Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 18, 2008 7:30:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Feb 18, 2008 8:11:53 GMT
Then if you are prepared to cast the first stone, I must assume you are without sin. Why? You are using an example which to me is irrelevant to this subject. Not completely but I do not see the need to use it! I know I am not without sin, I also know there are plenty of people out there (well one or two) who would probably want me to be got rid of. We can only comment from our own perspectives, justify our own actions, and yes I can and would be happy to justify mine and still know things were wrong with me and still needed work.(Although funny enough I am against the death penalty, but that is because there is no going back and saying this is a mistake). There are some (IMO) that are beyond help or if you prefer I would be able to say to; This is not for you, and you are not for it, it would be better if you found something else to do. To me this is simple and doesnt need quotes from the bible to make me look at my motives or anything else to arrive at. If you cannot see there are unworthy people out there or are not prepared to judge them, then that is obviously your prerogative, and I respect that, but it doesnt make you right.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Feb 18, 2008 9:23:14 GMT
I am inclined to agree with Bro Middlepillar and others on this topic.
Freemasonry should not discriminate on external grounds such as Race, Colour, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Social Class, but on the internal aspects we have to do so. Not everyone is suited to Freemasonry nor it to them and I have to say that I have told a couple of people in the past that I honestly did not think that The Craft was for them after some in-depth discussions. One did join a Lodge but left after a few months ands told me I had been correct, the other joined another organisations, Round Table or Lions I think and was happy therein.
As it says in the Bible, "Many are called but few are chosen" and Dr George Oliver did caution against great numbers in a Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 18, 2008 11:16:51 GMT
Well lauderdale and middlepillar, the point is clear - well to me it seems clear , you say not everyone is suitable for Freemasonry. This would indicate that you
1) consider yourself to be suitable 2) consider others to be not suitable 3) have elected yourselves to be the arbiter of who is and who is not suitable.
My point is one that I have expressed on a number of occasions, no one is better than anyone else and therefore Freemasonry should be available to all who wish to explore. nobody has any understanding of Freemasonry until they join , are intiated and start the journey, I have seen the roughest of diamonds shine after a few years and the bright spark fall on his face.
It , by its own trials and tribulations will weed out who is suitable and who is not.
Then we the frail creatures that follow the tenets will have no need to sit in judgement on those who may or may not be suitable.
That is the point of being without sin, only those who are without sin may sit in judgement. So I agree "Many are called but few are chosen" but it should not be us that does the choosing, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 18, 2008 11:41:52 GMT
Are you saying Bill that absolutely anyone who approach you for admittance to any of the Lodges you attend that you would happily become their proposer?
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Feb 18, 2008 11:59:01 GMT
It does neither a Lodge nor a Grand Lodge much good to have an easy in and out basis of recruitment. The easy entry followed by many drop-outs. Not my idea of Freemasonry.
We need to guard the West Gate with more assiduity than has been the case in recent times, perhaps in the past few decades. Again that great worthy of Freemasonry in bygone times, Dr George Oliver, advises to be especially careful in whom one proposes into The Craft " as a slip at this time could prove to be fatal"
It also rings a bit ironic that the branch of Freemasonry that Bro Bill supports and belongs to automatically excludes half of humanity, even from Visitation, on the grounds of their gender.
I would also say that unless it is being done only because it is required by the B of C and is purely formulaic, then the Interview of a Candidate should hopefully discover anyone who is not "fit and proper" but I do feel that the Proposer should be more proactive and not merely append their name to get another one in, but ask themselves, in their knowledge of the putative Candidate, whether this person is really suited to Freemasonry and into them and if they would be happy to sit in Lodge with them? In my 18 years with UGLE I only Proposed two people, both of whom are still On the Square. I am equally cautious in this respect in LDH.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 18, 2008 13:34:54 GMT
A great read Bro. Philip. Highly recommended to all Masons.
|
|
|
Post by xiii on Feb 18, 2008 13:39:14 GMT
I say, let s/he who finds the door knock. S/He'll be greeted by a friendly face and some answers, but it doesn't necessarily follow that s/he'll become a member of the lodge. They may find that freemasonry is not for them, or the investigating committee (not MP or any other individual, nor did they claim any such authority) may feel that the seeker is not ready. This threshold is important, and you have to cross it to even get to the west gate. Neither candidate nor lodge benefits from having someone satisfy idle curisousity in their Initiation ceremeony and never show up. I don't think that is elitist, but I do believe in setting standards (and it goes to follow that the lodge must then make good on that implied promise of quality!).
