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.

 

Origins of Free Masonry

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by alyosha1981
 


Hi,

There are no direct links between the Knights Templar and masonry. Modern freemasonry takes its roots from the stone mason guilds and uses the teachings of operative masons as moral lessons.

Yes there are side orders associated in masonry called the Knights Templar. However, they were setup after the formation of the Grand Lodge of England to spread their teachings and moral values.




posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
A group of simple stone-masons wouldnt just suddenly go all mystical and ritualistic.



[edit on 11-11-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow
As a teaser...whether it is Mason specific or not...I think I may be able to implicate the "coding" of the English language, with regards to industry specific terminology and the necessary creation of new words associated as such, to a multi-lateral meaning.





Could you talk in a way so that us commoners can understand...



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I beg to differ! Here is a quote from the United Grand Lodge of England web site:

"The general consensus amongst Masonic scholars is that it descends directly or indirectly from the organisation of operative stone masons who built the great cathedrals and castles of the middle ages."
Link: www.ugle.org.uk...

Also another supporting statement taken from a paper published by Professor Doctor Jan A.M. on the University of Sheffield Center for Masonic research:

"Secondly, contrary to the popularly held view, many of the early
freestone masons were anything but simple folk. On the contrary,
many were extremely well-educated sculptors and what were then
referred to as master builders, whom we would now call architects. A
good example who has been the subject of some recent research, is
Nicholas Stone (1587-1647).8 He finished learning the craft in Am-
sterdam under the famous Dutch Master Henrick de Keyser; he then
returned to London and became a member of the “London Company of ffreemasons” as it was called at that time"

Link:freemasonry.dept.shef.ac.uk...

People will always want to believe the history is far more glamorous with Knights Templar, treasure or some rubbish to do with the Holy Grail. But the links above both from reputable sources state the origins.

[edit on 11/11/09 by Doodle456]



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doodle456

People will always want to believe the history is far more glamorous with Knights Templar, treasure or some rubbish to do with the Holy Grail. But the links above both from reputable sources state the origins.



Its a partial explanation but does not explain where a whole system of mysticism and philosophy along with peculiar gestures and movements came from.

An example: Supposedly the steps over the grave come from the way stonemasons stepped over planks. Stuff like this sounds awfully contrived.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Very true, it does not explain where all the esoteric and mystic parts come from. But as craft masonry (1st to 3rd Degree) are based on the old testament I suspect the majority comes from there.

Also original freemasonry (i.e before 1717 where smaller lodges formed into one Grand Lodge and ratified the Book of Constitutions) was Christian with many rituals etc taken from that religion. Modern masonry of course has no religion or political ties. There is a side order in the UK called "The Royal Order of Scotland" which proclaims that it still has the original Christian parts in. To back this up it is open to only Christian masons.



posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Its a partial explanation but does not explain where a whole system of mysticism and philosophy along with peculiar gestures and movements came from.

An example: Supposedly the steps over the grave come from the way stonemasons stepped over planks. Stuff like this sounds awfully contrived.
While it's not necessarily the ONLY answer, I'm content to take the step, due guard and penal sign as having direct correlation to the tools as well as the penalties. It is possible that the grip and word of each degree, (and pass grip and pass word) could have been used by operative Masons to recognize each other. (And there, I've just listed 7 things that real Masons know as ways of identifying each other, and none of them had anything to do with flashing goat horns or "3 fingers representing an M" or anything silly like Eric Dubay and others would have you believe are Masonic handsigns...)

I think the move towards enlightenment was happening independently. I don't know how or when those ideals first entered an operative Masons' lodge. That may have been arbitrary. A couple hundred years later, we could have ended up with speculative teamsters for all I know.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Ok here is my opinion guys.


First of all I think what Sky is teasing with is the overlooked fat that you don't wake up one day and know the seven liberal sciences. This would mean you don't wake up near the last traceable date of 1300 and start building cathedrals.

But if this is true, then how did it happen in Rome before England?

Or before that in Ancient Greece?

Do I need to go all the way back to Egypt with my rhetorical questions?

All you need to look at is the transcendence from Operative to speculative Freemasonry to understand that the esoteric knowledge that is at the root of what we today call Freemasonry dates back to time inmemorable LITERALY!

This leads me to one question. Why?

Why rituals, why stone, why the degrees, the morality?

At the root of Freemasonry, I suspect, is some serious shiznit. And people far beyond our records have gone through a peck of trouble to get it to us today.

After all, it is said that at the heart of each ritual of Freemasonry is "The loss, the recovery and the interpretation".

That to me says one thing, propagation, the transcendence of time. The insurance of a gift that can be recovered. A gift that is considered of the utmost importance.



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrustMeIKnow
The symbolgy of the triangle and it's physical equivalent implies that back then the construction of buildings was not common sense (indeed we could even trace further back to the Rosicrucians but I am interested in the European application).


The rosicrucions are not dated further back then Freemasonry historicaly, unless you mean in their mythology to Christian Rosenkreuz, and if we're going to go to symbolic mythological people vs History, I beleive Hiram Abiff would claim to be much older...the difference is masons recognize Hiram to be symbolic, I don't know ANY masons who actually beleive Masonry dates back to teh building of the Temple, where some differing RC bodies try to convince people Christian Rosenkreuz was real.

It's hard for anyone to prove one way or another, but it is my own opinion that it is VERY VERY likely a Freemason who penned the Fama Fraternitatis RC, and the Confessio Fraternitatis. Christian Rosenkreuz is most likely a pseudonym for Francais Bacon who was likely a Freemason first.......


[edit on 15/11/2009 by ForkandSpoon]



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
What about the etymology of the term "Window"?

Or "Pane"?

