Freemasons - what are they?

[grandsecretary]

This is what Emile Rousseau said:

"Freedom is found in no form of government; it is in the heart of the free man. He takes it with him everywhere. The vile man takes his servitude everywhere."

The greatest impediment to freedom is self-interest. This is why an essential and immoveable Ancient Landmark is equality. There is NO place in Freemasonry for any system of "preferment" or "promotions". That is a corruption of the genuine ... FREE Masonry.

[agneau]

Sexist. Or at least, the movement is. What's all this duality bullcrap, when they don't follow through?

Freemasonry is available to all, regardless of gender, race or creed.

They might have different names - UGLE, The Order of Women Freemasons, The Order of International Co-Freemasonry - but the real life benefits and principles are much the same.

[decim]

Freemasons - what are they?

Traitors, who capitulated to the liesborn treason; Lackeys & Vain Glorious Sychophantic Sociopaths....

[kadosh]

The first-known use of the word Freemasons - in the form Free Masons - occurs in City of London Letter-book H of 9 August 1376, though the word is in fact deleted in favour of Mason.

Masons and Freemasons were interchangeable during the 15th and 16th centuries and Freemasons were generally meant to denote hewers or setters of freestone, Masons being used to embrace all stoneworkers. Elias Ashmole in his diary wrote that he was made a Free Mason and referred in 1686 to the "Fellowship of Free Masons". James Anderson when writing his 1723 Constitutions did not use the single word - Freemasons - once.

Whatever the reasons, the 1723 Constitutions contain approximately 126 references to Masons, 12 to Free Masons, 10 to Free and Accepted Masons, 9 to Free-Masons, one to Accepted Free Masons and none to Freemasons.

And such is the tenacity of tradition that to this day most of the Constitutions are addressed to Free and Accepted Masons and not to Accepted Freemasons. The earliest-known anti-masonic leaflet, of 1698, warns the public against "those called Free Masons" - almost certainly what we now know as speculative Freemasons.

[grandsecretary]

Masons and Freemasons were interchangeable during the 15th and 16th centuries and Freemasons were generally meant to denote hewers or setters of freestone ...

Utter tosh. Non-UGLE source for this childish nonsense please?

And pur
chased a fre patent of the kyng
that they schoulde make a
sembly whan theis awe re-
sonably tyme a cu to gedir to
he re counsel le of the whiche
Charges manors & semble
as is write and taught in the
boke of our charges wher
for I leue hit at this tyme.

(SOURCE "Additional M.S. 23,198" British Museum)

"And purchased a free patent of the King".

A free patent for Free Masonrie.

Dooooh!

[kadosh]

The 1717 Grand Lodge is the first Grand Lodge of its new and particular type. The Grand Lodge at York was of a quite different type and had faded by the end of the 18th century.

[grandsecretary]

The 1717 Grand Lodge is the first Grand Lodge of its new and particular type. The Grand Lodge at York was of a quite different type and had faded by the end of the 18th century.

Thank you for confirming that your Grand Lodge usurped the encumbent Grand Lodge which existed before, during and after the foundation of the Grand Lodge of London on the 24th June 1717.

The ONLY differences were that it adhered to the Antient Charges of a Free Mason and supported the Stuart Crown.

It did NOT fade away, that is propaganda. It was outlawed in England by legislation in Parliament introduced by the supporters of the new Hanoverian (German) Royal Family. These laws were not finally repealed until after the Second World War.

Why are you attacking us again kadosh. What are you so frightened of?

[kadosh]

Why are you attacking us again kadosh. What are you so frightened of?
I did not realise it was an attack. Certainly not meant to be. Just attempting to put the matter into context concerning that time period.

[grandsecretary]

That's my job here. I will put our Free Masonrie into context from a position of possessed knowledge from within it. Yours is to educate by telling the truth about your system, not spreading lies and propaganda about ours.

Now, the Free Masonrie of The Grand Lodge of All England was and is a pre-Davidic religion. That is a statement of fact not an invitation to you to interfere in matters that do not concern you.

[kadosh]

These are the facts. According to James Hughan the records show that a least as early as 1643 a lodge was in existence at York. The York Grand Lodge claims it was the first Grand Lodge in England and predates the premier Grand Lodge formed in London in 1717. An independent Lodge existed in York, for which records survive from 1705. It was simply a private Lodge, which in 1725, because of the success of the premier Grand Lodge, began to call itself the Grand Lodge of All England and, in the same year, adopted “Nineteen Articles” to govern the Craft.

The Grand Lodge of All England worked until 1740 when it became dormant. It was revived in 1761 and over the next thirty years constituted about thirteen daughter Lodges in Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire. It ceased working circa 1791, since when nothing more was heard of it until its “revival” in January 2006. The records of the York Grand Lodge exist and are in the custody of the present York Lodge No. 236 meeting in York.

