|
Post by shinju on Jun 21, 2008 7:11:14 GMT
Hi there, I'd like to ask a few questions about Freemasonry, if people wouldn't mind answering. Sorry if this is a bit of a long post, but I'm really quite curious about the answers I'll get. Before that, I'll just describe what sort of perspective I'm coming from so you don't get the wrong idea. I'm not an anti-Mason myself but I have hung around with anti-Masons for a number of years. I've recently made a bunch of new friends who are quite a bit more pro-Mason and I'm finding it quite difficult to have conversations with them because the two perspectives are so disparate. But please bear in mind that whilst I'm not anti Mason myself, all my information comes from the other side of the fence, as it were, so if it seems that I'm anti-Mason, then that is where that comes from, rather than any negative feelings from myself. Onto the questions... First one, why no women? Now obviously a tiny amount of research on the net does show some forms of Masonry admitting women, I've read about co-Masonry for example. But I understand that the United Grand Lodge of England and others do not formally recognize any Masonic body that accepts women. How can this be so in a society which claims its basic tenets to be brotherly love, relief (philanthropy), and truth (from alt.freeMasonry FAQ), which also claims Masonry to be about intellectual stimulation and moral development? We know that women are just as moral and intelligent as men, so how is it that your society could justify keeping women out? I do understand that the given justifications are that your rules are based on medieval structures and traditions, but your rules have changed over the years as has everything, so why hasn't this one been changed? Second one, why monotheism? Obviously this isnt a question about the origins of Masonry, coming from Europe its completely understandable why it is rooted in monotheism, but I understand you don't have requirements for members to be from a particular religion provided their spiritual beliefs include a supreme being. I hoped someone could explain why this is the case. After all brotherly love, truth and relief are common to most spiritual paths and I can't find any details in the information available to me. I can also understand that whilst for most atheists, spirituality may mean nothing, symbolism (which from my limited knowledge seems more what Masonry is about) is completely meaningful. This continues into my next question which is, how does the statement that Masonry is not a religion co-exist with the need for a belief in a supreme being to be a member? This to me seems to be a large part of why the anti-Masonry sentiment exists, the two things seem obviously at discord with each other, inviting the perspective that it is a secret cult (please don't be offended, this is not my own opinion, but it does exist as an opinion). Why is it neccessary to believe in a supreme being to be a member of your organisation, if your organisation has no religeous beliefs? And my last question is an organisational one, and may just be a result of me misunderstanding how your organisation works, but how come there isn't a hierarchy in Masonry? From what I've read there is no central Masonic Authority. "Each jurisdiction maintains a list of other jurisdictions that it formally recognizes. If the other jurisdiction reciprocates the recognition, the two jurisdictions are said to be in amity" is the information I have. How did this occur? Given that Masonry is descended from Medieval times when hierarchy was de rigeur, it would explain the perspective anti-Masons have that there is indeed a greater secret heirarchy which the average mason knows nothing about, but I can't find an explanation for how it could have occurred from the pro-Masonry perspective. Working, long-term organisations never seem to survive where there isn't a hierarchy keeping them in place, there seems to be something psychological which prevents humans from treating each other equally, the alpha male pattern. Is there an explanation for this? Now that my questions are done, I'd just like to briefly mention why I'm asking them. I'm in a place where I have a spiritual path, but no one to share it with, most around me are atheists. I am also in a place where there is very little in the way of community spirit, something I prize highly, neither is there much in the way of intellectual stimulation. Masonry is reputed to be somewhere to go to experience all these, and whilst I come from somewhere where the general opinion of Masonry is one of suspicion, I have an open mind and am quite willing to believe it is just a case of paranoia on their part, about the unknown, and so the idea of joining a Lodge is an option I would like to consider. P.S. I wouldn't really consider an answer "Because it's part of the rules" much of an answer because it doesn't attempt to explain anything - people choose to follow the rules, so if its a rule why do people choose to follow it? P.P.S. I am aware that some answers to these questions maybe available elsewhere on this site, however personally I find it a lot more satisfying to talk to people about this sort of thing rather than wade through a lot of text hoping to find what I'm looking for (and usually failing to do so)
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jun 21, 2008 9:55:02 GMT
Hi Shinju
Welcome to the forum
>First one, why no women?
