Interesting perspectives

grayflannelsuit said:

Thank you for the reasoned reply. Since you have already done much research on the topic allow me to ask a related question: Do you know from whom or from when this "Freemasonry is a peculiar system..." saying originates? I do not, and the best I have been able to do in a quick search is to find references to it in the mid-19th century.

Click to expand...

Sure. Here's what I have...

Sources

I: Other than “a Moral science”, how else is Masonry referred?
R: It is referred to as “a peculiar system of Morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."
I: When was it first referred to in this way?
R: Around 1813.
I: And who was first noted as making this reference.
R: Brother Samuel Hemming.
I: Who was he?
R: One of the leaders who helped unite the Antients and the Moderns into the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813 and one of its first Senor Grand Wardens.
I: What else?
R: He was Master of the Lodge of Reconciliation from 1813-1816, which he formed to bring about the union of the two groups.
I: What is he credited for?
R: He is credited with defining “Freemasonry” as “a beautiful system of Morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.”
I: What’s more?
R: He formed a new set of lectures known as the "Hemming Lectures," which was adopted after the Prestonian system was abandoned at that time.
I: What’s further?
R: Since its origin, Hemming’s phrase has been quoted in Rituals Worldwide; sometimes the word “peculiar” substitutes “beautiful,” depending upon the Jurisdiction Ritual used.
I: What Mason is known to using the word “peculiar” in this phrase?
R: Brother Albert Pike.

Privately Owned

I: What is peculiar?
R: Anything distinctive and differentiated from the usual or norm.
I: What’s more?
R: The Character of only one person, group or thing which distinguishes it from others.
I: What’s further?
R: Denoting special or particular qualities.
I: What is its root meaning?
R: Its root comes from Latin and means, “Privately Owned.”
I: How does this latter root meaning play into Masonry today?
R: Masonry is privately owned by the Body of Masons of each Jurisdiction.
I: What then is “Peculiar” to Masons?
R: Their Rituals, Lectures, Charges, Modes of Recognition, Character and Culture.

(FROM: Building Boaz: Uncommon Catechism for Uncommon Masonic Education -- Dr. John S. Nagy, second printing, pages 19-21)

coachn said:

Freemasonry started around 1717, as a dinner oriented role-playing theatrical society that incorporated the symbolism and lexicon of Stonecraft for its members to use as a foundation upon which to interact.

Click to expand...

For sure that I disagree. Accusing us that we meet in order to estabilish a NWO is surely less insulting than this. At least Rosicrucians had more valid reasons to meet that to play a "role playing game dinner oriented".
In any case not only the word "science" has had an evolution, but also the word "art". Not to relate the meaning of a word to the time in which was used create only confusion and misunderstanding. Freemasonry was a "science" based on the study and practice of the "liberal arts" and, among them, of the Geometry (see the many documents prior to 1717 that state this). However "liberal arts" was used to indicate the whole range of the knowledge and obviously they should be intended now in more wide sense, also because the most important part of the sentence above is not the object but "the study and practice".
Saying that the "art" of Freemasonry is "acting" means that basically a Mason practices being someone who is not (exactly like an actor). I do not know how this sounds in English but in Italian sounds very bad as it means that basically a Mason is a false person. I do not believe this.

Luigi Visentin said:

For sure that I disagree.

Click to expand...

'Tis your right.

Luigi Visentin said:

Accusing us that we meet in order to estabilish a NWO is surely less insulting than this.

Click to expand...

LOL! Sounds like your buttons got pushed.

Luigi Visentin said:

At least Rosicrucians had more valid reasons to meet that to play a "role playing game dinner oriented".

Click to expand...

You might want to re-examine this some day.

Luigi Visentin said:

In any case not only the word "science" has had an evolution, but also the word "art".

Click to expand...

In what ways?

Luigi Visentin said:

Not to relate the meaning of a word to the time in which was used create only confusion and misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

I agree!

Luigi Visentin said:

Freemasonry was a "science" based on the study and practice of the "liberal arts" and, among them, of the Geometry (see the many documents prior to 1717 that state this).

Click to expand...

Although Freemasonry encourages these studies, these studies are not supported by the organization as a whole. The fantasy and romantic notion that it does is no where near the truth. Freemasonry was never a science. It was, is and shall always be an art that encourages studies of the 7 LAs&Ss, but does not practice it within the organization.

Those "document" were very likely not "Freemasonic". If they were Stonecraft, we are talking entirely different beast.

