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.

 

The Origins of Masonry ( nothing to do with building, or is it)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
The official line is that modern masonry came about in England with the formation of London lodges in the UK in the early 1700s. But I think that it is pretty obvious that it existed in Scotland at least 50 or 60 years before the stated time - the Lodge of Scoon in Edinburgh was recording minutes before the lodges in London were even formed.


I am in the Grand Lodge of Scotland, and yes, there are differences and wonderings about the start of Official Freemasonry... Now, the first Grand Lodge is the Grand Lodge of England.... The Grand Lodge of Scotland was started after that. But, Freemasonry existed prior. Now, the question is .. Did it start with the Actual Stonemasons? If it did, then it thought to have probably started in Scotland. But, no one will ever be sure... no records in those days. Actually, in the first days every lodge took care of themselves. So, there are actually regular lodges that are older than the Grand Lodges themselves.... The oldest known lodge in the world is in Edinburgh, Scotland founded in 1736.

So, the start of Freemasonry outside of the Stone Masons will sort of be a mystery. Personally, I go with Scotland... (Pride based only.
)

[Edited on 15-5-2004 by JCMinJapan]




posted on May, 15 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
If Solomon was the originator of the mystery religions, than what AI say is true.Jesus and the Bible said that Solomon began tho worship pagan gods.Read it!



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smudge
Thank you very much for your trouble.
It makes interesting reading. How common is this ideology amongst other Masonic groups, are they basically variations of this theme or are they drastically different.


The O.T.O., although originally a quasi-Masonic society, is no longer connected to Freemasonry. Today, the organization is devoted to the religion of Thelema, which was first instituted by Aleister Crowley, the Prophet of the faith, in 1904 (which is the year 0 on the Thelemic calendar).
Freemasonry is a non-sectarian fraternal order for men, while O.T.O. is a Thelemic fraternal order for both men and women. Therefore, Masonry’s membership is comprised of many different religious beliefs, but all O.T.O. members are Thelemites, and continue the study and practice of Ceremonial Magick as expounded by Crowley.


And if the question isn't too personal why did you leave?


I felt that the Order had failed to live up to its potential, and has deviated from the teachings of Aleister Crowley. During my association with the O.T.O., I’d met very interesting people, but precious few serious Adepts. Over the years, the Order has become more and more of a social club, and although initiation ceremonies and Gnostic Masses are still routinely performed, the occult scholarship once prevalent in the Order has subsided.
There are also rival factions in existence, each trying to prove that it is the “real” O.T.O. The Caliphate won a case in federal court which grants them official recognition as the true O.T.O., as well as the ownership of the Aleister Crowley Estate, which includes the copyrights to all of his books, but even the legitimacy of this faction is in question. U.S. Army Major Grady McMurtry (Frater Hymenius Alpha 777) claimed to be the Grand Master, invoking a letter he’d received from Crowley during World War II naming him a possible successor to Karl Germer (Frater Saturnus), at the time Grand Master of O.T.O. in North America. But this succession is highly questionable, and the entire Order, meant to be a spiritual and magickal society, has fallen into the rut of run-of-the-mill politics.

Fiat Lvx.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Hi all,
Im new to the board and found it ironic to see this thread on my first search- since a friend and I have been having an ongoing discussion of the mysteriousness of the Masons.

I've done some reading lately and have a question for anyone who is part of the Free Mason society. Reading on the subject, I found a commentary in defense of the Mason's by a Californian man who is a member. He said that one objection that he has had was that there seems to be a 'racial' issue that has denied membership to black men who have made attempts to join..therefore a sect was formed called the Prince Hall Masons. The Californian man made attempts to join the local Prince Hall Masons with his own order, and received a response of contempt from the various orders scattered throughout the US and he also said he recieved a repremand from the UK regarding this.

