Post by eyedeetentee on Nov 30, 2010 16:12:37 GMT -5
One thing might be noted - James L. Noble said William Irvine's occupation was listed as a miner at age 25. To my knowledge and if the petition has not changed (which I'm sure it has to some degree over time), one of the questions on a petition is occupation. If Mr. Noble was stating facts from the petition, then William Irvine was a miner, age 25, at the signing of the petition in 1884 or 1883. He was initiated on January 23rd. He may have petitioned in November, December, or any other month of the preceding year. The date he signed the petition was not mentioned.
Many lodges today only meet once a month. Let's say the regular meeting for that lodge was on the second Tuesday of every month. During that meeting, the person who had the petition from his friend, William Irvine, would have introduced the petition. If there was a small number of petitions to that lodge, they may have scheduled a second meeting for the following week particularly for the new potential member. It is highly doubtful that they would have had their regularly scheduled meeting on the same night as First Degree. This means the William Irvine mentioned in the above letter would most likely have signed the petition the preceding year. (There is more to it than just the two meetings but that's all you need to know.)
All things considered, I doubt he signed the petition that January. But even if he did, his occupation and age was more than likely taken from the petition and the petition is the very first step. So 'just query' is right in his/her suspicion - this William Irvine was 25 in 1884 or 1883.
At this stage it is inappropriate to suggest Cherie has the "wrong" William Irvine. The circumstances merely require clarification.
William Irvine came from Kilsyth and as far as I understand it he laboured in a mine close to his home, ie Kilsyth. On the face of it this ties him to Kilsyth until at least age 25 as his occupation is stipulated as miner and age 25 in the above document.
That Mr Noble refers to only "one" William Irvine in respect of the Masonic Lodge in Kilsyth (at that time) suggests (again on the face of it there was only one William Irvine of his approximate age connected with the Lodge in Kilsyth. If there was the possibility of confusing records for more than one William Irvine, then surely Mr Noble would have raised this with Cherie.
William Irvine himself stated he had been a freemason for over fifty years. I can't recall the date of this statement, but likely this took his inaugeration back to the time period in question, suggesting he was connected with his local lodge in Kilsyth.
Circumstantial evidence at this stage (although not conclusive) points in the direction of the correct William Irvine, though further investigation is needed to clarify details in Mr Noble's letter (eg when was Irvine aged 25 years, etc ?) But for this point alone we would all have accepted Cherie's presentation without hesitation, due to her past meticulous investigations and recordings.
All that said, the element of doubt raised is certainly a valid one. It simply raises the question of clarification rather than claims of mistaken identity (at this stage !).
It is certainly possible there was a plethora of William Irvine's in and around Kilsyth area at the time of the Workers' way founder. I need only look at my own family history in Scotland to demonstate this.
My Great Grandfather was called Andrew McSplurge (surname altered by me). He had five son's, namely Andrew (Awndrey), David (Davey), Thomas (Tam), Alexander (Eck) and William (Willy).
In time all five sons married and naturally they all had the same surname (McSplurge). Following tradition they all named their firstborn sons "Andrew." Therefore, the grandfather was called Andrew McSplurge, one of his sons was named likewise and five of his grandsons bore his name.
This led to confusion within this extended family. Andrew McSplurges were commonplace. Furthermore, people did not travel much beyong the area of their upbringing and because communities were small and fairly tight knit, many families were only one step away from inbreeding. Often first cousins married.
In addition to the abovenamed Andrew McSplurges, there were other Andrew McSplurges from other related and non-related families.
You could not refer to an Andrew McSplurge merely as Andrew McSplurge as that threw up a number of possibilities as to who you were referring to. Often an Andrew McSplurge was referred to by his occupation, eg "Awndrey the postie, or Aundrey the Jiner, or Aundrey fae the White Heather (fishing boat.)
Within my ancestral family, the five sons were referred to as Davey's Awndrey, Tam's Awndrey, Willy's Awndrey, Eck's Awndrey and of course Awndreys Awndrey !
No prizes for guessing what the "A" in ram stands for !
All that said, had there been several William Irvine's on record for the Lodge in Kilsyth of an age which would throw up confusion as to whom was being referred to, then surely Mr Noble would have raised that matter with Cherie?
You also will agree, (I hope), that often the answer you get is determined by the question you ask and how you ask that question.
