Y Mahomed
Member
3rd door left of right
Posts: 97
|
Post by Y Mahomed on Jul 21, 2007 23:11:29 GMT
So as some of you may know im about to meet the commitee of a regular lodge to see if I am fit for initiation. After most of my contact with a lady from a co-masonic lodge, she stressed that they focus more on the esoteric side of Masonry. This situation, be it as it may, has left me in confusion, I can't afford to be a member of both even if it is allowed.
Won't some of you give me the pros and cons of both? You'll make a world of difference in my world. TIA
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 21, 2007 23:27:50 GMT
Playto
I don't know whether it is of any use to you but when I was considering initiation I went to see the lodge building from outside. And I could see a line of pale blue energy from Sirius coming into the building. It was rather wobbly but indicated some degree of patronage from on high. So I joined the lodge and it was the most spiritual that I have seen
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tony Grimwood
Member
Asst. Steward, Lodge Howick No. 314
Posts: 190
|
Post by Tony Grimwood on Jul 22, 2007 0:56:05 GMT
It comes down to you, Playto. You have to think very carefully about why it is you want to join the Craft, and what you expect to get from it. If you wish to enter a Craft that studies and teaches the more profoundly spiritual path, and you're willing and able to commit some serious time and effort to that work, then co-masonry is probably right for you. If that's not you, then male-craft might be better. The best advice I can offer is this: Don't rush into anything. Take the time to meet Freemasons from different obediences and talk with them about your interest in the Craft. If possible, get yourself invited to lodge "harmony" events, where you can chat with lodge members in an informal and convivial social setting. This will allow you to get a feel for the various obediences, and you'll be better equipped to make an informed decision when the time comes to do that. Once again - Take Your Time. You are preparing to take up a Craft that can lead to a richly-rewarding lifetime of practise. Best to make the right decision first time up.
Tony
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 22, 2007 10:21:50 GMT
Bro Tony G had put it so beautifully that I won't repeat what is well said.
Suffice it to say , "make your own mind up" ask the questions, read up, take your time and choose the branch of Freemasonry which suits you best. There is no point in being in one in which you are or become unhappy and unfulfilled.
Above all don't let anyone Railroad or Pressure you into joining one or the other, follow your own Light!
Good Luck in your quest.
BTW I don't really like the term "Clandestine" but personally prefer "Mainstream" and "Alternative"
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 22, 2007 16:39:11 GMT
Soon-to-be Bro. Playto (for whatever *anyone* ever tells you, which ever jurisdiction you join, that is what you will, in fact, be to all the Brethren of the Craft - whatever names we call each other), I fully understand your desire to be guided and to seek counsel. I was there, myself, not so very long ago. I received advice in plenty, not all of it good. Where I was, now there you are. You are, at this time, very vulnerable. And, so, you must be your greatest advocate. As you've already been told, YOU must make this decision. I believe anyone who tells you otherwise is not thinking in your best interest. It is said that it's far easier to find the door than to walk thru it. I can testify to the great numbers who, even now, hesitate just outside that door. It takes great strength, courage and conviction to shoulder thru that crowd and actually walk thru that door. But you must do it. Or you must not. As you decide. Joseph Campbell indicated there are times in a Hero's life when s/he must go on alone. You have reached one of those times. I hope you make the decision that is best for you. Good luck
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 22, 2007 23:40:57 GMT
playto
I notice the heading of the thread: irregular or clandestine
Technically the United Grand Lodge of England considers Co-Masonry as irregular as it does not comply with one of the "landmarks" adhered to by the United Grand Lodge of England. (This assumes that UGLE's choice of landmarks is correct and assumes that regularity is essentially about landmarks)
The definition of clandestine is a bit variable but "Mackey’s Encyclopedia on Masonry defined “clandestine mason” as “one made in or affiliated with a clandestine Lodge”; on the other hand, a “clandestine lodge” is “a body of Freemasons or of those improperly claiming to be Freemasons, uniting in a Lodge without the consent of a Grand Lodge, or, although originally legally constituted, continuing to work after its Charter has been revoked.”
Traditionally any 7 regular lodges can form a Grand Lodge although existing Grand Lodges are unlikely to recognise a new one in their territory.
Thus a clandestine lodge may be a lodge that has invented itself without any prior relationship to a Grand Lodge.
Using that definition, some clandestine lodges have been arrangements for making money out of gullible candidates
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Y Mahomed
Member
3rd door left of right
Posts: 97
|
Post by Y Mahomed on Jul 23, 2007 5:08:13 GMT
Thanks for your feedback guys, appreciated muchly
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jul 24, 2007 3:43:01 GMT
Playto - as others have said it is for you to choose - Malecraft - or Co-masonry. Take care when you are speaking to officers of both varieties, that the Officer is not recruiting to fill seats. Take a look at this link comasonic.net/, this will explain what Co-Freemasonry is about , Find a similar link for Malecraft Freemasonry - Then use your intuition as to the Masonic Flavour would be best for you
|
|
|
Post by keith on Jul 24, 2007 8:20:24 GMT
I think you will find that, like GLNZ, UGLE has never said what it considers to be the Landmarks of the Craft. Essentially, the Landmarks are personal to you. Would Freemasonry remain essentially the same to you were your particular 'landmark' altered or removed?
I am aware of the 25 "landmarks' listed by MacKay. I have a research paper among the transactions of one of our Research Lodges which discusses them and decides that possibly about the only one that would be generally accepted as a landmark is the requirement for a belief in the Supreme Being.
