Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 10, 2007 17:48:13 GMT
Form a "Grand Lodge" in place of our Supreme Council? NO THANK YOU! [/u] Been there, seen that. [/size][/quote] Not, "in place of," AS WELL AS (in suggesting that I was referring to one of UGLE's 8 "principles," listed above). While personally I am not a fan of government by Consistories and Supreme Councils, ultimately any such decision would be theirs not mine (hopefully they would first consult with the wider membership).
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 10, 2007 17:54:22 GMT
I think the idea or punishment or reward was not about individuals but rather Obediences, in which case I agree that it is not a sensible stance.
I know that it's boring but for the benefit of Brandt I'm going to reproduce the rules of Grand Lodge recgnition as adopted by the UGLE in 1929. Whilst highlighting that many of them were not new especially No.2 as that was why UGLE withdrew recognition from the GOdF in 1877.
BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR GRAND LODGE RECOGNITION Accepted by the Grand Lodge, September 4, 1929 The M.W. The Grand Master having expressed a desire that the Board would draw up a statement of the Basic Principles on which this Grand Lodge could be invited to recognize any Grand Lodge applying for recognition by the English Jurisdiction, the Board of General Purposes has gladly complied. The result, as follows, has been approved by the Grand Master and it will form the basis of a questionnaire to be forwarded in future to each Jurisdiction requesting English recognition. The Board desires that not only such bodies but the Brethren generally throughout the Grand Master’s Jurisdiction shall be fully informed as to those Basic Principles of Freemasonry for which the Grand Lodge of England has stood throughout its history
1. Regularity of origin; i.e. each Grand Lodge shall have been established lawfully by a duly recognized Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges. 2. That a belief in the G.A.O.T.U. and His revealed will shall be an essential qualification for membership. 3. 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. 4. That the membership of the Grand Lodge and individual Lodges shall be composed exclusively 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. 5. That the Grand Lodge shall have sovereign jurisdiction over the Lodges under its control; i.e. that it shall be a responsible, independent, self-governing organization, 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 other Power claiming any control or supervision over those degrees. 6. 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. 7. That the discussion of religion and politics within the Lodge shall be strictly prohibited. 8. That the principles of the Antient Landmarks, customs, and usages of the Craft shall be strictly observed.
Now whether or not other Grand Lodges have the same requirements is not relevant to the UGLE these are our own rules. So I have emboldened the ones that would apply in the case of LDH.
Now hopefully you can see that while it is not impossible, it is maybe not quite as simple as you may think, as the UGLE would be required to re-write it's rules which it quite frankly doesn't need to do.
M
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 17:56:07 GMT
Brother Tamrin, What are we to do as thinking men if the supposed foundation rules of our organization do not hold water under the light of logic and ethics? It is a matter that I have been considering for some time now as I have some decisions to make.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 18:02:28 GMT
Brother, Thank you for taking the time to share that.
"Now hopefully you can see that while it is not impossible, it is maybe not quite as simple as you may think, as the UGLE would be required to re-write it's rules which it quite frankly doesn't need to do. " Sorry Brother, re-writing rules is simple. I do agree that the UGLE does not "need" to rewrite their rules. That is not in question. The question I had was intellectual honesty and the usefulness of the rules. I am still wrestling with that, it is entirely a personal issue and perhaps I should not have bothered you good Brethren with my musings on the matter.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 10, 2007 18:18:18 GMT
Does his GL permit him to visit GLFMW lodges? Or RGLE lodges? Genuine question. Do any of you know the answer? I don't think this really got answered as clearly as it was asked. So just in case and to make sure that everyone is on a level playing field. The GL4M&W and LDH do not recognise each other their members are not allowed to visit, regardless of whether they do or not. The situation is the same for the Eastern Order and LDH. RGLE's Recognition rules are here www.rgle.org.uk/RGLE_Recognition.htm , I'm not sure if LDH recognises it. I perhaps would feel less bitter about this subject and with the depressing frequency it comes up if the discussion was more even handed than it has been in the past, after all, male craft GL's arent the only ones to impose inter-visitation regulations, are they? I share your feelings, I've got in to a bit of trouble before when pointing out that some people are chucking eggs at the UGLE with a "holier than thou" approach when their own Obediences are not exactly practising "Freemasonry Universal" . M
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 10, 2007 18:21:26 GMT
Sorry Brother, re-writing rules is simple. I do agree that the UGLE does not "need" to rewrite their rules. That is not in question. The question I had was intellectual honesty and the usefulness of the rules. I am still wrestling with that, it is entirely a personal issue and perhaps I should not have bothered you good Brethren with my musings on the matter. Just to clarify my own stand-point on all this and hopefully avoid the usual tag of "UGLE apologist". I think that there should be some form of concordat between the Obediences practising within the UK, not necessariy recognition but they should work together at GL level and get to understand each other better. I know that I am quite unique with what I know of them. Mike
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 18:36:31 GMT
I don't tag you as a UGLE apologist. We are just talking. I don't see a lot of benefit to the Brethren at the bottom if the different obediences work together or come to some agreement at the Grand Lodge level. There is benefit from Masons connecting with Masons but that is the problem.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 10, 2007 18:58:17 GMT
Jolly good idea Mike, a Concordat like that!
