# Calling all historians



## hanzosbm (Feb 26, 2016)

I doubt that there is a Mason out there (at least one with the slightest interest in really understanding our teachings) who has not done at least some research on the history of the Craft.  I know I have done a significant amount.  That being said, like myself, I'm sure most Masons have no formal training in history aside from a few general education classes taken in school. 

To cut to the root of things, what methods are used for dating documents found online?  We all know that online sources are not the best to use, but for unusual documents such as those we typically seek, for most of us, that is all that is available.  Yet, one can easily find the same document with significantly different dates assigned.  In our case, this is problematic because we tend to be looking for comparative dates to tell a story of how things have evolved. 

Case in point:  The Inigo Jones Manuscript is seen by some to be of huge importance for its introduction of the protagonist central to the 3rd degree.  Many would argue that its date of 1607 ( http://theoldcharges.com/chapter-17.html )far predates any other mention of this character and therefore is very important.  But even that link indicates that there is doubt about the dating.  There are others who date it at 1655 ( http://www.themasonictrowel.com/Articles/Manuscripts/manuscripts_main_toc.htm ) which at first seems to be impossible since Inigo Jones died in 1652, but is the date wrong, or the author?  Then you have other sites dating it to 1725 ( http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/masonic_manuscripts_jones.html ) which not only puts it FAR later than the lifetime of Inigo Jones, but also means that it is no longer the first version of the character known from the 3rd degree. 

There are many other similar cases.  For instance, in The Three Distinct Knocks has dates of 1723, 1760, and 1763, and the document references Masonry Dissected which it dates at 1700 but others date to 1730, which obviously has problems.

So, back to the original question, for those with training in these kinds of things, how do reconcile these things and come to a solid conclusion?


----------



## Bloke (Feb 27, 2016)

Well, one thing on books, they were often revised. Anderson's Constitutions being a good example. Also, date of publication and date of being written are not the same thing, but the date of publication is often used.

Manuscripts, they are super tricky.. one thing is for sure, there is a bias in Freemasonry, that if it is old, it is of merit. This drives some of the arguments over dating. It also has certainly driven forgeries. As does neatness - think Ramsey's Address which, for a time, became "history" rather than myth...A document written in 1760 becomes  more important than one written in 1790 simply because the 1760 is older. Never forget the bias in Freemasonry for the old: "Our Lodge/GL/Ritual was the first established so it is more notable than all others!"..."This is how the ritual should really be!"... The tensions which helped create the Ancients vrs Moderns  continues to today. Freemasonry has a clear bias toward the old being or merit... Often people dating documents want a certain answer to fit their thoughts or arguments..

It must be tricky to date manuscripts of the 1700's but speaking to older more spaced documents, especially medieval ones where there are many forgeries because there was a lively trade on them, historians looking at medieval documents look at material (the paper and ink) to be contemporary with the claimed time of authorship, spelling (is actual a big one), vocabulary,  and grammar (it changes), external references used within the document - ie, events influencing or included in the document, people or institutions mentioned that had not been born at the claimed time the document was written . For example, if a  document of 1600 references something only known in 1700 or invented in 1640 , it's likely going call the documents dating into question. If a document claimed to be written in 1999 starts in "In 1999 during the Presidency of the USA of Obama......" then you know something is up with the document, medieval documents often show problems like that which prove them later forgeries.. .....  They look at technology (again, ink, writing style- both in language and script,  and paper, method of printing and assembly and post Gutenberg, the type face and ).... Terms; phrases born of a certain time when included in documents claimed be earlier. Contemporary dating conventions being consistent with other documents of the claimed time of authorship, Some use chemical methods of dating, radiocarbon dating being a very well known one... Elements in included pictures; ie black swans are only known in Australia, a black swan (which is an interesting term of thinking and a title of a book) is included in a picture, it's probably going to be after Australia was known and there will be similar examples such as sail plans or technologies such as guns and such... Context, if a "1730's document is found in a library which burned down in 1740, and was rebuilt in 1750, how is that explained ? If "printed' by a method or company which did not exist... If it was written by someone known to be dead when they "wrote" it, if it is or is not referenced in external writings or lists of documents.... it must be quite the pursuit..

There are expert scholars who argue over this stuff, but I love your question.....  I bet if we go to google there will be a couple of established academic standards to date the documents you're looking at..


----------



## Bloke (Feb 27, 2016)

Here is a great example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Freemasonry#/media/File:Freimaurer_Erhebung.jpg

See here  

If the fashion is from 1812, or even 1790, how can it be 1745 ? (the fashion looks more 1745 than 1812 to me btw and hence supports the statement.)


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Feb 28, 2016)

My contribution to this thread is not based on historical documents.  I would call it a social question posed by a layman.  The authority of Freemasonry is structured around the Master of the Lodge.  Each Master runs his Lodge as he sees fit, provided that he does not violate the rules of the Grand Lodge.  There are two observations that I would make here.  

First, that the structure and history of Freemasonry invests the Lodge with autonomy to do as it sees fit provided that it does not violate the rules of the GL.  This attitude indicates a certain familiarity with the dangers inherent in an all-powerful centralized authority.  

Second, this decentralized power structure allows the individual Lodges great latitude to fill the space between the opening and closing rituals with whatever content they deem appropriate and are capable of producing.  It seems completely logical to me that the varying interests and abilities of the members would lead an active Lodge to concentrate it's studies and investigations in a particular area.  It seems absolutely normal to me that one Lodge might study and teach the disciplines of science while another Lodge might concentrate on esoteric studies.  

Perhaps our goal should not be to find the first stone that Masonry ever laid and continue to build the same kind of structure upon that stone for all eternity.  While we should continue to attempt to understand our past, we must also realize that we build in the present, and we build for the future.  The purpose of history is not to mire us in what we were, it is provide a springboard into the what we can be.

The individual Lodge should be allowed to pursue what interests it's members.  The opposite of this is the "boring business meeting" in which no member of the Lodge contributes anything of himself.  Haven't we had enough of those?  

Ultimately, centralized authority will decree that the only acceptable course must be bland enough that it is acceptable to everyone.  Isn't blandness in one form or another the most common reason why men stop attending Lodge?  

I applaud your interest in the history of our fraternity.  I would love to hear the talk that you could give in your home Lodge.  And I think you should give such a talk.  For even if there are a few facts or conclusions that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the possibility exists that you may cause your brothers to think.  And the crime of challenging a Brother to think is one that I am always eager to support!


----------



## Bloke (Feb 28, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> >this decentralized power structure allows the individual Lodges great latitude to fill the space between the opening and closing rituals with whatever content they deem appropriate and are capable of producing
> 
> That does not sound like an English practice but rather a Scottish practice, providing the lodge can demonstrate the content is their traditional ritual.



I agree


----------



## Brother JC (Feb 28, 2016)

The English have fair latitude in which ritual they use. There are at least a dozen in use these days.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Mar 1, 2016)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> latitude to fill the space between the opening and closing rituals with whatever content they deem appropriate


From the responses I have received I am not sure that the intended meaning of this sentence is clear.  I am referring to what happens between the time the opening ritual is concluded and the closing ritual is begun.  I am referring to the "business portion" of the meeting.  I have personally stood in Lodge and read masonic poems and told stories about Masonry during this time.  If even a small percentage of Masons were to stand in Lodge and present some tiny part of what they find interesting in Masonry the Lodge meetings would be much more interesting.  That is, if there are any Masons left who actually have an interest in Masonry.


