On Dec 21, 4:46�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:16:44 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
Here's a Mason who disagrees with you:
http://www.robertlomas.com/Freemason/Origins.html
Apparently there are differences of opinion within the order.
And of course, there are a variety of "rites" with varying numbers of
degrees operating under the common Masonic umbrella.
Ah yes - Dr. Robert Lomas.
I won't get into the whole Lomas suppositions as they have been
thoroughly debunked by serious historians - they even did a Discovery
Channel Special on Lomas's "work". �He's considered the Eric von
Daniken of Masonic conspiracy theorists - by other Masonic conspiracy
theorists.
He's also the one who claims that the Knights Templar treasure is
located beneath the chapel.
Or the lawn.
Or the West Tower based on some arcane methodology crossing Knights
Templar and Masonic Ritual, phases of the moon, the Aztec Columnar
Table and the price of tea in Tibet.
However, to get back to the Knights Templar being the progenitors of
Masonic Ritual.
I hate to burst your oh so not careful research on the subject, but
the whole Masonic Knights thing is an inside joke - has been for a
long time.
Think Masons and Knights.
Is trying to identify the "true Freemason" as difficult as figuring
out who is a "real" American, Republican, Democrat, or Christian? �:-)
Not at all.
What it does prove is that folks who have little or no knowledge of
the subject will theorize, extemporize and a lot of other izes
combining and interpolating all kinds of obscure claptrap to prove
their point.
The simple truth is this - Free Masons are lodge based, governed by
the same sets of rules and have nothing in common with Knights Templar
or any other mysterious order of antiquity other than that invented
when the Fraternity was established. �I can point you to Catholic
ritual which is also very similar to the establishment of an Entered
Apprentice - does that mean that Masons are descended from Benedictine
Monks?
Pseudo detective work with little or no meaning.
If you are really interested in feeding your obvious appetite for
deconstructing all things historical, here's a few to keep you busy -
I can imagine you will find all finds of interesting fodder.
Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem.
The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem,
of Rhodes and of Malta.
The Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great.
The Most Honorable Military Order of the Bath.
And yet another Van Daniken site?
http://www.knightstemplar.ca/join.htm
My original statement was that some Masons regard the Knights Templar
as their philosophical ancestors. In the course of our discussion, I
have cited several Masons making that exact claim.
Wave the rule book all you like. I don't claim to be well versed in
the details of Freemasonry- but nothing trotted out as official
Masonic doctrine changes the fact that I stated; some Masons do regard
the Knights Templay as philosophical ancestors. And as I noted very
early on, those Masons could be wrong.
This could be one of those interminable cite wars, but to what point?
I'm not addressing or challenging the official rules or position,
merely noting that some Masons feel a certain way. The rules don't
disprove that, nor do the apparently maverick masons (thousands of
them) disprove your knowledge of the rules of the order.
Is Freemasonry so draconian that no Mason can think or feel anything
that isn't authorized in the official doctrine? Some Masons consider
the Knights Templar philosophical ancestors, even if the official
rules do not.