|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 26, 2007 10:16:30 GMT
When I consider the arguments about "Regularity" and "Recognition" I am reminded of the Great Schism of 1054 where the Western (RC) Pope and the Eastern (Orthodox) Patriarch excommunicated each other and these two branches of Christianity were formed.
Like any organisation made by Humanity , Freemasonry is not exempt from becoming bogged down in Rules and Regulations which become the object of themselves and can often push the true purposes of the organisation aside , so that proscribing association with those not accepted (Recognised) by the Canon of Rules and Regulations takes on an importance it really does not deserve. This reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church which used to forbid attendance at the Services of other Churches by its members without a Dispensation from a Priest, (sound familiar?)
Sometimes I wonder if we should heed the old adage and "watch the Doughnut not the hole"?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 4, 2007 16:20:51 GMT
Greetings Brethren et al, I am not sure that anyone can produce a list of landmarks that are verifiable. As Brother Karen pointed out that there is one that is nearly universally agreed upon and that is the requirement of a belief in Deity. I can only assume, as this text is usually cited, that this comes from Anderson's Constitutions. In the Constitutions it says something to the effect of one who "truly understands the Craft will not be a stupid atheist or an irreligious libertine." My pesky logic kicks in and says that adjectives are important as they are descriptive of the associated noun. A stupid atheist is therefore separated from an intelligent atheist, this is not a prohibition against atheist. Irreligious libertines are separated from religious libertines. I also hold that lodges are sovereign and since all governing authority comes from the consent of the governed then a Grand Lodge can institute any rule that they would like to. Hopefully this is done with a lot of deliberation and thought. If a Grand Lodge wishes to bar atheists from membership then they are free to do so, with the consent of the governed. They have no need to support this stance with shaky historical grounds. As a former Drill Instructor of mine said "read the whole thing, not just your favorite part." The rich diversity of our Masonic traditions is actually separated by quibbles. Too bad really but cest la vie. Just my uninformed opinion on the matter. Fraternally, Brandt
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 4, 2007 22:07:20 GMT
Greetings Bro. Brandt,
Thank you for you contribution. Your proposition concerning religious or irreligious libertines and the stupidity or otherwise of atheists is, at first sight, attractive. A similar proposition prevailed several years ago, arguing that the prohibition on "improper solicitation," implied the possibility of "proper solicitation." I recall reading or hearing of a valid but unsuccessful argument against that reasoning, on the basis that we do not know, from the context, if "improper" had been used as a qualifier (i.e., only such solicitation) or as a descriptor (i.e., an opinion about solicitation, as such). The person argued that descriptive terms are commonly used without intending to admit or imply any alternative. He gave several examples, but the only one which stuck in my mind was the use of the expression, "my good wife," by which one should not infer that the speaker is necessarily a bigamist, having some "bad wife" hidden away or off gallivanting.
In the other direction, and please forgive me if I am wrong, one may infer you are suggesting that, in determining our "Ancient Landmarks," tracing a custom or usage only back to Anderson's Constitutions would be enough for it to qualify as being "ancient". I suggest that anything that Anderson considered "ancient" must have necessarily preceeded him by many years. Indeed, his points about "atheists" and "libertines" were made in the contex of him quite specifically and intentionally changing an ancient, restrictive custom. He did not suggest any or all his Constitutions were "time immmorial," let alone being "Ancient Landmarks," and there was, at the time, provision to change them.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 5, 2007 8:35:06 GMT
Bro Brandt. In some Grand Lodges the "Governed" are NOT consulted nor is their consent sought and the GL imposes its policies on the Lodges which are anything BUT Sovereign. Some even have no realistic means for the dissatisfied Members to communicate their grievances and they have the stark choice, put up with it or get out and join some other Masonic Body more in tune with their views.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 5, 2007 15:39:49 GMT
Brother Carter, Good morning.