----------



## Bloke (Mar 1, 2016)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> That is, if there are any Masons left who actually have an interest in Masonry.



Me ! Me ! Me !


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 2, 2016)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> From the responses I have received I am not sure that the intended meaning of this sentence is clear.  I am referring to what happens between the time the opening ritual is concluded and the closing ritual is begun.  I am referring to the "business portion" of the meeting.  I have personally stood in Lodge and read masonic poems and told stories about Masonry during this time.  If even a small percentage of Masons were to stand in Lodge and present some tiny part of what they find interesting in Masonry the Lodge meetings would be much more interesting.  That is, if there are any Masons left who actually have an interest in Masonry.


 next wednesday at the regualr communication of Cerrillos Lodge #19 AF&AM GLoNM I will be giving a presentation on the color blue and Masonry.  If there are any brothers who might be in the area come on down, dinner is at 630 and the gavel falls at 730.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (May 15, 2016)

Bloke has explained well one of the main point and I have a example. In the  "The old constitutions of the masons  - THE Old Constitutions Belonging to the Ancient _and _Honourable S O C I E T Y O F Free _and _Accepted MASONS Taken from a Manuscript wrote above Five Hundred Years since" published on 1722 there is a reference to the "unlawful games", which is a clear reference to the "Games Act" of 1541. This means that the manuscript it is likely not older than about 150 year. The Historians who have dated it have fixed the time around 1660. Surely to state exactly the date of a document is not an easy work!


----------



## coachn (May 15, 2016)

I have come to suspect any claim of antiquity when it comes to any document purported to be conclusive evidence supporting Freemasonry being older than the creation of the Premier Grand Lodge.  There simply too much evidence reflecting a heavy bias of those members wanting it to be older than it truly is.  This of course is all due to its tradition of tradition and a need to have tradition as a base.  As a result, you have all sorts of documents coming forth that are "copies" of lost originals that appear just in time to support yet one more claim to some form of antiquity or another.   Why MUST we fabricate an appearance that is older to make it any more valued than it should be standing upon its own true history?  Why must we fabricate the illusion that it is connected to other things that it never was to make it more appealing?


----------



## Bloke (May 15, 2016)

coachn said:


> .....   Why MUST we fabricate an appearance that is older to make it any more valued than it should be standing upon its own true history?  Why must we fabricate the illusion that it is connected to other things that it never was to make it more appealing?



Back to that cognitive bias: if its old it must be of merit...


----------



## coachn (May 15, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Back to that cognitive bias: if its old it must be of merit...


----------



## Bloke (May 15, 2016)

coachn said:


> .....  As a result, you have all sorts of documents coming forth that are "copies" of lost originals that appear just in time to support yet one more claim to some form of antiquity or another.  ...



Of course, therein lies (hehe) the problem, most works we have are copies, the hand being the printing press of the day.

Imagine poor historians in 500 years time trying to sort through the internet for sources

"This has html tags indicating a primitive programing language, links to a social network of the day which was called "facebook" and traces of a device called iphone3, yet, the extension .com.mason was not used or registered until 2016 when iphone3 was defunct. Critically, there is evidence of the iphone's operating system AND our own andriod in proto form. These did not coexist and hence i conclude this document is wooowooo".

But in all seriousness, if things like the wayback machine dont survive, hard copy publishing will be much more important to the future than we see it today..


----------



## coachn (May 15, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Of course, therein lies (hehe) the problem, most works we have are copies, the hand being the printing press of the day.
> 
> Imagine poor historians in 500 years time trying to sort through the internet for sources
> 
> ...


STOP!  You had me at "wooowooo"!


----------



## MarkR (May 16, 2016)

coachn said:


> I have come to suspect any claim of antiquity when it comes to any document purported to be conclusive evidence supporting Freemasonry being older than the creation of the Premier Grand Lodge.


What, then, was Sir Robert Moray initiated into in 1641?  And what were the four lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge?


----------



## Bloke (May 16, 2016)

MarkR said:


> What, then, was Sir Robert Moray initiated into in 1641?



You read Coach's comment the same way I did, but then I read again, it's not that he does not believe Freemasonry does predates 1717, just that he's very skeptical of any document about Freemasonry which has a pre-1717 date..


----------



## coachn (May 16, 2016)

MarkR said:


> What, then, was Sir Robert Moray initiated into in 1641?


So What!  Some guy joined a stonecraft lodge so that he could pay them money to eat, drink, sing and talk and who no intention of learning the stonecraft profession. 


MarkR said:


> And what were the four lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge?


Back to, so what!  Four lodges planned to have quarterly dinner parties so that they could get together and eat, drink, sing and talk every 3 month that have nothing to do with stonecraft activities.


Bloke said:


> You read Coach's comment the same way I did, but then I read again, it's not that he does not believe Freemasonry does predates 1717, just that he's very skeptical of any document about Freemasonry which has a pre-1717 date..


Yup!  Exactly!


----------



## Luigi Visentin (May 16, 2016)

My English is likely inadequate to understand everything it has been written but I have to underline that the first document that talks about an history of Freemasonry is dated 1686 and it is not masonic. It is the well known "The Natural History of Staffordshire" of  Robert Plot. In this document there is a summary of the Legend of The Craft and it has been helpful to understand that the various manuscripts or copies of manuscripts that have been found later were really talking about Freemasonry. Referring instead to the manuscripts, there is a similar problem with the ancient copies of the Gospels or of the Bible: sometimes we have not in hands the original version but a copy of a copy and it is often difficult to define which version is older than the other.
In a book dedicated to the ancient christian manuscripts, it was explained that the main reason why the scholars try to define which is the older version is that, as once the writings were not printed but copied, any copy could have inside some mistakes (the causes of mistakes can be many) so if you find the oldest one, this is likely the more correct one. With ancient masonic manuscript this is much evident if we look at the many different versions of  them because names are often miswritten or modified. However they tell more or less the same history which basically is the same summarized by Dr. Plot thirty years before the first Grand Lodge. It is pretty difficult to believe that they are all forgeries.


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 16, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> , any copy could have inside some mistakes (the causes of mistakes can be many) so if you find the oldest one, this is likely the more correct one. With ancient masonic manuscript this is much evident if we look at the many different versions of  them because names are often miswritten or modified.


The problem is proving that the documents are in fact old.  with the tech of today you man make everything seem old.  I watch this show call Barnwood Builders.  This company dismantles old log cabins and repurposes them in to new log buildings.  but they keep the old look of the log.  one of the logs from a building was bad, they had a spare log from another job they had done but it was too wide, so they cut the middle out of it and attached the two halves back together making the log look like it came from the same house.....


----------



## MarkR (May 17, 2016)

coachn said:


> So What!  Some guy joined a stonecraft lodge so that he could pay them money to eat, drink, sing and talk and who no intention of learning the stonecraft profession.
> 
> Back to, so what!  Four lodges planned to have quarterly dinner parties so that they could get together and eat, drink, sing and talk every 3 month that have nothing to do with stonecraft activities.


