Masons

[KEPLER]

I take it that you are a Mason in good standing and don't want to see them put down by their own words. What I copied was right out of their own teaching material. I suppose they are like that Democrat politician who said that he lied to himself in his own journal?

As I clearly stated in an earlier post, I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and I am forbidden from belonging to ANY secret societies.

"Their own words" in this case are a self-created justification. Since they are internal documents, they must be corroborated by external documents. No such corroboration exists.

Pike can SAY that Masons started with Buddha all he wants. He may very well have actually believed that. That doesn't make it TRUE.

You can say you are an alien from Mars all you want. That doesn't make it true.

YES - they are an anti-Chritian sect.
NO - Their history does not extend before the 1650s.

That's all I'm saying.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Rick Otto]

you ARE saying the alleged uncorroborated evidence ISN'T TRUE. Aren't you?
And yet you yourself say there is no evidence to the contrary.

Shouldn't your position be undecided?
After all, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence.

 

[KEPLER]

you ARE saying the alleged uncorroborated evidence ISN'T TRUE. Aren't you?
And yet you yourself say there is no evidence to the contrary.

Shouldn't your position be undecided?
After all, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence.

Actually, you are correct: my position is officially "undecided"... However, it's more like "undecided, but highly skeptical".

While you are very correct that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".... it is even more ludicrous to suggest (to borrow a line from C.S. Lewis) that "absence of smoke is proof of a well concealed fire" which tends to be the logic of most conspiracy nuts.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Rick Otto]

Very candid of you.
And I agree with your tone. It's important not to lose our senses of humor over any of this.

This is good too, I'll remember it:
"absence of smoke is proof of a well concealed fire"(lol)

I would venture further to inquire of it's relevance to Albert Pike &/or The Book of Mormon, in that those two sources, as incredible as they may seem, and as often as "solid" proof like DNA may cast them into disrepute, DO constitute smoke (if not just "steam" ), and that they thereby give us at least a clue to possible motives, if not veracity of content.

The Mason issue, it may be worthy to note, has multiple sources of such similar gas, as to constitute a "preponderance of evidence" which is enough to support a conviction in civil courts, tho a preponderance of evidence is not enough to establish the "beyond a shadow of doubt" criteria required in criminal courts.

What I get a kick out of conspiracy theories, is that unlike the scary movies you can rent at the video store, they're (supposed to be) TRUE!

 

[amadeus72]

Hi Guys,

Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions:

Pike did not believe that Buddha was a Mason in the modern sense, i.e., he didn't believe Buddha donned a tuxedo, apron, and other regalia, then went to Lodge meetings, followed by cigars and brandy. Pike simply meant that Buddha taught an ethical system which embodied what would become Masonic ideals.

Another poster put the date of Freemasonry's origin in the 17th century. This is a lot closer than some, who claim Solomon's Temple, or ancient Egypt, etc., but evidence exists that does show that Masonry is older than the 1600's.

The Regius Manuscript is the oldest known existing Masonic document, and is dated circa 1390 A.D. This manuscript, written in verse, alludes to a Masonic gathering in the late 900's in York, England.

Also, the claim by the same poster that Freemasonry is "an anti-Christian sect" is demonstrably false. Nowhere in history has any regular Masonic organization established opposition to the Christian faith. In fact, before 1717, the Masonic fraternity admitted Christians only. This is still the case today in some parts of the world, such as Sweden and Norway.

 

[Rick Otto]

I mean Amadeus!

Except, now sort this mess of thought out if you will:

It isn't so much the institutional continuity that us delusional paranoids are fixating on, as much as the "Agenda", which is not shared among the "regular organization" members, but only the enlightened elite in the highest tiers. You know the drill, the association with the religious status-quo, was cover story ~ all the altruistic accomplishments being in the advertising/marketing budget to buy a reputation that would cover the alleged agenda of the alleged cabal inside the highest ranks.

hey,
Satan has to recruit SOMEbody!

