[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A new subject for discussion?
Thank you for your view. I know almost nothing about Freemasonry. I have
viewed it as a fraternal organisation of like minded men. There is
something in Freemasonry that appears to be special. Why would a pope in
1884 condemn forever Masonic practices? Why would an Italian government fall
simply because it members were Masons?
Glen Cook has supplied some valuable insights he wrote "The Lodge Edinburgh
and Canongate and Leith were operative lodges, that is, made up of stone
masons, but also accepted others who were not stone masons. Others, such as
Cannongate Kilwinning, were accepted lodges, even though they did also have
This leads me to think that perhaps Earl William was more of a Guild chief
that a Freemason. You are correct that We simply assume that the way we see
things is the way they really are or the way we think they should be. It is
always prudent, however, to raise questions about the most obvious and
simple assumptions. I could not be more in agreement with your statement,
"Let all personal views stand!" If we fail to question our assumptions and
others as well how will we ever know what those views and assumptions are?
Is it a far better thing to have an anchor belief than to sail on windswept
and turbulent seas of thought?
Your point is interesting that Rosslyn produces no direct link and the
"...many motifs and themes within Rosslyn are not carried across into
freemasonry." What vision did William have at Rosslyn? Why did the
Roundheads spare this chapel? Joe Erkes is spot on when he points out that
the symbols are in Rosslyn and I add so is an indefinable feeling.
----- Original Message -----
From: "bruce carlyon" <Bruce_Carlyon@syncsoft.com.au>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 6:48 AM
Subject: RE: A new subject for discussion?
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, firstname.lastname@example.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html