the entanglement of fraternal roots

8/6/2019 The Entanglement of Fraternal Roots

1/3

. 11 Page 20HE ILLINOIS LODGE OF RESEARCH

The Entanglement ofFraternal RootsBy

Dr. Stephen R. Greenberg(La Moille #270, A.F.&A.M., Homewood, IL)

r newly raised Brethren, as well as those experienced inFraternity, have received varying accounts of the firstpearance of Freemasonry. One of the major concerns ofdem Freemasonry should be a proper exploration of theurce from which this great brotherhood of Freemasonry

. Two citations frequently referenced are the eraKing Solomon, and the year of 1717. The latter isoperly assigned to the rise of modem Freemasonry

se that is when the Mother Grand Lodge of the Worlds created. Some fraternal scholars call the Solomonicas the initial origin of the Craft into question in modems. When the Masonic leaders of the 17th century

sired to make impressive events that are emphasized inSymbolic Degrees, they instituted a suitably dramatic

ackdrop" upon the Masonic stage, allegorically similarimpressive backdrops employed in theatrical produc-s. Masonic scholars are now reconciled to the realizationt there is no discernibly precise time or single humanurce from whence came our Fraternity.ere existed in Europe, in Asia or in Egypt, a number ofcult groups sometimes designated as "Ancient Mys-s." Most were small in number and of local origin butme scholars believe that at least a few of these occultoups were quite sizable. Several of those groups sur-ed but briefly while others were so secretive thatecise records of their existence are not discoverable.ong those identified are the Eleusinians, Mithraisms;orders of Samothrace, Isis, Seraphis, and Orpheus.e latter three were recorded from 700 to 600 Be. Storiesd myths that in later times appeared in poetry and

s have been subsequently ascribed to an era of theeek and Roman classics. Indeed, some of these literaryssics may first have arisen from ancient mystic cults.ring the 19th century, efforts were made to link Free-sonry with several of those early societies. These early

s held some similarity to our modem fraternalucture as secret societies that admitted members byremonial rites and symbolic ritual. Several of theseeties elected officers and also employed principals oflowship and relief for unfortunates among their num-s. Despite those association attempts, however, no

creditable evidence of a true historical connection be-tween the cults of ancient times and even the earliestMasonic lodges has been established. Many scholars ~have accepted the fact that despite superficial resem-blance to the Masonic craft, the landmarks and principalsof the Craft are quite separate from any promulgated bythe ancient mystics. Regardless, a closer examination ofsome of these ancient societies is warranted.During ancient times, each craft or profession created anorganization for its members. Among the Romans thesebodies were called "Collegia", a word that evolved into"College." Each Collegia had its local place of assemblywith its own unique rules and regulations. Such groupsevolved during medieval times into guilds of craftsmenand, more recently, into trade unions. In these associationswere combined fraternalism, sociability and charity. Somehistorians envisioned a link, though unproven, betweenthese organizations and the first Freemason's lodges.Among the Greeks, astrologers were considered to beskilled in the interpretation of the movements of planetsand stars in the heavens. It was believed that thesecelestial bodies possessed independent life and wereimbued supernaturally, maintaining profound influencesover the fate of men. It was such a concept that motivatedthe astrologers who devised horoscopes, charms, incan- - - - - - - . Jtations and the zodiac. It was at this juncture, somescholars believe, the earliest evolution of Freemasonrywas initiated. Among the writings of these primitiveastrologers appeared crude charts containing "Masonic"signs and symbols such as a "point within a circle"employed to represent the Sun, suggesting a possiblefuture Masonic association. However, after researchingsuch symbols no empirical record exists to prove thatFreemasonry was truly influenced by primitive sciences.The expression "Kabbalism" arose during the MiddleAges (13th Century) among Spanish Jews. It is derivedfrom the Hebrew word, "Kabbala", alluding to a collec-tion of writings that appeared in the form of a collectedworks. Significantly, these volumes contained many sym-bols and emblems closely aligned to the Hebrew Religion.Scant attention had been afforded this compilation exceptby a small sect of Spanish Jews. All that informationmight have been lost to posterity except for interventionof a few Protestant Reformation leaders. Afterwards,Kabbalism became a subject of interest to many of its newadherents.These signs and symbols now appeared in their mystic -----/writings over the succeeding four centuries. Various later


