giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Jan 6, 2006 11:54:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jratcliff on Jan 6, 2006 12:45:54 GMT
Nothing. This looks like a joke site. There is no such movement in the USA, this is just some Mason's particular idea that got expressed as a very small webstie.
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Jan 6, 2006 12:51:02 GMT
Very interesting! For ages the Yanks have made a big issue about NOT having a GL of the USA and of each State having Independence and its own Sovereign Jurisdiction in Matters Masonic.
Reading between the lines on that Website and what I have read here and on other Masonic Fora is this perhaps a reaction against the "One Day Class" Mac Masonry and by the wording at the bottom of the page of their Website is there also a stand against those few GLs over there which still refuse Recognition to Prince Hall GLs?
I await developments with interest and the comments of any American Freemasons who post here.
|
|
Harmony
Member
The Craft ; 1241 & 1386 & 1706 (Hon) (SC). OSM - Polnoon Castle Conclave. HRA - Rockmount & Camphi
Posts: 337
|
Post by Harmony on Jan 6, 2006 13:21:55 GMT
Nothing. This looks like a joke site. There is no such movement in the USA, this is just some Mason's particular idea that got expressed as a very small webstie. It reminds me very much of the RGLE site (in tenor, not necessarily design). From small acorns....
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jan 6, 2006 13:31:23 GMT
The question here I would say is the intent. I am aware of some of the Freemasons behind this project. It is , they are no joke.
If the intent is, I want to be the Grand master, then it will fall flat.
If the intent is to bring some new positive influence to enhamce what seems to be a fragmented Freemasonry then it should at least be given a chance to have its say.
If it is for the good of Freemasonry then all Freemasons should listen.
While I am aware that not all UK Masons like the UGLE government and organisation. It has existed for 250 years with no real challenge to its authority. It Governs by concent, the consent is given not taken. It remains to be seen if the consent is available for this UGLA concept.
|
|
|
Post by Jumile on Jan 6, 2006 14:21:27 GMT
It reminds me very much of the RGLE site (in tenor, not necessarily design). That was my first thought when I saw the website - that perhaps Rui/Robert/whoever or one of his acolytes was at it again. However, the domain's nameservers (at the end of this page or this page) belong to tracingboard.com, on whose front page it is mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by a on Jan 6, 2006 14:48:39 GMT
Bill
If UGLE can grasp this special moment it will lead for the next 250 years, but if it can't then it won't.
There is a simple rule in economics. If there is a demand, a supply will appear. It seems to me that many Freemasons want to take steps that they are frustrated from doing within the existing structures. Which is a real pity. And a real waste of energy, of people lives, of goodness.
It is just a pity, if what I am told, and what I read on forums is correct, that if you submit yourself to a Masonic fraternity that there is no guarantee that you will find Freemasonry in anything other than name.
This needs to be sorted pronto. For the sake of Freemasonry and for the sake of each and every single one of its members. And indeed for our world. If this moment in time is squandered, and it is very nearly too late, then Freemasonry may find itself in darkness for many many generations to come.
But I am tired of harping on about this, so I will stop. If this GL helps its members take real Masonic steps, then good luck to it.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jan 6, 2006 15:01:26 GMT
I too was initially thinking RGLE style usurpation of an existing GLs position.
However, having read its blurb, it seems that this is may be a reaction to a few things existing in US Freemasonry. The main one and most important to my mind being some GLs refusal to recognise PHA GLS, which is an abhorrently un-Masonic practise, no matter how you look at it.
M
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Jan 6, 2006 23:33:08 GMT
Yes, it is abhorrent. Not sure how well this venture will fare, I can see some heavywiehgt nay-saying coming along, as Kizzy said, the State GL's have things they way they want them within a defined territory, giving up some of their individuality to conform to a country wide, codified way of doing things may not be to their liking, nor that of their members.
Are the UGLoA planning on consecrating lodges under their own auspices?
