|
Post by brandt on Sept 26, 2007 16:29:45 GMT
Are you recommending that Masons do nothing in the world around them until they are perfect? If that is the case we are a part of a perfectly irrelevent society.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 26, 2007 16:45:46 GMT
Extending outwards before working on yourself, is not indicated anywhere in Masonic tenetts. Plus its not a good idea. This is similar to an expression I sometimes use: you must first look in, before you can look out.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 26, 2007 17:40:33 GMT
I would agree with Bro Bill in that I would have no wish to be swamped by UGLE Brethren if they wanted to stage a takeover and turn us into a clone of UGLE with PGMS, their big "Charities", Ladies Nights, Raffles, Stewards having to serve wine at table, their Honours System, "Masonic" Clay Pigeon Shoots and Car Rallies etc, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the Three Craft Degrees being hived off from the rest of A&ASR and run on its own.
Having some visit us and take us for what we are and our way of doing things and either remaining in their own GL or leaving UGLE and joining us is a different matter and that of course is what I did.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 26, 2007 17:47:09 GMT
on a positive note, if they did come in droves and eventually decided to become part of LDH we'd see a lot more Co-Masonic lodges set up
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Sept 26, 2007 18:56:30 GMT
Would those who are currently interested in the UGLE who also wanted o be LDH be interested in changing the LDH to be more than the UGLE? Isn't it possible that they can like both UGLE social club Masonry and be members of the LDH for the more esoteric nature it offers?
I will give an example. I am a member of the Golden Dawn and also a Freemason. They are both different and they both serve different aspects of my needs.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 26, 2007 19:13:04 GMT
Are you recommending that Masons do nothing in the world around them until they are perfect? If that is the case we are a part of a perfectly irrelevent society. Brandt No of course not perfection is unattainable, I only know of one perfect being and they crusified him. OK we go to school, we learn we all attain different levels of excellence, but that does not make the school irrelevant. Freemasonry IMO is a tool not the destination of all things. What you seem to be implying is intervention, that has no part in any Masonic teaching that I know about. Lets look at the some of the greatest influence by individuals on society, Jesus, Ghandi, Mohamed. What made them so influencial was there own conduct. Their example to others.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 26, 2007 19:16:55 GMT
I would agree with Bro Bill in that I would have no wish to be swamped by UGLE Brethren if they wanted to stage a takeover and turn us into a clone of UGLE with PGMS, their big "Charities", Ladies Nights, Raffles, Stewards having to serve wine at table, their Honours System, "Masonic" Clay Pigeon Shoots and Car Rallies etc, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the Three Craft Degrees being hived off from the rest of A&ASR and run on its own. Having some visit us and take us for what we are and our way of doing things and either remaining in their own GL or leaving UGLE and joining us is a different matter and that of course is what I did. That is my problem , why ? why oh why is it so important to many to be recognised by UGLE if there is so many things wrong with it wy does it always generate so much interest? For those who do not enjoy freemasonry under UGLE, you are quite right they should leave, if they wish to join LDH then God Bless them.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 26, 2007 19:25:12 GMT
Would those who are currently interested in the UGLE who also wanted o be LDH be interested in changing the LDH to be more than the UGLE? Isn't it possible that they can like both UGLE social club Masonry and be members of the LDH for the more esoteric nature it offers? I will give an example. I am a member of the Golden Dawn and also a Freemason. They are both different and they both serve different aspects of my needs. Aaaagh we get to it then. Is it about your needs as an individual or the needs of the many. Steve and I have had this debate too many times for it to be healthy to go over it again but as your comment needs some answers I have to touch on it. Some are in Freemasonry for what they can get out of it personally and some for what they can put in. Only the individual knows what camp they are in. now there is nothing wrong with doing things for ones own benefit I just think there are more rewards in doing things for the greater good, in other words what Steve calls 'blind obedience 'I call unsellfish dedication'. Niether of us is right or wrong we just see things differently. This is why I support the Satus Quo argument because as it is you can choose, if all were the same you would have no choice.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 26, 2007 19:27:05 GMT
I have to say that I didn't join LDH to be dragged back into UGLE by the back door and I am glad that all the LDH Brethren I have met so far would not wish to change the Nature and Practices of our Obedience any more than the likes of Bill, Keith and others here who are in UGLE and Amity would wish to make great and radical changes to their Grand Lodges.