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 18, 2008 14:02:40 GMT
Are you saying Bill that absolutely anyone who approach you for admittance to any of the Lodges you attend that you would happily become their proposer? No I am not saying that. It is every persons right to get on a Bus, but I don't have to help them on it. This is a philosophical question. not a personal one. Every person should have the right to be admitted into Freemasonry, with the exception of whatever disquilifying restrictions laid down by whatever GL is in question. Are you saying [ neatly turning the question back on the questioner] that I have the right to stop someone becoming a Freemason. This week I am having a discussion with some other Masons about forming a new Lodge, because we are not satisfied with the Freemasonry we are experiencing at this time. That option is always open to all. Now that is not excluding anyone, that is including those that have a specific idea of what Freemasonry stands for. Its the difference between calling someone and saying your not invited to my party and calling and saying we are having a party would you like to come along.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 18, 2008 14:06:32 GMT
Of course, anyone can apply for membership if they feel so inclined, in fact, I feel they should be encouraged to do so, but it shouldn't necessarily follow that the mare fact they have knocked on the door is sufficient grounds in itself for them to be admitted, which is apparently what Bill is suggesting.
The website at the centre of what this thread is about will accept absolutely anyone as long as they can pays the required 35 dollars.
To them it doesn't matter if you are: convicted rapists, murders, child molesters, etc, etc. All the owners of that site seems concerned with is attracting the gullible and their cash.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 18, 2008 16:44:55 GMT
Are you saying Bill that absolutely anyone who approach you for admittance to any of the Lodges you attend that you would happily become their proposer? No I am not saying that. It is every persons right to get on a Bus, but I don't have to help them on it. This is a philosophical question. not a personal one. very person should have the right to be admitted into Freemasonry, with the exception of whatever disquilifying restrictions laid down by whatever GL is in question. Are you saying [ neatly turning the question back on the questioner] that I have the right to stop someone becoming a Freemason. This week I am having a discussion with some other Masons about forming a new Lodge, because we are not satisfied with the Freemasonry we are experiencing at this time. That option is always open to all. Now that is not excluding anyone, that is including those that have a specific idea of what Freemasonry stands for. Its the difference between calling someone and saying your not invited to my party and calling and saying we are having a party would you like to come along. Just spotted this. Thanks Bill for clarifying your original remarks. You said: Are you saying [ neatly turning the question back on the questioner] that I have the right to stop someone becoming a Freemason.If you felt that a particular applicant wasn't wasn't suitable for your Lodge you do indeed have to right to decide which colour ball/cube you use. Otherwise the choice wouldn't be available to you.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Feb 18, 2008 18:11:53 GMT
Well lauderdale and middlepillar, the point is clear - well to me it seems clear , you say not everyone is suitable for Freemasonry. This would indicate that you 1) consider yourself to be suitable 2) consider others to be not suitable 3) have elected yourselves to be the arbiter of who is and who is not suitable.. Bill On points one and two I will obviously agree, I cannot see how you make those two points equal the 3rd point? I do not see myself as an arbiter, I will however if asked give my truthful opinion. I have always maintained no one has any idea if someone will make a good freemason, I have proposed at least 15 people in to Freemasonry they have all without exception turned out completely different to how I thought they would. This is not anything exceptional just true. However, with the experience I have it is not hard to observe people who should not be members, or have obviously joined somehing that is just not right for them. Are you seriously trying to tell me you have never met anyone like this? My point is one that I have expressed on a number of occasions, no one is better than anyone else and therefore Freemasonry should be available to all who wish to explore. nobody has any understanding of Freemasonry until they join , are intiated and start the journey, I have seen the roughest of diamonds shine after a few years and the bright spark fall on his face. It , by its own trials and tribulations will weed out who is suitable and who is not. Then we the frail creatures that follow the tenets will have no need to sit in judgement on those who may or may not be suitable.. Where have you read that I am disagreeing with you about this? I do not. All that I did say was that I would be prepared to tell someone that Freemasonry was not for them. That is the point of being without sin, only those who are without sin may sit in judgement. So I agree "Many are called but few are chosen" but it should not be us that does the choosing, in my opinion. I am sorry Bill, your point of being without sin is an over the top attempt at trying to gain some moral high ground and is totally uneccessary. No one is saying to do the choosing, what we are saying is that it is not that difficult to spot a bad mason or a Brother who really does not belong. Try thinking of looking for a fish out of water! yes sometimes it is that obvious. I cannot see why you are actually arguing about it.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 18, 2008 20:56:37 GMT
If you make a judgement you become, if you have the power. The arbiter over what action that person can achieve. For example if you have indicated " there are unworthy people out there ". Cambridge dictionary: Arbiter: someone who makes a judgment or solves an argument or decides what will be done: It is just a word. No I am not, but the point here is do you take affirmative action to stop that person joining ? I would hope we can trust the system. Then I have to refer you back to the above. Is saying 'look mate you would make a crap Freemason' the right course of action. To quote you yourself "I have proposed at least 15 people in to Freemasonry they have all without exception turned out completely different to how I thought they would. This is not anything exceptional just true.". So that is my point, how do you know, some may join because they have an ulterior motive but they soon loose heart and drop out, or don't pay their way. All I am saying is trust the system. Well I am not arguing just answering questions, I don't have to because as you well know I am always right. If your not saying you are taking affirmative action i.e to tell people not to join because they are not suitable. Or to influence members to leave the Fraternity if you think they do not 'fit in' then we do not have any disagreement. I have therefore not understood what you have written.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 18, 2008 21:31:16 GMT
Now there is a thought for the examining board to consider....
