|
Post by Trinityman on Nov 30, 2004 16:45:25 GMT
No option for 'descended from operative stonemasons'? I'm surprised.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Nov 30, 2004 18:49:03 GMT
Direct descendant from Knights Templar is my two-pence worth. Interesting to note some believe the masons exist since the beginning of time. So Adam and would have been Co-Masons, then
|
|
|
Post by Stash on Nov 30, 2004 20:23:44 GMT
TrinityMan, i KNEW i was forgetting one!! Just put your answer under "I don't agree with any of these"
When I started this poll I sat here for like 5 minutes thinking of which is the one big one i'm forgetting....but I never remembered till now!!
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Dec 4, 2004 17:20:52 GMT
The Templar idea seems to be formost in many members minds. However as an "Operative to Speculative" believer, can anyone tell me that if the KT were our forerunners, why there is no evidence to suggest this.
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Dec 6, 2004 14:05:46 GMT
TrinityMan, i KNEW i was forgetting one!! Just put your answer under "I don't agree with any of these" When I started this poll I sat here for like 5 minutes thinking of which is the one big one i'm forgetting....but I never remembered till now!! Actually you also missed out 'descended from 8-foot green reptiles from Sirius', but I'll let you off ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Stash on Dec 6, 2004 23:06:21 GMT
can anyone tell me that if the KT were our forerunners, why there is no evidence to suggest this. NO evidence?? You are wrong there. There is PLENTY of it. The problem though, is none of it is anywhere near definitive
|
|
|
Post by Hubert (N. Z.) on Dec 12, 2004 3:20:22 GMT
A recent article, In Talisman actually, has suggested that as secret societies are in fact secret, thier actual origins would be difficult to prove historically.
The Wisdom tradition, of which I beleive Freemasonry is a great part, must of essence have existed eternally. This poll has a slight flaw in that it does not question what sort of freemasonry we are voting on. EG Modern Masonry officially revealed about 1717, but must have existed prior to that date. History always is written by the victor, thus only their facts are recorded. Any that contradict such is always written off as specious!
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Dec 13, 2004 20:38:18 GMT
Hi Stash,
Evidence or lack of it should we say?
We in Scotland have several records that predate Masonic history in any other constitution. From Aitchison's Haven Lodge( now defunct) having records from1598 and Mary's Chapel No1 with continuous records from 1599. The Incorporations with their "Seal of Clauses" from 1475, StClair Charters 1601 and 1628, Schaw Statutes 1598 and 1599. All of our early records don't mention anything about KT or otherwise. This was purely IMHO an early 18th century invention perhaps attributed to Ramsay with his "Oration". Even the Masonic Congress held in Wilhelmsbad 16th July 1782 chaired by Ferdinand Duke of Brunswick(at that time was the GM of the Strict Observance) stated the following; "Freemasonry was not essentialy connected with Templarism, and that, contrary to the doctrine of the rite of the strict observance the Freemasons were not the successors of the Knight Templars." This resulted in many KT organisations at that time collapsing and folding. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I do admit I like facts not myths which I believe most of these modern day theories are.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Apr 15, 2005 8:53:26 GMT
I voted the egypts. BUT: I only see the myths repeating if you regard MM-Ritual and egypt rituals. Nobody knows how they made their way into modern freemasonry. There is evidence that hearetic groups existed between the middle ages who used familiar symbols. But we have no written ritual of this time, only records in latin of the inquisition of the roman church....
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Apr 15, 2005 11:15:50 GMT
From the Knights Templar as a result of what they discovered in the ruins of the Temple, which may well have been of a far more ancient provenance, even brought out of Egypt by the ancient Israelites.
|
|
|
Post by plewis66 on Apr 16, 2005 9:54:24 GMT
Mr Mason:
As devils advocate (i.e., I don't personally believe what I'm about to say), it could be that as the edict disbanding the Templars was never pronounced in Scotland, that was the place where a few Templars ended up.
They could then have been involved in what is, by your admission, the earliest recorded activity of Masonry, but may have decided to leave any mention of the Order of Knights Templar out of the records, in order to avoid reprisals from outside Scotland.
Just a theory.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Apr 16, 2005 15:46:37 GMT
But is it true that as Robert The Bruce was already Excommunicated and Scotland under Interdict he could give sanctuary to the KTs escaping persecution on mainland Europe.
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Apr 17, 2005 8:23:03 GMT
As always, I do listen to other theories, however, it was Bruce who was excommunicated in 1305 and not the country of Scotland so all the Papal Bulls were technically still legal in the country. There is no evidence to show that Scots stopped going to church etc because of the excommunication of Bruce. There were also a number of priests who were executed because of their support for Bruce. It is also known that one of Bruces' main supporters William de Lamberton assisted in an English trial of 2 Scottish KT. Phillip of France wrote to all monarchs throughout europe regarding the arrest of the KT. In fact the letter that Bruce recieved from France was read out and discussed in the Scottish Parliarment on 16/17 March 1309 at St Andrews in Fife. As for them being given sanctuary on the west coast of Scotland that again is another slant on Scottish history. The lands in that part of Argyllshire were held by the Clan MacDougall of Lorn. The MacDougalls were related to the Comyns by marriage and so were opposed to Bruce and his allies. A blood fued was created between Bruce and the MacDougalls because of the murder of Red Comyn by Bruce in Greyfriars church at Dumfries. John MacDougall of Lorn defeated Bruce at the battle of Dail Righ,(Dalry, near Tyndrum) in August 1306. The MacDougalls were also the owners of several ships as although they were a land based clan they also has sea-going warfare capability. This is confirmed by a letter that was sent in March 1309 to Edward II from John MacDougall in which he stated that he maintains galleys on Loch Etive and Loch Awe. Any ships carrying un-noticed fugitive KT to this part of Scotland would be IMHO impossible.
|
|
|
Post by plewis66 on Apr 17, 2005 10:46:54 GMT
Have I done something wrong?
