|
Post by mike on Sept 18, 2007 13:34:47 GMT
I'm going to refrain from getting into name calling.
However, I thought I would just share a quote from just a little further along in the book that Philip used.
Freemasonry: Its Aims and Ideals, (1968, pp.110) What really concerns every honest man is whether we are acting justly in refusing to permit our mothers, sisters and wives to benefit from the spiritual and social help we ourselves derive from Freemasonry. Remember, there may be more than one solution of the problem, and it is not necessarily the case, even if we admit that women are entitled to enjoy these priviledges, that we are bound to admit women candidates to our Lodges.
M
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 18, 2007 14:12:49 GMT
Reading this post, I recalled corresponding with some members of the Eastern Order of Co-Masonry in the US, but couldn't remember where it stood vis-a-vis other orders. I spent a few minutes browsing for information on the Web, but ended up even more confused. I think the biggest source of my confusion is the proliferation of similar and occasionally multiple names. Is this ever a problem for potential candidates seeking a Co-Masonic lodge? As with much else in this muddled debate, it depends on who you talk to. I understand the GL of Georgia, some time last year, placed pressure on the OES in that state to find and expell its Co-Masonic members. However, I also know Co-Masons who are OES members, some openly so. However, OES is *NOT* Masonry. It is a good and worthy path for many and I have nothing against it. It has, however, been improperly used, in the past, to warehouse women called to Masonry (Bro. Mike, there are your numbers that you mentioned earlier). So, for some Co-Masons, the OES is viewed with some justifiable bitterness. Finally, some jurisdictions, most notably the UGLE, forbid it's members to join OES. I'm helpless to explain the logic behind it as UGLE allows its members to join other Masonic derived groups, such as Oddfellows, but seems to be against OES. So I simply state the fact and hope there's logic in there somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 18, 2007 15:44:39 GMT
However, OES is *NOT* Masonry. It is a good and worthy path for many and I have nothing against it. It has, however, been improperly used, in the past, to warehouse women called to Masonry (Bro. Mike, there are your numbers that you mentioned earlier). So, for some Co-Masons, the OES is viewed with some justifiable bitterness. Quite right Karen, the OES is in fact a form of "Adoptive" Masonry as practised in France during the 18th and 19th Centuries. The difference being that it does not make women Masons, rather it takes them under the protection of the masculine Masonic Order and supplies them with their own Ritual, lectures, signs, tokens and words. As to my women seeking Freemasonry, I don't personally know how big (size and distribution) the OES is but I suspect that once again it is not as big as masculine Masonry. Finally, some jurisdictions, most notably the UGLE, forbid it's members to join OES. I'm helpless to explain the logic behind it as UGLE allows its members to join other Masonic derived groups, such as Oddfellows, but seems to be against OES. So I simply state the fact and hope there's logic in there somewhere. I like to think that back in the 1800s when the OES came about that the UGLE banned it by mistake, mistaking it for Co-masonry. Of course, the result they could never have guessed at. With no OES in England to put women off they joined Co and feminine Lodges which I think is why they are so strong today. The stance of the UGLE on the OES is that it is quasi-Masonic, in other words it is a non-Masonic body that requires Freemasons to join it and to act in the capacity of Freemasons within its Rituals. However, neither of the versions of the Oddfellows (either the Independant or the better known friendly society) require their joiners to be Freemasons and there is no reference to Freemasonry within them. Hence there is no bar to a Freemason joining, exactly the same as the Buffaloes. M
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 18, 2007 17:07:06 GMT
With regard to the OES the Grand Lodge of Scotland, an older body than UGLE though perforce smaller, has no problem with OES and many wives, sisters, girlfriends etc of Malecraft Masons are members thereof as was a now deceased Aunt of mine, her husband being a Brother of a Masonic Lodge and RA Chapter in that same area. I too cannot understand why UGLE are so against OES either.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 18, 2007 17:21:40 GMT
As Europe has been mentioned: There is also a Druid Order here in Germany that has close links with traditional Masonry. Most of the Masons that I have met over the past 30+ years were either with AMORC/TMO/BMO/CR+C/OMCE etc. Met some members of the Buffs while I was with the Army, and also attended an AMORC Convocation in a Lodge of the IOOF here in Germany as well. However, neither of the versions of the Oddfellows (either the Independant or the better known friendly society) require their joiners to be Freemasons and there is no reference to Freemasonry within them. Hence there is no bar to a Freemason joining, exactly the same as the Buffaloes. M I cut most of the quote above to save space. Hope that is ok.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 18, 2007 20:33:10 GMT
