Bro,
Your observation is good and timely, the lack of
footnotes tells us/readers that the issues were of the authors opinion/conjectures.
Those books were not submitted as thesis or for publication for Academia's
scrutiny. They are for public consumption hence, lacking of more scholarly
features. History as you already knows are documented events and agreed upon by
historians. Because event(s) did not make it on the paper, papyrus or slab of
stone doesn't mean that the said event(s) did not happen. Lomas
and Knight Theory of the Origin of our Craft is one of many that float around.
Controversial to say the least but thought provoking to many including you and
me. Born in Blood was written by medieval historian John Robinson who also
wrote the detailed history of Knights Templar and the Crusade. Bro Robinson Theory
of Origin of Freemasonry to me, is more convincing
than Lomas and Knight. As an example, Robinson's
explanation of ancient French words that was eventually translated/corrupted
into English such as frere for brother became
"free" thus freemason from original's brother mason.
There are multitude of books written about our
craft, from expose' to its ties to mysticism written by disgruntled born-again Christians
to psychics. Some books gathered dust, some sells like hot cakes. Books like
the Hiram Keys, Book of Hiram, Born in Blood, Brotherhood and others were about
Freemasonry, its origins, its past, present and future, those books is NOT
about the Craft itself. Those books were written for outsiders who often times (after
reading) thought they knew more than the members themselves. This is an interesting phenomenon within our
Fraternity. A self perpetuating idea that most of our own Brothers tend
believed to be true. I witnessed a Master of the Lodge delivered the 3rd degree
Lecture in long form and then commented at the closing about a non-mason who
knew more about masonry than anybody in the Lodge! As a visiting Brother I just
bite my tongue real hard.
The Lessons or as we called it, Mysteries of
Freemasonry are not about who we are but rather what are we, as Speculative
Masons are building. This is the central issue of confusion in the
My brother, you have heard the Lectures in our
Degrees and your interest to know the meaning of symbols and the message(s) of allegories
is well evident in your writing. The study and application of our Craft is a
lifetime quest and have an Eternal Reward. It is often said that asking the
answer is much easier than knowing the question. So would say to you to
disregard the peripheral noise and concentrate on what is important--- build
your own
accordance to the drawing upon your Trestle
Board.
"Masonry is a progressive Moral Science,
divided into different degrees; and as its principles and mystic ceremonies are
regularly developed and illustrated, it is intended and hoped that it will leave
deep and lasting impression upon your mind."
Fraternally,
Rudy Olano
Lincoln Lodge No. 34
Brother,
I replied to your generous opinion to my query.
A power failure might have erased everything that I wrote to you (more than a
page, brother) but I would wish to thank you for your opinion and the time you
spent for answering such a query. I understand that every Mason is entitled to
his opinion and interpretation of what the Craft is
all about. It is simply the main point and
message of the two books mentioned that somehow gives me not mental or
intellectual pains but merely the fact that as a Blue Lodge Mason and as a 32nd
Degree Scottish Rite Mason, it is quite disturbing if not hurting to hear and
read that the path and the diligent and watchful researches and
learning process that I went through and am
still going through would just be branded as either blind or insufficient or
wrong or castrated. I am fully aware that every Mason has his own right to interpret
and live the way of the Craft is he thinks it for justifiable and logical to
be. But as a humble Mason who still is in the process of learning, the
WILLINGNESS TO LEARN, and of researching, it does not hurt my intellect (for I
know what I am doing and what I am supposed to do) but my emotions, yes, my heart.
I have spent most of my life in the service of
the Roman Catholic Church as ministrant, academician and professor in
seminaries and colleges, and then come brother Masons who obviously insinuate
that what we have and do are not even intelligible and understandable to us. If
it were true, I humbly would accept it. But if not, then I
would not hesitate to face my Brethren who, with
all best intentions and goodwill, create a cloud of confusion instead of
clarity. I, as a professor, like to give impulses, yes, naughty and aggressive impulses,
to make my students think and analyze. But there is a limit to giving impulses.
Had the authors categorically said that their books were fictitious or written as
novels, I would not have reacted. But every thinking Mason who read the books
would say that the authors presented the books more of as historical than as fiction or as a novel. That is why beside the
obvious message of the books; I respectfully but pointedly say that the
footnotes and the bibliography are simply lacking, to consider their books as historical.
People may say that they are speculative, but look and read once more: they
obviously portray their messages as more historical than speculative or
fictitious.
Thank you Brother, for your time. Your future posts would
be most welcome. I am just a small dot of a "seeker". But I try my
best to seek and ask and look with utmost care and with intellectual basis. Fiction
is fiction. Historical is historical. As a historian, I simply do not easily
accept books written in the category of fiction or novels, but obviously
present themselves as historical or, at the least, quasi- historical.
Ka Freddie
Malinaw
Lodge 25
Laguna