Is this true that there is 'a policy' that rejects people of color?
I have lots of curiousities about the group, but that is one that I felt quite surprised about.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The origin of the fraternity has been debated for centuries both by Masonic and profane historians. We are unlikely to establish a definite answer, but I can sum up what I’ve discovered through my own research, which began before I became a Mason.
The oldest known Masonic documents are known as the York (or “Gothic”) Constitutions, and are dated from the beginning of the High Middle Ages. The oldest of these, called the Regius Poem, alludes to a Masonic Convention held in York, England circa 880 A.D., presided over by King Athelstan who, according to the document, “loov’d well masones an’ masonery.” Whether this meeting actually occured or is a product of the unknown author’s imagination is up for debate, but we know that the York Constitutions were adopted by the official stonemason guild in the early 1300’s.
We also know that in the 17th century, the Lodges in England began “accepting” members who were not professional stonemasons. Included in this group was the antiquarian, Oxford scholar, and possible Rosicrucian Elias Ashmole. We know from his library collection that Ashmole was interested in alchemy, Hermeticism, and the occult in general, but whether or not he had a major hand in transforming the Fraternity to what it is today is also up for debate. His diaries only mention his attending Masonic functions twice, although he of course could have been more active and just didn’t write about it.
It would seem that the major transformation in Freemasonry occured in the 18th century, and this is why the Fraternity became the beacon for the Age of Enlightenment. Europe was waking up from the slumber of the dark ages, and men of intellect who no longer trusted the Church and traditional religion began to seek a place to congregate with others of like minds, where they could discuss the new philosophies and sciences that were emerging. At this time, Masonic Lodges boomed in membership, and practically all the great thinkers, scientists, and artists of the day became Freemasons. It is almost certain that at this time the rituals of the fraternity were re-written. Originally, they consisted only of instruction in stonemasonry, but the new rituals instructed initiates into the ideals of the Enlightenment. For example, the Working Tools were (and are) still presented to the Candidate during his initiation, but they began to take on the characteristics of symbols of enlightenment thought. The Level, a tool used by the stonemason to make sure his blocks are even, became a symbol of the equality of men. The trowel, used to spread mortar by the stonemason, was given to the Freemason for the purpose of “spreading brotherly love throughout the entire Brotherhood of Man”, and so on.
In 1717, four London Lodges met together and formed the first Grand Lodge, electing Most Worshipful Brother Anthony Sayer, a London lawyer, the first Grand Master. This Grand Lodge began chartering Lodges in France and in the American colonies, and the Fraternity spread throughout the western hemisphere.
After the Revolution, each individual state in the USA established its own Grand Lodge. Today in the US, there are 51 Grand Lodges, including one for the District of Columbia. Eventually, additional degrees were composed in France, which adopted Hermetic, alchemical, and Kabbalistic symbolism. It is possible that these were added to the various continental Masonic system by Brethren who had been Rosicrucians. Today, the Masonic Rosicrucian Society is a group of Brethren dedicated to researching Masonic history, philosophy, and symbolism. Our website is www.yorkrite.com...

Fiat Lvx.



The oldest of these, called the Regius Poem, alludes to a Masonic Convention held in York, England circa 880 A.D.,


Quote is an excerpt of the larger post above.

That's wrong, Regius Poem is 1380s and the first verifiable doccument. The York Constitution is the oldest disputed doccument that has King Athelstan (926AD) establishing a lodge of Masons for some work. First in England that is, by ironically the first King of all England.

I posted some good stuff about the origins of Masonry as far as we can tell...in brief.

Masonry is of an indeterminable age.

Masonry as we know it began around the time of the Templar Persecutions, when Templars in Scotland merged with Masonry ... one predominant family the Saint Clairs now SinClair faimly which built the Rosslyn Chapel.

How much Templar influence was there? Unknown.

But it was more than likely the factor that caused Masonry to move away from a masonry guild that simply was good towards its fellows.

I believe that the Templars were what influenced a lot of what we recognize today as "anti-Catholicism"...for the time that's what it was. Masonry had become a tradition that always existed in England, hence why it survived there so well...obviously Masonry was much more "open-minded" than the Catholic Church was at the time. Today the Catholic Church is no longer so persecuting...so the disagreement of Masonry by the Catholic Church has become more "Spiritual" than actually material. It was material from 1300 to 1700s, Masonry taught that there is a world beyond Rome.

