Masonic Forum / Masonic History (Legend -V- Fact) / General

Knights templar and their mariner division

Alan Campbell — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:31:06 GMT

Did the knights templar have a fleet of ships at their disposal, i suppose we know they did it or we wouldn't have the Arch mariner degree,Is it myth or fact that they and the vikings landed in mainland USA long before any other westerners. The rye grass which is native to that land is in the mouldings of Rosslyn Chapel and that was completed about 50 years before the said discovery. And if it is fact why do we still teach the Christopher Columbus fairytale in schools.

Are the effigies of westerners on the pyramids in Mexico and the old Inca settlements of the knights templar or some other body of western seafarers

Oldest

Free State Boer — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 08:53:31 GMT

What is the oldest recorded Lodge in the world ? I am under the impression it is Mother Kilwinning no 0 UGoS ?

Would this be correct ?

FSB

Semper Fidelis Lodge 4393

scotfree69 — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:06:19 GMT

Hello all.

Our lodge is celebrating it's 100th birthday in 2022 and we have formed a committee,first meeting was on this past Thursday at Great Queen Street and we are looking at doing a few things to mark this historic occasion.

I wanted to post this message as i am on the committee and the other members have asked if i would post a message to see if anyone had anything relating to the Lodge history.

We have some information already but we are looking for anything such as old summon's,photograph's,letter's,stories and remenicenses,in fact anything.

I plan on doing some research in the Archive and Library but i thought that with the wide location of the forum membership there may be documents hidden away somewhere in an old box,cupboard,etc.

Sincerely and Fraternaly

Bro.Ian

The Schaw Statues and the Office of Warden and Deacon

BrotherJHairston — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:35:32 GMT

I have researched the Schaw Statues and wondered if any had an insight on the reason for the changes in the offices of the warden and deacon during the transition of freemasonry from Scotland to England, from operative to speculative...

History of Freemasonry.

Fire Mist — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:47:04 GMT

I have the poll set so a person can select more than one answer.

I ask the question because I'm not certain why I should care beyond the love of history in general, and part of the learning experience. Please try to change my mimd on this.

History of Freemasonry.
Do the facts, or the lack there of affect us personally in the here and now?
I am wondering how distorted our vision of the historical facts are due to documentation.

Written documentation is scarce till the Grand lodges were set up.
Prior to that, there are a few pieces.

Even after the invention of the Grand loges, seems there are different spellings/ pronounciations/ facts which were documented..... and ones which were not.

How much do we really know of the Craft that existed even immediately prior to our own personal initiations.
Which leads me to wonder, is it that important?

Don't get me wrong.
History in general is an interest to me.
However would my finding a certain fact of the past etc. change anyting of the who what and why of what I am or what my lodge is in the now?

I suppose I am wondering this due to a conversation I had this weekend with a group of wheter Jesus Christ was married or not.
An interesting subject, but I discovered that I simply don't care.
It is a subject that is not of me.
It is and was an interesting converstation, but it does not affect my faith at all one way or the other.

Then there are those who argue that women were at one time freemasons. operative and otherwise.
To find and prove operateive female masons would help our 'cause' to become regular with UGLE.
An occurance which I wuld find nice, but doesnt' change my regularity witin my own obedience.

I counter that argument with one of many examples of now gender specific rolles and how they have changed.
One example is that of the cloting trades. Taylor, Lacemaker, Knitters, Sewing, Habadashery, (sp?) They were all male occupied trades till the industrial revolution. Now, I still know men who would not be caught dead with a sewing needle and thread in their hand let alone a pair of knitting needles. I also know others who enjoy embroidery and other such craft.

Times change, the human race adapts to the change.
Is the history of an item necessary to initiate that chanage in an indivudual, or a group of individuals or a society?

Great paper!

Janus — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:53:29 GMT

I humbly post a link here.

It's on the history of Freemasonry and I really think it is worth a read.

http://www.scottishrite.org/what/educ/heredom/articles/vol15-koltkorivera.pdf

Masonic degrees = Egyptian dynasties?

Angus — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:49:51 GMT

Is it sheer coincidence that there are as many degrees as ancient Egypt had dynasties? I haven't been able to find any connection by Googling various keywords.

Secret society or not

Alan Campbell — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:38:46 GMT

After reading a recent article regarding the secret societies act of 1799 which mentions freemasonry and the fact that we were allowed to continue working after dispensation from the government and local authorities, when did we become a society with secrets instead of a secret society. If it was good enough to be classed as a secret society in 1799 why did we need to change.

Was Sir Christopher Wren a freemason

Terry — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:34:30 GMT

I have over the years seen references to Sir Christopher Wren being a freemason, but whenver I have bought it up have always been told that I am wrong, or the sources I am reading are wrong or not reliable, so imagine my surprise when on another list, what I consider to be proof was posted,so now I am asking you my brothers to tell me have I got it wrong again, or is there something to this, like he was a mason after all

On 24/7/09 11:29, "Tom Mc Rae" <thomas.mcrae@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Brethren,
> is there any CONCRETE evidence of Sir Christopher Wren being a
> Freemason ?

Brethren

Records in the Royal Society archives state that Christopher Wren was
adopted into the Fraternity of Accepted Masons on May 18, 1691.

"Records of the Lodge Original, No. 1, now the Lodge of Antiquity No. 2"
mention him as being Master of the lodge.

http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/wren_c/adoption.html

http://www.masonicdictionary.com/wren2.html

By Bros. Bernard Williamson and Michael Baigent

Originally presented Summer 1996.

A search through the archives of the Royal Society has provided us with new
information regarding the claim that Sir Christopher Wren was initiated into
Freemasonry in London on May 18th 1691. This claim was advanced in a
handwritten note added to the manuscript of John Aubrey's Naturall Historie
of Wiltshire, 1685 now in the Bodleian library at Oxford. This manuscript is
in two parts, bound and filed separately as MS AUBREY 1 and MS AUBREY 2. In
the second part a short account of Freemasonry appears:

"Sir William Dugdale told me many years since, that about Henry the third's
time, the Pope gave a bull, or diploma ['patents' added above] to a company
of Italian Architects ['Freemasons' added above] to travel up and down and
over Europe, to build churches. From those derived the Fraternity of Free
Masons [adopted masons added above]. They are known to one and another by
certain signs & ['marks' erased] and watch words: it continues to this day.
They have several Lodges in several Countries for their reception: and when
any of them fall into decay, the brotherhood is to relieve him & c. The
manner of their adoption is very formal, and with an oath of secrecy."

