imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 10, 2007 0:00:10 GMT
My most well beloved and very dear Bro. Philip,
I think that you believe firmly in the principles by which you came to your conclusions about the subject at hand. I believe that very good people, strong in their principles, can hold varied, and even opposing, opinions. This is not unique to you and I. Indeed, I can cite historical proofs of this, should you need them, but, given your knowledge of history, I don't think you need them. So I will proceed with the assumption that this much is stipulated.
Believing this, as I do, does not make me at all glib. Simply observant.
Now, I spend a LOT of time talking about the elephant. I don't think it is at all between us. I think you and I are looking right at it and are describing it as each of us sees it. And so, as I also believe good and evil to be two poles of the same thing, I think you and I have very similar ideas about the elephant. We, however, differ as to our methods and goals about the elephant.
But we are also Brothers. Which *should* mean that we can agree to disagree. Especially upon a point such as this; upon which we have expounded an length. I do not believe either of us is going to budge from our positions. And, recalling as I do the disjointed ending of last occasion, after which things were more than slightly cool between us, I am not anxious to repeat that history. So I choose not to engage with you upon this point but am content that we should not agree.
And I hope you will, likewise, be so content.
Indeed, I mean it, my Brother: Peace.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 10, 2007 1:32:54 GMT
Bro. Karen,
The elephant to which I referred was not the difference in our respective positions, as such. It was your accusation of "evil," which from my perspective is not a small matter which one may courteously disregard. Evil goes beyond being mistaken or even wrong: Evil is evil, is evil. To say good and evil are but, "two poles of the same thing," is IMO being relativistic beyond all rhyme and reason.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 10, 2007 2:23:44 GMT
Bro. Philip . . .
Again, you and I are not going to agree.
And that's all.
*I* am content with that.
I observe that I don't feel any especial need to convince you otherwise for, I believe, my position is not the least bit degraded by you continuing to hold your opinion.
You seem not so content and, apparently, would like to engage me, again, on this subject.
Why?
I am coming to wonder if, perhaps, you do not feel so sure of your position and seek to reasure yourself of its strength by getting me to abandon my position. For the unfairness and unkindness you are, at the moment, expressing, make a sort of sense to me, in this light. They would be the ethereal stick prodding at me, trying to get me to budge.
If that's not it, then I am perplexed. No more interested now, than before, in engaging further on the subject but . . . yup, perplexed.
As for courteous disregard, no matter how heated a debate may be, I always strive to be courteous. And if I see my fellow in the conversation determines not to be, I withdraw.
Peace.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 10, 2007 2:58:33 GMT
For the unfairness and unkindness you are, at the moment, expressing Bro. Karen,Please review this recent exchange and show where I have been unkind (short of not capitulating) or unfair. I have restated my position; pointed to my concern at you describing it as "evil;" and have clarified that concern where it seemed to be deflected (if either has cause to be offended or to feel unkindly treated, it is I). I could have said much more: Instead I chose to be moderate.
|
|
|
Post by waynecowley on Aug 10, 2007 7:24:17 GMT
Now all I would ask of the likes of UGLE would be a Declaration similar to that given in respect of HFAF and OWF that Co-Masonry is Freemasonry. If as is most likely UGLE etc wished to continue to forbid its Brethren from attending Co-Masonic Lodges then that is its affair and it is for such Brethren to obey or not as their Light leads them. That would be a welcome step, however I suspect that there is a bit of a stumbling block in the way of this happening soon. Whilst I know from you and others that LDH requires a belief in a Supreme Being, I understand that there are other Obediences in amity with LDH which do not. My suspicion is that it would be this, rather than any other matter, that would prove the major difficulty in getting a declaration along the lines which OWF and HFAF have from UGLE. Wayne
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 10, 2007 8:01:01 GMT
Bro. Wayne,While that would still be a problem for LDH, as such, there have been recent schisms in Co-Masonic ranks, breaking away from the Paris based Supreme Council. I think it would not, for instance, apply to The Eastern Order. Another problem might be the control of the Craft degrees by a Supreme Council: That however might be easily remedied by establishing an independent Grand Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 10, 2007 9:34:41 GMT
While that would still be a problem for LDH, as such, there have been recent schisms in Co-Masonic ranks, breaking away from the Paris based Supreme Council. I think it would not, for instance, apply to The Eastern Order. Another problem might be the control of the Craft degrees by a Supreme Council: That however might be easily remedied by establishing an independent Grand Lodge. Hmmmm, this wouldn't help either the British Federation of LDH nor the Eastern Order (not that we have it in England) as it too seems to have an international Supreme Council and obfuscates on the befief in God. So if the UGLE were to decide to make such a statement they would surely pick out the only sovereign Co-Masonic body in the UK which clearly stipulates the Supreme Being requirement, that being the Grand Lodge for Men & Women ( www.grandlodge.org.uk/ ). This GL would be in a similar situation as OWF and HFAF in that it admits women, although it has the further complication of them sitting together in Lodge but I'm sure that if the UGLE ever wanted to "recognise" Co-Masony that would its choice.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 10, 2007 9:53:19 GMT
Form a "Grand Lodge" in place of our Supreme Council? NO THANK YOU![/u] Been there, seen that. All in all if that was the price I prefer that UGLE and its cohorts continue as they are as regards Co-Masonry. We know we are Freemasons as valid as are their members and whilst such as Statement as I suggested would be nice, it is by no means necessary, especially if there were strings attached. I like LDH exactly as it is and how it is administered. I think this proves my contention that it is highly unlikely to be any change in UGLE's position in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Aug 10, 2007 11:15:35 GMT
As can be seen it is a far more complicated matter than male-craft masonry 'accepting' or 'recognising' one TGL or another.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 12:09:53 GMT
Brethren, I don't see this as complex at all. It is a matter of perspective. A Grand Lodge, whereever they are, is not responsible for maintaining a military to defend the body politic from foreign aggression nor is it responsible for developing a police force to defend the citizens from domestic criminals. It is simply an administrative structure that designed itself to govern a fraternal organization. We, the Fraternity in general, have gotten too big for our britches as my father would have said. There are two Masonries. There is the administrative structure which the importance of is arguable, then there is the initiatic succession. The two can be mutually exclusive.