Perhaps we should ask Mr. Noble the question again!
However I do think that it IS appropriate to suggest that she MAY have the wrong Mr. Irvine.
You have raised valid points and I am trying to see things as they are.
Perhaps the title of Cherie's thread could have been worded better, ie. " Proof that William Irvine was a Mason."
Pertsonally I have no doubt that William Irvine was a Mason. I need no proof. He stated as much himself. For the great majority of us we take William Irvine's word for it e'en though we reject many of his other revelations. His having been a Mason is really of no real interest to me. I personally don't need it substantiated. However, I'm sure there are those that even if God himself showed them Irvine was a Mason, they would still be in denial.
Anyway, there are a number of possibilities regarding the information we have to date. I think Cherie is attempting to provide documentary proof that Irvine was a Mason. The man himself said he was. However, I think Cherie is hoping to sunstantiate his claims with documentary proof. For me I don't need such proof, but for the purposes of Cherie's book such documentary evidence could prove pertinent and thus you are indeed right to question it. After it it could refer to another William Irvine, or even the WI in question may have belonged to another nearby Masonic Lodge.
I don't think for most of us that Cherie is going to prove that WI was a Mason. Most of us now accept that. However, documentary substantiation for historical purposes does show professionalism on behalf of the researcher.
Like most of us I have no doubt that our William Irvine was in fact a Mason. Perhaps you are the same ? The possibility does exist however, that the documentary evidence presented may refer to a different William Irvine. The 25 years age given may even be an error of recording ? I'm assumimg Mr Noble was relying on hand written records in a ledger or something similar.
My response to all this is largely governed by perhaps me wrongly seeing an ill-perceived attempt to reject the claim that WI was a Mason, rather than the mere raising the possibility that the documentary record refers to a different Wm Irvine. If the latter is the case and it has been put forward in the interests of historical accuracy then the suggestion is to be commended. By such standards the truth of matters are uncovered.
Yes a little futher interrogation is required to substantiate Irvine's claims rather than anyone else's. The end result of all this is likely to produce a more accurate historical record. or at least a more informed one.
You raise a valid point Lin, especially for the skeptics. I'm not referring to you personally, but making a general statement.
My observations are this. It is likely that Cherie has accepted at face value the response she has received from Mr Noble and has rather quick-mindedly posted his response here in order to share it with others without scrutinising the details too much ? Others have taken the opportunity to do so. Make no mistake though, it is highly possible she is on the right track with all this and ultimately most of us accept Irvine was indeed a freemason.
On the other side of things, in the longer term and from a more professional stance, I am utterly convinced as to Cherie's sincere desire to present matters in their true historical right. I need no more convincing of this than I do that Irvine was a Mason.
I can well understand Cherie's position. I too have carried out numerous investigations connected with historical research. Not in relation to 2x2ism but in connection with historical research. Very often I received information that sent me in one direction, only to receive further information that caused me to change course. This was both an exciting and very interesting process which eventually led me to the truth of matters. Often I had to change my opinions and beliefs on various matters. I do see a similar trait in Cherie and an open mind is certainly a rich blessing.
Post by Linford Bledsoe on Dec 1, 2010 18:19:18 GMT -5
I can accept what you say Ram,but here were her emphatic words. Letter from Grand Lodge of Scotland confirming Wm Irvine rcvd his Mason Degree on Jan. 17, 1885. Copy of letter posted in TTT Photo Gallery today. Those words resounded with a victorious tone. Confirming says that this was not just a hasty post.
Lin, the old saying "utter in haste, repent at leisure," comes to mind. Yes indeed we can apply this here, but remember "she may yet be right !!" in what she has said. At the moment a doubt exists, not proof that she is wrong. If our doubts are eventually proved wrong, then how much louder will the trumpets of victory sound ? At this stage keep in mind Cherie's statements may yet prove to be correct, even though they are under scrutiny.
Look, let's be realistic here. I don't think the majority of us doubts for one minute that Irvine was a freemason throughout his time as a 2x2 worker. This was likely a nominal thing during his worker years and likely beyond. For me personally I am astounded that he didn't renounce his position, especially in light of the fact that anything and everything that the Christian Churches stood for was wrong is his mind.