The Claim for a Charter dating from 926 AD - Hargrove first raises the subject of the 926 AD Charter in his 'History 1818' where he cites that the "Ancient Grand Lodge of All England was constituted at York by King Edwin in 926 AD". This may well be the case, and the absence of documentary evidence makes this hard to prove either way. However one of the key features of the Charter is that it allegedly contained the wording "...... and gave them the charter and commission to meet annually in communicaytion[sic]......". This is the key clause as noted by Hargrove but found deficient by all others, particularly James Hughan. If you look at the version in Hughan's Old Charges you will find that the key words are indeed not included.

The Royal Historical Society located at Trinity College Cambridge holds a list of Royal Charters issued by Kings and Queens of England from AD 604 (The Kings of Kent) to King Harold in 1066 AD.

The only reference to York is as follows: AD 930 for 934 (Nottingham, 7 June). King Athelstan to the church of St. Peter, York: grant of land at Amounderness, Lancs. Latin with bounds.

Archive: York - MSS: 1. Bodleian, Dodsworth 9, 4v-5r (s. xvii; no witnesses). MSS: 2. Bodleian, Dodsworth 10, 42r-43r (s. xvii).

However, there are significant difficulties in dating Anglo-Saxon documents due to the vagaries of their calendars. Indeed the trusted Masonic Scholar Dr. Andrew Prescott confirms in his paper 'The Old charges Revisited - 2006', that it was James Anderson himself who first suggested the date of 926 AD in his constitution of 1738, because it fitted in nicely with Edwin who died in 933 AD. This simple but misguided act was the last piece of the puzzle of the York Legend which was done principally to offset the harm done to the York legend by Robert Plot in his book the History of Staffordshire of 1686.

In the Royal Masonic Cyclopedia, Mackenzie states that in 1663 the Earl of St. Albans convened all Masons on 27th December at a General Assembly in the City of York. He mentions the purchase of a Free Charter by Prince Edwin from King Athelstane for the Masons of that time.

Gould claims that these assemblies never occurred which is at odds with edicts issued by a number of Monarchs against Freemasons, with the first being that of Edward II in 1360 AD and this one by Edward IV in 1424 AD.

Whereas by the yearly congregations and confederacies made by the masons in their general chapiters and assemblies, the good course and effect of the statutes of labourers be openly violated and broken, in subversion of the law, and to the great damage of all the commons; our said lord the King willing in this case to provide remedy by the advice and assent aforesaid, and at the special request of the said commons, hath ordained and established, That such chapiters and congregations shall not be hereafter holden, if they thereof be convict, shall be judged for felons. And that all the other masons that come to such chapiters and congregations, be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, and make fine and ransome at the Kings will.

Anglo-Saxon Civil and Ecclesiastical laws required all 'incorporated bodies' to hold a Charter, and these would have been presented to the local magistrates via the 'Writ of Returns'. Any body not able to satisfy the legal requirements would have been disbanded until they could obtain 'Civil Charters'. As this never happened, or at least as we have no public record of this, it is clear that the authorities at least, believed in the existence of a Charter.
.
The terms charter and writ theoretically have a somewhat different meaning, a charter being a grant or privilege bestowed by authority, while a writ is a command or instruction issued by authority. However, there is such as thing as a written command, sent out to those in authority in a local region, to respect a grant or privilege bestowed by central authority. There are also conventions about how the terms are used. The word charter is sometimes used in a very loose sense to mean any kind of legal document, including business agreements, wills or just about anything else. The term diploma can be used to specify a royal grant or privilege, that is to say, a royal charter. However, there are some differences in form between diplomas as used on the continent of Europe and those which developed in Anglo-Saxon England. One particularly English form of the two types of royal document known in the period is sometimes called a writ, even when it is a charter or diploma. There is a significant corpus of these documents, certainly enough to infer that the literate mode of issuing instructions and granting royal favours was well established in England before the Norman Conquest. However, only a small fraction of the documents exists in authentic, original, single sheet form. The rest are known from later copies in cartularies or have been copied by later antiquarians from lost originals. Many, even of the single sheets, have been proven to be forgeries. In the absence of any chancery records from this period, a detailed interpretation of how the system worked in practice may be a little tricky. But history is not for the fainthearted. Source: Medieval Writings.

In the New Freemasons Monitor or Masonic Guide, 1818 - By James Hardie; he confirms that Henry VI "...... perused the laws and charges of Freemasonry and approved them as being good and reasonble to holden as they have been drawn out and collected from the records of ancient times".

