Stuart Masonry

The Operative thing is debunked by both Pike and McClenechan as a deliberate ruse.
It's quite strange in many ways how open "The Book" and "Morals & Dogma" are on the matter that Freemasonry deliberatally decieves it lower ranks, neither author make any bones about it.

It's like "Yes of course we dupe the Blue Lodges but they are too stupid, lazy and ignorant to read big books without pictures of naked women in them so we can say what we like here."

Originally posted by MrNECROS
The Operative thing is debunked by both Pike and McClenechan as a deliberate ruse.
It's quite strange in many ways how open "The Book" and "Morals & Dogma" are on the matter that Freemasonry deliberatally decieves it lower ranks, neither author make any bones about it.

Your very claims are faulty. Considering that ALL masons, including Pike and McClenechan, are Blue Lodge masons, your claim makes absolutely no sense. the Scottish Rite is controlled and under the jurisdiction of the Grand Blue Lodge, and most Blue Lodge masons go on to become Scottish Rite masons. Furthermore, the Scottish Rite was born out of the Blue Lodge, and only expands on the teachings of Craft Masonry. So how does your claim make even the tiniest amount of sense? It doesn't.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
And is "the lost word" recovered in the York Rite...errr no.
I could go on and on...but better that you actually acquaint yourself with the rite for yourself.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? The lost word is absolutely recovered in the York Rite! This takes place in the Royal Arch degree of the York Rite. I think YOU need to actually acquaint yourself with the rite before you begin talking about things you do not understand... And ESPECIALLY before you make claims in the presence of people who know better.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Masonic Lite - I think you have your Rites mixed - it's the Scottish Rite that is the dominant form practiced in English speaking countries...well... at least it is in The UK, USA, Canada, Australia etc...I don't think you'll find many supporters for your little ruse to the contrary.

Wrong again, but certainly not surprising. In the entire United States, only District 16 in Louisiana has Scottish Rite Blue Lodges. Every other Lodge in the entire country is York Rite.

There are no regular Scottish Rite Blue Lodges in the UK, Canada, or Australia. In these countries, a man first becomes a Master Mason in a Blue Lodge of the York Rite. He then may continue in the other appendant York Rite organizations, or he may join the Scottish Rite, or both. Roughly half of all Masons in the USA are 32° Scottish Rite Masons. Over 99.9%, however, are York Rite Masons, at least at the Blue Lodge level.

I'm under the impression that the Grand Lodge of Mexico is a York Rite body but that's about it really.

The Grand Lodge of Mexico, like all Grand Lodges that have descended from the Grand Lodge of England, is York Rite. In fact, that's why it's called York Rite, i.e., because it is traced to York, England in the Gothic Constitutions.

Anyway it's all in *that* book that you seem to have a great deal of trouble with....

The only one I know with a problem with that book is you. No one else cares very much about it at all. And, by the way, McLenachan, like Pike, me, and everybody else around here, became Masons in York Rite Lodges.

Hiram Abif does not appear anywhere in the York Rite at all...full stop, yet he is in the next 11 degrees of the Scottish Rite.

This statement highlites your complete ignorance of Freemasonry. Hiram was in the York Rite before the Scottish Rite even existed. Hiram appears in the following degrees of the York Rite: Fellow Craft, Master Mason, Mark Master Mason, Royal Master, Select Master, and Knight Templar. The Scottish Rite itself was founded by York Rite Masons, and the Scottish Rite rituals were written by York Rite Masons, who already possessed these York degrees.

And is "the lost word" recovered in the York Rite...errr no.
I could go on and on...but better that you actually acquaint yourself with the rite for yourself.

Having been a member of both Rites for years, I'm very acquainted with them. You yourself not being a member of either one, it is not surprising that you have no idea about what you attempt to argue over. Both Rites claim to confer the Lost Word. In reality, Pike is probably correct: the Lost Word isn't a word at all; it's symbolic of direct knowledge of the Divine.

The point to be made about Jaccobin Freemasonry is that until it's arrival there is very little (if any) evidence to the existence of Freemasonry prior to this time.