All said and done, the fact that Irvine was and remained (by his own confession) a freemason makes this whole issue a rather minor one. It is really down to whether the WI referred to in Mr Noble's letter is the one and same WI that we are discussing, not the more important fact of whether he was a mason or not. Personally I believe Cherie is on the right track. If it turns out the WI in Mr Noble's letter is a different person, then as far as I am concerned it is no big deal. In my mind Irvine was a mason and I won't lose sleep over the issues.
However, from the point of historical accuracy, it would be nice to clarify as far as possible whether or not the WI in Mr Noble's letter is indeed the correct WI. I'm sure that Cherie would agree with this. As far as I am aware she has changed her historical records numerous times in order to accomodate more accurate information as it comes to light. Let me assure you, this is common practise with all researchers who seek to maintain high standards. Accurate information is very often hard won with a lot of painstaking enquiries and long, dedicated hard work. We get it cheeply and don't appreciate the costs.
To give you an example. Over a period of two years I researched a book on local history. Although I got a lot of pleasure from it, it was a lot of hard work and dedication, costing me in various expenses about £2000 to produce, yet a member of the public could avail themselves to the final work for a mere £10.
One of the determining features in the goal was accuracy. Not all researchers have the same dedication towards accuracy, but I think Cherie has shown me that she possesses this same outlook. This does not mean that all her findings are "absolutely" accurate, but in my view they achieve this goal within her findings. She is certainly willing to amend her work in light of more accurate information coming to light and I don't think saving face comes into it.
If anything she has been overcome with excitement here and indeed this may be a blessing as it will likely lead to further investigation on the subject. For most of us this may be unnecessary on what many of us will view as a peripheral subject.
I also don't give two hoots if Irvine was a Mason or not. The Masons I know are very good people.
My ONLY point was/is that the age does not fit the subject and if you are going to post that info as fact, then make sure all the bases are covered.
A fair point. However there may be a number of innocent explanations for the discrepancy. We are not talking about a Wm Irvine in his 70's compared to a man in his early to mid twenties. The "minor" discrepancy in ages (although it could prove highly pertinent) may be easily explained away.
You did well to spot it. It is understandable how most of us (presumably including Cherie) missed it. If any reliance is to be placed on Mr Noble's communication, then a few more enquiries are needed to clarify details.
I cant help but comment on those who believe that the freemasons are good or decent as far as the organisation is concerned.
Im sure there are many decent men involved but its well documented that this organisation is evil. They portray decency and care for humanity but..... BIG BUT ......... as you rise through the degrees on teh way to the top level (33rd degree) it becomes clear that they worship Lucifer.
they point their followers AWAY from Christ - not to Him or anywhere near Him.
Post by eyedeetentee on Dec 3, 2010 1:37:14 GMT -5
By the way, jussssst curiousssssss, how did thisssssss thread get thrown in with the lissssst of pedophilessssssss or CSSSSSSSA? Sssssshouldn't thissssss thread be in with the general population? Or issssss thissssss where all Ssssssatan and Luccccccifer worssssssshiper threadssssss belong? Whew! My computer ssssssscreen hasssss ssssspit all over it.
Often its not what is written or said in the open that is important but what is not said that is most important.
The comments below are from the FAQ section of the Scottish Rite website
Is Freemasonry a religion?
No. While it is a requirement that each member believe in a Supreme Being, it is not important how one expresses that very personal belief. Further, there is no dogmatic system in Freemasonry. However, confusion about the secular nature of Freemasonry has been a common misconception for many years. Most likely, this misconception is due to the Holy Book that sits on the altar in the middle of a Masonic lodge. This Holy Book does not have to be Christian, like the Bible, rather it can be any Holy Book that is important to the members of the lodge. In the U.S. where the population is mostly Christian, the Holy Book most often used in Lodges is the King James Version of the Bible.
Is Freemasonry or the Scottish Rite a secret society?
Absolutely not, the Scottish Rite and other forms of Freemasonry operate very much in the open with many events open to the public. There are “modes of recognition” (passwords and handshakes) that represent a Mason’s ability to keep a promise.
- Consider that it mentions about having a belief in a supreme being. If this was an organisation that pointed people to Christ then surely He would be named.
It goes on to say that a holy book will be present and it may not be the Bible!!
Do they point people to Christ or away from Christ? Do they focus on good works to gain credibility?
Post by Just a Query on Dec 3, 2010 2:46:25 GMT -5
If you are referring to me eyedeeeteentee, I started this here because that was the only place I could post and I did think that Mrs. Kropp was far too hasty in posting on her website that the information she had was absolutely "proof".