There is also on record an account from the court of Elizabeth 1st, who on hearing that the Freemasons were in possesion of certain secrets sent an armed guard to York to break the meeting up. Sir Thomas Sackville initiated some of the officers sent by the Queen and these individuals subsequently made a favourable report to the queen. Anderson is vague on this story.

In 1663, on the festival of St. John the Evangelist, a regulation was adopted which acknowledges the existence of the general assembly as the governing body of the fraternity. It is there provided "that for the future the said fraternity of Freemasons shall be regulated and governed by one grand master and as many wardens as said society shall think fit to appoint at every annual general assembly.

Was Athelstane or Edwin a Speculative Freemason? - Much is made of the Regius MS in regards to this subject, namely "...... and his youngest son loved well the science of geometry, and he wist well that hand-craft had the practice of the science of geometry so well as masons, wherefore he drew him to council and learned [the] practice of that science to his speculative, for of speculative he was a master, and he loved well masonry and masons."

The Establishment of York - The oldest records of a Lodge at York date reliably from March 1712 AD although a much earlier date of 1693 AD for the York MS and even 1663 AD is possible based on certain artifacts. Gould writes that considerable activity was evident in York in or around 1725 with Lodges meeting in individual houses rather than in any one established, consecrated Lodge. In fact in whatever documentation is available there is no reference to a Grand Lodge in York, at least not prior to 1725.

According to Findel, the minutes of Lodge meetings at York are non existent between 22 December 1726 and 21 June 1729. This in itself should not raise any cause for concern as Gould concluded that the transient nature of York Freemasonry may have resulted in other books been used. Unfortunately none are evident which forces us to conclude that the Lodge simply failed to meet. The fact is that up until the Festival of St. John in 1725 there were no Grand Masters in York. One was elected at the aforementioned 'feast' along with a Deputy Grand Master, Grand Wardens, Secretary, and Clerks. It is difficult not to assume that this was not done in direct response to the actions in London of 1717.

The Antient and Independent Constitution of Free and Accepted Masons belonging to the City of York was briefly resurrected in 1761 under Bro. Francis Drake and it is only from this time that Charters were issued for the formation of daughter Lodges.

The Resurgence - In 2005, two 'Grand Lodges' appeared, initially the 'Regular Grand Lodge of England', and then the 'Grand Lodge of All England', both claiming rights under the Charter of 926 AD. The difficulty with both of these entities is that there are precious few records of the missing years, i.e. from 1792 to 2005. Certainly the Grand Lodge of All England spent the intervening years in France, at lodges with which they have amity.

It is therefore fairly evident that there was some documentation in existence to support the claim of a Charter of 926 AD. Whether this documentation is in the form of a Charter, a Writ, or simply enshrined in the Anglo-Saxon laws of the time, we shall probably never know. Whatever the truth, it is also clear that the story of a Masonic Charter was believed by the authorities and indeed a number of Monarchs.

As to whether Athelstane or Edwin were Freemasons - I leave this to more esteemed scholars to determine.

[himitsunomiko]

Hi, interested reader here.

Since we have two masons, I would like to ask you lot about the influence of Alchemy in mason/freemasonry. Lots of people are calling masons satanic or luciferian, when really I think its based off Alchemy.

Either of yall like to clarify? Thanks!

[dunadan]

Hi, interested reader here.

Since we have two masons, I would like to ask you lot about the influence of Alchemy in mason/freemasonry. Lots of people are calling masons satanic or luciferian, when really I think its based off Alchemy.

Either of yall like to clarify? Thanks!

Alchemy? Interesting, try the Kabbalah et al..........

Sophorum Lapis Non Datur Lupis......

:)

[grandsecretary]

#260.

More sustained UGLE propaganda kadosh. A cut and paste collection of general dross.

You really are terrified aren't you?

Has anyone else ever told you to mind your own business?

[shansuke]

i cant believe after all this time this forums been up and running folk are still asking the same questions and the masons are still trying to defend themselfs ,usualy by trying to belittle the person asking the question.

just my opinion but i cant see masonry lasting mutch longer,its done well to get as far as it has but i think the beginning of the internet spelled the begining of the end for masonry.
and its just as well cause no matter what its all about or what they get up to in ther lodges,good or bad,it causes ordinery folk who just want to get on with ther lifes to get paranoid about it.

thers a local lodge round here,(btw ive never heard of them doing anything charitable),and to be honest with you the members are a pain in the ass,making a blody racket at night when leaving ther lodge pissed out ther heads and geting in to taxis,and a lot of them ther own cars(while pissed).

i only know one guy in the local lodge,played snooker with him once,talk about a disgusting human being,he came accross as a heavy racist,i told the guy who brought him along not to bring him back as my local club has a lot of asian guys in it.he had loads of bad stuff to say about woman,got totaly pissed while everyone else only had a couple and was just a general nusance the whole night.

well that was my experience with one of the local lodge members.

if i told of my experiences with other lodge members ive worked with,most are like this first guy i mentioned.

i mean wtf,do they only recrute bigoted racist womonisers,or do they actualy have some members that compliment what they are supposed to represent.

come on folk you dont have to ask questions here,just open your eyes and ears.

if it quacks like a duck and it smells like sh*t then its more than likely a duck with sh*t on it.

