|
Post by whistler on Nov 1, 2004 1:57:27 GMT
Some Masons see Freemasonry as a brotherhood that does charitable works, and teaches high morals. For those I wonder. What if Masonic lodges retained everything they have and do now except the Ritual and perhaps the working tools. It would be possible for a Modern Author to write modern morality plays, the tools could be replaced with modern tools that would provide exactly the same allegory and lessons. Would it still be Freemasonry?
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Nov 1, 2004 7:25:40 GMT
The author would have to be a mason to write those plays.The Wts are reprensative of a moral so without them this would be lost.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Nov 1, 2004 9:02:04 GMT
Firstly, congrats on your Forum, Bro Lee, you have done all the hard work and saved me having to set one up ;D
Back to Topic. I would find that an interesting concept, Freemasonry with modern set of legends etc but I don't know if it would appeal to me personally.
|
|
|
Post by adder on Nov 1, 2004 14:00:05 GMT
It would only take a few like-minded folks to start one. There are enough self-initiated Wicca and Golded Dawn type groups around these days.
|
|
|
Post by Jumile on Nov 1, 2004 14:05:48 GMT
Hi all,
I'm very pleased to see the contentious sub-forums on esoterica. Although an ignorant novice myself, I can appreciate the benefit of having the opportunity to air and discuss such things. ;D
The topic. Although I have no doubt a modern author could perform the task, my suspicion is that it wouldn't provide us with as much depth or cause for discussion and thirst for research. After all, how many Masons do you know who are omniscient with regards to the numerous and hidden layers of meaning within our ritual? Or are likely ever to be?
|
|
|
Post by atarnaris on Nov 1, 2004 14:09:34 GMT
I think Bro Steve has posted an excellent alternative a while ago on the tfm.forum. I wonder whether we could find that...
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Nov 1, 2004 18:39:55 GMT
The hidden layers are there if you look for them and to two different brothers a piece of ritual will give cause to two differnt opinions about what it means so it would be very hard to write "a play" as suggested.
What would you use to replace the Working tools and what sybolic meaning would you give them.
In operative terms there are some people who would never have sen a plumb rule in their lives let alone actually use one or some of the other WTs
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 1, 2004 19:35:12 GMT
This alternative is for Masons who look at a gavel and see only a gavel.. There are some like that in all Lodges - and if it works for them that is ok by me..
Now re the working tools .. Many young people haven't a clue what an inch is let alone a 24' Guage is but he does know that 3 bytes are 24 bits. Give a Young person a pencil they wouldn't know how to sharpen it let alone what to do with it.. Give them a Keyboard and they can write a ritual. Give the a compass and rule and they only draw a mess, give them a cad program and they can draw a diamond ring.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Nov 1, 2004 19:44:21 GMT
Whistler,Sadly or not times change and we must adapt or lives and ways to suit or we WILL get left behind and end up lonely.
|
|
|
Post by Jumile on Nov 2, 2004 0:47:37 GMT
With much respect to Bro Whistler's response, I feel obliged to point out that it's not just the current generation who are unfamilar with the working tools. I'm sure many older non-Masons would be as equally in the dark. (If you'll excuse the pun). There is something to be said for making any organisation more appealing to its target audience, but I feel there is just as much - if not more - to be said for maintaining its integrity and austerity. As the song goes, "Do not trust anyone who tries to update Shakespeare for the kids." (John Safran's parody of "Everybody's Free"). My approach and route to Freemasonry was such that I didn't expect an inch of deviation from whatever requirements were made of me. I am a new Mason and I would not have respected it if it had tried to be "hip" and relate to me. To borrow a question from a similar argument: who exactly are we trying to cater for? And why? From 17-21 I was an active Christian, and time and time again I saw the decision-makers of my church wailing and gnashing their teeth about the decline in membership, how they needed more people, why weren't they coming. All this with the steely resolve to never set a foot outside the door - they wanted it all to come to them. How on earth can you bring in people if you don't go out and find them? It was terribly frustrating. I am aware of the restrictions on recruiting, but there's much that can be done within the acceptable boundaries. All this without having to alter who and what we are. I'm concerned the next step will be drive-through degrees. Would you like Chapter with that? None of this is to say that I think we shouldn't employ new and innovative methods of attracting Candidates...
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 2, 2004 3:10:35 GMT
Jumile, Good to see a posting from you, I am sure it is your good engliash manners, but you never need to preface a response to one of my posts with " With respect to", I am always happy to hear peoples views if they agree or disagree with me.
This whole thread goes back to another forum. As example we had in our lodge a member who was a wonderful practical craftsman, and he did wonders with the maintenance of our lodge but could not see anything beyond the material - He was a great person and a great Freemason. On another forum there was a regular poster who could not see anything beyond the ritual as written in his book. He also I think is an excellant Mason. It was for those people I posted this thread.