So forth blah blah.

I've rushed all this...whatever...here's some sources I derived from.

Temple and the Lodge by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh

Born in Blood by John Robinson. (I think that's the right name it's off the top of my head).

Dungeon Fire and Sword by John Robinson (same as above.)



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by a_nonconformist
Hi all,
Im new to the board and found it ironic to see this thread on my first search- since a friend and I have been having an ongoing discussion of the mysteriousness of the Masons.

I've done some reading lately and have a question for anyone who is part of the Free Mason society. Reading on the subject, I found a commentary in defense of the Mason's by a Californian man who is a member. He said that one objection that he has had was that there seems to be a 'racial' issue that has denied membership to black men who have made attempts to join..therefore a sect was formed called the Prince Hall Masons. The Californian man made attempts to join the local Prince Hall Masons with his own order, and received a response of contempt from the various orders scattered throughout the US and he also said he recieved a repremand from the UK regarding this.

Is this true that there is 'a policy' that rejects people of color?
I have lots of curiousities about the group, but that is one that I felt quite surprised about.


Not officially...my lodge I think has only a "slight problem" I can't say honestly. There are no black members that I am aware of (some non-active members may be black.) But there are other darker skinned people. I also can't remember the opinions of a few but I know that there is a big spiff in Southern Lodges.

This is sadly what you get from any human, and while today you're more likely to have blacks be able to join Masonry in the south, there was a problem in the past of whites in the fraternity not admitting blacks. Since you need a unanimous vote only one racist can ruin it all.

But Freemasonry as a whole has no problem, a Black can join anywhere where some racist person won't allow them.

Some wonder why then doesn't Prince Hall join Freemasonry...why aren't those black people Masons?

(It's coming back to me now what the argument was that I had in lodge, I wondered why Prince Hall Masons were not Freemasons...and I got the answer.)

Even a white person who joins Prince Hall (and some do) are not Masons.

The reason is the that the First Degree does not abide by some of the Land Marks (I don't remember which). Therefore they aren't really Freemasons.

Also, Prince Hall does not want to change this, I don't blame them, Prince Hall has its own history, and its own honor, why would they want to dissolve all that to become a "true" part of Freemasonry?

Now it gets confusing, the Grand Lodge of England I think recognizes Prince Hall lodges as Freemasonry lodges. Or such.

But no American Lodges do, under the reasons stated above.

So what a Prince Hall Mason would have to do to be a Mason recognized by American Grand Lodges, is become a member of a Lodge in England or Scotland or wherever else that is recognized by American Grand Lodges.

Sorry for the "muddled" form of this post, but I was struggling to remember the whole conversation which was more than a year ago at least.

Prince Hall is not recognized by Grand Lodges of the USA. But this isn't racist, because my lodge wasn't recognizing Prince Hall for any racist reasons. It was the Frist Degree Reason.

The difference is extremely minor and some may argue not worth considering since UGLoE doesn't mind. But obviously America isn't exactly the most reasonable in respects.

American Masonic Lodges will take Blacks into their lodges, but will not recognize Prince Hall members as Masons, those members have to join a regular Lodge of America.

Anyways...anyone have any corrections? I do believe that is a complete answer, far more than what was probably expected, I simply could have said, "Is Freemasonry racist? No." Because it's not.

But I wanted to explain an issue largely viewed as racist by those who only look at the surface.



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 05:19 AM
link   
You're behind the times, old chap.

Nearly all Prince Hall lodges are now officially recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England and Wales.
They are therefore now being recognised by regular US masonry.

It's generally agreed that the Regius poem was written in 1390 but it is thought by many that the author had access to older masonic documents.
The Regius poem does detail the charter of a Lodge supposedly operating in the 900 ADs.

www.freemason.com...

www.hot.ee...



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
You're behind the times, old chap.

Nearly all Prince Hall lodges are now officially recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England and Wales.
They are therefore now being recognised by regular US masonry.



