|
Post by whistler on Apr 26, 2005 8:33:08 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 Sirius or another planet, that is one of the excitements of tracing back the origins of the mysteries, for those of us who are happy with the trail going back to Egypt, where did they come from to get to Egypt, to say they started in Egypt would put us in a similar camp as those who say 1717 was the begining.
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Apr 26, 2005 10:50:26 GMT
to say they started in Egypt would put us in a similar camp as those who say 1717 was the begining. Ah but you see no one actually says that. They say that Modern or organised Freemasonry as we know it today began in 1717 not Freemasonry generally. Otherwise we would have to ignore the existence of Ashmole and Moray etc. GP
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 26, 2005 15:55:22 GMT
General Pike
Indeed. But do they mean "Freemasonry as we know it today" or "UGLE Freemasonry as we know it today?" There are after all an awful lot of non UGLE-amity fraternities in our world. And Kilwinning was I understand organising Lodges and issuing warrants long before UGLE. Though this is a bit academic as the Mysteries are the Mysteries, and their vehicle may change, but the Mysteries remain.
It is a bit like a post that I made earlier today on tfm which was deleted by the mods:-
It is my experience that Freemasons in some Freemasonic fraternities view Freemasonry almost like a discrete entity (typified by Freemasonry started in XXX). Others see it as a vehicle that changes through time, but which holds the wisdom of the Ancient Mysteries. Sometimes these two views appear mutually exclusive but they are not.
Imagine that you are at home one day and the Queen pops in for tea. What is the most relevant bit, the fact that the Queen has popped in for tea, or the particular vehicle that she arrived in?
Also our Queen may have been born on a particular date, but there were many Kings and Queens before her, and there will be many after her. The vehicles that were once used may be horse and carriage, today it may be a bullet proof car, and tomorrow it may be a spaceship. But for all of the changes in vehicle, it was the Queen who came for tea. And what the Queen represents did not start on her date of birth.
I just get really sad when Freemasons of ten-twenty years standing tell me in all seriousness that the Ancient Mysteries have absolutely nothing to do with Freemasonry.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Apr 26, 2005 16:39:03 GMT
Why be sad stewart? It is what they feel freemasonry to be.
Surely thats the most important thing? Not some dogmatic interpretation of how we should look at things.
If someone feels that freemasonry originated in Egypt, Sirius, Outer Mongolia, The Planet Ziggazigah or anywhere else, that is their right.
As long as they don't expect all freemasons to fall into line and quack in agreement with them, and they are happy with the 'proofs' they have seen or read that get them to that conclusion then good luck to them.
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 26, 2005 16:46:26 GMT
Bod
I agree, completely.
The problem comes when "they" state caregorically that there is absolutely no connection, not to them, but at all. On another forum today one poster has called those who do believe there to be such a connection to be "nutters". When the reality is that he simply may not have found it. But that does not mean that it does not exist.
Realised that I didn't answer your question. Why get sad? Good question, the easiest way that I can explain it is to say that I feel for Freemasonry. Though I realise that this may be difficult to understand.
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Apr 26, 2005 18:46:57 GMT
Indeed. But do they mean "Freemasonry as we know it today" or "UGLE Freemasonry as we know it today?" There are after all an awful lot of non UGLE-amity fraternities in our world. Quite obviously they DO NOT mean UGLE as the UGLE did not happen until 1813 when the Antients and Moderns' Grand Lodges blended their workings to form one united front to the World It is my experience that Freemasons in some Freemasonic fraternities view Freemasonry almost like a discrete entity (typified by Freemasonry started in XXX). Others see it as a vehicle that changes through time, but which holds the wisdom of the Ancient Mysteries. Sometimes these two views appear mutually exclusive but they are not. That is the beauty of Freemasonry, it is a distinct and personal thing to each of its members all under the banner of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. I just get really sad when Freemasons of ten-twenty years standing tell me in all seriousness that the Ancient Mysteries have absolutely nothing to do with Freemasonry. I personally get sad when people who aren't Freemasons think that they know better than those who are, about Freemasonry. I believe that the early Freemasons recognised the value of some of the moral lessons that were being neglected by the Church (in it's desire for temporal power) through their new eyes due to the Rennaissance and made a new way of passing them on. I've seen nothing to convince me (personally) otherwise that at a later date and wanting to draw people in they became more exotic with their legendary histories GP
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Apr 26, 2005 19:07:19 GMT
Ah but you see no one actually says that. They say that Modern or organised Freemasonry as we know it today began in 1717 not Freemasonry generally. Otherwise we would have to ignore the existence of Ashmole and Moray etc. GP The books written by and about the founders of Co-freemasonry clearly show the origins of the wisdoms we practice being also practiced in Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Apr 26, 2005 19:49:49 GMT
The books written by and about the founders of Co-freemasonry clearly show the origins of the wisdoms we practice being also practiced in Egypt. I have two quick questions Are these books specifically about Co-masonry or do they refer to the Rite of Misraim ? Were these books written prior to or after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone (1799) GP
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 26, 2005 19:51:28 GMT
I personally get sad when people who aren't Freemasons think that they know better than those who are, about Freemasonry.GP General Pike You may be suprised to hear that this is something that I have struggled with myself. I mean how could it be possible? Am I just an arrogant son of a b***h? It is possible. And if you have been following my posts over the years you will be aware that, until I was encouraged not to on this forum, I used to often say "I could be wrong".
