Freemasonry: Distinctly Anglo?

Understanding the Norman invasion of England one would realize that the Norman "French" brought with them a way of life that the English did not understand, a class society. John Robertson(?) author of Born in Blood tries to connect Freemasonry to the Knights Templar.

I do believe he shows some decent connections of symbolism.

However; is Masonry Templar in origin or Anglo?

Hypothesise then that the Templars did influence Masonry, did they create the Masonry as we know it today? Or rather did they lead it in a direction they never intended (as most things are results of consequence) and gave it leverage and little more?

That is: the Templars introduced ritual to the Masonic guild then of Free Men who could travel (an ability a retiring Templar fugitive would greatly desire unable to mix into a society of surfdom).

The French Templars escaping to rural Scotland would have found themselves in the middle of a world vastly different. Having seen the brutality of both Islam and Christianity; the various cultures and their similarities between Mohammedeans and Catholics they would have been very worldly; travelling from France to Crete and Greece and on to the Holy land they'd have seen much of the class society existent in both worlds.

Coming to Scotland they'd suddenly find themselves between Christianized Celts and Normanized Anglicans subduing them.

They'd suddenly find themselves in a world that was still changing; just 200 years before the people would become subjects of Normans; who would introduce a class society in a formerly classless society. A society where the nobles ruled by concent and died by the dozens. Now Chilvalry was taking root.

Does the Templar-Mason gap narrow when you consider the culture shock?

Fugitive Templars, disillusioned from their old world of Class, introduced to a classless world fastly losing its identity would take sides to protect their own interests, influence the Scots, the English, find themselves in the trade guilds hiding under a rather benevolent King (Edward Longshanks) who did not care for the Papal decree.

These all factoring together to culminate in a Freemasonry that was no longer merely a guild but a cosmopolitan understanding that they were different than the rest of Europe...that the British Isles were different. That one day would become embraced by their own who met on the level and governed by consent.

Finally when Britain would be strong enough to be an influence so would Freemasonry whom which her members were a part of the Empire. And so Masonry would find its way into the rest of the lands of the world where like-minded people could congregate.

And so Masonry has always been a part of England in a way different than France or in Germany Spain where Masonry was more secretive and more protective of itself and its members.

And finally, the United States, a nation created of the ideals and principles of England should mirror the same ideals of Masonry and thus the compatibility continues.

That evolution is less due to Templar influence and the introduction of a catalyst which were the Templars who had seen much of the world and would undoubtedly be disgusted with the rest of the world consumed by classism?

Excellent points. I suppose it is possible. Masonry is somewhat mysterious in its earliest origins. It could have been influenced and slowly coalesced over the years from Templars, Saxon, and Kabbalisitc refugees into one single system.

Pretty much yes, but I think Masonry's early political scene denies certain things. Masonry partook heavily in the Jacobite Rebellion in England and from there comes the rule and by-law that no lodge shall discuss religion or politics.

That was in the middle to late 1600s and so would have been 300 years after the supposed Templar influence and so forth.

So it is certain that by the 1600s Masonry had coalesced into something that would not change very much after - mostly only become written down and publicized.

So with that narrow amount of time what exactly COULD influence Masonry is the question...I think the influence of the Templars was enough to give Masonry the complete "cosmopolitan" aspect that it has. Anyone with a religious education knew the histories and teachings Masonry teaches so that is not specifically rare.

And the Anglo-Celts are by their very nature fairly democratic and cosmopolitan as opposed to say - the French.

My personal view is that freemasonry is a child of the Enlightenment, a synthesis of a unique guild structure with some radical new ways of thinking about Life, the Universe and Everything.

Many things influenced proto-masonry, but the things that interested Dr. Anderson came to the fore. Modern speculative freemasonry has been influenced by a number of ancient schools of thought, as wisdom finds many routes to the surface.

Freemasonry certainly has roots in Anglo-Saxon England, but equally in Celtic Scotland and Ireland.

While Trinityman, despite we both being Masons, and he is extremely (whole hearted thanks for his knowledge) more versed in Masonry than I will ever hope to be, I do have to disagree. I think it entirely possible that early Masonry was initially affected by such groups as the Templar, Gnostics, Kaballistic sects, and if we are going there the Assassins (if you don't know the Templar contact look it up.)

However I do believe that yes Masonry was to a large extent an Anglo (as you call it) idea, without trying to sound bigoted and to fit with the times, Masonry arose to influence from the Anglo class, the educated class. Masonry's early tenets were those that are now considered fairly conservative in modern day; thus at the time the educated where whom discussed and acted upon these ideals that we now somewhat take for granted.

