How do you research freemasonry?

[stewart edwards]

I have tacked it several ways including:-

1. Chatted with family and friends/acquaintances who I know are masons.
2. Corresponded with various Grand Lodges/PGLs/masonic authors etc.
3. Meeting with masons of various fraternities from petitioners to Grand Masters/equivalent.
4. A fair bit of on and off forum internet work. In some cases helping Masons take steps forwards in life.
5. Not forgetting those masons/claimed masons who found their way to me to talk to me, and in one case their wife.
6. More than anything though I have listened to my heart and followed it (ok that may be a bit esoteric for most but is the reason why I can identify issues and solutions).
7. I have also talked to heaps of people who are unhappy with masons, some through claimed personal experience, others more generically, eg some evangelical Christians who worked quite hard to convince me of the alleged evils of masonry. And then there are my own personal experiences with masons which if what I am led to believe is accurate has not been all positive.
8. And yes I have read Icks books and various others. I particularly like "Way of the Craftsman" by MacNulty.

Importantly I have spread my net wide over the masonic fraternal spectrum. This has been a big investment of time, but one which has paid hansome rewards.

How do you research Freemasonry? Just curious.

[watson_k]

I have tacked it several ways including:-

1. Chatted with family and friends/acquaintances who I know are masons.
2. Corresponded with various Grand Lodges/PGLs/masonic authors etc.
3. Meeting with masons of various fraternities from petitioners to Grand Masters/equivalent.
4. A fair bit of on and off forum internet work. In some cases helping Masons take steps forwards in life.
5. Not forgetting those masons/claimed masons who found their way to me to talk to me, and in one case their wife.
6. More than anything though I have listened to my heart and followed it (ok that may be a bit esoteric for most but is the reason why I can identify issues and solutions).
7. I have also talked to heaps of people who are unhappy with masons, some through claimed personal experience, others more generically, eg some evangelical Christians who worked quite hard to convince me of the alleged evils of masonry. And then there are my own personal experiences with masons which if what I am led to believe is accurate has not been all positive.
8. And yes I have read Icks books and various others. I particularly like "Way of the Craftsman" by MacNulty.

Importantly I have spread my net wide over the masonic fraternal spectrum. This has been a big investment of time, but one which has paid hansome rewards.

How do you research Freemasonry? Just curious.

Books on Ancient Masonry and Family members mostly.

[stewart edwards]

Trade secret is it?

[grandsecretary]

It is MOST important when researching Freemasonry to realise that a great deal of the literature is written by so-called "Masonic scholars" rather than non-Masonic historians. It is vitally necessary to research the background of the author as thoroughly as his works so that you can place it in context. Too many "Masonic scholars" invent history rather than report it and you need to be ruthless about cutting away the inherent propoganda.

It is also important to study religious, ecclesiastical, royal, political, parliamentary, archival and museum records, publications, serious biographies, and not just "Masonic books" and documents.

If you approach the subject with a blindfold firmly over your eyes and refuse to look at the evidence of Free Masonry from without as well as within a particular organisation, especially prior to the Moderns era, then you will never understand the subject, except superficially.

Free Masonry is NOT the Masonic rituals. So, it is a good idea to avoid being diverted from "real" Free Masonry, which was Desaguliers' aim on behalf of Hanover. "Stop those terrible Jacobite Masons from being involved in politics and keep our Masons busy with masses of "esoteric" ritual whilst we get on with government, unmolested by criticism."

Masonic ritual was meant to be the method of separating (initiating) select groups of religious men away from general society by a process of swearing oaths of secrecy, and they all had access to the reins of power in the nation. The equality of the Brethren was a landmark that was respected, whether Priest, King or the local Baker.

From time to time, Free Masonry has played key roles in the economies and the politics of England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Italy, and the United States of America. This is a fascinating area for the serious researcher.

[slartibartfast]

Free Masonry is NOT the Masonic rituals. So, it is a good idea to avoid being diverted from "real" Free Masonry, which was Desaguliers' aim on behalf of Hanover. "Stop those terrible Jacobite Masons from being involved in politics and keep our Masons busy with masses of "esoteric" ritual whilst we get on with government, unmolested by criticism."

Masonic ritual was meant to be the method of separating (initiating) select groups of religious men away from general society by a process of swearing oaths of secrecy, and they all had access to the reins of power in the nation. The equality of the Brethren was a landmark that was respected, whether Priest, King or the local Baker.

So your form of Freemasonry is Religious and Political whereas what you describe as Modern Freemasonry (which I would describe as mainstream) is NON Political and Spiritual rather than Religious

[bluehorseman]

Free Masonry is NOT the Masonic rituals. So, it is a good idea to avoid being diverted from "real" Free Masonry, which was Desaguliers' aim on behalf of Hanover. "Stop those terrible Jacobite Masons from being involved in politics and keep our Masons busy with masses of "esoteric" ritual whilst we get on with government, unmolested by criticism

Masonic ritual was meant to be the method of separating (initiating) select groups of religious men away from general society by a process of swearing oaths of secrecy, and they all had access to the reins of power in the nation. The equality of the Brethren was a landmark that was respected, whether Priest, King or the local Baker

So can one research Free Masonry and be lead to the kernal of it via his research alone?
Is the initiation and are the rituals relevant then?

Is the point of researching Free Masonry to discover truths pertaining to the individual or rather more like a history essay that you have set yourself? Is this just another facet of the Craft?

Are you researching it to give respect to your past brethren; to sort of say "see, thats how great we used to be" type of thing?

The amount of controversy it causes on this forum I'm sure it is a fascinating area.

[grandsecretary]

So your form of Freemasonry is Religious and Political whereas what you describe as Modern Freemasonry (which I would describe as mainstream) is NON Political and Spiritual rather than Religious

Anglo-Saxon Free Masonry is a religious fraternity governed by the Ancient Landmarks handed down to us from time immemorial. It does not place a ban on the discussion of either politics or religion.

IMHO the Moderns form of freemasonry has ditched every landmark, is thoroughly confused, lost, irreligious, ritual focused, and aimless.

[grandsecretary]

Free Masonry is NOT the Masonic rituals. So, it is a good idea to avoid being diverted from "real" Free Masonry, which was Desaguliers' aim on behalf of Hanover. "Stop those terrible Jacobite Masons from being involved in politics and keep our Masons busy with masses of "esoteric" ritual whilst we get on with government, unmolested by criticism

Masonic ritual was meant to be the method of separating (initiating) select groups of religious men away from general society by a process of swearing oaths of secrecy, and they all had access to the reins of power in the nation. The equality of the Brethren was a landmark that was respected, whether Priest, King or the local Baker

So can one research Free Masonry and be lead to the kernal of it via his research alone?
Is the initiation and are the rituals relevant then?

