|
Post by dwbro1 on Apr 1, 2009 15:03:54 GMT
I was very reluctant to even post a link for that message here, as I did not wish to start anything, especially on a fellow Brothers forums which seems very similar to mine. I know how frustrating it can be to deal with and how fast a thread can spin out of control. Our goals unite us, our paths divide us, the most important thing is that we begin and end together.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Apr 2, 2009 2:43:17 GMT
Our goals unite us, our paths divide us, the most important thing is that we begin and end together. I have heard that that is the Law. An excellent reason to learn to 'love one's enemies' and 'turn the other cheek' etc etc. Because while one lags behind the rest must/will stay will him. That is Love. ?? Maat
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Apr 2, 2009 13:12:20 GMT
They may seem to have, but they have not. We do have some interesting Brethren who attempted some experiments that just didn't work at the time. Brandt You see this is the point where I have to part company with the army of change. Change for change sake or change becuse it does not fit what I want is not, in my opinion, the right way. I am one of that dyeing breed of El Cid's. There is a scene in the film when the young King realizes the wrongs he has done to El Cid, he enters the room and kneels, trying to show humility. The Cid then says, 'no Sire, 'My King' kneels to no man'. In my ritual it says 'some must rule and teach, while other should submit and obey'. In other words no man can claim the right of leadership unless he has first conquered the right to serve. This message was not posted by me but seems to be under my name. Brandt
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Apr 2, 2009 13:30:12 GMT
"You see this is the point where I have to part company with the army of change. Change for change sake or change becuse it does not fit what I want is not, in my opinion, the right way."
Who said anything about change for the sake of change? Perhaps we are talking past each other here?
"In my ritual it says 'some must rule and teach, while other should submit and obey'."
It is clear that we have a difference of opinion and philosophy. Why must some "rule" and why must some "submit?" Of course this is a moot question in a situation in which those at the "top" do not have the authority to "rule."
"In other words no man can claim the right of leadership unless he has first conquered the right to serve."
The right of leadership comes from a consent of the governed. I would go so far as to say that a position of leadership is simply a higher level of service. How does one go about conquering the right to serve?
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 2, 2009 15:13:07 GMT
sorry Brandt, my fault I will try to fix it, I have edited your post instead of quoting it.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 2, 2009 15:34:19 GMT
Who said anything about change for the sake of change? Perhaps we are talking past each other here? There certainly has been a lot of change in a relatively small period of time. Certainly not an evolution, the changes have been driven by policy, well at least from this viewers eye contact. not saying it is bad, just that it has happened. In all cases it will be government by those who wish to be governed. History shows us that the enforcement of Rule never works. 'King for a day', Freemasonry has this element, that it is possible for any member to be Master - any member to be Grand Master. [except under UGLE where we have still the Royal ethic] but in principle we can all be 'King for a Day'. It is the same as when the teacher is surpassed by the pupil, when the apprentice makes a better job than the Master. That is what and the why for of Freemasonry. If it were created and supported by the selfish and self centred it would have died out 200 years ago. My Old-Mentor , Roy, had his best Freemasonry when one of his Pupils [EA's] produced a Masterly presentation of ritual, after 65 years in Freemasonry he wanted nothing for himself, only the pride in what his pupil could achieve. Roy submitted in style, Roy ruled in style and Roy lived in style. A mild mannered man who would say little but did so much. Quietly supporting and working for others. I hope that each of you meet a Roy at some point of your Masonic career.
|
|
afterthought
Member
A true initiation never ends. -Robert Anton Wilson
Posts: 242
|
Post by afterthought on Apr 2, 2009 15:36:39 GMT
Isn't "change for change sake" just a dissmisive euphemism? In reality, isn't change always an evolutionary reaction?
I find it on an anthropological level interesting that so many are resistant to change forthe most trivial of reasons. The institutions that govern Masonic "law" where started by mere men, in the back room of a bar. If anything can be changed you would think it would be something born from a situation such as this.
|
|
afterthought
Member
A true initiation never ends. -Robert Anton Wilson
Posts: 242
|
Post by afterthought on Apr 2, 2009 15:38:51 GMT
Doesn't anyone else find the UGLE requirement of Royalty as GM disturbing? This dogma seems to fly in the face of Masonic equality.
If anything where ever "irregular" this would be it.
