I am curently reading "the hiram key" , "rule by secrecy" . I have already fritz springmeirs first illuminaiti/mind control. I was interested in John J. Robinsons books also. I ask you guyes, because I know you will give good recomendatios. Thanks.

I am not a mason but have read extensively on the subject.

Robinsons Born in Blood is IMO a good read. Many of his conclusions are
speculative but at least can claim plausibility. As much of Masonic history
is clouded by lack of documentry evidence this is to be expected.

I am currently reading The Spirit of Masonry by Hutchenson which was
originally published in1775. This book mentions documents and writings
available then that I have not seen mentioned recently which makes me
wonder if they were destroyed or were hidden after the call for documents in
1784 (i think that was the year). These documents and writings seem to
give credence to some of Robinsons conclusions.

Much of this is of course at this time just my opinion.

Originally posted by notmindcontrolled
I am curently reading "the hiram key" , "rule by secrecy" . I have already fritz springmeirs first illuminaiti/mind control. I was interested in John J. Robinsons books also. I ask you guyes, because I know you will give good recomendatios. Thanks.

stalkingwolf hit on it already, but just to add my two cents.

I knew John J. Robinson (upon whom be peace) personally. His books are quite interesting, but to be taken with a grain of salt. The first book "Born in Blood" makes a LOT of speculation, much of which is stated as fact. Dungeon, Fire and Sword is interesting from an historical point of veiw, but again, much speculation presented as fact. The third book "A Pilgrim's Path" is quite interesting and includes much of John's opinion and some pretty good facts on Dr. Holley and his ilk when the Southern Baptist Convention attacked Freemasonry some years ago.

Good reads....historical/Masonic fact...no.

Regards

Originally posted by senrak
I knew John J. Robinson (upon whom be peace) personally. His books are quite interesting, but to be taken with a grain of salt. The first book "Born in Blood" makes a LOT of speculation, much of which is stated as fact.

I am readinbg Born In Blood right now, and the one thing that I really hate is all the circumstancial evidence that he presents as fact. That's what the entire book is based on. He has some really good ideas, but it doesn't seem like he did any research to find out if his sopeculations were correct. That alone is ruining the book for me...

... well, that and the way he fumbles up the fraternity's secrets. If you're going to expose Freemasonry's rituals and such, at least get it right.

Originally posted by sebatwerk
nip>

... well, that and the way he fumbles up the fraternity's secrets. If you're going to expose Freemasonry's rituals and such, at least get it right.

John got much of his ritual info from expose's because he wasn't a Mason when he wrote his books. He was so imporessed with Masonry that near the end of his life (he had Cancer) John became an Entered Apprentice. He wasn't well enough to receive the Fellow Craft or Master Mason degrees, but the Grand Master conferred them upon him. He was also made an honorary 33rd Degree on his death-bed.

Regards

Originally posted by senrak
John got much of his ritual info from expose's because he wasn't a Mason when he wrote his books. He was so imporessed with Masonry that near the end of his life (he had Cancer) John became an Entered Apprentice. He wasn't well enough to receive the Fellow Craft or Master Mason degrees, but the Grand Master conferred them upon him. He was also made an honorary 33rd Degree on his death-bed.

Awh you're serious!? Because he wrote a couple of books speculating about the craft?? At least he was never hostile towards it.

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by senrak
John got much of his ritual info from expose's because he wasn't a Mason when he wrote his books. He was so imporessed with Masonry that near the end of his life (he had Cancer) John became an Entered Apprentice. He wasn't well enough to receive the Fellow Craft or Master Mason degrees, but the Grand Master conferred them upon him. He was also made an honorary 33rd Degree on his death-bed.

Awh you're serious!? Because he wrote a couple of books speculating about the craft?? At least he was never hostile towards it.

Well, it was more than that. John was a non-Mason and a proponent of Masonry. He traveled all over the country giving talks about Masonry to Masons and to non-Masons and to ANTI-Masons. He debated John Ankerberg (famous TV pseud-evangelist, anti-Mason) It was fascinating to have a non-member speaking on behalf of the Order so he caught some attention. That's how I met him. He was speaker at my Royal Arch Chapter in Kentucky in 1992.

Originally posted by senrak
Well, it was more than that. John was a non-Mason and a proponent of Masonry. He traveled all over the country giving talks about Masonry to Masons and to non-Masons and to ANTI-Masons. He debated John Ankerberg (famous TV pseud-evangelist, anti-Mason) It was fascinating to have a non-member speaking on behalf of the Order so he caught some attention. That's how I met him. He was speaker at my Royal Arch Chapter in Kentucky in 1992.