Hogwash. The British Museum possesses the Regius Manuscript and Gothic Constitutions of Freemasonry, which are over 700 years old. We also know that the first Grand Lodge was founded by four London Lodges who were originally chartered by the Masons Company of London, an operative guild. The fact of modern Masonry's descent from stonemasonry is well documented as historical fact. It isn't up for argument any more than your claiming that the grass is blue and sky is green would be.

Masonic Lite:
No Scottish Rite "Regular" Lodges in Australia and The UK?
Funny you know 'cos even I have been inside the Grand Lodge of South Australia and seen all the Scottish Rite Regalia and lodge listings.... I really can't figure out where your Masonic BS is trying to steer this one, I mean you are very obviously wrong on this and you know it – why are you trying it on?
The York Rite is an old largely defunct "Christian Only" rite and yet you are trying to say that it is the dominant right in the English speaking world?
There are so many holes in your lambaste at me it’s difficult to know where to begin.

So Hiram Abiff appears in the Fellow Craft Degree of the York Rite does he?
Heh, I think you might want to put this one in the same basket as your “special” 32nd Degree.

Anyway the Regius Manuscript and Gothic Constitutions of Freemasonry are in connection with stone masonry guilds, our friend Hiram is nowhere to be found in either of these writings and it’s not even clear that these works are genuine.
This is quite irrelevant though as they are not about Freemasonry at all, just a workmen’s guild like the Thatchers or Wheelwrights.

As an aside though, Gadfly and I discussed you at some length originally and more or less came to the conclusion that you actually believed what you were saying and thought you were shooting straight although of late you seem to be moving more and more into the active dis-informer/noisemaker camp.
Your grammar structure has changed significantly also…don’t know what to make of you these days.
This is just a side note, please don’t bog the thread down on it.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Masonic Lite:
No Scottish Rite "Regular" Lodges in Australia and The UK?

That is correct. Like in the US, Australian Grand Lodges and the United Grand Lodge of England work in the York Rite. This means that in the US, Australia, and UK, the Scottish Rite begins at the 4°, not at the First. This is because of the requirement that Candidates for admission into the Scottish Rite must already be Master Masons in good standing, and the degree of Master Mason is conferred in Blue Lodges of the York Rite, not the Scottish Rite, with the exception of the Louisiana District, who themselves work under th jurisdiction of York Rite Grand Lodge, not the Scottish Rite Supreme Council.

Funny you know 'cos even I have been inside the Grand Lodge of South Australia and seen all the Scottish Rite Regalia and lodge listings

Uh-huh, we're sure you have.

The York Rite is an old largely defunct "Christian Only" rite and yet you are trying to say that it is the dominant right in the English speaking world?

I'm not trying to say anything, I'm stating a fact that every Mason knows, as well as every non-Mason who has seriously studied Freemasonry. The York Rite hasn't been Christian-only since the early 1700's. The Scottish Rite, on the other hand, continues to be Christian-only in the UK.

So Hiram Abiff appears in the Fellow Craft Degree of the York Rite does he?

Hiram is spoken of in the Fellow Craft Degree in both Rites, but makes a physical appearance for the first time in the Third Degree. In the York Rite, he next appears in the Mark Master and Royal and Select Master Degrees. He does not appear anywhere in the Scottish Rite after the Third Degree, although he is mentioned in the lectures.

Anyway the Regius Manuscript and Gothic Constitutions of Freemasonry are in connection with stone masonry guilds, our friend Hiram is nowhere to be found in either of these writings and it’s not even clear that these works are genuine.

There has never been any doubt of the authenticity of those documents. Historical scholars (non-Masons) have dated the Regius as the oldest, circa the early 13th century. This accords with other writings of that period concerning the guilds.

Furthermore, you keep bringing up Pike and McLenachan, whose opinions in this regard are of no import. This is because they did not have access to the same documents that we do today, and committed errors in their theories (although after Pike had read Gould's History of Freemasonry shortly before his death, he recanted many of the things that he wrote concerning the history of the Fraternity, which you still try to use against him).