The page to the left of this account was originaly left blank and on this
page, at some later time, were added three additional notes in Aubrey's own
hand. One of these notes concerns Freemasonry. It reads thus:

"MDM, this day ( may 1691 the 18th. Being Monday after Rogation Sunday) is a
great convention at St. Pauls' church of the fraternity of the Accepted[
'free' being struck out] masons where Sir Christopher Wren is to be adopted
a brother: and Sir Henry Goodric of ye tower, & divers ['several' being
struck out] others - and there have been kings, that have been of this
-Sodalitie."

Of those who have studied the text, Clarke in ARS Quatour Coronatorum ,
1965, concluded that Wren was "almost certainly a freemason. John Hamill, in
1986, in his book "THE CRAFT," is more cautious, concluding that however
possible it might be, "it is not proven". As we will show, the text can now
be accorded a greater degree of veracity. To understand this it is necessary
to look at the history of John Aubrey's manuscript.
John Aubrey's Manuscript

John Aubrey, who lived 1626 to 1697 was one of the founding members of the
Royal Society, being recorded in the list of Fellows May 20th 1663. In 1685
he wrote his Naturall Historie of Wiltshire, It was never published but
remained in manuscript form. However, the Royal Society so admired his work,
and felt that it was of such value to Fellows, that an official copy was
ordered and made for the societies archives in order that Fellows would not
have to travel to Oxford to consult it. Dr. Michael Hunter, in his biography
of John Aubrey wrote:

"Above all, the Royal Society did Aubrey the honour of having a transcript
made of his Naturall Historie of Wiltshire in 1690-1, a unique and
extraordinary gesture showing their esteem for it, which cost them the
considerable sum of seven pounds.(�832.64 in 2001)"

The Clerk of the Royal Society, Mr. B. G. Cramer who, in 1690, began the
task and completed it by mid 1691, made this copy, which is still in the
archives of the Royal Society. It is listed as MISC. Ms 92, and it runs to
373 pages.

When Cramer was ordered to produce this copy Aubrey took the opportunity to
make many additions and emendations and he oversaw their inclusion into the
new text. This is indicated by a short note, in Aubrey's own hand, attached
to folio 124a. of part two of the original manuscript: Aubrey writes,
referring to a printed pamphlet on wool which has been appended:

" Mr Cramer! As to this Treatise of wool, transcribe only the presentment of
the grand jury at Brewton in Somersetshire"

When Aubrey had written the original manuscript he had written only on the
first page of each leaf. In consequence, a blank page appears to the left of
each page of text. On this blank page are written the additions and
emendations relating to the text on the right. It can be supposed that all
these changes were made for the purpose of Cramer's new copy, but we cannot
be absolutely certain of this. We can say however, that Cramer included them
in his new copy. In his copy, Cramer included the following in the main body
of text:

"Memorandum. This day ( may the 18th. Being Munday 1691 after Rogation
Sunday0 is a great convention at St. Paul's church of the fraternity of the
Adopted Masons: where Sir Christopher Wren is to be adopted a Brother: and
Sir Henry Goodric of the tower & divers others. There have been Kings, that
have been of this Sodality."

We can, therefore, accept that Aubrey, Wren and the Royal Society agreed
with this addition citing Wren's initiation into Freemasonry. It seems
reasonable to accept it as a truthful statement.

John Aubrey was a close friend of Sir Christopher Wren. Both were in the
Royal Society, Wren had been a founding member of the Society and served as
its president from 1680-2. He was still alive and active in the society in
1691, the date of Cramer's copy. It has been suggested that perhaps Wren
intended to be initiated but on the day he was unable to attend. However, on
the 18th. May 1691, the date of the initiation and the date of the
additional text relating to Freemasonry, Cramer would have still been
working on earlier pages of his copy. Given that the date is written on the
day in question and that Cramer Copied this page at a later date, after the
fact, there was ample time to amend the text to reflect any variation on the
planned event. That this was not done is good evidence that Wren did not
miss his 'adoption'.

In Conclusion, given that none of these men objected to this statement, nor
altered it after the event but prior to the coping, we can accept that it
records a real occurrence. We can be confident that Sir Christopher Wren was
indeed initiated into Freemasonry in 1691. We should like to thank the
librarian and staff of both the Royal Society and the Bodleian Library for
their help in making these manuscripts available to us.

See also :
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/christopher_wren_freemasonry.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wren

http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/wren_c/wren_c.html

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

The United Grand Lodge of England

Mike Martin — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:04:34 GMT

Once again on my travels I have noticed inexperienced Freemasons (members under UGLE) stating that the United Grand Lodge of England was Constituted in 1717. This is technically incorrect, so in an attempt to be helpful here are the actual facts.

The first Masonic body to call itself a Grand Lodge was Constituted in 1717 and it was called "The Grand Lodge of London and Westminster" (AKA the Premier AKA the Moderns GL) and initially it claimed jurisdiction only over that roughly 8 mile radius (This is why London Freemasonry has a different relationship with Grand Lodge than the Provinces today). It was initially set up to manage and revive the London Lodges that had fallen into disrepair and to organise a quarterly get together of their Masters and Wardens. Despite this original remit it became very popular, very quickly and Lodges from outside its area joined in too, so much that by 1723 it had expanded its area to England.

Meanwhile, the Masons in Scotland and Ireland liked the idea of central management of Craft Lodges and Constituted their own Grand Lodges. As we know in Scotland this caused some arguments and problems and in Ireland the Grand Lodge was even more lacksadaisical with minute keeping than the English.

Then the problems started. In England the benevolent fund of the English Grand Lodge grew very quickly and it believed that many Irish Masons were trying to gain access to its Lodges only to get at these funds for spurious reasons. This was also at a time when there had been several exposes published and the English Grand Lodge decided (possibly to kill 2 birds) to change its "Tokens". Outroar amongst the Scots and Irish Masons in England ensued.