Is the point of researching Free Masonry to discover truths pertaining to the individual or rather more like a history essay that you have set yourself? Is this just another facet of the Craft?

Are you researching it to give respect to your past brethren; to sort of say "see, thats how great we used to be" type of thing?

The amount of controversy it causes on this forum I'm sure it is a fascinating area.

No. It remains a secret society, even to the Moderns, but you can find out a great deal about its history, by solid honest research.

The initiation ceremonies are entirely different from the Moderns rituals. They are practical, and simply qualify members, firstly for admission to the Lodge (Fellow of the Craft of Freemasonry), and thereafter in to the Orders which are there in order to qualify members to carry out certain duties to the advantage of members.

Free Masonry is NOT ritual. Moderns freemasonry is, its own invented ritual dating between 1720 and 1730. Our craft rituals date from at least 1460, and the Orders of the Holy and Royal Arch are pre-Davidic.

Freemasonry being described as "the knowledge of oneself" is an entirely Moderns, naturalistic, irreligious concept designed (in 1723) to divert the individual away from becoming involved in the important religious and political issues of the day.

The Ancient and Accepted Rite is, of course, a latecomer and a considerable ratcheting up of the objectives of the Rosucrucian Brotherhood and is simply a dustbin of gathered European esoteric hogwash.

[stewart edwards]

"the knowledge of oneself" is an entirely...snip.... irreligious concept designedBut it is a path to God.

I am not all that religious, though I recognise the importance of religions and indeed if I had the power/status/money/etc I would strengthen religion in our world, but I am spiritual and very close to God.

God created everything, and within each and every one of us, and each and everything, is the spark of divine light. If you can learn to find this inner light, and give it room to breathe more freely you will know yourself much better.

Torture him, burn the heretic:eek: Get him to confess that he is wrong:eek:

Peter knowledge of yourself may be irreligious to catholicism, but Catholocism only claims 1 billion members, out of a global population of 6.5 billion. It may well be religious to the bulk of people in our world, or at least not considered irreligious by their religions.

Before I die, I may be elected Pope, no matter how absurd that may sound (but Scotland has to change an old law as I wont give up my nationality). Would I destroy Catholicism? No. I would strengthen it and help it grow.

But let me sort out the Masonic world first;)

[grandsecretary]

But it is a path to God.

I am not all that religious, though I recognise the importance of religions and indeed if I had the power/status/money/etc I would strengthen religion in our world, but I am spiritual and very close to God.

God created everything, and within each and every one of us, and each and everything, is the spark of divine light. If you can learn to find this inner light, and give it room to breathe more freely you will know yourself much better.

Torture him, burn the heretic:eek: Get him to confess that he is wrong:eek:

Peter knowledge of yourself may be irreligious to catholicism, but Catholocism only claims 1 billion members, out of a global population of 6.5 billion. It may well be religious to the bulk of people in our world, or at least not considered irreligious by their religions.

Before I die, I may be elected Pope, no matter how absurd that may sound (but Scotland has to change an old law as I wont give up my nationality). Would I destroy Catholicism? No. I would strengthen it and help it grow.

But let me sort out the Masonic world first;)

The knowledge of God is the path to God Stewart and we have Catholic and Protestant members as well as Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs. Our Free Masonry pre-dates Roman Catholicism, it is pre-Davidic.

Stewart how can you sort out the Masonic world when you have little knowledge of it, except what you know about the Moderms/Rosicrucian form of it? Sort them out if you like, but we are well sorted thank you.

[kasalt]

It is MOST important when researching Freemasonry to realise that a great deal of the literature is written by so-called "Masonic scholars" rather than non-Masonic historians. It is vitally necessary to research the background of the author as thoroughly as his works so that you can place it in context. Too many "Masonic scholars" invent history rather than report it and you need to be ruthless about cutting away the inherent propoganda.


Interesting. I suppose that Albert Pike would fall under the category of a "Masonic scholar". As you have made your views about him quite clear on other threads, I wonder if you would give us your take on another noted "Masonic scholar": Manly P. Hall?

[grandsecretary]

Interesting. I suppose that Albert Pike would fall under the category of a "Masonic scholar". As you have made your views about him quite clear on other threads, I wonder if you would give us your take on another noted "Masonic scholar": Manly P. Hall?

Anti-Catholic Rosicrucian with a clear Moderns A&ASR agenda. You'll be asking me about Blavatsky and Crowley next.

[kasalt]

Anti-Catholic Rosicrucian with a clear Moderns A&ASR agenda. You'll be asking me about Blavatsky and Crowley next.

That strikes me as a bit odd because the moderns Freemasons on this forum (Thelonius et al) have been quite dismissive of Manly Hall, so I thought you might have a slightly different take on him.

Funny...nobody seems to want to claim the man. :D

[ianw]

Grandsecretary whats your take on this.


I was told of a freemason.Freemasons are not a secret society,and they dont keep secrets.A mason will answer any question asked,but he will not tell you what questions to ask.Nor does he make it his bisuiness to speak of masonary to strangers.

Are masons on this forum a good a place as any to research masonry?

[grandsecretary]

Grandsecretary whats your take on this.


I was told of a freemason.Freemasons are not a secret society,and they dont keep secrets.A mason will answer any question asked,but he will not tell you what questions to ask.Nor does he make it his bisuiness to speak of masonary to strangers.

Are masons on this forum a good a place as any to research masonry?

Oh yes, in fact, a better place than any other forum because there is a very lively debate going on here with some very intelligent people who have researched the subject, and have a genuine interest. There are also some ignoramuses, spoilers, and determined propagandists here too, but this will become obvious to you if you are a serious student.

The Moderns form of freemasonry is an open book. Their own fault because they are too concerned with "Public Relations". That is why it is not a secret society any more.

I will reply to every question that you may have about the Moderns form of freemasonry if you ask me, because I no longer have any interest in it. Only many years of experience, as a former member, and at the very highest levels.

I will tell you about the history of Anglo-Saxon Free Masonry in England (The Ancient and Honourable Society and Fraternity of Free Masons meeting since time immemorial in the City of York) now simpy known as the Grand Lodge of All England, which is pre-Davidic, but I cannot tell you any of the secrets of a Free Mason.

If I cannot tell you something because of Masonic secrecy, I will tell you that I am withholding information from you, and explain why. Does that make sense? I hope so.

[kasalt]

You'll be asking me about Blavatsky and Crowley next.

