Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 0:23:56 GMT
. . .especially as LDH, etc. have more ‘idiosyncrasies’ than simply the admission of women and do not appeal to all female aspirants. Bro. Philip, I can put finger to a number of "idiosyncrasies" in every obedience in Freemasonry (just compare UGLE with GLAE or GLoS with GOoF or any GL in the US with any other GL in the US/world and you'll see what I mean). To suggest this is unique to LDH is unkind, inaccurate and appeals only to the very element you claim to be resisting. You are far better than this. I am in great hopes I will not see you do it again. Bro. ImakegarbAs we have agreed previously, each Obedience has its own 'flavour.' You appear to have overlooked the "ETC." in my post, where I said 'LDH, etc.' I did not, nor did I intend to, suggest this was unique to LDH.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 0:32:13 GMT
By etc., and the remainder of your sentence, it seemed to me you you were referring ONLY to those obediences that intitiate women. If you intended to refer to all obediences, including those of single gender, then I apologize.
However, if that was your intent, then I don't understand why you brought it up. For all obediences have their differences. Heck, there are different "flavors" between lodges within the same obedience. Why this should be a reason to ignore, and fail to recognize, the existing Co-Masonic orders and press hard, instead, for integrating single-gender lodges (that clearly don't want to be) seems not within my comprehension.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 0:51:37 GMT
OK, I presume you now agree I was not singling out LDH. I guess I was referring to those organisations which admit women to the extent that many have varying theosophical influences. I am a Theosophist but personally I like to keep my Freemasonry and Theosophy seperate and distinct in practice (I like to combine the two in theory, along with other traditions).
I too am for mainstream recognition of organisations which admit women to membership, although the admission of women may not be the only issue in some cases (albeit, I suspect several of the eight Principles of Grand Lodge Recognition, adopted by UGLE in 1929, were contrived with LDH, etc. aforethought).
There should be choices but I do not regard sexual (or racial) discrimination as being a legitimate reason to exclude worthy individuals from an organisation which espouses inclusion, equality and justice—Women only groups in such a context are valid in terms of Affirmative Action.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 1:52:16 GMT
I don't mean to be at all argumentative - I really don't - but it's clear to me you feel your position is weak because of the existence of Co-Masonry. And so you seek to shore up your cause by trying to discredit Co-Masonry. And you point to the existence of Theosophical elements in Co-Masonic obediences as something unusual and disquieting. This is very sad.
You say you like to keep Freemasonry and Theosophy separate and distinct. Do you also like to keep Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism separate and distinct? How 'bout Martinism? How 'bout Buddhism? How 'bout Judaism and Christianity? How 'bout Hermeneutics? How 'bout Gnostism and Stoicism and Neoplatonism and Rationalism and Free thought and Equality and Fraternity and . . . and . . . and . . .?
There is *nothing* in Freemasonry that doesn't come from some where else. I could point to practices in the UGLE and any other GL on Earth that, arguably, are Theosophical. And also practices that bear striking resemblance to every other ism in the world. Nothing especially original. All so many footfalls on the many paths to the same truth.
And I'm glad of it. For the inclusion of all of these isms means the heart of Freemasonry is still beating. She is alive. And all that lives evolves. And, so, the Fraternity, Herself, will continue to evolve.
And there is no part of Her that is not beautiful. And though I am myself religiously unalligned, I know Her to be the very same "wisdom of the divine". As a Theosophist, I cannot doubt you recognize this.
I would like to suggest to you that you not spend energy discrediting Co-Masonry to further your own cause. As I mentioned, this is unworthy of you. The energy, I believe, would be better spent elsewhere. Even if it is in that area in which you and I are in disagreement.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 2:07:58 GMT
I don't mean to be at all argumentative - I really don't - but it's clear to me you feel your position is weak because of the existence of Co-Masonry. And so you seek to shore up your cause by trying to discredit Co-Masonry. And you point to the existence of Theosophical elements in Co-Masonic obediences as something unusual and disquieting. This is very sad. You say you like to keep Freemasonry and Theosophy separate and distinct. Do you also like to keep Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism separate and distinct? How 'bout Martinism? How 'bout Buddhism? How 'bout Judaism and Christianity? How 'bout Hermeneutics? How 'bout Gnostism and Stoicism and Neoplatonism and Rationalism and Free thought and Equality and Fraternity and . . . and . . . and . . .? There is *nothing* in Freemasonry that doesn't come from some where else. I could point to practices in the UGLE and any other GL on Earth that, arguably, are Theosophical. And also practices that bear striking resemblance to every other ism in the world. Nothing especially original. All so many footfalls on the many paths to the same truth. And I'm glad of it. For the inclusion of all of these isms means the heart of Freemasonry is still beating. She is alive. And all that lives evolves. And, so, the Fraternity, Herself, will continue to evolve. And there is no part of Her that is not beautiful. And though I am myself religiously unalligned, I know Her to be the very same "wisdom of the divine". As a Theosophist, I cannot doubt you recognize this. I would like to suggest to you that you not spend energy discrediting Co-Masonry to further your own cause. As I mentioned, this is unworthy of you. The energy, I believe, would be better spent elsewhere. Even if it is in that area in which you and I are in disagreement. STOP! I do not regard my position as being weak and I am not trying to discredit Co-Masonry. Your presumption here is incredible. I was endeavouring to answer your question honestly, yet you overstate my position. Do you also like to keep Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism separate and distinct? How 'bout Martinism? How 'bout Buddhism? How 'bout Judaism and Christianity? How 'bout Hermeneutics? How 'bout Gnostism and Stoicism and Neoplatonism and Rationalism and Free thought and Equality and Fraternity and . . . and . . . and . . .? YES This is analogous, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, to combining Tarot and the Kabala. It can be done but it is not strictly kosher.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 2:12:01 GMT
But is it true?
