|
Post by whistler on Nov 22, 2004 17:27:21 GMT
Question - If your Rule book permitted: would you like to visit a Co-masonic Lodge meeting?
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Nov 22, 2004 17:30:27 GMT
Yes, I would, if permitted. I've no issue with co-masonic lodges personally, as someone else said elsewhere 'we are all part of the same family'. Unfortunately the rule book sez no.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Nov 22, 2004 20:19:51 GMT
Why is it that important to obey rules who forbid visits in other lodges?
Why not visiting other lodges wether the rule exists or not?
|
|
|
Post by Seeker on Nov 22, 2004 23:09:50 GMT
The expression "The Law is an ass" comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Nov 23, 2004 6:40:32 GMT
Well, freemasons have an expression for brotherly love: chain of union
Should not the meaning of this symbol stand higher than any other rule?
|
|
|
Post by Hubert (N. Z.) on Nov 23, 2004 7:21:34 GMT
When do your rules indicate you can't visit CoMasonic lodges? Before you join? In your obligation? Does the rule actually say - no visiting OR musn't attend clandestine meetings? Who decides what a clandestine Lodge is?
IF MALE MASONS CLAIM CO-MASONRY IS NOT KOSHER, SURELY THEY ARE NOT ATTENDING A MASONIC MEETING WHEN VISITING US!!
Or do your rules restrict you in all aspects of your life - Scouts, mens' clubs, operatic societies, philosophical activities, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Nov 23, 2004 7:45:39 GMT
Hubert, that's a good point. If UGLoE does not consider co-masonry as masonry, but something comparable like boy scouts how can this GL forbid their members what to do in their privacy. Unfortunatly the argument is much more complicated. In 1999 the UGLoE said that the 2 female GLs in the UK are masonic(!) and work the same masonic rituals(!) but cannot be visited by members of the UGLoE. On the other hand brethren and the sisters can meet outside the temple in debating about social questions of mutual interest. The same text says that wether lodge meetings nor meetings outside the temple are allowed with co-masons. The UGLoE dores not use the term co-masons, they wrote: mixed bodies!! In my point of view this sounds like my old granny: "Italiens are people too, but you are not allowed to bring them to my house. What will the neigbours say? But you can meet them at the bus stop and discuss the weather! But you have to stay away from Blacks!! Blacks exist, but I do not see them..."
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Nov 25, 2004 20:47:09 GMT
I just voted yes. I believe life is far too short to be concerned by such issues. Plus, and here's an interesting point, I would probably break the rule. But being "Leonardo" makes this easy to say. Would I actually be so "brave" as Mr ............?
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 26, 2004 0:08:12 GMT
[quote author=Ingo link=board=Comasonry&thread=1101144441&start=6#0 date=1101195939 In my point of view this sounds like my old granny: "Italiens are people too, but you are not allowed to bring them to my house. What will the neigbours say? But you can meet them at the bus stop and discuss the weather! But you have to stay away from Blacks!! Blacks exist, but I do not see them..." [/quote] Hey All Blacks exist they beat the Italiensand the Welsh ;D ;D P.S. will think of Carpe Diem on Saturday Night
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Nov 27, 2004 14:43:03 GMT
Whistler We will raise a F.C. tomorrow on Sunday!
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 27, 2004 21:28:10 GMT
Whistler We will raise a F.C. tomorrow on Sunday! Ingo we thought of you last night at the installation of our new Master
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Jan 11, 2005 14:40:13 GMT
Yes, I would, if permitted. I've no issue with co-masonic lodges personally, as someone else said elsewhere 'we are all part of the same family'. Unfortunately the rule book sez no. This is my feeling exactly, so much has been spoken of co-masonry and I am an inquisitive soul But why? Because it is part of my personal philosophy that I don't break promises. This has become more important to me since I had to break a promise to God when I divorced my first wife. In this sense it does not matter whether the rule is silly or not, it's there and I won't break it. If my need to break any of UGLE's rules ever got to the point where it became more important than maintaining membership then I would leave. It's a matter of personal honour, by which I mean I wouldn't hold anyone else necessarily to the same standard. But that's just me. What I think of the rule itself is another matter, and for the reasons outlined above a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 12, 2005 22:58:48 GMT
There are many occasions when I feel that a Law or Rule is wrong and offends my higher moral values. I am then placed in a dichotomy. Do I ignore or break that Law or Rule and suffer the punishment if caught, be that prison or fines at the hands of the State, dismissal by an Employer or expulsion from some Organisation such as UGLE Freemasonry?
