Freemasons

New Zealand
It is currently Wed May 22, 2013 4:53 am

All times are UTC + 12 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:48 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:22 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Christchurch
Hi,

In my opinion increased complexity forces order. Symbols order ideas. Pick up any text book and the first thing you find is that those describing a notion are actually forced to represent such with symbols or new words.

Association is necessary for technical development.

Ritual is a fundimental element of social development. The more complex the society the more intricate the ritual. Probably best represented in Ancient Japan. Each society develops its Cannon or constitution which determines its essential rituals. Conformance to societies rituals is even seen as a virtue - the idea of obedience to authority. This is essential as it increases the persistance and durability of the organization. Fraternity is another such concept in my opinion.

To me the forefront in history of technical and social development is building and design. Societies that do not advance technologically are over run ... as are societies that dont have a strong set of social traditions and rituals which engender community. What do you fight for?

To me freemasonry came about because society lagged behind what it needed to be in order to support the technological development desired by the 1% in power to maintain that power. This includes the church as we are really talking church and state here. Freemasonry provided a sub-society capable of meeting the needs of the rulers where their serfs and peasants could not.

I also am of the opinion that speculative masonry emerged because society caught up technologically and socially - at least to the point of being able to support the power bases of the day. I think that the drive to speculative is really an acknowledgement of this and a strong natural force to change to retain value as an organization.

Making Good Men better is another form of engineering is it not?

This hwoever opens the whole question of "can virtue be taught". I personally dont think it can be taught by ritual, but it can be realised by fraternity with good examples.

Cheers,
Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Origins of Freemasonry
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:08 am 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 10
Like the ‘true believers’ in UFOs and the prophecies of Nostradamus, we all revel in the mythic history of Freemasonry. I do too: I think it’s enormous fun, even if research has shown it to be largely an invention of Dr Anderson in the early 18th century. No serious masonic scholar places much credence in these tales of ancient and mysterious origins in Egypt, or in the days of King Solomon, but how we love to speculate! The problem begins when we turn off our critical faculty and start to treat this stuff as historical fact.

Baigent & Leigh’s books build a fantastic circumstantial chain that leads us from the Tomb of Christ and Rennes-le-Chateau, through the Knights Templar, the Cathars, the mysterious Rosicrucians and the Scots Guard, to modern Freemasonry. Sadly, we seem to have lost all inkling of our original great “secret”. According to Baigent & Leigh, this was nothing less than the knowledge that Christ survived the crucifixion (or perhaps never was crucified), married Mary Magdalene, and his descendants became the Merovingian kings of what is now France (question: if Jesus wasn’t divine, but simply a man, why are his descendants such a big deal?).

Everyone knows there’s a fabulous treasure (from the temple in Jerusalem?) buried somewhere nearby, but Baigent & Leigh find this rather too banal to explore in detail. They are much more interested in mysterious secrets and shadowy groups behind the scenes, like the Prieure de Sion. Their convoluted logic and astonishing lack of evidence have been superbly parodied by Umberto Eco in ‘Foucault’s Pendulum’. Once you admit that ‘everything is connected’ (Eco’s fundamental premise), then anything is not only possible, but true!

If we (reluctantly, I am willing to admit!) turn our backs on such fantastical books, and turn instead to the realm of historical facts, we find that Freemasonry is really a child of the Age of Reason. The earliest recorded non-operative initiation was that of Sir Robert Moray, by a group of masons in a Scots regiment at Newcastle-on-Tyne on 20th May 1641. The first Englishman we know to have been made a speculative mason was Elias Ashmole, in 1646, in a lodge at Warrington. Before this, we know virtually nothing.

At first non-operative members constituted a small minority of members of the masons’ associations, but late 17th and early 18th century lodge records reveal a rapid conversion of the guilds of operative workmen into private societies of ‘free and accepted’ gentleman masons. Simultaneously, there was a consolidation of the power of Parliament to govern the nation, the Whigs rose to ascendancy as keepers of the revolutionary heritage of 1688-89, and the economic power of the craft guilds declined.

‘Speculative’ masonry may have developed from the influence of William Schaw in Scotland and later spread to England, but the essence of Enlightenment Freemasonry is characteristically English, and what was re-exported to Scotland in the early 18th century was something new. The emphasis on constitutions, laws and governance originated in London. It is not found in the meagre records of the old operative lodges, but was grafted on by Anderson, Payne, Desaguliers and their like.