A good question. I would not defend the current situation but there are many brethren who are more traditional than I who like present arrangements. The institutions of Masonry tend to be rather conservative, rather like some churches. I expect change will occur but slowly.
>Second one, why monotheism?
Masonry does not restrict freedom of religion and (in most Grand Lodges) does not exclude brethren from polytheist religions. Of course, Masonry, not having a unified command structure, has a wide range of Grand Lodges some of which have more specific belief requirements. Indeed there is at least one Grand Lodge that does not require belief in a supreme being.
>how does the statement that Masonry is not a religion co-exist with the need for a belief in a supreme being to be a member?
As far as I know each religion has core doctrines and beliefs. Freemasonry does not require any such beliefs and admits men (and sometimes women) of good will who affirm their belief in a supreme being - and it does that without enquiring (generally) into the nature of that belief. Accordingly it is not a religion.
Freemasonry has implicit the notion that Life has some sort of meaning and meaning must originate from somewhere. That source may be conceptualised as a supreme being or beingness. I recognise that Life has a meaning without belonging to any religion.
>why the anti-Masonry sentiment exists
Freedom of belief undermines the power of various institutions that require devoted followers.
>how come there isn't a hierarchy in Masonry?
When the first Grand Lodge declared itself, Masonry already existed and in at least 2 countries. The pre-existence of Masonic lodges meant that it was not possible to enforce a single hierarchy
>If the other jurisdiction reciprocates the recognition, the two jurisdictions are said to be in amity" is the information I have. How did this occur?
Just convenience. I will not gather members in your backyard if you do not recruit in mine.
>Given that Masonry is descended from Medieval times
Many brethren believe Masonry is much older than that
>there is indeed a greater secret hierarchy which the average mason knows nothing about, but I can't find an explanation for how it could have occurred from the pro-Masonry perspective.
I suspect quite a number of organisations have hidden themselves in Masonry. Some of those organisations were not so useful to humanity - for example the group using the P2 lodge in Italy.
The resurgence of Masonry in the early 18th century also included some RC brethren who were alchemists and scientists who liked to keep some of their work secret.
But generally the allegations of a secret hierarchy are nonsense. I have met a fair number of high degree or high office brethren and most have been upright and virtuous, some quite spiritual and others a little naive perhaps but I have never met anyone connected with a lodge who was evil in any way.
And I might say that those who tell of a secret hierarchy seem to rely on assertion and allegation without proof.
> there seems to be something psychological which prevents humans from treating each other equally, the alpha male pattern.
The lodges I know seem pretty good about trust and equality and that of course is explicitly encouraged in lodges.
There are of course dark influences in the human race, but Masonic lodges try to exclude those influences and teach the brethren how be upright in dealings with all people
No doubt other brethren will give their own answers to your questions
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jun 21, 2008 10:59:16 GMT
Hi shinju and welcome.
Very interesting post and very interesting questions so I believe you'll receive some interesting responses.
As a Co-Mason the "why no women" one is quite baffling to me as well for I too have never heard a sound, reasoned argument for maintaining this outdated approach to Freemasonry by some GLs. I sit in lodge all the time with women Masons, including my wife, and it all seems perfectly normal.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Jun 21, 2008 12:52:57 GMT
Russell has provided some excellent answers, ultimately each freemason must decide for themself which type of masonry they wish to follow, these days there is much more information available for the determined seeker than their used to be, so knowledge of different GL's and practices is more widespread enabling informed choice.
What branch of freemasonry do you feel will best suit you?
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jun 21, 2008 14:35:56 GMT
The question, as above, is why certain GLs, for example UGLE, refuse to accept women. Shinju is already aware from his research there are other Masonic organisations that do accept women.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Jun 25, 2008 9:26:21 GMT
The original poster obviously preferred the replies they were offered at TFM, 'cos they didn't come back here.....