Although I believe that the early foundation of Masonry was founed by such Anglos it has grown so much more than that in modern times. Simply look at Prince Hall Masons, call it segregation if you will, but if you experienced it you would not; Prince Hall Masonry is generally associated with African Americans, yet I have met 2 "Anglo" Brothers who call themselves associated with Prince Hall.

To give you a personal for instance I 2 years ago was initiated, one of the most profound experiences a Mason will participate in...with a Sikh and a Jew....I myself being a Christian did not feel and they did not express in anyway that they were any different than myself.

Whatever the origin look at the positive, I am not talking about all the foolish conspiracy theories, I am talking about people coming together from different faiths (The Sikh's father flew in from India for his initation) coming together under one idea of the morality of man-kind as a whole. Say what you what about Masonry but if their is one thing it is capable of is, cementing a relationship based on common pursuit of enlightenment, and anyone on this board that has a problem with that is a fool.

Originally posted by Trinityman
My personal view is that freemasonry is a child of the Enlightenment, a synthesis of a unique guild structure with some radical new ways of thinking about Life, the Universe and Everything.

Many things influenced proto-masonry, but the things that interested Dr. Anderson came to the fore. Modern speculative freemasonry has been influenced by a number of ancient schools of thought, as wisdom finds many routes to the surface.

Freemasonry certainly has roots in Anglo-Saxon England, but equally in Celtic Scotland and Ireland.

I merely disagree with Masonry being an evolution from a guild, the operative Free Masons still exist actually being I think one of the OLDEST companies in England (it's either the oldest or the top ten or such) the Masons' guild still operates but mostly as a "historical dinosaur".

What created the spin-off had to be more than mere enlightenment or the groups would not have diverged, theoretically?

Because they did, more likely than not there was influential pressure, or individuals in the guild that had nothing to do with Masonry as a stonecraft.

my knowledge about the masons is not from inside so i cannot judge nor make things certain. but the simple assumptions of geomancy...that takes it origin into babylon and egypt are not really centered in england, nor scotland nor France...

i would like to have a mason description of Jabulon...could i couldn't get it from the masons yet.

Hmm, wish I could help but... as a Master Mason, I have never heard reference to Jabulon in any of the degree work.

The only reference I've heard to the name at all is the accusation from critics of Freemasonry that Jabulon is some kind of fake god that we supposedly worship.

Thank you for providing the easiest spelling for it yet (you would not believe how many a's and h's ATS members can fit into that), Jabulon which, in my short 2 years of Masonry, has never been uttered in a single lodge meeting. Call it the "Black Lodge" and that "we are not participant to the inner cabal." No Mason at any level I've met from 33rd Scottish Rit to a Past Worshipful Master has ever uttered such lunacy about Masonry. Pure nonsense, but I'm a Mason so to most here I will be immediately dismissed on thiis board as a disinfo proponent.

Originally posted by Baphomet79
Thank you for providing the easiest spelling for it yet (you would not believe how many a's and h's ATS members can fit into that), Jabulon which, in my short 2 years of Masonry, has never been uttered in a single lodge meeting. Call it the "Black Lodge" and that "we are not participant to the inner cabal." No Mason at any level I've met from 33rd Scottish Rit to a Past Worshipful Master has ever uttered such lunacy about Masonry. Pure nonsense, but I'm a Mason so to most here I will be immediately dismissed on thiis board as a disinfo proponent.

In some versions of the Royal Arch degree, a word similar to that is used as descriptive of the Holy Name, because it supposedly means "Lord" in three different languages: Hebrew, Chaldean, and Egyptian. Nowhere, however, is it ever stated that "Jabulon" is a name for God, or the name of some secret god.

Also, it isn't even linguistically correct. "On" is not a name for God in Egyptian. This confusion was due to a verse in Genesis where it is stated that Joseph, son of Abraham, married the daughter of the priest of On. But in this context, "On" is referring to the name of the city, and not a name for God.

Another possibility is Greek derivation. In the Timeaus, Plato wrote "Tell me of the God On, who has no beginning or end", which suggests that God was indeed known by "On" by the Greeks.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


I merely disagree with Masonry being an evolution from a guild, the operative Free Masons still exist actually being I think one of the OLDEST companies in England (it's either the oldest or the top ten or such) the Masons' guild still operates but mostly as a "historical dinosaur".

What created the spin-off had to be more than mere enlightenment or the groups would not have diverged, theoretically?

I don't think they really diverged. After all, the guilds were important under feudalism, but became irrelevant after the beginnings of capitalism. They simply lost the monopoly because the sciences of mathematics and architecture were published.