In 1751 the "Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of England, according to the Old Constitutions" (AKA The Antients AKA the Atholl GL) was Constituted. It must be clarified that this was not a schism it was a new Grand Lodge actually started by Freemasons under the Grand Lodge of Ireland who lived in England. In England 60 years of Masonic turmoil had begun!

Today, the arguments between these 2 English Grand Lodges look quite funny but there is no doubt that at the time this Masonic civil war was serious to some of the participants although others enjoyed membership of both Grand Lodges. There were even cases of Lodges abroad swapping their allegiances between the two Grand Lodges.

However by the turn of the 19th Century everyone was getting bored of the animosity and in 1809 moves began to bring about peace between the two Grand Lodges. Over the following 4 years articles of Union were drawn up and a Ritual composed by combining those used by both Grand Lodges.

On 27th December 1813 the Grand Lodges joined together and assumed the name "the United Grand Lodge of England" with the Duke of Sussex as the first joint Grand Master. Our Lodges were re-ordered and re-numbered and the rest, as they say, is history.

Crieff in Scotland

Iain — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:26:33 GMT

I have seen similar to this all over the UK wonder if there is something in it

http://www.leyman.demon.co.uk/Masonic%20Page.html

Why do some Freemasons think we have a Knights Templar connction?

Mike Lawrence — Tue, 12 May 2009 07:38:55 GMT

Hi All

This is my first topic suggestion, this time around, as I was a "forumite" several years ago, so forgive me if you have covered this subject recently...if thats the case then perhaps some kind brother will point me to the appropriate forum section.

Anyway, here goes.....

Why do some Freemasons believe that the Craft originated or were influenced by the Knights Templars?

What actual evidence is there?

I have read many books which deliver theory after theory much without any substance and I therefore would be grateful to any brother that might share his views on this topic.

I know we all have our pet theories on the KT subject, so please post them and lets try to sift the truth from the fanicful.

Many thanks

Ancient Penalties

Alan Campbell — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:24:51 GMT

The following was an extract of a paper written in an AMerican magazine called the builder, which was discussing the punishment for civil crimes.

The penalties for treason in the 14th centuary were any of the following:-

That aforesaid be drawn to the gallows
He is there to be hanged by the neck and let down alive
his bowels are to be taken out
and he being alive, to be burnt
his head cut off
his body divided into four parts
and his head and quarters to be placed where our lord and king shall direct

In another section regarding the punishment of sailors or mariners(or as described, Masters, merchants, mariners with all others that do enjoy the Kings stream with hook, net or any engine), If you disclose anything of the Kings counsel (again i take this to mean treason) You shall be had down to the low water mark for three times,(where the tide ebbs and flows 3 times) and then and there this punishment shall be inflicted on them, that is, their hands and feet bound. their throats cut, their tongues pulled out and their bodies thrown into the sea.

Alfred Marks in his volume relating to the Tyburn tree notes that in the 14th centuary, a man convicted in the mayors court for treason was taken to the thames and bound at the stake during 2 ebbs and flows of the tide.

Hanging was generally for treason and burning for heresay.

But it certainly makes you wonder where the ancient pealties came from, a lot of the civil peanalties certainly sound familiar.

Stone Mason Guilds

Compass — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:34:22 GMT

Dear Brothers,

I am hoping someone can shed some light on this for me. I have read in a few books, I believe Born in Blood was one, that there was no Operative Stone Masons guild in existance and therfore Speculative Freemasonry could not have its origins in the "Guilds".

I have however never seen any evidence for or against this - can anyone prove that there was a Stone Masons Guild? Or actually disprove it?

S&F

Mark

Anglo Saxon Free Masonrie

stevepenny — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:00:57 GMT

Brethern,

I've been touting this 'work' around some of the less distinguised fora (LodgeroomUK accepted) and decided to post it here for your consideration. This is my first attempt at something that might be worthy of a research lodge and would welcome any comments, be they good or bad :D

=================================================================

Dear Brethren,

For those interested in Masonic History and the recent establishment of some so called irregular bodies, I thought it might be useful to start a debate about the Anglo Saxon root. Please contribute and if possible include your sources so that I can add them in to a definitive article. Also, if you find a portion of text that is evidently from another author, and where I have neglected to give due credit, please let me know.

[b]The Claim for a Charter dating from 926AD.[/b]

Hargrove first raises the subject of the 926AD Charter in his 'History 1818' where he cites that the "Ancient Grand Lodge of All England was constituted at York by King Edwin in 926AD". This may well be the case, and the absence of documentary evidence makes this hard to prove either way, but more of this later. However one of the key features of the Charter is that it allegedly contained the wording "...and gave them the charter and commission to meet annually in communicaytion[sic]...". This is the key clause as noted by Hargrove but found deficient by all others, particularly Hughan. If you look at the version in Hughan's Old Charges you will find that the key words are indeed not included.

The Royal Historical Society located at Trinity College Cambridge holds a list of Royal Charters issued by Kings and Queens of England from AD604 (The Kings of Kent) to King Harold in 1066AD.

The only reference to York is as follows:

A.D. 930 for 934 (Nottingham, 7 June). King Athelstan to the church of St Peter, York: grant of land at Amounderness, Lancs. Latin with bounds.

Archive: York

MSS: 1. Bodleian, Dodsworth 9, 4v-5r (s. xvii; no witnesses)
MSS: 2. Bodleian, Dodsworth 10, 42r-43r (s. xvii)

However, there are significant difficulties in dating Anglo-Saxon documents due to the vagaries of their calendars. Indeed the trusted Masonic Scholar Dr Andrew Prescott confirms in his paper 'The Old charges Revisited - 2006', that it was James Anderson himself who first suggested the date of 926AD in his constitution of 1738, because it fitted in nicely with Edwin who died in 933AD. This simple but miss-guided act was the last piece of the puzzle of the York Legend which was done principally to offset the harm done to the York legend by Robert Plot in his book the "History of Staffordshire" of 1686.

In the 'Royal Masonic Cyclopedia', Mackenzie states that in 1663 the Earl of St Albans convened all Masons on 27th December at a General Assembly in the City of York. He mentions the purchase of a Free Charter by Prince Edwin from King Athelstane for the Masons of that time.