Brandt
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 10, 2007 14:24:00 GMT
Bro. Brandt has said it. It's not complex. Really, it's only difficult because it's made to be difficult. For other motivations that have nothing to do with whether we are all, in fact, Brothers.
BTW, my jurisdiction requires belief in a Supreme Being and is in amity with bodies that, likewise, require this. As I understand it, this was a requirement even when we were in amity with LDH and it was over that question, largely, that we withdrew from them (though, as I further understand it, LDH later withdrew that hated requirement that its federations accept athiests. But we were already gone).
Anyway, since my jurisdiction does require belief in a supreme being, it would seem the difficulty is being manufactured in another area.
And, as Bro. Brandt also pointed out, this talk of amity and regularity would seem to be the language of the administrative branch of Freemasonry, which uses amity as a reward and punishment, not as maintaining a brotherly network of recognition.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 10, 2007 14:50:27 GMT
How does it get used as 'punishment' or 'reward'? It is an administrative tool to guide members of particular GL's as to who they can visit, and who the GL's themselves will enter into masonic communication with. As has been demonstrated in this discussion, it isn't a simple matter, and those who think it is ignore a lot of the detail, imo.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 15:23:36 GMT
Brother, I am curious now. Why is it not a simple matter? It appears quite simple to me. Would you enlighten me on this subject? (serious question - this is not leading - I am trying to understand this from your perspective on the matter)
Brandt
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 10, 2007 15:25:55 GMT
Happy to - if you could explain to me why you believe it is so simple
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 15:55:36 GMT
I asked you first. Regardless
I see it as simple as it appears to be predominately a political matter of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. I see it as a matter of someone believing that they are protecting and institution that does not need protecting. Recognizing, even in a limited format would cause no damage to a Grand Lodge. Then I have that personal problem of an exaggerated importance of ethical and intellectual integrity (I apologize for the dry humor). I don't see the usefulness in maintaining distance from other Masonic bodies. To what end and to what gain?
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 15:56:18 GMT
sorry
It is simple because it appears to me a political issue that can be reversed by a decision just as it was implemented.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 10, 2007 16:15:14 GMT
But why and or how do you come to the conclusion it is a single, political issue? I can't really answer you until I understand the ground you stand on, cos I don't want to make any assupmtions about what you think or feel, so sorry for answering a question with a question, but hopefully it means I will be able to give you a better answer in the end.
If you are suggesting that the only reason recognition is not extended is down to the issue of men/women and all that, I would fundamentally disagree - it is a much more complex issue than just that.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 16:59:11 GMT
"If you are suggesting that the only reason recognition is not extended is down to the issue of men/women and all that, I would fundamentally disagree - it is a much more complex issue than just that. "
This is precisely what I am enquiring about Brother
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 10, 2007 17:25:15 GMT
"Punishment and Reward?" Quite simple. Let us say a member of UGLE attends a Co-Masonic Meeting of a Tyled Lodge, or for that matter one of Grand Orient of France which is also un-recognised by UGLE. Someone either sees him doing so or the matter is otherwise discovered and is communicated to the Grand Secretary of UGLE or to his Provincial Grand Secretary. Now as this breaches certain Rules of the UGLE Book of Constitutions this Brother would be very likely to be contacted by either or both bodies and perhaps invited to attend an interview to explain himself and at least Admonished if not suspended from (UGLE) Masonic Privileges such as attending Lodge Meetings for a specified period or even expelled from UGLE if they considered that to be appropriate. He would certainly jeopardise any "Honours" he would have been likely to have been awarded, and that is the "Reward" aspect. So in this situation there is both Carrot= Honours and Stick= Sanctions such as Suspension or Expulsion.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 10, 2007 17:38:45 GMT
"If you are suggesting that the only reason recognition is not extended is down to the issue of men/women and all that, I would fundamentally disagree - it is a much more complex issue than just that. " This is precisely what I am enquiring about Brother There are UGLE's Basic Principles of Grand Lodge RecognitionRegularity of origin is established by a duly recognised Grand Lodge or three or more regularly constituted Lodges. A belief in the Great Architect of the Universe and his revealed will shall be an essential qualification for membership. 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. That the membership of the Grand Lodge and individual Lodges shall be composed entirely of men; and that each Grand Lodge shall have no Masonic intercourse of any kind with mixed Lodges or bodies which admit women to membership. That the Grand Lodge shall have sovereign jurisdiction over Lodges under its control, i.e. that it shall be a responsible, independent, self-governing organisation, 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 any other power claiming any control or supervision over those degrees. That the three Great Lights of Freemasonry (namely, the Volume of the Sacred Law, the Square, and the Compasses) shall always be exhibited when the Grand Lodge or its subordinate Lodges are at work, the chief of these being the Volume of the Sacred Law. That the discussion of religion and politics within the Lodge shall be strictly prohibited. That the principles of the Antient Landmarks, customs and usages of the Craft be strictly observed. Albeit, the list is somewhat problematic both in detail and application (previous discussions have tended to generate more heat than light). BTW the Wikipedia article, linked above, is mistaken in stating Scotland's Grand Lodge uses an identical list.
|
|