|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 2, 2009 3:06:19 GMT
We understood your point the first time
Love and Light,
As has been pointed out using a Posters first name when they themselves do not wish to use it is against Forum policy, please do not do it again
I wish to apologise to the member for missing this breach of Forums rules
MP
Bro. MP, I apologize for breaking forum policy. I do ask in all sincerity that that courtesy be returned and that P please refer to me by my forum handle and not my first name.
I would also ask that he refrain from his religions prosthelytizing towards me. He knows that as a Deist I find it deeply insulting and offensive.
Love and Light,
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 3:06:36 GMT
The distinction being that Freemasonry presents itself as a model of equality and inclusion. Yes. And the whole of Freemasonry has done a most excellent job offering a diverse assortment of opportunities for all to participate in within each person's own comfort levels, desired constraints and prefered outcomes.
Isn't Freemasonry wonderful?! I doubt that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion is meaningful. Freemasonry also professes to prize unity.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Dec 2, 2009 9:37:45 GMT
This is a reminder to Magus Masonica and LetterorHalveit, this thread is about recognition. It is not here for you two to continue your tit for tat arguments that appear all over the Forum. Could I suggest that you both just ignore each other? You are in the process of destroying a perfectly interesting debate by your childishness. Either grow up or please do not post.
I will delete this post after you both have had time to see it. And to let the other members of this Forum see we will not put up with this sort of childish behaviour from anyone
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Dec 2, 2009 10:33:53 GMT
I'm not wanting to add more fuel to the flames as MP has quite rightly pointed out that the arguments between some are all over the forum.
Is this recognition thing purely a USA problem, or is it a continuing problem with those who have moved away from what is deemed "regular"freemasonry.
Now Scotland has had "regular" freemasonry for centuries, but has never had any "schisms" or breakaway groups in all those years. Likewise I've never heard of any serious claims for women to join our GL, so I really don't understand what the problem is. Those who are happy with their lot, thats great, but why the need to enforce change on those who don't want it?
I'm happy that women can enjoy freemasonry in their own gender lodges or in mxed lodges, and if they continue to grow in their own right that again is fantastic.
Freemasonry is available to all who wish to find it.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 11:38:55 GMT
I doubt that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion is meaningful. What you doubt is what you have come to know as acceptable and what you actually perceive as the reality.No, what I doubt is that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion is meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 2, 2009 11:43:32 GMT
Well said Mr Mason. I agree with what you have said.
Recognition seems to be a bigger issue in the USA with PHA not being recognised by some Southern GLs, and with there being some new GLs and GOs formed in recent years in some States. and not an issue at all in Scotland from what I have read. In England it is more likely to arise between new GLs such as GLAE and RGLE and UGLE and if any LDH Male Mason wished to attend a UGLE Lodge, (Few ever do in my experience), or possibly if an UGLE Mason wanted to attend an LDH Meeting, (forbidden by UGLE).
The issue does not arise between UGLE etc and Women Only GLs such as OWF and HFAF as these Masonic Bodies do not admit men to their Meetings nor have they any wish to attend Male Only Meetings.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 2, 2009 16:38:53 GMT
I take you point but I must say that having an "awkward" handle does not help. I am NOT Ian Maitland, the Earl Of Lauderdale and most who post here are well aware of who I actually am. However my Nom-de-Plume or Handle is easy to spell, pronounce and type. Possibly if you chose a nice euphonous and user friendly pseudonym other posters would be less likely to post your real name?
|
|
|
Post by enki on Dec 2, 2009 16:43:08 GMT
To YOU, and not the fraternity as a whole and I'm sorry you've been missing the meaning, but I hope you find it somewhere without being critical or being criticised. I am a member of both male (Masonic) and mixed orders (non-Masonic) and find both to be satisfying IN THEIR OWN WAY AND PURPOSE. One is Masonic and the other isn't, but both are spiritual and philosophical. The fact that I meet on an exclusively male platform for one doesn't mean that it's devoid of meaning. In fact, there are noted benefits to meeting this way. We tend to go on and on about how we don't like that Masons teach "Universal Truths" and then exclude women. Through this din, have you ever considered for one moment that it is possible to teach "Universal Truths" through same sex platforms in order to uplift that person's and group's individual and collective mind? In the context of male only orders, does not the benefit of Truth help a man ground himself; prove him gentle and wise? Men need to REALLY learn how to be men and to interact with them. They need empowerment. Fraternities help that, if the culture is conducive to that (this is why I encourage less family shenanigans and parties that has quickly taken the place of the men spending more time together. We almost don't know how to act as Masons because we've become too preoccupied with pleasing everybody else). Women only orders benefit in the same way. Further, co-ed groups experience the "universal Truths" in a different manner and utilize it.
One is not preferable over the other to me and for many of you to assert the primacy of mixed gender groups over the male is totally sexist. In fact, it's been communicated in that tone. Methinks you should reconsider the reasons for same-sex grouping because this constant harping on "segregation", ad naseum is really missing the point and has not explored the valid sides of same-sex work.