The 4 Lodges that formed the Premiere Grand Lodge in 1717 had been operative, and were chartered by the Masons Company of London, which had been an incorporation of the guild. Further, the Lodge which initiated Elias Ashmole was still operative at the time.

In my opinion the roots of Freemasonry lie in the Middle East, and perhaps comes from the Templar's links with the Assassins (i.e. organisational influence etc, there are even claims that the Templars were trying to create a fusion of Christianity, Islam and Judaeism).

I suppose every culture that has been a part of the development of Freemasonry as made it's mark on it. My own knowledge of Freemasonry comes from being a westerner, therefore I have no idea if the Russians, Chinese or Egyptians have an equivalent. I identify Freemasonry as a Western club, and more anglo/american than, for instance, French.

I hasten to say that I consider the Freemasonry of today as utterly seperated from my opinion of their murky origins.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


I merely disagree with Masonry being an evolution from a guild, the operative Free Masons still exist actually being I think one of the OLDEST companies in England (it's either the oldest or the top ten or such) the Masons' guild still operates but mostly as a "historical dinosaur".

What created the spin-off had to be more than mere enlightenment or the groups would not have diverged, theoretically?

I don't think they really diverged. After all, the guilds were important under feudalism, but became irrelevant after the beginnings of capitalism. They simply lost the monopoly because the sciences of mathematics and architecture were published.

The 4 Lodges that formed the Premiere Grand Lodge in 1717 had been operative, and were chartered by the Masons Company of London, which had been an incorporation of the guild. Further, the Lodge which initiated Elias Ashmole was still operative at the time.

But here's the clinch, the Masons who signed that charter were not Operative Freemasons.

That's the divergence, why the speculative Masons were being initiated is never really analyzed because in truth there really is no doccumentation of "why" or what influenced it.

Elias Ashmole was initiated in 1640s, which is old enough to have possibly had some blending still, but it is only 300 years after the Templar persecution so it is essentially the same effect on him as the Founding Fathers have on Americans.

So that gives a sense of scale to that "metamorphosis".

Originally posted by Baphomet79
While Trinityman, despite we both being Masons, and he is extremely (whole hearted thanks for his knowledge) more versed in Masonry than I will ever hope to be, I do have to disagree. I think it entirely possible that early Masonry was initially affected by such groups as the Templar, Gnostics, Kaballistic sects, and if we are going there the Assassins (if you don't know the Templar contact look it up.)

I am quite interested in this (12th/13th century) period of history...
Is anybody aware of any link between the Templars and the Cathars?
Grateful to have any information.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


But here's the clinch, the Masons who signed that charter were not Operative Freemasons.

True; however, nor were they Templars. The Lodges they belonged to had at one time been operative, and the Grand Lodge adopted the Ancient Charges and Constitutions of the operative Craft as a perpetual model.

That's the divergence, why the speculative Masons were being initiated is never really analyzed because in truth there really is no doccumentation of "why" or what influenced it.

True again. I have my own personal theory that is only indirectly, if at all, related to the Templars. It seems to me that there is circumstantial evidence of a Rosicrucian connection to the evolution of Freemasonry from an operative guild into a speculative art.

Some Masonic scholars, such as Mackey, have tried to distance Masonry from Rosicrucianism by enforcing the Templar theory, but in my opinion, such is unfounded. For example, in his Masonic Encyclopedia, Mackey says that there is absolutely no connection between Rosicrucianism and the Masonic Rose Croix Degree, and then says that the Knights Rose Croix were actually a Templar Order who had nothing to do with Rosicrucianism.

Yet I've been unable to locate a single shred of evidence to validate Mackey's claim that there ever existed a Templar Order called Rose Croix, and the degree (which is the 18th in the Scottish Rite) is saturated with Rosicrucian symbolism and philosophy.

We know that Ashmole was interested in Rosicrucianism and alchemy by the books he had in his personal library. It is unknown if he ever received actual Rosicrucian initiation, or if he played a role in the masonic transformation, and if so, how much of a role he did play. Yet it is very possible, and perhaps even likely, that Rosicrucian adepts went "invisible" by becoming Freemasons. It was about the time that modern Freemasonry came on the scene that the Rosicrucians vanished.

If this is what really happened, it leaves the Templar question open. The Rosicrucians did not claim any form of chivalry, yet their legendary history places their foundation in the Holy Land. All this is just speculation, but it possibly could be the case that some Templars became adepts, renounced warfare, and concentrated on spiritual development, eventually forming a Society that one day would become the College of the Holy Spirit Rosicruciana.