|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 27, 2007 13:15:07 GMT
Now lets get some reality in here
What is wrong with the Status Quo? « Thread Started on 21 Sept, 2007, 10:58 >>
Every time someone starts a thread on recognition it always creates a deal of interest. Here we have 6 pages in 6 days all good honest debate. But that has to indicate that most members are interested in the why and why not.
I have seen throats torn out over this issue and members storm off in disgust.
The reality is everyone is interested, if they were not interested they would not post. Since I have been posting - again and again the issue has been turned over and over so please don't say I am not interested in recognition as the evidence is so obviously to the contrary.
Cora, in my opinion your laboring under a misconception if you believe there would be a mass exodus if the rules were relaxed IMO. I know of no Mason in the Lodges I attend who has ever expressed an interest in doing so. And I do get around. The truth is 99.9% are quite happy with things the way they are.
If visitation were allowed I would be happy to visit, but I can not envisage that I would wish to change. Myself and my Wife are very happy with how things are, she gets rid of me occasionally and that suites here fine.
My point was this, that if I were in charge of LDH, just like if I were in charge of a Union, I would not want to risk a large group entering my organisation that were used to each other and well versed in the procedures of elections and progression through the ranks. Within months Arther Scargill could be the office boy again.
Now if you get an application from a Rui Gabrionni I would worry ;D
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Sept 27, 2007 13:44:43 GMT
Bill There is a difference between recognition and a get-together in a lodgeroom. I do not need recognition. I need no threats against the mainstream brethren who visit my lodge. If co-masonry is not masonry because not recognized, than why are mainstream masons expelled from their lodges after visiting LDH ot others? Isn't that a private thing then? If threats against visiting mainstream-masons will end because co-masonry is no-masonry, I will except the no-masonry-attitude. I do not need recognition by HRH The Duke of Kent. ;D Fraternal regards Ingo
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 27, 2007 14:55:17 GMT
I think that there is a possibilty that my laying out of the UGLE's recognition rules (a couple of pages ago) may have been missed. I won't post them again but I will remind you of my belief that if the UGLE were to extend "recognition" to Co-masonry in Engand it would not be to the LDH-BF but rather to the GL4M&W.
This would be due to LDH-BF's subordination to the Supreme Council of LDH (in Paris), this I feel, would actually be a bigger hurdle than the fact of mixed Lodges.
M
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 27, 2007 16:44:51 GMT
Now lets get some reality in here What is wrong with the Status Quo? « Thread Started on 21 Sept, 2007, 10:58 >> Every time someone starts a thread on recognition it always creates a deal of interest. Here we have 6 pages in 6 days all good honest debate. But that has to indicate that most members are interested in the why and why not. I have seen throats torn out over this issue and members storm off in disgust. The reality is everyone is interested, if they were not interested they would not post. Since I have been posting - again and again the issue has been turned over and over so please don't say I am not interested in recognition as the evidence is so obviously to the contrary. Cora, in my opinion your laboring under a misconception if you believe there would be a mass exodus if the rules were relaxed IMO. I know of no Mason in the Lodges I attend who has ever expressed an interest in doing so. And I do get around. The truth is 99.9% are quite happy with things the way they are. If visitation were allowed I would be happy to visit, but I can not envisage that I would wish to change. Myself and my Wife are very happy with how things are, she gets rid of me occasionally and that suites here fine. My point was this, that if I were in charge of LDH, just like if I were in charge of a Union, I would not want to risk a large group entering my organisation that were used to each other and well versed in the procedures of elections and progression through the ranks. Within months Arther Scargill could be the office boy again. Now if you get an application from a Rui Gabrionni I would worry ;D bill I feel you have misunderstood Cora post for you are actually echoing much of her comments.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 27, 2007 17:31:41 GMT
That's interesting Bro Mike, it simply isn't an issue for us in LDH that we have our "Head Office" (as it where) in Paris ands that we answer to a Supreme Council. They don't seem to "micro-manage" us as some GLs do their Lodges.