Very well then, I'll ask. What is your take on Blavatsky? (But I have no interest in Crowley though--he turns my stomach.)

[grandsecretary]

Very well then, I'll ask. What is your take on Blavatsky? (But I have no interest in Crowley though--he turns my stomach.)

And Blavatsky turns mine.

[kasalt]

And Blavatsky turns mine.

Fair enough, and with good reason. Blavatsky was known for engaging in fraudulent activities:


[Blavatsky’s housekeeper, Emma Cutting, demonstrated] how she and HPB had made a doll together, which they ... manipulated on a long bamboo pole in semi-darkness to pro-vide the Master’s alleged apparitions. Emma had also dropped “precipitated” letters on to Theosophical heads from holes in the ceiling, while her husband had made sliding panels and hidden entrances into the shrine room [adjoining HPB’s bedroom] to facilitate Blavatsky’s comings and goings and make possible the substitution of all the brooches, dishes and other objects that she used in her demonstrations [i.e., as purported materializations or “apports”]....

The Russian journalist V. S. Solovieff claimed to have caught [Blavatsky] red-handed with the silver bells which produced astral music [in séances].... Blavatsky confessed to Solovieff quite bluntly that the phenomena were fraudulent, adding that one must deceive men in order to rule them.

Hannah Newman, in an essay Called "Masters of the Blinding Light: What Jewish People Should Know About the New Age", reminds us that Hitler kept a copy of Blavatsky's 'The Secret Doctrine' by his bedside, ever since being introduced to its teachings by Dietrich Eckart and Karl Haushofer.

[grandsecretary]

A VERY dodgy character indeed IMHO.

[zyphus]

And Blavatsky turns mine.

We have something in common!

[zyphus]

Grandsecretary, what do you make of these quotes attributed to Alice Bailey, who was a very close associate of Blavatsky's and was very much in favour of a one world religious/spiritual leader..

"The Masonic Movement ... will meet the need of those who can, and should, wield power. It is the custodian of the law; it is the home of the Mysteries and the seat of initiation".

"It holds in its symbolism the ritual of Deity, and the way of salvation is pictorially preserved in its work. The methods of Deity are demonstrated in its Temples and under the All-seeing Eye the work can go forward".


"It is a far more occult organization than can be realized and is intended to be the training school for the coming advanced occultists ... in Masonry you have the three paths leading to initiation. As yet they are not used, and one of the things that will eventuate -- when the new universal religion has sway and the nature of esotericism is understood -- will be the utilization of the banded esoteric organism, the Masonic organism and the Church organism as initiating centers".

"These three groups converge as their inner sanctuaries are approached. There is no dissociation between the One Universal Church, the sacred inner Lodge of all true Masons, and the inner-most circles of the esoteric societies".

Taken from her book: The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pages 14, 511, 513

[watson_k]

Grandsecretary, what do you make of these quotes attributed to Alice Bailey, who was a very close associate of Blavatsky's and was very much in favour of a one world religious/spiritual leader..

Taken from her book: The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pages 14, 511, 513


The full quote changes the meaning.

When The Masonic Movement can be divorced from politics and social ends and from its present paralyzing condition, will meet the need of those who can, and should, wield power.


The methods of Deity are demonstrated in its Temples, and under the All-Seeing Eye the work can go forward. In its ceremonies lies hid the wielding of the forces connected with the growth of life of the kingdoms of nature and the unfoldment of the divine aspects of man. In the comprehension of its symbolism will come the power to cooperate with the divine plan.


"These three groups converge as their inner sanctuaries are approached. There is no dissociation between the One Universal Church, the sacred inner Lodge of all true Masons, and the inner-most circles of the esoteric societies".

She went on to say:

In this way, the goals and work of the United Nations shall be solidified and a new Church of God, led by all the religions and by all of the spiritual groups, shall put an end to the great heresy of separateness. (Alice Bailey, Il destino delle Nazioni, Ediziones Nuova Era, Rome, 1988, p. 155)”

[zyphus]

Yes the full quote does change the meaning, but it isn't taken out of context. We might as well just quote the whole book and do no paraphrasing for any kind of critical analasys. And do the same with every book that's ever been written.

Quotes like:

The methods of Deity are demonstrated in its Temples, and under the All-Seeing Eye the work can go forward.

Do not need any translation.

I was originally asking what the interpretation of such comments through the eyes of a Mason were and nothing else..

[grandsecretary]

The full quote changes the meaning.






"These three groups converge as their inner sanctuaries are approached. There is no dissociation between the One Universal Church, the sacred inner Lodge of all true Masons, and the inner-most circles of the esoteric societies".

She went on to say:

She was wrong.

[mike martin]

Interesting. I suppose that Albert Pike would fall under the category of a "Masonic scholar". As you have made your views about him quite clear on other threads, I wonder if you would give us your take on another noted "Masonic scholar": Manly P. Hall?

Pike was a Mason who was happy to intermingle Freemasonry with other esoteric systems in his writing but at least he was a Freemason. The problem with Hall is that he cannot realistically be described as either a "Masonic scholar" or a Masonic "authority" as in reality he was an interested non-Mason.

Unfortunately nowadays many people (Masons and non-Masons alike) do not realise that when he wrote the books that he wrote about Freemasonry he was not a Freemason. He wrote from his own perspective as a Theosophist regarding a system that he did not experience until 30 years later. He wrote books that sprinkled what little he knew of Freemasonry onto a framework based on his Theosophic system and his knowledge of Eastern Initiatic and esoteric disciplines.

This of course makes those of us Freemasons who do know the facts more than a little sceptical of his books, preferring to read and cite books actually written by Freemasons that are actually about the Masonic system itself.

It's a bit like waking up one day and deciding to become a Plumber then asking the local Bricklayer to teach you how to do it. The Brickie may have an idea about plumbing but he won't understand it unless he's actually been trained how to do it.

Having said that I own some of his books and they are still pretty interesting but they do not colour my understanding of Freemasonry in the way that Masonic authors do.

Mike

[zero1]

Our Free Masonry pre-dates Roman Catholicism, it is pre-Davidic.

Can you post evidence of this?

[lightgiver]

Can you post evidence of this?

Can you post any evidence it is not?

and on this one I believe GS.

[zero1]

Can you post any evidence it is not?

and on this one I believe GS.

No, Lightgiver, I believe Grandsecretary is right, in fact I know he is, but I was just wondering if he could post anything that might confirm it for the doubters.

[watson_k]

No, Lightgiver, I believe Grandsecretary is right, in fact I know he is, but I was just wondering if he could post anything that might confirm it for the doubters.

What constitutes as Evidence? A quote out of a book? If so I can provide a few.