[grandsecretary]

i cant believe after all this time this forums been up and running folk are still asking the same questions and the masons are still trying to defend themselfs ,usualy by trying to belittle the person asking the question.

just my opinion but i cant see masonry lasting mutch longer,its done well to get as far as it has but i think the beginning of the internet spelled the begining of the end for masonry.
and its just as well cause no matter what its all about or what they get up to in ther lodges,good or bad,it causes ordinery folk who just want to get on with ther lifes to get paranoid about it.

thers a local lodge round here,(btw ive never heard of them doing anything charitable),and to be honest with you the members are a pain in the ass,making a blody racket at night when leaving ther lodge pissed out ther heads and geting in to taxis,and a lot of them ther own cars(while pissed).

i only know one guy in the local lodge,played snooker with him once,talk about a disgusting human being,he came accross as a heavy racist,i told the guy who brought him along not to bring him back as my local club has a lot of asian guys in it.he had loads of bad stuff to say about woman,got totaly pissed while everyone else only had a couple and was just a general nusance the whole night.

well that was my experience with one of the local lodge members.

if i told of my experiences with other lodge members ive worked with,most are like this first guy i mentioned.

i mean wtf,do they only recrute bigoted racist womonisers,or do they actualy have some members that compliment what they are supposed to represent.

come on folk you dont have to ask questions here,just open your eyes and ears.

if it quacks like a duck and it smells like sh*t then its more than likely a duck with sh*t on it.

shansuke I could not agree with you more but you probably know that you will be labelled an anti-mason and your opinion ignored.

I have been saying this now for years.

The Moderns system of Freemasonry, not only here in England but especially in The United States of America has opened its doors wide to men who have no moral compass whatsoever. You need only read the postings from so-called Freemasons using filthy language, racist, sexist, ageist and anti-religious comments. Their behaviour and disdain towards members of the general public, at times, is disgusting.

It has had its time, and it is NOT rescuable. The horse has well and truly bolted.

[stewart edwards]

Peter

I have often wondered about this. You were in a "high hied yin" position in the wider ugle system, hence I value your opinion on this. Surely, and my nievity probably shows here, but surely the ugle "high hied yins" must see and know what has happened to their system.

[grandsecretary]

It's just a business now Stewart. It's all about mass membership, magazine sales, social networking.

[grandsecretary]

Hi, interested reader here.

Since we have two masons, I would like to ask you lot about the influence of Alchemy in mason/freemasonry. Lots of people are calling masons satanic or luciferian, when really I think its based off Alchemy.

Either of yall like to clarify? Thanks!

In England and Wales;

The Grand Lodge of All England ... none.

The United Grand Lodge of England ... an issue for the Society of Rosicricians in Anglia (SRIA), an organisation attached to the United Grand Lodge of England, restricted to members of The United Grand Lodge of England, administered from Stanfield Hall, Hampstead in London under the authority of a Supreme Magus. See http://www.sria.info/

Aims of The Society

... to facilitate the study of the system of Philosophy founded upon the Kabbalah and the doctrines of Hermes Trismegistus ...

Other Grand Lodges must speak for themselves.

I hope that this clarifies matters for you himitsunomiko.

[thelonious]

Hi, interested reader here.

Since we have two masons, I would like to ask you lot about the influence of Alchemy in mason/freemasonry. Lots of people are calling masons satanic or luciferian, when really I think its based off Alchemy.

Either of yall like to clarify? Thanks!

It is my opinion that the symbolism of alchemy played an important role in the development of Freemasonry, especially in the higher degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

The 18° of the Scottish Rite is styled "Knight Rose Croix" (or "Prince Rose Croix" in some jurisdictions). In the Mother Jurisdiction, the lecture of that degree is based on alchemical symbolism.

[psquared]

"The Moderns system of Freemasonry, not only here in England but especially in The United States of America has opened its doors wide to men who have no moral compass whatsoever. You need only read the postings from so-called Freemasons using filthy language, racist, sexist, ageist and anti-religious comments. Their behaviour and disdain towards members of the general public, at times, is disgusting.

It has had its time, and it is NOT rescuable. The horse has well and truly bolted."

GS..I am none of what you have described here. Even in this forum I have conducted myself in a respectful manner and as a gentleman. I have not used filthy language and I am not a racist, I am not sexist, I am anti ORGANIZED religion as far as specific denominations are concerned because I believe them to be the "Magazine salesman" you describe me as. My behavior is not disgusting...so as long as the attitude of one Mason is as such..and that mason can pass it along, it is my hope that it continues to exist.

