|
Post by mike on Sept 21, 2007 10:58:46 GMT
The recent exchanges on the idea of "forced integration" of masculine Lodges vexed me! What can I say? I'm only human! So I thought I would start a topic that, rather than pushing any personal agenda, gave Forumites the chance to sensibly look at what is actually wrong with the situation of the 3 disciplines at the present time and the reasons why it is so.
I think my stance/opinion is quite easy to understand! I think that the existence of the 3 gender based variants of Freemasonry is excellent and I would not want to see that change. They offer the "freedom of choice" which should rightfully be available in Freemasonry, The evidence of its rightness is logically proven by the existence of the 3 Obediences in the first place.
However, what I do not agree with is the, passing, situation of masculine Masonry trying to ignore the existence of the other two. I say passing because although it does not "recognise" (i.e. allow inter-visitation) them masonically it no longer tries to "officially" pretend that they are not there.
I say this because I can see the situation of the Order of Women Freemasons (OWF) and the Honourable Fraternity of Antient Freemasons (HFAF) (incidentally OWF & HFAF started off as the same body and the HFAF was Co-Masonic in 1908 and only restricted its membership to women in the early 1920s, becoming exclusively feminine in 1935. The OWF formally petitioned the UGLE for recognition in 1921, this request was rejected when read in Grand Lodge, however, it was not (as some people would have you believe) totally unsupported and even then there were masculine masons willing to put their heads above the parapet while others (such as JSM Ward himself) voted against the petition whilst knowing they shouldn’t. However, this rejection left the women’s Orders to be officially ignored until 1999 when the UGLE made an official statement recognising the regularity and sincerity of women Freemasons and that while they could not be formally recognised our Grand Lodges would work together on issues of mutual interest.. This is as far as it is possible for us to go whilst remembering our own Constitutions. I have to say it is a far happier situation than 80 odd years ago and many masculine Masonic websites in the UK today have references to women freemasons (try googling it).
Why isn’t Co-masonry included? I hear you say. Well the recognition of Co-masonry in Britain is far more complex. It is not just the admission of women that leads it to be not recognised. There are further issues such as: It considers the AASR to be a proper progressive system and not appendent degrees, A national Federation under Le Droit Humain is not a sovereign body (like a Grand Lodge) as it is under the control of the Supreme Council in Paris. So although the British Federation requires both a belief in the GAOTU and has the VSL open in Lodge it is part of a body which does not have these requirements. (Although I would like to know how my GL views the UK’s GL 4 M&W which is in the same situation as OWF and HFAF except that it admits both sexes!)
Although the making of women Masons is against the rules of my Grand Lodge and this precludes me legally (masonically speaking) from attending Co-Masonic Lodge meetings, it has not prevented me from meeting a lot of Co and feminine Freemasons out of lodge. So I do not see why it should be a barrier to a better fraternal relationship and working closer together as Obediences on matters that would benefit Freemasonry as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 21, 2007 11:24:03 GMT
Bro Mike, as a Co-Mason I am happy with what you have said. Personally I would like to see UGLE Brethren permitted to attend Co-Masonic Meetings without fear of repercussions from their Grand Lodge, but am wise enough to realise that it would be a long time in the coming.
As to the differences between the UGLE etc way of regarding things and that of LDH I am happy with the way my Obedience does this, in particular the way we consider the A&ASR (Rose Croix) as being part of a continuity with Craft and not just another separate Higher Degree as is the situation in UGLE etc. I also like our system of Governance and that we are part of an International Body based in Paris and of course that we consider Female and Male Brethren as equal and indeed our latest Elected Grand Master is female. I would not wish LDH to surrender any of these principles and can fully appreciate that many Malecraft Masons would not wish to surrender theirs.
In a family siblings can differ greatly, not only in gender, but in build, outlook, interests etc but are nevertheless children of the same parents. So too with Freemasonry Universal which can happily accommodate Mixed Masonry such as my Obedience etc, Female Only Lodges- OWF and HFAF, and Male Only GLs such as UGLE, GL of Scotland, and the many USA Grand Lodges including Prince Hall GLs.
Greater understanding and cooperation Yes, forced change at point of Law? NO WAY BROTHER!
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Sept 21, 2007 12:00:58 GMT
My take on this is that different parts of the world have entirely different sets of situations they need to meet.
Having visited France (as well as having lived and worked in the UK), there are huge differences to the situation we face locally. Part of the thread that 'vexes' you, Bro. mike, contrary-wise only highlights to me the lack of choice we have in comparison to brethren in both the UK and in France (I cannot comment for other countries).