 

[amadeus72]

Except, now sort this mess of thought out if you will:

It isn't so much the institutional continuity that us delusional paranoids are fixating on, as much as the "Agenda", which is not shared among the "regular organization" members, but only the enlightened elite in the highest tiers. You know the drill, the association with the religious status-quo, was cover story ~ all the altruistic accomplishments being in the advertising/marketing budget to buy a reputation that would cover the alleged agenda of the alleged cabal inside the highest ranks.

Actually, I think this is a view held by many outside of the organization, by those who may be somewhat familiar with Masonic teachings and/or history, but not its hierarchy and government.

The "highest ranks" within the Masonic organization is the Grand Lodge, which is the fraternity's government. In the United States, each state has its own Grand Lodge, and there is one for the District of Columbia. These Grand Lodges exist in mutual recognition with each other, which means we all recognize each other as members of the same fraternity, and intervisit each other's Lodges. If one Grand Lodge begins to issue policies that conflict with the ancient constitutions of the fraternity, recognition may be withdrawn, and they lose their international Masonic legitimacy. This has happened in the past to Grand Lodges and Subordinate Lodges overseas.

Canada has a Grand Lodge in each Province, and there are Grand Lodges in England, Ireland, Scotland, and most other democratic nations. However, Masonry has its largest membership base in the US, Canada, and UK.

Far from being a nefarious cabal, the Grand Lodge is a representative body, and many historians have reached the consensus that the idea of the US Congress, as derived from our forefathers as a representative government, was based on Masonic government, many of whom were Masonic leaders as well as American ones.

Grand Lodges consist of three representatives from each Lodge. Every Master Mason in good standing is invited to attend all meetings of the Grand Lodge, but each Lodge has only three votes in Grand Lodge, and these belong to the representatives. Usually, the representatives are the Master and two Wardens of each Lodge, each of whom are elected by their Lodge to one year terms, by popular ballot.

When congregated, the Grand Lodge then elects Grand Lodge officers. This includes the Grand Master, who is the chief officer of the fraternity in his state or province. Depending on the Grand Lodge, the Grand Lodge officers are elected to either one or two year terms.

After their terms of office have expired, they step down and return to the sidelines, and are replaced by new officers, much like in the secular government.

Therefore, Masonic government is not a self-continuing cabal, but a democratically-elected slate of officers whose duty is to serve the fraternity during their respective terms.

As one who has served in leadership positions at both the Lodge and Grand Lodge level, I can honestly say that our deliberations concern much more what is to be served at the banquet and how many buses should be rented for conventions, rather than world domination.

 

[Rick Otto]

You're still describing what the conspiracy nuts call "the facade", or the "curtain" behind which The Wizard hid when he was orchestrating the spectacle everyone was dazzled with.
In other words, an "inner cabal" NEVER issues policies that would reveal itself, & they are NEVER accountable to the visible membership & leadership.

Any malicious crew with an agenda will busy the outer organization with menus & venues, because they don't WANT anyone, especially the host instituton, to know they exist.

None of the conspiracy nuts are accusing the regular members & leaders of anything but ignorance of the parasite they play host to.

Capice?

 

[amadeus72]

So where exactly do "conspiracy nuts" get their information, and why should we pay any heed to them?

Modern conspiracy theorists are direct descendents of the Holy Inquisition and the Nazi Party. They use the same old anti-Masonry that was used by the Jesuits in Bavaria to wage a propaganda war against the Illuminati in the late 18th century, and they still talk about Jews, Masons, Communists, and international bankers in the exact same fashion that Hitler and his cohorts did 80 years ago.

If those guys are foolish enough to believe such nonsense, let them. There's nothing that I, or a professional historian, can say that will change their minds, because they will only claim that "official history" is part of the "conspiracy".

 

[WalksWithChrist]

So where exactly do "conspiracy nuts" get their information, and why should we pay any heed to them?