I'm going to refrain from getting into name calling. However, I thought I would just share a quote from just a little further along in the book that Philip used. Freemasonry: Its Aims and Ideals, (1968, pp.110) What really concerns every honest man is whether we are acting justly in refusing to permit our mothers, sisters and wives to benefit from the spiritual and social help we ourselves derive from Freemasonry. Remember, there may be more than one solution of the problem, and it is not necessarily the case, even if we admit that women are entitled to enjoy these privileges, that we are bound to admit women candidates to our Lodges. M These were Ward's speculative remarks before examining the "problem" in the subsequent chapter (1923, pp.115/145). In that chapter, his closing sentence (1923, p.145), reads: Frankly, I do not want to admit women to my own Lodge, but as yet I have not found an apt reply to the question, and it troubles me. Among his earlier, closing remarks (p.144), we read: Let us be just, and fear not; but we cannot be just if we refuse to discuss or even consider the problem. Above all, let us be charitable, and however much we may disagree, bear in mind that our opponents are Masons, and whether we consider their opinions right or wrong, yet we may be sure that they too are actuated by what they consider to be for the good of Freemasonry. This is all I ask. I will no longer respond to personal attacks which question my motives or intentions, as I feel I am entitled to the presumption of acting in good faith.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 18, 2007 21:29:54 GMT
Previously on this forum, the question of legislation in the USA has been raised. Readers should perhaps be aware of their proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which has already been ratified by a majority of states and arguably only requires the ratification of three more states to become law. We read, on the ERA site, under FAQ: How does the ERA relate to single-sex institutions?The ERA would not make all single-sex institutions unconstitutional – only those whose aim is to perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other. Single-sex institutions that work to overcome past discrimination are constitutional now and are likely to remain so. Also on this forum, the question of using race discrimination as an analogy of gender discrimination has been challenged. While acknowledging that correlation does not establish causation, I suggest the overlap in the maps below (I am not sure how current they are), the first showing states which had or had not ratified the ERA, and the second showing states in which mainstream GLs had or had not recognized Prince Hall Affiliated GLs, may give cause for contemplation. [Edit: For further comparison, here is map showing average state IQ]
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 18, 2007 21:35:45 GMT
As to my women seeking Freemasonry. . . Hmmmmm. Bro. Mike, how many women do you have Yeah, I know it's a typo. But it's just too wonderfully funny to pass up
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 18, 2007 22:22:58 GMT
As to my women seeking Freemasonry. . . Hmmmmm. Bro. Mike, how many women do you have Yeah, I know it's a typo. But it's just too wonderfully funny to pass up Nice one Karen. Humour on this thread is a rarity, indeed
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 19, 2007 0:21:57 GMT
Eastern Order of Co-Masonry in the US, but couldn't remember where it stood vis-a-vis other orders. Hi Gaslight. There seems to be some confusion on this thread about the above Order and the Order of the Eastern Star. The Eastern Order of Co-Masonry is a breakaway from LDH. There was a bit of a blow up some years back with the powers that be/were at the time in Paris. I don't know the details, because I was new to Masonry at the time and it was all hush, hush (?) but I think they wanted to force other countries to adopt the European way of doing things, which is very different to what we do, which is almost identical to the male craft. It would seem that the breakaways consisted largely of Theosophically inclined people, who wanted to retain their current rituals, etc etc. When some countries left LDH, the Parisians relented somewhat and those that remain within the fold can still work the Lauderdale ritual, etc etc. I would welcome others that know more than me to correct the above if you feel so inclined. comasonic.net/The Order of the Eastern Star.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Eastern_StarCheers Maat PS - I am well acquainted with the admirable literature available in the Theosophical libraries around the world, and have been a non participating member of the society for near 30 years. My Australian LDH elected to remain within LDH and we enjoy our Lauderdale ritual immensely. But our lodge also performed a French initiation once (which is sooo different to ours) and we enjoyed that immensely also. It is a real shame, I think, that these divisions occur.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 19, 2007 0:50:50 GMT
Brethren - we are living a lie. That lie is that somehow through the process of natural attrition and youthful replacement that a process of 'evolution' will ensure that 'something' will change at 'sometime' in the future and that Freemaonry will 'somehow' therefore become better, more meaningful and more open.
