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 the Hospitlars.

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]

This sounds pretty interesting.

I read two of the Hiram Key books and I think the authors were making a lot of real stretches with the logic.

They would use things like a certain word sounding like another word in a different language, etc, etc, and then claim PROOF without really giving any reference.

Originally posted by emsed1
They would use things like a certain word sounding like another word in a different language, etc, etc, and then claim PROOF without really giving any reference.

There is some of that in Blood, too, as he looks at the words "unique" to Freemasonry. But he restricts himself to looking at the modern word and then trying to figure out if it could be a corruption of something that would have been from Medieval French, which was the working language of the Templars. (In contrast to most religious orders which used Latin for formal documents, the Templars actually revised their Rule and kept it in French.)



[edit on 19-8-2008 by driley]

Anyone else have opinions on this?

I'm about half way through 'Born in Blood'.

I'd really be interested to hear some of our resident Freemasons comment on this?