For example, we were able to visit LDH and masculine-only obediences in France when we were last there (with my wife being the only woman in one Lodge we visited). Quite frankly, I personally have no problems if a specific Lodge wishes to only ballot for men; or for ex-Specific School graduates; or for those with in interest in Blake, or whatever else takes their fancy. That is a Lodge-specific prerogative as far as I am concerned.
The situation locally - at the risk of sounding like a broken record again - is that except for Melbourne which has a number of LDH Lodges (all meeting in the same Temple), even very large metropolitan centres have at most only ONE choice for a woman to become a Freemason and, more importantly, the hundreds of other Lodges are prohibited, due to an outdated rule, from even considering a worthy woman.
In most places in Australia, most men (the vast majority) have access to a Lodge not more than three hours drive away. By comparison, for some women, the closest possibility may be more than 2000km away. There is no such thing as the three-tiered system you mention - it is there in theory only, as it so happens that ONE city has a Lodge for women only, and four other cities also have LDH. A total of five locations, two of them in my state, and five of the ten Lodges Australia has which are open to women located either within Melbourne or a two hour drive away from this same city.
Furthermore, and importantly, the exclusion of women reflects the social conditions that at least here has changed since women's suffrage was first successful in this part of the world. And finally for now, there is nothing edifying, in my view, about excluding women from Freemasonry - rather the contrary.
That is what is wrong with the status quo.
...and oh! how I wish Bro ichabod would be here to add to my poor words on this subject!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 21, 2007 12:57:49 GMT
Why do you think you need someone else to support your words, I see them loud and clear and importantly bereft of "sabre rattling".
Are you a member of a masculine Grand Lodge or a Co-mason, I only ask for clarity's sake.
I'm not sure what the answer is for you, being in such a huge country. However, I am sure that mixed and feminine Lodges will spread in the usual way given time and of course if there is demand
I'm afraid I will probably never be able to agree with the idea of using the "force of Law" to gain entry to masculine Lodges partly because you will not be able to use "force of Law" to retain the existing members who will leave in disgust and mainly because it would be a very unmasonic foundation for the future body. Freemasonry, in all its forms, has never come about because of Laws but because of the will of its Founders, compulsion will never be able to square that circle.
M
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 21, 2007 13:44:43 GMT
Why isn’t Co-masonry included? I hear you say. Well the recognition of Co-masonry in Britain is far more complex. It is not just the admission of women that leads it to be not recognised. There are further issues such as: . . . First of all Bro. Mike, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. I'm new and there's much I don't know. However, my jurisdiction does follow the AASR . . . However, respectfully, it matters not at all. For I've seen it before. These are all just excuses to *make* difficult something that isn't. Because if it can be made too difficult to do, then the unjustifiable becomes justified. And good people feel it easier to do wrong. There once were excuses given for not recognizing Prince Hall Masons and these were considered very good reasons. For centuries, these good reasons were pointed to. Now, in most places, these good reasons, suddenly, aren't anymore. Prince Hall Masonry has not changed, they're Brothers just as they've always been. The only difference is that these reasons are seen as the poor excuses as they are and have been allowed to follow away. What once was seen as difficult and impossible no longer is. So it shall be, one day, I think, for Co-Masonry. I will stress, however, that I know of no Co-Masonic body that seeks recognition. Nor do I look for any such body to do so. For I tell you this: there are benefits to being ignored. Malecraft Masons can be very, very aggressive and unkind. So long as y'all ignored us, you left us alone. That's good. But now y'all have turned your eye toward us, we who have never made any aggressive move toward you. And while we continue to seek nothing from you, some of you have labeled us "threat" and are accusing us of aggression that is against our nature and inclination (and, respectfully, *should* be against your's). Some have threatened us with pre-emptive legal action. Some of you would, like the antiMasons, like to put heretics caps on our heads and burn us at the stake. I strongly suspect that y'all aren't going to ignore us anymore. And that, given the track record of Malecraft Masonry, can be good . . . or very, very bad. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 21, 2007 14:29:24 GMT
Why isn’t Co-masonry included? I hear you say. Well the recognition of Co-masonry in Britain is far more complex. It is not just the admission of women that leads it to be not recognised. There are further issues such as: . . . First of all Bro. Mike, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. I'm new and there's much I don't know. However, my jurisdiction does follow the AASR . . This time you can trust me. It is correct. For example the United Grand Lodge of England does not formally recgnise the Ancient & Accepted Rite (as it is known here) of England & Wales (nor any other Supreme Council), although our members are at liberty to join it, because it is a separate body and it does not confer the first 3 degrees. Although, this has been the subject of a recent speech by the Pro Grand Master and things may change with regard to the English one. All Federations of LDH are indeed subordinate to the Paris Office. This is part of the reason why the Eastern Order and some independent Grand Lodges split away back in 1999. So for the UGLE to recognise LDH Britain it would have to recognise LDH itself. I won't put them all here as it would make a messy post even messier but the UGLE's rues for recognition of Grand Lodges state: 2. That a belief in the G.A.O.T.U. and His revealed will shall be an essential qualification for membership. 