imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 9, 2008 18:16:36 GMT
Only the best ;D
|
|
|
Post by sniffles on Feb 9, 2008 18:54:53 GMT
Hmmmmm. Everyone, should I tell Bro. Sniffles here why I know myself to be regular? I don't consider you to be irregular; but please do enlighten me.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 10, 2008 2:59:38 GMT
I don't consider you to be irregular; but please do enlighten me. K, I will. But, in as much as most Male-Only Masons I know do consider me "irregular", I wouldn't mind knowing how *you* came to recognize the truth. It is, I'm sure you know, exceptionally rare. As to how I know myself to be regular . . . k, this is a cut and paste as I've expounded upon this before. And everyone else here will be yawning as they've heard it from me before. That said . . . I would love - I really would - a debate on the merits. So far, the only challenge it has received is from the you're-not-regular-and-that's-all crowd. Too very high school for me to waste energy on. But a challenge on its merits; that I would most happily entertain. Anyway, what I'm going to describe is the gist of a paper I've entered in Internet Lodge's annual Short Papers competition. Jurisdictional InclusivityIt is commonly and, I think, correctly recognized that no one speaks for all of Freemasonry. It is likewise understood that no one jurisdiction speaks for Freemasonry but, instead, can make statements that are true only within that jurisdiction. This is called "jurisdictional inclusivity". I've also seen it called "Masonic inclusivity". I've also seen it called by other names. By whatever name, this is the concept that all Masonic jurisdictions are sovereign within themselves. I know of no Masonic jurisdiction that claims any authority in any other jurisdiction. Neither do I know of a jurisdiction that has ceded any of Her own authority to any other jurisdiction. This concept was clearly understood by our Masonic forebears. Bro. Albert Mackey described this concept, quite a while back, in his own breakdown of the Powers of the Grand Lodge. He says, as quoted in Bro. E.R. Johnston's "Masonry Defined" (on page 413 of the most commonly available volume, available online here) Clearly, the emphasis here is on the scope of a Grand Lodge's jurisdiction, which is inclusive. In other words, no Masonic jurisdiction (including my own) has any authority over any other jurisdiction. This, likewise, means no jurisdiction has any authority over the Freemasons that make up another jurisdiction. Statements WithinSo, under this concept, statements made by a jurisdiction are binding only within that jurisdiction, not without it. Logically, this is true of all statements, including statements about regularity. That said, many jurisdiction do, indeed, make statements about the regularity of Freemasons in other jurisdictions. On its face, this may seem odd as it's been pointed out, accurately, that no jurisdiction agrees on the definition of regularity (they, likewise, don't agree on the landmarks but that's a whole other paper). Well, they don't have to agree. For, under the the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity, each jurisdiction need only decide for itself what regularity means because this definition is not at all binding on any other jurisdiction. Within that authority, a jurisdiction is free to establish (or not) amity agreements with other jurisdictions. If they choose not to, this jurisdiction, as is commonly practiced, is free to say She holds the other jurisdiction to be "irregular" or "clandestine", for internal administrative purposes. For, by their internal definition, accurate only internally, this would, for them, be true. Statements WithoutHowever, as no Masonic jurisdiction claims authority over any other jurisdiction, no jurisdiction under the canopy of Heaven can accurately say whether another jurisdiction, or Freemasons in that jurisdiction is/are, in fact, "regular" or "clandestine". No jurisdiction outside my own can grant or deny me the title of "regular". They just can't. Example of Such a StatementThe UGLE's March 10, 1999 statement about Feminine Masonry reads accurately in this context. For UGLE long has held, within Her jurisdiction, no woman can be initiated into Masonry. The UGLE's statement does not undo that. So there are no women Freemasons within the UGLE. However, the UGLE has never, ever claimed to speak for, or have any authority over, other jurisdictions. And the statement clearly says that Masonry, which exists inside and outside the UGLE, is not exclusive to men. So, *within* the UGLE, I can never be a regular Freemason. However, within Freemasonry, and in particular