It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Founding of Freemasonry

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
An uncle of mine is a Mason. I was introduced to a friend of his from his lodge, and in his conversation said something like (paraphrasing), "You know, Freemasonry dates back to the time of Solomon and his Temple."

I know that there were Masons (stoncutter, bricklayers) at the time, obvoiously, to build the Temple, and the legend of Hiram Abiff is set around the time of the building of the Temple.

By question to Masons is this: Do you actually believe that Freemasonry dates back to the time of Solomon? Why or why not?

If not, when would you say it was founded?

Thanks in advance,

-Z




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
It sounds like he's confused some of the allegorical legends with actual history.

It is commonly held that speculative Freemasonry (which is the only relevant kind in the context of this discussion) was formed circa 1717.

"Free" stonemasons, and "Free" stonemason's guilds, certainly existed prior to this, but if they contain an esoteric facet to their teachings, it is not the same material which we use in our teachings today.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   


"You know, Freemasonry dates back to the time of Solomon and his Temple."


I heard that the Knight's Templar fled to Malta and then onto Scotland where they created the whole structure of Freemasons. If this is true then the connection/dates between Solomon and the Knights Templar's (later to be freemasons) is very interesting.

This is something I am presently looking into so I'm not claiming this to be true (at this time anyway).



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Today's speculative masonry went publick in 1717 when four lodges in london went public by foming the Grand Lodge of England. Prior to that there are few indications of who and when it was founded, there are some records of it's existance back into tohe middle ages. But the founding is not known, all we have is legend and speculation. This is and has been one of the more interesting areas for resurch.

The allegory of going back to the time of Solomon is just that allegory. It is a way of saying that the teaching of massonry goes back at least that far, not that the orginisation itself does.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by cain-diedhi
I heard that the Knight's Templar fled to Malta and then onto Scotland where they created the whole structure of Freemasons. If this is true then the connection/dates between Solomon and the Knights Templar's (later to be freemasons) is very interesting.

This is something I am presently looking into so I'm not claiming this to be true (at this time anyway).


You are confusing the Templars with the Hospitallers. After the fall of Acre, the Hopitallers fled to Rhodes, where they remained for 300 years (?) until they were driven out by the Turks. They were then homeless for a time until the Spanish Bourbon King Charles (V?) gave them the Maltese archipeligo, where they remained until Napoleon drove them out. By the time the Hospitallers reached Malta, the Templars were "officially" disbanded. It is around this time where some say surviving Templars fled to Scotland and eventually became the Freemasons.

The Hospitallers (now commonly called the Knights of Malta) currently are scattered and do not "rule" anywhere. They still retain a sort of sovereign status, and are members of the UN with sovereign but observer-only status.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Zhenyghi


By the time the Hospitallers reached Malta, the Templars were "officially" disbanded. It is around this time where some say surviving Templars fled to Scotland and eventually became the Freemasons.


It seems you have solved your very own mystery then? If you know this to be true then why did you start this thread?



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Our origins are indeed lost to the mists of time.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roark
It sounds like he's confused some of the allegorical legends with actual history.

It is commonly held that speculative Freemasonry (which is the only relevant kind in the context of this discussion) was formed circa 1717.

"Free" stonemasons, and "Free" stonemason's guilds, certainly existed prior to this, but if they contain an esoteric facet to their teachings, it is not the same material which we use in our teachings today.


Wot he said. Except to add that speculative freemasonry has constantly evolved since the middle of the 17th century. The Grand Lodge system started in 1717 but speculative freemasonry was alive and well for at least 75 years before that date in England and probably longer in Scotland.

The 'traditional' history of freemasonry is part of the allegory. Where it came from is a subject of much 'speculation' but I think I can safely credit James Anderson with codifying it (and probably embellishing it too) in 1738.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by cain-diedhi
Zhenyghi


By the time the Hospitallers reached Malta, the Templars were "officially" disbanded. It is around this time where some say surviving Templars fled to Scotland and eventually became the Freemasons.