3. That all Initiates shall take their Obligation on or in full view of the open Volume of the Sacred Law, by which is meant the revelation from above which is binding on the conscience of the particular individual who is being initiated. 5. That the Grand Lodge shall have sovereign jurisdiction over the Lodges under its control; i.e. that it shall be a responsible, independent, self-governing organization, with sole and undisputed authority over the Craft or Symbolic Degrees (Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason) within its Jurisdiction; and shall not in any way be subject to, or divide such authority with, a Supreme Council or other Power claiming any control or supervision over those degrees. All 8 rules are available here www.ugle.org.uk/pdf/cr-rule-update6-140307.pdf on pages XIV and XV There once were excuses given for not recognizing Prince Hall Masons and these were considered very good reasons. For centuries, these good reasons were pointed to. Not within the UGLE, the only reason the PHA Grand Lodges were not recognised was due to rule number 5 (above). This has ever been a bone of contention with the UGLE. Why? Let me fill in a little of the history of PHA which everyone seems to have missed. Prince Hall himself was Initiated into an Irish travelling Military Lodge. When the regiment left PH was left with his fellow Bro.s able to operate a Lodge but not to Initiate new Freemasons. They applied to the (then) Grand Lodge of England for a proper Warrant for a Lodge and we gave him one. The first PHA Lodge was under the Grand Lodge of England. This was how they Initiated new Freemasons and eventually consecrated new PH Lodges and finally the first PH Grand Lodge. The problem of recognition was down to the severance of ties with American GLs after the American War of Independence and how things went over there. Rule number 5 got in the way, now as the American GLs are recognising each other the UGLE is free to extend recognition to its Daughter GLs and we are very happy to do so.. So it shall be, one day, I think, for Co-Masonry. I too, think it's possible. I will stress, however, that I know of no Co-Masonic body that seeks recognition. Nor do I look for any such body to do so. For I tell you this: there are benefits to being ignored. Malecraft Masons can be very, very aggressive and unkind. So long as y'all ignored us, you left us alone. That's good. But now y'all have turned your eye toward us, we who have never made any aggressive move toward you. And while we continue to seek nothing from you, some of you have labeled us "threat" and are accusing us of aggression that is against our nature and inclination. Some of you would, like the antiMasons, like to put heretics caps on our heads and burn us at the stake. I strongly suspect that y'all aren't going to ignore us anymore. And that, given the track record of Malecraft Masonry, can be good . . . or very, very bad. We shall see. Please don't tar us all with the same brush, cos we're not actually all stereotypical. Tut tut, snore, shoves a peppermint in his gob ;D M
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 21, 2007 14:51:06 GMT
As will be appreciated by many I am not in a position to enter this particulalrly fascinating debate, but I just wanted to express my personal delight that such matters are being raised and that so many Malecraft Masons are so open to the possibilities of closer ties between the aforementioned GLs.
People such as TD and other staunch Malecraft Masons are slowly coming to realise and appreciate that it isn't only men who can be Freemasons.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 21, 2007 17:21:07 GMT
Bro Mike, I don't wish to be a pedant, but whilst UGLE might call it "The Ancient and Accepted Rite, (A&AR), LDH call it "The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite" (A&ASR), so it is slightly incorrect to say "as it is known here" i.e. England and Wales, as that is only as regards UGLE.
That apart what you say is spot on and I have no issue with it. Indeed I must say that I wish those striped pants merchants wearing Chains had a similar open mindedness, whilst wishing to preserve that which they hold dear in their own GL and its system of Freemasonry.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 21, 2007 21:26:52 GMT
All Federations of LDH are indeed subordinate to the Paris Office. This is part of the reason why the Eastern Order and some independent Grand Lodges split away back in 1999. So for the UGLE to recognise LDH Britain it would have to recognise LDH itself. The federation to which I belong is NOT a federation of LDH This is a requirement in my jurisdiction Ditto. I am not an expert (I *am* a Fellowcraft and not especially close to the inner circle) but I can tell you that our GL does, indeed, have sovereign jurisdiction over the lodges. So, there, my jurisdiction complies with these rules. But it will matter not at all for all that is needed to make this difficult is to come up with more excuses. this has been my experience. Excuses to justify the unjustifiable. I'm not trying to fight it, I'm just naming it for what it is. (little smile) I'm an Andes fan, myself I've mentioned, on a number of occasions, that the vast majority of my experiences with Malecraft Masons have been entirely positive. I have, however, noticed an increase in the not so positive. And as more attention is paid to Co-Masonry (ever mindful that I know of no Co-Masonic body that even seeks this attention), I expect the negative encounters to continue to escalate (based on my experience and that of my Co-Masonic BB who have been in the Craft longer than have I). I would love to be proven wrong on this matter but I don't think I will be.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 21, 2007 23:55:40 GMT
Bro Mike - I'm not at all sure I understand you when your subject is stated - What is wrong with the status quo? What is it that you don't you want changed?