Having been in both and I can only think of one other occasional poster to this forum who did it in the other direction namely LDH to UGLE, I am well aware of the similarities but also of the great differences in lifestyle and philosophy between these two Masonic Bodies.
As a comparison let us consider the Christian Religion. Most Churches agree on the central tenets but in their individual Liturgies, Doctrines, Dogmas and practices they are greatly different and what may suit a Roman Catholic may be totally unacceptable to a Baptist and vice versa.
In like manner there are Freemasons such as myself who found the Social side in UGLE to be a boring tedious irrelevance and distraction, were cynical about the large "Charities" and the need for same in this modern day and age when there are well known charities for ever cause from A-Z, and who became inimical to the system of Governance and the Honours System under UGLE and felt that it was not the vehicle for the deeper and more Esoteric aspects I was primarily interested in. I found what I wanted in LDH and am happy as a result and that the presence of the female Energies introduced a Harmony and Balance I could not find in Malecraft.
However I have no desire to force my system of Freemasonry on those who prefer the UGLE version, they are as entitled to that as I and my Brethren are to ours and the Women Only Masons are to theirs.
I would have no wish to see the Catholic-Bapto-Methodo-Episcopal-Church of Great Britain, nor do I have any wish to see a "one size fits all Freemasonry" Both such bodies would be doomed to failure. Instead I feel there is Strength in Diversity and I am a firm believer in Freedom of Choice.
Let us continue to have the various types of Freemasonry, Co-Masonry, Malecraft, Women Only, and Grand Orient for those who do not accept a Supreme Being. Obviously there are large recognition issues involved but those are a matter for the GLs/GOs and Obediences at High Level.
As an ordinary Freemason I accept all such as Brothers, even if I cannot visit their Lodges in some cases nor they mine.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Sept 26, 2007 19:31:54 GMT
Gipsy Rose I am always 150% behind 'UGLE and similar male-craft organisations to be OK with a man attending a co-masonic lodge if he so wishes" Beyond that I find my various Masonics tasks so absorbing both in time, and mental effort - that this whole Status Quo business a trivial non-event.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 26, 2007 23:07:50 GMT
"Suffice it to say that what you find Praiseworthy in others you should carefully imitate, and what in them may appear defective you should in yourself amend". "what in them may appear defective you should in yourself amend"Takes one to know one? ;D That should keep us all humble for a while. I am also reminded of words in the Lord's Prayer.... "and forgive us as we forgive them." If we do not forgive are we the unforgiven who put ourselves in 'hell'? Love yous all Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 26, 2007 23:36:28 GMT
If indeed the visitation rules were relaxed LDH would I suggest run the risk of being swamped by the UGLE membership. The same could be said for female Craft. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Bill - you light up my life!!! - yer in! Love Maat
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 27, 2007 0:08:59 GMT
Exactly maat, the words may change but the tune stays the same.
Muslims are ever-hopeful for God's mercy. Among their names for him: Ar-Rahman, Arabic for Merciful Benefactor. In seeking his forgiveness, they look to the example of the Prophet Muhammad. Though chosen by God to bring the message of Islam, Muhammad felt the need to ask for forgiveness from Allah throughout each day. "If our prophet -- who was the best among us -- asked for forgiveness, then we must also ask for forgiveness for all our wrongs and shortcomings," says Khalil Akbar, imam (prayer leader) at Masjid Ash-Shaheed, a Charlotte mosque. "Truly, Allah loves those who repent, and He loves those who cleanse themselves."
For Christians, forgiving others is a spiritual duty. In the New Testament, Jesus tells his apostle Peter to forgive another not just seven times, but 70 times 7. "That means numberless times. In the New Testament of the Bible, Jesus teaches his followers a prayer. In the Our Father, also known as the Lord's Prayer, Christians ask God to "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" (Matthew 6:9-13).
The Buddha, who lived 2,600 years ago, counseled against holding on to hurts and grudges. "In those who harbor such thoughts as `He abused me, he struck me, he overcame me, he robbed me,' hatred never ceases. In those who do not harbor such thoughts, hatred will cease."