|
|
vtmason
Member
Running Dog Lackey
Posts: 251
|
Post by vtmason on Apr 2, 2009 16:24:56 GMT
Doesn't anyone else find the UGLE requirement of Royalty as GM disturbing? This dogma seems to fly in the face of Masonic equality. If anything where ever "irregular" this would be it. The have the same requirement here in Vermont
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 2, 2009 16:54:29 GMT
Isn't "change for change sake" just a dissmisive euphemism? In reality, isn't change always an evolutionary reaction? I find it on an anthropological level interesting that so many are resistant to change forthe most trivial of reasons. The institutions that govern Masonic "law" where started by mere men, in the back room of a bar. If anything can be changed you would think it would be something born from a situation such as this. No I do not think so. If you can show that all change makes for better then you have a case. Evolution is a series of changes where the best of the change is kept and the worst left behind. Making drastic changes in a short period rarely works out too well. You say that we are resistant to change then quote a 'few men in a bar' , which is exactly the changes and the evolution UGLE and thereby the rest of mainstream have gone through, is it not.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 2, 2009 16:57:43 GMT
Doesn't anyone else find the UGLE requirement of Royalty as GM disturbing? This dogma seems to fly in the face of Masonic equality. If anything where ever "irregular" this would be it. It is not a requirement, it just has been many of the Royal Family over the years have been Grand Master. It is the same with the Queen. I have a choice, to trust the Queen to keep corruption and stupidity from running our Country, or any of the Prime Ministers that have served during her Monarchy. No contest, I will take the Queen.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Apr 2, 2009 18:37:20 GMT
sorry Brandt, my fault I will try to fix it, I have edited your post instead of quoting it. No problem Bro, I do that often. Brandt
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Apr 2, 2009 18:44:36 GMT
"There certainly has been a lot of change in a relatively small period of time. Certainly not an evolution, the changes have been driven by policy, well at least from this viewers eye contact. not saying it is bad, just that it has happened."
Brother Bill, I am not sure which changes you are talking about. Pardon my ignorance, could you enlighten me on these changes that you are alluding to?
Brandt
|
|
afterthought
Member
A true initiation never ends. -Robert Anton Wilson
Posts: 242
|
Post by afterthought on Apr 2, 2009 20:10:40 GMT
It seems to me that any change could be branded "for change sake." Seems like more of a way to remain in the status quo than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Apr 2, 2009 20:38:09 GMT
Doesn't anyone else find the UGLE requirement of Royalty as GM disturbing? No. And it's not a requirement -- it's a likelihood. Article 16 of the BoC clearly suggests the possibility of the GM not being Prince of the Blood Royal -- it is only when he is that a Pro-GM may be appointed. Not at all. Didn't you know? All masons are always EAs -- no matter what rank and degree they may achieve.
|
|
afterthought
Member
A true initiation never ends. -Robert Anton Wilson
Posts: 242
|
Post by afterthought on Apr 2, 2009 20:45:59 GMT
Doesn't anyone else find the UGLE requirement of Royalty as GM disturbing? No. And it's not a requirement -- it's a likelihood. Article 16 of the BoC clearly suggests the possibility of the GM not being Prince of the Blood Royal -- it is only when he is that a Pro-GM may be appointed. Not at all. Didn't you know? All masons are always EAs -- no matter what rank and degree they may achieve. A Butcher should be able to be GM. Or even more so and unemployed beatnik. I rather dislike the idea of Royal dominated Freemasonry. Then again I rather dislike the idea of a modern Monarchy. Call me crazy but I believe in individuals paying their way.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 2, 2009 21:49:44 GMT
Brother Bill, I am not sure which changes you are talking about. Pardon my ignorance, could you enlighten me on these changes that you are alluding to? Brandt I can not refer to GO USA as the Grand Secretary told me he is not at liberty to divulge what is happening. My comments were in respect of changes generally within Freemasonry. I have to smile when posters hoist the flag of UGLE not chnaging and being Old and not ready to allow changes. Ask any Secretray of a UGLE Lodge, I am one of 2 Lodges. They change the dam system about every 2 weeks. I have a BOC it is about 2 inches thick, I am sent changes and amendments every 4 months and I am supposed to stick these silly pages into the book as time passes. So to say that UGLE never changes is just rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Apr 2, 2009 21:55:22 GMT
I have a BOC it is about 2 inches thick, I am sent changes and amendments every 4 months and I am supposed to stick these silly pages into the book as time passes. Blimey Bill -- have the Board never considered releasing the BoC in loose-leaf format? Would make life a whole lot easier for you all!
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Apr 2, 2009 22:03:50 GMT
A Butcher should be able to be GM. Or even more so an unemployed beatnik. I rather dislike the idea of Royal dominated Freemasonry. Then again I rather dislike the idea of a modern Monarchy. Call me crazy but I believe in individuals paying their way. I thought we agreed the Grand Master has the approval of the members, he does not last long if he does not have that trust. If you wish to place your trust for the future of Freemasonry in the hands of your Butcher or a passing beatnik, then by all means do so. When it all goes wrong we will be here. I will place my trust in the 'Duke of Kent' who has been at the job for 47 years. You see institutions Like the 'United Grand Lodge of England' are an easy target for the sniper. But as I said to our Jeff many years back what do you put in its place that does even part way the good work that it does. With all its faults it does a dam good job. In the UK the Grand Charity of UGLE is the second largest donator to Charity only passed by the National Lottery. Split between about 60% Masonic Charities and 40% non Masonic. Some of the smaller charities may well collapse if this support was removed. Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. all completed in full measure.
|
|
|
Post by joyrock on Apr 3, 2009 0:28:03 GMT
If I attempt to lift a stone from the middle of the river and I have much difficulty, which one of you is to tell me the stone is light?
Are you telling me that to reinforce my mind over matter, or to mock me? How does it make my task possible?
|
|