Arcadia Discussion Zone

jlockest,
Let me repeat, with respect, it is inappropriate to quote from a 21stC set of Constitutions to make a point about what you describe as 17th & 18th century lodges in an organisation that you've been unable to prove was even quasi-masonic.
The comparison you seek to make perpetuates the unhelpful and inaccurate perception that all endeavours described as
'Masonic' are the same!
TD

TD,
Aren't you assuming that BS went to a 'Martinist' Lodge?
Also, maybe I'm again reading the wrong stuff, but the Martinist Tradition (Volume 4) (as an aside, try reading it - it opens with a history of Martinism followed by a couple of 'addresses'), is littered throughout with references to Masonry. So again I would say that, if you're still ok that BS went to a Martinist Lodge and Martinism was born out of Masonry, then I would still feel safe to assume that a Martinist Lodge had some way of protecting its rituals. The 'addresses' are aimed at higher level Masons.
Martinism appears to have had many forms since its creation, so I would guess just using the term 'Martinist' covers such a wide scope, that it becomes in itself meaningless other than as a generic term.

Can I simply ask, do you think it reasonable to assume that any form of Masonic Lodge (be it Martinist, Grand Orient, Grand Lodge, Lodge of France....blah) had some way of stopping non-affiliates from attending their ritual? If so, then use whatever you think they used in place of my example. It makes no odds. I was just trying to show a concept.

jlockest,
I refer you to the answer I gave above.
Next time why not use the constitutions of the W.I. that will be as appropriate.
That will help make the point of a generalised concept just as well!

TD

That's what I love about forums - you learn something new every day.
OK, I'll use the W.I. instructions as suggested - I presume that you suggested the WI as they were borne from Masonry as well and in some cases require a member to be a Master Mason? See, that was news to me. But if you say so.

No dear Chap,
As you may know, 'presumption' is the facilitator of all feck-ups!
But they are a private society whose meetings have attendance registers, a form of ritualistic activity, a belief in a supreme being and have as much to do with 19thc French alleged quasi-masonic activity as the UGLE...........
So my dear old silver haired mum tells me!
But thanks for allowing me the punchline!
BTW I hear a whisper that some members of the WI are also female MASONS too!
Go figure, huh?

TD

See, you start by telling me one thing, then go back and say something slightly different. Now I'm confused. So the WI holds ritual meetings in consecrated temples, have secrets that they protect by tokens and signs and like the UGLE and other Masonic bodies appear to stem from one source? Do they hold the same base degrees the same as well? Blinkey blimey, that means the WI and Martinism seem to be interchangeable.
This is fascinating.

jlockest,
Oh dear, inventing words in my posts now?
Please show me where I used the words 'Consecrated Temple', 'secrets, tokens and signs' ?
Can you show me where I suggested they ' hold the same base degrees' or that they stem from the 'same source' as Masonry?
Forgive me, I was labouring under the misapprehension that this was a sensible discussion but now I realise that you are quite comfortable in your ignorance.
You crack on my friend, I'll stand back and let you waffle away........
BTW You're not Dave Rowett reborn by any chance are you?
Kind regards,
TD

TD, You didn't use those words, I did. I thought you had likened the WI to UGLE - and UGLE (I think has those things AFAIK).
Are you saying that the signature shows BS attending a Martinist Lodge? Firstly, I didn't think that anyone had seen the signature document apart from Douzet and that the Lodge it came from was unknown. So why Martinist? If you're not saying the signature shows that, then what makes you think the Lodge was Martinist?

Secondly, even if it is Martinist, then what does that mean? From what I've read Martinism, like Masonry took different forms. In some forms it required its members to already be Masons. So, until the Lodge is identified how can you tell?

Thirdly, if Martinism didn't adopt similar ideas to the one I showed from UGLE, then what does a signature on a piece of paper mean anyway? Even if the piece of paper says 'Lyons Martinist Lodge No. Blah' and the signature line says 'Berenger Sauniere - RLC Lodge No Blah' what does that show? Doesn't it only mean something if a similar process as currently adopted to protect the ritual existed then as well? IE it is a register of either members

What's losing me, is why you say 'Martinist' as presumably to accept even a hint of Martinism, you're willing to accept the signature may be true - but if you are then willing to accept that, you're already equating the signature register with a similar concept to what I posted anyway. IE that the signature may mean some form of affiliation.

I don't know much of Martinism but I have read that Martinism is an offshoot of Masonry. If you haven't read the Tradition I quoted, please just read the first dozen or so pages that go through the history. It seems that AE Waite (http://www.hermetics.org/martinist.html) also goes along with this. The two addresses in the Tradition do not refer to Martinists and Martinism - they refer to Freemasons and Freemasonry.
Waite says, when speaking of the Martinist rituals:
'......(4) Elect Master. - The Candidate enters the circle of reconciliation, and in common with his peers is engaged henceforward in warfare with the enemies of Dinne Law and of man at large on earth. We hear also, but vaguely, concerning One Who is the Elect of God, Who has reconciled earth with man and all with the Grand Architect of the Universe. It is to be noted that in references of this kind we are left to infer that the Reconciler is Christ, for He is not mentioned by name. The Resurrection of Easter morning is referred to in similarly unprecise terms, and so also the sacrifice on Calvary. It transpires, however, that the warfare of the Grade is against the enemies of the Christian Religion. The initiations and adornments of Craft Masonry have been stigmatised as apocryphal in the first Grade, and yet they were sufficiently essential to be conferred invariably in summary form on every Candidate for the Elect Priesthood - presumably in cases where they had not been taken previously. In the Grade of Elect Master he is warned to cut himself of from all clandestine secret societies, communicating apocryphal instructions, which are " contrary to Divine Law and to the Order."

I'm not sure if the Traditions or Waite are reliable either, but if they are, both imply that Martinism was heavily influenced by Masonry.

Irrespective, I honestly don't see why you're arguing the toss over the assumption that any 'society of secrets' would invariably have some way of stopping the 'uninitiated' from witnessing their ritual similar to those still practised today and the assumption that from time to time they may admit visitors (under control) to their ritual.

jlockest,
I refer you to the answers I gave above.
A decade of experience on this Forum has taught me that I have
no influence over the inferences anyone might draw from my posts.
Or, indeed, the words they wrongly attribute to me.
It seems you are keen to provoke a dispute.
Enjoy!
TD