Gould claims that these assemblies never occurred which is at odds with edicts issued by a number of Monarchs against Freemasons, with the first being that of Edward II in 1360AD and this one by Edward IV in 1424AD.

[i]FIRST, whereas by the yearly congregations and confederacies made by the masons in their general chapiters and assemblies, the good course and effect of the statutes of labourers be openly violated and broken, in subversion of the law, and to the great damage of all the commons ; our said lord the King willing in this case to provide remedy by the advice and assent aforesaid, and at the special request of the said commons, hath ordained and established, That such chapiters and congregations shall not be hereafter holden, if they thereof be convict, shall be judged for felons. And that all the other masons that come to such chapiters and congregations, be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, and make fine and ransome at the Kings will.[/i]

Mackey is of the opinion that it is clear from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that Athelstane was an employer of (Free)Masons and it is also clear that he drew up a number of rules and regulations, subsequently incorporated into his own laws and contracts, which approve, by implication, the rules and regulations of the Craft. If the reasoning is sound then the Charter becomes true in substance if not in form.

Anglo-Saxon Civil and Ecclesiastical laws required all 'incorporated bodies' to hold a Charter, and these would have been presented to the local magistrates via the 'Writ of Returns'. Any body not able to satisfy the legal requirements would have been disbanded until they could obtain 'Civil Charters'. As this never happened, or at least as we have no public record of this, it is clear that the authorities at least, believed in the existance of a Charter

[i]The terms charter and writ theoretically have a somewhat different meaning, a charter being a grant or privilege bestowed by authority, while a writ is a command or instruction issued by authority. However, there is such as thing as a written command, sent out to those in authority in a local region, to respect a grant or privilege bestowed by central authority. There are also conventions about how the terms are used. The word charter is sometimes used in a very loose sense to mean any kind of legal document, including business agreements, wills or just about anything else. The term diploma can be used to specify a royal grant or privilege, that is to say, a royal charter. However, there are some differences in form between diplomas as used on the continent of Europe and those which developed in Anglo-Saxon England. One particularly English form of the two types of royal document known in the period is sometimes called a writ, even when it is a charter or diploma. There is a significant corpus of these documents, certainly enough to infer that the literate mode of issuing instructions and granting royal favours was well established in England before the Norman Conquest. However, only a small fraction of the documents exists in authentic, original, single sheet form. The rest are known from later copies in cartularies or have been copied by later antiquarians from lost originals. Many, even of the single sheets, have been proven to be forgeries. In the absence of any chancery records from this period, a detailed interpretation of how the system worked in practice may be a little tricky. But history is not for the fainthearted. Source: Medieval Writings.[/i]

In the 'New Freemasons Monitor or Masonic Guide - 1818' - By James Hardie; he confirms that Henry VI "...perused the laws and charges of Freemasonry and approved them as being good and reasonble to holden as they have been drawn out and collected from the records of ancient times".

There is also on record an account from the court of Elizabeth 1st, who on hearing that the Freemasons were in possesion of certain secrets sent an armed guard to York to break the meeting up. Sir Thomas Sackville initiated some of the officers sent by the Queen and these individuals subsequently made a favourable report to the queen. Anderson is vague on this story.

In 1663, on the festival of St John the evangelist, a regulation was adopted which acknowledges the existence of the general assembly as the governing body of the fraternity. It is there provided "that for the future the said fraternity of Freemasons shall be regulated and governed by one grand master and as many wardens as said society shall think fit to appoint at every annual general assembly.
[b]
Was Athelstane or Edwin a Speculative Freemason?[/b]

Much is made of the Regius MS in regards to this subject, namely "...and his youngest son loved well the science of geometry, and he wist well that hand-craft had the practice of the science of geometry so well as masons, wherefore he drew him to council and learned [the] practice of that science to his speculative, for of speculative he was a master, and he loved well masonry and masons."

The late Matthew Cooke wrote "It asserts that the youngest son of King Athelstan learned practical Masonry in addition to speculative Masonry, for of that he was a master. No book or writing so early as the present has yet been discovered in which speculative Masonry is mentioned, and certainly none has gone so far as to acknowledge a master of such Craft. Robert Gould, whoâ€™s history of Freemasonry is regarded as the definitive work commented that "The context explains the word 'speculative'â€” And after that was a worthy king in England that was called Athlestan, and his youngest son loved well the science of geometry, and he wist well that hand-craft had the science of geometry so well as masons, wherefore he drew him to council and learned [the] practice of that science to his speculative, for of speculative he was a master."

Therefore the word Speculative refers to the knowledge of geometry, and the word 'no' ought to have been inserted to make sense before hand-craft. i.e. 'He wist well that [no] hand-craft had the practice of the science of geometry....

And as Gould continues: "It also appears that the writer of the book [i.e., AddL MS. 23,198] did not consider speculative knowledge as making the possessor a Mason, for he writes, 'and became a Mason himself,â€™ i.e., when he had added the practice of that science to his speculative. He was, clearly, not a Mason when only in possession of the speculative science."

The conclusion arrived at by this writer is, that "Masonry was an art and science, and, like all other working bodies, had its apprentices and free members, and also its peculiar regulations; that speculative Masonry implied merely an acquaintance with the science. As bearing upon the use of the word "Speculative," an expression, the import of which has been but imperfectly grasped by members of the Craft, the following quotations may not be uninteresting. Lord Bacon observes: "These be the two parts of natural philosophy, the Inquisition of Causes, and the production of Effects; Speculative, and Operative; Natural Science, and Natural Prudence. .'. Both these knowledges, Speculative and Operative, have a great connexion between themselves.

The French Mathematician La Clerc comments that "Geometry is divided into speculative and practical. Speculative geometry teaches us to perceive and demonstrate the truth of geometrical propositions. Practical geometry is that which applies the theorems of speculative geometry to practice.

[b]The Establishment of York.[/b]

The oldest records of a Lodge at York date reliably from March 1712AD although a much earlier date of 1693AD for the York MS and even 1663AD is possible based on certain artifacts. Gould writes that considerable activity was evident in York in or around 1725 with Lodges meeting in individual houses rather than in any one established, consecrated Lodge. In fact in whatever documentation is available there is no reference to a Grand Lodge in York, at least not prior to 1725.

