As the  workings and circumambulations in freemasonry follow far older traditions than christianity it is easy to see why they would go underground through the years of persecution of any practice other than that of Roman Catholic.

This would have suited orders like the Templars who fell from grace with Rome and I dare say they would have added to what later became freemasonry as we know it  in Some way.

To try and search out pieces of paper to back this up or in anyway prove it  is never going to happen.

It is one of these questions that there is no provable answer just what you believe yourself.

It is also possible that Knights Templar who were born in or lived in the uk were already members of some form what was to become freemasonry, The Victorian writers were the biggest romantics of all I find and are much at fault for the common miss conceptions

Cheers, Iain

Dumbarton Kilwinning Lodge No 18

Hi Iain

Not sure I agree with the statement that the traditions of Freemasonry following far older traditions than Christianity.

I am more happy with the statement that Freemasonry adopted or even stole existing practices when it officially formed in 1717, at which time it was undoubtedly Christian.

And please don't get me wrong, I am not saying all Freemasonry stems from 1717, but that is the reference point I use, as even your own Masonic traditions north of the border seemed to change not long after that.

However, I agree with you that we imitate practices which possibly predate the Masonic time line.

And so we do in our everyday life, an example being, both the Christmas and Easter festivals we calibrate and which were originally pagan festivals, not of course called Christmas and Easter, at that stage.

Inheriting, adopting or even stealing traditions as the early church seem to do, was not uncommon.

I think I quite like the quote by Daniel Beresniak in his book, Symbols of Freemasonry, when he said.

"...in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Freemasons took their inspirations from the rites and customs of the Guild of Masons in order to give their work structure, organisation and symbols..."

Hence my suggestion that Anderson "stole" these things, but I am happy with the terms "adopt or adapt".

They say that "imitation is the highest form of flattery".

Sadly, I do believe however, that the early Operative Lodges (in England and possibly to some extent maybe Scotland),  along with some of their customs, practices and history, has been lost at the expense of the success of Andersons invention.

Dare I say that I have often thought the the Operative system in Scotland which accepted Speculative or Gentlemen Masons (and which I believe predates Englands Acception ceremonies for Gentlemen)  as members, eventually sold out to the Premier Grand Lodge, rather than continue their own practices. 

I'd be interested in the views of other on that subject.

I too, like Iain believe freemasonry in some form is far older than we will admit, I believe it goes back thousands of years, no proof, just what I feel,

Also agree that Scottish freemasonry is far older than Andersons invention, I believe he only got what he could half remember and the rest was denied to him

Regards
Terry
Tamworth 652
Australia

I think as far as exisiting records are concerned, QCCC members have carried out some pretty exhustive research on all manner aspects concerning various records. Are there another group of records you are referring to?

With regard to the research paper, which sounds interesting, If you can't print it, perhaps you can share some of its contents for us to debate!