Modern conspiracy theorists are direct descendents of the Holy Inquisition and the Nazi Party. They use the same old anti-Masonry that was used by the Jesuits in Bavaria to wage a propaganda war against the Illuminati in the late 18th century, and they still talk about Jews, Masons, Communists, and international bankers in the exact same fashion that Hitler and his cohorts did 80 years ago.

If those guys are foolish enough to believe such nonsense, let them. There's nothing that I, or a professional historian, can say that will change their minds, because they will only claim that "official history" is part of the "conspiracy".

I can tell you haven't read this thread all the way thru.

 

[KEPLER]

Hi Guys,

Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions:

Pike did not believe that Buddha was a Mason in the modern sense, i.e., he didn't believe Buddha donned a tuxedo, apron, and other regalia, then went to Lodge meetings, followed by cigars and brandy. Pike simply meant that Buddha taught an ethical system which embodied what would become Masonic ideals.

Right. Not Christian ethics, but Buddhist ethics.

Another poster put the date of Freemasonry's origin in the 17th century. This is a lot closer than some, who claim Solomon's Temple, or ancient Egypt, etc., but evidence exists that does show that Masonry is older than the 1600's.

The Regius Manuscript is the oldest known existing Masonic document, and is dated circa 1390 A.D. This manuscript, written in verse, alludes to a Masonic gathering in the late 900's in York, England.

Begging the question. Just like the Buddha was not an "apron wearing mason", niether was the author of the Regius manuscript. At this point, we ought to make a distinction between "Freemansons", which are the members of the secret society called "The Order of Masons", and "masons" (lower-case "em") which are people who lay brick and mortar. The brick and mortar masons held a somewhat distinguished place in medieval society for two reasons: 1) they had a skilled trade (as opposed to being mere laborers), and 2) they built churches (and castles and fortresses, too, but what really made them special was that they built churches). It's these people that the Regius manuscript is talking about. They had a special code-of-conduct becasue they were the builders of Hly Places.

The Freemasons (which is the group that this thread is really talking about) have as their grounding the radical philosophies of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. They are rooted in the works of Baruch Spinoza, John Toland, Prosper Marchand, Jean de Clerc, etc, all of whom were pantheists. Their raison d'etre was the over-turning of monarchies and the establishment of Republics.

The Freemasons may claim to be descended from the masons of the Regius Manscript, but that is merely a self-created mythology.

Also, the claim by the same poster that Freemasonry is "an anti-Christian sect" is demonstrably false. Nowhere in history has any regular Masonic organization established opposition to the Christian faith. In fact, before 1717, the Masonic fraternity admitted Christians only. This is still the case today in some parts of the world, such as Sweden and Norway.

Yes, well, the English monarchy also excluded any one who was not Christian; that does not (did not) make the English monarchy "christian". By anti-Christian, I did not mean "in outright defiance of" Christianity. I meant that Freemasonry teaches things which are intrinsically opposed to Christianty. In like manner, Mormons are anti-Christian. They may not be out there trying to eradicate Christianty, but their doctrines nevertheless oppose Christianity.

If the teachings of the Freemasons do NOT oppose Christianity, then fine: let them open their doors permanently to any and all who wish to observe, and then (and only then) we will know for certain what the Freemasons believe.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[amadeus72]

Right. Not Christian ethics, but Buddhist ethics.

I'm not sure there's any difference. Certainly, we can say there's no such thing as a distinct "Buddhist mathematics" that differentiates itself from "Christian mathematics". Two plus two always equals four, regardless of one's personal religious beliefs.

If moral absolutes exist in the same way that mathematical absolutes do, then ethics are the same for everyone (which is a claim made by Freemasonry, borrowed from the philosophers).

Begging the question. Just like the Buddha was not an "apron wearing mason", niether was the author of the Regius manuscript.