"In the other direction, and please forgive me if I am wrong, one may infer you are suggesting that, in determining our "Ancient Landmarks," tracing a custom or usage only back to Anderson's Constitutions would be enough for it to qualify as being "ancient". I suggest that anything that Anderson considered "ancient" must have necessarily preceeded him by many years. Indeed, his points about "atheists" and "libertines" were made in the contex of him quite specifically and intentionally changing an ancient, restrictive custom. He did not suggest any or all his Constitutions were "time immmorial," let alone being "Ancient Landmarks," and there was, at the time, provision to change them. "
I am suggesting nothing of the kind. When a discussion of landmarks come up it becomes rapidly clear that we just don't know what the landmarks are. Anderson obviously did not even really take a stab at it. Perhaps they were just known at the time, like certain traffic rules are here and now. All of the lists that have been offered are speculation. We have yet to be able to show a definitive list and explanation. I think deeper exploration into this subject would be of great value to the Craft.
Regarding adjectives. We can deduce from the rest of Anderson's Constitutions certain usages. In other places the use of adjectives was indeed important. True this in no way dictates that the usage is applied universally throughout his text but does offer fuel for thought. In the statement about truly understanding the Craft and stupid atheists or irreligious libertines we are left with a logical flaw. Of course, under our current thesis, an atheist (stupid or otherwise) would truly understand the Craft - he would never be initiated. Yet there is a supposition that he would have the opportunity to truly understand the Craft so he had to be there. This is much like the logical flaw of saying that there are no women Masons but obligating men to not attend nor assist with the initiating, passing or raising of a woman.
Brother, thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter - it is proving to be a most enjoyable and enlightening experience to share ideas and Brotherhood with such an apt discussion partner. Fraternall, Brandt
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 5, 2007 15:40:53 GMT
Bro Brandt. In some Grand Lodges the "Governed" are NOT consulted nor is their consent sought and the GL imposes its policies on the Lodges which are anything BUT Sovereign. Some even have no realistic means for the dissatisfied Members to communicate their grievances and they have the stark choice, put up with it or get out and join some other Masonic Body more in tune with their views. Yes my dear Brother, I have heard and unfortunately seen far too much of this myself. I blame it largely on the moratorium on brains that was called on the Craft not too long ago. Brandt
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 5, 2007 19:39:43 GMT
Ah, but in order for this kind of tyranny to occur, two things must happen: 1) the "higher" body must do it and 2) the "lower" body must allow it.
Piling all blame on a GL is unfair.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 6, 2007 11:53:09 GMT
and then Brother Karen shows up to remind us that the Social Contract theory is real indeed and places a great deal of responsibility at the feet of the governed. A wake up call indeed
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Aug 6, 2007 11:58:35 GMT
So, following that logic, as there has been no revolutionary overturning of any of the malecraft GL's for several centuries we OK to assume that everything is ok?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 6, 2007 14:59:42 GMT
I think that it is closer to the point that there is a great deal of comfort and the governed are just not bothered enough to do anything about it.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by corab on Aug 6, 2007 18:27:22 GMT
So, following that logic, as there has been no revolutionary overturning of any of the malecraft GL's for several centuries we OK to assume that everything is ok? Don't the recent split-offs count for something? RGLE, GLAE, UGLA in the States ... It ain't all peace and harmony from where I'm standing!
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 6, 2007 18:41:03 GMT
Yes it looks as if there are some unhappy bunnies in the big warren?
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Aug 6, 2007 20:05:45 GMT
I would be surprised if there weren't differences of opinion in such a large and diverse organsation, even within families you dont get a constant state of bliss and contenment. There hasnt been any cataclismic mass exodus tho, has there?
|
|
Tony Grimwood
Member
Asst. Steward, Lodge Howick No. 314
Posts: 190
|
Post by Tony Grimwood on Aug 6, 2007 20:44:34 GMT
As Bro. Brandt says, "there is a great deal of comfort ...", IOW - "I've been a Mason for 20/30/40/50 or more years, it's always been this way and I'm very comfortable in it. Damned if I'm going to let it change."