Caused some offence?
Said the wrong thing?
It seems every time I post lately, someone jumps on what I've said with some kind of unwaranted retort.
In what way is playing devils advocate a mind game?
This is a discussion board. Am I not permitted to raise points for discussion?
|
|
|
Post by plewis66 on Apr 17, 2005 16:01:48 GMT
Had I not pointed out that I was merely playing devils advocate in putting forward what is a theory genuinely held by some people, then your comments may have been justified. Had I stated something without belief and conviction and without notice thereof, I could perhaps have been rightly so accused, by implication, that I say things I do not mean and do not believe. In otherwords, that I lie.
As I did give due notice of the stance I was taking, I feel you were perfectly at liberty to ignore my post. Even if in doing so, you would have been ignoring what is a valid position, even if not my own.
I do not, however, believe that you are entitiled to accuse me of playng mind games, and to this I take great exception.
Personally, I believe that introducing alternative perspectives into a thread is not a waste of time, but is a valid and valuable part of arriving at conclusions through debate.
Perhaps, as a computer systems analyst, I'm a little too used to having to play devils advocate profesionally, as examining all angles, even those you feel to be invalid, is a vital part of good software design.
Also, I'm not in the least concerned about any reposte against any point I may raise. What I am concerned about is the apparent implication that I am somehow in the wrong for raising points on such a basis, even where fair notice of my position has been given. This is an ineference I draw from your use of capitals for stress, and your use of the term 'mind games', which as far as I am aware has only negative conotation. If I misinterpreted your intention, I am prepared to be corrected.
Attack my arguments all you will - that's the purpose of such a board as this, but make statements implying some deficit in my character, and I will most certainly not 'wind my head in' for anyone.
I am attempting to keep this post as civil, reasoned and balanced as I can, as I feel I was maligned by your first response, and that this was only compounded by your second.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Apr 17, 2005 19:47:21 GMT
Bro Bob,I stand corrected as I thought and quite possibly have read, that Scotland had suffered Interdict as well as Bruce's personal Excommunication.
As to the presence of KTs or at least of graves, signs , and other "relics" relating to them in Argyll, has there been any radio carbon dating or investigation into these? Did they in fact predate 1307 and thus point to a KT presence in that part of Scotland when such would have been perfectly permissable without incurring papal wrath?
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Apr 20, 2005 7:07:59 GMT
Hi Steve, Regarding the grave slabes. Problems arise when deciding what is or isn't a KT graves slab. The carbon dating of the stones I'm pretty sure hasn't been carried out, but the timeline and situation regarding the fleeing KT might be enough to provide some evidence. The need for anonimity by the KT in Scotland would be between 1307( when first persecuted) and 1314( after Bruce won at Bannockburn). Taking this into account that means that a hell of a lot of KT died between these years and were buried with these supposed secret grave stones all in a small area. A bit hard to believe IMHO. Many people sight Kilmartin as the main cemetry but there are quite a few all over Scotland with these type of stones; Abercon West Lothian. Airth, Stirlingshire. Ayr, Balquidder, Stirlingshire. Cambuskenneth, Stirlingshire. Corrie, Dumfriesshire. Corstorphine, Edinburgh. Crail, Fife. Dalmeny, Edinburgh. Dryburgh, Borders. Dunbar, East Lothian. Dundrennan, Galloway. Ettleton, Roxburgh. Holyrood, Edinburgh. Inchailleach, Stirlingshire. Humbie, East Lothian. Linlithgow, West Lothian. Mouswald, Dumfriesshire. Neilston Parish Church, East Renfrew. Rosslyn, Mid Lothian. Ormiston, East Lothian. Stobo Parish Church, Peeblesshire. Torphican, West Lothian. Neidpath Castle, Peebleshire. Wauchope, Dumfriesshire.
In Torphichen Preceptory there is a grave stone identical to those at Kilmartin, however this preceptory I'm sure your aware, was never in the hands of the KT but up until 1560 at least, the property of Knights of St John. Another strange situation is that Kilmartin has never been claimed as a KT Chapel, ( even with all those graves stones) yet Kilmory has and they have no grave stones in the grounds.
To answer your question, there might have been KT in that area prior to the persecution with no reason for persecution. Which makes the claim on these stones unwarranted.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Apr 21, 2005 13:16:38 GMT
Thanks for the details Bob.
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Apr 26, 2005 8:18:33 GMT
What no option for Freemasonry began on Sirius?
This is a theory expounded by Foster Bailey within his work " The Spirit of Masonry". I quote " Masonic tradition has it that the first three degrees of our Blue Lodge are equivalent to the first degree of Freemasonry on the star Sirius."
GP
|
|
Agent J
Member
On a Mission from God...
Posts: 127
|
Post by Agent J on Apr 26, 2005 8:33:06 GMT
you'd need asbestos slippers then.
|
|