|
Post by whistler on Dec 15, 2004 2:39:12 GMT
On the other forum I was badly battered by some of the English Masons, when I started to talk about Masonry going back to egypt. I also had problems when I started talking about Albert Pike, and Manly Hall. When I do talk about these things, I find interested discusssion and comments coming from Bro Outside England. I have just found this on an American Link given by billmcelligott How did Freemasonry originate? We are not sure when our craft was born. We do know it goes far beyond written record and we believe it was not always called Freemasonry. It is obvious that some of the ancient Mystery Schools of Egypt, Greece and the Near East influenced the ceremonies that are used today. These ceremonies were designed as tests, and admission was granted only to those who passed and were worthy of further instruction. Our ceremonies have some of the same elements, though probably of a less physical nature, while still maintaining its spiritual form. Specifically, there are points of similarity between our Fraternity and the society founded by Pythagoras and the Fraternity of Hermes at Hermopolis in Egypt. We can also find affinities in the great Mystery Schools of Isis and Osiris of Egypt, the Dionysiac/Orphic and Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece, and the Mithraic Mysteries of ancient Rome.
I get the impression that many Non-English Freemaons have a more open mind in their Masonry than Traditional UGLE Masons, or did I just fall foul of a few atypical UGLE Masons My impression - now I am not "regular" so could very well be incorrect - is that the Scottish Rite is/was the flag bearer around the world, and appears to hold strongly to very ancient roots.....
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Dec 15, 2004 6:32:45 GMT
"On the other forum I was badly battered by some of the English Masons, when I started to talk about Masonry going back to Egypt." You need not worry about that happening HERE Whistler! I have also found that not only are US Freemasons far more open about it and more willing to consider alternative explanations and connections but that US Society is much more friendly towards Freemasonry than here in the UK , especially England, these days.
|
|
Michael
Member
... as you have passed through the ceremony of your initiation...
Posts: 326
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2004 7:01:27 GMT
I think you may well find that those on this site, my self included, who will at least discus the possibility that freemasonry goes back well beyond 1717. The problem with UGLE itself - IMO - is that back in 1717 to admit to having anything to do with a secret Scottish organization, at a time when Jacobite rebellion north of the border was a very real thing, would have been seen as treason, Hung drawn and quartering etc... I would put money on any papers even suggesting that they new anyone 'over the boarder' would have been destroyed so, 'there is no proof' or 'we do not know' became the cry down through the ages.
I would love to see more research into our origins; are we really linked to The Nights Templar is the Roslyn Chapel even more important as a shrine? But as we do not have any proof it is just myth. At the moment.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Dec 15, 2004 8:20:35 GMT
'Invisible College' by Robert Lomas contains a chapter about the history and background fo freemasonry in England. There are some truely incredible statements made in the chapter, and it goes into full details about the 'battle' for the 'soul' of freemasonry with the ascent of the Hanoverians to the english throne, including the destruction of english masonic history and the creation of the system of patronism introduced at the time of the creation of UGLE. It also goes into some detail on the 'Secret Societes Act' introduced in the 18th century which banned freemasonry - a ban which was only lifted once a Royal Prince had taken the helm of English freemasonry. Taylorsman has often said that the Duke of Sussex was responsible for some heinous crimes towards masonic history - I now understand what he meant.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 16, 2004 0:40:42 GMT
The problem with the Egyptian origins theory is , that is all it can be a theory.
There is no proof. There is some mention in the first degree tracing borad, but that is about it , there is nothin specific, there is no actual documentation on paper or stone.
Michael Baigent did some work on this I ill try and find it and return.
Most of the speculation surrounds some possible ties between the Hiram legend amd a story of a murder of an Egytian Pharoah in similar circumstances. so was the Hiram legend a link between ( stretching memory now) Tao 111 Egyptian ruler and Solomons Articifer ? who knows.
So dont take my reports , have a look yourselves and check out the Hiram Legend and Egyptian Rulers.
We have a similar problem with the Moses story, Moses is hebrew for , "drawn from the water". Why would an Egyptian Empress not know this ? and as Hebrew law does not allow murder particularly of infants, why was Moses cast adrift in a wicker basket? who knows, again speculation.
At the end of the day why let the truth interfer with a good story, but it is interesting to speculate.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 16, 2004 0:47:22 GMT
AN EGYPTIAN MYSTERY MICHAEL BAIGENT REVEALS THE USE OF A FAMILIAR SYMBOL IN ANCIENT EGYPT The Sphinx and Great Pyramid of Khufu at sunrise. Nevertheless, all seems conventional enough until we study the sarcophagus: for a start it is too large – by one inch - to be carried up the initial internal passage of the Pyramid. It must, therefore, have been placed in position during the building of the pyramid, before the chamber itself was finished. And in an additional curiosity, the sarcophagus itself is unfinished: the top is still rough with visible saw and chisel marks. In this, it stands in stark contrast to the finely smoothed walls of the chamber itself. The naos in the inner sanctuary of the Temple of Edfu. Naturally an explanation has been advanced: that the original smoothed sarcophagus was dropped in the Nile or broken. In the subsequent panic to supply a replacement before the chamber was finished another was hurriedly prepared and placed inside, unfinished! As an explanation, it is rather weak. The interior of the King’s Chamber is well smoothed and finished. The sarcophagus too could easily have been finished while inside the chamber. There is no structural or logistical necessity for it to have been delivered completed. In addition, such was the skill and precision of the ancient Egyptians that had they wished to finish the sarcophagus, they most certainly would have managed it, especially since the Pharaoh was undoubtedly still alive at the time and keen that his work should be completed to the highest standard. We are left facing the possibility that the sarcophagus’ rough and unfinished state is deliberate. Could this indeed be the case? And if so, what might that mean? But first, what other examples of the rough and the smooth, juxtaposed, can be found in Egypt? www.freemasonrytoday.co.uk/issue24-article1.shtml
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Dec 16, 2004 7:53:40 GMT
We have a similar problem with the Moses story, Moses is hebrew for , "drawn from the water". Why would an Egyptian Empress not know this ? and as Hebrew law does not allow murder particularly of infants, why was Moses cast adrift in a wicker basket? who knows, again speculation. At the end of the day why let the truth interfer with a good story, but it is interesting to speculate. Bill as you may have already guessed I very much enjoy your posts - Just thinking on this one I certainly agree the history of Moses is most odd.. to put it mildly. but just on the point as Hebrew law does not allow murder particularly of infants, it could be noted he wasn't murdered he was put in a basket
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 16, 2004 10:27:32 GMT
Okay then , we will wrap you in a blanket, tie it tight so you have no way of helping yourself and put you in a wicker basket and float you on the Nile, if you drown we wont call it murder.
Sounds fair.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Dec 16, 2004 16:59:00 GMT
Okay then , we will wrap you in a blanket, tie it tight so you have no way of helping yourself and put you in a wicker basket and float you on the Nile, if you drown we wont call it murder. Sounds fair. Just maybe... by not actually cutting his throat..they planned to have Moses exterminated but by the hands of "Nature" or others...so their religous hands would be clean.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 16, 2004 18:42:49 GMT
OK , agreed .
Of course we have to accept the Bible report of the finding of Moses because we have no other documentation.
Then we have to consider that God may well have been the unseen hand in all this.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Dec 16, 2004 20:11:36 GMT
OK , agreed . Of course we have to accept the Bible report of the finding of Moses because we have no other documentation. Then we have to consider that God may well have been the unseen hand in all this. Good stuff.... Nothing happens by accident
|
|