Of course, I should have known that you'd dismiss anything that doesn't accord with your view that anything prior to 1717 was just "stonecraft" and eating and drinking, and since then it's been a dramatic society.  

At least one of the four "time immemorial" lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge had very few stonemason members.  The Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) records FAR predate 1717.  Yeah, I know.  They just "changed their business model" causing high-born men of learning to want to hang around with stonemasons.


----------



## MarkR (May 17, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> The problem is proving that the documents are in fact old.  with the tech of today you man make everything seem old.  I watch this show call Barnwood Builders.  This company dismantles old log cabins and repurposes them in to new log buildings.  but they keep the old look of the log.  one of the logs from a building was bad, they had a spare log from another job they had done but it was too wide, so they cut the middle out of it and attached the two halves back together making the log look like it came from the same house.....


And the technology of today is equally adept at discovering the fakes.


----------



## coachn (May 17, 2016)

MarkR said:


> Of course, I should have known that you'd dismiss anything that doesn't accord with your view that anything prior to 1717 was just "stonecraft" and eating and drinking, and since then it's been a dramatic society.


Yes.  I agree with you.  You should have. 



MarkR said:


> At least one of the four "time immemorial" lodges that formed the Premier Grand Lodge had very few stonemason members.


I am so glad that you agree.  Lore is not history.  We are a theatrical society.  We use Stonecraft lore and symbols in our plays.  There was a transition from Stonecraft to theater in these lodges.  That does not mean that we are a speculative version of Stonecraft.  It just means that we use resources from them for our inspirations (and scripts).  I shall continue to be suspicious of any claim that claims that "Freemasonry" has ancient roots other than the theatrical tradition, of which some of these "stonecraft" lodges did take from the Mystery play days.



MarkR said:


> The Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) records FAR predate 1717.  Yeah, I know.  They just "changed their business model" causing high-born men of learning to want to hang around with stonemasons.


Exactly!  Once again.  I am glad that you agree.


----------



## Bloke (May 17, 2016)

coachn said:


> ..We are a theatrical society...



I'm with James - theatre might be part of what we do, but (for me) calling us a theatrical society is akin to calling the Catholic Church a theatrical society because of the words and actions in a Mass as scripted.


----------



## coachn (May 17, 2016)

Bloke said:


> I'm with James - theatre might be part of what we do, but (for me) calling us a theatrical society is akin to calling the Catholic Church a theatrical society because of the words and actions in a Mass as scripted.


Well, they are, are they not?


----------



## Bloke (May 17, 2016)

coachn said:


> Well, they are, are they not?



I think they are more akin to an educational than theatrical organisation focusing on adopting and practicing the moral lessons taught not just within the degrees, but by the good (and bad) examples provided by others in your life, particularity Freemasons within and without the lodge. They also offer mutual support beyond a theatrical troupe and create duties and obligations beyond a theatrical troupe.

They also work with a very narrow set of scripts; mind you, we do seem to share one element particularly with theatrical troupes, we're subject to a lot of critics' opinions both within and without  !


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 17, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> .
> 
> for example noticing the atmosphere in the temple suddenly changing during the ritual when on previous occasions the same ritual event produced no change.



Ummm...nope never have I or anyone ive spoken.with personally have experienced these things...there is however a mega cult masquerading as a church called Bethel in my home town that speaks of things like this in their ceremonies.  They also hold "healings" that people pay them for even though nothing has actually ever been healed



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


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 17, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> One of the dimensions of Freemasonry is theatrical but arguably there are many more dimensions.
> .



Nope.  As coach says Freemasonry is what we do in the lodge, the degrees, openings closings ect ect.  Thats all just scripted playacting.  Masonry is what u do wothin ur self




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


----------



## coachn (May 17, 2016)

Bloke said:


> I think they are more akin to an educational than theatrical organisation focusing on adopting and practicing the moral lessons taught not just within the degrees, but by the good (and bad) examples provided by others in your life, particularity Freemasons within and without the lodge. They also offer mutual support beyond a theatrical troupe and create duties and obligations beyond a theatrical troupe.
> 
> They also work with a very narrow set of scripts; mind you, we do seem to share one element particularly with theatrical troupes, we're subject to a lot of critics' opinions both within and without  !


This is all possible, but, unfortunately, only when the teachers know what they are doing.  Most do not. 

What you wrote is the intention, however, not many know this intention either.  Although, they do give it a lot of lip service claiming that it is.


----------



## Bloke (May 17, 2016)

coachn said:


> This is all possible, but, unfortunately, only when the teachers know what they are doing.  Most do not.
> 
> What you wrote is the intention, however, not many know this intention either.  Although, they do give it a lot of lip service claiming that it is.


Well, if it is to be, it's up to me...


----------



## Ressam (May 18, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> Since Masonry is a science there must be a way to test that proposition.
> 
> So what experiments might we conduct?


Science? What "science"? Social science? Who told that? Could you, please, explain that lil' bit more?
Albert Mackey says that -- "Freemasonry is The Institution". IMHO, very complicated "institution". Like a labyrinth.


----------



## coachn (May 18, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Well, if it is to be, it's up to me...


Without any doubt of mind in me whatsoever!


----------



## coachn (May 18, 2016)

Ressam said:


> *Albert Mackey* says that -- *"Freemasonry is The Institution".* ...


Bold claim.  Cite the source of his quote.


----------



## coachn (May 18, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> Since Masonry is a science there must be a way to test that proposition.


Must? 


JamestheJust said:


> So what experiments might we conduct?


What do you propose?


----------



## Bloke (May 18, 2016)

Ressam said:


> Science? What "science"? Social science? Who told that? Could you, please, explain that lil' bit more?



Ressam, no one will explain it to you. To a Freemason, the statement is well understood, albeit with different meanings, but they need no explanation to the Initiated .


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 18, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> Since Masonry is a science there must be a way to test that proposition.
> 
> So what experiments might we conduct?


I am a recruiter and they say there is an Art and a Science to it.  The science is looking at the reports and trends and doing what those things show....however just because it is a science doesn't mean there is a way to prove things.  For instance, looking at one of my reports shows that the majority of enlistments comes from zip code 12345, so I should focus my effort on 12345 however that area is a rural area, no place that kids hang out or schools within it, no way for me to actually focus my efforts in that area.  so the science is flawed.  Just like recruiting Freemasonry is not a true science.  You can make all the hypothesis that you want but there is no way to prove any of it.  Like you talk about the WOOWOO stuff that you have experienced in your lodge I cant prove that you didn't experience them and you cant prove you did.  The only way I could prove that you didn't was to get you diagnosed with schizophrenia or something like that, but then that would also prove that you did experience them.....IJS


----------



## coachn (May 18, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> I am a recruiter and they say there is an Art and a Science to it.  The science is looking at the reports and trends and doing what those things show....however just because it is a science doesn't mean there is a way to prove things.  For instance, looking at one of my reports shows that the majority of enlistments comes from zip code 12345, so I should focus my effort on 12345 however that area is a rural area, no place that kids hang out or schools within it, no way for me to actually focus my efforts in that area.  so the science is flawed.  Just like recruiting Freemasonry is not a true science.  You can make all the hypothesis that you want but there is no way to prove any of it.  Like you talk about the WOOWOO stuff that you have experienced in your lodge I cant prove that you didn't experience them and you cant prove you did.  The only way I could prove that you didn't was to get you diagnosed with schizophrenia or something like that, but then that would also prove that you did experience them.....IJS


I go one step further.  Does "Freemasonry" ...