It seems you have solved your very own mystery then? If you know this to be true then why did you start this thread?


I specifically asked Masons about their understanding of Masonic history, and used a Masonic gentleman's comments as an example. In the portion you quote from me I say, "Some say...".

I want to know what Masons here "say" about the foundings.

Hope this clarifies,

-Z



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zhenyghi

I want to know what Masons here "say" about the foundings.



Well if you look at actual stone architecture such as Roslyn Chapel it is undeniable that the same guys who worked the stone also knew something of the symbols they were carving. During the many years when the Knights Templar were around, they built many architectually advanced structures. So at the the very least, the workers of the stone had a long and close relationship with the Templars. So that could explain the connection between the Templars and the Stone Masons. Now it is supposed by many that the Templars went digging at the ancient site of King Solomen's temple and there found artifacts or scrolls or who knows what all from the time of Solomen. So the connection between the Templars and Solomen may only be that they found some of his stuff (myabe incredibly valuable stuff). Some even speculate that they found the Ark of the Covenant. In any case whatever they found seemed to give them great wealth and favor with the Pope.
So there could be a connection, just not a direct line.
Anything that happened that long ago must remain in the realm of speculation.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zhenyghi

I specifically asked Masons about their understanding of Masonic history, and used a Masonic gentleman's comments as an example. In the portion you quote from me I say, "Some say...".

I want to know what Masons here "say" about the foundings.

Hope this clarifies,

-Z


Unfortunately, the facts are few, and the speculations are many. Here are the known facts:

1.Freemasonry has existed from at least the late 13th century. A Masonic document called the "Regius Manuscript", written in Old English, is dated from that period, and currently resides in the British Museum.

2. This document mentions a Masonic meeting held at York, England circa 980 A.D. It is impossible to verify if this meeting actually took place, or is legendary.

3. Since Freemasonry is older than the Knights Templar, it is impossible that fugitive Templars founded it. However, on the speculation side, it is possible that some eventually joined it.

4. Masonic legends concerning Euclid, Pythagoras, and Solomon existed in the fraternity during the Regius era. However, at the time, the fraternity was an operative guild. It consisted only of two degrees, which seemed to combine operative and speculative aspects.

5. When the first Grand Lodge was founded in 1717, all the members present were speculative ones, and the Third Degree seems to have been instituted shortly thereafter by this group.

As for speculation, a poem appeared in the late 1600's which seems to link modern Freemasonry not with the Templars, but the Rosicrucians. I am of the opinion that Rosicrucians were instrumental in founding the fraternity in its modern form: in fact, I'd go as far to say that in a sense, Masonry may be the only existing organization with authentic Rosicrucian descent. But again, this is my personal opinion based on conjecture and circumstantial evidence. There's no hard proof.

I I am correct in my belief, the Templar myth could have been created as a decoy, but a symbolic one. The Rosicrucians, persecuted by the Church, could have adopted the Templars, also persecuted, as a symbol for themselves. This way, their story would have been passed on to succeeding generations, but only symbolically: the initiate would still have to figure it all out on his own by seeing through the templar stuff.

[edit on 10-2-2007 by Masonic Light]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Thanks Masonic Light


According to Manly P. Hall(in his "Riddle of the Rosicrucians"), Francis Bacon was behind the founding of modern FreeMasonry(I will from now on divide Free-Masonry into Primitive, modern, and contemporary), and was also behind the re-vealing of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood to the public.

Not to mention, the true author of the works of William Shakespeare and the founder of the Royal Society!



Elias Ashmole, Robert Fludd, and Michael Maier are also said to be key figures.


www.phoenixmasonry.org...




[edit on 10-2-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu
Thanks Masonic Light


According to Manly P. Hall(in his "Riddle of the Rosicrucians"), Francis Bacon was behind the founding of modern FreeMasonry(I will from now on divide Free-Masonry into Primitive, modern, and contemporary), and was also behind the re-vealing of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood to the public.