within my own jurisdiction, I am. I am, in fact, as regular within my own jurisdiction as any other Freemason is within his/her own jurisdiction. That is, in fact, the only way I can be regular. For only one's jurisdiction can accurately recognize one as regular. And no statement outside that jurisdiction can accurately state otherwise. Other BrothersAs I said, I begin with the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity. But my statement is/was that I am regular. I know myself to be Regular because the Ritual (to be stated below) and Masonic jurisprudence (stated above) so indicate. Those are the merits of my claim. By way of explanation, and within the context of this post, I am about to use a word many find offensive. I have been criticized for using this word. But I can find no other way to describe it. I promise, I use this word only in its legal sense. I am no one's bastard brother. I was conceived in the same place as are all the Brethren. Our progenitor is the same. I was pr*ly pr*pared. I was received upon the same p*nt. I was made in the b*dy of a L*dge J*st, P*rfect and R*gular. Again, I point to Bro. Mackey and his definition, which states: So it was for me: - I am acknowledged as a Free and Accepted Mason - I was initiated into our mysteries in that "certain manner" in a lodge that holds a charter from the supreme body of my jurisdiction - I was made with the assistance of, and under the superintendence of, seven (and more) Master Masons - I share in common, with all Brothers, "the ready use of those signs and words which are used by the other brethren." For the above references to Mackey, please again refer to "Masonry Defined", in particular questions 777 and 413. As for Mackey's references in the masculine, I am a part of mankind, which is in the masculine. And in the ritual, I am referred to as he/him. It applies to all Brothers for the ritual recognizes transcendence in gender, even if individual Brothers do not. All brothers are "sons of the Widow". So I am. I was so initiated as described above, Within my jurisdiction, I claim to be a regularly initiated Freemason. I am as regular in my jurisdiction as any other Freemason is within his/her's. And that's all. Now, it is true that individual Male-Only Freemasons, by their thought/word/deed/personal inclination, deny the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity and the ritual. They, on their own, claim otherwise. I believe they do so in error and ignorance (willful or otherwise). I greet them as charitably as I can, for they are my Brothers. But they are wrong. I likewise have encountered Co-Masons and Femalecraft Masons who use the words "irregular" and "clandestine" to refer to themselves. Usually in a good-sportish sort of way when they are with their Malecraft BB. I did this myself when I was still very new to the Craft, following this poor example and before I understood the simplicity of the truth I am telling here. I don't do it now, for I was wrong. To accept this slander is insult those BB who made me. That I will no longer do, though I try to greet with equal charity those of my BB who do. They are, likewise, wrong. That is my case. Bro. Sniffles, are you sorry you asked?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 10, 2008 4:04:05 GMT
Bro. Karen
Personally, I doubt not that you are regular. However, you appear to have responded to an argument I, at least, have not encountered. I suggest your case might benefit from you also debunking the concept of "Territorial Exclusivity," in which a masonic jurisdiction is defined (wrongly IMO) not by one's respective Obedience but by geographical regions, with only one governing body for each.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 10, 2008 22:03:32 GMT
However, you appear to have responded to an argument I, at least, have not encountered. I've encountered Freemasons who say I'm irregular because their Obedience says I am. And for no other reason. You haven't encountered this? Wow. I don't see a need, as it seems to be toppling all on it's own. It also is self-evident in my own paper above. However, thank you much for your suggestion
|
|
|
Post by sniffles on Feb 11, 2008 6:13:21 GMT