1) teach, use and espouse the Scientific Method and do so progressively so that all who join have an opportunity to learn and apply it "masterfully" in their lives,

OR

2) does it teach only enough acting and management fundamentals to keep the organization operating pretty much as it has for the last 300 or so years with very little change that hasn't been driven by outside forces?


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 18, 2016)

Ill take number 2 for 200 coach


----------



## coachn (May 18, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Ill take number 2 for 200 coach


LOL!  It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to see what is hidden in plain sight.  It merely takes someone trained in seeing past the rubbish of one's temple.


----------



## dfreybur (May 18, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> IFor instance, looking at one of my reports shows that the majority of enlistments comes from zip code 12345, so I should focus my effort on 12345 however that area is a rural area, no place that kids hang out or schools within it, no way for me to actually focus my efforts in that area.



Excellent!  Good recruiting from Schenectady, NY!  Zip code 12345 is one of the places I've traveled for work.  ;^)


----------



## dfreybur (May 18, 2016)

coachn said:


> It doesn't take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to see what is hidden in plain sight.  It merely takes someone trained in seeing past the rubbish of one's temple.



Right.  We ARE a theatrical society that teaches the content of degrees.  We are not JUST a theatrical society.

There are some who only learn the content of the degrees.  When you point there are dogs who sniff the tip of your finger.

There are some who learn from the symbolism of the degrees.  When you point there are dogs who rush the direction your hand moved.

Among men there is as wide a variation in the reaction to our degrees as there is among dogs as wide a variation in the reaction to pointing.


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 18, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Excellent!  Good recruiting from Schenectady, NY!  Zip code 12345 is one of the places I've traveled for work.  ;^)


BWHAHAHAHAHAHA...I didn't know that was a real zip.  I was just making one up for the example!


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 18, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Right.  We ARE a theatrical society that teaches the content of degrees.  We are not JUST a theatrical society.
> 
> There are some who only learn the content of the degrees.  When you point there are dogs who sniff the tip of your finger.
> 
> ...


I would argue that as an organization we don't teach anything other then the content of the degrees.  True, every once in a while (more so in some than others) a brother will give a presentation on something about Freemasonry but as @coach said...it teaches only enough acting and management fundamentals to keep the organization operating pretty much as it has for the last 300 or so years with very little change that hasn't been driven by outside forces.  It is up to the individual Freemason to realize that there is more to the degrees then getting partially undressed and repetitively answering questions and learning a few words and hand shakes.  it took me over a year as a Freemason and moving to New mexico and visiting a lodge here and then visiting the lodge that I eventually joined to realize that there is more to it then that!  Not everyone has the luxury that I do, and that you have had of being exposed to multiple lodges from multiple jurisdictions!


----------



## dfreybur (May 18, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> I would argue that as an organization we don't teach anything other then the content of the degrees.



That's Coach Nagy's distinction between the organization that is Freemasonry and the personal practice that is Masonry.  The idea puts a pins on what the word "we" means in your sentence.  The word becomes blurred.  When is a Brother a part of that "we" that is organizational and when is he a part of the other "we" that is personal.



> It is up to the individual Freemason to realize that there is more to the degrees then getting partially undressed and repetitively answering questions and learning a few words and hand shakes.  it took me over a year as a Freemason and moving to New mexico and visiting a lodge here and then visiting the lodge that I eventually joined to realize that there is more to it then that!  Not everyone has the luxury that I do, and that you have had of being exposed to multiple lodges from multiple jurisdictions!



Yet I was searching for symbolic meaning in our degrees long before I saw variation.  It's something I'd learned to look for long before I petitioned.


----------



## dfreybur (May 18, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA...I didn't know that was a real zip.  I was just making one up for the example!



Don't go to zip code 12345 on a windy day in the winter!  It felt like I froze my nuts off and it's not an experience I recommend to others.


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 18, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> That's Coach Nagy's distinction between the organization that is Freemasonry and the personal practice that is Masonry.  The idea puts a pins on what the word "we" means in your sentence.  The word becomes blurred.  When is a Brother a part of that "we" that is organizational and when is he a part of the other "we" that is personal.


The day he is initiated he is part of the organizational.  The day he looks for more and tries to pass his knowledge on to others he becomes the other "we"




dfreybur said:


> Yet I was searching for symbolic meaning in our degrees long before I saw variation.  It's something I'd learned to look for long before I petitioned.


And you can thank who ever it is that taught you that, for that.  not everyone realizes it....sometimes ever!


----------



## coachn (May 18, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Right.  We ARE a theatrical society that teaches the content of degrees.


I disagree (about the teaching aspect of your quote).  Most Freemasonic Lodges share the content of the degrees through theatrical performance and theatrical lecture.  They don't teach the content.  If they did, there would be directed and profound discussion and members would not have a bunch of fabricated nonsense stuck between their ears that is nothing but misunderstood dogma that relates to theatrical allegorical based lessons never learned, much less understood.



dfreybur said:


> We are not JUST a theatrical society.


Where have I said that we are "JUST a theatrical society"?


----------



## coachn (May 18, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> That's Coach Nagy's distinction between the organization that is Freemasonry and the personal practice that is Masonry.  The idea puts a pins on what the word "we" means in your sentence.  The word becomes blurred.  When is a Brother a part of that "we" that is organizational and when is he a part of the other "we" that is personal.


Our Society is Freemasonic.  It takes the form of an organization that practices Freemasonry as it has been adopted by its jurisdiction.  It is fundamentally a theatrical society that practices arena style theater for moral purposes.  It teaches though alternative-reality total-immersion role-playing.  It has no support system that performs quality control on the moral lessons it purports to teach.  In some jurisdictions, it has only a quality control system in place  that tests a candidate's ability to learn a script and that script is rigidly enforced.  I am part of that "we".

The men within and without that society who Build are Masonic in nature.  They practice Masonry and it is one founded upon Building.  As applied to humans, it is Building better men, family, relationships, society, country and world.  I am a part of that "we".  It is personal and it is also extremely social.


----------



## Bloke (May 18, 2016)

coachn said:


> I disagree (about the teaching aspect of your quote).  Most Freemasonic Lodges share the content of the degrees through theatrical performance and theatrical lecture.  They don't teach the content.  If they did, there would be directed and profound discussion ....



Aren't we trying to do that very thing being members here - discuss and learn outside the degree script ? Aren't we attempting that very thing in that thread ?

I've never been involved in a Craft Lodge here which, at some point in its calendar during a tyled lodge, did not put aside some time to discuss the contents of the degrees in some form.  We have a great tool for teaching and exploring the content, beyond just learning ritual, we have wine ! At 2 am, after a couple of bottles, that's when I've had some of my best discussions on Freemasonry, but every initiate here must pass through a Masonic Advancement Program (MAP) - most of it is just explanatory, but it also invites discussion. MAP3s held after a third degree can be long ! Those informal meetings over drinks long into the night often become philosophical and animated. I love them


----------



## coachn (May 19, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Aren't we trying to do that very thing being members here - discuss and learn outside the degree script ? Aren't we attempting that very thing in that thread ?


