Could someone please explain the importance of Manly P. Hall to Masonry? How should one view his writings? Is he credible?

I'm particularly interested in his work: "Rosicrucian and Masonic
Origins." Did he write this?

As a Mason-to-be, should I read this?

[edit on 12-9-2004 by LTD602]

Manly P. Hall was an interesting chap, to be sure. Of course, this is what makes it so easy to take what he says out of context. Whenever one reads Hall, one must take the time to understand what it is that s/he is reading. Many of Hall's works deal with the subject of comparative religion and comparative philosophy. In addition to this, Hall tried his very best not to interject his own interpretations into what it was that he was synthesizing or presenting to the reader. When Hall was speaking on the subject of Kabbalah, he presented (or, at least tried to present) the views of the Kabbalists and various strands of their thought. When Hall was speaking on the subject of Rosicrucianism, or on Hermetic writings, he spoke from their points of view respectively. When he spoke from his perspective, he usually lets the reader known that it is his own interpretation in some place or manner. Taking his works out of context will not reveal that.

I have this on my computer I think it may well have been ML's work.

However,
Hall wrote much of his work some 30 years before he actually joined Freemasonry, he wandered into many areas more as a journey of thought than anything, but anti Masons are always jumping on quotes from books he wrote at the age of 21 to 23, as I say 30 years before he joined. He hinself confessed he knew only a speculative amount about Masonry when he penned them.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by billmcelligott]

I see.

I was actually looking at soe of the quotes from Hall, including a few from chapter 19 . . . hehem, and I was scratching my head.

I had no idea he wrote the "origins . . . " years before he joined Masonry. Why would he write such things in such an authoritative manner, if he wasn't even a Mason? Sounds rather irresponsible to me . . . .

From the above work . . . .

FREEMASONRY is a fraternity within a fraternity—an outer organization concealing an inner brotherhood of the elect. Before it is possible to intelligently discuss the origin of the Craft, it is necessary, therefore, to establish the existence of these two separate yet interdependent orders, the one visible and the other invisible. The visible society is a splendid camaraderie of "free and accepted" men enjoined to devote themselves to ethical, educational, fraternal, patriotic, and humanitarian concerns. The invisible society is a secret and most august fraternity whose members are dedicated to the service of a mysterious arcanum arcanorum.Those Brethren who have essayed to write the history of their Craft have not included in their disquisitions the story of that truly secret inner society which is to the body Freemasonic what the heart is to the body human.In each generation only a few are accepted into the inner sanctuary of the Work, but these are veritable Princes of the Truth and their sainted names shall be remembered in future ages together with the seers and prophets of the elder world. Though the great initiate-philosophers of Freemasonry can be counted upon one's fingers, yet their power is not to be measured by the achievements of ordinary men. They are dwellers upon the Threshold of the Innermost, Masters of that secret doctrine which forms the invisible foundation of every great theological and rational institution.

now is this REALLY what Hall wrote, or, is it more internet-drivel? Or, if he DID wrtie this, how should it be interpreted? If Hall was not a Mason when he wrote this, where does he get all this from, and why does he write it as if he were an authority?

So:

1.) Is he lying?
2.) Is he misunderstanding Masonry, since he himself, was not a Mason?
3.) Is this this true?
4.) Did he EVER correct his assertions when he became a Mason? Maybe he wrote a "revised" work?

Or, perhaps, Manly Hall was predisposed to conspiracty theories like so many other non-Masons? And . . . . he really didn't know what he was talking about due to lack of evidence?



[edit on 12-9-2004 by LTD602]

Thanks, Bill.

Those put things in perspetive.

Seems Manly was saying alot about something he knew little about.

is work can be very confusing.

peace

Originally posted by LTD602
Thanks, Bill.

Those put things in perspetive.

Seems Manly was saying alot about something he knew little about.

In his preface to the 1976 reprinting of "The Lost Keys of Freemasonry", Bro. Hall acknowledges that most of his books were written while he was a grad student in the 1920's (he did not become a Mason until 1953), and that virtually everything he knew at the time about Masonry came from books in UCLA's library, both Masonic and anti-Masonic.

But, in order to refrain from casting the baby out with the bathwater, I would suggest Hall's books are not completely irrelevant. Granted, there is little factual information about Masonry in them, but his books contain outstanding Theosophic thought, especially considering the fact they were written while he was in his late teens and early twenties. Hall shows very intricate insight into the symbolism and theories of Theosophy, and it is for that reason that I recommend his books to those interested in esoterica.

Fiat Lvx.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by Masonic Light]

Manley P. Hall must have been raised an occultist. I read in 13 Satanic Bloodlines that he was an elitist by blood.(If you can believe anything thats in the book.) He probably had the best schools known to man at his finger tips. His knowledge was astounding. I'm 36 and can barely make a paragraph. mainly because of my Tom Sawyer life style growing up I suppose. I spent many a day laying out in the woods by a fire or fishing while the rest of the kids were working thier butts off in school. been trying to catch up ever since.