According to Findel, the minutes of Lodge meetings at York are non existent between Dec 22 1726 and June 21st 1729. This in itself should not raise any cause for concern as Gould concluded that the transient nature of York Freemasonry may have resulted in other books been used. Unfortunately none are evident which forces us to conclude that the Lodge simply failed to meet. The fact is that up until the Festival of St John in 1725 there were no Grand Masters in York. One was elected at the aforementioned 'feast' along with a Deputy Grand Master, Grand Wardens, Secretary, and Clerks. It is difficult not to assume that this was not done in direct response to the actions in London of 1717.

Laurence Dermott chastises the 'Londoners' in his 1778 (3rd Edition) Ahiman Rezon by declaring that the Premier Grand Lodge of England was unlawfull as it had been created by 4 lodges; not the 5 required under Masonic Law. However it is not clear as to how many Lodges convened in order to 'create' the Grand Lodge of York. Public records would indicate a solitary lodge.

Gould does however clarify his position by stating that Even if more York Lodges could be found; Dermott is talking of a Masonic Law that did not exist in either 1717 nor 1725. There is therefore no reason whatsoever to call into question the legality of either Grand Lodge.

The Antient and Independent Constitution of Free and Accepted Masons belonging to the City of York was briefly resurrected in 1761 with Brother Francis Drake at the helm (no pun intended); and it is only from this time that Charters were issued for the formation of daughter Lodges.

[b]The Resurgence:[/b]

In 2005, two 'Grand Lodges' appeared, initially the 'Regular Grand Lodge of England', and then the 'Grand Lodge of All England', both claiming rights under the Charter of 926AD. The difficulty with both of these entities is that there are precious few records of the missing years, i.e. from 1792 to 2005.

Certainly the Grand Lodge of All England spent the intervening years in France, at lodges with which they have amity, but the Regular Grand Lodge of England wont even acknowledge the question, let alone answer it.

Notwithstanding that neither UGLE nor GLoS recognise these 'irregular' bodies; Mackay is clear that at least 3 regular Lodges must convene in order to create a Grand Lodge (whereas Dermott claimed 5). It would appear therefore that both of these entities are damned by the very Masonic laws they claim gives them a right to exist.

It is therefore fairly evident that there was some documentation in existence to support the claim of a Charter of 926AD. Whether this documentation is in the form of a Charter, a Writ, or simply enshrined in the Anglo-Saxon laws of the time, we shall probably never know. Whatever the truth, it is also clear that the story of a Masonic Charter was believed by the authorities and indeed a number of Monarchs.

As to whether Athelstane or Edwin were Freemasons; I leave this to more esteemed scholars. Whatever; this does not affect the Old Charges and indeed brings an element of ecoterism into the story.

I will leave it to you to add, delete, embrace or ignore ;D

Lodge History

Lee — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:19:53 GMT

Hi

I seem to recall a while back seeing a "Family Tree" type of history online that indicated the relationships between lodges. For example, brethren from ABC Lodge broke away to form Lodge XYZ.

Would anybody happen to know where I could find that?

Also, is anybody familiar with any resources online that could be searched to find any history of a lodge?

Thanks.

Was Solomons Temple ever built

Terry — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:55:53 GMT

I know some of us have covered some of this on other posts, but here goes anyway

I have stated that I believe that KS temple was never built,

I now am beginning to think that it may have been,

So let me put my thoughts to you all for comment( BTW I am far enough away from you lot, that I will be safe :w00t:)

I am fairly certain that no physcial proof of KS temple has been found, however what we do know is that the temple WAS REBUILT after the return from babylon ( RA Ritual & Bible).

It was also rebuilt and consecrated around second century BCE ( Maccabees)

Then it was last rebuilt by King Herod.

If you rebuild something, there must have been something to rebuild, we know nebuchadnezzar destroyed a temple in 586BC, had KS Temple survived for 400 odd years from consrtuction untouched, I can't say.

Oh, and one further problem, it is impossible, taking the bible instructions to build the excat same edifice. There are too many contradictions and physcial impossibilities in the bible designs

Just to be safe, I am digging a bigger foxhole

Premier Grand Lodge Of England

Mike Lawrence — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:09:16 GMT

Your comments please on the following statements:

Despite the many references to Freemasonry in both England and particularly Scotland prior to 1717, the formation of the Premier Grand Lodge of England formed in 1717 was not only the first Grand Lodge, but also the first Grand Lodge to perfect and practice the Three Degree System which is recognised through the world today.

All other Grand Lodges regular or irregular, including Co-masonry and Ladies masonry, stem from the Premier Grand Lodge.

All other side degrees, including Mark, OSM, A&AR, Red Cross, KT, KTP and so on and so forth, do not officially attribute there existence prior to the formation of the the Premier Grand Lodge and the Three Degree System.

Age of freemasonry your opinion

Iain — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:39:13 GMT

I would love to here everybodys opinion on what they think the age of freemasonry is and where it started.

Note: I said your opinion not that of your PGL or GL.

I have found a lot of things that are similar to how our rituals are worked and ancient texts covering the rites of circumambulation from writing from such people as Plinny,Ossian, the Books of Camarthen, the Annals of ulster, The Annals of Scotland and many others.

I am not saying that this is where freemasonry started but over a few years I am starting to wonder if the basics of freemasonry were already here in this country which looks to have went underground at the arrival of Christianity, And only resurfaced at the time of the journymen builders which added ancient rites to the then modern tradesmen, Only to go underground again during the reformation.

I know that this is speculative but I just find it hard to buy the trades and guilds story something just doesn't ring true with it.

It seems to be at least 1800 years to late probably a lot more

Third Degree (Craft) an innovation or a vital part of the system?

lauderdale — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:31:37 GMT

The thread by Bro Lawrence on whether or not UGLE is the Premier Grand Lodge has sparked off another question in my mind.

I have read in many books about Freemasonry over 40 or so years now and have seen references in more recent times on Masonic Fora to Craft Freemasonry as we would now know it being a TWO degree system with Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts, (sometimes called "Fellows of the Craft") and that the Master Mason degree was an innovation introduced later, possibly by one of the two English Grand Lodges which founded UGLE in 1813. Prior to this the Lodges were ruled by a Master who was chosen from amongst the Craftsman to reside over them and who had to have been a Warden. There are echoes of this in the modern Installation Ceremony and its earlier part is held in the Second Degree e.g. the ME being Obligated as such. Once the FCs have left, the Lodge is Opened in the Third degree but the MMs then leave with nothing happening until the ME , entrusted with the Pass-grip, Sign and Password of a Master Elect covers the Temple for a short time while the Board of Installed Masters is opened, and is then admitted and Installed in due form.

