Dear Jean,
With all due respect for your view on the propriety of verbalising
disagreement - in regard to Andrew's so-called interpreation of the Kirkwall
Scroll, we are not in disagreement - he is just plain wrong and grievously
so. As a historian I have an overiding obligation to establish truth and,
where appropriate, distinguish between verifiable fact, respected scholarly
opinion, reasonable speculation and outright error. To let nonsense such as
Andrew's latest theory pass without comment is to give it the 'assent of
silence' which would be both dishonorable and dishonest as well as
perpetuating a lie.
The only reason that the true meaning of the Kirkwall Scroll is not
disclosed to the generalpublic by its guardians is that it refers to
teaching and rituals within the Craft to which all Masons have sworn a vow
of silence. This attitude, of course, leaves the field open to speculation
by outsiders which, in this case, could perpetuate nonsense, bring the
entire effort to interpret history into disrepute and bring discredit on the
Sinclairs in general. Should I then remain silent under these circumstances?
I think not.
Best wishes
Tim Wallace-Murphy
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html