[zero1]

What constitutes as Evidence? A quote out of a book? If so I can provide a few.

That would be nice, go for it.

But I was hoping GrandSecretary would simply quantify his assertion that real Freemasonry is pre-Davidic, since "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", to paraphrase the science boffs.

After all, the "official story", which is clearly nonsense, says that Freemasonry originated in a tavern in 16th/17th century Britain. So to have an "insider" come out and tell the truth is big.

[stewart edwards]

So to have an "insider" come out and tell the truth is big.Especially one who was to quote Peter in a recent post of his "at the Highest Levels" of UGLE brand Freemasonry. Peter please correct me if I have misquoted or misrepresented you, and accept my apology if I have.

[thelonious]

After all, the "official story", which is clearly nonsense, says that Freemasonry originated in a tavern in 16th/17th century Britain. So to have an "insider" come out and tell the truth is big.

GS's "Grand Lodge of All England" was formed in 2005. 2005 is not pre-Davidic.

Now, he will follow up with a whole bevy of propaganda, but I'll just get to the point.

Freemasonry is older than 1717. That was simply the date of the first Grand Lodge having been formed, which was created by 4 London Lodges that had already existed.

Independent Lodges have existed since at least the 14th century, and probably previous to the 10th century, but after that, historical evidence is lacking.

Now, clearly, there were stone and brick masons in pre-Davidic times, who made their living building structures. But this is not what most people are talking about when they say "Freemasonry". Instead, Freemasonry refers to a particular fraternity.

[bluehorseman]

Independent Lodges have existed since at least the 14th century, and probably previous to the 10th century, but after that, historical evidence is lacking.

Now, clearly, there were stone and brick masons in pre-Davidic times, who made their living building structures. But this is not what most people are talking about when they say "Freemasonry". Instead, Freemasonry refers to a particular fraternity.[/QUOTE]

So thus said what I have read that the knights Templar brought the secrets of Solomons Temple to Scotland after fleeing France and introduced/created Freemasonry by infiltrating the working Stone masons there is wrong? Are you saying it goes back further than that?

[thelonious]

So thus said what I have read that the knights Templar brought the secrets of Solomons Temple to Scotland after fleeing France and introduced/created Freemasonry by infiltrating the working Stone masons there is wrong? Are you saying it goes back further than that?

The Templars could not have created Freemasonry because Freemasonry existed before the Order of the Temple was created. On this, I agree with GS.

But the story of a connection between the Templars and the Masons is apocryphal, and historians reject it as a myth. It is possible that some Templars found there way to Scotland, and also possible that they became stonemasons. But there really isn't any evidence of such a thing happening, so it's only speculation.

[stewart edwards]

The key and most important things to remember when researching freemasonry are:-

1. Be aware that the masonic world is fully of different fraternities, and they can do different things, though generally based on a common(ish) core, and they dont always talk to each other nor get on with each other. Even those in amity with each other can do things very differently. And while rare fist fights in open lodge are not unheard off (I have only heard of it once fortunately, but that is still once too many).

2. Be aware that the masonic world does immense amounts of good in society, from helping guide people to be more moral in their actions and decision making, to helping communities. Yes it has got itself into a terrible mess, and yes there are different agendas going on, and yes there are far to many egos, and yes I am the first to my hand up and say that the masonic world needs to clean itself up more than it already has over the past decade or two, but fundamentally it is a force of good. It has just become lost as darkness silently penetrated (this is something that the masonic world has trouble admitting to). But that has also happened to me a couple of decades ago, and could easily happen to anyone here. So keep an awareness of the difference between a mason who abuses the system, and the system itself. Just as a policeman could be corrupt and hurt innocent members of the public, the police force as a whole can be a power of good in society. Think about it.

3. Also remember that while many prefer not to wash dirty laundry in public, they forget that if the dirt has infected the community, their hidden washing wont clean the damage done to the community. Infact it can leave the dirt to grow and fester and infect further. Though different fraternities as with most things masonic have vastly different ways of keeping their house clean, some more effective than others.

4. Dont assume that all masons are liars. I have no doubts that some are, but most are honest people trying to do their best in life. Too many may stray under the influence of those who would use the system (which some masons tell me is far fewer than I imagine it to be), but most are probaly guilty of no more than turning a blind eye. At worst this shows a lack of moral intergrity and fibre, and at best is simply a reflection of how busy people are to get "involved".

Just my thoughts and opinions.

[grandsecretary]

GS's "Grand Lodge of All England" was formed in 2005. 2005 is not pre-Davidic.

Now, he will follow up with a whole bevy of propaganda, but I'll just get to the point.

Freemasonry is older than 1717. That was simply the date of the first Grand Lodge having been formed, which was created by 4 London Lodges that had already existed.

Independent Lodges have existed since at least the 14th century, and probably previous to the 10th century, but after that, historical evidence is lacking.

Now, clearly, there were stone and brick masons in pre-Davidic times, who made their living building structures. But this is not what most people are talking about when they say "Freemasonry". Instead, Freemasonry refers to a particular fraternity.

This man simply does not know what he is talking about.

[grandsecretary]

The Templars could not have created Freemasonry because Freemasonry existed before the Order of the Temple was created. On this, I agree with GS.

But the story of a connection between the Templars and the Masons is apocryphal, and historians reject it as a myth. It is possible that some Templars found there way to Scotland, and also possible that they became stonemasons. But there really isn't any evidence of such a thing happening, so it's only speculation.

And this confirms it.

[mike martin]

But the story of a connection between the Templars and the Masons is apocryphal, and historians reject it as a myth. It is possible that some Templars found there way to Scotland, and also possible that they became stonemasons. But there really isn't any evidence of such a thing happening, so it's only speculation.

I hate to drive this off-topic but I can't help it. I see this stuff time after time and I hate how people pronounce on history that they either don't know or don't understand.

The whole idea that the Templars somehow "made it" to Scotland after the suppression is fallacious and silly to the extreme. Templars were active in Scotland long before the suppression! Its main Scottish Preceptory at Balantrodoch was founded in 1189 and another later at Torpichen along with numerous farms and other holdings. Those that escaped from France undoubtedly went initially to other Preceptories and there is no reason to doubt that some of the French did in fact join their Scottish brethren.

However, the very dramatic stories about the Templars escaping and a small band helping the Bruce are dramatised to ignore the fact that there had been (and still was) a very strong Templar presence in Scotland for more than a Century before the event.

The majority of Templars, after the suppression, joined the Order of St John (Hospitallers), going as they did with the holdings of the Temple.