At the time of the formation of the first Grand Lodge, the British situation was unique. As a result of their revolutions of 1640 and 1688, they had secured constitutional and parliamentary government. However, Freemasonry neither caused nor participated in these revolutions. To ensure respectability, English Freemasons remained silent on any part their members may have played, and Continental masons carefully constructed the mythic history of origins from Hiram and King Solomon’s Temple, through the Crusades and Knights Templar, up to 17th century England. The mythic history made an admirable smokescreen to protect the lodges from hostility by monarch and church. Now these concealing inventions have come back to haunt us through the likes of Baigent & Leigh!

English Freemasonry possessed distinctive civil and political characteristics shaped by a social context derived from the English Revolution. The goal of government by consent within the context of subordination to ‘legitimate’ authority was vigorously pursued by the Grand Lodge of London and was demanded of all lodges affiliated with it. Thus, the lodges were political societies, not in a party or faction sense of the term but in a larger connotation. The form of the lodge became one of the many channels that transmitted a new civic and political culture, based upon constitutionalism, which opposed traditional privileges and established hierarchical authority. ‘Merit’ was the catch-cry of the new culture.

This new culture, with Freemasonry as its vanguard, is known today as the Enlightenment, a key passage in European development. It began in England, but is strongly identified with France, where events took a more dramatic turn. It argued that people’s habits of thinking were based on irrationality, polluted by religious dogma, and over-conformed to historical precedent and irrelevant tradition. The way to escape was to seek true knowledge in every sphere of life, to study the liberal arts and sciences, to establish the truth and build upon it. Its premises were liberal, pro-science, anti-superstition, and that the State was the proper vehicle for the improvement of the human condition.

However, although the masons spoke of all brothers as ‘equal’, this did not obviate the role the lodges played as places that replicated social hierarchy and order, based not on birth per se but on an ideology of merit. The lodges mirrored the old order just as they were creating a form of civil society that would ultimately replace it. In spite of their rhetoric of equality, the early lodges were elitist, drawing most of their members from the literate and relatively wealthy classes. The leadership was overwhelmingly Whig, and powerful and influential Whigs at that. Originally, the Whigs had been the revolutionary force behind the drive for constitutionalism and liberty: now they had become part of the Establishment, and sought to discourage further revolutionary fervour by emphasising peaceability and law-abiding behaviour.

The late 18th century was a time of political repression in Britain, and the lodges became more circumspect in their behaviour. Conservatism replaced their early reformist zeal, secrecy grew, and the closed, ritual-based form of Freemasonry we are familiar with today was consolidated. Our factual history is an exciting and fascinating one, but the ‘fairy stories’ of Baigent & Leigh and their ilk obviously possess a greater attraction for the bulk of our members. Well, these myths are great fun, and I don’t want to spoil anyone’s enjoyment of them. Just let’s be aware that they belong to the realm of ‘what if…?’, sharing the same mythical space as Bush’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’, rather than the empirical world of reality.

_________________
Hrafn


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:11 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 50
Location: Morrinsville
rAinStorms wrote:
"can virtue be taught". I personally dont think it can be taught by ritual, but it can be realised by fraternity with good examples.


I have no doubt that it can be taught by ritual, but I have to qualify that. I am convinced, despite many papers and statements to the contrary, that a Candidate does not really glean much from the ceremony which he is hearing for the first time.

But those Brethren who are participating in the ceremony are not hearing it for the first time and I will lay odds that only the most "jaded" amongst us will not get something out of each time they read and play their part. We instruct our Candidates that Freemasonry is a progressive science. Which I take to mean that there is always something to be learned. We also exhort him to make a daily advancement in his Masonic knowledge. Just participating in ritual is part of that "daily advancement."

I know that each time I read through some ritual another little chink opens up and a meaning becomes just a little clearer. My experience is increased whenever I hear someone else act out a part of the ritual, particularly if it is a part I am familiar with, because their presentation and even interpretation is not the same as mine, and it may trigger some response in me. My discussions with others lead me to believe that I am not unique - at least in this particular.