For example, his Landmark No 2, the division of symbolic masonry into three degrees. Freemasonry existed before the formation of the Premier Grand Lodge in 1717 when there were only two Degrees, the Third Degree was not devised until sometime in the late 1720s, it was first listed in Prichard's "Masonry Dissected" of 1730. So Freemasonry was still Freemasonry with less than three Degrees, therefore, the requirement for three Degrees cannot be a Landmark
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 24, 2007 9:05:02 GMT
As is well known I am no great supporter of the "Landmarks" feeling them to be no more than a set of guidelines informed by the mores of the time in which they were written. However this throws up an interesting point. By those who swear by the "Landmarks" and are rigid in their stance in their favour, it is often said, "Take one, take all" and that the deleting of any one violates the rest. Indeed the final "Landmark" is that "These Landmarks cannot be changed" to me a totally ridiculous proposition regarding anything invented by Humanity and which can be altered or even abolished thereby.
However, if the "Landmark" regarding a Three Degree Craft System can be discounted , as nowadays are the prohibitions on the Initiation of "Cripples" (The Disabled) or Non Freeborn, then as far as I am concerned the bar on Initiating Women can equally be cast aside as indeed is the case in Co-Masonry to which I belong.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 24, 2007 9:21:44 GMT
Essentially, the Landmarks are personal to you. Would Freemasonry remain essentially the same to you were your particular 'landmark' altered or removed? Good post Bro. Keith,I agree with your general comment regarding a belief in a Supreme Being and only point out, for the record, that even that requirement is not regarded as a landmark by many jurisdictions. I cannot, however, agree with your comment above, as it would allow for gradual erosion and accretion, with error being added to error. I suggest we need to allow for the restoration of neglected landmarks and for the debunking of fictitious landmarks. Naturally, in doing so we would need to distinguish between the imperatives of our predecessors and the casual customs and usages of their day. In doing so, we need to work from principles. For instance, I suggest a determination of a tradition having an overall tendency to unite or divide may constitute one of several relevant tests. My views on Mackey having listed the "No Women!" rule among his landmarks are detailed in my article, Albert Through The Looking Glass.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 24, 2007 9:26:51 GMT
Indeed the final "Landmark" is that "These Landmarks cannot be changed" to me a totally ridiculous proposition regarding anything invented by Humanity and which can be altered or even abolished thereby. Ironically, this is an innovation! Originally, changes to the body of Masonry could be approved by the Grand Lodge. I am reminded of the question, "Was the Pope infallible who first declared he was?"
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 24, 2007 10:23:35 GMT
The Pope who proclaimed the Dogma of "Papal Infallibility" Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti) had an ego the size of St Peters so I assume HE considered that he was Infallible when he declared himself and his successors to be so on matters of Doctrine etc.
As far as I am concerned the "Landmarks" are a Historical Curio suited to the context of their times. There are in existence and have been for over 100 years Masonic Bodies which reject some of them and indeed some of the Grand Lodges in the USA do not accept nor use them at all yet are "Recognised" by Mainstream Freemasonry. We have the Three Grand Principles= the Three Pillars of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth, we have our Rituals, we have the Mythos of Freemasonry, what more do we need?
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 24, 2007 13:55:09 GMT
My experience is that once something is set in stone - that is, cannot change, grow, mature and evolve - it dies.
However, Freemasonry remains alive and free, despite Lilliputian efforts to restrain and kill her.
That said, I do believe, firmly, in the Landmarks. And I believe they cannot be changed. What I do not believe, though, is that we've ever written them down. There are a number of lists of Landmarks, far more than Mackey's, and none of the lists agrees in full. I also believe many lists include "Landmarks" that are nothing more than the bigoted wish of the author, wishes that were accepted by others with the same bigoted leanings. This bigotry is unMasonic and no part of the Landmarks.
For me, the Landmarks remain eneffable. And, I think, they ever shall be. But speculating upon them is cool ;D
|
|
Y Mahomed
Member
3rd door left of right
Posts: 97
|
Post by Y Mahomed on Jul 24, 2007 21:32:11 GMT
This is the first time I come across the landmarks of Freemasonry, and I must say it's very interesting. After some reading I deduced that Mackey's version does seem lean on the bigoted side of things though the normal landmarks seems better. Thanks for the lead guys
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 24, 2007 23:49:11 GMT
Mackey isn't the only Freemason who has tried to write them down. If you're really interested, I could help you look at those suggestions as well.
I've had a chance to speak to a goodly number of Masonic scholars and to read a fraction of the work produced on this topic. I've come to conclude the Mackey only got one right - belief in a supreme being. And, at times, I'm not so sure about that.
|
|
Y Mahomed
Member
3rd door left of right
Posts: 97
|
Post by Y Mahomed on Jul 25, 2007 11:07:42 GMT
Mackey isn't the only Freemason who has tried to write them down. If you're really interested, I could help you look at those suggestions as well. Cool, here is the link to the other landmarks I have found www.jabron.net/lmarks.htm
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 25, 2007 18:53:00 GMT
Those are Mackey's, yup. Others have compiled their own lists, so Mackey is not the only authority (if, indeed, he is authority at all).
I do, very much, appreciate the paragraph above this list (with my italics), which I think puts it very well, if briefly:
|
|
Y Mahomed
Member
3rd door left of right
Posts: 97
|
Post by Y Mahomed on Jul 26, 2007 7:48:53 GMT
So who and when did they first come up with these unwritten laws?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 26, 2007 8:47:35 GMT
>So who and when did they first come up with these unwritten laws?
"first" is a difficult question in Masonry
But there were several attempts to write (or rewrite) them in the 18th century
Cheers
Russell
|
|