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Jan 6, 2006 23:46:39 GMT
IMHO it is abhorrently un-Masonic the existence of PH GLs, thus perpetuating segregation!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jan 7, 2006 0:02:20 GMT
IMHO it is abhorrently un-Masonic the existence of PH GLs, thus perpetuating segregation! I would agree if it weren't for the fact that PHA Masons are rightly proud of their 230 year history and nowadays do not feel the need to be assimilated but require only the recognition that they are long overdue due. Now if we were doing this 150 years ago that would be different. M
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Jan 7, 2006 0:55:03 GMT
And recognition they deserve too imo. I guess if there was just one US GL then it could smooth out that wrinkle.
|
|
|
Post by parisfred on Jan 7, 2006 12:48:42 GMT
I don't exactly understand the issues here but I d like to know about your feelings on the single GL principles ? Is a GL more than an administrative level? Isn't all the initiatic strenght in the ritual and in the freemason in a free lodge ? What if the principles of a single GL or masonic body in each country, province , is just sterilizing the freemasonry ? ( by the way where are the frontier of state in Europe today ? ) Correct me if I wrong but in the usa, there is already 2 GL in quite every states : PHall and "mainstream" > from an UGLE point of view And the two above plus "women lodge " and "Human rights" ( le droit humain ) in some states > for adogmatic masons I support unity but in the respect of differences "holy see" or 'unique party line" is not possible anymore, That's why maybe we're close to another golden age of freemasonry. ps: the spell check don't recognise the word adogmatic !
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 7, 2006 14:50:14 GMT
Well, I do not like the Rule of Exclusive Territorial Sovereign Jurisdiction and would love to see Scots and Irish Regular Lodges formed and working in England and the Reciprocal, then I could join a Scots Craft Lodge and RA Chapter in London rather than having to fly up to Edinburgh if I wished to do this.
As to having a single GL for every Country, I have mixed views on this. I can see the Administrative advantages and as long as it left each Private Lodge with as much Autonomy as is practical in matters of Ritual, Charitable giving, etc and didn't micro-manage them, then it would be all to the good. Personally, I would be happy to keep UGLE with some modifications such as having a wider franchise and an elected Grand Master with a fixed Term of Office as the Scots have, but would scrap the Provinces as an anachronism and unnecessary with modern communications etc. Many large organisations have cut out their middle tier of management since the 1980s and I feel it could benefit UGLE to do likewise using a Federation structure with each Craft Lodge affiliated to it.
|
|
|
Post by a on Jan 7, 2006 21:30:27 GMT
The really sad thing is that:- 1. Your prepare yourself in your heart to be a Freemason 2. You find Freeemasonry in your heart. 3. You live Freemasonry through your heart. 4. Your Masonic journey is based in your heart. What matters ia that Freemasons gain the support they need to help them open their hearts. Everything else is just well secondary. If existing structures are failing to do their job, and I recently reread with great interest Lord Northamptons recent comments in his Cornerstone speech about whether Freemasonry is broke or not - worth a careful read - then alternative structures will emerge and take the lead. It is called evolution. If you can't adapt you wither. "something is wrong with Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry" See www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-15/p-41.php?PHPSESSID=c59cd231db419873a6a6dff3b1c63103Is anyone here willing to tell me that Lord Northampton is mistaken? Fix it boys, fix it.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jan 7, 2006 22:30:03 GMT
Yes Stewart , always up for a Challenge.
His Lordship starts with "I start with the disclaimer that the views expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of Grand Lodge"
I have read the rest of the article and I have to say , i don't agree. My experience with my local Freemasonry it that it houses amny great Freemasons, young and old. The new guys may expect something different from what I expected when I joined, but they stay the course and I find if they receive respect and encouragement do very well.
I dined with two men last night that a few years ago told me they would never make it through the Chair. One is my Worshipful Master and the other is his Immediate Past Master. The IPM had to drop out for a couple of years through work pressure but came back and acheived everthing he set himself.
I dined with three men on Wednesday who put their heart and soul into Freemasonry for many years and have coached many young Masons in the course of those years.
Freemasonry is about grass roots, not statistics. Many things have changed since the 1980's which is where I have to question his Lordships mathematics, 1980 to 2006 is not 30 years so I hope he has his 40% figure right.
I can only tell you that the Lodges I am involved in are doing very well. But they work together for the benefit of all. That is what I find lacking in many visits I make outside of my district.
I would suggest to his Lordship that he has some of the answers to assist in the decline.
I dont find a problem with men who wish to be involved in Freemasonry, there is a problem with the cost of being a Freemason.