Sorry to be the exception to your rule.

[psquared]

It's just a business now Stewart. It's all about mass membership, magazine sales, social networking.
And the Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mormons and organized religion isn't?

[grandsecretary]

And the Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mormons and organized religion isn't?

What do you think?

[psquared]

What do you think?

Personally, for me, I have yet to step foot into a church where it is not that way...and I have honestly tried every branch of organized religions in search of a TRUE church...not a social club that wants me for my money and will tolerate my "tolerance" of other peoples beliefs. So, that is why I am not a fan of organized religions..I find most of them very "un-christian".

[kadosh]

GS..I am none of what you have described here. Even in this forum I have conducted myself in a respectful manner and as a gentleman. I have not used filthy language and I am not a racist, I am not sexist, I am anti ORGANIZED religion as far as specific denominations are concerned because I believe them to be the "Magazine salesman" you describe me as. My behavior is not disgusting...so as long as the attitude of one Mason is as such..and that mason can pass it along, it is my hope that it continues to exist.

Sorry to be the exception to your rule.
There are many more examples of members who are exceptions to the rule! The fact is that when any organisation has some 300,000 members (UGLE), an additional combination of some 150,000 (GLoI & GLoS), and around 1.5 million in the USA then there are inevitably some members that are not paragons of virtue! However, I do not deny that they are a problem.

[stewart edwards]

The fact is that when any organisation has some 300,000 members (UGLE),Kadosh unless ugle has seen a 40% growth in members over a few short years I assume you mean lodge memberships (ie double counting those in more than one craft lodge) as opposed to individual members. Yes/no? I understood that the new ugle computer system could now easily separate the two figurees, which have been published by ugle a few years ago now. (A province website I think from memory). If I remember correctly the figures publicly published by you (as in UGLE) were c219,000 members, and c330,000 memberships including the double counting.


I know that you dont talk to me, but please tell us if I am wrong. Wonder if province websites will now have less content:eek:

[kadosh]

The United Grand Lodge of England currently has over a quarter of a million members meeting in over 8,000 Lodges. This is individual members and excludes any double counting of members who belong to more than one Lodge. Therefore, including the GLoI and the GLoS there are some 400,000 Freemasons who belong to the 3 'Home' Grand Lodges of the UK. Of course, this number does not include the many members who belong to Co-Masonic, Mixed, and Women only lodges in Great Britain.

[stewart edwards]

Kadosh

Thank you. So the current figure is about 250,000+. Assuming that I was remembering the 219,000 correctly well done.:)

[himitsunomiko]

Thanks for your reply GS

and to the poster who said "Asking the same questions over and over", I apologize if my question had been asked before. Please forgive me.

[stewart edwards]

Kadosh I am going to push my luck with you a little here:) there are inevitably some members that are not paragons of virtue! However, I do not deny that they are a problem.You do realise that by allowing such people in you enable darkness to infect dont you?

1. Internally they set a bad example, which some will follow; they will attract similar people, and in time you could have a lodge full of them, or a situation where a lodge simply cant get rid of such a person as everyone is to scared to stand up and be squashed by them. Given that in ugle you normally need a criminal conviction to get rid of a bad apple, dont underesting the darkening effects on ugle of allowing this. Also they can be the cause of people not attending, leaving, and through ignorance of what freemasonry is about divert it to a social club. One such man can cause reams of dark damage over a generation and more if his lodges culture changes because of him. In a very real way they can hinder a man progressing up the ladder.

2. Externally, well for the sort of reasons that masons normally deny as being anti rubbish - abusing lodge connections and position. The effect on a community and on individuals could be devasting.


Just some thoughts. But think about them for they do hold some keys to help you.:)

[grandsecretary]

Too late. Terminal. There is no treatment, no medication. The patients have taken over the asylum. And they know it.

[psquared]

Kadosh I am going to push my luck with you a little here:)You do realise that by allowing such people in you enable darkness to infect dont you?

1. Internally they set a bad example, which some will follow; they will attract similar people, and in time you could have a lodge full of them, or a situation where a lodge simply cant get rid of such a person as everyone is to scared to stand up and be squashed by them. Given that in ugle you normally need a criminal conviction to get rid of a bad apple, dont underesting the darkening effects on ugle of allowing this. Also they can be the cause of people not attending, leaving, and through ignorance of what freemasonry is about divert it to a social club. One such man can cause reams of dark damage over a generation and more if his lodges culture changes because of him. In a very real way they can hinder a man progressing up the ladder.