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jun 25, 2008 16:51:01 GMT
Greetings to you and welcome!! I'm not sure there's much more I can add except to say that you seem to be asking about the rules of a specific branch of Freemasonry. This can be confusing as Freemasonry is a Universal Fraternity. It's like a house with many rooms. And it is that way regardless of anyone's stubborn blindness to it. So, to answer your questions while taking the whole, rather than the part, into consideration. Well, I *am* a woman. Last time I checked anyway ;D I am also a Freemason Of course, it hasn't escaped my notice that there are Obediences in Freemasonry that don't accept women. There, likewise, are Obediences in Freemasonry that don't accept men. I don't want to make it sound too simple but, to my observation, I've found this is so 1) because the Brothers there prefer it that way; 2) the pull of one gender pole can be very great and the work quite relevant (I've worked in a Femalecraft Lodge myself and I found it a wondrous experience) and 3) there are those people in the world who cannot deal with the opposite sex on anything but a sexual level. For them, gender-based Masonry is best. And, just to let you know, many Brothers in the UGLE, including some of very high rank, call me "Brother". So gender-blindness in Freemasonry is far from universal in Male-Only Lodges. This one puzzles me. I'm not aware of any branch of Masonry that pushes monotheism. Granted, there are individual lodges that do but, as an ideal, Freemasonry is largely tolerant. The only question you *should* be asked if whether you believe in a supreme being - and some Obediences don't even ask that. It is quite possible to acknowledge the existence of a supreme being without worshiping in that being. There just never has been. And I hope there never is Sounds like you are at a crossroads in your path. Hmmmmm. Harmony in a Masonic lodge is *extremely* important. When/if you approach the lodge, I advise you ask many, many questions of it and, for your own good, that you not be at all shy about this. For each Lodge is different. For some, the emphasis is on socializing and charity. Both of these are very worthy and each Lodge should have an element of each. But it sounds like you would be more comfortable in a more spiritually-based Lodge. If you were to join a Lodge that is not more spiritually-based, I think things would become very uncomfortable for you and for them. Please do spare yourself this. If that's what you choose, I hope it happens for you. Good luck to you. I hope you keep in touch with us
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jun 25, 2008 16:52:26 GMT
The original poster obviously preferred the replies they were offered at TFM, 'cos they didn't come back here..... Bro. Penfold, it's only been a few days. Perhaps he will return. Maybe even someone at TFM will alert him to the responses here In any case, he is not the only seeker in this world. He has asked good questions. Some hesitate to ask. For them, these answers are here. And . . . tag, your it!
|
|
|
Post by shinju on Jun 27, 2008 11:47:00 GMT
Hi guys, sorry it taken me a little time to respond. I wasn't sure whether I should given my own feelings on the answers given both here and on the Freemason Masonic Forum, but since it's been mentioned i thought I'd reply anyway.
First off thanks for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate it.
But second, no I can't say I am particularly satisfied with the answers I've received. I think mostly that's to do with my feeling that there aren't actually satisfactory answers to these questions.
People also seem to have concentrated on the gender issue, which is of lesser important to me since I'm a guy and it doesn't directly affect me. And as people have noted, I have the option of joining a co-masonry lodge.
As to the religious question I should probably ask more. The statement by Russell Holland that Masonry doesn't require a Supreme Being does seem to contradict everything I've read about Masonry. But I still haven't really had an answer as to why the majority of Lodges DO require it.
As to the organisation question. I wasn't really asking what the apparent structure of Masonry gets you, but how it could possibly come to exist. There are (to my knowledge) no other organisations which have lasted any length of time without a hierarchy because they always fall foul to power plays and politiking. How did freemasonry avoid this?
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jun 27, 2008 12:11:24 GMT
You have been to at least two forums and are not please with the responses given, eh?
In that case it seems you have already made up your own mind on the answers you want to receive and because we are not supplying them - to your satisfaction - then the chances are you'll not be happy.
|
|
|
Post by shinju on Jun 27, 2008 13:02:22 GMT
I'm not really satisfied with the answers because people seem to want to answer different questions to the ones i asked. I'm not sure if I didn't ask them precisely enough, but when I go back and look at what I wrote, I can't really see how I could be much clearer.
I have my own opinion, of course I do, just like everyone. But I'm quite happy to be open minded about this.
Just because I've been on two different forums and not been pleased with the answers doesn't imply that it's me that's the causing the unhappiness with the answer, although, obviously that is one of the possibilities, but equally it could be because, for example, the origins of Freemasonry aren't known enough to provide answers to these question, or because there aren't satisfactory reasons for them.
As an example, if I went to a new age site and quizzed them on their belief that quantum mechanics supports their arguments, I probably wouldn't get satisfactory answers, that wouldn't imply that that was purely because I had made up my mind that there were no good answers.