Luigi Visentin said:

However "liberal arts" was used to indicate the whole range of the knowledge and obviously they should be intended now in more wide sense, also because the most important part of the sentence above is not the object but "the study and practice".

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, not even the basics are taught by the whole of the organization.

Luigi Visentin said:

Saying that the "art" of Freemasonry is "acting" means that basically a Mason practices being someone who is not (exactly like an actor).

Click to expand...

Agreed! Unless of course that person actually IS the Word he professes. Then he has transcended the act and has become the role authentically!

Luigi Visentin said:

I do not know how this sounds in English but in Italian sounds very bad as it means that basically a Mason is a false person. I do not believe this.

Click to expand...

A Freemasonic "Master" who is not Masterful does wear the title falsely, but still in the spirit of the acting fraternity.

coachn said:

Sure. Here's what I have...

Sources

I: Other than “a Moral science”, how else is Masonry referred?
R: It is referred to as “a peculiar system of Morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."
I: When was it first referred to in this way?
R: Around 1813.
I: And who was first noted as making this reference.
R: Brother Samuel Hemming.
I: Who was he?
R: One of the leaders who helped unite the Antients and the Moderns into the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813 and one of its first Senor Grand Wardens.
I: What else?
R: He was Master of the Lodge of Reconciliation from 1813-1816, which he formed to bring about the union of the two groups.
I: What is he credited for?
R: He is credited with defining “Freemasonry” as “a beautiful system of Morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.”
I: What’s more?
R: He formed a new set of lectures known as the "Hemming Lectures," which was adopted after the Prestonian system was abandoned at that time.
I: What’s further?
R: Since its origin, Hemming’s phrase has been quoted in Rituals Worldwide; sometimes the word “peculiar” substitutes “beautiful,” depending upon the Jurisdiction Ritual used.
I: What Mason is known to using the word “peculiar” in this phrase?
R: Brother Albert Pike.
View attachment 6019
Privately Owned

I: What is peculiar?
R: Anything distinctive and differentiated from the usual or norm.
I: What’s more?
R: The Character of only one person, group or thing which distinguishes it from others.
I: What’s further?
R: Denoting special or particular qualities.
I: What is its root meaning?
R: Its root comes from Latin and means, “Privately Owned.”
I: How does this latter root meaning play into Masonry today?
R: Masonry is privately owned by the Body of Masons of each Jurisdiction.
I: What then is “Peculiar” to Masons?
R: Their Rituals, Lectures, Charges, Modes of Recognition, Character and Culture.

(FROM: Building Boaz: Uncommon Catechism for Uncommon Masonic Education -- Dr. John S. Nagy, second printing, pages 19-21)

Click to expand...

Thank you!

coachn said:

Freemasonry started around 1717, as a dinner oriented role-playing theatrical society that incorporated the symbolism and lexicon of Stonecraft for its members to use as a foundation upon which to interact. If you do not believe this, then you shall likely disagree. Freemasonry is not a science. It is an art and that art is acting. There was never an old meaning for this word that wasn't put forth until after circa 1723. The basics of Stonecraft and the basics of freemasonry are in two entirely different directs, even when you make every effort to mask those differences by using the operative-speculative" red herring. Nothing changed other than the originators of Freemasonry using Stonecraft as a foundation for its plays.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with you or not on this Coachn, but I'm not certain is matters. What's more important to me is what we've become, and for many, it's definitely not as described above lol. Organizations morph more often than meaning of words do I'd wager. What matters I'd think is whether or not we all hold similar beliefs on the meaning of the term brother.

ps... you would make a fierce debater!

LK600 said:

I'm not sure I agree with you or not on this Coachn, but I'm not certain is matters.

Click to expand...

It only matter if you truly want to see how far we have come! ;-)

BTW...

LK600 said:

What's more important to me is what we've become, and for many, it's definitely not as described above lol.

Click to expand...

AGREED!!!!!

LK600 said:

Organizations morph more often than meaning of words do I'd wager. What matters I'd think is whether or not we all hold similar beliefs on the meaning of the term brother.

Click to expand...

AGREED!

LK600 said:

ps... you would make a fierce debater!

Click to expand...

<snicker> No I wouldn't...

coachn said:

It only matter if you truly want to see how far we have come! ;-)

BTW...