I am given to understand that the Original EA and FC Degree Ceremonies were much longer and that parts of the FC were taken out to help create the MM Degree based on the Legend of Hiram a Biff and that originally Craft Freemasonry had a Noachite rather than a Hiramic story?

Is this true and if so what purpose would there have been in changing the basis of Craft in this way?

The Temples

Alan Campbell — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:44:51 GMT

Whilst surfing the web looking for inspiration i came across a passage from Ezekiel which mentions plans for the building of a new holy temple. these plans actually predate the 2nd temple, so why wasn't this temple built instead of the one that was created and built by Cyrus and Darius the great of Persia(book of Ezra) and destroyed in AD 70 by the roman Emporer Hadrian.

Is the 3rd temple supposed to built internally or do you think that it should be a brick and stone structure?

18th Century jewelry, etc.

xalpha — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:43:13 GMT

Greetings brethren,

I do some historical reenacting (Living History) for the American War of Independence. Since masonry was even bigger back then than it is today, I thought it would be fitting for me to wear something that showed off my Masonry.

However, it has to be in period. Are there any good resources for what our 18th century brethren wore to signal that they were Masons? I've seen some pocket watches, but it's hard to come by a period replica Masonic watch (that's rather obscure).

Did they wear rings like we do now?

Also, it should specifically be for American Masonry, but I'm not sure it would have been much different around the world.

Thanks!

Sir Isaac Newton? was he or wasen't he?

Sunburst — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:01:06 GMT

For most of my adult life I have spent rather a lot of time studying the life and works of Isaac Newton as he totally fascinates me, as his genius bordered on lunacy, but as the saying goes there is much method in madness!
His main biography by R.S. Westfall is an absolutly amazing read, about a man driven half crazy (he had a nervous breakdown in 1691) by his passion to learn about how things work, and almost poisoning himself with mercury during his wild experiemnts in alchemy. Learning about Sir Isaac has fired my interests in Euclid, the calculas and his mastery work the Principicus!
Now my question is (and I would love a thoughtful debate on this)...was Isaac Newton a freemason??...becuase no where in recorded history have I found any proof of this, but it is strongly hinted at in many works that Sir Isaac visited many London lodges during his later life, while he was Master of the Mint! I think even Samual Peyps once mentioned this in his diarys, although I have not read his works in many years now.
My point is how (if ever he did?) was he able to visit Masonic lodges if he wasen't a Mason?
This had been a huge question thats bugged me for many years!
Hopefully some bretherin here may have some definate opinions on this answer.
I look forward very much to reading them.
:D

Experiment!

Iain — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:15:46 GMT

Would anybody like to try something out with me.

I am posting a link with the regis manuscript on it both origional writing and translation

http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/regius.html

If you have some time read the origional and before you reference the english version think on your own accent or that of your mother/grandmother, or elders in church town or village and see if you can find any words in it that actualy may have a different meaning depending on the are you are from. Remember you need to sound it as you speak not as you think it should be spelled in english.

Example: Line 51 Uchon is translated to = each but here means That

There are examples of words that they think may be wrong at the bottom but try this and see if we can find more, maybe interesting what we end up with. And it will give anyone doing any research on old paperwork a better library to chose from rather than 1 mans opinion.

King Arthur

Alan Campbell — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:03:08 GMT

Seems a shame that there are no topics in this section so i thought i would start one. I dont know whether it is myth or fact but much has been written about King Arthur and the Knights of the round table and there search for the holy grail.

So did they exist?

Did they find it and keep it hidden? (and now its a secret in a higher order)

Is freemasonrys' knights connected through history to this group?

I don't know the answers to the above but i'm sure that a lot of you well read learned forumites will have your own opinions on the above and i would love to here them.

A Concise History

Mike Martin — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:58:25 GMT

An interesting paper from a Lodge Website

http://www.oelodge.uklinux.net/history.htm

Rabbinical account of the death of the builder!

Mike Lawrence — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:39:52 GMT

I have just been reading:

The Antiquity Of The Third Degree - Bro George W Bullamore from the AQC Transactions, date...c.1935, but I can't be sure, will check out the index.

However....check out the following quote:

Referring to the building of King Solomons Temple we read "...according to Rabbinical legend, while the workman were killed that they would not build another Temple.....Hiram himself was raised to Heaven like Enoch."

For those of you that do not recall, the old Testament tells us that Enoch was taken or translated that he would not taste death.

Interesting variation I thought!

MA in Masonic History?

Mike Martin — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:00:42 GMT

Amazingly, nowadays you can study Freemasonry at the University of Sheffield

http://www.shef.ac.uk/history/ma/freemasonry

Early Masons' Lodge discovered?

Lew Finnis — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:44:03 GMT

I've just watched Sunday's 'Time Team' which was investigating various features in the grounds of Salisbury Cathedral. They were excavating the foundations of the medieval bell tower (demolished late 18th Century) when they came across much older stones below the bell tower foundations. Further investigations revealed lots of Purbeck Marble chippings. The conclusion was that this was the site of a masons' workshop building, re-using stones from Old Sarum, used by masons building the cathedral. This was then demolished when the bell tower was built (a conjectured picture of the structure was shown).
The programme can be viewed at www.channel4.com (go to Catch Up, then scroll down to find Time Team; programme transmitted Sunday 8th Feb at 5.30 p.m.). The relevant bit is only about 30 seconds right near then end but the whole programme is a fascinating look at the work undertaken in the Middle Ages.
[i](This has been posted on other forums - apologies to those reading it for the third time!)[/i]

Theories of the Craft - An Interesting Read

Mike Martin — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:15:58 GMT

Theories of the Craft
~ ~ November 2001 ~ ~

by Phil Elam 32°
Member, Masonic Brotherhood of the Blue Forget-Me-Not

Although many scholars and historians offer up their own theories about the nature and origin of the Craft, the four best known come from four distinguished Freemasons. This article presents a summary of each theory. As no one within the Craft can speak for Freemasonry as a whole, each Brother must make up his own mind which, if any, represents the "Truth."