Of course the use of the word 'evolution' is loaded as I gain the distinct impression that many who use the word fail to understand its meaning. Evolution is not the process of slow change. Evolution, in the Darwinian sense, is the process of 'natural selection' whereby living organisms 'adapt' to particular environments and in many instances that change is anything but slow. It's either adapt or die. Freemasonry is dying - and it's dying despite any statistical growth that may be witnessed in particular niche environments. The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, formed in 1733, would not be advertising if numbers were quite OK, thank you.
I support Bro Philip's endeavour and dismiss the charged that he is causing 'disharmony' through his pursuit. To claim he is causing 'disharmony' is a not so subtle way of endeavouring to force silence - something which GLs seem to practice rather unashamedly.
I question Bro Philip's methods, not his ideals.
I support Bro Philip as he is a Brother and his pursuit of this matter is honourable - despite some of his words. No organisation boasting the high ideals that Masonry professors can claim discrimination - on any ground - and remain 'honourable'.
Those jurisdictions enjoying niche markets are marking time - the world will catch up and they too will have to adjust. For those jurisdiction enjoying such freedom at present to encumber other jurisdiction with their discriminatory baggage is not only discriminatory itself, but ensure the Craft will wither and eventually die in the form that we now might recognise.
|
|
|
Post by gaslight on Sept 19, 2007 1:22:01 GMT
Eastern Order of Co-Masonry in the US, but couldn't remember where it stood vis-a-vis other orders. Hi Gaslight. There seems to be some confusion on this thread about the above Order and the Order of the Eastern Star. I'm afraid my original question was the cause of the confusion. I left out a lot of background for the sake of brevity. That was a mistake. By 'other orders' I meant other LDH-related jurisdictions. As far as the US goes, I'm aware of the Order of International Co-Masonry "Le Droit Humain" American Federation, the Eastern Order of International Co-Freemasonry and the Honorable Order of American Co-Masonry. That awareness started when, as Secretary of a lodge, I received an email query from a lady interested in Freemasonry. I told her that my lodge was male-only but promised to find out where the nearest female or Co-Masonic lodge was. I sent off emails to three lady Masons I'd encountered on a Masonic mailing list, and they got back to me with differing information. That's when I realized that they belonged to different Co-Masonic jurisdictions. For my own information, I've tried to figure out the relations among the three orders listed above, but the websites aren't very informative. It's clear there have been splits and reconciliations, but the these are not discussed in detail and, more puzzling to the casual reader, the names of the orders seem to shift, sometimes within the same article. That's why I asked about what Bro Ichabod referred to as the Eastern Order of Co-Masonry in the US, which I assume is the same as the Eastern Order of International Co-Freemasonry. Or is it?
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 19, 2007 1:39:29 GMT
That awareness started when, as Secretary of a lodge, I received an email query from a lady interested in Freemasonry. I told her that my lodge was male-only but promised to find out where the nearest female or Co-Masonic lodge was. I sent off emails to three lady Masons I'd encountered on a Masonic mailing list, and they got back to me with differing information. That's when I realized that they belonged to different Co-Masonic jurisdictions. I'm liking you more and more. How very good of you to show this female seeker mercy and to not turn your back on her. Thank you There are, so far as I know, three Co-Masonic bodies in the US (those you named). I sometimes hear rumors that Memphis-Misraim is active in the US but, if they are, I don't have contact information for them. There also are four Femalecraft lodges, chartered by the Women's GL of Belgium (I hear two of those lodges are merging).