For example, Gould published the minutes of several old Scottish Lodges, including Kilwinning, which had been chartered in the 13th century. Many of these old minutes survive, and several allude the acception of the first non-operative members. Secondly, we know from Ashmole's own diaries that he was initiated into a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Masons Company of London, which was operative. Coil goes into great detail on the ubject in his "A Comprehensive View of Freemasonry". It is Gould and Coil who are regarded as the leading authorities on Masonic history, as they have documented their facts in a scholarly manner. Pike is considered a giant in the fields of philosophy and mysticism, and rightly so; but his ideas on the objective history of reemasonry were just plain wrong, a fact he himself admitted after discovering it.

This is quite irrelevant though as they are not about Freemasonry at all, just a workmen’s guild like the Thatchers or Wheelwrights.

Wrong. The Regius Manuscripts mentions Freemasons by name too many times to count. It even opens with the statement that king "lov'd welle Masonns and Masonnery." Furthermore, the manuscript recounts several Masonic legends, including Euclid's and Pythagoras' association with ancient Masonry.

As an aside though, Gadfly and I discussed you at some length originally and more or less came to the conclusion that you actually believed what you were saying and thought you were shooting straight

As I've told you a million times before, it doesn't really bother me what you think about me or my fraternity. If you want to hate me or my society, be my guest, I'm not the One you'll eventually have to answer to.

My point is simply this: if you want to go on a tirade about Masonry, at least get your facts straight. If you want to debate the outcome of a fact, fine, but it's a collosal waste of time debating fiction. I've researched and studied Freemasonry for a long time; I don't claim to be an authoritative expert on anything, but Masonry is my major hobby, and I probably know more about it than anything else. Furthermore, I am an actual initiate, have been through the degree ceremonies, have passed through the various offices, have memorized the rituals, and have conferred them upon others. This being said, I am very familiar with the content of the actual rituals, while you have access only to various exposes and monitors, some of which are only generally correct (McLenachan), while others are completely and intentionally wrong (Ronayne).

Furthermore, you seem to be completely unfamiliar with the authentic realist school of Masonic school of Masonic history, or have just chosen to brush it off without investigating it. This school consists of the abovementioned Robert Gould and Henry Coil, as well as modern Masonic scholars such as Brent Morris, Art DeHoyos, Jim Tresner, Michael Poll, Harold Voorhis, and others. But it is to these gentlemen, and others like them, that the Craft has acepted as authentic historians of the fraternity. The theories of Jacobitism, decscent from Ancient Mysteries, etc., have all been discredited, and are no longer taken seriously. We do not deny that the authors of modern Masonic ritual were influenced, to some degree, by the Mysteries, nor do we deny that some French Jacobites invented degrees to suit their purposes of propaganda. But the objective facts show that Masonry decsends from the stonemasons, and the Stuartism and mystery parallels were added at a much later time. Likewise, eventually Stuartism lost its steam, and no longer even exists. When several Jacobite rituals in the French Rite of Perfection were revised in order to be incorporated into the new Scottish Rite in the early 19th century, all references to Stuartism were eliminated, and the rituals went through many rewritings. When the Pike work was eventually adopted in the Southern Jurisdiction, the rituals had lost practically all of their political content, being replaced with general philosophy, ethics, and comparative religion, while the York Rite rituals have remained generally stable, without important alteration.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
So Hiram Abiff appears in the Fellow Craft Degree of the York Rite does he?
Heh, I think you might want to put this one in the same basket as your “special” 32nd Degree.

Yes, he ABSOLUTELY does! It is the first time a new mason hears the name Hiram Abiff. He is mentioned mostly in passing, but is still mentioned nonetheless. I think YOU might want to put this one to rest along with your exploding toilets!

Originally posted by Masonic LightSecondly, we know from Ashmole's own diaries that he was initiated into a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Masons Company of London, which was operative

From mackey's book, Ashmole apparently states that he was 'made a freemason' in a city desides london, and then many years later states that he was 'accepted into the company' or some such of freemasons in London. I don't think, in the quote I saw, that he said it was specifically the Mason's Company of London, but I don't know if thats any different from anything else either.

Furthermore, the manuscript recounts several Masonic legends, including Euclid's and Pythagoras' association with ancient Masonry.