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 26, 2007 2:17:06 GMT
I must have read some of the posts in rather a hurry, as I did not in the least take tamrin to be arguing against a TS influence to its rituals in some jurisdictions, nor a Christian one in others, or a laïc one in still others - rather, there is an acknowledgement that each has its own 'flavours' in terms of these orientations and infuences (even when they do not reflect our personal preferences).
In fact, I would suggest that these variations are healthy differences!
This is in contrast to what I would concur with tamrin regarding a development and current situation: that exclusion of an individual based on gender (or skin pigmentation, or regilious belief) is unhealthy.
I would here also suggest that the earlier comment that "the simple reason is that the majority of the people who are Male only Masons want to keep it that way" is perhaps an untested and incorrect view: perhaps 'most', not having to face the question, follow along until others make steps towards change.
If 'most' male-craft Freemasons were in fact asked whether or not they would accept that Lodges could make their own decisions as to whether or not to accept each individual with no restrictions as to gender, religion or 'race', it would surprise me if "the [...] majority of the people who are Male only Masons want to keep it" the way it currently is.
There is here also another factor that plays in: is it in fact socially, morally and spiritually right for exclusion based on gender to continue? the reply to that question would be a better indicator as to what steps exclusion-GLs take in their development.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 3:40:06 GMT
Is what true? There have been several questions raised and responded to.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 3:54:54 GMT
That it's not strictly kosher.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 4:41:56 GMT
That it's not strictly kosher. If you mean the combining of Tarot and Kabala, I would say there are distinctions which may be useful to be borne in mind. If you mean the intermingling of various traditions with Freemasonry, that is more of a moot point. Christianity has Masonic antecedents dating back before 1717. Some traditions, such as Deism and Rosicrucianism appear to have been introduced, or at least bolstered, by Desaguliers, Anderson and others (parts of which appear to have been 'borrowed' from Judaism, Hermeticism and Gnosticism, etc.). Beyond that, there are others which appear to be relative latecomers to Freemasonry. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THEY ARE WRONG. However, they are not to everyone's liking and, as with the Tarot / Kabala combination, bearing these distinctions in mind may be useful. For the record, I am disappointed and offended by your gall in presuming to know my mind and attributing motives to me which are unsupported by anything I have written. Despite, as far as I know, it still being a Masonic offense to do so, I gladly countenance Co-Masonry. I also affirm that, among the Freemasons I hold in the highest esteem, are many Co-Masons and I would welcome full recognition of Co-Masonry by mainstream Grand Lodges.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 5:16:31 GMT
For the record, I am disappointed and offended by your gall in presuming to know my mind and attributing motives to me which are unsupported by anything I have written. My brother, if I knew your mind, I would not need to key these things into the Ether. I think your only real disappointment in me is that I pointed up a weakness in part of your position. I'd say it's better that be done here, where you are largely among friends and where you can more comfortably smooth out the rough bits. Later, when you're dealing with face-time opponents (and you will be), you won't have that luxury. Perhaps, when that times comes, and you face off with them with far greater success, you will remember me. As for gall . . . what I lack is healthy sense of fear. I make up for it with a certain dogged objectivity and not a small amount of clear sightedness. I love and respect you and I don't want to see you go down in flames. I know what you are up against. I fully understand and admire your determination. But that alone will not be enough. I know what your opponents will throw at you and I recognize that some of their arguments will be right ones. Only a small minority of them will be right but they will be enough to trip you up. It is better for you to deal with these things now, while they're still largely academic, than later when it would mean so much more to you. It was a capital offense for Gallileo to teach that the earth orbited around the sun. That it was an offense was not justifiable but truth is not always considered a defense in such times. If ever you are brought up on charges for countenancing any of your brethren, I think it will be in a time when you are much deeper in your convictions and will be able to aquit yourself all the better. For you will have been thru the milder flames. And so the higher ones will not seem so much warmer. There is, also, a certain approbation in knowing you are right, even when everyone else says you are wrong. And I think that will make, to you, all the difference.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 5:47:24 GMT
Are you for real? I suggest you go back and reread what you and I have written on this thread. You have even alleged that what I am trying to achieve is evil!
What is this weakness in my position to which you are referring? Is it that Co-Masonry provides some opportunity for women to participate in Freemasonry? I have come up against it many times and have addressed it, as I have done on this thread. How is my position here weak? If want to know my mind, then ask!
Do not simply, key things into the Ether. and then present your subjective perceptions as if they were objective facts. Doing so is indeed utter gall!
