvy. For the gentleman who says someone is trying to convey a new wheel. So what!? I respect everyone's opinion so do the same to mine. My only concern is the start.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



You don't care about charters yet you brought it up over and over. Makes sense to me now.


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I think we forgot the script as Brothers. Post like yours is very acceptable. Hit me with facts or points thats relatable to the topic. All the others with the misconception stay out of it. Don't get frustrated because someone stand on something others don't believe in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



You should follow your own advice. Hit us with some facts or documentation to prove whatever point it is, you are trying to make.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> You should follow your own advice. Hit us with some facts or documentation to prove whatever point it is, you are trying to make.


If you was intellectual enough you would see the questions about the charter isn't my motive. We kept touching basis on that subject because it was a ongoing topic. Lol I am following my own advice I'm surely not following yours 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Any book. You haven't read all books concerning Masonic history and its whereabouts. Let's not be Egocentric concerning Masonic talk. You've been debating with me from the start so you should know I only care about the start. The charter was only a objective to my subject. I completely understand about grand lodges beginning with charters. I still have my questions and whys and how's. Regardless of what standard they created. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> If you was intellectual enough you would see the questions about the charter isn't my motive. We kept touching basis on that subject because it was a ongoing topic. Lol I am following my own advice I'm surely not following yours
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Wow. That was very intellectual. I'm impressed. Look at sarcasm before you get too excited.


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Any book. You haven't read all books concerning Masonic history and its whereabouts. Let's not be Egocentric concerning Masonic talk. You've been debating with me from the start so you should know I only care about the start. The charter was only a objective to my subject. I completely understand about grand lodges beginning with charters. I still have my questions and whys and how's. Regardless of what standard they created.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Not sure who this is directed at. I doubt anyone claimed to have read all books concerning Freemasonry. But there is something to be said for having documentation when you are making a point. Apparently, that is a foreign concept to you.  You were making all kinds of claims on this board before you were even a Master Mason. That speaks volumes.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> Wow. That was very intellectual. I'm impressed. Look at sarcasm before you get too excited.


Wasn't trying to be my Brother. I'm not in the business of downgrading. I simply stated if you was intellectual enough because I'm not about to call you dumb or stupid. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> Not sure who this is directed at. I doubt anyone claimed to have read all books concerning Freemasonry. But there is something to be said for having documentation when you are making a point. Apparently, that is a foreign concept to you.  You were making all kinds of claims on this board before you were even a Master Mason. That speaks volumes.


I took advice from you because at that point of time it was positive and me being a EA wasn't aware of those concepts. But when you say things that's not debatable or not in a teaching formula. Then it holds no value to me. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> I took advice from you because at that point of time it was positive and me being a EA wasn't aware of those concepts. But when you say things that's not debatable or not in a teaching formula. Then it holds no value to me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Now you know how I feel reading your posts. Carry on. Obviously, you already know everything.


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Wasn't trying to be my Brother. I'm not in the business of downgrading. I simply stated if you was intellectual enough because I'm not about to call you dumb or stupid.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Frankly, I wouldn't really care if you thought I was intellectual enough or not. It's kind of a silly thing to bring up regardless. I guess you are trying to convince us that you are somewhat intellectual. Who knows what your point is anymore!

You really shouldn't be calling anyone dumb or stupid before taking a long hard look in the mirror.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

MRichard said:


> Frankly, I wouldn't really care if you thought I was intellectual enough or not. It's kind of a silly thing to bring up regardless. I guess you are trying to convince us that you are somewhat intellectual. Who knows what your point is anymore!
> 
> You really shouldn't be calling anyone dumb or stupid before taking a long hard look in the mirror.


Lol, just see yourself on to another post then. This is irrelevant. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## MRichard

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Lol, just see yourself on to another post then. This is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Lol. Then why bring it up in the first place. Zero understanding for such an intellectual. 

Ignoring foolishness from now on. Button engaged. End of discussion.


----------



## Bloke

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Listen I don't care about the Charters, that's not my motive that only came about as a thought. It's not a crime to think the way I'm thinking. Let's not be to mighty and not any earthly good because someone is so textbook savvy. For the gentleman who says someone is trying to convey a new wheel. So what!? I respect everyone's opinion so do the same to mine. My only concern is the start.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro



Still, you cant blame people for replying to your original post:


JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> Out of curiosity, Who chartered the Grand Lodge Of England? If a thread of this sort have been discuss feel free to point me to that thread.