I would say it isn't begging the question at all. To begin with, we have no idea who the author of the Regius was. But we do know that the author wrote about the Masonic fraternity in the year 1390 A.D., while the Buddha did not.

Interestingly enough, the author of the Regius describes not only the craft as being operative, but goes into great detail concerning Pythagoras, and the science of Masonry as taught in the architectural colleges of Egypt. This isn't to say that there's any historical validity in the author's comments: but it's very important to note that these legends of Masonry existed at least as early as the 14th century.

At this point, we ought to make a distinction between "Freemansons", which are the members of the secret society called "The Order of Masons", and "masons" (lower-case "em") which are people who lay brick and mortar. The brick and mortar masons held a somewhat distinguished place in medieval society for two reasons: 1) they had a skilled trade (as opposed to being mere laborers), and 2) they built churches (and castles and fortresses, too, but what really made them special was that they built churches). It's these people that the Regius manuscript is talking about. They had a special code-of-conduct becasue they were the builders of Hly Places.

You are here correct, but the Regius, as mentioned, also speaks of the Pythagorean, Egyptian, and Solomonic legends. At the time when Freemasonry began to be an entirely civic and fraternal organization, the Regius Mss. had not yet been discovered in the British Museum. Yet, many of the legends found in the Regius permeated the beginnings of modern Freemasonry. For example, the 47th Problem of Euclid, symbolizing the Pythagorean Theorem, was adopted as the Past Masters Jewel, long before the Regius came to be discovered.

The Freemasons (which is the group that this thread is really talking about) have as their grounding the radical philosophies of the late 17th and early 18th centuries.

Inasmuch as you speaking about Freemasonry as it is practiced today, you are correct. However, my point is that Freemasonry just didn't form itself at this time, but had already existed as a loose confederation of stonemasons' guilds. For example, the Lodge that Elias Ashmole was initiated into was an operative one, and minutes still exist from 15th century Kilwinning Lodge meetings.

In fact, the four Lodges who formed the first Grand Lodge in England in 1717 had themselves been chartered by the Masons Company of London a century earlier, which had in turn been chartered by King James in an effort to reorganize the feudal guilds into a more modern business.

They are rooted in the works of Baruch Spinoza, John Toland, Prosper Marchand, Jean de Clerc, etc, all of whom were pantheists. Their raison d'etre was the over-turning of monarchies and the establishment of Republics.

I would argue that Locke and Kant were much greater influences, but certainly other thinkers of the period also influenced the modern organization in its infancy.

The Freemasons may claim to be descended from the masons of the Regius Manscript, but that is merely a self-created mythology.

Not at all. It wasn't until 1840 that modern Masons were even aware that the Regius existed. Before that, Masonic writers would often make wild claims about Masonry being descended from Noah, or Moses, or Adam, or the Egyptian or Grecian Mysteries, or Knights Templar, etc. When Halliwell published the Regius, it was seen more likely that Freemasonry came not from these extravagant sources, but from the English guilds, which apparently held the same or similar legends as early as 1390 A.D. Again, this doesn't make the legends true, it simply shows from where they may have derived.

By anti-Christian, I did not mean "in outright defiance of" Christianity.

I think what you have may have meant is "non-Christian", which is much different than "anti-Christian", which indeed would mean outright opposition to Christianity.

I meant that Freemasonry teaches things which are intrinsically opposed to Christianty.

As one who has studied both theology and Freemasonry, I'm aware of no Masonic teaching that is opposed to Christianity. Many Christian critics of Freemasonry do not like the fraternity's sense of moral universality, but, in my opinion, that tells us much more about the critics than it does the fraternity.

If the teachings of the Freemasons do NOT oppose Christianity, then fine: let them open their doors permanently to any and all who wish to observe, and then (and only then) we will know for certain what the Freemasons believe.

Masonic teachings don't exist behind closed doors: they've been shouted from the rooftops for centuries. They can be found in the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and literally thousands of Masonic books, all available to the public.