Yes, but this is outside the organization.  The organization is not doing this.  We are doing this on our own because the organization and its systems don't provide it for us.  We MUST forage on our own.



Bloke said:


> I've never been involved in a Craft Lodge here which, at some point in its calendar during a tyled lodge, did not put aside some time to discuss the contents of the degrees in some form.  We have a great tool for teaching and exploring the content, beyond just learning ritual, we have wine ! At 2 am, after a couple of bottles, that's when I've had some of my best discussions on Freemasonry, but every initiate here must pass through a Masonic Advancement Program (MAP) - most of it is just explanatory, but it also invites discussion. MAP3s held after a third degree can be long ! *Those informal meetings over drinks* long into the night often become philosophical and animated. I love them


Informal?  Are they not part of your official designated and designed Freemasonic System?


----------



## Bloke (May 19, 2016)

coachn said:


> Yes, but this is outside the organization.  The organization is not doing this.  We are doing this on our own because the organization and its systems don't provide it for us.  We MUST forage on our own.



Speaking for my lodges, getting together outside lodge is a critical activity of the lodge and only possible because the organization exists.... yet, even so, at every meeting we have dinner, and there is formal and informal discussion at those dinners..



coachn said:


> Informal?  Are they not part of your official designated and designed Freemasonic System?



Informal discussion is included on the agenda within by discretion of the Master - but sometimes it just happens at the prompting of someone in attendance.. sometimes it happens in our South (read Festive Board) - we always have a meal after lodge -  sometimes while the smokers are out smoking, on the stairs on the way down from lodge.  

They key idea is, whether in lodge, whether after in the South before the Tyler's Toast, whether after the tyler's toast (not unusual to see 5-6 of use still present on lodge night after the South has concluded, whether in the pub as a lodge (like last Saturday night), whether in the pub, a home, on the street, in a car etc etc gathered with Freemasons, the organization brings us together and gives us a paradigm to converse in


----------



## coachn (May 19, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Speaking for my lodges, getting together outside lodge is a critical activity of the lodge and only possible because the organization exists.... yet, even so, at every meeting we have dinner, and there is formal and informal discussion at those dinners..
> ...
> Informal discussion is included on the agenda within by discretion of the Master - but sometimes it just happens at the prompting of someone in attendance.. sometimes it happens in our South (read Festive Board) - we always have a meal after lodge -  sometimes while the smokers are out smoking, on the stairs on the way down from lodge.
> 
> They key idea is, whether in lodge, whether after in the South before the Tyler's Toast, whether after the tyler's toast (not unusual to see 5-6 of use still present on lodge night after the South has concluded, whether in the pub as a lodge (like last Saturday night), whether in the pub, a home, on the street, in a car etc etc gathered with Freemasons, the organization brings us together and gives us a paradigm to converse in


First off, I am delighted to know that this is going on for you and your Brothers.  Kudos for making it a part of your days.

Secondly, this is not part of the prescribed teaching of the Freemasonic world.  You had to create it for yourselves because it is not part of the usual structure of the organization.  Sure, our love of the Craft brings us together, but it's what we do afterward that determines further educational opportunities, not the system itself.  All it offers is more morality plays (higher degrees) and opportunities to get together afterward.  There is no structured educational systems to do anything other than memorize and repeat back.


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 19, 2016)

coachn said:


> .  All it offers is more morality plays (higher degrees) and opportunities to get together afterward.  There is no structured educational systems to do anything other than memorize and repeat back.


Well the AASR-SJ has the master cragtsman program...


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


----------



## coachn (May 19, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Well the AASR-SJ has the master cragtsman program...
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Agreed!  They do offer this program.  It is not offered by any one jurisdiction.

From what is described, it is not Blue Lodge or Masonic though.  It is Freemasonic and focused upon the society and its lore. 

It is not about what the Blue Lodge Ritual directs us to do to Build Better Men.


----------



## Bloke (May 19, 2016)

coachn said:


> First off, I am delighted to know that this is going on for you and your Brothers.  Kudos for making it a part of your days..



Thanks



coachn said:


> ...Secondly, this is not part of the prescribed teaching of the Freemasonic world...t it's what we do afterward that determines further educational opportunities, not the system itself....There is no structured educational systems to do anything other than memorize and repeat back.



Hmmm mayy-beee... but, bluntly, your "Freemasonic" world is an American one. We look at your TO model, and minus the requirements of presenting papers, a TO lodge is pretty much a standard one here and has been for a very long time...

A EA is told we hope he will "*come *to appreciate the value of freemasonry" and one of the EAs working tools (here) is the chisel - which represents education while a during the third the candidate is told of "the connection of our whole system and the relative dependence of it parts". Statements like these reinforce you need to understand the underpinning messages in our "theatre" which is education, exploration and development. This puts *speculation *at the core of Freemasonry. To speculate to you need knowledge and thought, ergo education is core.

I once remember listening to a conversation about HRA, I drew some conclusion (cant remember what it was) which shocked those guys because I am not a member of HRA (Chapter) - I said, "oh, that idea is in the Craft" which they had never seen.



coachn said:


> ......There is no structured educational systems to do anything other than memorize and repeat back.



Again there is here. To be advanced in the next degree, its prescribed a candidate complete an education model. It's in our Constitution.


----------



## Bloke (May 19, 2016)

coachn said:


> ...It is Freemasonic and focused upon the society and its lore...



What are you trying to indicate in using the word "Freemasonic" - you are the only Freemason I know who uses the term...


----------



## coachn (May 19, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> Is it worth pointing out that making good men better is the work of the EA?


Yeah, but so are the Work of the FC and MM.  When you do the Work, you know this.



JamestheJust said:


> Who even tries the work of the FC, and yet that work was common in Masonry before 1717.


I love Romantic Fantasy Notions.  Please, share more.


----------



## coachn (May 19, 2016)

Bloke said:


> What are you trying to indicate in using the word "Freemasonic" - you are the only Freemason I know who uses the term...


You don't know the Masons I hang with.

Here, read these and you may come to understand a movement to right what has been assumed for much too long:
http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-coaches-coach-drawing-distinctions.html
http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-coaches-coach-freemasonry-masonry.html


----------



## Bloke (May 19, 2016)

coachn said:


> You don't know the Masons I hang with.
> 
> Here, read these and you may come to understand a movement to right what has been assumed for much too long:
> http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-coaches-coach-drawing-distinctions.html
> http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-coaches-coach-freemasonry-masonry.html



I think the drawing distinctions article is clearer to explain my question

_"In my quest, one of the rabbit holes I crawled down was the etymology of “Masonry”. It became very clear that the root of the word, “Masonry[viii]” is “Mason”.  And furthermore, the root of the word, “Mason[ix],[x]” is “to make”.  With a little bit of well thought out Speculation[xi] and even well founded reasoning, it’s easy to conclude that Masonry is about “making things”. In essence, *Masons are Builders*.  "_

&
_"One thing stands out though.  No matter what the conjecture is to its origins, the one thing that remains clearly obvious is that the current day use of the word is specific:  To be called a “Freemason”, one must belong to a duly Recognized Organization and, furthermore, one does not require anything more from oneself than this legitimate association to wear this label.  A Freemason does not have to Build anything whatsoever, he does not have to Speculate in any way and he does not even have to do anything other than pay his dues on time and be moral in his actions; he only has to be an accepted member.  In essence, *Freemasons are Members*.  "_

I dont use these words in this way, but the paradigm is interesting. For me "Freemason" is a broad church and includes things like the "*The Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons"*

For me, "Freemason" is a collective and/or descriptive noun, similar to "Christian" under which sits all sorts of things like Catholicism, Anglicanism, Baptists etc etc, and like those groups, some Freemasons have a history of claiming their particular brand of 'Freemasonry' as the one true version.

