My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ancient "Freemasonry"?

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
1646 is the date I am most comfortable pointing to (in relation to documentation). 1717 (disputed) is only the date of the 1st Grand lodge. IMO, if a person considers our current system as its beginning... then the date would be 1717. If a person considers speculative Masonry, the date is 1646. There are earlier dates with documents which suggest much earlier, but again, things tend to get very murky with leaps of faith. As always, just like everyone else here, Just my opinion.
The problem with the 1646 date is this:

You assume that a man joining an operative lodge and who has no interest in working upon stone and learning the hands on aspects of the trade is a speculative freemason rather than the more realistic explanation of being merely just another member of a stonecraft lodge who simply wants the social and business benefits of membership in a stonecraft lodge.

That requires a leap of faith that far too many Freemasons willingly make. Just because someone joined these stonecraft lodges doesn't automatically make them speculatives in an operative world. There were many advantages of membership that had nothing to do with speculative assumptions.

Occum's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct.
 

LK600

Premium Member
Occum's Razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct.

Yes sir, but the problem I have is, I do not believe your stance is the simplest explanation. In some respects, I feel in order to claim all of Freemasonry started in 1717 requires almost the same mental acrobatics as would claiming Freemasonry started with the Templar's. As my grandfather use to say... that dog don't hunt. :) (of course the fun part about this is, none of us can prove anything regardless, so we can keep poking each other lol)
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Yes sir, but the problem I have is, I do not believe your stance is the simplest explanation.
Well understood.
In some respects, I feel in order to claim all of Freemasonry started in 1717 requires almost the same mental acrobatics as would claiming Freemasonry started with the Templar's.
I don't have the same mental acrobatic requirements on this as you do. I don't believe Freemasonry has anything to do with the Templars, other than borrowing from them as they did with stonecraft to create their morality plays.
As my grandfather use to say... that dog don't hunt. :) (of course the fun part about this is, none of us can prove anything regardless, so we can keep poking each other lol)
LOL! Yep.

That being said, all that one has to do is look at the evidence...

Freemasonry is total-emersion virtual-reality role-playing done within arena-style theater, all with a moral purpose. Everything they do has this basis. The fact that Freemasonry uses the backdrop, lexicon, lore and symbols of a variety of different eras -- stonecraft, Templars, etc. -- doesn't make any of those source material professions Freemasonry's origins. That would be likened to calling the actors of Dragnet policemen. Those dogs are audience trained!

Add to this Freemasonry's actual practices. Freemasons do nothing speculatively. There is no activity, schooling or training to support this claim - although there is a heck of a lot of conjecture!

What Freemason's practice is all geared toward is theater...
1) memorization of scripts and choreography,
2) putting on arena-style morality plays and lectures,
3) having patrons be part of the show,
4) training the next run of actors to replace the current ones.
All of it has nothing to do with actual speculative Work and everything to do with theater.

Once you get past the illusion that has been brilliantly put forth, you can only begin to appreciate how well that illusion has been painted by generations who hadn't a clue!
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
I need you to know that every time you describe the craft like that I die a little inside. ;)
I need you to know that any time someone leaves of "with a moral purpose" from my description, I roll my eyes and realize my description was not heard and very likely so was the entire point of the morality plays.
 

LK600

Premium Member
I need you to know that any time someone leaves of "with a moral purpose" from my description, I roll my eyes and realize my description was not heard and very likely so was the entire point of the morality plays.
Alright smart guy lol. Yes, I completely agree with the moral purpose part!


even if your slightly off on your dates....
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Alright smart guy lol. Yes, I completely agree with the moral purpose part!
If I were to just dismiss Freemasonry as an theatrical troop, I would do it a disservice. The fact is, by characterizing it as, "total-emersion virtual-reality role-playing done within arena-style theater, all with a moral purpose", it joins the ranks of all well intentioned societies who go to great lengths to:

1) Totally immerse its membership into moral lessons
2) Create tailored realities that support the moral lessons being conveyed and to do so without any outside distractions
3) Engage all participants in playing the roles that support these moral lessons
4) Surround the focus of the lesson - the patron (candidate) - within an arena to engage them further in these lessons​

It's brilliant! It's genius! It's a living testament to what was intended for all who joined. It's also what ALL GUILDS participated in during the age of "mystery plays", aka "occupational plays", that are the basis for what we do as Freemasons.

I don't use the statement lightly!

even if your slightly off on your dates....
<snicker> You'd be surprised to find out who was the first man to practice what we do as Freemasons
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Warrior, we've had this discussion before. It's was the lizard people, I think , idk. Lol !
aliens.jpg
 

Keith C

Registered User
It was most assuredly Aliens. Since Time Immemorial they have been attaching their spaceships to the underside of the flat Earth and burrowing up at night to build pyramids, install Nazca lines and generally influence human behavior and development. They are likely in Lizard like form, hence the reference to "Lizard People." We are all pawns in their galactic chess game!