2. Externally, well for the sort of reasons that masons normally deny as being anti rubbish - abusing lodge connections and position. The effect on a community and on individuals could be devasting.


Just some thoughts. But think about them for they do hold some keys to help you.:)

While this is probably true history has shown that it is virtually impossible for ANY organization to be free of men who wish to darken it or use it for evil. That will never change. All we can do is try to combat it as well as possible and make sure that we are rigorous in our examination of candidates prior to their initiation. Even then, some will slip through by deceptive means.

One thing I also know to be true is that even the darkest of darkness is weakened by even the smallest bit of light. Light will ALWAYS prevail over darkness no matter how dim the light...IF that light continues with all it's might to prevail.

[stewart edwards]

Light will ALWAYS prevail over darkness no matter how dim the light...IF that light continues with all it's might to prevail.In the long run you are totally and absolutely correct psquared. The trouble with darkness though is that it can approach you silently and sneakily and infect you without you really noticing. When that happens it can take immense will to rectify the situation.

As it stands just now many masons in ugle and amity at least dont seem to even be prepared to consider the possibility of darkness having entered the masonic system, far less recognsie it or deal with it. It is a crying shame.

Some masons will tell you in all sincerity that masonic light is no more than being admitted into the lodge, anything else stated or implied by ritual being mere mummery. Now that really is a crying shame.

[stewart edwards]

Too late. Terminal.Only if the high hied yins in ugle dont have the balls to lead and reilluminate. (I know I know but it may all fall apart if we do:eek:) because The patients have taken over the asylum. And they know it.Reilluminating ugle is not that a diffficult thing to do, frustrating, political, hair pulling no doubt, but not that difficult. I have explained how to do it many times over the past decade. If I can do it in in my own life a few short years what excuse do ugle have given the tools they have that I lacked? Though I do accept that if you are unwilling to accept losses from people who arent interested in the core essence of freemasonry it could take three decades, another reason why it is vital that the next grand master of ugle is a Royal who has felt the light, and who knows from first hand experience how to walk from darkness into the light. Clearly I dont qualify for the job, but their must be some Royal with the necessary skills and experience to do what I do, and let the pro GM temper it down to a rate that the members can handle.

England needs UGLE to reilluminate. UGLE amity also do as if ugle reilluminates, this will flow into ugle amity, and will also enhance ugles respect in the non amity and non masonic worlds.

Its not rocket science. I have been bleating about it and showing you how to do it for years. Kadosh go and find a relative of the Queen who has the same level of skills as me in this regard and get them in the job. (No disrespect meant to HRH The Duke of Kent, who knows that I support him from a letter to him that I did get a response to (albeit from someone way down the food chain), but UGLE is at a key pivotal stage in its evolution. And while I may have given up on ugle myself, I do hope that it makes the right decisions.

[kadosh]

Let us all be quite frank here - it is easy to post messages of negativity. The point is the UGLE, GLoS and GLoI have a very large membership by comparison of other organisations. Transgressions are dealt with and members get expelled when justified. I doubt even the GLAE is perfect - even if it ever expands its membership there will always be incidents that fall below the standards expected (especially more so in the USA areas). That is human nature I'm afraid.

[grandsecretary]

We do not allow men like I described anywhere near our Grand Lodge. Our system is secure. All petitions are properly vetted and the Grand Lodge itself approves or rejects all petitions, in York.

We have control of our Grand lodge. The door is properly secured I can assure you. Even the four members of The United Grand Lodge of England who were sent to infiltrate our organisation in London in the early days of the revival were VERY quickly discovered and summarily removed from the ecclesiastical premises that we were using at the time.

[kadosh]

HOGARTH'S "NIGHT" - http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/hogarth_w/night.jpg
Hogarth's best known Masonic engraving is the one entitled Night, the last of a series known as The Four Times of the Day. Considering the scarcity of original prints, it is interesting to note that these impressions, were offered for sale at the nominal price of five shillings each in 1782.

Unlike some of Hogarth's other prints, this one bears the date of issue, March 25, 1738. The date is important as it enables us to fix events depicted which would otherwise be matters of conjecture. Judging from the oak leaves in the barber's sign, and in the hats of two of the men depicted, it is believed that Hogarth had May 29th in mind, the anniversary of the restoration of Charles II to the throne of England.