Also from Macekey, I had gotten the impression that the Pythagoras as a mason idea was something that was added later, when more educated speculatives had entered the fraternity, and is first mentioned in the Locke Manscript, which is beleived to be a 'pious fraud'. Macekey also thought it relevant that none of the other oldest manuscripts state the bit about pythagoras (but do have the hiram story and also use that terminology of the king 'who muched loved masonry'), and that this Locke Manuscript (aka the leland mauscript I think ) also refers to an ancient historical work , the Polycronicon, as the source for the mention of pythagoras.
Does this mean that things have changed since mackey's time?

Originally posted by Nygdan

From mackey's book, Ashmole apparently states that he was 'made a freemason' in a city desides london, and then many years later states that he was 'accepted into the company' or some such of freemasons in London. I don't think, in the quote I saw, that he said it was specifically the Mason's Company of London, but I don't know if thats any different from anything else either.

I apologize, but I'm currently on a laptop out of town, and don't have access to my books; therefore I can't give the quotes verbatim at the moment.

In Ashmole's diary he gives the date of being initiated. the Lodge minutes still survive, but I don't remember the name of the Lodge. (I'll post it when I get home, or you can check Coil's, which also gives the Lodge name).

Ashmole didn't mention the Masons Company of London by name, but the Lodge in which he was initiated was chartered by it.

Also from Macekey, I had gotten the impression that the Pythagoras as a mason idea was something that was added later, when more educated speculatives had entered the fraternity, and is first mentioned in the Locke Manscript, which is beleived to be a 'pious fraud'. Macekey also thought it relevant that none of the other oldest manuscripts state the bit about pythagoras (but do have the hiram story and also use that terminology of the king 'who muched loved masonry'), and that this Locke Manuscript (aka the leland mauscript I think ) also refers to an ancient historical work , the Polycronicon, as the source for the mention of pythagoras.
Does this mean that things have changed since mackey's time?

Research has changed, but the documents have remained the same. The Regius mentions Pythagoras, but calls him "Peter Gower". The author linked the philosopher to Euclid and geometry, which is historically accurate, although the author's linking him to Enoch and the Hebrew Patriarchs is legendary.

As for Pythagoras' association with ancient Masonry, the Third Degree Lecture states that "our ancient friend and Brother Pythagoras" had traveled throughout the East, where he was "initiated into several orders of Priesthood, and raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason."

This shouldn't be taken completely literally, as Freemasonry as practiced today did not exist at that time. However, prototypes did exist, and Pythagoras had been initiated at Heliopolis and at Eleusis. Also, the contributions in the areas of geometry and mathematics are fundamental in the operative art of Masonry, another reason to claim him as an ancient Mason.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Research has changed, but the documents have remained the same. The Regius mentions Pythagoras, but calls him "Peter Gower".

Interstingly, maceky, or his sources, i forget which, seem to think that this 'peter gower' corruption of Pythagoras is indicative of having come from an original french language source.

However, prototypes did exist, and Pythagoras had been initiated at Heliopolis and at Eleusis.

What supports those two statements??

Also, the contributions in the areas of geometry and mathematics are fundamental in the operative art of Masonry, another reason to claim him as an ancient Mason.

By mason do you merely mean stoneworker? Are you saying pythagoras was a stoneworker/architect??

[edit to correct quote code - nygdan]

[edit on 23-5-2005 by Nygdan]

What the heck has happed to Masonic Lite - he's really off the deep end now.

He used to be able to keep a good post of BS on track but now he's really off the rails with the whole York Rite thing.

He also continues to delude himself that the word Mason = Freemason.

Where has the REAL Masonic Lite gone, I can only wonder - whoever is posting this rubbish of late seems to be a completely different person.

I *should* know, I've been arguing with this guy for nearly 2 years.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
He also continues to delude himself that the word Mason = Freemason.

Everyone (apart from you) knows that these are two words to describe the same thing.

if you think otherwise, please tell me what the difference is in your opinion.

Originally posted by Trinityman
Everyone (apart from you) knows that these are two words to describe the same thing.

if you think otherwise, please tell me what the difference is in your opinion.