I thought that some of you guys, who are obviously very intelligent, would have picked up on the age problem. When you didn't, I used this medium to post.
Apologises..... I still think she could have been less forthright in her contention.
Post by eyedeetentee on Dec 3, 2010 14:20:01 GMT -5
No, I don't care one way or the other, JaQ. I jusssst needed to hissssss sssssome more. I'm practiccccccing my Luccccccifer sssssspeach for Guessssst 11'sssss benefit.
Guest 11, it's all a conspiracy and we are out to get you. Freemasonry was invented long ago because they knew you would be born. By the way, regarding your question of pointing, had you paid attention to what you copied and pasted, you would have realized Freemasonry is not a religion nor does it 'point' anyone in any direction. Is philanthropy reserved for Christians only?
Post by ranMoon77007 on Mar 21, 2011 14:03:18 GMT -5
Thank God that William Irvine was a mason. Otherwise, I would have nowhere to post, I would have to venture into unknown terrortory...
But everyone knows that the 17th degree of Masonry is like your local dentist, they are everywhere...
really I just wanted to tell Shel that yeah I remember, but this is the last guest board so I can't answer on the original thread, which was created by me, they must be having guest post glitches here, lol...
Post by ranman77007 curious on Mar 22, 2011 22:25:56 GMT -5
Just curious... Irvine being a mason... Is there a point to this? I would assume there is... maybe something having to do with the conspiracy theories involving the masons (I hate the word conspiracy, people are conditioned to think it never exists, although it holds the record for the crime with the highest conviction record)...
So what if he was a mason? What is the point? True, the history of the masons involves almost every charity and religion, too much for me to say here... Is that the thought behind the original post here?
(I am stuck on this thread, reminds me of when the teacher made me sit in a desk all by myself in the 5th grade)...
Post by eyedeetentee on Mar 23, 2011 12:12:22 GMT -5
Some Christians believe Freemasonry is a religion or that it turns people away from Christ. Those people are delusional and choose to believe what they hear instead of doing solid research of their own. You know, Freemasonry is secretive . . . . so it must be evil.
Some people just have nothing better to do with their time than slam a good charitable organization. If you would like to see some more on satan worshipping, evident by the red fezzes, a true sign of devil worship, visit this site: www.shrinershq.org/ShrinersHQ/ .
If you click far enough, you might see pictures of them dancing in the nude under a full moon and holding goat heads.
rational: Any chance any of the information you are reading was transmitted through a 5G network? I have heard claims that the fifth-generation (5G) telecoms network is speeding up the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Aug 12, 2020 18:31:38 GMT -5
wally: nothing has changed if your wondering....
Jul 25, 2020 21:48:48 GMT -5
faune: Hello again after a long absence. I trust you all keep well and safe during these uncertain times and a global pandemic?
Jul 25, 2020 20:03:45 GMT -5
benar: Perhaps you clicked on the Coronavirus thread...
Feb 27, 2020 1:03:20 GMT -5
wally: proboards can be a bit buggy...i still get virus warnings when clicking on thread links...
Feb 26, 2020 22:04:28 GMT -5
ant_rotten: Does anyone else constantly have a pop up saying “do you want to download index.html” when using TMB desktop version? This happens to me both on my iPhone and iPad..
Feb 26, 2020 19:56:33 GMT -5
wally: you haven't asked me a question or anything or did i miss one?
Feb 20, 2020 6:03:05 GMT -5
ant_rotten: What’s happening Wally? You’ve gone quite on me..
Feb 20, 2020 4:56:35 GMT -5
wally: its no mystery apostate ant_rotten i am quite vocal...
Feb 17, 2020 9:12:28 GMT -5
ant_rotten: I’m not surprised to find wally in the shoutbox
Feb 17, 2020 6:32:29 GMT -5
jetmech: Hello Dennis
Feb 15, 2020 13:39:39 GMT -5
kip: Looking for meetings in Maine.
Jan 25, 2020 10:03:22 GMT -5
snow: Great jetmech, you found it!
Jan 19, 2020 15:04:59 GMT -5
wally: welcome to the shoutbox
Jan 15, 2020 21:33:25 GMT -5
jetmech: Hey everyone … this is my first time here
Jan 15, 2020 14:01:06 GMT -5