So, in the OP, you wanted to know who charted "Grand Lodge of England" but now "don't care about the Charters"

Not being smart but just pointing that out.

So now, you've redefined your question to "My only concern is the start"

So you need to define "the start". Is it when we went from 2 degrees to 3? Is it when operatives admitted the first non-stone mason? Is it when stone masons incorporated codes of moral behaviour into their rules ? Is it when we had working tools to moralise on ? Is it 1717 ? 1813 ? Is it when we switched from Noah to Hiram ? Or at some other important innovation or change ?

What event or change marks modern freemasonry is a better question and if you're asking when modern speculative freemasonry was born or the first event or group which lead to it.


----------



## JM-MWPHGLGA

Bloke said:


> Still, you cant blame people for replying to your original post:
> 
> 
> So, in the OP, you wanted to know who charted "Grand Lodge of England" but now "don't care about the Charters"
> 
> Not being smart but just pointing that out.
> 
> So now, you've redefined your question to "My only concern is the start"
> 
> So you need to define "the start". Is it when we went from 2 degrees to 3? Is it when operatives admitted the first non-stone mason? Is it when stone masons incorporated codes of moral behaviour into their rules ? Is it when we had working tools to moralise on ? Is it 1717 ? 1813 ? Is it when we switched from Noah to Hiram ? Or at some other important innovation or change ?
> 
> What event or change marks modern freemasonry is a better question and if you're asking when modern speculative freemasonry was born or the first event or group which lead to it.


In my original post I said out of curiosity later I stated what was my motive. I'm not upset lol. I'm only stating let's have respect of other ideas. No idea isn't stupid. The gentleman and others jump out of debatable subject and went outside the box. I am not for that and never will. I respect people's opinion only if it's relevant and professional. And Yes, whether it started in Egypt of Spain somewhere this is my motive I know England set the standards. But what's the Beginning. If it's inside the debate box there is no being smart because that's apart of the game. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## dfreybur

Travelling Man91 said:


> Question : If this has been answered on another thread I want to apologize in advance. I noticed multiple brothers refer to GMHA as a legend. In stating this are you implying that he is a myth ?



In anything like the level of detail depicted in our degrees, definitely.  In being a Grand Master millennia before the concept was invented, definitely.  In appearing in two books of the Old Testament, there he is.


----------



## SimonM

JM-MWPHGLGA said:


> In my original post I said out of curiosity later I stated what was my motive. I'm not upset lol. I'm only stating let's have respect of other ideas. No idea isn't stupid. The gentleman and others jump out of debatable subject and went outside the box. I am not for that and never will. I respect people's opinion only if it's relevant and professional. And Yes, whether it started in Egypt of Spain somewhere this is my motive I know England set the standards. But what's the Beginning. If it's inside the debate box there is no being smart because that's apart of the game.


If you want to go back before 1717 then its a question on how much myth and iterpretation you want to accept. 
If you act like a historian at a university you wont come much longer then somewhere in the middle of the 17th century(at best). 

If you can tolerate speculations and more implicit connections then you can find intresting threads going back a few more centuries, but then it all depends on what themes you focus on. 
Is it the roman builders guild that -pehaps- had an influence on the medival guilds who built the cathedrals? 
Is it the theme from Ramsays oration with the legend of the templar connection?
Is it the esoteric threads with the rosecrucian influence?

All of these are hard to prove but if one or more of them would be true they would constitute a "Beginning" for masonry. My examples here are just that, examples. I'm sure you can find other that are just as intresting to speculate about but impossible to show that they have connection with masonry. 



Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## The Traveling Man

Like the other Brothers have said its not easy to speak on the start. Freemasonry (as we practice it today) was pretty much started in 1717. Prior to that you had various aspects of the Craft that were practiced separately. They hadn't come together. Theres Templarism, Rosicrucians, Mason guilds, etc etc that all have their own history. Some of those may have come together in some places but not in other places. It wasn't an organized system. Freenasonry is the result of many different beliefs, rituals, agendas, etc coming together. A peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols


----------



## Bloke

1717 is easy. I do not think it is the start of Freemasonry. I think it is the birth of the modern Grand Lodge system. Nothing more, and nothing less than that.