The Anderson Theory

Rev. Dr. James Anderson's theory was first published in his "Book of Constitutions" in 1723; a second edition was published in 1738. Anderson, a Scottish Presbyterian minister, referred extensively to the latest version of the Legend of the Craft available at that time, and more precisely from "Record of Freemasons," a lost manuscript written at the end of the fifteenth century and the Legend of Euclid. Anderson was not probably aware of the earliest manuscripts such as those of Halliwell and Robert, which contain older versions of the Legend.

In so doing, Anderson wrote a Legend of his own that differed in many points from the previous ones. It was accepted by the Craft as true history of the Order for at least one century and a half, if not more.

The old Legend of the Craft was little known by the members of the Craft until the old manuscripts were published. On the contrary, the Legend of Anderson was largely diffused and known.

Anderson first states the Adam had a good knowledge of Geometry, and that makes him the founder of Masonry and Architecture. Adam taught these Arts to his sons, Cain and Seth, who taught them to their own children. As a result, Masonry dates from before Noah who, with his three sons, built the Ark and divulged Masonry to the post-Diluvian world. Noah's heirs tried to build the tower of Babel, but God made them speak different languages and dispersed them in the world, with the consequent loss of Masonry. It was, however, preserved in Shinar and Assyria; Nimrod, the Chaldeans, and the Magi built many cities and preserved, and taught, Geometry and Masonry in many countries, including Canaan. Abraham brought the knowledge of these sciences to Egypt and to his descendants, the Israelites, who were a people of Masons.

King Solomon had a beautiful temple built in Jerusalem with the help of King Hiram of Tyre and Hiram Abif. Anderson's story of the Temple of Solomon has had a strong influence on the following legends, and on the rituals and the modern concepts of Speculative Masons. The builders of the Jerusalem Temple taught Masonry to the known world.

Anderson then introduces Nebuchadnezzar as a Grand Master who learned Masonry from the Jewish captives that he brought to Babylon. After came Cyrus and Zerubbabal, the leader of the Jews, who built the second Temple. From Palestine, Masonry went to Greece where great philosopher like Pythagoras improved its content. The work of Euclid in Egypt is also mentioned. Masonry reached also Rome - and then the conquered territories -- whose Emperor, Augustus, became the local Grand Master who introduced the Augustan style of architecture.

When the Romans left Britain, the Masonic arts fell into disuse. It was revived in the eighth century under the Saxon Kings before disappearing again to come back in the eleventh century at the time of the Norman Conquest. Anderson then repeats the story of King Athelstan and of his son Edwin.

The kings of Scotland encouraged Masonry from the beginning, and allowed the Scottish masons to have a Grand Master and a Grand Warden. Queen Elizabeth the First did not like Freeasonry, but her successor, James I, was one of its patrons. Charles I and II as well as King William, Queen Ann, and George I encouraged the Order.

Anderson's theory is based on the latest versions of the Legend of the Craft, except the last part, which is semi-historical. The second version does not bring new material, but is written more like history than legend.

The Prestonian Theory

In his "Illustrations of Masonry," William Preston details the origin and early history of Masonry in a very interesting and succinct manner, even if it is also based on the Legend of the Craft. However, he ignores the beginning of the Legend and starts his story with the introduction of Masonry in England.

Preston states that the Druids derived their system of government from Pythagoras, which, according to him, shows that they knew the science of Masonry. Masonry, in this story, is said to have been introduced in England at the time of its conquest by Julius Caesar, and reached a high level at the time of Emperor Carausius. He went as far as giving the masons a Charter. Masonry received the patronage of many kings: Kenred, King of Mercia; King Ethelwolf; King Alfred; King Edward; King Athelstan; King Edgar; Edward the Confessor; William the Conqueror; King William Rufus; Henry I; Stephen; Henry II during whose reign, in 1135, the Grand Master of the Templars employed the Craft to build the London Temple.

Preston's traditional story based on the Legend of the Craft finishes here while the remaining of his document presents a historical tale. He borrowed a lot from Anderson's work, but he presented it in a much clearer way, especially in his presentation of the early story of Masonry. However, most of his assertions have no historical bases, and his theory is founded on legends in the same way that Anderson's is too.

The Hutchinsonian Theory

William Hutchinson expressed his view on the origin and story of Freemasonry in his book "The Spirit of Masonry" published first in 1775. First, he rejects any connection with any previous operative society such as the operative masons or architects. He also put in doubt the former organizations of operative masons, and the suggestion that they knew some secrets or mysteries.

However he admits that organized Masonry existed at the Temple of Solomon, but he added that Solomon knew the principles of Freemasonry, that he communicated them to "some sage and religious men" of his kingdom who, incidentally, built the Temple before going back to their previous work.

No other writer has accepted this total disconnection between the operative and speculative Masons. It is Hutchinson's theory, and nothing else. He divides the evolution of Masonry into three stages represented by the three ancient Craft degrees:

The first stage, linked to the Entered Apprentice Degree, begins with Adam and the Garden of Eden and goes on until the time of Moses. The "knowledge of the God of Nature," as well as all the sciences and knowledge available at that time, were imparted to Adam who remembered them, as part of his punishment, after he was expelled from Eden for his sins. He was able to communicate them to his children, and by them to their descendants and this was the foundation of Masonry. After the deluge, this knowledge fell into confusion and oblivion and it was corrupted into idolatry. People, among them the Egyptians, started to adore the Sun, Moon, and Stars in contradiction with the Laws of the True God. The Egyptians, and later on the Greeks and the Romans, hid the mysteries of their religions behind symbols and hieroglyphs understandable only by their priests.

The masons, as a mean of concealing their mysteries, adopted these methods of teaching by symbols. This first stage consisted in the simple belief and worship of the true God following the doctrine revealed to Adam and transmitted to his descendants by the

patriarchs. It was a system of religious principles with few rites and ceremonies, and even less symbols.