_________________
Gary Kerkin
PG Lec (GLNZ)
PG Lec (SGRACNZ)
PM Waikato Lodge of Research No 445
PSR Three Arrows Research Conclave No 30


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:36 am 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:47 pm
Posts: 20
I would agree.
The first time it is all a blur, very impressive, but a blur non the less.
Then you start absobing some of the meaning; then I tend to try and "learn" the charge as it is being recited (trying to keep a word or two a head), once learnt it is back to trying to understand a little more of what is being said in relation to my own viewpoint and moral standards - ie - what's in it for me, what can I learn from this???

An interesting topic...

Fraternal Regards
Phil Ivamy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:02 am 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:38 am
Posts: 349
Location: Taupo NZ
I think it is important not to confuse the Legendary History that we have in our Ritual with the hard proven facts of our ACTUAL history going back to the Regius Poem of 1390, which (so far) is the earliest known document of the Operative Craft. although it is thought that the Cooke MS of 1420 is a transcription from an earlier document still.

"The Temple and the Lodge" by Baigent and Leigh at first sight puts forward a persuasive argument tracing the Craft back to the Knights Templar who were suppressed in 1307 and some of whom escaped to Scotland. However a careful reading reveals "holes" in that theory, and W Bro. L.D. Cooper PM of the Edinburgh Casrle Lodge No. 1764 SC, Curator of the museum of the Grand Lodge of Scotland and a member of Quator Coronati Lodge 2076 has published a paper "The Knights Templar of Scotland - The Creation of a Myth" which appeared in Ars Quator Coronatorum No. 115 and effectively demolishes the theory.

_________________
Keith Walker
Kaimanawa 426
Waikato Lodge of Research 445


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:14 am 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:47 pm
Posts: 20
That would be well worth a read!

What about JJ Robinson's "Born in Blood" wherein he theorises that via the Knights Templar going to ground in Scotland/England their structure was instrumental in The Peasants Revolt of the late 1300's? Makes for an interesting theory.

Agreed that it is important to distinguish between fact & theory - but it is great fun theorising; in fact I've just put together a lecture on "An All Inclusive Theory of the Origins" looking at all sort of possible influences (as opposed to derivations) from Mystery plays, Druids, Kabbalah, Gnosticism, KTs, Royal Order - from its nature it is light on facts & heavy on theory; but loads of fun to put together!

Anyone wanting to have a critical look feel free to email me - phil@nimbus.co.nz

Regards
Phil


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:55 am 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 50
Location: Morrinsville
Fact and/or theory? Yes, it is interesting, and yes, it is fun to theorise.

As I've said in the past, establishing fact is not necessarily difficult. Establishing why it occurred is a much more difficult task, and that is why theorising is important.

Be all that as it may, that our rituals do not necessarily describe fact does not detract from their value in teaching us about the philosophies and principles of Freemasonry. Allegory should never be undervalued as an education tool. Shoud you doubt that it may be time for you to re-read Gulliver's Travels and ask what it is Dean Swift was trying to say.

_________________
Gary Kerkin
PG Lec (GLNZ)
PG Lec (SGRACNZ)
PM Waikato Lodge of Research No 445
PSR Three Arrows Research Conclave No 30


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Templars and Masons
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:19 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 10
OK, if you won’t give up this idea that Freemasonry is descended from the Knights Templar, let me ask you why you want to believe this. The philosophy of the Knights has nothing to do with the philosophy of Freemasonry, for a start. The trials in France that led to the banning of the order disclosed a number of curious facts about the Templars. Firstly, recruits were required to tramp on the crucifix and deny the divinity of Christ. The accusations of sodomy against them do not seem to be without foundation. In their preceptories they worshipped (or at least placed great faith in) a mysterious bearded head called “Baphomet”. A number of these heads were produced as evidence, and some even contained real human skulls. The inquisitors were rather baffled by the heads, and the veneration in which they were held, but unfortunately they didn’t get much sense out of the Templars about them. The Templars had certainly become heretical, and seemed to hold dualist beliefs they may have taken from the Cathars. The Templars were not advocates of tolerance, democracy, studying the liberal arts and sciences, or promoting universal brotherhood. There is no demonstrable connection between them and Freemasonry. Yet brethren still want to believe that Freemasonry is descended from them! Why?