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 10, 2007 19:08:22 GMT
Bro Tamrin, I would not want a Grand Lodge at all, not even in addition to our Supreme Council, which democratic system I prefer. Not only that but we consider the 33 Degrees of A&ASR to be a continuity, so the Three Craft Degrees are the start thereof, not a separate system. Thus I can and do wear my 18th Degree Collarette in a Craft Lodge but not my RA nor Mark Breast Jewels as those are York Rite not Scottish Rite in our system.
I can see a lot of merit in the idea suggested by Bro Mike of a Concordat as each GL/Obedience would remain as it is but would have amicable relationships. I cannot realistically see there being any deeper change than that.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 10, 2007 19:12:35 GMT
Bro Mike as RGLE's Rules of Recognition No 4 requires " That the membership of the Grand Lodge and individual Lodges shall be composed exclusively of men" I don't think we need take the matter of their attitude towards Co-Masonry any further.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 10, 2007 20:45:59 GMT
I perhaps would feel less bitter about this subject and with the depressing frequency it comes up if the discussion was more even handed than it has been in the past, after all, male craft GL's arent the only ones to impose inter-visitation regulations, are they? I share your feelings, I've got in to a bit of trouble before when pointing out that some people are chucking eggs at the UGLE with a "holier than thou" approach when their own Obediences are not exactly practising "Freemasonry Universal" . M I must confess I am getting a little bit hopeful about this thread tho..... I mentioned earlier I would like the GL's to work together under some form of agreement, unlike bro brandt I believe this will be the key to getting individual freemasons to play nicely together on a wider scale, rather than vice versa. For as long as the 'HQ' posits one form of opinion there will be those that follow it to the letter, thats human nature. Do I feel that some of the pronouncements made over 100 years ago should be revisited? Hell, yes. Do I think it will happen? yes When? How long is a bit of string? I have been greatly encouraged by some of the recent initiatives frm UGLE, and also by the speeches made by the Pro GM, I have a small hope that the initiative to review things will be taken within my lifetime.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 10, 2007 21:29:28 GMT
I would not want a Grand Lodge at all, not even in addition to our Supreme Council, which democratic system I prefer. Fine—it was a suggestion of a bureaucratic way around a bureaucratic hurdle—no more (I even have my doubts as to the genuineness of the hurdle). Moreover, I am glad your Supreme Council appears to operate differently to what I have witnessed from a couple.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 10, 2007 21:52:15 GMT
Brother Tamrin, What are we to do as thinking men if the supposed foundation rules of our organization do not hold water under the light of logic and ethics? It is a matter that I have been considering for some time now as I have some decisions to make.
Brandt Bro. Brandt,Do you mean Ancient Landmarks or Regulations? Either way, I suggest that many of what we now consider to be "foundation rules" will crumble when tested. This I see as the first step. Indeed, while we are familiar with the phrase, " ...that it is not in the Power of any person, or Body of men, to make any alteration, or Innovation in the Body of Masonry," we should bear in mind that this was originally qualified by adding, " ...without the consent first obtained of the Annual Grand Lodge", thus making any absolute prohibition of change itself an innovation (and one often breached).
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 10, 2007 22:18:23 GMT
It is indeed an interesting question. Unfortunately it is a question that I don't think will be proposed at the level necessary to save the various grand bodies.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 10, 2007 22:26:44 GMT
It is indeed an interesting question. Unfortunately it is a question that I don't think will be proposed at the level necessary to save the various grand bodies. That's interesting, which Grand Bodies do you think need to be saved and from what? M
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 10, 2007 22:31:28 GMT
I am wondering . . . recognition seems to be an issue . . . but I'm mindful of the UGLE's pronoucement concerning one women's order . . . not recognition but . . .
Is it safe to say that there is something in these Freemasonic bureaucratic bodies that could be called "acknowledgment"? If so, perhaps it could act as a swinging bridge over this two-foot-deep chasm.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 11, 2007 15:07:48 GMT
Brethren, Before I move on with this I will ask that you place your trays in their upright positions and that you stow all torches and pitchforks.
Freemasonry is a manifestation of the Working Tools that offer a Path to Light. In other words Freemasonry is in service to the GAOTU. Since this is the case Freemasonry is also a target of the Enemy. All the Enemy must do to be successful is to make things mundane. This he accomplishes by the use of his working tools. Those being our egos and lower natures. If, as a fraternity we turn away from the Light and turn towards our own egos and petty politics and use the Craft to control the hearts and minds of people then we cease our work on the Temple. Then we are working for the enemy by making Freemasonry mundane. "Faith and Reason in accord." My dear Brethren, we have work to do.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 11, 2007 15:13:09 GMT
Very well put Bro Brandt. I salute you Sir and Brother!
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 11, 2007 16:38:57 GMT
Excellenty well put. Especially the observation that the enemy is within us, as well as is the good. This reality is why I believe, rather strongly, that good and evil are two halves of the same thing. As above, so below. And those who have eyes to see, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 11, 2007 17:57:52 GMT
What the Zoroastrians believe, Ormuzd and Ahriman continually warring for control.
I have found in my own 54 years that Pride, Ambition and Competition are the "Three Ruffians" that must be confronted and subdued. Alas they are the easiest to be activated within us and used against the Greater Good.
|
|