I am in the Grand Lodge of Scotland.... Prince Hall is recognised as well. The Grand Lodge of Scotland has been initiating black members for a long time. They have even addressed this issue on their website. Link to be provided below. I am in Japan and we have members of about 10 countries. All races are covered and all are happy together. It is sad to say that the Prince Halls had to start due to American racial problems back in the day. Hopefully there is no racism, but the members are human. We are all supposeds to be brothers no matter of race. Freemasonry as a whole does not believe in racism.

The address that talks about Scottish Freemasonry and Racism is here... www.grandlodgescotland.com...


[Edited on 16-5-2004 by JCMinJapan]



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Actually, here at the Grand Lodge of Scotlands site is a great article that explains the origins of Freemasonry... Rather than quote the whole thing, here is the link.
www.grandlodgescotland.com...



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
That's wrong, Regius Poem is 1380s and the first verifiable doccument.


Please re-read my post, and note where I said that the adoption of the Constitution occured in the 1300’s, and that it alluded to a Masonic Convention being held in the days of Athelstan (and not that the Regius Poem was actually written at that time).
Also, there is no evidence that fugitive Templars ever merged with Freemasonry, this legend having become popular beginning with imaginative (and discredited) “Ramsay Oration” in France.

As for Prince Hall Lodges in California, the Grand Lodge of California voted some years ago to recognize its Prince Hall counterpart, and vice versa. Brethren of Prince Hall now have visiting rights in the “mainstream” Lodges, and also vice versa.

Fiat Lvx.


[Edited on 16-5-2004 by Masonic Light]



posted on May, 16 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
...one thing is for sure having read the various links and having had your personal accounts of ideology and history, it is clear that the Lodges of today share little in common with their ancient pre decessors. It would appear that any attempt to return to the old rites inevitably becomes subject to modern interpretation, by intelligent knowledge seekers intent on making their own mark. And this is only right and proper because as soon as the Mason stops searching and reinventing he defeats his own purpose.
Therefore trying to establish who belonged, or was related to, whom is virtually impossible.
However that said, if you look at the bigger picture the alternative nature of the Masons and deeply philosophical view point, the willingness to go against the mainstream in search of the truth and personal enlightenment, then there are certain groups throughout history that could have given birth to or inspiration for the current Masonic groups. Including as said earlier the ancient Greeks.
From 1200 through to about 1900 many individuals appear to have used the secret societies for there own ends, bringing many aspects from the past and so muddying the waters considerably.
If the Templars were responsible directly then I believe it was a nucleus of Senior Templars rather than a direct transfer of general ideology.
Most interesting and still under research is the link between John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene and a possible alternate view of the original teachings of Christ. I think that if this is looked at independant of the Masonic question it may throw up useful parallels.
And so to The Christ I go.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   
No Masonic light I read your post and even quoted the whole thing.


The oldest known Masonic documents are known as the York (or “Gothic”) Constitutions, and are dated from the beginning of the High Middle Ages. The oldest of these, called the Regius Poem, alludes to a Masonic Convention held in York, England circa 880 A.D., presided over by King Athelstan who, according to the document, “loov’d well masones an’ masonery.” Whether this meeting actually occured or is a product of the unknown author’s imagination is up for debate, but we know that the York Constitutions were adopted by the official stonemason guild in the early 1300’s.


First, King Athelstan was crowned in 926AD. (Best given date). But not much before or after.

Then you say that the York Constitutions were called the "Regius Poem" but this is actually not true, they are two distinct doccuments. One is verifiable (the Regius Manuscript//Poem) the other is not verified, but more of a traditional peice of knowledge, that is the York Constitution.

And whether or not that became official in the 1300s I don't know.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Also, leveller and light...I don't see anywhere in the Regius Poem where it states that there is a "York Constitution".

Maybe differences in translations or copies exist (probably), however the one I'm reading right now only mentions "King Athelstane" but not an actual Constitution.


In Egypt he taught it full wide,
In divers lands on every side;
Many years afterwards, I understand,
Ere that the craft came into this land.
This craft came into England, as I you say,
In time of good King Athelstane's day;
He made then both hall and even bower,
And high temples of great honour,
To disport him in both day and night,
And to worship his God with all his might.
This good lord loved his craft full well,
And purposed to strengthen in every del [part]
For divers faults that in the craft he found;
He sent about into the land.


www.seattlemasons.org...

