|
Post by ingo on Jul 21, 2005 9:21:36 GMT
;D
|
|
|
Post by Siontific on Jul 21, 2005 18:44:46 GMT
Do we assume, Ingo, from the icons that you are trying to be contensious?
What is it that men have that women too can't offer? Apart from a different perspective.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jul 21, 2005 20:42:11 GMT
Do we assume, Ingo, from the icons that you are trying to be contensious?
Answer: No!
What is it that men have that women too can't offer? Apart from a different perspective.
Answer: Nothing, but in a different perspektive. And vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jul 21, 2005 20:44:00 GMT
But I assumed that at least one of the forumites would write the first question...
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Jul 21, 2005 20:52:50 GMT
Ingo,maybe you cannot see clearly through those rose tinted co masonic spectacles.
You see ,the male only masons here fully support the women only or co masons.
If you are looking for contention then i am sure there are a few other fora who will be pleased to obliged.
This forum definitely attracts IMO the more open minded and likewise its forumites would not put the first question primarily.
You will no doubt see that the karma and harmony here are like we are all on the waccy.
Chill man !!!
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jul 22, 2005 6:50:49 GMT
Ok, Staffs.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jul 22, 2005 10:05:06 GMT
"...through those rose tinted co masonic spectacles." Staffs, as a researcher for Co-Masonry I cannot wear rose tinted spectacles. If you will do some research on this subject in your own - maybe you did - you will find - as I did - a lot of things not understandable, not tolerable, some even totally idiotic. I have to say that if the Co-Masons and Adoptive Masons in 17th and 18th century would have spent more time on organisation and some less in ideas, we would have the same unbroken history and lineage as male-only masonry has. But, in fact, we often have little pieces of puzzle of the ideas and rituals and not miles of documentary in archives What a pity, but that is so.
|
|
|
Post by Bondi on Jul 22, 2005 11:26:15 GMT
Well I have to admit, I have voted option number one.
Although before anyone jumps on me for doing so, I will explain my reasoning.
To me a Mason is Male, 21+, with faith, thats' how I have been taught.
That is not to say that no other combination of the above cannot have, and show, the same qualities I hold dear to my own life.
I live by the many virtues held dear to Christians, but I do not expect to be called a Christian, as I miss out on the major factors of the doctrine.
I know first aid, but would not call myself a doctor.
And in the same vein, to be a Freemason you are Male, 21+ and of faith, I cannot call a Woman a Freemason.
I know life is not so black and white, but in my experience the many women that are part of "women only lodges" and "co-masonry" are not so bothered whether they are called Freemasons, but more that they are conferred the same respect as Freemasons, to which I openly oblige. However there are those that are hell bent on being called "Freemason", which to me shows they miss the point of it anyway. IMO.
To which I would say there is a flaw in the question, Freemason is a "title" not a description and it describes a male only membership and therefore the poll itself is flawed.
|
|
|
Post by a on Jul 22, 2005 13:10:49 GMT
However there are those that are hell bent on being called "Freemason", which to me shows they miss the point of it anyway. IMO. I agree. Reason: you either are or are not a Freemason by your actions, the way that you have come to live your life. There is a huge difference between substance and form. Following from my comments above, I would suggest that as true Freemasons illuminate the way through their actions (from the view of others), the term "description" is more suitable than the term "title". Also your comment about describing a male only membership, is perhaps because you have chosen to join a male only fraternity. And, quite rightly, have conformed to its ways. From a global perspective however, male only is only one part of Freemasonry. Ladies and comasonry are not insubstantial in our world. Anyway back to the poll question. The timeline of the part of Freemasonry which acts as an effective guardian to the ancient mysteries, would I am sure (hope) always have had relative balance and hence femine energy. And while males do have femine energy so theoretically it would be possible to achieve balance male only, practically having a balanced mix of males and females would make sense. However if you view Freemasonry as a mere social club, then it does not really matter. Assuming of course that you dont attract people who are looking to explore the mysteries and who are ready to do so. In which case all sorts of probelms could spew out in time. Besides which some of the most Masonic people that I know, through their everyday lives and actions, are....women. I am sure that there are good reasons (that I dont currently understand - even though I have heard many arguments) why women are excluded from such a large part of Freemasonry in our world. But I am also sure that in the bigger sceme of things, there will be those who are shaking their heads. I just wonder if the bulk of male only Freemasons have any real idea of the benefits that they are not only missing, but are actively preventing themselves from enjoying (from a properly run well balanced lodge which has spiritual backing). Mind you it is not really a question of gender. The beauty and wonder of Freemasonry surpasses such physical issues. As anyone who has truly knocked at the door, and come to know themselves a bit better would I am sure understand. Freemasonry is a whole heap bigger than any individual fraternity or grouping of Fraternities. Which is illustrated by the fact as reported on these Masonic forums that UGLE talk to ladies only Freemasons about issues of mutual conern to the Craft. If women simply can't be Freemasons then why would they do this? But then again what could I, a mere profane man, possibly know?
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jul 22, 2005 13:58:27 GMT
"Freemasonry is a whole heap bigger than any individual fraternity or grouping of Fraternities."
Stewart: This is correct. Freemasonry offers a wide chioce for everyone.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Jul 22, 2005 20:03:36 GMT
I regard ANYONE a mason who has been initiated by a masonic ceremony particular to its ruling and ritual.
And i regard them also as a brother.!!
The ceremonies are no doubt different in themselves but the objective is that we are all being taught the same ideals and lessons.