Status quo could mean 'balance' or it could mean 'keep things as they are'. Remembering that 'all created things are subject to change', I'm just wondering about this course of this thread.
After having read a number of posts on the board concerning 'change' I am left with the distinct impression that the sum total of what many are advocating is wanting to paint the iron bars that encircle the prison white - perhaps in some vain attempt that by changing the colour of the bars some great change has taken place and that everyone is now free.
Replacing the VSL with blank pages - no need to believe in a Supreme Being - Law now become Lore - If this is what is meant by change then I have to seriously consider my association with the Craft - because the Craft will eventually be devalued to the LCD. Where then is excellence?
Change under these criteria is nothing more than exercising the doctrine of political correctness - which is just as devastating on initiative Orders as is any fundamentalist attack.
For those who still fail to understand much of what I write perhaps the illustration of a mirror might assist.
A mirror is not changed by the presence of any face that might appear therein. Nor is the essence of the mirror changed by the accumulation of grim and grit. Nor is it changed by any amount of cleaning solvents used to clean its surface, regardless of how expensive they are to obtain. The essence of the mirror remains undefiled by all such activities - it could therefore be said to be 'unborn' - and having not been born is not the subject of change.
The 'essence' of the teachings cannot be defiled by endless activity in search of change. Sure, we might like to re-write those teachings at times of frustration - but that frustration is more a reflection of our own ignorance - not the problem of the teachings. If one fails to understand this aspect one still believes it is the mirror that changes.
If - and I stress the word 'if' - accepting women in Freemasonry means these particular changes are also necessary then I have reconsidered my position.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 22, 2007 0:24:48 GMT
I feel you have missed the point here Bro Wayseer. In LDH we already have some of these points you mention which would probably be unacceptable to many Malecraft Brethren, but the whole point is, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO FORCE CHANGE ON THEM, nor for that matter are we proposing to change our ways to suit them either.
There is simply no need. All three types, Mixed Gender, Women Only, Men Only, of Freemasonry seem happy with that they are. It would be nice to have more cooperation and dialogue between the Three Branches but I would think that this would be outside of a Tyled Lodge situation.
One poster alone seems to wish to force change on Malecraft Lodges in his area by means of Legal Action in the Courts. Funnily enough he does not seem to wish to force the Women Only Grand Lodges to admit Men. As will be seen by reading back through the various threads he receives very little support here and some of that which he previously received has been alienated by his approach.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 22, 2007 11:01:21 GMT
The federation to which I belong is NOT a federation of LDH Yes I am aware of that and the status of AFHR is much like that of the Grand Lodge for Men & Women, here in the UK. This was the point of my comment about the GL4M&W, its Founders seceded from LDH due to the Paris aspect and now have an independent body. They weren't around when the statement was made about feminine Masonry in the UK as the GL4M&W was only started in 2001. Like your own they only fall foul (as do the HAFAF and OWF) of Rule Number 4; 4. That the membership of the Grand Lodge and individual Lodges shall be composed exclusively of men; and that each Grand Lodge shall have no Masonic intercourse of any kind with mixed Lodges or bodieswhich admit women to membership.I was only highlighting the further requirements (after 4 ) that the LDH doesn't meet. I have to point out that the UGLE would not start recognising Co-masonry in other countries, without first recognising it here. This is complicated by the fact that we, like you in the US, have two forms of Co-masonry (which do not recognise each other) here, one (GL4M&W) of which only falls foul of rule 4 and the other (LDH) which trips on several other requirements as well. If Co-masonry were to be recognised by the UGLE, I think that it would be in the form of the GL4M&W. So, there, my jurisdiction complies with these rules. But it will matter not at all for all that is needed to make this difficult is to come up with more excuses. this has been my experience. Excuses to justify the unjustifiable. As I said I didn't stick all of the rules in the post, I just supplied a link. It is very unlikely that we would come up with new rules, there are just the same old rules which we would have to decide to re-write and this of course would require enough of our members wanting the change in the first place. I'm not trying to fight it, I'm just naming it for what it is. I get that, likewise I'm not trying to promote or defend it but rather just to explain it and apply it in the same way that we would to a masculine GL asking to be recognised. I've mentioned, on a number of occasions, that the vast majority of my experiences with Malecraft Masons have been entirely positive. I have, however, noticed an increase in the not so positive. And as more attention is paid to Co-Masonry (ever mindful that I know of no Co-Masonic body that even seeks this attention), I expect the negative encounters to continue to escalate (based on my experience and that of my Co-Masonic BB who have been in the Craft longer than have I). I would love to be proven wrong on this matter but I don't think I will be. To be brutally honest, and this is only a UK perspective, but the majority of masculine Masons here are pretty well indifferent to concepts of Co and femnine Masonry. M