I don't consider you to be irregular; but please do enlighten me. K, I will. But, in as much as most Male-Only Masons I know do consider me "irregular", I wouldn't mind knowing how *you* came to recognize the truth. It is, I'm sure you know, exceptionally rare. As to how I know myself to be regular . . . k, this is a cut and paste as I've expounded upon this before. And everyone else here will be yawning as they've heard it from me before. That said . . . I would love - I really would - a debate on the merits. So far, the only challenge it has received is from the you're-not-regular-and-that's-all crowd. Too very high school for me to waste energy on. But a challenge on its merits; that I would most happily entertain. Anyway, what I'm going to describe is the gist of a paper I've entered in Internet Lodge's annual Short Papers competition. Jurisdictional InclusivityIt is commonly and, I think, correctly recognized that no one speaks for all of Freemasonry. It is likewise understood that no one jurisdiction speaks for Freemasonry but, instead, can make statements that are true only within that jurisdiction. This is called "jurisdictional inclusivity". I've also seen it called "Masonic inclusivity". I've also seen it called by other names. By whatever name, this is the concept that all Masonic jurisdictions are sovereign within themselves. I know of no Masonic jurisdiction that claims any authority in any other jurisdiction. Neither do I know of a jurisdiction that has ceded any of Her own authority to any other jurisdiction. This concept was clearly understood by our Masonic forebears. Bro. Albert Mackey described this concept, quite a while back, in his own breakdown of the Powers of the Grand Lodge. He says, as quoted in Bro. E.R. Johnston's "Masonry Defined" (on page 413 of the most commonly available volume, available online here) Clearly, the emphasis here is on the scope of a Grand Lodge's jurisdiction, which is inclusive. In other words, no Masonic jurisdiction (including my own) has any authority over any other jurisdiction. This, likewise, means no jurisdiction has any authority over the Freemasons that make up another jurisdiction. Statements WithinSo, under this concept, statements made by a jurisdiction are binding only within that jurisdiction, not without it. Logically, this is true of all statements, including statements about regularity. That said, many jurisdiction do, indeed, make statements about the regularity of Freemasons in other jurisdictions. On its face, this may seem odd as it's been pointed out, accurately, that no jurisdiction agrees on the definition of regularity (they, likewise, don't agree on the landmarks but that's a whole other paper). Well, they don't have to agree. For, under the the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity, each jurisdiction need only decide for itself what regularity means because this definition is not at all binding on any other jurisdiction. Within that authority, a jurisdiction is free to establish (or not) amity agreements with other jurisdictions. If they choose not to, this jurisdiction, as is commonly practiced, is free to say She holds the other jurisdiction to be "irregular" or "clandestine", for internal administrative purposes. For, by their internal definition, accurate only internally, this would, for them, be true. Statements WithoutHowever, as no Masonic jurisdiction claims authority over any other jurisdiction, no jurisdiction under the canopy of Heaven can accurately say whether another jurisdiction, or Freemasons in that jurisdiction is/are, in fact, "regular" or "clandestine". No jurisdiction outside my own can grant or deny me the title of "regular". They just can't. Example of Such a StatementThe UGLE's March 10, 1999 statement about Feminine Masonry reads accurately in this context. For UGLE long has held, within Her jurisdiction, no woman can be initiated into Masonry. The UGLE's statement does not undo that. So there are no women Freemasons within the UGLE. However, the UGLE has never, ever claimed to speak for, or have any authority over, other jurisdictions. And the statement clearly says that Masonry, which exists inside and outside the UGLE, is not exclusive to men. So, *within* the UGLE, I can never be a regular Freemason. However, within Freemasonry, and in particular within my own jurisdiction, I am. I am, in fact, as regular within my own jurisdiction as any other Freemason is within his/her own jurisdiction. That is, in fact, the only way I can be regular. For only one's jurisdiction can accurately recognize one as regular. And no statement outside that jurisdiction can accurately state otherwise. Other BrothersAs I said, I begin with the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity. But my statement is/was that I am regular. I know myself to be Regular because the Ritual (to be stated below) and Masonic jurisprudence (stated above) so indicate. Those are the merits of my claim. By way of explanation, and within the context of this post, I am about to use a word many find offensive. I have been criticized for using this word. But I can find no other way to describe it. I promise, I use