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Sept 27, 2007 1:14:34 GMT
Would those who are currently interested in the UGLE who also wanted o be LDH be interested in changing the LDH to be more than the UGLE? Isn't it possible that they can like both UGLE social club Masonry and be members of the LDH for the more esoteric nature it offers? I will give an example. I am a member of the Golden Dawn and also a Freemason. They are both different and they both serve different aspects of my needs. Aaaagh we get to it then. Is it about your needs as an individual or the needs of the many. Steve and I have had this debate too many times for it to be healthy to go over it again but as your comment needs some answers I have to touch on it. Some are in Freemasonry for what they can get out of it personally and some for what they can put in. Only the individual knows what camp they are in. now there is nothing wrong with doing things for ones own benefit I just think there are more rewards in doing things for the greater good, in other words what Steve calls 'blind obedience 'I call unsellfish dedication'. Niether of us is right or wrong we just see things differently. This is why I support the Satus Quo argument because as it is you can choose, if all were the same you would have no choice. Sometimes getting out of it and putting into it have to be one in the same.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Sept 27, 2007 1:32:07 GMT
Bro Bill, I certainly hope in looking closely at the activities of their founder, they do not seek to emulate his actions too readily. billmcelligot also asks #106: "why is it so important to many to be recognised by UGLE if there is so many things wrong with it wy does it always generate so much interest?" The reply is simple and and complex or multifold at the same time. On the one hand, many of the largest and oldest GLs in all English speaking countries have for a long time denied that anything other than what they decide is genuine or regular Freemasonry, and publicly so. It leaves the many other legitimate and regular forms of Freemasonry having to, until more recently, defend their claims and often be abused or frankly put down as frauds. Importantly, however, that the largest and best known GLs in the English speaking world have only denied the existence of, for example, LDH and others, but dishonestly done so. It is high time that recognition of the variety is officially stated... and of course I also acknowledge that the last ten years has seen some shifts in this direction at the behest of a few prominant Freemasons. _____ But let me also reply to parts of Bro Wayseer's earlier post #84 "Others have commented that the ethics they abide by are somehow innate to them apparently ignoring the fact that we are all born with a clean slate [...]" I cannot agree with this - this concept of tabula rasa was perhaps something that was generally held by our forerunners and undoubtedly some of our peers, but would suggest that we are not born with a 'clean slate', but rather with dispositions and inclinations and the ability to discriminate once our faculties become sufficiently developed. Of course, these will develop in a social context, but that does not mean that moral judgements are socially determined. In fact, when a supposed moral judgement is made based not on its ethical but rather its cultural or social embedding, we may rightly call into question its morality. The quote above continues: "[...] while others claim that they have no need of any VSL to direct them but, again, apparently ignoring the fact that they are members of a Lodge or at least participating in a Masonic forum." Numerous volumes may be used to inspire and cause reflection - as, importantly, social engagements, our peers, and other forms of knowledge-interactions. This is quite different to being ' directed' by them. In fact, I would suggest that no volume no matter how much deemed sacred should be used to direct one's reflections or actions without approaching such with due discrimination. The converse of doing so results in the numerous atrocities committed in the name of religion to which history has all too often been witness. This does not prevent me from holding dear and sacred the Tanakh and Gospels; or holding with as much respect the Eightfold Path; or considering with deep import tarot and Philosophy of Freedom. A blind 'direction' from any of these, however, is meaningless. As to the ensuing sentence, viz that "others have tried to convince me that GL is somehow controlling their personal lives", in the context this is quite clear - and we have seen evidence of this in this Forum by statements that some brethren will not consider visiting LDH until such time as their GL says it is permissible to do so (despite the fact that one would visit as a Freemason, not as a representative of any such GL). And finally, I cannot agree that "The mirror represents our true nature, pure and undefiled".... a mirror is at best useful for two aspects: as a reflection of the form a body has; and to diffuse light in altered directions. _____ With gipsyrose on post #88, I too would like (paraphrased here in my own fashion): - the mutual recognition of all Masonic obediences/jurisdictions/constitutions; and
- for individual Lodges to determine their participants, irrespective of religion, gender or ethnic ancestry.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Sept 27, 2007 6:48:51 GMT
Leo It was just a joke. The first GM of AFuAM Germany called his RH Duke of Kent "the pope of Freemasonry" and his RH was not really amused. But thats the way it is. If there is a pope there must be believers and non-believers. And somebody is there to decide wether you are the one or the other. Bill I do not want to be recognized by mainstream masonry, there is no need for. I just would like the threats reduced for mainstream brethren who visit our lodges. Esp. german brethren should call it "Gestapo"-like behaviour and fight it, but they do not. Maybe I would not either if I would be at their part. Fraternal regards Ingo
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 27, 2007 7:53:07 GMT
Leo It was just a joke. The first GM of AFuAM Germany called his RH Duke of Kent "the pope of Freemasonry" and his RH was not really amused. But thats the way it is. If there is a pope there must be believers and non-believers. And somebody is there to decide wether you are the one or the other. Ingo Thanks Ingo. I was admittedly rather a little confused by your question but decided to answer honestly rather than assume it humorous. Thanks for clearing that up and explaining your reasons.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 27, 2007 10:34:55 GMT
Bro Bill is correct. LDH, and I would assume other Co-Masonic Bodies, do not NEED Recognition by UGLE and its Associated GLs etc. We have been going for over 100 years in LDH without.