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Apr 27, 2005 0:54:05 GMT
General Pike You may be suprised to hear that this is something that I have struggled with myself. I mean how could it be possible? Am I just an arrogant son of a b***h? It is possible. quote] Stewart You may be interested in the Co-M concept of The Head of all True Freemasons. The key word is True. The received understanding is that not all True FM belong to lodges and not all members of lodges are True FM. As for the Foster Bailey assertion of the 3 degrees being based on Sirius lodges. I suppose it is a bit like brethren not belonging to another degree, e.g. Royal Ark Mariners, discussing what it might be like, whether it is genuine Masonry, or even whether it exists at all. A good subject for a poll. Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 27, 2005 6:17:11 GMT
I do have some awareness of this from the thread that Whistler and Steve and others discussed on this subject.
I am painfully aware of this. In fact the current situation where True Freemasons can be effectively pushed out of organised Freemasonry by those who this makes no sense to, really does break my heart. Which is one reason why I have been working so hard to do whatever little I can to remedy the situation. Freemasonry really is a Divine Gift, and it is a gift that I feel is being abused by those who appear to know no better (though I strongly suspect some do) in our world today. By the time my day of judgement comes I hope to have done a little to remedy this travesty. There is so much wasted and neglected Masonic potential in the world that could so easily be grasped.
Indeed, why not start one?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Apr 27, 2005 9:22:08 GMT
>Indeed, why not start one?
Oh dear
I was indicating obliquely that voting on the reality of putative orders by brethren who assert that they are not members of those orders does not necessarily take us very far forward.
A bit too oblique.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 27, 2005 9:54:00 GMT
Russell
Personally I think that it would make a good poll topic, though I would not expect too many responses. Why, because it would encourage thought.
There is fundamentally important point here, which Freemasonry does need to address.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Apr 28, 2005 8:11:10 GMT
I think that when a man is investigating the sense of his life, whither he comes from etc, than that man is a freemason. Freemasonry is born when men gathered and exchanged their opinions on the foregoing.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Apr 28, 2005 9:42:28 GMT
Russell Personally I think that it would make a good poll topic, though I would not expect too many responses. Why, because it would encourage thought. There is fundamentally important point here, which Freemasonry does need to address. Stewart Can I ask you to justify this comment please? I say that 'cos on the surface it appears to be complete tosh - Freemasonry doesn't encourage thought? Cobblers.
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 28, 2005 9:53:23 GMT
Bod
Stewart says digging deeper...
I meant thought about why some Freemasons say that "something" has "absolutely nothing to do with Freemaosnry", when what they mean is "I have not come across it in my Freemasonry so far".
Does that make sense?
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Apr 28, 2005 12:52:25 GMT
Perfect sense - when you gonna stop with the inaccurate generalisations?
|
|
|
Post by a on Apr 28, 2005 14:27:53 GMT
A week Tuesday.
|
|
phil
Member
Just me all at sea
Posts: 209
|
Post by phil on Jul 9, 2005 8:59:31 GMT
Going back to the origin (he, he) of this thread, the question of the origin of Freemasonry, I believe that the question is incorrectly presented.
Firstly, let us remember what Napoleon said: “History is but a fable that everyone accepts as true”.
But that aside, we should consider, at the very least, the following: 1/ What is the origin of the philosophies and esoteric elements in Freemasonry? 2/ What is the origin of the order or organisation of Freemasons? 3/ Who were the first Masons?
Let me look at those questions in reverse order:
For example "Who were the first Masons? " may lead us to consider the Tower of Babel built primarily to set Babel on the map. Pure prestige for the builders. Read Genesis 11:4. “… let us make a name for ourselves”. Or, was it a real occurrence? Archaeology suggests that it existed. What about the expertise needed to build the Arch. Noah was obviously a knower!!
“What is the origin of the order of Freemasonry” is the easiest question. There is enough reliable documented history of Scotland with the guilds being established in 1057 and in England in 1220 with the documentation of the Scottish operative lodges in the 14th century and the speculative lodges later on all resulting in the 1717 story, the Antients and the Moderns thereafter and so forth. Also in Germany, many early Lodges (Bouwhutten) were established. You know the rest .....
The more complex question is the origins of the philosophies and esoteric elements. If we look at hermetism for example. That movement (for want of a better word) accepted all religions, all mystical elements, all sciences and rolled them into one happy conglomerate of moral doctrines, holy respect and mutual acceptance. That sounds very much like Freemasonry, doesn’t it. Much of the sciences came from Euclide, Pythagorus. The building of the pyramids demanded the knowledge of all the appropriate sciences, many would say, including astronomy. The beliefs and “teaching” of Hermes and Thoth formed a strong moral and scientific foundation. Pun intended!! The philosophers like Plato who advocated meditation. He said that if we really want to gain knowledge we must leave our body. In later years, we cannot ignore the elements of the Knights Templar. Those terrible warriors in the name of the Chuurch who developed into money lenders, invented banking, left us with Friday the 13th as a superstition and filled Roslyn Chapel with little Green Men -- hundreds of them.
So, in short, what is the origin of Freemasonry? Sorry my Brethren, wrong question!!!
S&FG
Phil.
|
|