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> 1717 is easy. I do not think it is the start of Freemasonry. I think it is the birth of the modern Grand Lodge system. Nothing more, and nothing less than that.


Indeed, we know it wasn't the start of Freemasonry.


----------



## Bloke

JamestheJust said:


> There are various threads that can be followed back in Masonry including:
> .....
> .....
> - philosophical propositions
> - spiritual science
> - underlying intent.
> .........
> Each thread tends to lead to a different starting point.



The three points I've eft are three that I would broadly discount as "the start of Freemasonry"

"Philosophical propositions" because what we have today is a pastiche of so many of them.

"Spiritual science" - because I think the term is so broad. For many it will destroy religion, for others it brings religion and science together.. for some, it's about astral projection and other things. I don't know a lot about it, but I'd be interested in your definition. Something like the below seems the most "rationalist" I've just read and the sort of thing I suspect you may have in mind;

*


			
				How people think about spiritual science[/B said:
			
		


			When we hear ‘spiritual’, we might cringe with thoughts of fantasies and magical fairy tales.

We might think of New Age and conspiracies with some woo woo magic. For spiritual science, some are horrifically offended in having spirituality together with science.

Now another name for spiritual science is esoteric or occult science. This brings up the idea of evil, Satanism, witches, etc. You might bring spells, rituals, and potions into the mix. But this is further from the truth.

The Hidden Truth
Spiritual science are neither of those. Esoteric and Occult means hidden. It is the origin of science and religion. It is hidden knowledge of the universe.

What is Spiritual Science?
While some modern scientists dogmatically reject spiritual science under unconscious critics, spiritual science takes an unbiased approach to understanding true reality. Spiritual science…
		
Click to expand...

*


			
				How people think about spiritual science[/B said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Uses the soul as an instrument to conduct research
> 
> Follows a different approach than the conventional scientific method
> 
> Involves having a balance and level-headed judgment in our conclusion
> 
> Get their facts from within
> 
> “proof” is by experience
> *
> *The root of spiritual science is that there is a hidden world – spiritual (astral) world – and that we can come to understand them by unlocking our dormant human capacities, from within.
> Source http://www.2empowerthyself.com/8-myths-spiritual-science/ *



Assuming, but not dogmatically accepting the above is somewhat accurate, I do not think it would be a broadly accepted as congruous with speculative Freemasonry. James, when you talk about how the Second Degree is so important, the above is what I generally the sort of thing I think you are talking about, or sacred geometry, or science (knowledge and understanding of the universe) generally.

"Underlying intent" is also just too broad a phrase and will also be argued.

Some of your list (perhaps all) might have made a contribution in forming our system, but I dont think you could say any were "the start" of Speculative Freemasonry.

I am not sure when "the start" of Freemasonry is either, but I generally accept the theory we came from operative Freemasons as the most likely and hence the point when they not just incorporated some moral teachings (or codification) into their rules, but also started to accept non-operatives as members. I would say that marked the birth of Modern Speculative Freemasonry.

*enter stage left Coach N*


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> Indeed, we know it wasn't the start of Freemasonry.


Perhaps not, but the date is darn close to the start of anything that is Recognized today as "Freemasonry". 

Things put forth as "connected to" and as "origins of" that occurred prior to the formation of and establishment of this specific Grand Lodge System of Morality conveyance are forced at best, once what Freemasonry does is clearly understood. 

Clearly there was a quickening that occurred for Freemasonry prior to this date.  However, that quickening should not be confused with what it actually was at birth. 

Furthermore, the proclaimed parents on the birth certificate show no continuity with the character and structure of the Organization.  Clearly there was a donor involved whose identity was masked and for good reason.


----------



## Bloke

coachn said:


> .......Clearly there was a donor involved whose identity was masked and for good reason.



Come on Coach...... you would let that slip by with comment....

Please elaborate..


----------



## Bloke

Oh, and is there a consensus that we need to be looking before 1717 ?