As to "opening their doors permanently to any and all who wish to observe": I find this sort of comical, as if what I do is "anybody who wishes to observe"'s business. What would be next? Opening our workplaces and homes to anyone who wishes to observe?

 

[Rick Otto]

that was a bit shrill, but...
I'm disappointed with your easy shrug-off of conspiracy nut persistance. We oughta be smart enough to turn it on its head or something equaly demonstrative!
As it is, they could make the same complaint in your direction, I imagine.
On the other hand, I confess I envy your trust in the establishment & its official version of reality. I watched the 50's turn into the 60's before I had to grow up in the 70's & find my way thru ever since then. The growing divide between my government & my country hasn't made life easier or simpler. In any case, it will be interesting to see "what's next"
I try to learn enough about the schools of thought on the issues, to try & get an overview... "the whole picture" - as much as that may be possible.


Maybe we could spin a conspiracy theory that is behind ALL conspiracy theories, in a nefarious plot to round up "nuts" for some dark motive, or science project, etc.

 

[amadeus72]

I'm disappointed with your easy shrug-off of conspiracy nut persistance. We oughta be smart enough to turn it on its head or something equaly demonstrative!
As it is, they could make the same complaint in your direction, I imagine.

I guess it would depend on the actual conspiracy theory. Take David Icke and his followers, for example. They claim that the British royal family are actually reptilian shapeshifters from another dimension, and that they use Freemasonry and Zionism as a tool for world domination. Obviously, such "theories" are unworthy of a serious response.

Other conspiracy theories are less outrageous, but still bizarre. There is often the claim that Masons are seeking some sort of world domination. To support this claim, other false claims are made, and world leaders who are not Masons are claimed to be (for example, earlier in this very thread, the claim was made that George W. Bush is a Mason, when in reality, Bush is not now, nor has ever been, a Mason).

The facts show otherwise. If we look at history, we see that when Masons have come to political power, the result has been freedom, liberty, and democracy. Among our forefathers who were Masons are George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, etc. Certainly, these men could have instituted a form of government that would have allowed them to wield indefinite power. Instead, the instituted the first modern democracy.

The same can be said of Bolivar in South America, Mazzini and Garibaldi in Italy, Kerensky in Russia, etc., etc. There have been plenty of instances where Masons have taken political power. If they wanted to establish some sort of Masonic dictatorship, they easily could have. They didn't.

On the other hand, I confess I envy your trust in the establishment & its official version of reality.

lol, I wouldn't go that far. I believe in the principles and ideals that our government was founded upon. The problem comes from the fact that, these days, those principles and ideals are generally ignored. Regardless of what the conspiracy theorists say, the days when government offices were filled mainly by Masons are long gone. Instead of philosophers and idealists, government is now run by businessmen. There's nothing wrong with being a businessman, per se, but we have to keep in mind that his goal is to make a profit, not mitigate justice.

Maybe we could spin a conspiracy theory that is behind ALL conspiracy theories, in a nefarious plot to round up "nuts" for some dark motive, or science project, etc.

Actually, I do believe there is a conspiracy theory behind most conspiracy theories, and that an unbiased study of modern history will point it out. The modern conspiracy theory is based on the idea of the scapegoat. So much is wrong with the world. It's not my fault. Therefore, it must be the fault of somebody else.

This "somebody else" must have the quality of "otherness", because he's not like me, the good guy. If I'm a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant, then the guy to blame may be the Jew, or the Roman Catholic, or the black man, or the Asian, or (insert favorite scapegoat here).

This pattern has been around for quite some time (for a more in-depth and philosophical look at psychological scapegoating, see "Anti-Semite and Jew" by Jean-Paul Sartre, the famous French philosopher who lived through the Nazi occupation).