Not to mention, the true author of the works of William Shakespeare and the founder of the Royal Society!



Elias Ashmole, Robert Fludd, and Michael Maier are also said to be key figures.


www.phoenixmasonry.org...



Yes, I've read Hall's thoughts on the subject, but believe most of them to be in error. His thoughts, IMO, concerning spirituality were most often correct, but his ideas concerning historical matters usually are the product of fantasy.

It is unlikely that Francis Bacon was ever associated with any Rosicrucian movement, nor was he ever a Freemason.

Also, of course, William Shakespeare wrote the Shakespeare plays. Bacon writing them is a myth created by the aristocratic elite; they claimed that no one as poor and uneducated as Shakespeare could have been such a genius, so therefore some rich dude of "good breeding" must have written them for him. Of course, such nonsense was nothing but class prejudice.

Ashmole, however, is a different story. It is a fact of history that he was a Mason. It is also a fact that his library contained many curious volumes as to alchemy and magic, as well as the entire body of Rosicrucian literature in existence. I believe him to be one of the links between to the original Rosicrucian fraternity and the modern Masonic Rose Croix.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
But don't you see a contradiction between this statement:



Originally posted by Masonic Light
His thoughts, IMO, concerning spirituality were most often correct,




And this one:



Also, of course, William Shakespeare wrote the Shakespeare plays. Bacon writing them is a myth created by the aristocratic elite; they claimed that no one as poor and uneducated as Shakespeare could have been such a genius, so therefore some rich dude of "good breeding" must have written them for him. Of course, such nonsense was nothing but class prejudice.



???




Manly P. Hall(along with Godfrey Higgins) seems to be one of the least-elitist and least-prejudiced of Masonic authors.

(He was Elite, not an elit-ist; there's a difference)






It is unlikely that Francis Bacon was ever associated with any Rosicrucian movement, nor was he ever a Freemason.



Manly P. Hall wrote that his statements in regard to this association, were largely based on his deciphering of certain ciphers.

Why would he just make that up?





Ashmole, however, is a different story. It is a fact of history that he was a Mason. It is also a fact that his library contained many curious volumes as to alchemy and magic, as well as the entire body of Rosicrucian literature in existence. I believe him to be one of the links between to the original Rosicrucian fraternity and the modern Masonic Rose Croix.





Interesting.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
About shakespeare.. How can you believe this hoax. How can one guy create a couple thousands of new words. This shakespeare stuff is also not only bacons work. It's the work of a group of people with a goal. Being the creation of a world language.

Some people like to play sports, others have hobbies like manipulating the sheeple for their own nirvana. What would you do if you had all the money to do whatever you want to. Or what would you do if you are in control of the banking system? Some people are in control of nothing and others are in control of everything. This has been going on for hundreds of years and even thousands of years. The real elite has never changed. Look at the bloodlines of these families. Look at the royal elites. Trace back their bloodlines.. They only think in terms to preserve their power.

They have been manipulating the mind of the masses for thousands of years. Plato discussed it, the egyptians did it and the freemasons do it. But don't get me wrong. Freemasons under 33° mostly haven't got a clue about who's really in control.

WHEN is not so important. Freemasonry is a new word for older excisting religions or fraternities or whatever you want to call it. The rituals for the freemasons are similar to rituals by the older fraternities. Their rituals, symbols and worships are the same as those used in ancient times.

Look at the resemblance in the architecture of freemasonry and the temple of solomon..

freemasonry is only important because it is and was the main vehicle for the elite to create bureaucracies and the system as we know it. A system wherein the individual has now chance.. Where the elite has had control over our world and has been supported by secret societies since ancient times. They need the support of these poor idiot freemasons.

it's a magnificant machine that has been running for thousands of years.