I talk to the public often on Freemasonry. When asked the origins, I respond Freemasonry is old but its origins are lost in the mists of time, but it's widely accepted it grew out of stone masons guilds who started to incorporate philosophy and the allowed non-stone masons to join them, but one thing we can say for sure is that the Modern Grand Lodge system was born in a pub in London in 1717.


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> Come on Coach...... you would let that slip by with comment....
> 
> Please elaborate..


Bro., surely you should have no doubt that I have no doubt that Freemasonry as it exists today is theater.  It doesn't matter that the Premier Grand Lodge was started by a bunch of Stonecraft associated tavern hopping lodges as a way to have quarterly dinner parties or not.  What grew out of that established gathering was Theater with moral purposes that takes its lexicon (words & symbols), props and related lore from stoneworkers.  All similarity between them stops there.

Hence, the donor was the stuff of stonecraft, but the mother was clearly a thespian and the offspring is Morally based theater.


----------



## Bloke

coachn said:


> .....Hence, the donor was the stuff of stonecraft, but the mother was clearly a thespian and the offspring is Morally based theater.


I think Freemasonry is more than just a morality play. I know you have your own differentiating  lexicon (want to type lexiconography but not sure it's a word) but I'm also going to say My Freemasonry has not just ethical elements but also social- it establishes a society of men with not just moral, but also social obligations towards each other. I think to dismiss it all as a theatrical group is to sell it short.

But accepting your definition for a moment, would you say the start of Freemasonry was  Morality Plays ?

( and it's interesting i use the word ethics and not just morality, do "ethics" have much of a place in American Freemasonry ? The word is not used in our ritual but clearly is applied in our thinking, especially around Masonic Trials)


----------



## Bloke

coachn said:


> .......Clearly there was a donor involved whose identity was masked and for good reason.



Who or what was the donor? Theatre ? Morality Plays ? I'm pretty sure you will not say a biography


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> I think Freemasonry is more than just a morality play. I know you have your own differentiating  lexicon (want to type lexiconography but not sure it's a word) but I'm also going to say My Freemasonry has not just ethical elements but also social- it establishes a society of men with not just moral, but also social obligations towards each other. I think to dismiss it all as a theatrical group is to sell it short.


I honor, not dismiss it, by calling it "Theater with a moral purpose".  I was clear in stating that.  If it were "just a morality play", such the statement and classification would not capture all the rich nuances, tangled associations and background drama of theater.  And there is plenty of all of this.



Bloke said:


> But accepting your definition for a moment, would you say the start of Freemasonry was  Morality Plays ?


I don't believe so, although it would be yet another romantic notion that could be hooked on to and that someone could write a best selling Freemasonic book on.

In reality, the start of Freemasonry was when a group of Stonecraft associated tavern hopping lodges got together to have quarterly dinner parties soon realized that dinner theater spotlighting archaic style ritual with twists, turns, allegory, symbolism, metaphor, religion, philosophy and really really old words would be much more fun, exciting and attractive.

All that grew up from that one realization is what we have today, minus of course the dinner theater, singing, drinking, and thought-provoking discourse.  My! have things changed a lot in just 300 years.



Bloke said:


> ( and it's interesting i use the word ethics and not just morality, do "ethics" have much of a place in American Freemasonry ?


Absolutely!  Morals are personal.  Ethics are social.  And being such, we as Freemasons pledge to be moral and to follow a code of ethics put forth by the organization.



Bloke said:


> The word is not used in our ritual but clearly is applied in our thinking, especially around Masonic Trials)


Agreed!  It does apply and then some.


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> Who or what was the donor? Theatre ? Morality Plays ? I'm pretty sure you will not say a biography


Theater is fertile ground.  All it needs it a seed to grow in it along with the right conditions.  In this case, the seed (donor) was a simple idea:  Fabricate morality plays mimicking ritualistic style ceremonies using Stonecraft as a backdrop with its lexicon and lore molded to suit the drama.


----------



## Bloke

coachn said:


> Theater is fertile ground.  All it needs it a seed to grow in it along with the right conditions.  In this case, the seed (donor) was a simple idea:  Fabricate morality plays mimicking ritualistic style ceremonies using Stonecraft as a backdrop with its lexicon and lore molded to suit the drama.