But there's more to it than this. Conspiracy theorists about Masons generally stem from the Inquisition, and those with like minds. Kepler is correct that early modern Masonry was a catalyst for political change. Imagine 16th and 17th century continental Europe, where the Roman Church still exhibited much political influence. Having already decided that the Reformation was the work of the devil, we also have these upstart new philosophers and scientists challenging the Church. This Galileo guy has the gall to publicly proclaim the heliocentric theory of the solar system. As 17th century churchmen, this is a direct challenge to our divine authority. Therefore, we must certainly silence him.

We must view Galileo as an agent of the devil. By threatening our authority, he threatens that of Holy Mother Church, and thus declares war on Christ. This is the actual mindset of the Churchmen of that period, and we should also mention by threatening their divine authority, their temporal authority is also threatened, which of course also threatens their income (there's that mammon thing again).

As Kepler (I think it was he) alluded to previously, many of these "heretics" (Deists, Pantheists, Protestants, etc.) began joining the Masonic fraternity at this point simply because freedom of conscience was encouraged there. It wasn't long before the continental churchmen recognized this, and labeled it an agent of the devil. For a long, practically comical diatribe against the supposed infernal agenda of Freemasonry in this regard, I can think of nothing finer than the Papal Bull Humanum Genus, issued by Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century, which still, by reiterating previous anti-Masonic bulls, calls for Masons to be put to death for heresy.

Albert Pike, a Masonic scholar and, at the time, presiding officer of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite of Masonry for the Southern Jurisdiction of the USA, then issued a document titled "A Response of Freemasonry To Humanum Genus In Behalf of Mankind", which he delivered in oration at a session of the Supreme Council. Here, Pike defends the rights of men to free speech, free government, freedom of religion, and the right to non-Catholic education of children for non-Catholic parents. This response should be read in conjunction with the bulls of the Vatican (it was so blistering that Pike himself, long since passed to his reward, became the subject of the most vicious and ridiculous personal attacks from the conspiracy theorists, whose ideas are derived in large part from the Vatican oppression of the past).

When Freemasonry called for freedom of religion, our opponents charged us with attempting to destroy Christianity.

When Freemasonry called for equal rights of women under the law, our opponents charged us with attempting to the abolish the family.

When Freemasonry called for freedom of speech and of the press, our opponents charged us with support of propagating heretical doctrines.

When Freemasonry called for free, universal public education so that all children may have the chance to succeed, our opponents charged us with destroying the 'divine right" of the Church to educate all children in its doctrines.

The list goes on and on, and shows the origin of the modern conspiracy theory. It is a dark and distasteful thing, a psychological scapegoat based on the status quo's need to instill fear into people in order to maintain their status, a demonization of good and innocent people by scoundrels who use the fear of the illiterate and uneducated to keep them in bondage. This is why I pass over conspiracy theory comments with only a grain of salt: I do not find them worthy of my time, or anyone else's.

 

[KEPLER]

The facts show otherwise. If we look at history, we see that when Masons have come to political power, the result has been freedom, liberty, and democracy. Among our forefathers who were Masons are George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, etc. Certainly, these men could have instituted a form of government that would have allowed them to wield indefinite power. Instead, the instituted the first modern democracy.

Sam Adams was a Mason?

Dang. I wonder if I'm still allowed to drink his beer?

***Kepler is sad***

 

[TruthMiner]

I don't image the Masons downtown have any clue about a conspiratorial religion.

However, their temple is quite a suspicious invention. The recent form of this group (1700's +) is not much to get excited about.

However, there are more and more documents being found that freemasonry existed long before it became a publicly known group. Indeed, they make this claim themselves.

In fact, masons like to lay cornerstones for churches (ponder on that). There was a guild of masons in medieval Europe who were very guarded about their geometric secrets concerning the architecture of stone churches they built. Many who visit these churches say that the ones built by these specific men have an entirely different quality and atmosphere about them that no one else could duplicate.