Forgive my ignorance. other than the book Im reading, i've actually never heard of him. I just dont get why he didnt join if he felt so highly about it. That in itself is pretty admirable, though. Most people would be first in line to take advantage of the supposed benefits of an organization that they know a thing or two about.

Originally posted by sebatwerk

Originally posted by senrak
Well, it was more than that. John was a non-Mason and a proponent of Masonry. He traveled all over the country giving talks about Masonry to Masons and to non-Masons and to ANTI-Masons. He debated John Ankerberg (famous TV pseud-evangelist, anti-Mason) It was fascinating to have a non-member speaking on behalf of the Order so he caught some attention. That's how I met him. He was speaker at my Royal Arch Chapter in Kentucky in 1992.

Forgive my ignorance. other than the book Im reading, i've actually never heard of him. I just dont get why he didnt join if he felt so highly about it. That in itself is pretty admirable, though. Most people would be first in line to take advantage of the supposed benefits of an organization that they know a thing or two about.

At first he felt he could do much more for Masonry as a non-Mason (and he did) but as he got more and more active AROUND Masons he felt the desire to become one and petitioned the Lodge. As I said, though, his health only allowed him to have the 1st Degree conferred upon him in Lodge. The others he received in his hospital bed.

Originally posted by senrak
At first he felt he could do much more for Masonry as a non-Mason (and he did) but as he got more and more active AROUND Masons he felt the desire to become one and petitioned the Lodge. As I said, though, his health only allowed him to have the 1st Degree conferred upon him in Lodge. The others he received in his hospital bed.

That's gotta be pretty neat huh? a few mason's going to a hospital and opening lodge inside those funny curtains they pull around guys in their hospital beds and i can imagine everyone else looking trying to see what the huh is going on.

I agree that sometimes someone can do more for masonry as a non-mason. It's sad that things are that way, but i guess i respect the guy for it. But i still won't forgive his speculation without proof!!!

Is Robert Lomas a Mason now? I understand that when he wrote (or c-wrote, rather) The Hiram Key (I haven't read that one yet ) he was not... or am I off base here?

Thanks in advance for any forthcoming edification.

You know, I finished "Born in Blood" yesterday and I'm really disappointed about one thing:

Throughout the book, the author notes all kinds of circumstancial evidence as to why our fraternity was a secret society with the purpose of helping outlaws stay on the run. He stated many times how bogus it was that masonry was used as a theme, and that that did not actually happen until close to 1717, when all the allegory of a mason's working tools were added into ritual and explanation (supposedly). But throughout the entire book, he did not provide an explanation to one important thing:

If Freemasons didn't actually come from masons (ie; masonic guilds), then where did the fraternity get its name!?!?

Needless to say, I was very disappointed at the fact that he didn't touch upon the topic, because it leaves a big wide open hole in his theory. Anyways, just wanted to share.

The most sensible explanation I have had for the name is:

The original craft Guilds , of which there are still many in existance, in the middle ages had two kinds of workforce.

Those that were Free Men and those that were bonded. Bonded was a kind of part time slavery, where the worker had to serve say 7 years with a particular employer before being released to work where ever he wanted.

Therfore it was common to ask if a man was Free or not.

So you would ask are you a Mason? (Genearaly meant a Builder)

Or , are you a Free Mason.

Why ask ? well there would have been certain restrictions on a bonded Mason, which at the time were supported by the law of the land, in other words if the man ran away, he would have been brought back and punished , then sent back to work.

Originally posted by billmcelligott
The most sensible explanation I have had for the name is:

The original craft Guilds , of which there are still many in existance, in the middle ages had two kinds of workforce.

Those that were Free Men and those that were bonded. Bonded was a kind of part time slavery, where the worker had to serve say 7 years with a particular employer before being released to work where ever he wanted.

Therfore it was common to ask if a man was Free or not.

So you would ask are you a Mason? (Genearaly meant a Builder)

Or , are you a Free Mason.

Why ask ? well there would have been certain restrictions on a bonded Mason, which at the time were supported by the law of the land, in other words if the man ran away, he would have been brought back and punished , then sent back to work.

Right, that is the explanation that everyone has heard. But the author of Born in Blood spends the whole book trying to show that Freemasonry DID NOT come from actual mason's and their craft guilds. He gives a lot of circumstancial evidence (though not much more), but didn't even mention an explanation for the biggest reason why people believe in the masonic craft guild theory: the fraternity's name.

If Freemasons didn't actually come from masons (ie; masonic guilds), then where did the fraternity get its name!?!?

He does mention in there somewhere the possibility of it being from the french
frere macon.

a thought that I had was what if there is a templar tiein, but not the one
most often sited. what if the tie is with the crafts people of the temple not the
knights. the ratio I think would have been at least 5:1 i think.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by stalkingwolf]