this word only in its legal sense. I am no one's bastard brother. I was conceived in the same place as are all the Brethren. Our progenitor is the same. I was pr*ly pr*pared. I was received upon the same p*nt. I was made in the b*dy of a L*dge J*st, P*rfect and R*gular. Again, I point to Bro. Mackey and his definition, which states: So it was for me: - I am acknowledged as a Free and Accepted Mason - I was initiated into our mysteries in that "certain manner" in a lodge that holds a charter from the supreme body of my jurisdiction - I was made with the assistance of, and under the superintendence of, seven (and more) Master Masons - I share in common, with all Brothers, "the ready use of those signs and words which are used by the other brethren." For the above references to Mackey, please again refer to "Masonry Defined", in particular questions 777 and 413. As for Mackey's references in the masculine, I am a part of mankind, which is in the masculine. And in the ritual, I am referred to as he/him. It applies to all Brothers for the ritual recognizes transcendence in gender, even if individual Brothers do not. All brothers are "sons of the Widow". So I am. I was so initiated as described above, Within my jurisdiction, I claim to be a regularly initiated Freemason. I am as regular in my jurisdiction as any other Freemason is within his/her's. And that's all. Now, it is true that individual Male-Only Freemasons, by their thought/word/deed/personal inclination, deny the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity and the ritual. They, on their own, claim otherwise. I believe they do so in error and ignorance (willful or otherwise). I greet them as charitably as I can, for they are my Brothers. But they are wrong. I likewise have encountered Co-Masons and Femalecraft Masons who use the words "irregular" and "clandestine" to refer to themselves. Usually in a good-sportish sort of way when they are with their Malecraft BB. I did this myself when I was still very new to the Craft, following this poor example and before I understood the simplicity of the truth I am telling here. I don't do it now, for I was wrong. To accept this slander is insult those BB who made me. That I will no longer do, though I try to greet with equal charity those of my BB who do. They are, likewise, wrong. That is my case. Bro. Sniffles, are you sorry you asked? Wow. Reading that was like being in a storm of Lawyers What opened my mind and heart to "Lady Masons" isn't any of that Jurisdictional, Legal, Political jive. It's more a number of personal and spiritual things. There was a time when I was a young freshly made Mason when I didn't like the idea of women being Masons, mostly this feeling came from that "Little Rascals Syndrome" we male-craft masons childishly cling to - "this is our thing...go away..." One of the first things which cured me of Little Rascals Syndrome was one time me and my exgirlfriend (we were together for 5 years had asked me about Freemasonry. We talked about it, for a while and she liked it, but felt left out because she couldn't join. She said "What kind of secrets do you guys have; what are your spiritual teachings, that you guys would keep it away from girls? Don't we deserve to grow spiritually also? What's wrong with us girls?" At the time I just told her if she wanted spirituality to find herself a guru or religion. She got angry and walked away. Then she came back the next day with several masonic books, and a Duncan's Rituals and clobbered me on the head with it said: "You Suck, I hate you!" I was a little surprised that she went out and bought Duncan's Ritual which tells everything about Freemasonry. I asked her what was wrong and she said: "What kind off club do you guys have which puts women in the same group as Mad Men and Fools!?" She was referring to a section in our third degree Oath. I honestly never thought about it before until she brought it up, and I could explain myself to her. I walk around feeling like a hypocrite, and a bigot. No matter how tolerant I can claim to be of different races, sexualities, opinions, and whatever, I always know deep inside that I am a member of an organization which puts women in the same category as the insane and the mentally retarded. And that makes it very hard to be proud of being a Mason. I do believe that there is a unique philosophy and spirituality embedded in Freemasonry and that anyone who desires to know it is privileged to it. I hate sitting here and watching my old brothers die off off old age, and seeing our Freemasonry deteriorate before my eyes. I hate seeing how we are mutilating our Freemasonry and doing everything we can to get more bodies into our