Anyways, feel free to enlighten me but only if you're willing to accept that I too have something to offer in return, I just may come off as brash sometimes



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Eh I corrected myself
.

It lists a large table of articles called statutes by King Athelstane but again there's no actual verification that these statutes existed until 1390s, and they are just making it seem older.

Anyways, my point was that the York Constitution and the Regius Poem are two different things, that the time was wrong, and that was it. To make it seem more is just foolish.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smudge
...Languedoc, and found many links to John The Baptist. This in turn has led me to The Templars and Masons...


Oh the interesting thing is that John lost his head, but not because of something he did, but because another guy lost his head over a dancer girl "Salome". Who in turn was ruled by her mother, who requested of her dancer daughter that she ask for the head of John The Baptist, by this Head of State person.

If you don't already have the book "Idols of Perversity" by Bram Dijkstra...has plenty of excellent artworks at the turn of the Century. Generally about women and how men behave over them.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 06:22 AM
link   
That is a very interesting story, you'll see on previous post that my search now focuses on the relationship between John, Jesus and the Magdalene. She obviously being the Dancer, or Prostitute, or high Priestess depending on who you talk to.
The link between the three is central to Da Vincis Last Supper, and the entire region of Langeudoc is awash with Mary as Isis cults and the Black Madonna avariation on Isis suitable for hidin in a christian church. Also stories around the holy Grail are a search for a head that is always guarded by women.
And John is revered by the Templars and Cathars that come from the same region and who are also connected with the grail stories.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I don't know why you are consumed with Magdalene, dude.
As far as I'm aware she doesn't appear in any Masonic ritual.

As for the Black Madonnas. My personal belief is that they are representations of Isis. A lot of churches were built on old pagan sites - even the Vatican!!! It's probable that they would have adapted some of the symbols and architecture for Christianity that they came across whilst building their new sites.
The representations of Isis have nothing to do with the Magdalene though. They are known as "madonnas", the name given to Mary, mother of Jesus. Mary shares many similarities with Isis.
Egyptian mythology tells us that Isis was the mother of Horus (Osiris' son) and both share the same name of "Stella Maris". In fact, you can still find many churches today that bear the name "Stella Maris" - Star of the Sea.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
My fascination with The Magdalene started with stories of her leaving the east and arriving in France, where ( said to be carrying the child of christ ) she lived in a cave in the very region where the female cults are as we have already discussed strongest. Further, the constant discrediting of the Magdalene by the church clashes with the fact that she is purported to be the first person Christ shows himself to after the resurection.
If you were in a car crash who would you call first? your wife or your mother a maybe one of your good buddies. Your Wife.
For somebody so central that she is the first to see the resurected christ, there is so little mention of her in the new testament. There's enough anomalies that it begs further scrutiny.
There appears to be a strong case for a relationship between Jesus and Mary M.
Jesus was a Rabbi yet we are told that he was celibate, not likely as the Jewish central theme is procreation.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I recently had a talk with an "ex-priest". He is in his 80's and we were discussing Magdelene. He was convinced there was a first century riff between Peter and Magdelene as to whom should head Jesus' ministry.
He was sure she was pregnant with Jesus' child and knew of the whole "bloodline", Gnostic side. ( why he is not a priest).
He said Peter and the Men thought they should naturally run things.
She was carrying his seed.
He said that for the first 9 years of Seminary School, all they ingrained in these young men were that "women are Evil".
He said it was the royal jewish line from King David they were protecting. (Jesus being his great-grandson,aka King of the Jews).
He said the Church turned her into a Prostitute to take away any rights she had.
He believes she was his wife.
He was a great man to talk to.
He left the church and got married!!!



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I find this thread quite interesting. Not to stray from the original post, but those interested in a comprehensive net site about the Masons:

www.bessel.org...

Nazism is interesting, how Hitler almost destroyed the FreeMasons of Europe.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join