The tools may vary slightly but they all have their own meaning although the tool might be different to another.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jul 25, 2005 7:50:25 GMT
Ok, Staffs. I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Hubert (N. Z.) on Jul 25, 2005 8:25:41 GMT
It may be a fact That so called modern freemasonry was established by some men who proclaimed it as a masculine only order, but one cannot deny the fact that the organisation on which it models itself had WOMEN masons building great cathederals from the early 11th century. Preventing women from joining but claiming that it is to the Glory of the GAOTU, for which the membership join and work, seems to me to scorn the very Godhead that created the dual entities of Man & Woman. If the creator had wished to have only one SEX, He/She would have formulated life as such. Using HER/HIS name, whilst prohibiting half HIS/HER achievement is tantamount to suggesting HE did not know what HE was about.
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Jul 25, 2005 13:48:37 GMT
It may be a fact That so called modern freemasonry was established by some men who proclaimed it as a masculine only order, but one cannot deny the fact that the organisation on which it models itself had WOMEN masons building great cathederals from the early 11th century. Preventing women from joining but claiming that it is to the Glory of the GAOTU, for which the membership join and work, seems to me to scorn the very Godhead that created the dual entities of Man & Woman. If the creator had wished to have only one SEX, He/She would have formulated life as such. Using HER/HIS name, whilst prohibiting half HIS/HER achievement is tantamount to suggesting HE did not know what HE was about. Now before I write I want to make it clear that I don't particularly disagree with your sentiments but you do leave yourself a bit open for a rebuttal. First Freemasonry claims to have come from an evolution of operatinve masons's lodges rather than modelling itself on them and that it develops and uses some of their symbolism and takes it off into a totally different dimension. Second although there were undoubtadly some women stonemasons it was definitely not the norm for them to be women. So it is quite understandable that Freemasonry would have started off as men-only. If the Lodges that the first non-operatives were accepted into had've had women members thn it is likely that Freemasonry as we prectise today in the UGLE would have women members as there wouldn't be a rule saying no women. Just to highlight again, I'm not trying to argue but playing devil's advocate. GP
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jul 25, 2005 14:36:32 GMT
General Pike Thanx for your thread. I realy love to discuss with you. Honestly!!!!! Answer to 1. Every descendant - your kind of freemasonry says it descends the stonemasons - of something is free to change its organisation, its history and its future. I agree on that. But if women could become freemasons before 1717 - see the document No 4 of the GL of York from 1696 -, the UGLoE, ancients, moderns and every associated GL is - from the point of view of freemasonry before 1717 - NOT REGULAR. Answer to 2. As douments lack in high numbers we cannot state if there were little or high numbers of women masons. From 17. century we know for sure that Elias Ashmole and few other men were freemasons and we know that the GL of York initiated both men and women. We just do not know the numbers of both genders. I just referr to a document of 1655 which tells us about the duties of an EA and FC towards "his master, his dame and the other ruling freemasons of the lodge". We know from other documents that the dames held meetings of lodges - maybe of the V.M. had other duties. And we know from this phrase above that every EA had a master and a dame. So at least there must have been as much dames as masters in the lodge. If you think about the meaning of 3,5 and 7, you know at least the numbers of women masons in every lodge. I do not want to argue or quarrel either, I just play the devils' advocate as well.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Jul 26, 2005 7:45:50 GMT
NO!
For the reasons that I have already told you privately!
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jul 26, 2005 7:56:07 GMT
Ok, Giovanni.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jul 27, 2005 3:26:42 GMT
>To me a Mason is Male, 21+, with faith, thats' how I have been taught.
Bondi
I was taught a form of catholicism that said that to go to the ceremony of a competing church was to damn me forever.
Do I see some parallels in Masonry?
And a generation later, it turned out that visiting competing churchs was not only permissable but even slightly meritorious - given of course that we, and not they, had the one true (regular) faith.
And what now is my attitude to dogma?
Well I form my own both for churchs and for lodges. That way I have full responsibility.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jul 27, 2005 4:21:17 GMT
I'm with Lee and Russell on this one. I may be prohibited by the Rules at this time in force from attending a Co-Masonic Lodge or inviting a Co-Mason to mine. I am also prohibited by the Law from driving at 40 MPH in a 30MPH limit. I have to OBEY such Rules or suffer the consequences, I don't have to AGREE with them though.
As an INDIVIDUAL I recognise a person so initiated as a Freemason be they under a GL in amity with UGLE or not.
|
|
|
Post by Yoki on Aug 3, 2005 22:11:15 GMT
I am a female Mason who is loud and proud ( quoting an other group of individuals). To exclude women in modern western society is a left over prejudices from days gone by and as such has had its day. As the greater norm now recognise the talents and spirituality of a here for unutilised segment of the population any other template will slowly die. You only need to talk to those of my children's generation who have only known working mothers, achieving sisters and girlfriends to gauge that the question of equality in all things among the sexes, is not even a question amongst them. America and Britain are two countries at the forefront of this push, which will be reflected in the next Presidential election after which a women President will reside in the white house ,having written that I am proud to say many high position including Prime Minster are held by females in N Z. Freemasonry is unique in that it offers an undogmatic creed and accepts members of all religions and even if there is still a question of colour in some American lodges all races. This is quite revolutionary especial for the age in which it was founded, but until females are except as full and equal Freemasons it falls short in its moral stance. Should it wish to survive into the twenty first century it needs to reflect the norms of the society in which it resides otherwise it runs the risk of being viewed as a Dinosaur on its way to slow extinction.
|
|