All kidding aside, I do have an issue with the 1717 date. The formation of a "Grand" Lodge presupposes the prior existence of more than one Lodge. It makes zero sense to me that this new Grand Lodge would suddenly come up with a totally new form of working. It may have amalgamated practices of the several existent Lodges and even added some elements, but it doesn't add up to me that they fundamentally changed what was going on previously. Therefor I think the essentials of what takes place was already established prior to 1717. What that date may be I have no opinion.

And I will state this is just deductive from my point and an opinion I have not researched much.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
It was most assuredly Aliens. Since Time Immemorial they have been attaching their spaceships to the underside of the flat Earth and burrowing up at night to build pyramids, install Nazca lines and generally influence human behavior and development. They are likely in Lizard like form, hence the reference to "Lizard People." We are all pawns in their galactic chess game!

All kidding aside, I do have an issue with the 1717 date. The formation of a "Grand" Lodge presupposes the prior existence of more than one Lodge. It makes zero sense to me that this new Grand Lodge would suddenly come up with a totally new form of working. It may have amalgamated practices of the several existent Lodges and even added some elements, but it doesn't add up to me that they fundamentally changed what was going on previously. Therefor I think the essentials of what takes place was already established prior to 1717. What that date may be I have no opinion.

And I will state this is just deductive from my point and an opinion I have not researched much.

That's a good point about the GL, assuming there were 'normal' lodges already. Unless they assumed there would be normal, blue lodges. Tough to say. Good points tho.
 

LK600

Premium Member
That's a good point about the GL, assuming there were 'normal' lodges already. Unless they assumed there would be normal, blue lodges. Tough to say. Good points tho.

Not sure if the existence of a normal blue lodge matters, other than the preexisting existence of some form of speculative masonry. Any documentation would dismiss the 1717 date (again unless one refers to the system). The only thing I can see that supports the "1717-ish" date might be the Copiale cipher, but even then, most believe it is a blind or anti-masonic chatter.

"How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop... the world may never know." :)
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Actully they could not be the blue lodges we know today becuse they did not have the three degree system.
Bingo!

Which should raise the question: What exactly were these lodges if they were not blue lodges?
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
With all the bashing that you have done, ...
What bashing? Done by who?
...why did you become a a Mason?
I was a Mason long before I joined the Freemasonic Order.

I remain a Freemason to help other members ...
1) realize that ritual only points to Masonry, but is not Masonry itself.
2) practice the Masonry for which they joined Freemasonry.
We believe in the Bible without proper proof, ...
But of course, that is the essense of Faith!
...why not anything else that requires a lot of faith?
Yes! Why not?
The tenets of Freemasonry teaches us to try to live a moral life, but many missed that part of the lessons.
Agreed! But I would not have used "to try" in that statement! There is no try here - only DO!
 

MarkR

Premium Member
Look at the original documents! The original documents show the terms "free_manson" or "free-mason", not "freemason". The compound word "freemason" didn't come together until after 1717!
Base ball, base-ball, and finally baseball. The way the term was presented evolved. To say that the word freemason didn't exist because they used to hyphenate it or express it as two words just doesn't hold water.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Base ball, base-ball, and finally baseball. The way the term was presented evolved. To say that the word freemason didn't exist because they used to hyphenate it or express it as two words just doesn't hold water.
LOL! Getting a bit wet in your metaphors there Bro. Mark. You're eagerness to assume is saddening. When you get a chance, look at the difference between the Hebrew letters shin and sin. Attention to detain is what the fellow craft staircase lecture is all about and when you assume minor details mean nothing, you've gone from seeing abundance to being burdened.

Details Brother Mark! It's about looking at what was originally written and not modifying it to suit your narrative - which has unfortunately been done by generations of eager men wanting to create a narrative that is fantasy based.

The compound word was only used after 1717; that is a fact. To claim it was used before 1717 is fabricating history.

To assume the terms are all synonymous and that the term's use evolved to keep the same meaning is conjecture; the evidence doesn't back it unless further conjectures are put forth to support the narrative of fabrication.

When you examine what was done when the original stonecraft terms were used and overlay what is done currently, the conclusions should be obvious, unless you want to keep the fabricated narrative and evidence be damned. And there are a lot of members who do just this.

Ancient Free Masonry was about superior stonecraft. The word "free" meant "superior"; not "unrestrained". And Masonry was about "Building".

Freemasonry is about as far from Free Masonry as Dragnet is from actual police work. Freemasonry is not a speculative form of operative masonry; even though the scripts claim it is. It is something that points to its possibility though. Which is all that you can truly offer to a population of individuals who need to be invited to improve, not forced. Much like what I do here in challenging the status quo; invite members to think beyond the veil and see the truth behind Freemasonic conjecture.
 
Last edited:
Top