Thanks Coach. I manage two masonic centres and would have shown thousands through the building. If they ask, I will generally show them the lodge room and characterise  it something like this "This room is where our ceremonies take place and is the sole reason this building exists. A good way to think of the lodge room is as a performance space. It has all the tools, the props and furniture  we need to perform our ceremonies which can be though of plays..etc etc etc ...."


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> Thanks Coach. I manage two masonic centres and would have shown thousands through the building. If they ask, I will generally show them the lodge room and characterise  it something like this "This room is where our ceremonies take place and is the sole reason this building exists. A good way to think of the lodge room is as a performance space. It has all the tools, the props and furniture  we need to perform our ceremonies which can be though of plays..etc etc etc ...."


That's awesome.  Great way of explaining things to the profane.

BTW - Thanks for all that you do Bro.!  What you do is essential!


----------



## Bloke

coachn said:


> That's awesome.  Great way of explaining things to the profane.
> 
> BTW - Thanks for all that you do Bro.!  What you do is essential!



Thanks for the thanks 

Being a WM really developed my "masonic consciousness" because i realized i had to speak for the lodge. Running lodge tours really hones it to short closed statements
Q. What is Freemasonry?
A. It's the oldest and largest Fraternity in the world.

I got trained/ developed these when we had stands at local fairs, before i became a WM. It's good to have people skilled at it, esp with new members wives, we we're not fluffing around saying "The Order is a system of morality veiled in allegory".


----------



## Glen Cook

coachn said:


> Perhaps not, but the date is darn close to the start of anything that is Recognized today as "Freemasonry".
> 
> .



Well, we know that Lodge No 1 in Edinburgh made its first speculative Mason in 1634.  Kilwinning 0 had been warranting other lodges.


----------



## Bloke

Glen Cook said:


> Well, we know that Lodge No 1 in Edinburgh made its first speculative Mason in 1634.  Kilwinning 0 had been warranting other lodges.


That's the Ashmore (Ashmole?) or Moray I guess.


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> That's the Ashmore (Ashmole?) or Moray I guess.


Lodge of Mary's Chapel. No 1, Edinburgh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodge_of_Edinburgh_(Mary's_Chapel)_No._1


----------



## MarkR

Bloke said:


> That's the Ashmore (Ashmole?) or Moray I guess.


Moray was made a Mason in 1641 by Mary's Chapel (Lodge of Edinburgh,) Ashmole in 1646 at Warrington, England.


----------



## Bloke

Many thanks Brothers, I would not remember which was which.


----------



## coachn

Glen Cook said:


> Well, we know that Lodge No 1 in Edinburgh made its first speculative Mason in 1634.


Okay Bro., let's go through it.

This is conjecture (not speculation in the original sense) based upon unfounded assumptions.

What we know is this:

A stonecraft lodge allowed into its membership a man who had no intention of becoming a stonecraft worker.
He paid moneys to the lodge to become a member.
The lodge benefited by allowing someone into membership to pay for the right to be a member.  
It is an assumption that this member was anything more than a paying member of the lodge.
Assuming that a man who joins a stonecraft lodge is speculative just because he has no intention of doing stonecraft work is just that: an assumption.
The practice of allowing non-stonecraft focused men to join as a way of having revenue generation was soon to become a common practice for such lodges.
Other tangential points:

The word "Freemason" did not exist until after 1717.  (Free_Mason and Free-Mason are not the same as Freemason; although many translators and interpreters assume they are.)
Freemasonic Morality plays did not come into existence until after 1717.
Speculative Masonry is a well-directed fabricated myth (in the truest sense of the word) that has wrought all forms of unsupported conjecture for nearly 300 years.
The romance of Freemasonry, much like many fantasies, is alluring. 
The reality of Freemasonry is far more benefiting, once the honeymoon is over and the reality of the marriage is realized and embraced for what it actually is.



Glen Cook said:


> Kilwinning 0 had been warranting other lodges.


Which was a common practice for stonecraft lodges.  That however did not make it a freemasonic grand lodge.


----------



## Ressam

coachn said:


> Bro., surely you should have no doubt that I have no doubt that Freemasonry as it exists today is theater.  It doesn't matter that the Premier Grand Lodge was started by a bunch of Stonecraft associated tavern hopping lodges as a way to have quarterly dinner parties or not.  What grew out of that established gathering was Theater with moral purposes that takes its lexicon (words & symbols), props and related lore from stoneworkers.  All similarity between them stops there.
> 
> Hence, the donor was the stuff of stonecraft, but the mother was clearly a thespian and the offspring is Morally based theater.