So I WOULD like to visit a Co-Masonic Lodge but the Rules ban me from so doing. The old expression "I would if I could but I can't" sums up my feelings on this matter.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Jan 13, 2005 8:57:56 GMT
When do your rules indicate you can't visit CoMasonic lodges? In our initation ceremony we promise to abide by the rules of UGLE and the BoC, etc. It is this oath that enforces the law - once I made the promise that as a UGLE freemason I would respect and abide by the rules, then it was a done deal. I could be a pedant and find a way round it - but I don't think that would be very masonic.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jan 13, 2005 9:17:56 GMT
Notice the Poll didn't ask anyone to break the rules, I was just curious to see how many might like to visit if rules allowed
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 13, 2005 9:54:02 GMT
Whistler is correct and both on this Forum and elsewhere he has always been punctillious to ensure that Members of Regular Freemasonry which prohibits intervisitation with Co-Masons even with male Co-Masons only, are not enticed to break the rules.
This does however bring up the whole question of Rules and being bound by those which we may find offensive to our personal moral values or consider to be wrong. For my part I obey this Rule under duress as I know if I broke it and were caught I would suffer the punishment of being expelled from The Craft.
To me it is similar to buying a TV Licence. I don't agree with that, I think the BBC should be privatised and obtain its finance from the Stock Market and Advertising. I only pay the Licence out of the fear of being fined £1000 plus the unpaid Licence Fee and the disgrace of being named and shamed in Court and the Newspapers if caught without, I do NOT consider myself under any Moral imperative to have a TV Licence. If you want a more ethical example consider the Devout RC who practices Contraception. A breach of his Church's Rules but he feels that the need to limit the size of his family, or have no children at all, outweighs his Religion's Rules on this point, although he may well obey all the others.
To make it crystal clear to all. I do NOT attend any Co-Masonic Meetings, I have NOT knowingly invited a Male Co-Mason to any Meetings of my Lodges etc, I would LIKE to attend a Co-Masonic Meeting but will NOT do so while the Rules against so doing are in force, out of fear for the consequencies not agreement nor respect for those Rules.
|
|
|
Post by Hubert (N. Z.) on Jan 14, 2005 9:07:19 GMT
Taylorsman: There's hope yet! Here in NZ they abolished the TV fee about 5 yrs ago. So UGLE may yet have a change of heart, should the energy be there to join the 21st Century.
WHGW, Hubert
|
|
Michael
Member
... as you have passed through the ceremony of your initiation...
Posts: 326
|
Post by Michael on Jan 15, 2005 15:22:39 GMT
I suspect UGLE will have to move out of the 19th century first.
I love visiting and would not hesitate to go to a Co-Masonic Lodge - when the rules are changed
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 28, 2005 1:36:16 GMT
I too voted yes... and personally agree not to visit clandestine Lodges, which I do not consider LDH to be, even if some members of my GL (ie, those who have not visited - and a number of course have) have made errors in their evaluation of this.
|
|
|
Post by foxcole on Mar 28, 2005 2:56:24 GMT
I too voted yes... and personally agree not to visit clandestine Lodges, which I do not consider LDH to be, even if some members of my GL (ie, those who have not visited - and a number of course have) have made errors in their evaluation of this. Help me understand what you mean by not considering LDH to be clandestine. Are you including all the other CoM orders in that statement (which may assume you weren't aware of others) or is there a particular reason you mention LDH? Just curious...
|
|