I assume some of the problems for UGLE would be the totally different nature of Rose Croix in LDH as opposed to that approved by UGLE.
To us it is all part of a continuity from 1st to 33rd Degree and part of the A&ASR. Under the UGLE system Rose Croix is a separate entity which a Brother if a Christian can join if they wish to. Yet in contrast, to us in LDH, Royal Arch is a separate Degree being York Rite not Scottish and we do not wear RA Breast Jewels in a Craft Lodge as UGLE Brethren do, but DO wear our A&ASR Collarettes of 18th or Higher as appropriate, I wear my 18th Degree one in Craft Lodge.
I honestly do not see UGLE Recognising LDH in my lifetime (I'm 54) and frankly I don't want it as I feel the price might be too great. Instead let us be Masonic cousins, giving each other a friendly wave as we pass by on opposite sides of the street, be it Gt Queens Street or Surbiton Hill Road.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 27, 2007 18:18:14 GMT
Leo I don't believe I did cora said: I just pointed out I do not believe there is any fear. Bill There is a difference between recognition and a get-together in a lodgeroom. I do not need recognition. I need no threats against the mainstream brethren who visit my lodge. If co-masonry is not masonry because not recognized, than why are mainstream masons expelled from their lodges after visiting LDH ot others? Isn't that a private thing then? If threats against visiting mainstream-masons will end because co-masonry is no-masonry, I will except the no-masonry-attitude. I do not need recognition by HRH The Duke of Kent. ;D Fraternal regards Ingo Well if the GL's recognised each other then there would be get togethers in Lodge , would there not ? or there seems little point in the recognition. The rules under UGLE do not say anything against other Masonic bodies, they do not point to any specific Masonic body at all. They just say you can not have membership of any Masonic Body or visit any group that is not recognised. You are assuming there is some kind of great need by the UGLE membership to attend LDH for example and there is not. So no threat exists on the basis that UGLE is not taking anything away that the member wishes to have. UGLE says : As you will know the recognition rules stumble on Now is says Masonically irregular, as far as UGLE's view. Masonic contact forbidden, not contact forbidden - which amounts to the same thing really. It does not say that everything except UGLE is not Freemasonry. It means in effect that 'LDH' and the 'Real Grand Lodge of England' are viewed with the same spectacles.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Sept 27, 2007 20:01:24 GMT
I find it ironic and really quite sad that many of todays so called "free thinkers" (aka Freemason)are so eager to place restrictions on themselves. One has to logically ask if that is in line with the history of Freemasonry. Since when did being enlightened become synonomous with mass conformity?
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 27, 2007 20:51:18 GMT
Cora, in my opinion your laboring under a misconception if you believe there would be a mass exodus if the rules were relaxed IMO. That's not what I said, Bill -- as Leo so rightly points out. I said that I believe GL fear a mass exodus. I also said, quite specifically:- Has it ever occurred to you that it might be a hell of a lot more daunting for a Bro:. in your jurisdiction to speak his mind to one of his own than to one of us? Let's rewrite that veracity statement of yours ... Whilst in your experience 99.9% may express satisfaction with the way things are, that is no guarantee as to what this 99.9% might really be thinking. That is exactly what I'm saying: the fear of an exodus is unfounded. As I said in my previous post:- Nor would I, and our internal procedures would prevent it from happening en masse.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 27, 2007 21:03:52 GMT
Since when did being enlightened become synonomous with mass conformity? You said it, Bro:.! ;D
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 27, 2007 21:50:22 GMT
I find it ironic and really quite sad that many of todays so called "free thinkers" (aka Freemason)are so eager to place restrictions on themselves. One has to logically ask if that is in line with the history of Freemasonry. Since when did being enlightened become synonomous with mass conformity? If I place restrictions on myself it is becuse I wish to see the benefit to the graeter good and not my own sellfish desires. The History of Freemasonry is filled with individuals of unsellfish devotion to the Institute of Freemasonry. What is it you call mass conformity?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 27, 2007 22:00:17 GMT
Cora, I don't know if you meant to or not but you said
I just replied
I cant see where the problem is. We have both just stated an opinion.
