a reply to: Malocchio
Here's some info on Hiram Abiff: www.masonicdictionary.com...
Hiram Abiff and Hammurabi are two different characters.
Do they realize that Solomon is a play on Shalman-ezer and the god Shalmanu?
That's your theory to have.
a reply to: chr0naut
Our central myth surrounds the building of King Solomon's Temple, but correct, the earliest known records of Freemasonry come from England and then
spread to Europe. Our rituals are based on the central myth, but it is not meant to be taken literally. It's meant to be used as an allegory and
express lessons to the candidates and members.
a reply to: chr0naut
Burial Site of King Hiram: www.travelingtemplar.com/2013/10/burial-site-of-king-hiram.html
a reply to: Malocchio
Concerning the term “myth”, it is a popular notion that myth equates fiction. In reality, myths can be both fiction and non-fiction, but the
origin of the use of myth is in oral traditions, which is the telling of stories and legends were passed down through the generations via
storytellers. Written myths often came about centuries after an oral myth originated. The validity aside, oral myths did not stay consistent, but were
used to help explain an event or philosophy to a largely illiterate people. To contrast rituals and myths, scholars like Edward Tylor, argues that
ritual stems from and is secondary to myth; that myths give birth to rituals.
a reply to: LABTECH767
Freemasonry isn't a cult: www.abovetopsecret.com...
You don't go through a "fake resurrection" in Freemasonry.
Hiram Abiff is found in the Bible, and it is not used in the denial of anything. Freemasonry is not contrary nor against Christianity. Nor is there
some "extremist Masonic group" doing all of that nonsense.
a reply to: Malocchio
Our rituals are not silly. Rituals are inherent to human nature. There are a number of categories of rituals such as social rituals, military rituals,
celebratory rituals, worship rituals, funerary rituals, bardic rituals, and initiatic rituals. Freemasonry is filled with a variety of rituals, but
the most notable is the initiatic or initiation rituals. Rituals remind us of what is important as well as providing a sense of stability and
continuity in our lives; it educates us in the values of an organization, allows for knowledge to be passed from generation to generation unchanged,
and binds the members together, not just in the Lodge, but across time and space. Masonic rituals attempt to impart values and lessons through
You take an obligation to keep your word, but you are never threatened with death. The penalties of our obligations are symbolic, figurative. If a
Mason were to break his Obligation a trial would be convened and if found guilty he would be reprimanded, suspended, or expelled.
In regards to your cult comment, please see the link above or this one: www.travelingtemplar.com...
FYI, Worshipful is an Old English word meaning "venerable, respectful."
a reply to: scraedtosleep
It should be noted here that most anti-Masons and non-Masons hold a misguided belief at what constitutes authority in Freemasonry. Since the 18th
century, many Masons have published works concerning Freemasonry, writing on various theories and subjects within Freemasonry. Anti-Masons would have
others believe that everything a Mason writes is inherently accepted by all of Freemasonry. The problem here is that not everything written by a Mason
has been factual, but as Freemasonry is a society dedicated to knowledge and free thought, Grand Lodges have not interfered with what an individual
Mason writes. A Grand Lodge is the only entity within Freemasonry that has authority to speak on the symbols, rituals, history, and so on. Without
receiving an endorsement from a Grand Lodge, a Masonic author is merely giving his opinion, he does not speak for all Freemasonry.
Also in regards to Knight and Lomas, they take a great deal of liberty with their theories and revising history.
The following is from Arturo de Hoyos, one of those 33rds everyone is obsessed with, as well as Grand Archivist and Grand Historian of the Supreme
Council and Grand Archivist of the Grand College of Rites.
Masonic Sense and Non-Sense
This is a topic about which I’ve written before, but it cannot be overemphasized. The ‘mysterious origins’ and vast symbols of Freemasonry lend
themselves to speculation, some valuable, most not so much. Some embrace the notion that the mere popularity of a Masonic author somehow makes him a
scholar. Similarly, there’s a notion that Masonic authors who claim to offer ‘special insights’ into the meaning and/or purposes of Masonry, or
who purport to reveal hidden traditions must be scholars. Finally there is a belief that any academic credentials legitimize Masonic ideas and/or
publications. All these notions are mistaken.
Consider the book “The Hiram Key.” Its clever (but mistaken) theory was that the Hiramic legend was based on the disputed assassination of the
ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao II. The authors used the language of the post-1813 English Masonic ritual to assert that the wounds on the
mummy were accounted for in Masonic legends. They claimed the Hiram legend was an ancient Egyptian ‘oral tradition’ that passed down the millennia
until it became part of Freemasonry, when it was converted into our present tradition (and in so doing so they ignored the old Noachite legend, which
was the antecedent of the Hiramic legend).
Not only did the wounds not match up correctly, but their story actually contradicts the earliest Masonic rituals (such as Prichard’s “Masonry
Dissected,” 1730), which would have represented an earlier -- and thus more accurate -- version of this so-called ‘oral tradition.’ But perhaps
the most startling aspect of their theory is their claim that they somehow discovered an ancient legend (for which they never offer *any proof*), and
which somehow eludes all professional Egyptologists worldwide. To date, 20 years after their book was written, not a single trained Egyptologist has
embraced their theory. There’s absolutely zero evidence it is correct, and a mountain of evidence that it is wrong.
What can we learn from this? If you read something that offers the novel or sensational, it must fall to the Sagan standard: “Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.”