Talk:Hiram Abiff

Draft of expanded article

I have made some changes to the article, including adding some material obtained from the sources I cited above, to a draft of the article located at User:Warlordjohncarter/Hiram Abiff. I haven't yet placed the citations, although I think all the material comes from the three sources referenced above. I would welcome any comments. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion, Explanation

Blueboar reverted my changes of 8/28/08 with the note "please explain edit a bit on talk page ... also you talk about use in Chronicles in the section on Kings... confusing." So, to explain:

1. I didn't talk about Chronicles in the section on Kings, but rather I changed the order so that Kings was discussed before Chronicles. That's the order these books occur in the Tanakh and the order in which they were written historically.

2. Then I *did* cut a section from the end of the Kings bullet which discussed "Huram my master craftsmen" and incorporated it into the Chronicles bullet because this discussion does not apply to Kings but to the verse in Chronicles.

3. Finally, I made some improvements to the Chronicles bullet. This could probably be improved more, but I think if you look back you'll see that all of my changes were valuable and brought new information to the article, supported by credible references.

Yonderboy (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That clears it up for me. No longer confused. I will un-revert and reinstate your edit. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Heckthorn's verson

The version of the Hiram story that Heckthorn includes in Secret Societies of all ages is worth including... but the second paragraph on it was confusing... so I have moved it here for more discussion:

• The author himself clearly states that the entire story is unsupported by any historical evidence and that there is no reason to believe it is not a total fabrication. However, it is not entirely clear that the story as related above necessarily existed whole from the beginning, or may have itself been developed subsequently, or that any later additions are themselves the work of Freemasons. His version of the story does not match any of the authorized published versions of Masonic ritual. It does match a description that Max Heindel shares in his Freemasonry and Catholicism.<ref>Heindel, Max. ''Freemasonry and Catholicism'' The Rosicrucian Fellowship. <http://www.rosicrucian.com/frc/frceng01.htm></ref> (italics mine)

The two lines I have italicized seem to indicate that there could be some connection between Heckthorn's version and the Masonic one... if so, what is it? Is Heckthorn saying the Masonic story is based on this one (or vise versa)? Does Heckthorn's version pre-date or post date the Masonic one? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"password of Master Mason"

That phrasing is just incredibly awkward. I think it should be either "password of a Master Mason", as found in Duncan (Duncan says "pass", but we should use the whole word here), or "Master Masons' secret password". Thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... this may be a jurisdictional thing... the NY ritual talks about "the secret Word of Master Mason" with no "a" (I agree that we should use "password" here, for the benefit of those who are not familiar with Masonic terminology and jargon... when NY Masons talk about a "Word", they mean a password). We also talk about... the "degree of Master Mason", the "sign of Master Mason", and being "clothed as Master Mason", and present the candidate with "the working tools of Master Mason"... none of them with an "a". However, I would not be surprised at all to find that other jurisdictions do use an "a". And to those that do, I can understand it sounding odd to omit it. So, to some extent, this issue may be simply an argument over the language and phrasing we are familiar with... and in that case, one is as good as another.

To put familiarity asside, I would argue that "a" Master Mason is an individual, while "Master Mason" is a rank or level (in the context of the story, a rank in the opperative stonemason's guild). In the Hyram story, the ruffians are not trying to obtain the password of any old Master Mason... they are attempting to obtain the specific password that goes with the rank of Master Mason (so that they can earn the wages of that rank).

That said, I do like your suggestion of "the 'Master Masons' secret password'"... as it avoids any differences in ritual between jurisdictions completely, but gets the concept across. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It's interesting seeing jurisdictional differences that come from oral tradition... For example, when I visited a lodge in RI, I was asked a question to which I knew the answer, but I didn't know I knew it, because the question came from a part of the ritual that was not used in ME.</digression> So, in any case, anybody else want to chime in, or should we just go with MMSP?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup... I know what you mean. That's why we have dues cards and Masonic passports to verify membership. A Mason might know the ritual backwards and forwards in his home jusrisdiction, and yet can be completely at sea in another.

I have gone ahead and changed the phrasing. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)