>Damn good question. I want to say constancy, but even that's a bit hard given how many lodges have swung towards being charities.
Certainly a question we need to ask ourselves more. But it also seems to be that Masonry is a better jack-of-all-trades, covering all the subjects it's peers might.
I hate to come off as rude, sincerely, but how can a Freemason not be able to answer the question of what Freemason is that's different from every other group. Again, this is just what occurred to me.
>Ancestry, kinda. Rosicrucians turned Masonry more speculative and esoteric like it is today, but it's not a line of descent.
Oh, that's cool. Rosicrucianism is heavily influenced by Christianity, right? So was Christian symbolism a lot less prominent in Masonry prior to it's eloping with Rosicruciansim?
>Solomon for the Temple, and being a kind of prophet (or however you phrase it). He actually replaced Noah as the focus. As you might tell, it used to be a lot more religious. And Nimrod just for the Tower of Babel, architecturally.
>And Nimrod just for the Tower of Babel, architecturally.
Surely greater structures have been built? Do you know the measurements of the tower and the proportions? How it was constructed? What do you like about the Tower of Babel, architecturally?
>We don't really have any, actually. There are lots of columns, but no obelisks (Outside of styling on some buildings, that is). Isis and Osiris are again, mentioned in the A&AR 31st degree, because it's about the Kemetic heart weighing ceremony.
>Yea, i know what you mean. Lots of books and 3rd party stuff have pyramids or other Egyptian stuff for some reason.
I guess because it's just a basic recognisable symbol? I really can't find a ceremonial reason for it.
George Washington was a Freemason, right? Why is the Washington monument an obelisk situated inside of a vesica pisces? That's not for literally no reason, right? And he had a major say in its design and erection, right?