|
Post by whistler on Dec 9, 2004 18:16:11 GMT
We chat about visitation problems with Co-freemasons, what about the other Lodge's Like some of the French Male only Lodges that are not in amnity - what values should dictate which Freemasonic Lodges we can mix in harmony with?
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Dec 9, 2004 20:10:41 GMT
Whistler
One will eventually need to decide where to draw the line. Try the following options:
1. A lodge that appears to work a similar ritual but has no VSL or GAOTU
2. How about above but also is very political
3. Or maybe adheres to enough landmarks to satisfy you but has little or no ritual. Or ritual so wildly different as to be effectively not masonic.
4. How about completely different in all respects to what you are used to but calls itself a masonic lodge and its members freemasons.
The individual freemason should decide why they are not in amity, and whether that is a problem for them.
The location of the line itself is a very personal decision, but I think it is important to draw one somewhere. For my part, my line is the BoC of the EC as that is the fraternity I joined and my honour as a freemason precludes me from breaking the rules. If I had enough of a problem with the rules I would leave rather than break them. But that's just me and, like I said, every individual is different with different circumstances and I wouldn't judge someone who took a different view.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Dec 9, 2004 20:24:03 GMT
Trinityman, Yes one has to draw a line.
My thinking gets caught up with the thread, re the French Lodges who do not require a belief in a Supreme Being. I as a Freemason would not like my Lodge to tell me I couldn't visit - I might learn something - I might even learn that I didn't want to visit again, but it would be my decision..
I have visited a AUM Lodge, their ritual is spectacular, It is good for them, I find it is not good for me - The important point is I made the judgement. ;D
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Dec 9, 2004 20:53:30 GMT
[quote author=Trinityman The location of the line itself is a very personal decision, but I think it is important to draw one somewhere. For my part, my line is the BoC of the EC as that is the fraternity I joined and my honour as a freemason precludes me from breaking the rules. If I had enough of a problem with the rules I would leave rather than break them. But that's just me and, like I said, every individual is different with different circumstances and I wouldn't judge someone who took a different view.[/quote] This Paragraph is absolutely spot on, as a UGLE Freemason (and proud of it) I accept that not everything in the garden is rosy, but most of the garden id just fine. And if things got to a stage when it was not it would be my choice to leave and then perhaps join some other type of Freemasonry. I am happy to say at the moment I am inside the line
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Dec 9, 2004 20:54:14 GMT
I had a very interesting discussion with a freemason from GLNF last week and we were talking about the whole Supreme Being / Atheist thing. One of the bedrocks of English freemasonry is the 1738* Constitutions of Freemasonry written by James Anderson. Although to my mind he had quite a vivid imagination as regarding the history of the Craft, he created the first codified regulations for speculative freemasonry and there is no doubt he based this on the contemporary understanding of masonry and the 'landmarks' as well as his own not insignificant studies.
A famous phrase taken from this book
is cited by many Grand Lodges around the world as indicative of the traditional approach of Masonry toward faith, and the requirement for a belief in the Supreme Being. The emphasis, clearly, being on the word Atheist.
But the same passage is cited by other French grand lodges for the exclusion of God from all aspects of Masonry. With the emphasis on 'Stupid' rather than 'Atheist', Anderson is now exhorting us to be a smart atheist not a stupid one. (Presumably it's also OK to be a religious libertine ;D ).
Perception of what does, or doesn't constitute freemasonry, can boil down to semantics. Justification can inevitably be found in masonry for virtually any variation you care to mention, so my recommendation is to do the research and choose the path carefully but firmly.
IMO a group of people have a perfect right to do what they please and call themselves freemasons if they want to. It's equally proper that other freemasons will take a view on their behaviour and act accordingly.
There are very many shades of grey here, with some organisations being 'very' masonic and others barely so. But the judgement is subjective and so the line will be drawn in different places by different people.
As to whether my Grand Lodge should forbid me from visiting lodges that practice a brand of freemasonry the other side of the line that it drew is another matter entirely.
* as opposed to the 1723 version which was more limited in scope
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Dec 9, 2004 22:34:52 GMT
As in all moral matters I would follow the guidance of my own conscience.
|
|