The second stage, represented by the Fellow Craft degree, begins at the time of Moses and goes on through all the Jewish history until the advent of Christianity. The Jewish lawgiver was, of course, aware of the true Masonry as taught by the patriarchs, but it was complemented by the instruction God gave to Moses on the Mount Sinai. One had now to believe in a Deity as required by God himself.

The second, or Mosaic stage of Masonry, had become Judaic. Moses introduced the rites, ceremonies, symbols, and hieroglyphs used before by the Egyptian priests, which he learned during his stay in this country. The operative art of Masonry was also introduced at that time, but the main activity of these people remained speculative since their work as builders and architects was accidental.

Masonry was not organized at the time of the Temple of Solomon that was built by masons of different nationalities including Israelite. However, its building occupies an important place in the history of the Craft. After the completion of the Temple, these Masons were dispersed in the entire world where they taught their art.

According to this theory King Solomon was not the founder of Masonry at the Temple, nor its first Grand Master, but he propagated it in the foreign countries, whereas before Masonry was confined to the Jewish descendants of the Patriarchs.

The third stage of the Masonry history began with Christianity; it is represented by the Master Degree that brought up the complete and perfect knowledge of God. Masonry assumes then a purely Christian form and a Christian interpretation, and the allegory of the Third Degree refers directly to the Christian Master. The Christianization of the Third or Master Degree, with its symbols referring to Christ, was common in the eighteenth century. Christian references were removed from Freemasonry at the initiative of Dr. Hemming although not all Masons accepted this until the middle of the nineteenth century. From the time of Anderson and Desaguliers, the Legend of Hiram Abif had been generally accepted by the Craft as a historical event.

Now it is believed to be a myth that could possibly be based on distorted historical events. On the other hand, Hutchinson never mentioned Hiram Abif whom he did not recognize as a Mason, but as a painter or sculptor. For him, the Third Degree symbolizes the corruption and death of religion, and the moral resurrection of man in the new Christian doctrine. To Hutchinson, Hiram Abif's legend is false, and he denies the legend of the Third Degree at the Temple.

At the time of the building of the Temple Masonry had only two degrees and the second, or Fellow Craft degree, was a system of Jewish religious ethics revealed by God to Moses; it came in addition to the simple creed of the Patriarchs that constitutes the first or Apprentice stage of the Craft. The Legend, or allegory of Hiram Abif, was unknown then, and was introduced later as a myth in the Third or Master Degree after the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Hutchinson did not have any followers. In summary his theory states that Masonry went through three phases: first, the Patriarchal; second, the Jewish; third, the Christian which is still probably somewhat applicable today.

During the first stage of Masonry, the Phoenicians who traded with Britain initiated the Druids. In the second stage, some of the Israelite Masons who had built the Temple came to Britain and taught their art locally. Christian missionaries have introduced the third stage in Britain at the time of the conversion of the Druids to Christianity from Rome.

The Oliverian Theory

Rev. Dr. George Oliver was the first to show that Masonry was not only a social club based on the principle of brotherly love, but that it was above all a philosophy and a science of symbolism by which its ethics was taught to its initiates. In other words, Freemasonry was a school of inquirers after truth. Unfortunately, being first a clergyman of the Church of England, his interpretation of the symbols, myths, and allegories of Masonry were those of a theologian and not of a philosopher. He was also gullible enough to accept the errors of tradition as truths of history. Oliver's theory is primarily based on the Legend of the Craft and other obscure legends and traditions that he accepted as facts.

Dr. Oliver claims that the Masonic science existed before the creation of the earth, and was diffused in all the systems existing in the space. In the Garden of Eden, Adam was taught the science of Masonry, and he remembered it when he had to leave Eden because of his sins. His son, Seth, and his descendants preserved the Sciences whereas his brother, Cain, and his own descendants abandoned it. The children of Lamech, a descendant of Cain, had some distorted knowledge of Masonry. Cain's descendants were Operative Masons, whereas Seth's were Speculative, although they, too, erected buildings, but this was their secondary activity. Seth, first, and then Enoch, is remembered for being Grand Superintendent of the Craft. God revealed the sacred Word to Enoch as well as some other mysteries. Enoch also erected two pillars on which he engraved the known sciences of his days, including Masonry.Enoch was followed by Lamech and then Noah.

This Primitive or "Antediluvian Masonry" was organized into lodges and was governed by only five Grand Masters: Adam, Seth, Enoch, Lamech and Noah. At that time, Masonry used only a few symbols and ceremonies, and it was a system of morals or pure religion whose object was to preserve the promise of a Messiah.

After the deluge one of Enoch's pillar, the stone one, was found and, in this way, the knowledge of sciences and Masonry was transmitted to posterity through Noah?s son, Shem. His other sons lost the knowledge and their descendants became idolaters. They even corrupted the principles of Masonry by creating another system of secret rites, known as "the Mysteries" or "Spurious Freemasonry." They were more interested in the Operative Art by opposition to Shem's "Pure Freemasonry," that was involved in the Speculative science. Shem taught the Pure Freemasonry to Abraham, and the science was transmitted from generation to generation to Moses who, before, had learned Spurious Freemasonry from the Egyptians.

Moses revived the Masonry that had declined during the captivity of the Israelites and called a General Assembly where the construction of the Tabernacle was decided. From then on Masonry was confined to the Jewish nation. To build his Temple, Solomon asked the help of some artisans of Tyre who were adepts of the Spurious Masonry, which is Operative Masonry and Architecture. Solomon reunited the two Masonries into the form we know today.

After the construction, the Masons journeyed to all the known countries, including England, to teach their art.

Dr. Oliver accepts as true the legend wherein Prince Edwin organized a General Assembly in York, and that the Halliwell poem is the exact text of the Constitutions adopted in that occasion. Dr. Oliver agrees with Hutchinson that Freemasonry is a Christian organization, and that all the myths and symbols have a Christian interpretation.

However, where Hutchinson says that the Craft became Christian after the birth of Jesus, Oliver believes that it has always been Christian.

Summary

The reader will probably conclude that these great Freemasons from the 18th and 19th centuries had highly creative imaginations. While each of these theories offers some plausibility, there is also the equal opportunity that they are completely false. These, of course, are not the only theories held by various highly esteemed Brethren.

The simple fact is that we do not know the origin of the Craft nor is it ever likely that we will. Each Freemason must decide for himself fact versus fiction.