|
|
|
Post by gaslight on Sept 19, 2007 1:52:15 GMT
I'm liking you more and more. How very good of you to show this female seeker mercy and to not turn your back on her. Thank you <blush> Actually, make that 'female seekers'. I've had three such queries in the past year or two. They're certainly active and I have this bookmark in my browser: www.iss-ic-memphis-misraim.com/english.htmlThe recent Discovery Channel (?) documentary on Freemasonry featured a brief interview with a female Mason. That was Janet Wintermute and she's a member of Memphis-Misraim. I know she's active on several Masonic boards.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 19, 2007 8:23:45 GMT
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Sept 19, 2007 9:32:03 GMT
Thank you Bro. ichabod... there is a sure if but silent swelling on this very issue to which a few amongst us have been more vocal. In that paper, W. Bro. C Shawn Oak, in those last two paragraphs, really captures the essence of the problems we need to address: Tolerance is a unique principle and expected behavior associated with Freemasonry, more so than any other institution in history. [...] Yet, in all honesty, if Freemasonry is to be the greatest, unique, and cutting edge leader toward tolerance, we must eliminate intolerance from within our brotherhood. Intolerance must be eliminated immediately and without waiting for others to change, or die. It must be adopted and made clear within our respective jurisdictional codes! It must be demonstrated and expected in our actions within all of our lodges; balloting, recognition, and friendships with all humans regardless of race, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, politics, lifestyle, or anything else outside the makeup of a their character.
It is vital that the Masonic tradition and ideal of tolerance be incorporated within our brotherhood immediately and without delay. Paradoxically, there must be zero tolerance of intolerance related to anything beyond the makeup of another human's character. Through this action, Freemasonry can and will be the greatest institution on the face of the earth in its uniqueness toward promoting and supporting tolerance and equanimity for all humans. [...] If we refuse to embrace the Masonic principle of tolerance, then we dishonor our ancestral brethren and ourselves and in this writer's opinion, have no right to claim association with the ancestral brethren who "met upon the level, acted on the plumb, and parted upon the square."
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 19, 2007 10:11:38 GMT
Yet more evidence that there is a natural "evolution" underway, without the need for people to drag external agencies into it. M
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 19, 2007 11:24:34 GMT
Oh boy, now you've opened a can o' worms ... Both AFHR and The Eastern Order are breakaways from LDH. Personal feelings aside, LDH does not recognise either AFHR (which you identitied as the Honorable Order of American Co-Masonry, confusing the heck out of me, because I'd never seen these guys 'n' gals so named!) or the Eastern Order. Insofar as I know, the two of them do recognise each other, and AFHR recognises LDH. I don't know whether the Eastern Order recognises LDH. Confused yet? The splits are as confounding to most of us as to you (says she who is currently reseaching the matter), and are generally considered very sensitive matters. For my own information, I've tried to figure out the relations among the three orders listed above, but the websites aren't very informative. It's clear there have been splits and reconciliations, but the these are not discussed in detail and, more puzzling to the casual reader, the names of the orders seem to shift, sometimes within the same article.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 19, 2007 12:52:50 GMT
Yes - worthy words indeed from WB Oak.
|
|
|
Post by gaslight on Sept 19, 2007 14:48:13 GMT
Both AFHR and The Eastern Order are breakaways from LDH. Personal feelings aside, LDH does not recognise either AFHR (which you identitied as the Honorable Order of American Co-Masonry, confusing the heck out of me, because I'd never seen these guys 'n' gals so named!) or the Eastern Order. It's reassuring to know that I'm not the only one floundering in a bog of shifting names. Wouldn't it be easier if each jurisdiction had just a number? ("I am not a number. I am a free jurisdiction.") Not yet. It seems about par for the Masonic recognition course. That I can understand, but in my experience most splits are over differences of interpretation so subtle or obscure that they wouldn't make much sense to an outsider. I'm not referring to your example, btw. I've seen it in other contexts. I remember stumbling onto an online debate about the relative authenticity of three Buddhist sects. It was clear that the debate had been going on for years, that it would continue so for many more, and that it was completely incomprehensible to anyone not involved.
|
|