P.S. – If you want to read a painstaking account of the origins of Freemasonry, in which the Knights Templar myth is soundly dismissed, try B.E. Jones’s Freemasons’ Guide and Compendium (London: Harrap, 1973).

_________________
Hrafn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars and Masons
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:06 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 50
Location: Morrinsville
Hrafn wrote:
OK, if you won’t give up this idea that Freemasonry is descended from the Knights Templar, let me ask you why you want to believe this.


I suggest you re-read what Keith had to say on this. For many of us, you might say, the jury is still out.

As to your comments about the heresy of the Knights Templar, there is evidence that suggest many of the myths may well have been promulgated by the Inquisition. Why, for example, when it was all over, were their lands (at least those not in dispute) and other possessions returned to them? One story cites their initiation as requiring the initiate to spit on a cross, which raises an interesting dilemma for a Christian: why venerate the instrument on which Christ died?

If you have read what has been written in this thread you will understand that some of us place no great credence on the theory that the roots arose from the KTs. And if you have followed this and other threads which deal with, or impinge on the philosophies of Freemasonry, you will appreciate that fact and allegory are not necessarily coincident. It is the lessons to be learned and conveyed that are important.

_________________
Gary Kerkin
PG Lec (GLNZ)
PG Lec (SGRACNZ)
PM Waikato Lodge of Research No 445
PSR Three Arrows Research Conclave No 30


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Templars and Masons
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:17 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 10
The Templars' lands were not returned to them. They were given to the Knights Hospitallers instead. My point was that Freemasonry has many foundation myths, of which the Templars are but one. My question was, why do so many Masons (including some in this discussion) want to believe the Templar myth, instead of (say) the Comacine Masons myth, or the King Athelstan myth? What does this say about modern Masons?

_________________
Hrafn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:28 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:38 am
Posts: 349
Location: Taupo NZ
I regret to say that it tells me that many Freemasons do not have the ability to distinguish between legends and actual history. The legends and the "Traditional Histories"were never intended to be taken literally. The early Speculative Freemasons, our forebears, made up suitable pasts for allegorical purposes. They knew that they were not literal truths but were designed deliberately to illustrate by allegory the eternal truths that the Craft endeavours to teach

_________________
Keith Walker
Kaimanawa 426
Waikato Lodge of Research 445


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:04 am 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 50
Location: Morrinsville
I guess we could go round and round and round on this, couldn't we? Sort of reminds of that game we used to play as little kids - "a'tishoo, a'tishoo, we all fall down!"

Why do people "want" to believe one myth over another? Probably because they feel more comfortable with that one than they do with the other. Equally likely, they don't have the time, the energy, and possibly even the intellect to wish to pursue it beyond their comfort zone. And indeed, why should they? Provided they do not try to project the myth as reality, it does no harm.

What is of importance is that they should feel comfortable with their experiences as Freemasons and have a story - a myth, legend, allegory - whatever, that helps them understand.

Does it matter that Knight and Lomas believe the Templars buried some of the Dead Sea Scrolls beneath Rosslyn Chapel? Or that Byrne believes they secreted the Ark of the Covenenant somewhere in the Rennes le Chateau region? More importantly, does it matter that some of us wish to agree with their opinion? It does lead to good debate, doesn't it?

As has been pointed out, it is fun to theorise and these authors have pointed out some facts and concepts that do help us understand, not where we come from, but what we are about, and, perhaps, where we are heading. After all, there are many parallels in the philosphies and religions that have developed around the world.

_________________
Gary Kerkin
PG Lec (GLNZ)
PG Lec (SGRACNZ)
PM Waikato Lodge of Research No 445
PSR Three Arrows Research Conclave No 30


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:17 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:38 am
Posts: 349
Location: Taupo NZ
We have to bear in mind that we have two histories, one, our Traditional Histories is fictional - allegorical, illustrating the truths we endeavour to teach. It uses characters in the Bible and in history but their actions as displayed never actually happened in history. Not that that detracts from the great truths they propound. The development of the Legend of Hiram is fairly clear from the various Exposures published at various times in the early 18th Century. Prior to the Hiramic Legend there was another one illustrating the identical lesson but based on the Sons of Noah

The other history is our factual one which is pretty well documented, tracing our line from the Operatives of the 12th Century although there are gaps in documentation in the 14th Century.