[stewart edwards]

I hate to drive this off-topic but I can't help it.Dont fret Mike, having recently had "The Secret Scroll" fall of a shelf at me, and had one of those gut feelings to read it, I found a couple of things in there that gave me "ah ha" moments, though knowing that some really question the accuracy of the book, is useful to know what people consider to be truth/genuine history.

Moving onThe majority of Templars, after the suppression, joined the Order of St John (Hospitallers), going as they did with the holdings of the Temple.I am aware that in some fraternities Masons can join orders bearing both titles, while in others it is seen as an impossibility, something that simply cant happen due to historic "differences". I realise that your quote does not mention masons, but are you able to point me inthe direction of a respected source that discusses your above point? Until very recently I had given virtually zero thought to Knights and Knights Templar, but a number of "fluffy" bits around my life have started to point there hence I am interested in learning more about the specific point you have made (as in the real historic ones not the various masonic ones).

[watson_k]

Dont fret Mike, having recently had "The Secret Scroll" fall of a shelf at me, and had one of those gut feelings to read it, I found a couple of things in there that gave me "ah ha" moments, though knowing that some really question the accuracy of the book, is useful to know what people consider to be truth/genuine history.

Moving onI am aware that in some fraternities Masons can join orders bearing both titles, while in others it is seen as an impossibility, something that simply cant happen due to historic "differences". I realise that your quote does not mention masons, but are you able to point me inthe direction of a respected source that discusses your above point? Until very recently I had given virtually zero thought to Knights and Knights Templar, but a number of "fluffy" bits around my life have started to point there hence I am interested in learning more about the specific point you have made (as in the real historic ones not the various masonic ones).

The connections people have connecting the Templars to modern FreeMasons is that the charges against Jacques de Molay and his associates was that ‘they used sacred rites in their initiations'.

It is said that the Scottish Rite had its beginnings in the Society of Architects which was founded under King Robert Bruce, which is where it is thought 'Ancient and Accepted Masons of the Scottish Rite’ came from.

This is from Chevalier Ramsay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Michael_Ramsay who was associated with Freemasonry since it's conception in France (1725/6).

[watson_k]

Albert Churchward on foundings on the York Rite:

When Cnut the Great, prohibited Open Worship of the Druids, to evade persecution they resorted to private meetings and secret celebrations. According to Albert Churchward, he doesn't entertain any doubt that they formed the first 'Lodges' in England, as a cloak to screen their religious rites and ceremonies, and to keep them as pure as they had received them originally from Egypt.

Many of the old druid priests joined the Chirstian Church, and were called the 'Culdees', but although they had joined the Christian Church, they kept themselves very much aloof for a longer period, up till the 12th Century.

http://www.churchward.com/cw/albertc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culdee

[bluehorseman]

I've had a few books out of the library on it, very interesting subject I found - only problem is there are only about five books in the whole library on it so the research didn't go very far because it didn't take long to read them and I couldn't go to the librarian and ask for any of the other books they had referred to in the five I read because they didn't have them.:confused:

Probably because its a secret society I suppose - wouldn't be a secret society if you could get out thousands of books about it at the library.

[grandsecretary]

Independent Lodges have existed since at least the 14th century, and probably previous to the 10th century, but after that, historical evidence is lacking.

Now, clearly, there were stone and brick masons in pre-Davidic times, who made their living building structures. But this is not what most people are talking about when they say "Freemasonry". Instead, Freemasonry refers to a particular fraternity.

Quite wrong. The Masonic Priesthood is pre-Davidic. You obviously don't know anything about it, so please try to keep your opinions to yourself.

[thelonious]

The Masonic Priesthood is pre-Davidic.

Grand Secretary and the other Moderns from the Grand Lodge of All England would have you believe this nonsense.

Fortunately, any history book in the world can tell you otherwise.

[kasalt]

And this confirms it.

Would you care to go into some detail on that?

The Masonic Priesthood is pre-Davidic.

If the Masonic Priesthood is pre-Davidic, then it must be...Abrahamic? Melchizedekian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek), perhaps?

[watson_k]

Quite wrong. The Masonic Priesthood is pre-Davidic. You obviously don't know anything about it, so please try to keep your opinions to yourself.

I wasn't actually sure what you meant by 'Davidic'. I did a search online and it said that Davidic means the House of David. When you say The Masonic Priesthood is pre-Dravidic, does that mean you believe the mason fraternity was around before King David of the Hebrews?

According to estimates, King David lived anywhere between 1037 - 970 BC. If the word 'Mason' really can be traced back to the Chaldeans, it would put Masonry back to at least the 6th Century BC.

If you believe the Pyramids were built in 2560 BC, that still puts Masonry back before King David.

[bluehorseman]

Quite wrong. The Masonic Priesthood is pre-Davidic. You obviously don't know anything about it, so please try to keep your opinions to yourself.

The quote I had quoted in that post was from someone else (watson K I think) so although you are half right and I do not know much about the subject you cannot base that off that quote you quoted me on as they were not my words.

I will endeavour to keep check of my opinions, which is of coarse the correct thing to do as no one likes an opinionated know it all, and I would expect the same from you.

[grandsecretary]

Can you post evidence of this?

The historic connections between the Masonic Priesthood, Ireland, Scotland and specifically York are clear to the serious researcher. I cannot provide any further information, other than to say that we still practice the Orders of The Holy and Royal Arch, and these Orders have existed in France, Austria, and now once more here in England.

[grandsecretary]

I wasn't actually sure what you meant by 'Davidic'. I did a search online and it said that Davidic means the House of David. When you say The Masonic Priesthood is pre-Dravidic, does that mean you believe the mason fraternity was around before King David of the Hebrews?

According to estimates, King David lived anywhere between 1037 - 970 BC. If the word 'Mason' really can be traced back to the Chaldeans, it would put Masonry back to at least the 6th Century BC.

If you believe the Pyramids were built in 2560 BC, that still puts Masonry back before King David.

We have no doubt that Free Masonry pre-dates King David of the Hebrews. We say that it is time immemorial.

[grandsecretary]

Grand Secretary and the other Moderns from the Grand Lodge of All England would have you believe this nonsense.

Fortunately, any history book in the world can tell you otherwise.

Name one. One history book that proves otherwise.

[grandsecretary]

Albert Churchward on foundings on the York Rite:

When Cnut the Great, prohibited Open Worship of the Druids, to evade persecution they resorted to private meetings and secret celebrations. According to Albert Churchward, he doesn't entertain any doubt that they formed the first 'Lodges' in England, as a cloak to screen their religious rites and ceremonies, and to keep them as pure as they had received them originally from Egypt.