Freemasonry, but yet we don't go to women. It really doesn't make any sense to me why women are banned. They give us no explanation for it. There is much of a difference between a man and a women, except for the obvious parts - and its not like we chisel stones with our male privates and girls don't have one so they can't masons? Then there is the mystical reason why I think women can be Masons. The preparation room is like a womb. The door we knock on is like a birth canal... the two pillars we walk thru are the legs we pass thru when we are born. On top of these pillars are Lillies and Pomagranet - those are like ovaries and that little flowery things that hold the ovaries. The Cable Tow is the umbilical cord. We are blinded and in darkness when we enter the Temple... like an infant emerges into the Temple of the world blind, not being able to see. The Lodge is our Mother. She gives birth to us. When our hoodwink is taken off, and we see, the first things we see is the very face of our Mother - the VSL represents the Book of Nature; The Square represents the Earth; The Compass is Heaven... conjoined, they are placed on the cleft of the opened VSL... it isn't hard if you look at all three Great Lights together, to see what symbol it forms - that very thing which gave birth to us men. if we are going to use feminine symbolism, or if i see feminine symbolism in Freemasonry, if we are going to honor Freemasonry as a Mother and women, why not take the extra step and just honor a real one? I know, and I can feel that there is something very feminine and divine hinted everywhere in Freemasonry. I can go on, and i will later, but I have to go to sleep now. Those symbols I pointed out was not meant to be derogatory in any way. xoxo
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 11, 2008 7:41:50 GMT
What opened my mind and heart to "Lady Masons" isn't any of that Jurisdictional, Legal, Political jive. It's more a number of personal and spiritual things. Yeah, I hear that works, too Well, we're banned from Male-Only Masonry. And there's a certain sense to it. But we're not banned from other branches of Masonry, including Co-Masonry, which accepts men and women. So no difficulty, really, though there are those who'd like to make it difficult. I hope you do Yeah, me, too. Night There are folks who feel insulted by daisies in the meadow. If you're right, you're right. Inhale deeply and don't let the rest worry you.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Feb 12, 2008 4:01:18 GMT
K, I will. But, in as much as most Male-Only Masons I know do consider me "irregular", I wouldn't mind knowing how *you* came to recognize the truth. It is, I'm sure you know, exceptionally rare. As to how I know myself to be regular . . . k, this is a cut and paste as I've expounded upon this before. And everyone else here will be yawning as they've heard it from me before. That said . . . I would love - I really would - a debate on the merits. So far, the only challenge it has received is from the you're-not-regular-and-that's-all crowd. Too very high school for me to waste energy on. But a challenge on its merits; that I would most happily entertain. Anyway, what I'm going to describe is the gist of a paper I've entered in Internet Lodge's annual Short Papers competition. Jurisdictional InclusivityIt is commonly and, I think, correctly recognized that no one speaks for all of Freemasonry. It is likewise understood that no one jurisdiction speaks for Freemasonry but, instead, can make statements that are true only within that jurisdiction. This is called "jurisdictional inclusivity". I've also seen it called "Masonic inclusivity". I've also seen it called by other names. By whatever name, this is the concept that all Masonic jurisdictions are sovereign within themselves. I know of no Masonic jurisdiction that claims any authority in any other jurisdiction. Neither do I know of a jurisdiction that has ceded any of Her own authority to any other jurisdiction. This concept was clearly understood by our Masonic forebears. Bro. Albert Mackey described this concept, quite a while back, in his own breakdown of the Powers of the Grand Lodge. He says, as quoted in Bro. E.R. Johnston's "Masonry Defined" (on page 413 of the most commonly available volume, available online here) Clearly, the emphasis here is on the scope of a Grand Lodge's jurisdiction, which is inclusive. In other words, no Masonic jurisdiction (including my own) has any authority over any other jurisdiction. This, likewise, means no jurisdiction has any authority over the Freemasons that make up another jurisdiction. Statements WithinSo, under this concept, statements made by a jurisdiction