300th Birthday

[GKA]

The way I see it, the question of 1717 vs 1721, comes down to simply this, what was the main motive for the formation of a GL in the first place, is it prudent to assume that the dae of 1717 was selected only for the purpose of establishing an early lineage, or were the founders in need of creating a formal legitimacy, the main event at that the contest of succession and the movement to return the house of Stuate the throne.
The political climate was intense at that time and most influential people involved themselves in the politics of the day, as did the Masons.
The real need for the formation of a Grand Lodge was evident in 1717, somewhat more so than 1721

 

[GKA]

Hodapp used a question mark. It was Mark Tabbert who made the declarative statement.

My criticism is directed to the publication, not the author

 

[Warrior1256]

Wow, some really spirited debate. I like this.

 

[goomba]

My criticism is directed to the publication, not the author

Out of curiosity why don't you like the publication?

 

[GKA]

Out of curiosity why don't you like the publication?

It describes the ritual in too much detail, specifically, the MM degree, knowing what to expect deminishes the impact of the experience in my opinion, and the argument that it was written for non masons is nonsensical.
Freemasonry uses a plethora of symbols to express a concept in simple terms, it pains me to see our fraternity compaired with devil worshipers and new world illuminati by those who do not understand masonry, the casual divulgence of our mysteries to the profane only adds fuel to an already raging inferno, plus.....................
I hate the title.

 

[goomba]

It describes the ritual in too much detail, specifically, the MM degree, knowing what to expect deminishes the impact of the experience in my opinion, and the argument that it was written for non masons is nonsensical.
Freemasonry uses a plethora of symbols to express a concept in simple terms, it pains me to see our fraternity compaired with devil worshipers and new world illuminati by those who do not understand masonry, the casual divulgence of our mysteries to the profane only adds fuel to an already raging inferno, plus.....................
I hate the title.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

 

[Brother JC]

...there is a small amount of evidence which strongly suggest that freemasonry started prior to 1717, at least in some limited form...

The GL was founded by the members of four lodges... I'd say that's more than a "small amount of evidence" that Freemasonry had already started.

 

[GKA]

.

 

[Warrior1256]

The GL was founded by the members of four lodges... I'd say that's more than a "small amount of evidence" that Freemasonry had already started.

Good point!

 

[GKA]

I could have said that there was a lot of evidence for freemasonry prior to 1717 and even included the kirkald scroll as evidence.
Probaby would have gotten the same response from someone

 

[Glen Cook]

The GL was founded by the members of four lodges... I'd say that's more than a "small amount of evidence" that Freemasonry had already started.

Indeed, and, given that we have minutes from 1599, it might even be a modicum of evidence

I could have said that there was a lot of evidence for freemasonry prior to 1717 and even included the kirkald scroll as evidence.
Probaby would have gotten the same response from someone

But doesn't Cooper date the Kirkwall Scroll to lat 18th C? See Cooper RLD The Rosslyn Hoax?, Viewing Rosslyn Chapel from a new perspective; Lewis Masonic 2007 ISBN 0-85318-281-7

 

[GKA]

Indeed, and, given that we have minutes from 1599, it might even be a modicum of evidence

But doesn't Cooper date the Kirkwall Scroll to lat 18th C? See Cooper RLD The Rosslyn Hoax?, Viewing Rosslyn Chapel from a new perspective; Lewis Masonic 2007 ISBN 0-85318-281-7

Like I said, lol

 

[GKA]

I have actually read that book, and Cooper is wrong one at least one count, unless you consider the York Rite order of Knight Templar to be outside of Freemasonry.

 

[Glen Cook]

I have actually read that book, and Cooper is wrong one at least one count, unless you consider the York Rite order of Knight Templar to be outside of Freemasonry.

Well, KT is not YR in The UK, but I did not gather that to be his meaning. If you have time, his quote would be of interest

 

[GKA]

Well, KT is not YR in The UK, but I did not gather that to be his meaning. If you have time, his quote would be of interest

He makes the statement that there is absolutly nothing in the design or decoration of Rosslyn Chapel that is masonic, in fact the whole book is based upon that idea,
In the chapel, there is a lentil, with an inscription referring to one aspect of the legend of Zerubabel, I think t comes from the book os Ezdra, forgive my spelling,
When I get home, I will provide a reference

 

[Glen Cook]

He makes the statement that there is absolutly nothing in the design or decoration of Rosslyn Chapel that is masonic, in fact the whole book is based upon that idea,
In the chapel, there is a lentil, with an inscription referring to one aspect of the legend of Zerubabel, I think t comes from the book os Ezdra, forgive my spelling,
When I get home, I will provide a reference

How is the story of Zerubabel Masonic? See http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/zerubbabel/

 

[GKA]

It is part of the York Rite

 

[Warrior1256]

It is part of the York Rite

Yes, it is. Chapter, Royal Arch.

 

[Glen Cook]

It is part of the York Rite

The story of Zerubel is in HRA and KT. That does not make it Masonic. The word "master" is in Masonic ritual. That does not make it Masonic
Now, if you were to argue that Sinclair had it included because it alludes to the Temple, I could see the argument. But simply because there is a common element between a Masonic story borrowed from the Bible and the edifice, does not make the ritual the source for the decoration.

Additionally, the time line for HRA ritual and the building of Rosslyn must be considered.

 

[GKA]

The story of Zerubel is in HRA and KT. That does not make it Masonic. The word "master" is in Masonic ritual. That does not make it Masonic
Now, if you were to argue that Sinclair had it included because it alludes to the Temple, I could see the argument. But simply because there is a common element between a Masonic story borrowed from the Bible and the edifice, does not make the ritual the source for the decoration.

Additionally, the time line for HRA ritual and the building of Rosslyn must be considered.

This is against my better judgement, but here goes,
Please explain how something can be part of a masonic ritual and yet, not be masonic?
And I do not mean the use of individual words