Greetings, Coach!
Can I, please, clarify?
Do I understand correctly by thinkin' that:
One of the purposes of Freemasonry is -- an attempt, to make Member better by -- making kinda "Theatrical Spiritual Exercise"?
Thank You!


----------



## Bloke

coachn said:


> Okay Bro., let's go through it.
> 
> This is conjecture (not speculation in the original sense) based upon unfounded assumptions.
> 
> What we know is this:
> 
> A stonecraft lodge allowed into its membership a man who had no intention of becoming a stonecraft worker.
> He paid moneys to the lodge to become a member.
> The lodge benefited by allowing someone into membership to pay for the right to be a member.
> It is an assumption that this member was anything more than a paying member of the lodge.
> Assuming that a man who joins a stonecraft lodge is speculative just because he has no intention of doing stonecraft work is just that: an assumption.
> The practice of allowing non-stonecraft focused men to join as a way of having revenue generation was soon to become a common practice for such lodges.
> 
> 
> Freemasonic Morality plays did not come into existence until after 1717.
> Speculative Masonry is a well-directed fabricated myth (in the truest sense of the word) that has wrought all forms of unsupported conjecture for nearly 300 years.
> The romance of Freemasonry, much like many fantasies, is alluring.
> The reality of Freemasonry is far more benefiting, once the honeymoon is over and the reality of the marriage is realized and embraced for what it actually is.
> 
> Which was a common practice for stonecraft lodges.  That however did not make it a freemasonic grand lodge.





coachn said:


> Okay Bro., let's go through it.
> 
> This is conjecture (not speculation in the original sense) based upon unfounded assumptions.
> 
> What we know is this:
> 
> A stonecraft lodge allowed into its membership a man who had no intention of becoming a stonecraft worker.
> He paid moneys to the lodge to become a member.
> The lodge benefited by allowing someone into membership to pay for the right to be a member.
> It is an assumption that this member was anything more than a paying member of the lodge.
> Assuming that a man who joins a stonecraft lodge is speculative just because he has no intention of doing stonecraft work is just that: an assumption.
> The practice of allowing non-stonecraft focused men to join as a way of having revenue generation was soon to become a common practice for such lodges.
> Other tangential points:
> 
> The word "Freemason" did not exist until after 1717.  (Free_Mason and Free-Mason are not the same as Freemason; although many translators and interpreters assume they are.)
> Freemasonic Morality plays did not come into existence until after 1717.
> Speculative Masonry is a well-directed fabricated myth (in the truest sense of the word) that has wrought all forms of unsupported conjecture for nearly 300 years.
> The romance of Freemasonry, much like many fantasies, is alluring.
> The reality of Freemasonry is far more benefiting, once the honeymoon is over and the reality of the marriage is realized and embraced for what it actually is.
> 
> Which was a common practice for stonecraft lodges.  That however did not make it a freemasonic grand lodge.


Thanks for taking the time to lay that out coach.

Perhaps better to say "we have no tangible record that Freemasonic Morality plays did not come into existence until after 1717"


----------



## dfreybur

coachn said:


> What we know is this:
> 
> A stonecraft lodge allowed into its membership a man who had no intention of becoming a stonecraft worker.
> He paid moneys to the lodge to become a member.
> The lodge benefited by allowing someone into membership to pay for the right to be a member.
> It is an assumption that this member was anything more than a paying member of the lodge.
> Assuming that a man who joins a stonecraft lodge is speculative just because he has no intention of doing stonecraft work is just that: an assumption.
> The practice of allowing non-stonecraft focused men to join as a way of having revenue generation was soon to become a common practice for such.




Blue lodges now use men who go on to appendent bodies as that exact same revenue source.  Plus sa change, plus sa meme chose.


----------



## coachn

dfreybur said:


> Blue lodges now use men who go on to appendent bodies as that exact same revenue source.  *Plus sa change, plus sa meme chose*.