Also, even IF the male orders were forced (some of you may like this) to integrate, consider that already less than a few men want to become Masons. I believe even less women desire this. I don't think we'll have women rushing at the gates and solving all of the membership problems. Consider the history of the mass-influx of men into Freemasonry and then the reduction. That's not a gender issue. It's a cultural issue. Some of you (and you know who you are) would benefit from studying this phenomenon and its possible reasons before applying assumptions based on your 21st century mindsets and social trends.
So, one can doubt and find same sex abhorrent and disgusting, but I'll wager some opinions have overshadowed the path. Stop the mud slinging and rather infantile accusations of prejudice and segregation. That's a victim mentality that has no bearing on what many believe to be a discovery of truth through like-mind, be it gender specific or mixed.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 2, 2009 17:02:56 GMT
The above post just about sums it up. I was for 18 years this month in Male Only Freemasonry but felt that something essential was missing. I found it three years ago, hidden in clear view, the Female presence and energies. I left the Malecraft GL and joined a Co-Masonic one and am far happier as a result. I found what I had been seeking. I would never wish to go back to male-only Freemasonry.
Other people may have different "Quest Emblems" as it where and some Brethren are happier in a Male only or Female only Lodge. That is their right and I would never wish to see legal force be used to coerce Brethren to attend mixed Lodges if they did not wish to do so.
It would be agreeable if the Malecraft Grand Lodges were to state that they accept Co-Freemasonry as valid, even if they maintained their ban on intervisitation, but as we have survived for over 100 years without this approbation it really doesn't matter if they don't.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 19:37:32 GMT
No, what I doubt is that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion is meaningful. YUP! Exactly! What you doubt (have conflict with) is that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion (the actual reality) is meaningful (unacceptable to you).No, what I doubt is that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion is meaningful. It appears to be a contradiction in terms: Similarly, I would doubt the meaning of a bachelor being said to be a married man.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 2, 2009 19:54:38 GMT
"...I would doubt the meaning of a bachelor being said to be a married man. "
I have however known many a man who whilst legally and in the eyes of his religion married has nevertheless reverted to being a bachelor, either by his own choice or as a status imposed by his wife.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 2, 2009 20:16:56 GMT
To ancient peoples, the S&C symbolised man and woman. Often I feel we forget that.
Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by enki on Dec 2, 2009 21:34:04 GMT
For the sake of discussion and tying it in with the issue, which ancient peoples considered these tools male and female? Also, ancient is a general word so one will have to be specific. For example one cannot just say Ancient Egyptian because of the length of their civilization. In this regard, being specific and with citations in contrast to generalities will really keep the interest going!
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 2, 2009 21:43:34 GMT
For the sake of discussion and tying it in with the issue, which ancient peoples considered these tools male and female? Also, ancient is a general word so one will have to be specific. For example one cannot just say Ancient Egyptian because of the length of their civilization. In this regard, being specific and with citations in contrast to generalities will really keep the interest going! First of all, welcome to the forum. I know who you are and I suprised it has taken you so long seeing how I post here on a regular basis. Secondly, your choice of handles is quite creative. I'll give you that. Thirdly, Google it. Love and Light,
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 21:48:36 GMT
"...I would doubt the meaning of a bachelor being said to be a married man. "I have however known many a man who whilst legally and in the eyes of his religion married has nevertheless reverted to being a bachelor, either by his own choice or as a status imposed by his wife. [/size][/quote] Were one to be pedantic, one might also refer to the trivial syllogistic conundrum arising from the ambiguity of terms, e.g.: All sovereigns are made of gold; the king is a sovereign; therefore the king is made of gold. Such absurdities aside, I still doubt that an exclusive (or segregated) inclusion is meaningful.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 21:52:09 GMT
To ancient peoples, the S&C symbolised man and woman.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 2, 2009 22:01:36 GMT
For the sake of discussion and tying it in with the issue, which ancient peoples considered these tools male and female? Also, ancient is a general word so one will have to be specific. For example one cannot just say Ancient Egyptian because of the length of their civilization. In this regard, being specific and with citations in contrast to generalities will really keep the interest going! We seem to find the S&C representing man and women from the Kushites to the Chinese to the Aztecs. Seems to have crossed many boundries. To me this represents the ultimate generic quality of Freemasonry. That is what I love most about it. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by enki on Dec 2, 2009 22:17:52 GMT
Any reliable references for further reading on this topic (i.e. not speculative history like Hancock, Hall, Leadbeater, et al., but rather a reputable study)?
|
|
|
Post by enki on Dec 2, 2009 22:27:10 GMT
Just saw the photos--thanks Tamrin. I'd stll like to read more on the topic, though so the sources will be helpful.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 2, 2009 22:36:10 GMT
Just saw the photos--thanks Tamrin. I'd stll like to read more on the topic, though so the sources will be helpful. For the attributes ascribed, see:
|
|