It would be nice were our big cousins in Gt Queen Street to acknowledge the existence of alternative branches of Freemasonry such as Co-Masonry , much as they do for the two Woman Only Bodies in the UK, OWF and HFAF , rather than lump us in with the rather patronising "Bodies imitative of Freemasonry".
However it really doesn't matter in the end.
As to UGLE Brethern attending Co-Masonic Meetings I feel that the real reason that this is banned by the Grand Lodge is for fear of defections. I don't suppose they could care less about a single Brother "Crossing the Floor" from time to time, but if they removed the ban on their Members attending then more might do so and that could be quite a bit in Annual Capitation Fees, Grand Charity Payments etc, etc.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Sept 27, 2007 12:04:42 GMT
One has to protect the bank accounts. Income is important. I am open to hear another reason for the ban. Since it obviously wrong to view it as controlling personal lives what is the purpose?
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 27, 2007 12:07:31 GMT
If indeed the visitation rules were relaxed LDH would I suggest run the risk of being swamped by the UGLE membership. Which I believe to be exactly the reason why UGLE don't relax the rules -- they fear an exodus. And I say that belief / fear is not properly thought through. If a man truly prefers to practice his craft in a male-only environment, that will not change because he is free to experience the same in a mixed environment. What you might see, though, is a great relief at being able to attend his wife's IPRs in her lodge, though, and a considerable increase in his respect for his GL for taking such a brave and contraversial decision. But ultimately, if there was mutual intervisitation, UGLE members would have no need to 'cross the floor', because they could stay loyal to their GL, practice in their preferred environment, and/or be part of their wives' ceremonies. They could expand their horizons and experience different ways of approaching freemasonry without fear of retribution. And the same goes for members of OWF and HFAF, of course! The exodus won't happen. Some will find they are better suited to co-masonry, and they will cross the floor. Others will find their curiosity satisfied pretty quickly and realise that although the grass may see greener on the other side, there is, after all, no place like home. I believe the various GLs and SCs are critically underestimating their members' loyalty, and that is something that needs to change. The critical point, of course, remains the implication of such intervisitation: recognition. At its most basic it is a matter of landmarks, at its most convoluted an issue of old grief compounded by mutual distrust and misinformation. It ain't pretty, and it sure as heck ain't masonic. Following the basic line of recognition: intervisitation implies recognition. Recognition by a male only order of feminine and co-masonry means a fundamental change of the "unchangeable" landmarks, and it would take a great deal of courage to do that. Still ... I can see it happening. The times are a-changing, and today's couples won't put up with gender segregation unless they can be convinced that the practice can be justified. Good luck on arguing that case. Today's couples want to spend time together, and specifically want to share their special moments, such as an IPR. If the single-gender GLs won't relax their rules on intervisitation, they will find candidates will look for masonic bodies that do admit men and women on equal footing. Nor do I, but to be truthful, I don't see anyone expressing such a "hunger". To demand another GL's recognition is to undermine the authority of your own, which in extremis could be construed as a breach of obligation because it flies straight in the face of our solemn promise to uphold and maintain the laws and constitution of our SC / GL. In non-legalese: if I should be clamouring for recognition from, say, UGLE, I would effectively be denying the authority of my own Supreme Council! I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here: the only earthly authority that has the right to declare me (ir)regular is the Supreme Council of the International Order of Co-freemasonry "Le Droit Humain", seated in Paris, France. How any other masonic authority chooses to define me is of no consequence to me. S&F, Cora
|
|