<sigh> yep


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> Thanks for taking the time to lay that out coach.
> 
> Perhaps better to say "we have no tangible record that Freemasonic Morality plays did not come into existence until after 1717"


The romantic in me wants so much to affirm this. 

However, the critical thinker in me says: _The available evidence is pretty clear that Freemasonry and its Morality plays came into being soon after the first quarterly dinner party and, from all outward indications, as an afterthought._

This doesn't make it any less grand.  It just puts it into a much clearer perspective.


----------



## Bloke

coachn said:


> The romantic in me wants so much to affirm this.
> 
> However, the critical thinker in me says: _The available evidence is pretty clear that Freemasonry and its Morality plays came into being soon after the first quarterly dinner party and, from all outward indications, as an afterthought._
> 
> This doesn't make it any less grand.  It just puts it into a much clearer perspective.




I agrre it doesn't make it any less grand. Were Ashmole or Moray described as "admitted" "accepted" or "initiated" into a lodge. If the later, it suggests an initiation ceremony existed when they joined. If your not sure, we can check, but later..


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> I agrre it doesn't make it any less grand. Were Ashmole or Moray described as "admitted" "accepted" or "initiated" into a lodge. If the later, it suggests an initiation ceremony existed when they joined. If your not sure, we can check, but later..


Something you might enjoy reading:  http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2014/07/building-free-men-chapter-iv-accepting.html


----------



## Bloke

Thanks !


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

"Freemasonry began with the founding of the Grand Lodge of England on the 24th of June 1717, on St John’s Day actually, which was the first Grand Lodge in the world". If this has already been explained, please point me to the correct thread. My question is, does anyone know how Masonic lodges were governed before the GL of England was formed ? I find this very interesting.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## mrpierce17

Travelling Man91 said:


> "Freemasonry began with the founding of the Grand Lodge of England on the 24th of June 1717, on St John’s Day actually, which was the first Grand Lodge
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Freemasonry existed long before this 
And the rabbit hole goes deep!


----------



## coachn

mrpierce17 said:


> Freemasonry existed long before this
> And the rabbit hole goes deep!


Sure it did; it started in Ancient Greece and it involved goats, chorales and at least one masked actor.


----------



## mrpierce17




----------



## coachn

mrpierce17 said:


> View attachment 5166


Yep.  I laughed too, at first...


----------



## mrpierce17

coachn said:


> Yep.  I laughed too, at first...


You might want to go back a little further than Ancient Greece way back


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

How do you think lodges operated ? Do you think they operated as what we know lodges to be today ? Do you think signs have changed etc 

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## coachn

mrpierce17 said:


> You might want to go back a little further than Ancient Greece way back


Nah.  All else is conjecture.


----------



## dfreybur

Travelling Man91 said:


> "Freemasonry began with the founding of the Grand Lodge of England on the 24th of June 1717, on St John’s Day actually, which was the first Grand Lodge in the world". If this has already been explained, please point me to the correct thread. My question is, does anyone know how Masonic lodges were governed before the GL of England was formed ? I find this very interesting



Notice you jump between the Grand Lodge level and the Lodge level.

Plenty of lodges existed before the 1717 organizational change.  They they had masters and/or wardens as they had for generations.  Some functioned as operative labor unions.  Some functioned as speculative lodges.  Some of the operative lodges took non-laboring members for the money rather like we now take non-attending members for the money after they move on to appendent bodies.

Maybe there were large scale organization among lodges before 1717 and maybe there was not, but leadership at the Grand Lodge level did not change how individual lodges were lead.  At least not at first.  That took time and evolution.


----------



## mrpierce17

coachn said:


> Nah.  All else is conjecture.


Lol I like how you put that


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

dfreybur said:


> Notice you jump between the Grand Lodge level and the Lodge level.
> 
> Plenty of lodges existed before the 1717 organizational change.  They they had masters and/or wardens as they had for generations.  Some functioned as operative labor unions.  Some functioned as speculative lodges.  Some of the operative lodges took non-laboring members for the money rather like we now take non-attending members for the money after they move on to appendent bodies.
> 
> Maybe there were large scale organization among lodges before 1717 and maybe there was not, but leadership at the Grand Lodge level did not change how individual lodges were lead.  At least not at first.  That took time and evolution.