2/3

Vol. 11 Page 21HE ILLINOIS LODGE OF RESEARCHauthors, beginning to adopt what appeared to be a Firstdegree in Freemasonry, incorporated these Kabalisticsymbols into the ceremonies, which prompted some his-torians to postulate a Masonic origin. The passage of thecenturies has cast doubt on this theory because the truesymbolism seemed quite limited, even far fetched in theevolution of Freemasonry . The Alchemist is also cited forhis early fraternal influence because of a fancied unity ofsymbolism. There is, however, nothing found in the OldCharges of the Book of Constitutions to suggest thatMasons ever held any real interest in Alchemy.John Valentine Andrea, a German, published in 1625 amanuscript elaborating a story concerning ChristianRosenkreuz. It appeared to be an allegory in whichRosenkreuz was established, as a mystic possessed withsupernatural powers. According to legend, Rosenkreuznever actually died, instead remaining always in thecenter of a circle of his apostles. This sect was initiallyknown as a "Brotherhood", later becoming recognizedas the "Brotherhood of Rosicrucians" or "The Brothersof the Rosy Cross". There is no evidence that thissociety had any association with Freemasonry until thelatter part of 19th Century when it was attached to theOrder in England, however, without sanction by theGrand Lodge of that country. Nevertheless, the Societyof Rosicrucians maintained popularity both in Englandand in early America.In the early 19th Century in England, Godfrey Higginssought to establish a theoretical ma-ster plan that pro-vided comprehension to the history of the universe.Higgins was a man of culture and learning far ahead ofhis time, and is reported to have remembered most ofwhat he had read in countless volumes. In 1836, hepublished a manuscript entitled, "Anacalypsis." In thiswork, Higgins recorded stories and peoples largely ig-nored by Darwin in "The Origin of Species" along withlong forgotten religions and philosophies. Higgins fol-lowed what he believed to be a master trail through aforest of ideas leading to a full explanation of events andmeaning in world history. He postulated that from thecreation of the world existed a single religion, which hasremained unrecognized or been masked behindshort lived religious experiences devoid of real truth,This knowledge was generally shrouded because onlythe most skilled individuals could comprehend the trueimplications of the past.Higgins believed that it was perceptive individuals whoadapted their ideas to the times in which they lived; andwho were the founders of the lasting religions of Judaism,

Christianity and Mohammedanism. He further arguedthat similarly adept individuals were the organizers ofFreemasonry, and that the Fraternity had existed in itsprimordial form among even the ancient Druids of Brit-ain. More recently, studies have indicated that Higgin'stheory is not unique. Scholars have expressed the ideathat Masonic ritual stemmed from primitive initiationceremonies among the Druses, an occult religion residentin the mountains of Lebanon. Other historians stated thatthe hidden mysteries of Masonry had deep roots thatoriginated with the Maya Indians 20,000 years ago. Hy-pothetically, then, the Brahman priests ofIndia inculcatedthose mysteries into their country. It was then establishedas a circle of Great Masters who, it was postulated, firstlived in Tibet. From there, the returning Crusaders trans-ported the concepts across Asia to Europe.In many societies, in Africa and in the islands of thePacific Ocean, tribes often formed "men's house" com-prised of tribal elders who became mystics, and were saidto know and understand all workings of this world de-rived from secrets and mysteries known only amongthemselves. These societies, based on a common attributeof social investiture, have sometimes been equated withthe precursors of Freemasonry .Added to that multiplicityof theories regarding the origin of Freemasonry are thosewho propose the Fraternity was founded by a singleindividual living in various ages from ancient to moderntimes; Adam, Noah, Pythagoras, King Athelstan, FrancisBacon, even Oliver Cromwell. There are others whoargue that Freemasonry began as a secret science in Egyptwhen the great pyramids were being constructed.An evaluation of the theories, sequences of events, andpersonalities in reference to the wellspring of Freema-sonry have clouded a sky that should be of purest blue.Though the differences are often bridged across a widegulf of misunderstanding, Freemasonry has remained aviably strong human institution with deeply penetratingroots firmly planted into the rich soil of idealism. Somany of our predecessors have shared a common pointas H.L. Haywood stated so well, "They ask a Freemasonto believe that Freemasonry was never of itself, but wasalways something else in disguise." In truth, it is be-cause they make such impossible demands upon credulitythat none of the many theories of Fraternal origin can befully accepted.The whole story may well be revealed in a single sen-tence. "Freemasonry was founded by Freemasons." In itsfirst existence, Freemasonry was composed of operativemasons. Those brethren who erected the Abbey Church