I guess I am not a part of this "everyone" either. I am currently studying to be a mason, that is a worker in stone or brick. I have actually been inspired by this forum to pursue masonry as an avocation. I realized that for me, improving myself through masonry was actually a great idea. I am looking forward to gaining useful skills. Here is a description of the course I am enrolled in:


Learn to build structures that stand the test of time! In this
course you'll see demonstrations and get practice in every
aspect of masonry. You'll learn to mix and spread mortar, and
lay bricks and cinder blocks to a line with a level. You'll also
master the masonry saw, and, if you're interested, you'll have
the chance to learn to lay rock. 40 hours. $150.

So far there have been no rituals, secrets, or oaths, which is fine by me.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary a freemason is:

"a member of a major fraternal organization called Free and Accepted Masons or Ancient Free and Accepted Masons that has certain secret rituals"

It is true that the word mason is commonly used in the place of freemason and masonry is used for freemasonry, but in my opinion they shouldn't be.


Steve

The issue of the words mason, and freemason, is intersting, perhaps a detailed converstation is best left to a different thread, however, suffice to say, and I think most can agree, that modern Freemasonry (at least claims to have) orginated from actual working stone-mason guilds/collegia/unions/groups. The idea being that over time non-labourers were given honourary membership.

This is supposed to explain the paraphenalia of the group, such as the Aprons, and the symbology; compasses, squares, etc. And if you were a bunch of stone workers, and just regular folk and christians, back in the old days, what other allegory from the bible would you want but the story of th building of the Temple of Solommon, and of course you'd make that the 'origins' of your 'distinguished' labor union (tho labor unions isn't strictly the appropriate term).

The idea is also that these operative stonemason groups held meetings, and that they'd apprentice or initiate new people into the group, and that this is the begining of the degress. Back then, worker's guilds were very tightly knit groups, heck, even today, try scabbing a strike line, and you'll see that Labor is still tightly knit.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The issue of the words mason, and freemason, is intersting, perhaps a detailed converstation is best left to a different thread

I don't want to go off-topic particularly, but I ought to clarify my previous post. A mason can be speculative (freemason), operative (like sntx), monumental (makes gravestones), or it can just be a surname. Freemason only means one thing - a speculative mason. Context should assist in determining the meaning.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
What the heck has happed to Masonic Lite - he's really off the deep end now.

He used to be able to keep a good post of BS on track but now he's really off the rails with the whole York Rite thing.

Actually YOU are really off the rails with the whole York Rite thing. The proof is in the pudding, if you would bother to look it up yourself, then maybe you would see that it is you who's incorrect. Then again, I doubt that you are man enough to ever admit this to yourself, like you are not man enough to admit that you are lying about ever having known any masons.

Everyone here knows that you have no clue what you're saying, so do yourself the favor and stop making yourself look like more of a fool than you already do.

I Said: "

However, prototypes did exist, and Pythagoras had been initiated at Heliopolis and at Eleusis.

Originally posted by Nygdan


What supports those two statements??

The statement concerning the existence of prototypes of Masonry concerns the general outline of the Greek, Persian, and Egyptian Mysteries. Pythagoras having been initiated into them are attested to by Plato and various Greek writers on mathematics of the period, who were likewise required to be initiated before being admitted Pythagoreans.

By mason do you merely mean stoneworker? Are you saying pythagoras was a stoneworker/architect??

No, I was only pointing out that Pythagoras' body of work was fundamental in the birth of classical European architecture.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
What the heck has happed to Masonic Lite - he's really off the deep end now.

So, once again, Necros is unable to answer any of the charges against him, or support any of his statements. Instead, to cover his rear, he just luanches more ad hominem.

Big surprise.

MRNECROS, please answer the issues brought up. This is a discussion group, the topic of discussion is not other posters. Specifically, demonstrate the Hiram Abif does not figure in the York Rite degrees, that the York Rite is only open to christians, and that the York Rite is largely defunct in the english speaking world.

I find it odd that you think that your own blank statements would be accepted as authoritative on the matter, and that those of actual freemasons, who have partaken of these rights, are completly wrong about simple matters of obvious facts. It draws into question your entire understanding of the order and education on its practices.

I'd also like to see how pike and the others you mention demonstrate that freemasonry, as an organization, has no connection to laboring mason Guilds of the earlier periods.

As an aside though, Gadfly and I discussed you at some length

PublicGadfly has flown from the forums, and regardless should be the last person to be discussing other members, since he complained of a similar situation.