For me personally I love the old words and because I believe in the power of our ritual and how it effects the etheric plane I certainly wouldn't want a change - without very careful study and consideration
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Nov 2, 2004 14:15:52 GMT
Whistler: What if Masonic lodges retained everything they have and do now except the Ritual and perhaps the working tools. It would be possible for a Modern Author to write modern morality plays, the tools could be replaced with modern tools that would provide exactly the same allegory and lessons. Would it still be Freemasonry? Answer: Whistler, you hit the point! If you consider the Anthroposophist Society after Rudolf Steiner you will find exactly that what you described. Steiner invented a four-plays-grade-system with tempels etc. etc. based on the Memphis Misraim Rite and on charitable work for the poor. Steiner was politically suited left-wing. His descendants turned into the opposite direction. They killed Steiners masonry and cut off every link to freemasonry that also means the chraritable work. What is left is some kind of hardliners which stay for themselves and created a society within the society. The Walldorf-schools were invented by Steiner to bring knowledge to the less well-off. This is logic if you consider Annie Besant, who initiated Steiner into Co-Masonry or Louis Goiazou, the french-american coal-miners-leader doing the same. The anthroposophist medicine, which was not invented by Steiner himself but of his good friend Alexander von Bernus in the Heidelberg monastery (Stift Neuburg) had to bring medical aid to the poor. Now - without masonry - everything changed: There are moral teachings and plays left - but no social behavoiur. Anthroposophist medicine cannot be afforded that easily and the Walldorf schools create some kind of new social elite without social habit!
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Nov 4, 2004 11:25:09 GMT
Though Steiner's four Mystery Plays are indeed embedded in esoteric lore, I would neither see them as replacing Freemasonry, nor as being Masonic.
It should also be noted that Steiner was not initiated by Besant into Co-Freemasonry LDH, but rather was involved, for a while, in another co-masonic constitution using the Memphis-Misraim rite, for which he procurred a warrant from Reuss (prior to this latter's OTO engagements).
The first Waldorf school was started and funded by the Waldorf cigarette company for the children of the workers after the end of WWI, and not just for the poor, but for all the children of the workers, at the behest of its CEO who was also an Anthroposophist. That some Steiner/Waldorf schools around the world have a possible exclusivity is more a reflection as to the need for funding structures in various societies which sees the need for fees which precludes some on very low income, than the implication made.
Likewise, anthroposophical medicine (and farming, for that matter), is 'expensive' in some places - but certainly no more than other medicine, depending on the social conditions of the community one lives in.
If one reads through Steiner's works, it should be quite clear that he was not a left-wing socialist - and in fact was quite critical of socialist ideals, which he considered made precisely the same errors as right-wing capitalist ones. Rather, his description of what he called the three-fold commonwealth requires a quite radical shift in ways of viewing society.
Steiner disbanded his co-masonic order which was based on the MM rite prior to WWI. For those interested, most of his Masonic materials is found in a series of lectures titled The Temple Legend (for those who read German, Die Tempellegende und die Goldene Legende) GA 93.
Besant/Leadbeater and Steiner certainly were at odds on numerous fronts - including their respective views on Freemasonry, on the Krishnamurti affair, and in their level of spiritual understanding. For myself, I edge more on Steiner's than on either Besant or Leadbeater's works.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Nov 5, 2004 12:24:48 GMT
jmd You are right, Steiner was not a socialist. I did not say that. I just said that he was politically left-wing. I guess that he did not join the socialist for various reasons, he was surrounded by well-off middle-class and aristocratic women, so he had a very different life-style than any worker. Maybe he did not join either because he dislieked Annie Besant who was a socialist before. But - on the other hand - a attitude towards social developpment was very popular in Germany at that time and was a great difference to the so-called "old prussian" (that means conservative) grand Lodges" The ideas of the fabian society or the reform wing of the Socialdemocrats had great influence! His first school was indeed for the workers of the Walldorf cigarette company. Bit if you consider how workers in Germany lived and earned at that time, you can consider them as poor. A ordinry worker could be happy when his company offered housing for his familiy and warm meals during the day. Most did not. The same thing with education. You could be happy when your kids were able to go to school for four years. After this, at the age of 11,12 most of the kids had to work in the factories! As I said I do not consider his plays as masonry but influenced by masonry. The hierarchie coming from TS (the same in the AS) reveals "secrets" only to the higher ranks. You can become an "ordinary" member of the TS or AS. But only in the higher ranks you are offered to enter masonry. You have to join Arcane school, esoteric school..... before. The plays are for the ordinary members and therefore they are not masonry.
|
|