What is quoted is from an article I read online. Do you think what we know masonry as today was the same in 16th century ?


----------



## Bloke

Travelling Man91 said:


> What is quoted is from an article I read online. Do you think what we know masonry as today was the same in 16th century ?


We know its not. For instance the third degree did not exist in the 16th century, if there was something akin to speculative masonry, it was more likely about Noah ( can't think of the supporting doc. That weakens my point - sure someone will help) tha HA, a character from the yet to be incorporated 3rd degree..


----------



## coachn

Travelling Man91 said:


> What is quoted is from an article I read online. Do you think what we know masonry as today was the same in 16th century ?


What we have today is Freemasonry and it is theatrically based.  It is no where near like it was in 1717. 

What existed prior to 1717 was a bunch of stonecraft organizations.  Some took on members who had no interest in stonecrafting, but wanted to belong to the organization anyway.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

coachn said:


> What we have today is Freemasonry and it is theatrically based.  It is no where near like it was in 1717.
> 
> What existed prior to 1717 was a bunch of stonecraft organizations.  Some took on members who had no interest in stonecrafting, but wanted to belong to the organization anyway.


Do you brothers think signs, ob. Etc are the same ?


----------



## coachn

Travelling Man91 said:


> Do you brothers think signs, ob. Etc are the same ?


Heck, the stuff you're asking about ain't universal today.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman

Well it's close enough. If you saw it, it shouldn't look foreign. I'm sure there is a brother that has researched this topic

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Bloke

Travelling Man91 said:


> Well it's close enough. If you saw it, it shouldn't look foreign. I'm sure there is a brother that has researched this topic
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



No researched it, but proven people from several countries and 5 continents (Europe, Nth America, Sth America, Asia and Australia). Brazil was probably the most different. Let's just say he was declined entry and I had to work through the Grand Secs office...


----------



## MarkR

Travelling Man91 said:


> Well it's close enough. If you saw it, it shouldn't look foreign.


When I attended the Grand Lodge of Scotland, I didn't recognize half of what was going on.  My host told me "don't worry about it; just do what you do."


----------



## Winter

Travelling Man91 said:


> Well it's close enough. If you saw it, it shouldn't look foreign. I'm sure there is a brother that has researched this topic
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


I belong to a traditional American lodge as well as a European Concept lodge working in Emulation Rite.  The signs are VERY different.  So they can look very foreign.  

Transmitted via my R5 astromech.


----------



## Glen Cook

Travelling Man91 said:


> Well it's close enough. If you saw it, it shouldn't look foreign. I'm sure there is a brother that has researched this topic
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Umm, yes, as one who has experienced it, it can indeed look foreign.


----------



## Glen Cook

MarkR said:


> When I attended the Grand Lodge of Scotland, I didn't recognize half of what was going on.  My host told me "don't worry about it; just do what you do."


Though, to be fair, there are any number of days I don't  know what is going on.


----------



## Glen Cook

Travelling Man91 said:


> Well it's close enough. If you saw it, it shouldn't look foreign. I'm sure there is a brother that has researched this topic
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


When you attended in England, which degree were you on?


----------



## Ripcord22A

Glen Cook said:


> Though, to be fair, there are any number of days I don't  know what is going on.


Thays not what you want to hear a lawyer say....

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell

Bloke said:


> We know its not. For instance the third degree dis not exist on yhe 16th century, if there was something akin to speculative masonry, it was more likely about Noah ( can't think of the supporting doc. That weakens my point - sure someone will help) tha HA, a character from the yet to be incorporated 3rd degree..


The Graham manuscript contains something about the Noah legend.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Thays not what you want to hear a lawyer say....
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Ha.  Only in lodge.  Greed is a great incentive to sharpen the wit.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell

Travelling Man91 said:


> Do you brothers think signs, ob. Etc are the same ?


From what period to now? If you're speaking from the early days of Anglo Freemasonry since the Grand organization in the 18th century, then i would guess that the signs, passes, grips and probably the OBs are still close enough to the originals.

Personally i can't see too much that would have been changed even after the Morgan affair and numerous exposes before& after that great Masonic episode.



Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Bloke

BullDozer Harrell said:


> The Graham manuscript contains something about the Noah legend.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Thanks. I'll do some refresher reading


----------

