From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Response from a Freemason (was: Re: Masons/Knights Templar)
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:47:41 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation


     Generally, I ignore messages concerning Masonry on the net,
unless they start to contain serious mis/dis-information. This thread
has started to do just that.

    A bit on my own qualifications: I'm a Master Mason, and Senior
Warden (Master Elect) of Wilder Lodge, Ancient Free and Accepted
Masons, in Leominster, Massachusetts. I'm also a member of
Courland-Centennial Lodge #763 in New York, NY, and a Companion in
Leominster Royal Arch Chapter. I've read extensively in Masonic
literature, and run the Masonic Digest mailing list on the internet.
(For more info on the Digest, mail me at ptrei@mitre.org).

    Anatole France once said "All history books which contain no lies
are extremely dull." This is as true today as it was then, and can be
seen in most "popular" history books - the ones that sell well, and
are most read by people in this (and most other) groups. It applies in
spades to fiction - the authors of which have strong motivations to
embellish and "improve" upon history. Thus, neither Durrell nor Eco
can be trusted as sources on the Templars or Masonry, anymore than
"Camelot" should be considered accurate on Dark Age Britain.

     The following is a quote from the Masonic Digest:

> From: cos!tango!cooper@uunet.UU.NET (Gary Cooper) 
>      I get the digest, and while I'm not a Mason, I am a trained
> historian.  (Why I'm working in the computer industry is anybody's
> guess). I just wanted to let you know that, while interesting, B and
> L's books - I've read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "The Temple and the
> Lodge" - are just plain bad history.
> 
>      We (Historians) are taught to question authors who spend more
> time (and type) describing how difficult their sources are to find
> than they do presenting argument and fact.
> 
>      Any points that the authors made in these books (which leave an
> after-taste similar to an Oliver Stone movie :> ) was quickly
> overshadowed by page after page of the description of the "quest" that
> they were forced to make in an effort to find their information - the
> conduit to which (They stated on more than one occasion) was
> subsequently closed to further scrutiny - ostensibly because of some
> great conspiracy (ie, the alleged 1200 year effort to replace the
> descendants of Christ on the French throne), but more likely to
> prevent a serious historian from trying to duplicate their research.
> 
> Gary Cooper

    Allow me to reccomend a couple of history books which, while I
think they're good reads, were written more from a love of accuracy
and verifiable fact than to make a quick buck. 

    The first is "The Murdered Magicians: The Templars and their Myth"
by Peter Partner. This is divided into two parts: The Templars, which
is a history of the order, and The Myth, which is a study of how
people (including Masons) have made use of the *idea* of the Templars
since then (at one point in late 19th C Germany, two rival "Templar"
orders nearly met in a REAL SCA-style battle! :-).

    The other book is "The Craft" by John Hamill, Librarian and
Curator of the United Grand Lodge of England. This is a little dry,
but has an excellent history section.

     Both TC and TMM are in print, and in paperback. They are quite
accessible to the lay reader.

     The remainder of this post discusses specific statements in posts
on this thread.

-----

altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:

>Part of the mystery surrounding them is why there was no evidence of
>struggle, they all just laid down their arms and/or disappeared. Their
>treasure was never found, and other than Jacques de Molay, no other
>leaders were convicted.

    At least 56 Templars were burned to death, and thousands more
suffered the most brutal imprisonment, many being tortured.

-----
popec@fennec.sccsi.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
> There is an interesting book, "Born In Blood', by John J. Robinsaon

      This is another "popular history" book, which like "The Temple
and the Lodge" attempts to link the Masons and the Templars. It does
so through the Lollards (English ur-Protestant intinerant preachers),
rather than through Scottish nobility as do B & L. The author is an
amateur historian, and it shows. Some of the errors he commits (such
as suggesting that Masons cannot sue each other) show his failure to
study his subject carefully. He's boundlessly optimistic about Masonry
(and became one after publishing the book).

-----
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu writes:

> The fact that the Masons have an "Order of deMolay" would seem to
> imply that they at least like to pretend that they have some
> connection to the Templars.