Q - How would you feel if we told you that we thought you were unsuitable for Freemasonry?
The answer should be quite revealing of a person's personality, psychology, motives etc etc.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 18, 2008 21:49:43 GMT
Well lauderdale and middlepillar, the point is clear - well to me it seems clear , you say not everyone is suitable for Freemasonry. This would indicate that you 1) consider yourself to be suitable 2) consider others to be not suitable 3) have elected yourselves to be the arbiter of who is and who is not suitable. My point is one that I have expressed on a number of occasions, no one is better than anyone else and therefore Freemasonry should be available to all who wish to explore. "1) consider yourself to be suitable" - ;D the more Masonry teaches me the more I realise that I might not be ;D "2) consider others to be not suitable" - it's one of my failings that I do consider myself a tad better than wife beaters, child molesters, murderers, corporate pirates, slave traders, drug pushers, power mongers ... etc etc None of which I would deem suitable for our masonic pursuits. Not saying that they will not be suitable in future lives when they have gained more wisdom, strength and beauty. Oh gosh ... and I forgot..... women (phhht) who in their right mind would... let a woman in. "3) have elected yourselves to be the arbiter of who is and who is not suitable. - I guess we all have our own individual ideas on what Masonry is and who is suitable to join our own lodges, as you say Bill you are feeling the need to start up a new one. We have had some nasty type posts here in the past, heaven knows how much harmony there is in their lodges and how many have left masonry because of it These people then go out and tell their friends all about idiot masons? And they are probably great folk! We lose good men and true all the time because of inappropriate admissions. Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 18, 2008 21:56:28 GMT
Hah!
Just found the lost word with regards to this thread - thank you Bill (on another thread)
"that a Mason's charity should know no bounds save those of PRUDENCE."
Maat
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Feb 18, 2008 23:24:30 GMT
Actually Bill I have realised we talking a little at cross purposes, I am not saying I would tel someone they are not suitable for Freemasonry to start with (after all we agree who can ever know that from the beginning?) I am stating that I would be prepared to tell them after they had joined and shown they were not suitable, a very distinct difference!
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 18, 2008 23:37:24 GMT
The Philosophy of the First Degree by MW Bro. Harry E. Howard Grand Master, Grand Lodge of Alberta 1952-53. Hitchcock in his Alchemy and Alchemist, written in 1857, quotes an old Hermetic philosopher as saying "although a man be poor, yet may he very well attain to perfection" and on commenting on this be says, "That is, every man, no matter how humble his vocation, may do the best he can in his place - may love mercy, do justly and walk humbly with God; and what more doth God require of any man." It would appear, therefore that even the symbols of the Alchemist have an affinity with the symbols of the spiritual temple of Freemasonry. This point is surely one where the 133rd Psalm is applicable "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity; It is like the precious ointment upon the head that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard; that went down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion; for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore," and should be used as an example of the relationship of the "brotherhood of man" to the "Fatherhood of God". Then comes the great lesson on Charity, beautifully taught in a never forgettable manner, calling for that lovely verse: We give thee but thine own What ere the gift may be All that we have is thine alone A trust, O Lord, from Thee To comfort and to bless, To find a balm for woe To tend the lone and fatherless, Is Angels' work below. In various parts of this degree we are taught the universality of Freemasonry and that a Mason's charity should know no bounds save prudence. Charity of thought for an erring Brother; charity which lays a brotherly hand on a troubled shoulder in comfort; charity which exults with the happy and finds joy in his success; charity which sorrows with the grieving, and drops a tear in sympathy; charity which opens the heart as well as the pocket book; charity which stretches forth a hand of hope to the hopeless, which brings a new faith to the crushed ... aye, these, indeed, may "extend through the boundless realms of eternity." www.phoenixmasonry.org/philosophy_of_the_first_degree.htm
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 19, 2008 2:46:31 GMT
Prudent: - acting with caution, foresight or descretion; mindful of consequences.
Even our charitable deeds should be bound by prudence.
Even Charity/Love is harmful when carried to excess.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by antoninus9 on Feb 20, 2008 3:22:26 GMT
Have any of you actually spoen with Gilbert, the leader of the Esoteric Freemasons? Of course Ed King never actually speaks with anyone or tries to learn the facts about those which he writes.
I've spoken with Gilbert a couple of times and I don't think he is running any kind of scam. Here's the real story.
Gilbert used to be a regular Mason but was more interested in the esoteric side of things. A Gnostic church that began back in the 1930's (date ?) and based on Freemasonry and the Kaballah changed its name in the 1970's (date ?) to the Esoteric Freemasons. (I don't remember the exact dates. Sorry)
This group believes that Freemasonry is more or less a religion, and as such should be open to everyone. They don't claim to be "regular" or even interested in speculative Freemasonry. It's just a small group of mystics pursuing things in their own way. Since they were very honest in answering all of my questions and never prentended to be anything they are not, it would be unjust to label them a "scam".
Believe it or not talking to people is a much better way to get accurate information about something than endless speculations and attempts at deductive reasoning based on pseudo facts. :-)
|
|