Many of the old druid priests joined the Chirstian Church, and were called the 'Culdees', but although they had joined the Christian Church, they kept themselves very much aloof for a longer period, up till the 12th Century.

http://www.churchward.com/cw/albertc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culdee

Whatever you do, don't tell thelonius he will die from apoplexy.

[free thinker]

There is a book called 'The brotherhood' which is a rather interesting read.

Your main problem though will be 'confirming' what you find, accomplish that, and you are halfway there....;):)

[flyermay]

I just read a fascinating version of the history of freemasonry by Rev. Dr. James Anderson.

What do you think about his research from 1723?

[thelonious]

I just read a fascinating version of the history of freemasonry by Rev. Dr. James Anderson.

What do you think about his research from 1723?

Anderson, like many of the earlier researchers, had rather imaginative views.

I would suggest an overview of this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Freemasonry

[grandsecretary]

Anderson, like many of the earlier researchers, had rather imaginative views.

I would suggest an overview of this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Freemasonry

Pure and unadulterated propaganda written by a team allocated to the job by the United Grand Lodge of England.

These people delete ALL corrections and additions to their Wicked paedia page that do not agree with their jaundiced view of the world.

This is the level of "historian" relied upon by theolonius and his cronies and they are even willing to insult and denigrate one of their own founders, Dr James Anderson.

[mike martin]

but are you able to point me inthe direction of a respected source that discusses your above point?

Well to be honest all you have to do is read a "proper" history of the Templars but as I assume you're wanting a quick Internet source, why not try the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Such was the tragic end of the Templars. If we consider that the Order of Hospitallers finally inherited, although not without difficulties, the property of the Templars and received many of its members, we may say that the result of the trial was practically equivalent to the long-proposed amalgamation of the two rival orders. For the Knights (first of Rhodes, afterwards of Malta) took up and carried on elsewhere the work of the Knights of the Temple.

Quote from this page: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm

Various articles mentioning them:
http://www.newadvent.org/utility/search.htm?safe=active&cx=000299817191393086628%3Aifmbhlr-8x0&q=knights+templar&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9#936

Mike

[mike martin]

The connections people have connecting the Templars to modern FreeMasons is that the charges against Jacques de Molay and his associates was that ‘they used sacred rites in their initiations'.
Actually the "charge" was that they committed heresy in their Initiations which included denying Christ, trampling and spitting on the Cross and homosexual activities. None of this occurs in Freemasonry.

Mike

[mike martin]

I've had a few books out of the library on it, very interesting subject I found - only problem is there are only about five books in the whole library on it so the research didn't go very far because it didn't take long to read them and I couldn't go to the librarian and ask for any of the other books they had referred to in the five I read because they didn't have them.:confused:

Probably because its a secret society I suppose - wouldn't be a secret society if you could get out thousands of books about it at the library
Unless you're using some strange Library it should be able to access the Inter Library Lending Service, which should be able acquire any titles that are in circulation. In other words tell them what you're aafter and they'll see if it's available.

If not something like abebooks.co.uk should enable you to buy your own copies.

Mike

[watson_k]

Actually the "charge" was that they committed heresy in their Initiations which included denying Christ, trampling and spitting on the Cross and homosexual activities. None of this occurs in Freemasonry.

Mike

That makes it even worse. What exactly connects the Templars with Freemasonry then? The point I was trying to make is there is very little, if anything at all that connects them to Freemasons.

The majority of the charges were identical to other people being tortured by the Inquisitors, with one exception: head worship. The Templars were specifically charged with worshipping some type of severed head; a charge which was made only against Templars. The descriptions of the head allegedly venerated by the Templars were varied and contradictory in nature.

[mike martin]

That makes it even worse. What exactly connects the Templars with Freemasonry then? The point I was trying to make is there is very little, if anything at all that connects them to Freemasons.

That's about the state of play. All that really connects them is a modern day willingness to not bother looking at events from the past in the context they occured.

People (not just Freemasons) in the 18th and 19th Centuries loved to dream up romantic and mystical stuff. The Freemasons started a Masonic Order based on their romantic ideal of what the KTs were about (they were not alone there are at least 2 other non-Masonic KT Orders). This today translates in some people's head to an actual connection.

Mike

[thelonious]

That's about the state of play. All that really connects them is a modern day willingness to not bother looking at events from the past in the context they occured.

People (not just Freemasons) in the 18th and 19th Centuries loved to dream up romantic and mystical stuff. The Freemasons started a Masonic Order based on their romantic ideal of what the KTs were about (they were not alone there are at least 2 other non-Masonic KT Orders). This today translates in some people's head to an actual connection.

Mike

Well said.

Of course, GS will just submit a one-word post that says "propaganda" without addressing any of it.

[grandsecretary]

Oh no I will address the issue directly.

Mike and thelonius are quite correct. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the real Knights Templar and the Moderns form of freemasonry.

The Moderns form of the Knights Templar is entirely spurious, and the rituals bear no resemblance whatsoever to the rituals undergone by the original Knights Templar.

The Grand Lodge at York continues this direct link as part of the revival of the pure form of Anglo-Saxon Free Masonry.

The history of the links between the real Knights Templar and the Grand Lodge at York are well documented by distinguished historians, of both non-Masonic and Masonic persuasion.

[watson_k]

That's about the state of play. All that really connects them is a modern day willingness to not bother looking at events from the past in the context they occured.

People (not just Freemasons) in the 18th and 19th Centuries loved to dream up romantic and mystical stuff. The Freemasons started a Masonic Order based on their romantic ideal of what the KTs were about (they were not alone there are at least 2 other non-Masonic KT Orders). This today translates in some people's head to an actual connection.

Mike

Could in-fact the same thing be happening with the people called 'Illuminati'? Who knows if the Modern form if there is one, is the direct lineage of the one that was founded in 1776.

[watson_k]

While doing some research, I just came across this, and Thought it would go nicely here.

There is no extant ritual, as there can be no doctrine, which contains, or can possibly contain, the secret of mystical procedure or the essence of mystical doctrine. The reason is not because there is, or can reasonably be, any indictable secret, but because the knowledge in question is in the custody of those who have taken effectual measures for its protection; and though from time to time, some secrets of initiation have filtered through printed books into the world at large, the real mysteries have never escaped.

Mr. A. E. Waite.

[bluehorseman]

Unless you're using some strange Library it should be able to access the Inter Library Lending Service, which should be able acquire any titles that are in circulation. In other words tell them what you're aafter and they'll see if it's available.

If not something like abebooks.co.uk should enable you to buy your own copies.

Mike

Thank you that is a good web site, good prices too.