     Here, Paul has hit the nail on the head. Speculative Masonry in
it's modern form can't be realisticly traced back further than the
mid-1600s. Many members would like it to be ancient, and have invented
spurious connections to older groups (including the Templars).

-----

Gerda Thunarsson writes:

> I have also read that the Masons are descendents of the Knights Templar.  
> They are Luciferians (note that is NOT the Christian SATAN).  They are a 
> very pagan organization, or at least were.  I know my Father and my very 
> christian Uncle are both members of the Masons.  My uncle was 32nd Level 
> Mason, yet, doesn't realize that the Masons are NOT christian.   My 
> father doesn't know that it's a pagan organization (or was).  I wonder of 
> (of=if) all masons are as blind as this, or are there some "real" masons 
> out there?

     Gerda, who do you trust more? Your father and your "very
Christian" uncle, or what you've read? Could you tell us your source?
Could it be that your source is mistaken?

     As has been pointed out, Masonry is not a religion, and while it
requires a pre-existing belief in Deity, does not inquire into the
specifics of a members faith. The overwhelming majority of Masons are
Christians or Jews, with a sprinkling of other creeds.

She also writes:

> What I was trying to say is my uncle either 1) does not see it as a
> luciferian group (how can he be a christian and worship someone other
> god?) 2) does see it and doesn't care.  That's all i was trying to
> say.  from what i know of my uncle, he's a bigoted WASP, but he gives
> his all not to be hypocritical (intentionally), and his being a 32nd
> level Mason to me seems intentionally hypocritical.

     Gerda, I'm really curious how you arrived at this position. Some
source has convinced you that Masonry is "Luciferian" (whatever that
means). You persist in this belief, denying the first-hand evidence
of your own family members, insisting they must be lying, stupid, or
hypocritical to disagree. Is this reasonable? 

-----
SL500000@brownvm.brown.edu (Robert Mathiesen) writes:

[First, a comment: Robert, learn to use a flat file text editor: your
posts have no paragraphs, and contain embedded formatting commands.]

> Here are the full references to David Stevenson's books on the origins
> of Freemasonry -- a *must read* for anyone interested in hard evidence
> rather than myth-making: (1) _The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's
> Century, 1590-1710_ Cambridge University Press, 1988 and (2) _The
> First Freemasons: Scotland's Early Lodges and their Members Aberdeen
> University Press, 1988.  Both are now available as paperbacks

     I'll have to look at these. What evidence does he give that these
early Scottish lodges were speculative rather then operative?

>      There is, however, a semi-scholarly book book on the question by
> Michael Baignet [sic] and Richard Leigh, _The Temple and the Lodge_
> 1989, which argues rather well for a thin thread of Templar continuity
> in Scotland, as a kind of Family Tradition within the Seton and the
> Montgomery families; [...]

      Thin indeed! I don't consider this a reliable source. While B &
L have no particular antipathy towards Masonry, they play fast and
loose with their sources.

> As to the religious affiliations of Freemasons today: in the USA
> Freemasonry excludes Atheists (on the grounds that a Freemason must
> believe in some Deity/ies) and Roman Catholics (who on their part are
> forbidden by their Church to become Freemasons, and hence in Masonic
> eyes could only apply for membership in Masonry from a position of
> disloyalty).  In practice, most US Masonic lodges have Protestant and
> Jewish membership.  A group of Southern lodges, however, at one time
> were more occult in character (this is Albert Pike's organization),
> and may still be so.  In Europe, Freemasons may be atheists as well,
> and probably Catholics if they are willing to risk being discipined by
> that Church.

     There are many errors here. 

* Regular Masonry the world over requires a belief in Deity.  There are minor
  splinter groups which don't, but they are not considered regular, and are
  minute in membership. They exist mostly in Europe, but even there are a  
  small (if vocal), minority. 