I sense a lot of that attitude among Brethren here.
Tony
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 6, 2007 20:44:49 GMT
Will a mass exodus be required before any notice is taken? Is that really what's required to do what it right in an organization that claims to strive to do so? I've had an opportunity to study Freemasonic history. A bit. I've noticed that, when it comes to a right that is more difficult to do than a wrong, there is a tendency to: 1) pretend it doesn't exist 2) admit it exists but that the problem is a very minor issue 3) admit the problem is not minor but affects only a small number 4) slander, defame and discredit that "small" number 5) announce that it will gain more favorable attention when the numbers grow 6) pretend to have been in agreement with the minority all along once it becomes clear the minority is, in fact, the majority I think, for now, we're somewhere in the 3-4-5 range. Which, I think, is esoterically interesting That aside, I think Bro. Brandt is right. The rank and file are too comfortable to be bothered. And, so, will be moved not by right, not by conscience and not by duty but by a drop in their comfort level.
|
|
Tony Grimwood
Member
Asst. Steward, Lodge Howick No. 314
Posts: 190
|
Post by Tony Grimwood on Aug 6, 2007 20:50:12 GMT
I've had an opportunity to study Freemasonic history. A bit. I've noticed that, when it comes to a right that is more difficult to do than a wrong, there is a tendency to: 1) pretend it doesn't exist 2) admit it exists but that the problem is a very minor issue 3) admit the problem is not minor but affects only a small number 4) slander, defame and discredit that "small" number 5) announce that it will gain more favorable attention when the numbers grow 6) pretend to have been in agreement with the minority all along once it becomes clear the minority is, in fact, the majority I think, for now, we're somewhere in the 3-4-5 range. Which, I think, is esoterically interesting That aside, I think Bro. Brandt is right. The rank and file are too comfortable to be bothered. And, so, will be moved not by right, not by conscience and not by duty but by a drop in their comfort level. I just love the sound a nail makes when it's hit on the head! ;D Well put, Bro Karen. Tony
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 6, 2007 21:01:48 GMT
Well the mouse and the cat agree! You have summed it up wonderfully Bro Karen
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 6, 2007 21:23:38 GMT
Very apt and very astute, Bro. Karen
You appear to have eloquently and accurately expanded on Gandhi's famous comment: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 6, 2007 22:13:13 GMT
To even pay attention to the so-called clandestine or irregular organizations is damaging to the monolithic model. Then along comes a few that make it nearly impossible for the pundits to ignore it. Then the dam breaks. Masonry was never meant to be a monolithic organization with all of Masonry under centralized control. The vast dynamic of our Masonic heritage proves that, and strangely enough though there has been disagreements the Craft has not disintegrated.
Brandt
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 6, 2007 22:27:26 GMT
Thank you all ;D
But, Bro. Tamrin . . . (brow furrows) . . . Fight? . . . Win? . . .
I don't want to fight. Not with my Brethren. For I tell you, the GAOTU invested me with much, all of it, I think, needful. But he did not make me a fighter. I must conclude that I am not to fight with my any of my Brethren. Not even those who would fight with me.
Granted, Gandhi had clear opposition and so his policy of nonviolent resistance made sense. But it cannot be this way with us. For, among "us", there is no "them".
Those of us now not afraid to see must be willing to see for those who are: there is no opposition. There are only Brothers. The language of division and exclusion can have no place among us. Somehow, instead, we must reason together.
I know it's a puzzle. I don't see the solution. All I can do is talk about the elephant. To speak, clearly and without fear, the truth I see before me. And I can only hope that, one day, eyes that presently are closed will be opened; ears muffled will be uncovered; tongues restrained will be loosed and long idle hands will be recommitted to the Great Work.
And that one day we will know we utter these truths now so that our Masonic posterity will be free to be bored by it: will safely take for granted what we now struggle to realize. And if they look into it at all, I hope they will at least marvel that anyone ever thought otherwise.
|
|