The masonic researcher G. W. Speth, to whom much of the credit is due for what was accomplished during its early years by Qatuor Coronate Lodge No. 2076 of London, in describing the print, says:

"The street presented to our view is, almost without doubt, Hartshorn Lane, Charing Cross, opening to what is now Trafalgar Square, and which was known to our generation as Northumberland Street, but is now replaced by Northumberland Avenue. The only element of uncertainty arises from the position the equestrian statue of Charles I, of which one expect to more of the near side, unless either its position has been changed, or our artist has taken one of those liberties which by painters and poets are deemed allowable. In Hartshorn Lane 'rare Ben Johnson' was born, and at the 'Rummer Tavern, Prior was found reading Horace when a boy. Wapole's remarks would imply that the Rummer was not a very reputable house in his time, and if the room over the barber's shop be in any way connected with the tavern, the inference would appear to be justified. The only connection of the Rummer with the Craft, which I have been able to discover is that a Lodge, constituted 18th August, 1732, and erased in 1746, met at the 'Rummer, Charing Cross,' but removed in 1733. The signboard facing the 'Rummer' is inscribed 'Earl of Cardigan.' I cannot find that any Lodge met here previous to the date of the engraving; but from 1739-42, a Lodge which was constituted 15th April, 1728, and erased in 1743, held its meetings at the 'Earl of Cardigan's Head,' Charing Cross, and from 1742-44 its place was occupied by the 'Union French' Lodge, constituted the 17th August, 1732. On the whole, it would not appear that any Masonic memories were associated with this particular street in Hogarth's mind."

J. Nichols, in his work, Biographical Anecdotes of William Hogarth, said, "In NIGHT, the drunken Free-mason has been supposed to be Sir Thomas de Veil; but Sir John Hawkins assures me, it is not in the least like him." Other authorities, however, seem to differ. It is now generally accepted that Hogarth intended to satirize de Veil. There is no doubt that he designed the principal caricature to be a Mason. A Thomas Veal appears in the list of members of Hogarth's first Lodge, and arguing from the manners of the times, no question remains that Thomas Veal, Thomas Veil, and Sir Thomas de Veil are one and the same person.

The square on de Veil's breast, suspended from a ribbon about his neck, indicates either the rank of Master or of Past Master, the emblem being used for the latter purpose during the early days of the reorganized Craft. The large apron worn by him is also of interest, and is one of the strongest proofs we have that our aprons were not always of the present convenient size.

Some doubt exists whether Hogarth intended de Veil's companion to be depicted as a Mason. Possibly he may be the tyler of the Lodge, judging from the apron and the sword he carries. Again, he may only be an attache of the tavern where de Veil, to speak charitably and bearing in mind the convivial spirit of our early brethren, drank slightly to excess. The sword may have been de Veil's, taken away from him as a matter of prudence, for he could have done more damage with it than with the cane he wields against an imaginary opponent. The apron on this man may have served a real utilitarian purpose back of a tavern bar. The apparent skill of the man in helping de Veil clearly indicates that this is not his first experience in duties of this kind - a fact which can be used as a cogent argument for or against the theory that he may have been a brother of the Craft.

It is generally agreed that the other two figures in the foreground are satirical characterisations. The knife, or steel, on the belt of one of them is considered to indicate a butcher, and by analogical play on the word "veal" and the name "de Veil," to again point out that the principal figure in the picture is Sir Thomas de Veil.

Another prominent English Masonic researcher, W. H. Rylands, has said, "The picture is a hit, not at Masonry, but at the manners and customs of some Masons of the period.... There is a secret meaning in every little item of the picture, if one could only discover it."

[kadosh]

We do not allow men like I described anywhere near our Grand Lodge. Our system is secure. All petitions are properly vetted and the Grand Lodge itself approves or rejects all petitions, in York.

We have control of our Grand lodge. The door is properly secured I can assure you. ....
Well, at the moment this is not a problem for the GLAE. The membership is so small. But it will not be able to control the matter in the USA -and remember this is considerd to be "invading" the territory of regular/recognized Grand Lodges.

As far as controlling membership there is a very big difference between the time span of a GL originally started some 300 years ago (or nearly 200 years ago whichever way it is looked at) and in continous work since that period and a GL that was only reponed 5 years ago!

[grandsecretary]

Well, at the moment this is not a problem for the GLAE. The membership is so small. But it will not be able to control the matter in the USA -and remember this is considerd to be "invading" the territory of regular/recognized Grand Lodges.

As far as controlling membership there is a very big difference between the time span of a GL originally started some 300 years ago (or nearly 200 years ago whichever way it is looked at) and in continous work since that period and a GL that was only reponed 5 years ago!

No there isn't. You are totally out of control. We are not. You have not a clue about our membership, our organisation or anything else and that is how it's going to stay. It doesn't matter how many members we have or where we are represented. We do NOT attract the tyoes that you do. Why? Because we have nothing to offer people like that.

You do talk bunkum kadosh and you become more and more arrogant and out of touch with reality by the minute.

[kadosh]

You do talk bunkum kadosh and you become more and more arrogant and out of touch with reality by the minute.
Well, you would say that wouldn't you! ;)

[psquared]

We do not allow men like I described anywhere near our Grand Lodge. Our system is secure. All petitions are properly vetted and the Grand Lodge itself approves or rejects all petitions, in York.