[slartibartfast]

The history of the links between the real Knights Templar and the Grand Lodge at York are well documented by distinguished historians, of both non-Masonic and Masonic persuasion.

Are you allowed to say Bollocks on this forum....;)

Sorry, take that back. Rereading your comment, I can see that it appeared it said that the Links were well documented, when you really said the History of the Links. Very subtle.

Oh and while you are at it, List of historians and references would be useful.

[grandsecretary]

Are you allowed to say Bollocks on this forum....;)

Sorry, take that back. Rereading your comment, I can see that it appeared it said that the Links were well documented, when you really said the History of the Links. Very subtle.

Oh and while you are at it, List of historians and references would be useful.

A true Free Mason would not use such filthy language anywhere.

I have quoted many sources and references previously but here are but a few:

During the reign of Henry II (1154-1189) the Grand Master of the Knightts Templar superintended the Masons, and employed them in building their Temple in Fleet Street, A.D. 1155. Masonry continued under the patronage of this order till the year 1199, when John (1199-1216) succeeded his brother Richard on the throne of England. SOURCE: Illustrations of Freemasonry by William Preston

No project or device could answer the purpose of the crusaders better than that of masonry; the maxims and ceremonials attending the master's order had been previously established, and were materially necessary on that expedition.

... in like manner the priests projecting the crusades, being possessed of the mysteries of masonry ...

... it fully proves to us that masons were crusaders.

SOURCE: The Spirit of Masonry in Moral and Elucidatory Lectures by William Hutchinson 1775, pp.112-115

To prove that the Order of the Knights Templar was a branch of Free Masonry would be a useless labour, as the fact has been invariably acknowledged by Free Masons themselves, and none have been more zealous to establish it than the enemies of the Order; the former have admitted the fact, not because it was creditable to them but because it was true; and the latter have supported it, because, by the aid of a little sophistry, it might be employed to disgrace their opponents.

The Orders of the Knights Templar was instituted during the Crusades, in the year 1199 ... yet its almost beyond doubt that their chief and primary intention was to practice and preserve the rites and mysteries of Free Masonry;

SOURCE: The History of Free Masonry and the Grand Lodge of Scotland etc., by Alexander Laurie, Grand Secretary of The Grand Lodge of Scotland, 1859

It is recorded that in this reign (Henry II) Knights Templar were first initiated into the mysteries of Freemasonry, from which period thay gave it patronage, and the Grand Master of the Temple was appointed to superintend the Lodges, by which appointment pre-eminence was confined to the Orders of Knighthood, over the Society of Freemasons. By this injunction of the two Orders, Freemasonry assumed a more important character and higher position in the eyes of the world and continued to increase in general estimation down to the reign of Richard I. (SOURCE: History of the Knights Templar of the State of Pennsylvania by Alfred Creigh historiographer of the Knights Templar of Pennsylvania, 1867)

Other references and sources include: Acta Latomorum ou Chronologie de l'Histoire de la Franche-Maçonnerie Française et étrangére by Claude Antoine Thory (1784); Chronologie Compagnonnique et Maçonnique (1998 & 2001); The Templar's Textbook (1867); The Craftsman by Cornelius Moore; The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, Vol II, No.12, Early History of Masonry in England, p.356, by Charles Whitlock Moore; A Freemason's Pocket Companion Containing a Brief Sketch of the History of Masonry, A Chronology of Interesting Events, etc. etc., by a Brother of the Apollo Lodge, 711, Oxford, Constitution of The United Grand Lodge of England, published by Henry Washbourne: London (1831); Kenning's Masonic Cyclopaedia and Handbook of Masonic Archaeology, History, and Biography (1878); The History of The Knights Templars by Charles G. Addison; Rosicrucian Chronology AD 1-1378 Society of Rosicrucians in America (2003); The Secret History of Freemasonry by Paul Naudon; World's Masonic Register by Leon Hyneman, p.477, Philadelphia (1860); and the records of the Vatican Library.

Thre is no doubt whatsoever, that even though the two organisations: The Grand Lodge at York, and The Knights Templar, were kept separate and distinct, at times The Knights Templar (the real ones) superintended the Lodges and appointed Grand Masters.

A list, together with their Templar connections may be read on our website.

[mike martin]

While doing some research, I just came across this, and Thought it would go nicely here.

Mr. A. E. Waite.

Now I'm not saying you're doing this but it needs highlighting.

That quote, although it comes from a book written by a Freemason, is not about Freemasonry! As I'm sure you will have noticed when you first read it, it comes from the "Book of Ceremonial Magic" which is of course about ceremonial magic. You can read it here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/grim/bcm/index.htm

Many non-Masons assume that because a book was written by a Freemason that it follows it is always in some way about Freemasonry! AE Waite, in common with JSM Ward, was a member of and interested in, many bodies and subjects as well as Freemasonry. They both wrote very interesting books that were connected to those other interests and in fact they also, at times, allowed those other interests to creep into their books about Freemasonry!

However, the point is when quoting from these guys you should try to make sure that you're quoting from their Masonic works.

Mike

[slartibartfast]

A true Free Mason would not use such filthy language anywhere.

You have lead a sheltered life.


Other references and sources include: Acta Latomorum ou Chronologie de l'Histoire de la Franche-Maçonnerie Française et étrangére by Claude Antoine Thory (1784); Chronologie Compagnonnique et Maçonnique (1998 & 2001); The Templar's Textbook (1867); The Craftsman by Cornelius Moore; The Freemasons' Monthly Magazine, Vol II, No.12, Early History of Masonry in England, p.356, by Charles Whitlock Moore; A Freemason's Pocket Companion Containing a Brief Sketch of the History of Masonry, A Chronology of Interesting Events, etc. etc., by a Brother of the Apollo Lodge, 711, Oxford, Constitution of The United Grand Lodge of England, published by Henry Washbourne: London (1831); Kenning's Masonic Cyclopaedia and Handbook of Masonic Archaeology, History, and Biography (1878); The History of The Knights Templars by Charles G. Addison; Rosicrucian Chronology AD 1-1378 Society of Rosicrucians in America (2003); The Secret History of Freemasonry by Paul Naudon; World's Masonic Register by Leon Hyneman, p.477, Philadelphia (1860); and the records of the Vatican Library.

Thre is no doubt whatsoever, that even though the two organisations: The Grand Lodge at York, and The Knights Templar, were kept separate and distinct, at times The Knights Templar (the real ones) superintended the Lodges and appointed Grand Masters.

A list, together with their Templar connections may be read on our website.

etc. etc.

Evidence by quantity not quality. Most produced by people expounding their own theories.