Your kind of 'help' I can do without.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 26, 2007 6:50:04 GMT
More heat than light here... can we take a break before the next round? Please..
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 26, 2007 7:38:54 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, Spanish also is fine. Or Italian. How seriously can authors on Qaballah be taken who do not know ancient Hebrew? Concerning the high grades of Freemasonry, something similar might be queried about the French language. It has become amusing rather than disconcerting to read the various motives and sentiments others attribute here to yours truly. They reveal in fact more about their authors. Unequivocally: yours truly embraces the Passive Principle as such. Perfhaps it would be more appropriate to say that It embraces him.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Mar 26, 2007 7:41:39 GMT
Bro. MP, I have a question for you. And I know you know I love you, deeply and fraternally. And that I won't ask a question with anything other than honest and respectful intention. Do you believe it is at all possible to recognize Co-Masonic obediences without integrating single gender lodges? I do, very much, believe it *is* possible but I'm getting the impression from your post that you think this is not possible? So I'm wondering. And if I am reading your post right, why is it not possible? And for what it may be worth, I don't think Bro. Philip is talking about recognition. I believe he is talking about the integration of single-gender lodges. The difference is subtle but important. Hi K I have a lot to catch up on since I posted, I went to sleep and thee is a lot to read. However I must answer your question as it is to me extremely important; Do you believe it is at all possible to recognize Co-Masonic obediences without integrating single gender lodges?Yes I do, if it was approcached how you have just phrased it, of course it is. As Alistair Maclean once wrote 'Fear is the key' or in this case the removal of it. I try to emphasise that on this Forum it is like 'preaching to the converted' it is not the Male only Masons on this Forum that need to 'see the light'. You know most happily accept Co-Masons regularity, full stop. However and this is the big however! I have brouht up Mixed and single sex womans masonry with a lot (I mean at least 200 masons) of my brethren, and I honestly know that while most accept a Womans right to be a Freemason (about 65%) the majority were not only against the idea of Co-Masonry (The majority didnt even know there was such a thing!) they had a real fear of it, didnt understand it and were quite anti! Now I know thee fears are irrational, you know there fears are irrational but until they themselves do we can go nowhere. I am going to try to catch up with the rest of the posts now! Nice question Karen
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 7:51:43 GMT
I have seen the fear you describe. I do not, myself, understand it. I don't experience fear myself, so it can be difficult for me to really grok it. But I do recognize it as rather a powerful motivator. And it does, indeed, seem to make otherwise rational people act very irrationally.
And, as you said, it's not a matter of you or I knowing these fears are irrational, it is up to the frightened to know. But all things do serve the ALL. And so I must believe this fear, in some way, likewise serves. Though, at present, I cannot fathom how.
Night/morning everyone!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Mar 26, 2007 7:55:55 GMT
Jean-Michael
You have said that if most were asked you would be surprised if they had a problem with it, well I promise you my reply to Karen is genuine, since I myself have learned about Co-Masonry I have actively spoken and asked brothers about thier views. I promise you in England, Most do not know, most do not like it when they know and I am afraid that this ignorance is the reason for the fear which is the reason for the resounding No.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Mar 26, 2007 8:00:51 GMT
Tamrin
Good morning,
I see the absolute passion in your writing, and also the anger/frutration when someone doesnt see things the same way.
Please ask your self why is someone seeing what I am not writing? Because if someone is then it can only be from what you have written. I do not see why you are getting so angry with karen, I am reading the thread and seeing a 90 % agreement between yopu, why are you so determined to force the other 10%? (And if you are not, ask yourself why do I think you are?)
This is an exceptionally good thread, please take a 'time out' and then come back with more.
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 26, 2007 9:54:11 GMT
I promise you in England, Most do not know [about comasonry], most do not like it when they know and I am afraid that this ignorance is the reason for the fear which is the reason for the resounding No. And what is considered to be one of the Ruffians? - Ignorance. And another Ruffian, is commonly known as Fear, Perhaps some Freemasons in England need to work a bit harder at tackling those Ruffians?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Mar 26, 2007 10:40:45 GMT
I can't say I agree 100% with middlepillars remarks, I have not read any fear into the conversations I have had along the same lines. I would say its more apathy, which not being very attractive is how I see the reaction of most, they just dont care.
Of course there is the survival factor, in other words Co - Masonry has men in it , who by the basic instinct of a Male Freemason should be in the Male Craft.
Some of the Masons I know, have wives are in Female Freemasonry. Both rub along side by side with very little problems, The Guys go to the Womens Festival nights and visa - verca. They talk about each others meetings etc. and both encourage the other.
Indeed I can remember having the job of the Ladies Speech at one of our Festival Nights when I cracked the age old joke.
" I can prove everyman here has brought with him tonight, a beautiful Woman, - pause - Will every man who has brought and Ugly woman please stand up." of course non of the men who wish to remain being men stand, but these 4 Women Masons stood in protest at the Joke - or it could be they had too much to drink - for the rest of the speech and my speeches do go on a bit.
So is it fear of Co Masonry or the thought that it might interfere with Male Craft.
|
|