posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:54 AM
So, I just finished reading Born in Blood , which is yet another attempt to make a link between the Templars and Freemasonry. Having just read The
Hiram Key, I confess that I wasn't very optimistic about the outcome. But the author, John J. Robinson, surprised me a little.
If you've read The Hiram Key, then much of the content of Blood will be familiar. In fact, if you drop the whole "secret Egyptian king-making
rite" theme, you'll have half of the content of Blood. But that's exactly what impressed me about the book; it doesn't seem quite as given to
flights of pure fancy.
The author begins by exploring the conviction that Freemasonry has something to do with guilds of stone workers. He points out that the basic
philosophy of Freemasonry (in particular, it's Universalism as it relates to religion), is antithetical to the standard of guilds. In addition, he
points out that the Old Charges (more on that shortly) make no sense for a guild.
He then examines the Old Charges and makes some assertions. He says that the provision that religion and politics not be discussed makes sense if you
are a group of formerly deeply religious men whose faith has just turned on you for political reasons. You may all be in a different place in your
relationship to the Church ("Pope Clement V is a vile man" vs. "All Popes are agents of evil.") But if you are going to survive, you need to band
together not splinter apart. The elaborate secret recognition signs (which I won't discuss), show both their origin in a time prior to hand guns and
a means of identifying yourself to your Brothers in different circumstances. The requirement of not sleeping with a sister or wife of a Brother is
essential to maintaining a safe-house system. The very word lodge suggests lodging, which suggests a safe-house which, in turn, as the most secure
location available would be the natural meeting place.
He examines history to make an argument concerning the rise of Freemasonry in Scotland and England as being further evidence of Templar connections.
Basically, England and Scotland were two places slow to suppress the Templars and give them ample warning to set up a system.
He argues that the "mason" cover was simply a means of providing a set of symbols and code for discussion so that overheard conversations would
appear innocuous. In time, having forgotten its own origin, Freemasonry added much more stone-worker jargon and symbolism to its ritual.
He discusses the Legend of the Third Degree as a thinly veiled allegory concerning the betrayal of the Templars by the Pope, the King of France, and
He goes on to show evidence of a group that was hostile to all three (or various parts thereof) throughout a period of history between the Templars
and the formation of the Grand Lodge of London in 1717.
Anyone have any opinions?
I found it provocative if not fully persuasive.
[edit on 19-8-2008 by driley]