Now you may believe I do not know what my Brethren think, I believe I do. I am sure there will be many here then that will disagree with me and will no doubt say so soon.
I am saying now the same as what I have said on many, many occasions for some years, to date not one UGLE Freemason has disagreed with me, and I have gone out of my way to ask.
Well its just an idea for thought provocation.
But how would it work then if myself and 5,000 of my Pals decided to leave UGLE and with our wives join LDH that makes 10,000 votes.
I have been told that LDH is democratic it would seem my information is incorrect? So no matter how many you have methods of stopping us.
We had better stay with the Status Quo I think.
|
|
|
Post by thedixiemason on Sept 27, 2007 22:03:28 GMT
I find it ironic and really quite sad that many of todays so called "free thinkers" (aka Freemason)are so eager to place restrictions on themselves. One has to logically ask if that is in line with the history of Freemasonry. Since when did being enlightened become synonomous with mass conformity? I have no "dog in this fight," but, mass conformity is not necessarily due to lack of enlightenment. In many cases it is quite the opposite. With that argument, you could easily claim that all law abiding citizens are "unenlightened mass conformists" because they obey the laws. And that view would be ridiculous... Spiritually enlightened people do create laws, and they are usually created because certain leaders had the wisdom to see that something needed regulation. If the laws are beneficial, then the "enlightened" ones conform, and the "unenlightened" ones become outlaws.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Sept 27, 2007 22:16:37 GMT
I find it ironic and really quite sad that many of todays so called "free thinkers" (aka Freemason)are so eager to place restrictions on themselves. One has to logically ask if that is in line with the history of Freemasonry. Since when did being enlightened become synonomous with mass conformity? I have no "dog in this fight," but, mass conformity is not necessarily due to lack of enlightenment. In many cases it is quite the opposite. With that argument, you could easily claim that all law abiding citizens are "unenlightened mass conformists" because they obey the laws. And that view would be ridiculous... Spiritually enlightened people do create laws, and they are usually created because certain leaders had the wisdom to see that something needed regulation. If the laws are beneficial, then the "enlightened" ones conform, and the "unenlightened" ones become outlaws. Chances are that many of the same Masons that you revere were anything but conformists. Ben Franklin, Fredrick The Great, Voltaire. Most revolutions throughout the world had some stamp of Freemasonry associated with them. Should the laws become oppresive,unjust and inhumaine, a Freemason will rebel and history has shown us as such. Freemasonry is about the advancement of mankind.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 27, 2007 22:33:07 GMT
Cora, I don't know if you meant to or not but you said Nope -- you have misinterpreted my words. In saying "if you believe there would be a mass exodus" you imply an understanding that I personally hold that belief, whereas my statement was that I believe GL fears such an exodus. I personally, as I have previously stated and repeated, do not share that belief. Accuracy and precision are essential for the proper conduct of our lives -- let's stick to the facts and not allow ourselves to be side-tracked by false interpretations. I didn't say that, Bill -- you're taking matters personal where no personal implication was intended. I said:- Last time I checked there were about 350,000 Brn:. a Bro:. of your jurisdiction can rightly consider "one of his own". I think you're being a bit naive here, Bill. Knowing that visiting a co-masonic lodge is considered countenancing "a clandestine meeting for masonic purposes", do you really believe a Bro:. under your jurisdiction who had visited a co-masonic lodge would volunteer that information? And they would be taken in due time, in accordance with ability. This I do not understand; can you clarify, please? Where does this notion of "stopping you" come from?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 27, 2007 23:48:17 GMT
Cora
Honestly I am taking nothing personally. These are academic enquiries.
Exactly, thats what you said. All I replied was I dont think so.
OK I see the hair thats being split I said
I shall scrub the above and change it to
- However the answer is still the same. There is no fear.