And most don't even see it.. The matrix is a reality. Not as you know it from the movies.. But in a subtile manner. Via beaurocracy, media manipulation and the right guys in politics.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhaLight
And most don't even see it.. The matrix is a reality. Not as you know it from the movies.. But in a subtile manner. Via beaurocracy, media manipulation and the right guys in politics.




That's funny, because Samael Aun Weor basically says the same thing you did in that quote; about corrupt politicians, "scientists", etc.(but as you said, not like the movie, which is a creation of black-magicians actually)

Yet Samael Aun Weor suggests the study of Francis Bacon's works.


See his writings about...

Link: The Anti-Christ

...and the end of this corrupt humanity:

The United States & The Seventh Subrace



So how is it, that he would recommend to study Francis Bacon on the one hand, and then at the same time oppose the things that you say Francis Bacon supported?






Regards






[edit on 10-2-2007 by Tamahu]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
one word.. Confusion!



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu


Manly P. Hall(along with Godfrey Higgins) seems to be one of the least-elitist and least-prejudiced of Masonic authors.

(He was Elite, not an elit-ist; there's a difference)


I agree. Hall did not invent the Bacon-Shakespeare myth, but was taken in by it, as other non-elitists have been (same as many poor folks buy into capitalism and anti-socialism).



Manly P. Hall wrote that his statements in regard to this association, were largely based on his deciphering of certain ciphers.

Why would he just make that up?


There is no legitimate evidence that Bacon wrote any Shakespeare plays for him. In reality, it would have been impossible. Shakespeare's work required a full-time writer, and quite simply, there's no way Bacon would have the time even if he had wanted to. Also, Bacon's writings lack the pure pure poetic genius needed. Simply put, Bacon was interesting writer, but he was no Shakespeare.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhaLight
About shakespeare.. How can you believe this hoax.


How can you believe it's not?


This shakespeare stuff is also not only bacons work. It's the work of a group of people with a goal.


Got any evidence for that, or has the little birdie been talking to you again?


What would you do if you had all the money to do whatever you want to.


Hire Pink Floyd to play a show on my 12 story yacht.


Or what would you do if you are in control of the banking system? Some people are in control of nothing and others are in control of everything. This has been going on for hundreds of years and even thousands of years. The real elite has never changed. Look at the bloodlines of these families. Look at the royal elites. Trace back their bloodlines.. They only think in terms to preserve their power.


To be honest, I don't really care. As the great poet, Illuminist, Alchemist, and Freemason Goethe once wrote:

If thou wouldst have peace leave the world to its mullishness;
Things to their natures, and fools to their foolishness.


Simply put, there is no "real" elite. The tide of history always wipes them out, and they're all replaced by a new elite, who will eventually suffer the same fate. The whole point of the Communist Party was to eliminate the wealthy elite. But when they finally accomplished it, they themselves became the same thing they had claimed to hate.

All this talk about the wealthy and elitism strikes me not as a desire for justice, but the whining of jealous brats. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but then again, perhaps I'm right.


They have been manipulating the mind of the masses for thousands of years. Plato discussed it, the egyptians did it and the freemasons do it. But don't get me wrong. Freemasons under 33° mostly haven't got a clue about who's really in control.


What does the 33rd of the Scottish Rite have to do with anything? In the 33rd degree, the new guys are brought in, knighted in Templary, and given a really cool certificate suitable for framing. Where does "manipulating minds" come in?


WHEN is not so important. Freemasonry is a new word for older excisting religions or fraternities or whatever you want to call it. The rituals for the freemasons are similar to rituals by the older fraternities. Their rituals, symbols and worships are the same as those used in ancient times.


So?


Look at the resemblance in the architecture of freemasonry and the temple of solomon..


What resemblance? What do you mean by "architecture of freemasonry"?


freemasonry is only important because it is and was the main vehicle for the elite to create bureaucracies and the system as we know it.


If this is the case, then you'll no problem explaining exactly HOW, huh?



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Edit





[edit on 11-2-2007 by Tamahu]




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join