In our second degree WTs there is a wonderful , "turning neither left nor right from the path*s* of virtue"- for an organisation supposedly without dogma, many of us seem to value and become obsessed with a single path, which our ritual actually cautions against when you listen to it.

Anyway, I now understand what you mean when you say "Freemasonic" but your nomenclature is not something I'm going to adopt today...


----------



## Ressam (May 20, 2016)

coachn said:


> Bold claim.  Cite the source of his quote.


Greetings, Coach!
It's written in his -- "Freemasonry Encyclopedia", if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## coachn (May 20, 2016)

Bloke said:


> I think the drawing distinctions article is clearer to explain my question
> 
> _"In my quest, one of the rabbit holes I crawled down was the etymology of “Masonry”. It became very clear that the root of the word, “Masonry[viii]” is “Mason”.  And furthermore, the root of the word, “Mason[ix],[x]” is “to make”.  With a little bit of well thought out Speculation[xi] and even well founded reasoning, it’s easy to conclude that Masonry is about “making things”. In essence, *Masons are Builders*.  "_
> 
> ...



Good!  Glad to help.



Bloke said:


> I dont use these words in this way, but the paradigm is interesting. For me "Freemason" is a broad church and includes things like the "*The Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons"*



It's not the usual way, but it is one that more and more within the Fraternity are embracing. I'm one of them.



Bloke said:


> For me, "Freemason" is a collective and/or descriptive noun, similar to "Christian" under which sits all sorts of things like Catholicism, Anglicanism, Baptists etc etc, and like those groups, some Freemasons have a history of claiming their particular brand of 'Freemasonry' as the one true version.
> 
> In our second degree WTs there is a wonderful , "turning neither left nor right from the path*s* of virtue"- for an organisation supposedly without dogma, many of us seem to value and become obsessed with a single path, which our ritual actually cautions against when you listen to it.
> 
> Anyway, I now understand what you mean when you say "Freemasonic" but your nomenclature is not something I'm going to adopt today...


In your own time Bro.


----------



## coachn (May 20, 2016)

> Greetings, Coach!
> It's written in his -- "Freemasonry Encyclopedia", if I'm not mistaken.


It's not in any of the ones that are available, and there are quite a few versions out there.  Would you cite the publishing date, page and perhaps a snapshot of what you read please.  You quote is not to be found.


----------



## coachn (May 20, 2016)

> You must have a different ritual.
> 
> "What are the peculiar objects of research in this degree?


Yeah, that MUST be it.  It couldn't possibly be that fact that studying the 7LAs&Ss would ever make good men better by focusing upon bringing order to the chaos of the mind.  Or that Teaching and Learning are ways to continue to refine and make men better.  Silly me.


> Answer: The hidden mysteries of nature and science."
> 
> It took me 20 years just to understand what that meant.  And at that point I discovered that I had already been investigating those hidden mysteries for some decades.


Keep working at it.  Perhaps with another 20, you'll see what I already see.



> Then when I investigated how and why those mysteries are hidden, I started to see aspects of the work of the MM


Yeah, hidden in plain sight...



> Holy Royal Arch, Royal Ark Mariners and Rosecroix rituals all reference and to some degree demonstrate some aspects of the hidden mysteries and the work of the MM


Ya gotta love those remedial Degrees.  I'm so glad that they are available for those Brothers who don't get it at the Blue Lodge level.


----------



## sdh0158 (Jun 18, 2016)

With all due respect brothers, as a professional historian, do not use Wikipedia to prove any point or use as any example.  Anyone can go into this site and manipulate "history" and pass it off as fact.  If you want to make sure it is a factual or properly documented source then go to books, libraries, archives, museums, etc...  It takes more time but a published or researched item has been edited, checked and rechecked.  In an age where we desire instant gratification Wikipedia is the bane of an historians and even the publics existence. It's not bad to use as a basic knowledge tool but beyond that stay away.


----------



## Bloke (Jun 18, 2016)

sdh0158 said:


> With all due respect brothers, as a professional historian, do not use Wikipedia to prove any point or use as any example.  Anyone can go into this site and manipulate "history" and pass it off as fact.  If you want to make sure it is a factual or properly documented source then go to books, libraries, archives, museums, etc...  It takes more time but a published or researched item has been edited, checked and rechecked.  In an age where we desire instant gratification Wikipedia is the bane of an historians and even the publics existence. It's not bad to use as a basic knowledge tool but beyond that stay away.




Hmmm how much of "history" is indeed fact ? Me, I am a big fan of wikipedia, like you say it is a good starting point, but just because it is in print does not mean it is true either as well you know. Yes, there is a barrier of passing the publisher to get in print, but a lot of trash is still published..


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 19, 2016)

I'm an amateur researcher but I have a full respect of the work of historians as they are often dealing with scarce or contradictory sources. However even the most serious author have a political, a social, a spiritual opinion which affects the way in which he presents the "facts". The same "fact" therefore is presented or read in different way according to the author. I do not trust Wikipedia like Britannica or Treccani (Italian), but a thing that I do with Wikipedia, that I cannot do with the others two, is to compare the article in the four language that I can understand. Except for the articles translated, the comparison helps to understand which sources are the most known and which others can be examined. Usually in a good article the reference is reported and is not simply a reference to another book, but often to a source like a cartulary or an original manuscript. Fortunately the diffusion of scanned documents is increasing as the most interesting documents are not available to amateur reasearchers. The reasons are comprehensible (value of the book, rarity, delicacy of the book etc.) but in any case this is an existing limit for non professional researchers.

A Italian historian (Gaetano Salvemini) once said: "We can not be impartial. We can only be intellectually honest: that means, to understand our passions, keep us on guard against them and warn our readers against the dangers of our partiality. Impartiality is a dream, probity is a must"
(I hope that translation gives the correct meaning)


----------



## Bloke (Jun 19, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> ...Usually in a good article the reference is reported and is not simply a reference to another book, but often to a source like a cartulary or an original manuscript....



In English (which I assume is a second language, although you write extremely well) we call these "primary sources" - which are first hand accounts and resources like documents and items. Then we have "secondary sources' which are written by people, occasionally contemporary but generally following (such as historians)  who look at the evidence within primary sources to make conclusions. For me, the best writings are those have an excellent knowledge of primary sources and how they have been interpreted in secondary sources and use them to draw conclusions -  but as your quote suggests, they all carry some bias.