* We do not exclude Catholics. I myself have an in-law who is both a
  Mason and a member of the Knights of Columbus. There are many Catholic
  Masons, and have been for a long time. This has become easier in recent 
  years due to changes in canon law - it's now up to local bishops to decide
  in which groups in their see membership is banned, as a threat to the RC
  church. US bishops have almost uninaminously decided that Masonry is NOT
  a problem. 

>   A group of Southern lodges, however, at one time were more occult in
> character (this is Albert Pike's organization),
    
     I guess you're refering to the Scottish Rite (Southern
Jurisdiction). I am not a member of this body, but I strongly doubt
that it does or did much that people in this group would recognize as
occult. If it did, it would lose membership in droves.

     Secondy, you are confusing the SR with Freemasonry. While
Scottish Rite membership is restricted to Master Masons, it is
independent, with its own administration and hierarchy. Every member
of the SR is a member in good standing of a regular Masonic lodge.

-----

cmacdonald@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

> 1. I don't believe you *absolutely* need a book of law to constitute a
> lodge.

    All regular Grand Lodges require a Volume of Sacred Law to be open
on the altar at all meetings. Can you name an exception? 

> 4. There are within Masonry various groups that do different things.
> One of these are the Knights Templar. We're talking even heavier Xtian
> symbolism, tied to almost nautical-looking uniforms.

      Hmm... I've heard that the uniform is derived from that worn by
Union Admirals during the Civil War. For the "Knight Templar" degree,
Christianity is a requirement.

> 5. Masonry is often heavily politicized,
 
Only internally. We don't take positions vis-a-vis secular politics,
nor can we discuss politics in lodge.

> what with black lodges being recognized or not,

   This IS a current "hot topic". Mainstream American lodges are
finally starting to recognize (black) Prince Hall Lodges, and it
resulting squabbles are fascinating.

> or those crazy all-females lodges in France

Part of the tiny splinter groups I discussed earlier.

-----

ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson) writes:
>   When people ask me what my problem is with the Templars, I point
> them to "Alexander Nevsky", a black-and-white subtitled Russian movie
> about an attempted invasion of Rus by the German Templars.

    As has been pointed out, you are confusing the Teutonic Knights
and the Knights Templars. Same period, different place, different
bunch of guys with swords. That is not to say that the Templars were
squeeky clean - some of the things they did in the Holy Land were just
as bad.
  
    (BTW, I'm half Estonian myself). 

-----

From: shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) writes:

> However, one of the earliest references to masonic style organizations
> is contemporary with Queen Elizabeth (and Dee and Kelley and Bruno),
> so say, early 1600's.

     Hmm... I *think* that the earliest undoubted reference to
speculative Masonry is an entry in Elias Ashmole's diary, where he
recorded being made a Mason in 1646. Of course, the lodge he joined
must have pre-existed this date.

     There are a few earlier bits and pieces of questionable evidence,
going back to a document known as the "Regius Old Charges", which
contains rules of behaviour for masons, the formation of lodges, and
the making of new members. However, it is almost certainly for the use
of an OPERATIVE stonemason's guild (people who actually make things
out of rock), rather than SPECULATIVE Masonry (the kind we're
interested in here.) It has been dated to the 1390's.

     The Templars were extinguished in 1314. The first convincing
evidence of Masonry dates to the first half of the 1600s - a gap of
three centuries. This is a long time. While there have been many
attempts, by Masons and non-Masons alike, to bridge that gap, the fact
remains that there is no firm evidence of a connection.

     The first attachment of Masonry to crusading knights was made in
1736 by the Chevaliar Ramsey. Ramsey, a French advocate of Masonry,
may have been trying to make Masonry (which had all the fingermarks of
it's origins in a grubby trade) more acceptable to the French
aristocracy.

     The Freemasons and the Knights Templar have both been the subject
of a lot of good, academically rigorous historical research. It's
maddening to see the same rumors and urban myths trot by on alt.pagan
every year.

							Peter Trei
							ptrei@mitre.org

Disclaimer: Anyone who thinks this has something to do with my
employer probably has other problems too.
Newsgroups: alt.pagan