In all cases of the search for knowledge, barriers found can be me, could be you, could be something else. I wouldn't recommend assuming its someone elses fault without a very good reason.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jun 27, 2008 13:19:43 GMT
All I can say is if the answers you've received so far do not addressed your concerns more directly then it's possible they never will. One thing I know about Masons they will try and keep on trying to help (where permitted) someone better understand our Fraternity but there's only so much we can do and ultimately the responses are either accepted or rejected.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jun 27, 2008 15:57:13 GMT
...no I can't say I am particularly satisfied with the answers I've received. I think mostly that's to do with my feeling that there aren't actually satisfactory answers to these questions. If this is the case, then it would appear futile to ask in the first place. I can only offer my interpretation of this requirement. In the early days of Freemasonry, the scientific and philosophical principles adhered to were in direct contradiction to established Church dogma. The oath or obligation that one takes is to insure that what is discussed in a tyled lodge goes no further, as, in those days, one could be in danger of losing one's very life. Freemasonry expoused (and still does) the rights of man, the freedom of individual thought, the right of the people to govern themselves according to democratic principles, and the superiority of science and reason over blind dogma and superstition. It was felt that, having no belief in a Supreme Being, that an Atheist would not feel constrained by an oath, having no fear of consequence for the breaking of said oath, and could, therefore, not to be trusted. In the beginning, each lodge was independent. After the creation of the Grand Lodge structure, each Grand Lodge remains independent of one another. So, there is hierarchy, within each lodge, and each Grand Lodge. being human, we are as suseptable to error as any other human construct, and there are individual cases of power plays and politicking, but overall, the moral lessons that each individual Mason takes from Masonry helps to keep these things in thier proper perspective (regardless of what some dissatisfied nay-sayers would have you believe). I don't know that these interpretations will satisfy you, but I offer them for your concideration.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jun 27, 2008 16:13:50 GMT
Ah, Shinju, I know what the problem is and why the answers are not satisfying you. You are asking questions in the medium of the mind. What you need are answers from the heart. I'm afraid there are few who can supply you with that. But that you seek it tells me you're on a far greater journey than you may now realize. Pack extra socks and a few dozen energy bars Good luck to you
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jun 27, 2008 17:25:08 GMT
It is sometimes said that every question has four answers, not only the usual Right or Wrong answers but the answer you would like to give and the answer the other party wishes to hear. Knowing which answer is appropriate is wisdom indeed!
I am sorry that the various answers to your questions given by a crossection of the posters on MFOL have not been to your satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jun 27, 2008 23:06:00 GMT
For what it is worth I will give you may answers to your questions. They may not be the answers you wish to read but will be those I wish to give.
First one, why no women? Now obviously a tiny amount of research on the net does show some forms of Masonry admitting women, I've read about co-Masonry for example. But I understand that the United Grand Lodge of England and others do not formally recognize any Masonic body that accepts women. How can this be so in a society which claims its basic tenets to be brotherly love, relief (philanthropy), and truth (from alt.freeMasonry FAQ), which also claims Masonry to be about intellectual stimulation and moral development? We know that women are just as moral and intelligent as men, so how is it that your society could justify keeping women out? I do understand that the given justifications are that your rules are based on medieval structures and traditions, but your rules have changed over the years as has everything, so why hasn't this one been changed?
Well in my part of Freemasonry there are women, indeed our present Grand Master is female. I personally feel that the real reason why women aren't admitted by Grand Lodges such as UGLE and those in Amity therewith is that when these were formed women were very much second glass citizens, notwithstanding great Queens such as Elizabeth I, Mary II, Queen Anne and later Queen Victoria. Contrary to legend there were women who worked the stone in the medieval Cathedrals, Castles etc.
Second one, why monotheism? Obviously this isn't a question about the origins of Masonry, coming from Europe its completely understandable why it is rooted in monotheism, but I understand you don't have requirements for members to be from a particular religion provided their spiritual beliefs include a supreme being. I hoped someone could explain why this is the case. After all brotherly love, truth and relief are common to most spiritual paths and I can't find any details in the information available to me. I can also understand that whilst for most atheists, spirituality may mean nothing, symbolism (which from my limited knowledge seems more what Masonry is about) is completely meaningful.
This is NOT a requirement , indeed there are Hindus and Animists etc who are Freemasons and the Pro-Grand Master of UGLE, Lord Northampton is a Buddhist . Whilst many Masonic Bodies require a belief in a Supreme Being , there are some such as Grand Orient of France which make no such requirement of their Members.
