How many theories on the origin of Freemasonry have you heard?

[Mike Lawrence 3]

People have speculated on the origins of Freemasonry since James Anderson wrote the first two Books of Constitution in1723 and 1734, and still the mystery persists.

However, since Andersons time, many learned men have put forward the most amazing theories about our origin.

What has been the strangest, silliest, the most ridiculous or the funniest ones you have heard or read about.

You don't have to agree with them, just let us all know what they are!

To start the ball rolling, I once read a convincing article which suggested that at the time of the Reformation, when Henry VIII seized all the monastic lands and destroyed many Abbeys and Churches, a group of Monks or Brothers continued to practice their faith by forming cells and going underground, thus developing a series of secret signs and passwords.

As plausible as the theory sounded, the author could not produce one shred of evidence and concluded at the end of the article that it was merely a idea based on guess work!

[Lew Finnis 6]

My answer to the basic question is 'Far too many!' - and most of them are as dubious as the one about the monks. Unless anyone manages to unearth new, solid, evidence, it is unlikely we shall ever know for sure. That said, Neville Barker-Cryer's 'York Mysteries Revealed' indicate a possible source. IT will interesting to learn what else he has managed to find out.

[Mike Lawrence 3]

Couldn't agree more Bob, but can you enlighten me a little more about the "The Tutankhamen Prophecies" which links the craft with the Mayan, etc." as I personally have not heard that one!

[Mike Martin 143]

bob c (04/05/2012)

---

As to the most "unique" it is probably the book "The Tutankhamen Prophecies" which links the craft with the Mayan, etc.

I will raise your Mayans with CW Leadbetter who in his book "Freemasonry and its Ancient Mystic Rites" claimed that Freemasonry originated in Atlantis and see you with with Foster Bailey who in his book "the Spirit of Masonry" claimed that Masonry was first practised on the "Dog Star" aka Sirius.

[Russell Holland 0]

It is perhaps worth noting that the first and much better part of Bailey's book was written by his wife. As women are not regarded as authorities on Masonry it was published under his name.

The second part of the book is a different writing style - much less authoritative.

[Society of No-Homers 0]

If you want a collection of real doozies, look to the output of Dr Keith Laidler.

The Jesus Gene: A Messianic Bloodline, the Jews and Freemasonry

The Head of God:The Lost Treasure of The Templars

The inter weaving of myths from all over the world to arrive at fantastical, outlandish theories is truly remarkable.

Did you know that Jesus's head is buried under the Apprentice pillar in Rosslyn Chapel?

[Mike Lawrence 3]

Society of No-Homers (06/05/2012)

---

If you want a collection of real doozies, look to the output of Dr Keith Laidler.

The Jesus Gene: A Messianic Bloodline, the Jews and Freemasonry

The Head of God:The Lost Treasure of The Templars

The inter weaving of myths from all over the world to arrive at fantastical, outlandish theories is truly remarkable.

Did you know that Jesus's head is buried under the Apprentice pillar in Rosslyn Chapel?

What about the rest of him? :)

[Mike Martin 143]

Mike Lawrence (06/05/2012)

---

Society of No-Homers (06/05/2012)

---

Did you know that Jesus's head is buried under the Apprentice pillar in Rosslyn Chapel?

What about the rest of him? :)

Buried under Mount Cardou in France by the Knights Templar according to the book.

[Russell Holland 0]

The widespread interest amongst the brethren about the origins of Masonry seems to me to express some inner need - as if the brethren wish to have some higher purpose to justify their efforts to ensure the survival of their lodges.

If Masonry is a social organisation with a somewhat accidental and arbitrary ritual, then it hardly matters if lodges and Grand Lodges fail. There are plenty of other moral organisations to join.

If, however, Masonry has a higher purpose (beyond the betterment of individual human specimens) then perhaps we might glimpse that purpose if we could discover when and where Masonry originated.

Of course, the ancient brethren may well have had a reason for concealing the secrets from modern brethren - putting all in allegory.

[Mike Lawrence 3]

Russell Holland (06/05/2012)

---

The widespread interest amongst the brethren about the origins of Masonry seems to me to express some inner need - as if the brethren wish to have some higher purpose to justify their efforts to ensure the survival of their lodges.

If Masonry is a social organisation with a somewhat accidental and arbitrary ritual, then it hardly matters if lodges and Grand Lodges fail. There are plenty of other moral organisations to join.

If, however, Masonry has a higher purpose (beyond the betterment of individual human specimens) then perhaps we might glimpse that purpose if we could discover when and where Masonry originated.

Of course, the ancient brethren may well have had a reason for concealing the secrets from modern brethren - putting all in allegory.