3/3

Vol. 11 Page 22HE ILLINOIS LODGE OF RESEARCHf St Denis in Paris, or the Cologne Cathedral in Ger-any, or the York Minster in Britain recognizedhemselves to be Freemasons. They knew that they wereot Crusaders or Assyrians or Maya Indians in disguise.ur brethren who sat in the first sanctioned Masonicodges knew that they had assumed the Masonic obliga-ion and not a Brahman or Druidic charge. When the Craftassed into the hands of non-operative Masons (the specu-ative Masons), the fraternity was preserved with little

. There is nothing to suggest that this gloriousraternity of good men dedicated to one Supreme Au-ority has ever been anything else. Though Freemasonry'soots give it vibrant strength, because of a marked lack ofocuments and records its origin appears sometimes to bepelessly entangled in the confusion of its genesis. Theoots of Freemasonry remain forever straight, strong andeep! Thus has the great Masonic institution entered intomodem era.

stells, F. Origin of the Masonic Degreesrrah, Dalmar D. The Evolution of Freemasomyywood, H.L. More About Masomy

, Wallace. The Grand Designells, Roy A. Rise and Development of Organized Freemasomy

Evolution and CreationismBy

Will H. Ross, Ph.D.(Glenview #1058, A.F.&A.M., Glenview, IL)

hat should be the Masonic viewpoint of this continuedichotomy? These two ideas, not necessarily connected,ave engendered a controversy over the origins of theniverse, one a scientific deduction, the other a religiouselief. Based on accumulated physical evidence and data,he theory of evolution postulates a verifiable develop-ent of' nature (animals and galaxies!), from simpleystems to complex ones. Creationism, on the other hand,pines an instantaneous and complete production of allature by an affirmative act of God, the Supreme Archi-. Are these two concepts mutually exclusionary, or

re they even related? Are the religious notions to beiewed as antiquated nonsense, or obversely, is evolutionnsidered unalterably atheistic?

One must of course agree initially that the creationistinterpretation of the biblical accounts of the creation isboth bad science, and bad theology. First and foremost,the biblical accounts of creation are not intended to bescientific (Genesis 1: 1-2:4a and 2:4b-25 ), but ratherdescribe the human condition on earth, in two differingaccounts. They describe the why rather than the how. Onthe other hand, the science and theory of evolution, whichis not anthropocentric (man as the center of the universe),describes the universe, and man, as developing through alogical sequence of steps, resulting in the present systemsand status, which itself is in a state of flux. The creationistview is exclusionary; it considers the biblical account asdoctrinal and the only acceptable revealed method ofcreation. In spite of the fact that Christianity and Judaismare only two of the many extant religions and religiousbeliefs vary dramatically from culture to culture, eachaffirming its exclusive authenticity, the Old Testamentdescription of the act of creation is the only one pro-pounded as being correct. Science on the other hand isuniversally true. Let us exam some of the pros and consand anomalies of these divergent views.First of all, let us define the "scientific method". It iscomposed of the collection of verifiable and data whichpostulate a conclusion and existentially a theory. (KarlPopper, Der Logik der Forshung, asserts that empiricalfalsifiability is the essence of the scientific method). Theessential element of the "scientific method" is the abilityof several separate operators, faced with identical factsand data, to obtain identical results, or reach the sameconclusion. Based on this fundamental premise, the sci-ence of Cosmology, (the study of the origins of theuniverse), has a fundamental belief that the universe isfounded on rational principles, which lend themselves tounderstanding. This is direct opposition to creationismwhich asserts that the act of creation and the resultantuniverse is beyond rationalization and must be acceptedas an act of faith.The Copernican idea that the earth was not the center ofthe universe, but a minor planet in a minor galaxy, andhence was a minor player in the grand order of things, wasa revolutionary idea at that time. It did not consider thetopic of the beginning of the universe, but assumed that ithad been static, that is, it always was as then observed.Newton expanded on this viewpoint; defined a sophisti-cated mathematically elegant universe controlled byimmutable laws. Einstein changed this concept when headvanced his theory of General Relativity, in which thespace-time metric is expanding, necessitating he thought 0at that time the need for a "cosmological constant", which

the entanglement of fraternal roots

Documents