are binding only within that jurisdiction, not without it. Logically, this is true of all statements, including statements about regularity. That said, many jurisdiction do, indeed, make statements about the regularity of Freemasons in other jurisdictions. On its face, this may seem odd as it's been pointed out, accurately, that no jurisdiction agrees on the definition of regularity (they, likewise, don't agree on the landmarks but that's a whole other paper). Well, they don't have to agree. For, under the the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity, each jurisdiction need only decide for itself what regularity means because this definition is not at all binding on any other jurisdiction. Within that authority, a jurisdiction is free to establish (or not) amity agreements with other jurisdictions. If they choose not to, this jurisdiction, as is commonly practiced, is free to say She holds the other jurisdiction to be "irregular" or "clandestine", for internal administrative purposes. For, by their internal definition, accurate only internally, this would, for them, be true. Statements WithoutHowever, as no Masonic jurisdiction claims authority over any other jurisdiction, no jurisdiction under the canopy of Heaven can accurately say whether another jurisdiction, or Freemasons in that jurisdiction is/are, in fact, "regular" or "clandestine". No jurisdiction outside my own can grant or deny me the title of "regular". They just can't. Example of Such a StatementThe UGLE's March 10, 1999 statement about Feminine Masonry reads accurately in this context. For UGLE long has held, within Her jurisdiction, no woman can be initiated into Masonry. The UGLE's statement does not undo that. So there are no women Freemasons within the UGLE. However, the UGLE has never, ever claimed to speak for, or have any authority over, other jurisdictions. And the statement clearly says that Masonry, which exists inside and outside the UGLE, is not exclusive to men. So, *within* the UGLE, I can never be a regular Freemason. However, within Freemasonry, and in particular within my own jurisdiction, I am. I am, in fact, as regular within my own jurisdiction as any other Freemason is within his/her own jurisdiction. That is, in fact, the only way I can be regular. For only one's jurisdiction can accurately recognize one as regular. And no statement outside that jurisdiction can accurately state otherwise. Other BrothersAs I said, I begin with the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity. But my statement is/was that I am regular. I know myself to be Regular because the Ritual (to be stated below) and Masonic jurisprudence (stated above) so indicate. Those are the merits of my claim. By way of explanation, and within the context of this post, I am about to use a word many find offensive. I have been criticized for using this word. But I can find no other way to describe it. I promise, I use this word only in its legal sense. I am no one's bastard brother. I was conceived in the same place as are all the Brethren. Our progenitor is the same. I was pr*ly pr*pared. I was received upon the same p*nt. I was made in the b*dy of a L*dge J*st, P*rfect and R*gular. Again, I point to Bro. Mackey and his definition, which states: So it was for me: - I am acknowledged as a Free and Accepted Mason - I was initiated into our mysteries in that "certain manner" in a lodge that holds a charter from the supreme body of my jurisdiction - I was made with the assistance of, and under the superintendence of, seven (and more) Master Masons - I share in common, with all Brothers, "the ready use of those signs and words which are used by the other brethren." For the above references to Mackey, please again refer to "Masonry Defined", in particular questions 777 and 413. As for Mackey's references in the masculine, I am a part of mankind, which is in the masculine. And in the ritual, I am referred to as he/him. It applies to all Brothers for the ritual recognizes transcendence in gender, even if individual Brothers do not. All brothers are "sons of the Widow". So I am. I was so initiated as described above, Within my jurisdiction, I claim to be a regularly initiated Freemason. I am as regular in my jurisdiction as any other Freemason is within his/her's. And that's all. Now, it is true that individual Male-Only Freemasons, by their thought/word/deed/personal inclination, deny the concept of jurisdictional inclusivity and the ritual. They, on their own, claim otherwise. I believe they do so in error and ignorance (willful or otherwise). I greet them as charitably as I can, for they are my Brothers. But they are wrong. I likewise have encountered Co-Masons