1) Retired or out of work Freemasons, should not pay the same fees as working Masons 2) We should have one membership fee payable to UGLE and that leaves you open to join as many Lodges as you wish without having to pay multiple fees. 3) Honorary membership by qualified masons should have a lifetime fee.
That will get back 20% of those who are leaving.
I do not find there is a lack of interest in Freemasonry, but those who are active pay a huge fee to be so.
After that get rid of the Honor system, that will solve 50 % of the resignations at being overlooked while a member who has done next to nothing gets promoted over those who have worked themselves into the ground.
So Stewart my answer to you and the Pro Grand Master is , Sir you have the answers in your own control, dont tell us, get it done.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Jan 7, 2006 22:47:26 GMT
BIll, not sure what you mean on #3?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 7, 2006 23:32:57 GMT
Greetings Giovanni, I checked the 'links' and found the Gold Rose Cross group, and was wondering if this is linked to the one in Germany? Regards, Sid
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Jan 8, 2006 0:09:56 GMT
I'm going to have to side with Bill on this one even though it is about the UGLE. There is nothing wrong IMHO with "my " craft, certainly in Scotland. The Pro GM says there are far too many lodges with few members. Well who's fault is that, none other than the Grand Lodge's for allowing those new lodges to be constituted, inc, Scotland. I know of several small lodges, my own included, who survive quite nicely with just an average of 15 members sitting each meeting, per year. Lets think quality not quantity. I'm quite realistic in thinking that in later years we will have less members than now and fewer lodges, but those lodges IMHO will be fuller than ever.
Freemasonry will still be here in 200 years time. If tradition is out the window then why are we( Scotland) still performing the rituals and various workings, and community assistance, that have been around for the previous 300,to 400 years. If you care to look at my lodge minute books (starting in 1766) you will see that after we were constituted we were just as skint then as we are now. Money is a very big part of freemasonry whether it is for charity or just to keep your lodge going, but I think that we should look after our own first. We did that when the operatives and early speculative masons were around because we were told to by our ancestral governments. Why change now just to appease a few idiots in the press. Look after No1 because if there is no No 1 then there can be no assistance to others.
Sorry Stewart, but I do dislike it when others tell me my craft is wrong. I'm on my soap box here and I'm slightly disgruntled that a high ranking freemason could say such things. IMHO it's scare mongering whether it's his opinon or not.
As for the Grand lodge of the USA. I have posted that opinion on another site which I will re-produce here.
"I can never understand why when various upset brethren start up a new body they always seem to want it to be known as a "Grand" this or a "Grand" that. Why not just a "society" etc. It seems to me that the emphasis is always on the "Grand". Might say something about the instigators.
I know that we have all have Grand Bodies in our various countries and that they came from somewhere, but these have been around for centuries and lets face it there were no Grand Lodges at the time when they were formed. I personaly think,that, like all other previous rebel Grand lodges they will disappear over time. We may not have a perfect system but I find it's comfortable. If it were as bad as what those upset brethren say it is why remain for so long.
Is it about true freemasonry or is it just another power struggle? After all we know what happened when the Grand Commandery of the USA tried to attempt to stamp it's authority in Europe"
Just my opinon brethren in which I have no intention to upset anyone.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jan 8, 2006 0:18:06 GMT
BIll, not sure what you mean on #3? 3) If you wish to make a long standing member an honorary member [ meaning he no longer has to pay a membership fee, the Lodge will pay from there on] I suggest a single payment made by the Lodge to UGLE for the membership of that individual for the rest of his life. Scotland have life memberships so it is possible to do this I am sure. Lets say we have some qualifications, the member has to have served 25 years in Freemasonry, been active in Chritable works and worked for the benefit of Freemasonry and not his own ambitions. The members then are able to put before the Lodge this persons name to be voted upon in open Lodge to be made an Honorary member. Let us say you pay a set fee of £ 350 to UGLE for the membership of that indivual to cover him for the rest of his life. he may now continue being an active member of his Lodge or many Lodges , act in any office and continue to be an active force for the good of Freemasonry. At the moment if you vote a member as an honaray member , he is not allowed to hold office and can not attend Lodge visit other Lodges because he is not a paid up member of the craft, 'and not a lot of people know that'.
|
|