"At the organizational meeting, the four Lodges elected Anthony Sayer, as the 'oldest Master Mason and then Master of a Lodge', as its Grand Master, agreeing to hold a 'Grand Feast' once a year. Sayer appointed his Grand Wardens and 'commanded the Master and Wardens of Lodges to meet the Grand Officers every Quarter in Communication.' It is worthy to note that the organization started, with only those two purposes. The modern "Craft" started with a planned party!"
​

AGREED!!!!!

AGREED!

<snicker> No I wouldn't...

Click to expand...

HA! that's awesome!

JustJames said:

It seems that the genuine secrets are in no danger of discovery - even after 300 years.

Click to expand...

Nor does it equally seem that there is any possible danger of having someone earnestly and sincerely remind us that the so-called fictitiously genuine secrets are lurking maliciously out there, ready to spring out and ponce zealously upon reasonably unsuspecting but ignorantly gullible members at a moment's notice and without any spontaneous warning thereof.

Sorry for the late reply, but I have had busy days. I know that Freemasonry is practiced in different ways around the world, but about instruction I can tell you that in Italy each Lodge take care of the instruction of apprentice and fellows. The symbols in the Lodge are not stage furniture and there is a specific improvement path that is clearly reminded by the specific symbols present in the Lodge itself. I can admit that some brothers achieve a very superficial knowledge about it, but this is their fault, not a system fault. If the Works are well done, the Works themselves are part of this instruction. I do not think that a "manual" would be necessary. Freemasonry is indeed a "Science", a word whose true meaning is "Knowledge". "Knowledge" is not a memorization of a set of rules, neither a well organized training curse: there are people that have learnt everything about a matter but that have not a minimal "knowledge" about what they have learnt, that is that they do not have the "Science". But this is a very wide matter that could be discussed in another thread.

Referring instead to the birth of Freemasonry, if something would have started only in the beginning of 1717, the story would have been more or less: “there were a group of gentlemen that meet in the Tavern The Goose and Gridiron Ale-House and decided to create a recreational association named Freemasonry and divide themselves in four Lodges for organizational reasons”. The story instead is that 4 existing Lodges met by the tavern The Goose and Gridiron Ale-House and decided to join in a greater associations that they called Grand Lodge (after about one year of preparation). It is very likely that these Lodges made something, if not equal, to what they did later and that they kept also a name equal (or very similar) to the one before. Moreover, the same things are reported by Dr. Plot about thirty years before and about a place 200 km far away (that means about 1 week travel at that time). For this reason, or we have to assume that, at the end of sixteen century, and for some tenths of years, there was a strange habit in England that is to have dinner parties dressed and acting like a sort of stonemasons and, tired to do this all alone, different groups decide to join together to have a sole association which organized these meetings, or the explanation is another one.

My idea is a little different. Indeed the beginning of seventeenth century was a period of change for Freemasonry but the Society existed already as a group of separated Lodges, which were in contact or interconnected among them without having a central organization (this can be clearly explained based on the real nature of ancient Mansory which had nothing to do with real stonemasons except that remind to ancient romand soldier/builder, about which I have written a post). Every Lodge had its own organization and likely what they did was more or less what we do currently, with many probabilities with much less "frilles", but based on a different "form" or "philosophy".

The existing documents indicate that Masonry existed in fourteenth century even if, its “legend” claims the effective birth was in Romans’ time (I have also found in Italy a fresco which is a sort of “middle age selfie” in a period when Masons were operating close to Siena in Italy, around 1365). On the beginning of 1700 it was obliged to change as the birth of modern England did not allow them to survive in the ancient form. In 1717 four Lodges decided to join and likely to make some changes, for various reasons, surely making the Society more “popular” and attractive to non-Masons. This was made by altering the original form, which however, was kept abroad by Lodges composed mainly by expatriated for political reasons with few contacts with homeland. Some years later, the two forms joined together and after some time Freemasonry received its final and actual form erasing the memory of the antiquated form.

A proof of this change can be found in the The Plain Dealer, No. 51, of 14 September 1724, where a Brother expresses contrariety to the changes introduced and also gives a hint about the real nature of Freemasonry which at that time was likely still alive. This pamphlet is only 7 years older than the "beginning" of Freemasonry (and only one year after the "Constitutions") and this makes the critic pretty strange: how it is possible to be against innovations in a matter that was "new"? The ironic aspect is that this author also thought that the new Brothers thought too much of conviviality. However this does not means that this is what Freemasonry has become. Conviviality exists, but Works are another thing as every Brother knows.