Mike Martin (31/12/2009)
multisync (31/12/2009)
It shows me that you want to believe it but doesn't show me the evidence to back up that belief.
I feel Freemasonry was initially a secret -or secretive- society from it's early days and perhaps drifted in and out of the shadows after that depending upon the fashion at the time.
Thus, I do feel we could both point back a time to substantiate our beliefs but as I am certain mine predates your's, I consider mine the original concept and -if so- prefer we should maintain that heritage.
You appear to have picked up the cudgels for an indefensible position!
You feel that Freemasonry was secret, I however, have shown clear photographic evidence that Freemasonry and its members were subjects in the public eye at least a century ago, I can also remember numerous mentions of Masonic parades etc going back to the early 18th Century (founding of the first Grand Lodge) in the many books I have read about the history of the Craft (These in fact even led to fake Masonic processions (aka the Scald Miserable Masons)). I am also sure that you must be aware of the first known Masonic Ritual exposure "Masonry Dissected" by Samuel Pritchard in 1730 and the fact that Freemasonry was mentioned by several 17th century antiquarians.
This really should be enough to show you that the Ritual and inner working of Freemasonry has always been the "secret" part not the existence of the organisation nor who its members are and that is what the rest of us are discussing in this Topic!
Mike
You haven't read my post properly. I suggested it had possibly drifted in and out of the limelight since inception. You appear to accuse me of saying it never had.
Exposes by outsiders is not proof of the Craft being non secretive. Rather it suggests the complete opposite. Everyone in the world knows Washington was a Freemason. I suggest in the UK it was usually generally omitted from common knowledge rather than highlighted. Few 'uninteresteds' know Sir Christopher Wren was a Mason. Now I don't know if it was common knowledge then so perhaps you can illuminate on this?
You suggest membership wasn't secretive but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. However is is possible that the divide within freemasonry -hinted below-may account for some wishing to parade and some not?
http://burningtaper.blogspot.com/2007/05/synopsis-of-prof-andrew-prescotts.html
While Crucefix was successful in infusing Christianity into Freemasonry, he wasn't very successful at attracting the respectable middle classes, and Masonry remained divided between the elite and the lower-class.
In Their efforts didn't always bear fruit. The Lodge of Nine Muses was composed of luminary and fashionable artists, architects and musicians, while nearby lodges also subordinate to the Premier Grand Lodge were made up of gardeners and tradesmen.
However the most interesting thing is that I had never heard of Scald Miserable Masons
These were indeed fake Masons protesting AGAINST masons parading
A group known as the Scald Miserable Masons began to stage mock parades timed to interfere with the pompous and solemn parades of the members of the London Grand Lodge. In 1741, they clashed, with some amount of violence. By 1747, the London Grand Lodge was no longer able to safely form a parade or procession.
and
By the 1870s, the Victorian era was in full swing. It wasn't just Freemasons who became more reserved and "proper"; it was British society as a whole. Lodges became respectable, and again Masons began to parade through the streets.
Now, I don't know if the author has much credence but it does suggest my thesis that Parading has come and gone as fashion dictates rather than always being thus?
Either way happy New Year to you and yours