And of course there are the many similarities with the Templars and many of their mysterious curiosites over geometry and codes, something like Newton's obsession for a Bible code.

While the name "Freemason" does not jump out in history, we should not be surprised. If they were a secret society, what would there be to find? But there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence to indicate that a society that became the modern masons, existed throughout church history. I am personally persuaded they are the product of a form of Gnosticism.

It is not wise to run amuck with silly ideas about Masons. But there are certain things that are very intriguing... like the obvious influence of masonry in early American government and the city of Washington as well. Yet perhaps this was nothing more than an overzealous fraternal group.

My opinion after studying history for several years: they started right here:

But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freemen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen.

 

[amadeus72]

Sam Adams was a Mason?

Dang. I wonder if I'm still allowed to drink his beer?

You can, but be careful: too much of it'll turn you into a Shriner!

 

[amadeus72]

However, there are more and more documents being found that freemasonry existed long before it became a publicly known group. Indeed, they make this claim themselves.

The problem is that our origins as a fraternity remain obscure, so the best we can do is make educated guesses. At present, evidence indicates that the fraternity has its origins in the medieval guilds of English stonemasons. If this is the case, the fraternity has always been publicly known, as they were originally a society of professional craftsmen.

In fact, masons like to lay cornerstones for churches (ponder on that). There was a guild of masons in medieval Europe who were very guarded about their geometric secrets concerning the architecture of stone churches they built. Many who visit these churches say that the ones built by these specific men have an entirely different quality and atmosphere about them that no one else could duplicate.

The medieval Masons were among the great artists of the middle ages. Today, we no longer actually build cathedrals, but you are correct in that we are sometimes invited to lay cornerstones for public building, and we have an official ceremony to do so. George Washington, wearing his Masonic regalia, laid the cornerstone to the Capitol Building in this ceremony.

And of course there are the many similarities with the Templars and many of their mysterious curiosites over geometry and codes, something like Newton's obsession for a Bible code.

I'm not sure I would say that Newton had an obsession with Bible codes, but in any case, the Templar legends do not seem to have come into Masonry until the 1720's, and Brother Michael Andrew Ramsay, a French Mason of the period, can probably be credited with it. It looks as though Ramsay was the first to claim that Masons descended from the Crusaders, although he didn't specify the Knights Templar. Soon after he made his famous speech, however, new Templar degrees were popping up everywhere, resulting directly in the formation of what we now call the Scottish Rite, as well as additional degrees to the already existing York Rite.

While the name "Freemason" does not jump out in history, we should not be surprised. If they were a secret society, what would there be to find? But there is a significant amount of circumstantial evidence to indicate that a society that became the modern masons, existed throughout church history. I am personally persuaded they are the product of a form of Gnosticism.

Since we have no concrete evidence, it would be possible, but in my opinion, highly unlikely. If we compare the Gothic Constitutions of the middle ages to Anderson's Constitutions of 1723, we see the evolution of an orthodox Christian society into a non-sectarian fraternal organization. There's nothing in any of the Ancient Constitutions that would indicate Gnosticism.

What of Gnosticism that can be found in today's Masonry seems to have been put there at a much later date. For example, in the mid 1800's Albert Pike was charged to revise the Scottish Rite degrees. Pike, who was a philosopher, wanted to use the degrees to explore the history and evolution of philosophical thought. To do so, he introduced antique ideas to the degrees in an attempt to portray this evolution, from the dawn of man to the present, which naturally included Gnosticism.

This isn't to say that Scottish Rite Masons, or Pike himself, was/are Gnostics, but such ideas are explored in the Scottish Rite for their educational value.

 

[KEPLER]

You can, but be careful: too much of it'll turn you into a Shriner!

ROTFL

 

[meganahan]

Just a bunch of dudes (no women).

The Freemasons support a group called Easter Star for women.

They also support a group for boys (DeMolay) and two for girls (Job's Daughters and Rainbow Girls).