I would appreciate it...I'm stuck further out but it is due to other concerns....



posted on Nov, 15 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TrustMeIKnow
 


Window apparently comes from the Norse vindauga.
www.etymonline.com...
www.etymonline.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doodle456
There is a side order in the UK called "The Royal Order of Scotland" which proclaims that it still has the original Christian parts in. To back this up it is open to only Christian masons.


Just for the record, the Royal Order of Scotland exists in the United States as well. It also is only open to Christian Masons, and consists of two degrees. Albert Pike once served as Provincial Grand Master of the Provincial Grand Lodge of the Royal Order of Scotland for the United States.

There are several other Masonic organizations in the USA that require that members be Christians, including the Masonic Rosicrucian Society, the Knights Templar, the Red Cross of Constantine, and Holy Royal Arch Knight Templar Priests.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForkandSpoon


The rosicrucions are not dated further back then Freemasonry historicaly


Depends on what you mean by "Freemasonry". I agree with you if by "Freemasonry" you include the operative guilds. But the Rosicrucians (or at least the Rosicrucian documents) predate Free and Accepted Masonry.


It's hard for anyone to prove one way or another, but it is my own opinion that it is VERY VERY likely a Freemason who penned the Fama Fraternitatis RC, and the Confessio Fraternitatis. Christian Rosenkreuz is most likely a pseudonym for Francais Bacon who was likely a Freemason first.......


I agree with you that there was a connection, but I take the opposite viewpoint: I have become convinced that the Rosicrucians were behind the founding of Freemasonry, instead of vice versa.

As for Francis Bacon, he was probably not a Mason nor a Rosicrucian, although he may have been influenced by the Rosicrucian documents. It has been speculated by many that the character of Christian Rosenkruetz may have been inspired by the life of Paracelsus, which is indeed possible. But like Hiram, he also seems to have been more inspired by Osiris, Mithra, etc.



[edit on 16-11-2009 by Masonic Light]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
We may have to agree to disagree on this. I do not beleive the RC existed before those documents in the 1600's I beleive they were written in allegory. I beleive that masonry while it can only be PROVEN that speculative lodges existed in the 1700's it was already very advanced in organization, and ritual, I find it excedingly likely between that and masonic symbolism and references prior to that that masonry had already been around a couple of hundred years. Groups do not advance that quickly that fast in the 16-1700's.

Ultimatly I will say we can agree that no one can say beyond a shadow of a doubt which came first. As there simply is not enough evidence.

But the bigger point on the RC, with me is, I can say that ALL the different RC societies today havn't a thing to do with the actual RC groups based on those documents in that period.....it has not only been hijacked, but modern RC groups philosophy is almost a photo graphic negative to those original founders. Where as Masonry remains edited but closer to it's original philosophy and Character....i know of know RC groups following it original tenants and the closest ones to it, would be found within branches of masonry.

Unless there is some "secret" RC group not public still practicing it's original professed virtues. I regard current RC groups one can join in the same vein of the OTO, more humanistic proto hippie philosophy.....such as the Guidestones in North Georgia.......which were likely designed by such a group. Whom and whatever they may be, they do have a very opposite view of Deity, and the transcendent then Masonry.

[edit on 16/11/2009 by ForkandSpoon]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TrustMeIKnow
 


A couple of interesting books to read on this topic:

The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590-1710 By David Stevenson

This details the evolution of speculative lodges in the U.K. from Scottish operative traditions. Very well researched book. No fly by night job. Revealing for the picture it paints of masonry's development in Renaissance and Enlightenment era Briton.

The Secret History of Freemasonry - Its Origins & Connections to the Knights Templar - Paul Naudon

You can download a PDF copy of the book from the above link. Naudon's far less flighty, grounded thesis concerns the Templars as a link in the masonic meme, providing a more mundane, though extremely important tradition, the know how of building large fortified structures. Plus everything else that would have absorbed in the Eastern mix from Arabian sources.

I humbly direct you to this series of ATS posts on another element to chuck into the mix:

The Sons of the Tradition



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


SMIB!



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I will say this, it’s highly peculiar a world wide organization with members around the globe don’t actually know who founded the organization, when, where or how?

Oh boy! I don’t suppose any of you have any idea where you are heading to since you have no idea whence you came from?

That Masons don’t know makes absolutely no logical sense. It would suggest that no record keeping, and no organizational structure existed, which is a bit comical when the movement seems to be all about structure and a prescribed approach to things.

I am stating this as an observation not as a criticism as if it were I being asked to or deciding to join an organization that could not trace its roots to its founding I would be highly suspicious.

Is it possible that once someone achieves the 33rd, 34th, or 36th degree they are actually informed of this information since 32nd degree members claim to not know?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
That Masons don’t know makes absolutely no logical sense. It would suggest that no record keeping, and no organizational structure existed, which is a bit comical when the movement seems to be all about structure and a prescribed approach to things.


What a brilliant observation...


Could it be that that the first rule of Fight Club is to not talk about Fight Club?




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
That Masons don’t know makes absolutely no logical sense. It would suggest that no record keeping, and no organizational structure existed, which is a bit comical when the movement seems to be all about structure and a prescribed approach to things.


What a brilliant observation...


Could it be that that the first rule of Fight Club is to not talk about Fight Club?



Could it be in fact that it is? One does have to wonder Memory Shock when such intelligent, learned and methodical people haven't a clue about one of the most basic and fundamental, rudementary ellements that binds them all together.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Could it be in fact that it is? One does have to wonder Memory Shock when such intelligent, learned and methodical people haven't a clue about one of the most basic and fundamental, rudementary ellements that binds them all together.


I do believe that the number one rule is "Deny it till death".

I'm working on the retort to the strategy...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join