and Femalecraft Masons who use the words "irregular" and "clandestine" to refer to themselves. Usually in a good-sportish sort of way when they are with their Malecraft BB. I did this myself when I was still very new to the Craft, following this poor example and before I understood the simplicity of the truth I am telling here. I don't do it now, for I was wrong. To accept this slander is insult those BB who made me. That I will no longer do, though I try to greet with equal charity those of my BB who do. They are, likewise, wrong. That is my case. Bro. Sniffles, are you sorry you asked? Wow. Reading that was like being in a storm of Lawyers What opened my mind and heart to "Lady Masons" isn't any of that Jurisdictional, Legal, Political jive. It's more a number of personal and spiritual things. There was a time when I was a young freshly made Mason when I didn't like the idea of women being Masons, mostly this feeling came from that "Little Rascals Syndrome" we male-craft masons childishly cling to - "this is our thing...go away..." One of the first things which cured me of Little Rascals Syndrome was one time me and my exgirlfriend (we were together for 5 years had asked me about Freemasonry. We talked about it, for a while and she liked it, but felt left out because she couldn't join. She said "What kind of secrets do you guys have; what are your spiritual teachings, that you guys would keep it away from girls? Don't we deserve to grow spiritually also? What's wrong with us girls?" At the time I just told her if she wanted spirituality to find herself a guru or religion. She got angry and walked away. Then she came back the next day with several masonic books, and a Duncan's Rituals and clobbered me on the head with it said: "You Suck, I hate you!" I was a little surprised that she went out and bought Duncan's Ritual which tells everything about Freemasonry. I asked her what was wrong and she said: "What kind off club do you guys have which puts women in the same group as Mad Men and Fools!?" She was referring to a section in our third degree Oath. I honestly never thought about it before until she brought it up, and I could explain myself to her. I walk around feeling like a hypocrite, and a bigot. No matter how tolerant I can claim to be of different races, sexualities, opinions, and whatever, I always know deep inside that I am a member of an organization which puts women in the same category as the insane and the mentally retarded. And that makes it very hard to be proud of being a Mason. I do believe that there is a unique philosophy and spirituality embedded in Freemasonry and that anyone who desires to know it is privileged to it. I hate sitting here and watching my old brothers die off off old age, and seeing our Freemasonry deteriorate before my eyes. I hate seeing how we are mutilating our Freemasonry and doing everything we can to get more bodies into our Freemasonry, but yet we don't go to women. It really doesn't make any sense to me why women are banned. They give us no explanation for it. There is much of a difference between a man and a women, except for the obvious parts - and its not like we chisel stones with our male privates and girls don't have one so they can't masons? Then there is the mystical reason why I think women can be Masons. The preparation room is like a womb. The door we knock on is like a birth canal... the two pillars we walk thru are the legs we pass thru when we are born. On top of these pillars are Lillies and Pomagranet - those are like ovaries and that little flowery things that hold the ovaries. The Cable Tow is the umbilical cord. We are blinded and in darkness when we enter the Temple... like an infant emerges into the Temple of the world blind, not being able to see. The Lodge is our Mother. She gives birth to us. When our hoodwink is taken off, and we see, the first things we see is the very face of our Mother - the VSL represents the Book of Nature; The Square represents the Earth; The Compass is Heaven... conjoined, they are placed on the cleft of the opened VSL... it isn't hard if you look at all three Great Lights together, to see what symbol it forms - that very thing which gave birth to us men. if we are going to use feminine symbolism, or if i see feminine symbolism in Freemasonry, if we are going to honor Freemasonry as a Mother and women, why not take the extra step and just honor a real one? I know, and I can feel that there is something very feminine and divine hinted everywhere in Freemasonry. I can go on, and i will later, but I have to go to sleep now. Those symbols I pointed out was not meant to be derogatory in any way. xoxo This is a good post. Welcome ;D
|
|