Hells Bells Cora I know a Mason who has been visiting UGLE for years and has no Lodge. You have a very strange opinion of us UGLE Masons Cora, we are just ordinary blokes, nothing special. I could not care less if a UGLE Mason visted LDH, that is a matter for him, Freemasonry works on an honor system I certainly would not be the one to turn him in. God, I have not been called niave for 30 years. Thanks I feel so much younger.
That brings up an interesting question, has anyone ever been thrown out of UGLE for visiting LDH, I shall ask elswhere as well. But does anyone know?
I posed the hyperthetical question:
you answered
So I was interested to learn if LDH is democratic how would the internal proceedures stop the influx of member from voting themselves in to power, thats all.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 28, 2007 0:45:17 GMT
Spiritually enlightened people do create laws, and they are usually created because certain leaders had the wisdom to see that something needed regulation. If the laws are beneficial, then the "enlightened" ones conform, and the "unenlightened" ones become outlaws. How does this sit with death sentancing? God says "Thou shalt not kill" Law says "Kill" Who is enlightened? The keeper of the commandment or the keeper of the law? Maat
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 28, 2007 7:22:51 GMT
- However the answer is still the same. There is no fear. Ah now, that's better. Just as long as we're clear on the facts, and that it is recognised that I do not believe there will be such an exodus. As to whether or not there is fear, I respectfully beg to differ, but that is based on personal perception only, and I will be the first to acknowledge that perceptions do not necessarily match with fact. You may not, but others would, and have. I still don't get it. We are still talking about the hypothetical scenario of a mass influx from UGLE, are we? Maybe your processes work differently, but for us, before one can even ponder rising through the ranks, one must be ballotted in as a member first, so I simply don't understand where this "voting themselves into power" idea comes from.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 28, 2007 10:32:59 GMT
Cora
OK, maybe it is only me that gets this so I will go slowly.
Let us say you were on a camaign to recruit UGLE members to come over to join LDH [hypothetically ]
Over the next year in the UK 5,000 defected from UGLE then there would potentially be 10,000 new LDH members. [hypothetically ]
Now if they were like me 20 plus year Freemasons then they would be well aware of the benefits of voting their Pals into positions within LDH that make the decisions. It would not be long before this 'happy band' of ex UGLE Freemasons actually took over the UK operation of the LDH network. [hypothetically ]
On another thread here I see posted:
So then out of a worldwide membership of 37,000 - 10,000 would be ex UGLE and all here in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 28, 2007 11:20:23 GMT
Let us say you were on a camaign to recruit UGLE members to come over to join LDH [hypothetically ] Wouldn't happen, but I accept the premise for hypothetical purposes. Ah. I see. Truthfully, that had never even occurred to me. I was coming at it from a brotherly angle rather than a political one. I guess it's me who was being naive in this particular respect. I suppose one would have to consider the [hypothetical] possibility of such a hostile take-over, although I would much prefer an approach based on the 3 grand pillars upon which freemasonry is founded. This conversation has been an eye-opener. I have to admit I am shocked that the notion of such ill intents would even occur to a Bro:., but then again I have only 18 months of experience, as compared to your impressive 20+ years. All I can say is that I genuinely hope yours is not an approach common to UGLE.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 28, 2007 13:37:21 GMT
This conversation has been an eye-opener. I have to admit I am shocked that the notion of such ill intents would even occur to a Bro:., but then again I have only 18 months of experience, as compared to your impressive 20+ years. All I can say is that I genuinely hope yours is not an approach common to UGLE. I know that this isn't Bill's MO but still it is quite an intriguing thought isn't it. However, take heart as although such a move might gain some kind of controlling vote in LDH-BF, it wouldn't affect LDH as a whole. A look at LDH's history shows that there have been quite a few local (read national) schisms and only one really major (read international) one (in 2002). LDH seems to come out these fine so it wouldn't cause a problem internationally. M
|
|