Hi Russell

I really enjoy reading your posts, they are so different and I never understand them!

[Russell Holland 0]

Hi Mike

I am glad my posts achieve something.

Cheers

[Society of No-Homers 0]

Russell Holland (06/05/2012)

---

If, however, Masonry has a higher purpose (beyond the betterment of individual human specimens) then perhaps we might glimpse that purpose if we could discover when and where Masonry originated.

Or we much more likely may discover that it has no other purpose than the betterment of individual human specimens and it is 'what it says on the tin' - a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.

[Russell Holland 0]

Or we much more likely may discover that it has no other purpose than the betterment of individual human specimens and it is 'what it says on the tin' - a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.

I note that Albert Mackey referred to a Science of Morality, but the science is lost, at least to mainstream lodges. http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_history_volume_7.htm

The veiling in allegory has ensured that modern brethren are deprived of what ancient brethren knew. I suppose they knew what they were doing.

Personally I think that that the loss of Masonic Science largely occurred when the London brethren formed their own Grand Lodge. For example, look at the loss of knowledge of the Blazing Star by 1750.

Still, however, there are many traces of pre-Christian practices in Masonry that may perhaps be of use for those interested in the origins and purpose of Masonry. Consider for example the use of the ladder in some higher degrees.

[SG-1 0]

Hi Russell

I really enjoy reading your posts, they are so different and I never understand them!

Brilliant, this genuinely made me laugh out loud :-) ;-) ;-)

[Mike Lawrence 3]

Hi Russell

I think the difficulty here is whether or not there was a Transition from what we know as Operatative Masonry to Accepted Masonry.

If there was, then Russell, your argument possible holds water.

However, if what we know as Speculative Freemasonry evolved separately from Operative Freemasonry and was set up in its own right, then it surely is allegory and there are no lost secrets, whatever people like Albert Mackay may suggest.

As the saying goes, you pays yer money and yer makes yer choice.

[Mike Lawrence 3]

bob c (09/05/2012)

---

Mike Lawrence (09/05/2012)

---

Hi Russell

I think the difficulty here is whether or not there was a Transition from what we know as Operatative Masonry to Accepted Masonry.

If there was, then Russell, your argument possible holds water.

However, if what we know as Speculative Freemasonry evolved separately from Operative Freemasonry and was set up in its own right, then it surely is allegory and there are no lost secrets, whatever people like Albert Mackay may suggest.

As the saying goes, you pays yer money and yer makes yer choice.

Ah but do secrets need to only come from an operative source?

I would imagine if Speculative FM's had secrets we would know about them, there has been enough exposures!

[chestnut 0]

Over the years like many I have heard many fanciful explanations of FM's origin. These range from ancient Egypt to France, Scotland to Ireland and all points in between. What is fairly certain is that it was not started in the Goose and Gridiron in London which UGLE would like us to believe as references to Speculative Masonry predate that meeting. There certainly does not seem to be, from what we know, a definitive starting point which makes me think that it has evolved and become more embellished as time has gone on. Perhaps its original format has been lost over time, similar to much of the allegory which was common knowledge in the past being lost on modern audiences. Perhaps FM took on many guises as a mask to hide meetings of free thinkers across religious boundaries. We shall probably never know truly.

However whilst that adds to its mystique we are left wondering as an orphan would as to our parentage and history. Perhaps to make the Craft more appealing in a modern world we need once and for all to firmly establish the likely starting point and how FM has evolved over the centuries.

[Mike Lawrence 3]

chestnut (09/05/2012)

---

What is fairly certain is that it was not started in the Goose and Gridiron in London which UGLE would like us to believe as references to Speculative Masonry predate that meeting.

Hi David, just to clear up a small point which I am sure you meant anyway, references to Pre 1717 and Post 1717 Freemasonsy were generally referring to Accepted Freemasons followed by Free and Accepted Masons, both of which it would appear were non-operative. The term speculative was a mid to late 18th century innovation.

However, both Accepted Freemasons followed by Free and Accepted Masons were of course speculative in the sense we know it to be today.

Hope that makes sense.

[Mike Martin 143]

chestnut (09/05/2012)

---

What is fairly certain is that it was not started in the Goose and Gridiron in London which UGLE would like us to believe as references to Speculative Masonry predate that meeting.

I think this one should be knocked on the head once and for all. Neither the UGLE or the preceeding Grand Lodges of England have ever tried to claim that Freemasonry began in 1717, paying attention to how that story is told points out that there were quite a few Lodges operating in London and in England generally and that in 1716 members of four of them decided to convene a Grand Lodge. Others quickly joined in following 1717.