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 22, 2007 11:09:26 GMT
Bro Mike - I'm not at all sure I understand you when your subject is stated - What is wrong with the status quo? What is it that you don't you want changed? My simplified statement is that: I do not wish to see the three trunks (and their resultant branches) that have grown from the same root hacked down to leave just one grafted and spliced version. I want them all to just recognise the fact of their common lineage and live in harmony. M
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 22, 2007 23:37:27 GMT
I feel you have missed the point here Bro Wayseer.
Bro Lauderdale perhaps it is you who have missed the point ...
.... WE ARE NOT TRYING TO FORCE CHANGE ON THEM
I thought we were talking about what might be wrong with the status quo ie non-change.
But then I seem to get a lot of things wrong at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 22, 2007 23:40:30 GMT
I do not wish to see the three trunks (and their resultant branches) that have grown from the same root hacked down to leave just one grafted and spliced version. I want them all to just recognise the fact of their common lineage and live in harmony.
That is hardly the status quo.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 23, 2007 6:17:29 GMT
Hmmmmm. Bro. Mike, Rule #4 sounds like it should apply only to Malecraft lodges and should not stand in the way of recognizing Co-Masonic lodges. Just a thought
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Sept 23, 2007 8:43:30 GMT
Wayseer Replacing the VSL with blank pages - no need to believe in a Supreme Being - Law now become Lore - If this is what is meant by change then I have to seriously consider my association with the Craft - because the Craft will eventually be devalued to the LCD. Where then is excellence?
This is an example of some of the sillyness that exists - No need to believe in a supreme being. Who is going to make claim as to who or what such a being may be - Is your supreme being the same as mine? Which Buddhist God would you allow to be supreme, If your VSL is different from mine your VSL is certainly not Law to me - It is your Legend (Lore) for you. The sacred law of a Aboriginal, Blackfoot or an Inuit you would probably call Legend (Lore). Funny that word "Aboriginal" remove the Ab - and you have "Original" is their Sacred Lore older than yours .
None of the Mixes of Beings and Lores prevents a Man or Women from being an Excellent Mason
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 23, 2007 10:46:31 GMT
Bro Whistler you will note my previous paragraph to the one you elect to quote. Please re-read and you might gain a better understanding of what I am saying - and you will have to explain how changing the VSL for a book of blank pages could be considered any sort of Law, or Lore, when nothing therein is written.
What I am suggesting that change for change sake does not solve anything - in fact the type of change advocated throughout this thread is nothing more than political correctness and reduces everyone to the LCD.
I am not adverse to the taking of an oath on any recognised VSL - it is but a symbol for excellence and perfection - a symbolic statement as to the state of one's own wretchedness and ignorance - a sacred charge to do better.
... If your VSL is different from mine your VSL is certainly not Law to me
Now where have I suggested such?
This thread is about the status quo - which, as I understand the English language, means to leave things as they are. But, as I have already suggested - I've probably got it all wrong yet again.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Sept 23, 2007 16:07:22 GMT
I have been watching this thread and I can see and appreciate the passion some Brethren have on the subject. If I may offer this. The only thing wrong with the status quo is that a moratorium on brains has been called. Freemasons do not need to be controlled, nor should they be controlled. My current GL is a male ony organization. That is fine by me. So my lodge does not initiate, pass or raise women (some could say that fail to initiate a lot of our members also). What moral justification is there in telling a member of a lodge that he cannot visit a mixed gender lodge? He visits representing only himself as a Mason. The problem is not GL rules governing the GL. The problem is the governing outside of their jurisdiction, meaning governing what a man does in his free time.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 23, 2007 16:27:39 GMT
Totally agree Bro Brandt.
|
|