This continues into my next question which is, how does the statement that Masonry is not a religion co-exist with the need for a belief in a supreme being to be a member? This to me seems to be a large part of why the anti-Masonry sentiment exists, the two things seem obviously at discord with each other, inviting the perspective that it is a secret cult (please don't be offended, this is not my own opinion, but it does exist as an opinion). Why is it necessary to believe in a supreme being to be a member of your organisation, if your organisation has no religious beliefs?
Not so. Freemasonry does not offer a means to "salvation" whatever that may mean to one. It has no sins, no commandments, no doctrines or dogmas. It does offer some moral guidelines which if followed should enhance one's behaviour especially towards other humans.
And my last question is an organisational one, and may just be a result of me misunderstanding how your organisation works, but how come there isn't a hierarchy in Masonry? From what I've read there is no central Masonic Authority. "Each jurisdiction maintains a list of other jurisdictions that it formally recognizes. If the other jurisdiction reciprocates the recognition, the two jurisdictions are said to be in amity" is the information I have. How did this occur? Given that Masonry is descended from Medieval times when hierarchy was de rigeur, it would explain the perspective anti-Masons have that there is indeed a greater secret hierarchy which the average mason knows nothing about, but I can't find an explanation for how it could have occurred from the pro-Masonry perspective. Working, long-term organisations never seem to survive where there isn't a hierarchy keeping them in place, there seems to be something psychological which prevents humans from treating each other equally, the alpha male pattern. Is there an explanation for this?
In any organisation there is a Management structure. Some are Democratic to a greater or lesser extent, others are Oligarchies. LDH, GL of Scotland and some of the other Masonic Obediences would come into the Democratic model, others such as UGLE are top-down Oligarchies and autocratic with the ordinary member having almost no way to change how things are run. Some people like this system, others such as myself do not. It is for the individual to do their research and decide which type of Freemasonry would suit them.
Now these also may not be the answers you wish to read, but as Martin Luther said, "On this I stand, I can do no other"
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Jun 27, 2008 23:08:11 GMT
You mention co-masonry but make no acknowledgement of the female only orders of masonry. Freemasonry isn't mysoginistic in it's teachings, however, its historical development gives rise to present day freemasonry - male, female, co-masonry. Freemasonry is no different to many other organisations in this development, the continued existence of three separate streams is where freemasonry is different to other institutions, in that many of them have coalesced into one stream. Will this ever happen? I don't know. My personal feeling is that the three separate streams should continue so as to offer the masonic experience to the widest audience. Again, not strictly true, some masonic obediences have no requirement for belief in a supreme being, and the one's that do, to my knowledge, don't exclude polytheistic belief systems. See the previous answer regarding GL's who do not require a belief in a SB. Additionally there are plenty of institutions that require a belief in 'God' that aren't religious in nature. The Pledge of Allegiance mentions God, but isn't religious. This has been well answered elsewhere in the thread. One thing that is hard for a non mason to grasp is that the function of freeemasonry that is "unchanging" not the form. The lessons and rituals inculcated in each lodge are the ancient pat, not the structural form, which is a very recent addition to freemasonry.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jun 27, 2008 23:10:48 GMT
"My personal feeling is that the three separate streams should continue so as to offer the masonic experience to the widest audience."
I could certainly agree with that! "A One Size Fits All" Freemasonry would be a disaster.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 28, 2008 0:42:43 GMT
"A One Size Fits All" Freemasonry would be a disaster. Freemasonry unites men [sic] of all nationalities and religious beliefs and conciliates true friendships amongst those who might otherwise remain at a perpetual distance.
|
|
|
Post by shinju on Jun 28, 2008 3:27:14 GMT
Thankyou Penfold and Lauderdale, that makes it much clearer. From the reading I had from the masonic resources on the web I got a much different picture of Masonry. The Internet does make it sound like a belief in the supreme being is vital and I'm much gladdened to find out this is not the case. Do you happen to know if there are atheist/humanist lodges as well? The reading I had done so far did also make it sound like it was just the natural enlightenment of masonry which meant that lodges co-operated with each other and made the whole organisation work, which to me (of course) sounded completely unlikely and unrealistic. I now have some stuff to consider Cheers.
|
|