In fact John Hammill's book "History of English Freemasonry" written while he was the Librarian at Freemasons' Hall London and which was fully endorsed by Grand Lodge was at great pains to highlight the existence of pre-1717 Lodges and Freemasons. Bernard E Jones' Compendium which was also heavily supported 50 years earlier also drew attention to the early origins. Even Anderson's 1723 Constitutions referred to the Lodges and Freemasons that operated before the Grand Lodge was formed in London.

It is true to say that in all my time reading and learning about Freemasonry I have ONLY heard the claim made by the detractors of the UGLE and conspiracy-style researchers.

[yorksmason 6]

If we want to know the true origins of Freemasonry, surely all we have to do is to wait for Dan Brown to write a novel about it?

[Society of No-Homers 0]

The problem with too many of these theories and also with many of Russell's posts is that they begin with the premise that absence of evidence is evidence of something lost or hidden when the logical conclusion should be that absence of evidence is evidence of non-existence.

[Mike Lawrence 3]

Mike Martin (09/05/2012)

---

chestnut (09/05/2012)

---

What is fairly certain is that it was not started in the Goose and Gridiron in London which UGLE would like us to believe as references to Speculative Masonry predate that meeting.

I think this one should be knocked on the head once and for all. Neither the UGLE or the preceeding Grand Lodges of England have ever tried to claim that Freemasonry began in 1717, paying attention to how that story is told points out that there were quite a few Lodges operating in London and in England generally and that in 1716 members of four of them decided to convene a Grand Lodge. Others quickly joined in following 1717.

In fact John Hammill's book "History of English Freemasonry" written while he was the Librarian at Freemasons' Hall London and which was fully endorsed by Grand Lodge was at great pains to highlight the existence of pre-1717 Lodges and Freemasons. Bernard E Jones' Compendium which was also heavily supported 50 years earlier also drew attention to the early origins. Even Anderson's 1723 Constitutions referred to the Lodges and Freemasons that operated before the Grand Lodge was formed in London.

It is true to say that in all my time reading and learning about Freemasonry I have ONLY heard the claim made by the detractors of the UGLE and conspiracy-style researchers.

There is far to much evidence to dispute the existence of some form of Freemasonry being practiced almost 100 years before 1717, the debate which exisits today is which came first, English Accepted Freemasony or Scottish non-operative Masonry?

[Russell Holland 0]

Mike Lawrence (09/05/2012)

---

Hi Russell

I think the difficulty here is whether or not there was a Transition from what we know as Operative Masonry to Accepted Masonry.

If there was, then Russell, your argument possible holds water.....

Recently I read an account of operative ritual from 1700. I was quite surprised to see that it contained esoteric teachings that seemed not to be known by London Masons post-1717. For example the operative association of TMH with the Pole Star is straight out of ancient Egypt - and of course the hieroglyphs were not translated for another 150 years. And what possible interest could that have been to operative masons?

I now suspect that both operative and speculative lodges depended on a concealed source of initiatory knowledge (invisible college?) and that source withdrew after 1717.

[Russell Holland 0]

Society of No-Homers (09/05/2012)

---

The problem with too many of these theories and also with many of Russell's posts is that they begin with the premise that absence of evidence is evidence of something lost or hidden when the logical conclusion should be that absence of evidence is evidence of non-existence.

Masonic Science, if discovered would allow the use of the working tools in a "moral" sense and then we would be able to tell the Real from the Unreal.

Amos 7:8 And the LORD said to me, "Amos, what do you see?" I answered, "A plumb line." And the Lord replied, "I will test my people with this plumb line. I will no longer ignore all their sins.

On the other hand perhaps the brethren are not yet ready to measure morality. That might be one reason for using allegory to conceal Masonic secrets from the brethren.

[Mike Lawrence 3]

Russell Holland (10/05/2012)

---

Mike Lawrence (09/05/2012)

---

Hi Russell

I think the difficulty here is whether or not there was a Transition from what we know as Operative Masonry to Accepted Masonry.

If there was, then Russell, your argument possible holds water.....

Recently I read an account of operative ritual from 1700. I was quite surprised to see that it contained esoteric teachings that seemed not to be known by London Masons post-1717. For example the operative association of TMH with the Pole Star is straight out of ancient Egypt - and of course the hieroglyphs were not translated for another 150 years. And what possible interest could that have been to operative masons?

I now suspect that both operative and speculative lodges depended on a concealed source of initiatory knowledge (invisible college?) and that source withdrew after 1717.

But Russell, Accepted Freemasonry in England of the 1700's had already departed from Operative Masonry, and you also seem to be dismissing the older MS constitutions which were all operative documents and all which contained the Charges, these are the foundations of modern Freemasonry.

It might also be helpful if you could cite the document to which you refer, then we could all broaden our knowledge.