We have control of our Grand lodge. That may well be true, and it is great if it is. That, however does not mean a man could not deceive you one day. At that point all you could do is remove him. Evil men have infiltrated EVERY good organization, it makes a great place to hide. I do wish you success in securing your system though.

[grandsecretary]

No. Our system tests the individual every step of the way and there is no reason for anyone who is not a truly religious man to want to join. There are NO advantages to the individual on this Earth only to those whom we serve.

I keep telling you not to judge what we do by what you do.

[grandsecretary]

Well, you would say that wouldn't you! ;)

No. You really do talk complete and utter tosh kadosh. Think about it. You have actually said that you are going to write to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking him why he allows us to meet in ecclesiastical premises.

Apart from being a very weird thing to do, why would you contemplate such a thing other than simply trying to cause trouble?

It won't work of course but it is just further evidence of the vindictive nature of members of the Moderns system of Freemasonry. :cool:

Not very good at public relations are you?

[scorpio]

As a Freemason of the Scottish Constitution of over 20 years standing I am content with this form of Freemasonry. It has meaning for me and many other people who call themselves Freemasons. If there are other people who belong to other forms of Freemasonry and see themselves as being Freemasons that is their concern.

My form of Freemasonry has been around for over 300 years and with the assistance of The Great Architect of the Universe will be around for at least another 300 years of more.

Brother/Companion/Frater Gerard
Freemason Scottish Constitution

[kadosh]

No. You really do talk complete and utter tosh kadosh. Think about it. You have actually said that you are going to write to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking him why he allows us to meet in ecclesiastical premises.

Apart from being a very weird thing to do, why would you contemplate such a thing other than simply trying to cause trouble?
No intent to cause trouble I assure you. Just to determine a few matters. However, I will be interested to see what the reply is from Lambeth Palace. Especially if he can differentiate between the systems of Freemasonry and Free Masonry(ie).

By the way - have you heard back yet from The Vatican on the Masonic position of the GLAE and Rome?

[grandsecretary]

You are a very sick man.

[kadosh]

I'm perfectly well actually. What are you frightened of GS?

[grandsecretary]

Child.

[kadosh]

Sad that you have to resort to name calling. Something the Moderns here have been accused of. The apple does not fall from the tree!

[grandsecretary]

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/DeadTree.jpg

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/Healthyapple.jpg

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q295/grandsecretary/Sapling.jpg

[psquared]

No. Our system tests the individual every step of the way and there is no reason for anyone who is not a truly religious man to want to join. There are NO advantages to the individual on this Earth only to those whom we serve.

I keep telling you not to judge what we do by what you do.

I am not judging you, or your organization...simply saying that if evil men TRULY wanted to infiltrate your organization, they could...as they have in EVERY SINGLE other organization in history.

Don't confuse that with me hoping they do...as I hope they do not.

To believe your organization is above that happening is somewhat unrealistic especially as your numbers grow and you branch out into other states and nations. You'd be suprised what one man may deem an advantage even though you do not see it as such sir.

[grandsecretary]

Well let's say that the chances are a lot less for an organisation that is not interested in mass membership and where the means of selection are much stricter and policed, and leave it at that.

I hope so to. We do our best.

[psquared]

Well let's say that the chances are a lot less for an organisation that is not interested in mass membership and where the means of selection are much stricter and policed, and leave it at that.

I hope so to. We do our best.

I would agree. Once you branch out though you open that door, even if it is just a crack and evil is like a cockraoch......all it needs is a crack. Good luck.

[stewart edwards]

Totally agree psquared.

One further point that many forget though is that darkness can penetrate even the best of men (power corrupts and all that being one example), so it is very important that people help guide each other and not be afraid of saying "hold on a mo Jimmy, you might be the Grand toilet cleaner but..." I know that if I were slipping I would want to be told. I may disagree but I would want to be told.

[grandsecretary]

What "power" are we talking about Stewart?

[stewart edwards]

What "power" are we talking about Stewart?Ego mainly.

[grandsecretary]

Oh, right.

[lightgiver]

I've read up a few bits on Freemasons, mostly things that seem fictional though. It's not that I deny the existance of Freemasons, there's evidence for that, but I question some claims made against them.

What is your understanding of Freemasons, if you can explain it using evidence then that would be excellent. I'm open minded about the whole issue, however, I am not willing to blindingly accept everything that is said - no offence.

So, what are Freemasons, what is their common purpose, and what is it that makes them seen as currupt?

You will never get a straight answer seeing they are a secret organization

you will just get the usual links from the same masons and their Lackeys to dissuade and put people off the scent

Freemasons In The Police - YouTube

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134819