You use evidence produced by Regular Masonry to show a long heritage for Freemasonry as some sort of spurious evidence of GLoAE parentage. It falls foul of all the traps that many of the posters on these forums fall into. It takes imaginative histories and treats them as fact, it then backs them up with other writers work based on the original documents. You have a set of copies of manuscripts which you claim prove an ancient foundation for Freemasonry but to most people is a set of instructions as to behaviour in the workplace.

As Mike has said, UGLE has put a stake in the Ground and said "we know with a degree of certainty what happened from this point in history". Before that the uncertainty grows.

[grandsecretary]

You have lead a sheltered life.



etc. etc.

Evidence by quantity not quality. Most produced by people expounding their own theories.

You use evidence produced by Regular Masonry to show a long heritage for Freemasonry as some sort of spurious evidence of GLoAE parentage. It falls foul of all the traps that many of the posters on these forums fall into. It takes imaginative histories and treats them as fact, it then backs them up with other writers work based on the original documents. You have a set of copies of manuscripts which you claim prove an ancient foundation for Freemasonry but to most people is a set of instructions as to behaviour in the workplace.

As Mike has said, UGLE has put a stake in the Ground and said "we know with a degree of certainty what happened from this point in history". Before that the uncertainty grows.

No I do not. "Acta Latomorum" for instance, was written by Claude Antoine Thory a distinguished French historian who, amongst other things, was invited to write the official history of The Grand Orient of France.

The archives of The Vatican Library could hardly be called "regular freemasonry", and neither could the various non-Masonic histories of the Knights Templar.

"The 1717 movement was not a "revival," as Anderson has it, and recent writers contend it to have been. REVOLUTION is the proper term, as it was the culmination of revolutionary movements commenced more than one hundred and fifty years prior, and continued through all those years to gain the end aimed at. The movements subsequent to 1717 prove it, as the course pursued by the new Grand Lodge towards the York Grand Lodge was of the same character as before the revolution. The York Grand Lodge cannot be ignored, as Anderson and some writers of the present day aim to do. It has a record prior to 1717 and subsequent ..." (SOURCE: Freemasonry in England from 1567 to 1813, London Grand Lodges, p.17, by Leon Hyneman, 1877)

Get used to it, the free ride is over.

[slartibartfast]

No I do not. "Acta Latomorum" for instance, was written by Claude Antoine Thory a distinguished French historian who, amongst other things, was invited to write the official history of The Grand Orient of France.

The archives of The Vatican Library could hardly be called "regular freemasonry", and neither could the various non-Masonic histories of the Knights Templar.



Get used to it, the free ride is over.

So what references does Acta Latomorum provide and the Vatican Library, for those of us without easy access?

[grandsecretary]

So what references does Acta Latomorum provide and the Vatican Library, for those of us without easy access?

Oh really? So you have denied Masonic history without even having checked out the sources?

Acta Latomorum lists the Grand Masters of The Grand Lodge of All England and cross references them with the lists of the Grand Priors of the Knights Templar amongst many other things.

Claude Antoine Thory's sources, and ours, include documents and references in the Vatican Library.

ACTA LATOMORUM

ou Chronologie de l'Histoire de la Franche-Maçonnerie française et étrangére, etc. That is: The Acts of the Freemasons, or a Chronological History of French and Foreign Freemasonry, etc. This work, written or complied by Claude Antoine Thory, was published at Paris, in two volumes, octavo, in 1815. It contains the most remarkable facts in the history of the Institution from obscure times to the year 1814; the succession of Grand Masters; a nomenclature of rites, degrees, and secret associations in all the countries of the world ; a bibliography of the principal works on Freemasonry published since 1723; and a supplement in which the author has collected a variety of rare and important Masonic documents. Of this work, which has never been translated into English, Lenning says in his Encyclopädie der Freimaurerei that it is, without dispute, the most scientific work on Freemasonry that French literature has ever produced. (SOURCE: ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF FREEMASONRY AND KINDRED SCIENCES by ALBERT G. MACKEY M.D.

"... without dispute, the most scientific work on Freemasonry that French literature has ever produced."

And you DARE to make the statements that you have without even having had the decency to refer to this, even after I have quoted it to you, and to thelonius on at least 6 or 7 occasions?

Says it all. Buy a copy, as we did.

[mike martin]

So what references does Acta Latomorum provide and the Vatican Library, for those of us without easy access?

You may find this helpful:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/skyecn/althory.htm

Written in 1875, in french this is a partial translation. Mackey was fond of citing it.

[grandsecretary]

You may find this helpful:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/skyecn/althory.htm

Written in 1875, in french this is a partial translation. Mackey was fond of citing it.

Thank you for this Mike. Our original cost us £2,700.

[terrier]

thank you mike,it isnt finished. any other sources maybe?
s&f saludos

[slartibartfast]

You may find this helpful:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/skyecn/althory.htm

Written in 1875, in french this is a partial translation. Mackey was fond of citing it.

Thanks Mike. So according to Acta Latomorum, a lot of the history originated:-

"This includes the obscure times of the history of Freemasonry, i.e. from the year 287 until 1717, the time when all historical uncertainties ceased. The Chronology that follows is that adopted by the Masons of England and of Scotland, who derive from the former Architects and working manufacturers, which is the origin of the masonic institution. Anderson, Preston, Lawrie and the best English writers of this kind, provided most of materials of the history of this first time."

i.e. Included Anderson and Preston. So should we assume that It used Anderson's list as it's starting point? If so, then all roads start to lead back to Anderson. As the quote says, if this is to be believed, then this is our history.

[slartibartfast]

Oh really? So you have denied Masonic history without even having checked out the sources?

Acta Latomorum lists the Grand Masters of The Grand Lodge of All England and cross references them with the lists of the Grand Priors of the Knights Templar amongst many other things.

Claude Antoine Thory's sources, and ours, include documents and references in the Vatican Library.

And you DARE to make the statements that you have without even having had the decency to refer to this, even after I have quoted it to you, and to thelonius on at least 6 or 7 occasions?

Says it all. Buy a copy, as we did.

You are the one using them as support for your theories. I am asking you for specific references which I would assume you would be happy to provide. Any scholarly work would have individual footnote references so that the reader/reviewer can identify which piece of the theory is supported by which piece of evidence. Your Website has a bibliography rather than references.

[grandsecretary]

You are the one using them as support for your theories. I am asking you for specific references which I would assume you would be happy to provide. Any scholarly work would have individual footnote references so that the reader/reviewer can identify which piece of the theory is supported by which piece of evidence. Your Website has a bibliography rather than references.

See thread Albert Pike.