Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by peopledying
[In the Hiram Key, Kinight and Lomas say "Not only are the origins of freemasonry no longer known, but the "true secrets" of the Order are admitted to have been lost, with "substituted secrets" being used in their place in Masonic ceremony.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Everyone has the right to their opinions. Just bear in mind that Knight and Lomas are not taken seriously by historians, both within and without the fraternity.

www.knight-lomas.com...
excerprs:
It was, what appeared to us as, the utter implausibility of the old stonemason theory of origin that first prompted us to start our quest into the origins of the rituals used by Freemasons. Indeed, we had both joined Freemasonry out a sense of curiosity.

Nobody we asked could tell us where it came from. Most members seemed to simply accept that it is some sort of amateur dramatics with moral overtones, .......
....In a meticulously researched book, entitled The Origins of Freemasonry. Scotland's Century 1590 -1710 and published by the Cambridge University Press in 1988, Professor David Stevenson, then the Professor of Scottish History at the University of St Andrews produced the original lodge minutes which showed two of the leading covenantors were made Freemasons at a meeting of Edinburgh Cannongate Lodge held at Newcastle in 1641. This makes Elias Ashmole the third recorded 'making' of a Freemason in England. And shows clearly that Freemasonry started in Scotland at least fifty years before Brother Ashmole's initiation, into what can only have been a Scottish lodge.

One of the Masons made at Newcastle in 1641 was Sir Robert Moray, a founder member of the Royal Society, along with Ashmole.......

Hmm I looked up Knight and Lomas. You did not mention that they were Freemasons. Here's an editorial review regarding their book "Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry "

www.amazon.com...

From Independent Publisher
One hundred years ago, an amateur was allowed to photograph the Shroud of Turin. The negatives he produced of that famous image captivated the Christian world and strengthened their belief that it carried the imprint of Christ's face and body. In The Second Messiah, authors Knight and Lomas, who are Freemasons, build a meticulous case against this theory. Although they use recent scientific data that proves the linen shroud could not have predated medieval times, they go well beyond proving it is not the burial shroud of Jesus. The Second Messiah not only pinpoints the exact moment in history during which the Shroud of Turin took the imprint, it actually names the man whose image the Shroud holds.Like any good mystery story, this one begins in medias res. The opening chapters recount centuries of suppression of certain "truths" of Freemasonry by the English Grand Lodge, which led the authors to believe that secrets were being kept from other Freemasons in the service of a Christian agenda. To the uninitiated, this might seem like petty in-fighting within the membership of a clandestine club. Read on. The authors soon paint a larger history of the Knights Templar, the Crusaders who were the originators of modern Freemasonry, and their oppression and eventual eradication by the Roman Catholic Church. The torture and martyrdom of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, are at the center of this remarkable book's search for historical authenticity.In their introduction, the authors propose that "History seems not so much a record of past events, more a catalogue of preferred beliefs expounded by people who have a vested interest." One of their purposes in writing this book is to show how Freemasonry's rituals and secrets were twisted and used by the Catholic Church to persecute the Knights Templar and their followers. The chapter entitled "The Tarot and the Templars" fascinates with its explanation of how the allegorical cards were used by the Knights to instruct members in the secrets of Freemasonry, and how the Church misinterpreted the meanings of the Tarot and outlawed it.At the conclusion of their well-documented search for the origins of the Shroud of Turin and the Great Secret of Freemasonry, Knight and Lomas say they reached a "new vantage point," from which they see "people huddled together with their eyes squeezed shut _ all facing inwards and repeating the same words, "This is the only highground, there can be no other."" After publication of this painstakingly researched and utterly convincing book, it will be hard for readers, Freemasons or otherwise, to keep their eyes and their minds closed.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.


Care to comment?








[edit on 12-12-2005 by peopledying]

Originally posted by Trinityman
OK, I''ll do the best I can here.

One of the things that speculative masons like to do is speculate,..... There has much been written, for example, about the connection between the 'ancient mysteries' and freemasonry. ......and so whilst it cannot really be said that freemasonry eveolved from the ir was certainly influenced by it.

I'm afraid I know nothing of Count Saint Germain or Cagliostro, my studies have obviously not taken me in that direction. If he was a freemason he was probably a member of one of the continental grand lodges, and as you may or may not be aware 'continental' freemasonry is quite different in many ways to the brand you are more familiar with. Many would argue that it's not freemasonry at all, although my assessment wouldn't be as harsh.

It is commonly said that because many masons have reached positions of power and influence in society....it would be very suprising if there were not a large number of masons represented at all levels of society. What I would disagree with is how these people are participating.

If politics was discussed behind closed doors in a lodge room by 'power brokers' then you might have reason to distrust freemasonry. But discussion of politics is explicitly banned in freemasonry, as is religion, because that is not the nature of the organization.