Re: Information

[CookSLC@aol.com]

labehotierre@wanadoo.fr queries: 

> Were these Guild charters as opposed to Freemason documents? 

GAC: If you are referring to the Schaw Statutes, clearly it was at least a 
Guild document.  Schaw is referenced as Master of the Kings Works.  I do not 
believe that it referred to Freemasonry as practised today.  Others disagree. 
 

labehotierre: When you refer > to "governance of the Craft. " this does not 
> refer, I presume to the Freemason craft but to "craft of stone masonry and 
> these other crafts and trades was that stones masons had another level of 
> organisation " 
> 
It refers to the craft of stone masonry.  Some argue that esoteric 
Freemasonry was a part of the craft of stone masonry.  This view is set out 
in Mr. Wallace-Murphy's Books and the Hiram Key.  

Was > William Master of a Guild craft as opposed to a Freemason order? 

Ah, that's the question.  Some argue without credible proof of a Masonic 
order dating to the Essenes; because the Essenes were an initiate society and 
Freemasonry is an initiate society, Freemasonry must be derived from the 
Essenes.  You may suspect that I do not accept that argument.  If William was 
Master, the only evidence of leadership that I've seen is of a guild craft of 
masons, and not a Masonic order with the esoteric teachings as later found.  

 Is it > possible for you to disclose the Freemason charter? 

GAC: I'm not sure of which charter you speak.  If you are speaking of a 
modern document, each Grand Lodge has its own constitution which may be 
disclosed.  

or are the Schaw > Statutes.

I do not have a copy of the Schaw Statutes at least immediately at hand

> 
> When does the "Scottish Rite" first appear? 
> 
GAC: 1801 in Charleston, South Carolina.

Does the Mother Lodge of > Scotland, Lodge  Mother Kilwinning, No.0, have any 
> authority over other Lodges in Scotland or abroad?

GAC: No.

> labehotierre: Normally hereditary positions are an English inventions,  
> Scots elected their chiefs.
> 
GAC: Assuming this is a correct assertion (without beginning the tanistry 
discussion), this is not a chief.  I view it more as a patron.

Glen Cook