Post by foxcole on Apr 3, 2005 18:34:28 GMT
In another thread, MrMason wrote:
Even the historical aspects of the KT arriving in Scotland on the west coast of Argyllshire is somewhat exaggerated. The battle of Bannockburn with the KT involved is hearsay. The DA Vinci Code and all those things related to it are to believed by those who wish to believe. But with regards freemasonry certainly in Scotland there is NO evidence to prove that we came from the KT. I would advise people to read historical books on the evolution of Scottish Freemasonry before making judgments
Do you have any specific recommendations? I'm halfway through John Robinson's "Born in Blood," which is well researched and seems to make a case for Templar roots, but it is, in the end, speculation simply because of the lack of direct documentation on the subject. Robinson draws conclusions that seem reasonable, but are necessarily based on his own interpretations.
I don't buy everything he says... mainly for the reason that it is so speculative.
Robinson tells us that medieval stonemason guilds were highly Christian and performed Biblical reenactments, possibly to remain in good standing with the Catholic church. They brought religion to the common people in their own language, people who were forbidden to read the Bible. According to Robinson, guilds that put so much work, pride and energy into productions that often lasted for days, would be unlikely to form a society that tolerated any religion of belief in a single Supreme Being. That's the crux of his argument.
So far, I should say. Again, I'm only halfway through the book, so there may be more or better evidence coming up.
He also goes on to state that he attempted to research the guild records in cities containing medieval stone buildings (London, Oxford, Lincoln) and found no records whatsoever of a medieval guild of stonemasons in any of them. He concludes that it appears there were no medieval guilds of stonemasons in Britain, so Freemasonry could not have come from that source.
Okay, but what has that proven? Only the nonexistence of guilds. Who built the medieval stone buildings? Even though the political and economical structures of guilds didn't exist (if lack of documentation proves their absence) someone had the excellent masonry skills to erect buildings that stand to this day. Stonemasonry is, in my mind, still an open possibility.
Regardless, I am enjoying this book very much. No matter the conclusions drawn, the care and depth of research is, to me, satisfying and refreshing. It marks the beginning of my reading, so I don't have much yet to compare it to. I would be interested to know your opinions.
MrMason said:
Personally I couldn't care whether the KT dug around the Temple Mount or elswhere for that matter. What I am interested in is this ongoing perception that we(the freemasons) originated from the Templars. Even the historical aspects of the KT arriving in Scotland on the west coast of Argyllshire is somewhat exaggerated. The battle of Bannockburn with the KT involved is hearsay. The DA Vinci Code and all those things related to it are to believed by those who wish to believe. But with regards freemasonry certainly in Scotland there is NO evidence to prove that we came from the KT. I would advise people to read historical books on the evolution of Scottish Freemasonry before making judgments
Do you have any specific recommendations? I'm halfway through John Robinson's "Born in Blood," which is well researched and seems to make a case for Templar roots, but it is, in the end, speculation simply because of the lack of direct documentation on the subject. Robinson draws conclusions that seem reasonable, but are necessarily based on his own interpretations.
I don't buy everything he says... mainly for the reason that it is so speculative.
Robinson tells us that medieval stonemason guilds were highly Christian and performed Biblical reenactments, possibly to remain in good standing with the Catholic church. They brought religion to the common people in their own language, people who were forbidden to read the Bible. According to Robinson, guilds that put so much work, pride and energy into productions that often lasted for days, would be unlikely to form a society that tolerated any religion of belief in a single Supreme Being. That's the crux of his argument.
So far, I should say. Again, I'm only halfway through the book, so there may be more or better evidence coming up.
He also goes on to state that he attempted to research the guild records in cities containing medieval stone buildings (London, Oxford, Lincoln) and found no records whatsoever of a medieval guild of stonemasons in any of them. He concludes that it appears there were no medieval guilds of stonemasons in Britain, so Freemasonry could not have come from that source.
Okay, but what has that proven? Only the nonexistence of guilds. Who built the medieval stone buildings? Even though the political and economical structures of guilds didn't exist (if lack of documentation proves their absence) someone had the excellent masonry skills to erect buildings that stand to this day. Stonemasonry is, in my mind, still an open possibility.
Regardless, I am enjoying this book very much. No matter the conclusions drawn, the care and depth of research is, to me, satisfying and refreshing. It marks the beginning of my reading, so I don't have much yet to compare it to. I would be interested to know your opinions.