I think it is amazing how good some of the wikipedia articles are. Some, like the articles on Freemasonry have pages and pages of discussions (arguments) over content. What ever is said, I love footnotes because they let the reader look at the source. My favourite work and hobby has 40 pages of content and 73
pages of footnotes comprising 2,243 footnotes. I've been working on it for 9 years as a hobby


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 20, 2016)

Wikipedia or otherwise, I view all non-contemporary works as simply a regurgitation or reinterpretation of original documents (assuming of course that we're talking about literary history).  What I mean by that is, if I'm researching something that happened in the 16th century, an 18th writing about the event might be interesting, but I am primarily looking through it for sources that I can then seek out and read for myself.  Obviously, this isn't always possible, either through loss of the original document or because I, unlike Mr. Visentin, only speak one language fluently (something I really need to work on). 
It's a bit scary to see sometimes how pieces of information can be handed down as commonly known facts, only to look back and the source material and realize that there is no basis for it.  But unless one goes back to the beginning, how would one know?


----------



## coachn (Jun 20, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> Wikipedia or otherwise, I view all non-contemporary works as simply a regurgitation or reinterpretation of original documents (assuming of course that we're talking about literary history).  What I mean by that is, if I'm researching something that happened in the 16th century, an 18th writing about the event might be interesting, but I am primarily looking through it for sources that I can then seek out and read for myself.  Obviously, this isn't always possible, either through loss of the original document or because I, unlike Mr. Visentin, only speak one language fluently (something I really need to work on).
> It's a bit scary to see sometimes how pieces of information can be handed down as commonly known facts, only to look back and the source material and realize that there is no basis for it.  But unless one goes back to the beginning, how would one know?


The common accepted assumption that "freemason" came from "freestone mason" is an example of this.  It cannot be any farther from the truth.  It was originally put forth as conjecture, not even speculation, and has stuck to the freemasonic wall and been referred to as true ever since.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 20, 2016)

coachn said:


> The common accepted assumption that "freemason" came from "freestone mason" is an example of this.  It cannot be any farther from the truth.  It was originally put forth as conjecture, not even speculation, and has stuck to the freemasonic wall and been referred to as true ever since.


I agree.  Even the idea doesn't hold water.  If our operative forefathers had been those whose primary work was the delicate and beautiful carvings of free stone rather than those working the harder stones used for construction, why are our working tools those used for building?  It would be like an organization call the woodcarvers who are given working tools of a pneumatic nail gun.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 20, 2016)

Bloke said:


> My favourite work and hobby has 40 pages of content and 73
> pages of footnotes comprising 2,243 footnotes. I've been working on it for 9 years as a hobby



Well done! I tried once but I got lost in the instructions!  A good article can be an useful beginning for a research or to give a good summary of an argument. It is true however that some articles are poorly written or are strongly directed to give a partial vision of the subject.


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 20, 2016)

coachn said:


> The common accepted assumption that "freemason" came from "freestone mason" is an example of this. It cannot be any farther from the truth. It was originally put forth as conjecture, not even speculation, and has stuck to the freemasonic wall and been referred to as true ever since.



You are right. Moreover the oldest documents, that is the Regius an the Cooke do not use the word "Freemason".


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jun 20, 2016)

hanzosbm said:


> If our operative forefathers had been those whose primary work was the delicate and beautiful carvings of free stone rather than those working the harder stones used for construction, why are our working tools those used for building?



Likely because it was not their primary work.... From Regius poem: " _They were as good masons as on earth shall go, -  Gravers and image-makers they were also."_


----------



## coachn (Jun 20, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> You are right. Moreover the oldest documents, that is the Regius an the Cooke do not use the word "Freemason".


From all outward signs, the word "Freemason" is a 1717 Premier Grand Lodge innovation.  Prior to their inventing the word, there was "Free Mason" and "Free-Mason" and each referred to Superior/Excellent Stonecrafters, not the actors in the acting society or the organization that makes them.


----------



## Bloke (Jun 20, 2016)

Luigi Visentin said:


> ...It is true however that some articles are poorly written or are strongly directed to give a partial vision of the subject.



I'd be responsible for some of those too .... *nervous laugh*


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 3, 2016)

coachn said:


> From all outward signs, the word "Freemason" is a 1717 Premier Grand Lodge innovation.  Prior to their inventing the word, there was "Free Mason" and "Free-Mason" and each referred to Superior/Excellent Stonecrafters, not the actors in the acting society or the organization that makes them.


Coach, how many years after its formation do you think the Premier Grand Lodge of England coined the word, Freemason as we use it today?

From what i know, it was still a few years later after the 1717 formation that the 4th elected Grand Master(G.Payne)published, 'the General Regulations of a Free-Mason'. 
I think it was around 1720-21, if i remember correctly.
Payne did include in his title, Free-Mason as opposed to Freemason.

A small & subtle distinction that points out to me that you surely know about these matters.

One problem that i've always had with the Premiers history is the period between 1717-1724. I heard something awhile ago that no Minutes were taken down until 1724.
That's a 7 yr period of unrecorded Minutes but yet names of the 1st to the 5th Grand Masters are tossed around even til this day. 

How responsible and reliable is that for a newly formed 'Premier' Grand Lodge?



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


----------



## coachn (Jul 3, 2016)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> Coach, how many years after its formation do you think the Premier Grand Lodge of England coined the word, Freemason as we use it today?



Considering the Premier Grand Lodge's constitutions themselves did not have the word "freemason" within it and that document was rewritten (and edited) many times and many years after the first dinner party, I'd say it didn't.  It was likely coined by either its members or those writing about the organization who did not know any better.  Just an opinion of mine and a loosely based one at that.



BullDozer Harrell said:


> From what i know, it was still a few years later after the 1717 formation that the 4th elected Grand Master(G.Payne)published, 'the General Regulations of a Free-Mason'.
> I think it was around 1720-21, if i remember correctly.
> Payne did include in his title, Free-Mason as opposed to Freemason.
> 
> A small & subtle distinction that points out to me that you surely know about these matters.


A little & subtle distinction for sure; and sadly one of which few take notice much less give any further thought.  

The word "freemason" did not appear till after the formation of the PGL.  Examination of transcripted documents prior to this time that show this word "freemason" are inevitably shown to be errors and liberties taken by transcribers where they changed the word from "free_mason" or "free-mason" without giving it any thought whatsoever OR believing there was no difference.



BullDozer Harrell said:


> One problem that i've always had with the Premiers history is the period between 1717-1724. I heard something awhile ago that no Minutes were taken down until 1724.
> That's a 7 yr period of unrecorded Minutes but yet names of the 1st to the 5th Grand Masters are tossed around even til this day.
> 
> How responsible and reliable is that for a newly formed 'Premier' Grand Lodge?


Not very.  But then again, it all started out to be quarterly dinner parties between a hand full of members from four lodges who wanted to get together to drink, eat, sing, chat and be entertained.  Why would you expect anything more?


----------



## Bloke (Jul 3, 2016)

coachn said:


> Considering the Premier Grand Lodge's constitutions themselves did not have the word "freemason" within it and that document was rewritten (and edited) many times and many years after the first dinner party, I'd say it didn't.  It was likely coined by either its members or those writing about the organization who did not know any better.  Just an opinion of mine and a loosely based one at that.
> 
> 
> A little & subtle distinction for sure; and sadly one of which few take notice much less give any further thought.
> ...




