a reply to: VeritasAequitas
We know for sure that Lodges exist prior to the earliest known records and with the Regius Poem we have an idea that dates Freemasonry back to the
10th century in York, England.
a reply to: OpinionatedB
In regards to the "9 knights", the most common story of the Templars comes to us from the writings of William, Archbishop of Tyre. Another tale
comes from Michael the Syrian, Patriarch of Antioch. There is a third account given by Walter Map, the Archdeacon of Oxford, but his accounts are
disregarded by most historians as he preferred historical fiction to fact.
William tells us that for the first 9-years of the Templar existence they could not raise no more than 9 knights.Michael on the other hand tells us
that Hugh De Payen founded this Order with 30 Knights with him. Michael writes:
Now this man, whose name was Hough de Payen, accepted this advice; the thirty knights who accompanied him joined him. The king gave them the house
of Solomon for their residence, and some villages for their maintenance. The Patriarch also gave them some villages of the Church.
Stephen Dafoe in the January 2009 edition of the Knights Templar magazine stated that although Michael's accounts receive less attention from the
historical community, this story seems much more plausible than the account given by William. Due to the lack of existing records we may never know
the exact number of founding Templars.
Why the inconsistencies and vague establishment? Well, neither of these men were alive when the Templars started, and one can also look at the bias
of William as it is said that he held no love for the Templar Order.
William was born in Jerusalem around 1130. After completing his education in Europe, he returned to the Middle East where he wrote many books, one
particularly is 23-volume history of the Middle East since the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Umar. Although he never finished it by the time of
his death (c. late 1180's). This book centered around the First Crusade and all the political events that took place in the Kingdom. He himself was
a contender for Patriarch of Jerusalem and had a natural hatred for the hindrance of ecclesiastical authority and thus held no positive opinion of the
Templars, and their independence. The reason given to historians siding with William in his account is he said to have been very thorough in
collecting information and sifting through sources, as well as interviewing first hand witnesses.
MIchael is believed to have been born around 1126 in the town of Miletene, today known as Malatya (located in SE Turkey). Early on he entered into the
service of a local Jacobite monastary and eventually became an archimandrite (an overseer of the monastery, second only to the Bishop). Because of his
devotion and zeal, he was eventually elected as Patriarch. He is known for composing the largest chronicle of the medieval times, which was written in
Syriac. Michael's work is placed behind Williams as it is said he didn't have very accurate information outside of his own personal experiences.
The question is: will we ever really find out?
a reply to: ultimafule
Freemasons don't know anything? What's with the painfully broad attack against Freemasonry?
They don't know for sure where they came from and they're not sure what the rituals even mean.
Well, we have a strong understanding of our history, but the far distant, the origins, of Freemasonry is lost to the fog of history. Who says we
don't know what our rituals mean?
Of course this all depends on what lodge you belong to and what books they give you.
There are many version of "Morals & Dogma" written by different authors ascribing different meanings to the rituals.
Actually Morals & Dogma was written by Pike, but an abridged version has been released by the Supreme Council with the help of Arturo de Hoyos, Grand
Historian and Archivist.
No real esoteric knowledge imparted.
Then you need to look at the rituals instead of expecting them to just toss your expectations at you.