Both our actual and Traditional Histories are important but too many Brethren are confused by attempts to marry the two together to show a continuous unbroken line from antiquity to the present.

_________________
Keith Walker
Kaimanawa 426
Waikato Lodge of Research 445


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:55 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:17 am
Posts: 50
Location: Morrinsville
Keith wrote:
The other history is our factual one which is pretty well documented, tracing our line from the Operatives of the 12th Century although there are gaps in documentation in the 14th Century.


It is documented Keith, but the documentation is too fragmented (at least in my opinion) to really establish a reasonable line. Some of the best indicators to terminology are revealed in various acts and regulations - terms such as Free Mason - crop up, and it is interesting to speculate to what they may refer. One school of thought suggests a Free Mason is one who was not indentured. Another suggests he was a Mason who worked with "free" stone - "free" I assume meaning a stone which was relatively easy to work. Some Scottish diaries, and others (Ashmole, for example) suggest the initiation of non-Masons into Lodges, but it is not clear that the "lodges" were in fact lodges of operative Masons, or why non-Masons would be invited to join them. Perhaps "speculative" means just that!

A couple of years ago I put a paper together looking at some of the implications. The following is part of the introduction:

RW Bro. Rev Brian Burton says there are two main approaches to Masonic history: the “authentic” or scientific approach; and the “non-authentic” approach.

He describes the authentic approach as being theories derived from verifiable facts and documentation. The non-authentic approach he describes as attempting to place Freemasonry in the context of the tradition of the Mystery by correlating the teachings, allegory and symbolism of the Craft with those of various esoteric traditions.

The thrust of the authentic school is to look at the probability of indirect links with operative Masons and explore the possibility that the originators of speculative Masonry clothed themselves in the appearance of operative organisations or guilds to hide their activities. The 16th and 17th centuries was a period in which politics and religion were inextricably entwined and differences of opinion about politics and religion eventually led to civil war. The activities of detractors and dissenters were often proscribed.

Burton suggests two possibilities:
• A group opposed to the intolerance of state politics and religion who wished to bring together men of differing views with a common aim of social improvement.
• Non-conformists who promoted tolerance and a society in which men were free to follow their consciences in matters of religion and politics.

At that time the use of allegory was a common teaching technique and there were useful metaphors available in the creation of a building. There was even a biblical metaphor from the building of Solomon’s temple. So meetings became “lodges”, principal officers Master and Wardens, and the tools of stonemasons took on symbolic meanings.

An alternative theory now being investigated looks to a charitable rather than a philosophical aspect, in which a mutual support and welfare structure was developed.

Burton postulates four main approaches in the non-authentic school: esoteric, mystical, symbolist and romantic.

The first two of these are concerned with the transmission of ideas and esoteric traditions and tend to support unorthodox ideas on the nature and purpose of Freemasonry, endowing it with mystical, religious and even occult implications which it does not possess—or ever did.

The esoteric approach takes the principles, rituals, forms and symbols and traces similarities in other groups and assumes the similarities are NOT fortuitous. It ignores the universality of principles and many of the symbols—that they are not peculiar to Freemasonry.

The mystical school believes that the rituals, particularly those of the additional degrees, convey secret knowledge in the tradition of the Mysteries.

The symbolist school seeks the origins by correlating symbolism and ritual language with a linear descent of various religions, cults, mysteries and societies. With the esoteric view, it has certain validity if studied as an anthropology—but not as a history.

The romantic school implicitly believes in a direct connection between operative and speculative Masonry. It is prepared to believe that the ritual has been practised for ever.


This pretty much sums up the way most of us treat the subject. I think many of our Brethren would really like to adopt the romantic school approach - it is comforting and comfortable.

_________________
Gary Kerkin
PG Lec (GLNZ)
PG Lec (SGRACNZ)
PM Waikato Lodge of Research No 445
PSR Three Arrows Research Conclave No 30


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Origins
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 1:16 pm 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 10
I think this sums it up very well. Is Brian Burton's paper (or book) available, and if so, where can it be found?

_________________
Hrafn


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC + 12 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group