Spelling then was not as standard then as now, so I'm not sure i would read that much into it, even in today's global world you write "honor" and i write "honour" and the two distinctions simply indicate geography (American vrs "English" spelling) rather any change in meaning...


----------



## coachn (Jul 3, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Spelling then was not as standard then as now, so I'm not sure i would read that much into it, even in today's global world you write "honor" and i write "honour" and the two distinctions simply indicate geography (American vrs "English" spelling) rather any change in meaning...


Yup.  Which makes it all the more challenging when making effort to determine when such anomalies warrant closer scrutiny or not.

That being said, the supporting structure and practices of the Freemasonic organization juxtapositioned against what we know to be those of Stonecrafters simply do not match, even when one makes effort to claim FM to be a "speculative" continuation of an so called "operative" origin.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 4, 2016)

A few more curious things to consider are that the single word Freemason in use today was not transcribed in Anderson's Constitution of 1723 nor in Preston's 'Illustrations of Masonry' 1772.
Both writers either wrote Masons as a single word, Free-Masons as a double word, Free& Accepted Masons as a triple word.
There is no instance of 'Freemasons' appearing in these works.
Also, the last and puzzling observation on the subject is that 41yrs later after Preston's work, it wasn't even a single word used in the 'Declaration of the Act of Union in 1813' created between both Antients& Moderns.  

So when did we begin to use the single word, Freemason?




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


----------



## coachn (Jul 4, 2016)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> A few more curious things to consider are that the single word Freemason in use today was not transcribed in Anderson's Constitution of 1723 nor in Preston's 'Illustrations of Masonry' 1772.
> Both writers either wrote Masons as a single word, Free-Masons as a double word, Free& Accepted Masons as a triple word.
> There is no instance of 'Freemasons' appearing in these works.
> Also, the last and puzzling observation on the subject is that 41yrs later after Preston's work, it wasn't even a single word used in the 'Declaration of the Act of Union in 1813' created between both Antients& Moderns.
> ...


Not trying to be facetious here...  "The society of free and accepted masons" members, aka "Freemasons" created and started using the word shortly after Freemasonry was created circa 1717.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 4, 2016)

Just a theory, but in German, it is common to create nouns (single words) by grouping adjectives and simple nouns. Hence, the single word Freimauren. With so many Germans emmigrating to the States around these times, it's possible that the term came via that route. 
So, perhaps Germans combined the English words. Or, maybe the word 'Freemason' as we know it today is not descended from the English Free Masons, but from the German Freimauren translated to English. 

I haven't done any research into when the term Freimauren first appeared, so this is just another idea to add to the pile. Also, I'm not suggesting that American Freemasonry descended from the Germans, but maybe the way in which the word is written.


----------



## Ressam (Jul 23, 2016)

Greetings, Honourable Gentlemen!
If there is any Historians here!
Question:
Was Russian revolutionist Lenin -- a member of Irregular Grand Orient de France?
Thank you!


----------



## FriendshipCube (Jul 12, 2017)

A Fairy Tale based on the Regius Manuscript
The Aethelston Stone, written and read by Graeme Kilshaw​


----------



## coachn (Jul 13, 2017)

FriendshipCube said:


> (Eyewitness testimony of a brother follows from the Regius Manuscript, the oldest of the Old Charges, circa 1390.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you confuse stonecraft "masonry" with role-playing craft (freemasonry), any fabricated connection becomes believable.

BTW - That Old English sure is very readable.


----------



## FriendshipCube (Jul 13, 2017)

King Æthelstans Stone is from The Regius Manuscript:




(The Oldest Masonic Document, The British Museum)


----------



## coachn (Jul 13, 2017)

FriendshipCube said:


> King Æthelstans Stone is from The Regius Manuscript:
> http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/regius.html
> (The Oldest Masonic Document, The British Museum)


It appears there is no mention in your provided link whatsoever of what you refer.

Back to: _When you confuse stonecraft "masonry" with role-playing craft (freemasonry), any fabricated connection becomes believable._


----------



## FriendshipCube (Jul 13, 2017)

*The Regius Manuscript*, the oldest of the Old Charges, _circa 1390_, is written in Olde English.

_"In this manner, through good knowledge of geometry,
Began the fist craft of masonry,
The clerk of geometry in Egyptian land,
In Egypt, he taught it full wide,
In divers lands on every side;
Many years afterward, I understand,
Before the craft came into this land.
This craft came into England, as I now say,
In the time of good *King Æthelstan*s' day."_

In other words, Masonry grew out of geometry, was taught in Egypt by Euclid, and was brought to England at the time of King Æthelstan.   

Historian David Stevenson notes, "If studied in search of the historical truth about the origins of the mason craft, the Old Charges may be dismissed as rubbish, impressive exercises in the dubious skills of name-dropping and creative chronology.  But in so far as they reflect the craft's image of itself, they should not be dismissed with ridicule."   Stevenson is commending the *moral sentiment* of the *fairy tale* I wrote based on the *Regius Manuscript*.


----------



## coachn (Jul 13, 2017)

FriendshipCube said:


> *The Regius Manuscript*, the oldest of the Old Charges, _circa 1390_, is written in Olde English.
> 
> _"In this manner, through good knowledge of geometry,
> Began the fist craft of masonry,
> ...


Forgive me.  It was not clear that you were writing a fairy tale.  Please disregard my comments.


----------



## LK600 (Jul 13, 2017)

coachn said:


> BTW - That Old English sure is very readable.



Ah man... I thought my Old English was getting better!


----------



## Luigi Visentin (Jul 13, 2017)

FriendshipCube said:


> Stevenson is commending the *moral sentiment* of the *fairy tale* I wrote based on the *Regius Manuscript*.


It looks like you have taken a very wide "poetic license", perhaps a little too wide as the oldest documents have a clear Christian footprint (some of the versions of the Legend of the Craft start directly with a tribute to the Trinity which is not accepted by Islamism and Hebraism), while your fairy tale shows an islamic one. It is not a problen with the religion, but Athelstan would have been burned at the stake for heresy after such a kind of rite!


----------



## FriendshipCube (Aug 6, 2017)

Aethelston translates to "Noble Stone"
There are metaphors about the Noble Stone in the Bible.
I, therefore, theorize a connection between the Bible and the Noble Stone.​


----------



## FriendshipCube (Aug 6, 2017)

Luigi Visentin said:


> It looks like you have taken a very wide "poetic license", perhaps a little too wide as the oldest documents have a clear Christian footprint (some of the versions of the Legend of the Craft start directly with a tribute to the Trinity which is not accepted by Islamism and Hebraism), while your fairy tale shows an islamic one. It is not a problem with the religion, but Athelstan would have been burned at the stake for heresy after such a kind of rite!






 
_*"Cherubic Hymn"*_​_*King Aethelston founded the laws of England, based upon this 6th-century hymn. *
*"Remove not the Ancient Landmark thy Fathers have set." -Proverbs 22
*
*The Monarchy of France, 
Including the Anjou and Plantagenet bloodlines, 
 Through Pope John, the 22nd began a tradition 
With the Cosmic Ashlar, to empower the chosen. 

*​_


----------

