KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 14, 2010 19:51:33 GMT
I understand and celebrate the existence of Independent lodges or Grand Lodges other than my own. Some observances may never change their independent spirit, and that is fine. It is entirely possible that an independent lodge be recognized by a GL or GO and still not join the particular entity. Personally, I like co-Masonry. It just is not for me at this time. I likewise like some Indie lodges. I get along well with many I know from other observances. I am extremely pleased with what we are doing in our GL and in our lodge, and have no current interest in looking elsewhere. There's more to do, as there likely will be for quite some time. I sincerely hope those examining Masonry find the beauty of Masonry if they choose the path. If a person seeks with an honest and open yet skeptical heart, they will find dazzling wonders in store.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 20:00:28 GMT
I understand and celebrate the existence of Independent lodges or Grand Lodges other than my own. Some observances may never change their independent spirit, and that is fine. It is entirely possible that an independent lodge be recognized by a GL or GO and still not join the particular entity. Personally, I like co-Masonry. It just is not for me at this time. I likewise like some Indie lodges. I get along well with many I know from other observances. I am extremely pleased with what we are doing in our GL and in our lodge, and have no current interest in looking elsewhere. There's more to do, as there likely will be for quite some time. I sincerely hope those examining Masonry find the beauty of Masonry if they choose the path. If a person seeks with an honest and open yet skeptical heart, they will find dazzling wonders in store. You are right about certain independent lodges being recognized. Lodge Napoleon Bonaparte is recognized by: The Sovereign Sanctuary APRMM of Bulgaria. The Sovereign Sanctuary APRMM of Mexico The Sovereign Sanctuary APRMM of Italy The Sovereign Sanctuary APRMM of Ecuador The Sovereign Sanctuary APRMM of Serbia The Sovereign Sanctuary APRMM of Romania We are also recognized by CAMEA-REAA of Italy. Working on a few more. Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 14, 2010 20:09:48 GMT
Any documentation here?
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 20:20:03 GMT
I have posted documents before only for it to be stolen to be mocked. Live and learn. I have learned. Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 14, 2010 20:21:57 GMT
Thank you. You answered my question. I have posted documents before only for it to be stolen to be mocked. Live and learn. I have learned. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jan 15, 2010 6:12:52 GMT
I would say that most if not all independent lodges are charter-less. A charter kind of defeats the intent behind independence. I know for us Post-Moderns we specifically reject charters. The idea that purpose flows from a piece of paper is something we specifically wanted nothing to do with. Of course you do. Charters confer legitimacy.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 15, 2010 6:21:58 GMT
I would say that most if not all independent lodges are charter-less. A charter kind of defeats the intent behind independence. I know for us Post-Moderns we specifically reject charters. The idea that purpose flows from a piece of paper is something we specifically wanted nothing to do with. Of course you do. Charters confer legitimacy. For you they do. Good for you. I am glad that works out for you. Just to clarify your stance a little. The original four lodges that made up the GL of London of 1717 had no charter or warrant and they where not require nor expected to have any. So, under your argument would they be considered "illegit?" Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 15, 2010 7:00:18 GMT
As stated-it is the value someone places in a document or vow. A degree is just a piece of paper if you do nothing valuable with it. I believe the Declaration of Independence is comparable: "A writing issued by the authorities of an order or society empowering certain persons to establish a branch or chapter." Put 'a country' in the terms 'branch or chapter' and there you go. I suppose a charter is like an obligation, wedding vows, a college degree, &c. It means much to those it means much to. Those it has no meaning to ridicule those who find value in it. It is a piece of paper, and in itself is meaningless. The Declaration of Independence is just a good fire-starter for those who care little about it. Not like a college degree at all. It takes little to do to earn a charter except submission. As far as wedding vows how many Masons are divorced? I know a fantastic couple who has been together for 40 years without ever being married. they are spectacular and I have learned a ton from them. I don't believe in that piece of paper adding legitimacy at all. To compare the Declaration of Independence to a Masonic charter is ridiculous. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jan 15, 2010 7:04:23 GMT
Of course you do. Charters confer legitimacy. For you they do. Good for you. I am glad that works out for you. Just to clarify your stance a little. The original four lodges that made up the GL of London of 1717 had no charter or warrant and they where not require nor expected to have any. So, under your argument would they be considered "illegit?" The original four lodges were Time Immemorial lodges. Do you understand this term? I would not presume to compare myself to them were I you. That is what you are doing, you know.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 15, 2010 7:07:32 GMT
There is simply no clear evidence that the lodges in 1717 were self-initiated. There are many possibilities other possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 15, 2010 7:08:55 GMT
So make up your mind.
If charters are required for legitimacy all non chartered lodges would be illegit.
Isn't that the crux of your first argument?
Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 15, 2010 7:12:26 GMT
There are no records stating the lodges in 1717 did not have a charter. To claim they did is not supported by the evidence, and argues a negative-a very difficult statement to prove without evidence. So make up your mind. If charters are required for legitimacy all non chartered lodges would be illegit. Isn't that the crux of your first argument? Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 15, 2010 7:15:44 GMT
There is simply no clear evidence that the lodges in 1717 were self-initiated. There are many possibilities other possibilities. Self -initiation is one of those possibilities. The most probable of those possibilities seeing how they weren't Stonemasons nor Yorks. The odds are they did what they did just because they all had a common enthusiasm. This is a huge problem for the die hard orthodox traditionalist. All traditions have a beginning, they where all just made up by someone or a common group of people. At the end of the day every single Freemason goes back to self-initiation at the base of the family tree. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 15, 2010 7:23:55 GMT
There are no records stating the lodges in 1717 did not have a charter. To claim they did is not supported by the evidence, and argues a negative-a very difficult statement to prove without evidence. So make up your mind. If charters are required for legitimacy all non chartered lodges would be illegit. Isn't that the crux of your first argument? Love and Light, From my earlier linked article: According to Dr. Anderson Constitutions of 1738, after the move to the Queen's Head, there was some form of disagreement between the members resulting in a new constitution for the Lodge. Given that none of the original 'Four Old Lodges' was expected to hold warrants I would argue that there is no evidence to suggest any of the "Four Old Lodges" had charters. Who would they have been chartered by? They didn't hold Stonemasons guild charters and they weren't chartered by the Yorks. We know this because both the Stonemasons and York Freemasons where vocal in their negative opinions regarding Premier Grand Lodge. So, who could they have been chartered by? Love and Light,
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 15, 2010 7:26:05 GMT
It is not the most probable. You'll have to prove that claim, rather than just offer it as such. Their are records of Freemasonry that goes farther back than 1717. It is a huge problem for the non-traditionalist that there is no evidence aside from speculation to hold up such a claim, when there is evidence of charters before 1717, and all four groups were more likely chartered beforehand than to be floating woodchips in a dangerous sea without the aid a charter would give.
It is not so huge a problem at all. I have no preference either way. Chartered lodges are the most likely explanation, and I would gladly love to know the truth of the matter with factual information rather than ad-hominem and attacks against 'traditionalists', evasion by talking about 'the end of the day' when we are clearly discussing the events of 1717, and irrelevant odds games. It is far more likely that the charters were initially given by authorities civil and/or religious than just 'self-created'.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 15, 2010 7:37:47 GMT
It is not the most probable. You'll have to prove that claim, rather than just offer it as such. Their are records of Freemasonry that goes farther back than 1717. It is a huge problem for the non-traditionalist that there is no evidence aside from speculation to hold up such a claim, when there is evidence of charters before 1717, and all four groups were more likely chartered beforehand than to be floating woodchips in a dangerous sea without the aid a charter would give. It is not so huge a problem at all. I have no preference either way. Chartered lodges are the most likely explanation, and I would gladly love to know the truth of the matter with factual information rather than ad-hominem and attacks against 'traditionalists', evasion by talking about 'the end of the day' when we are clearly discussing the events of 1717, and irrelevant odds games. It is far more likely that the charters were initially given by authorities civil and/or religious than just 'self-created'. The evidence that we have thus far does not show that the "Old Four Lodges" where chartered. So i would suggest the burden of proof would fall on someone claiming that they did hold a charter, not the other way around. It really doesn't matter much to me , while I find Masonic history fascinating I am more interested in a Masonic future. The central point of my argument is that all traditions and institutions have a beginning. In that beginning was either an individual or group who decided to start something. That's all. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jan 15, 2010 8:23:55 GMT
Yet more posts have had to be deleted from this topic.
To recap, comments that are considered unhelpful to this topic will be removed. If members wish to participate in the discussion they are asked to please refrain from making Off-Topic, condescending or personally attacking remarks of any nature. These types of comments do not add to the conversation in any meaningful way and when they pop up will be removed.
So, if members wish to see their posts remain please keep this in mind. Also keep in mind that if they reply innocently to the types of comments mentioned above that these too will more than likely be removed as well.
Too often in previous times whole threads have had to be deleted or moved to Storage because things got too out of hand. I am hopeful that by enforcing our guidelines we’ll see a decrease in this.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 15, 2010 11:51:31 GMT
I would say that most if not all independent lodges are charter-less. A charter kind of defeats the intent behind independence. I know for us Post-Moderns we specifically reject charters. The idea that purpose flows from a piece of paper is something we specifically wanted nothing to do with. Of course you do. Charters confer legitimacy. Greetings, Basiclaly, rejecting a Charter is a bit like rejecting ones birth certificate. I believe that in those few and very exceptional and rare cases in the past some people did receive 'rare' initiation through a process of spiritual osmosis. www.omcesite.org/articles/rare.htmIt would be normal to create a document of some kind. At the enof the day they will be known by the work they do.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Jan 15, 2010 18:09:55 GMT
It is not the most probable. You'll have to prove that claim, rather than just offer it as such. Their are records of Freemasonry that goes farther back than 1717. It is a huge problem for the non-traditionalist that there is no evidence aside from speculation to hold up such a claim, when there is evidence of charters before 1717, and all four groups were more likely chartered beforehand than to be floating woodchips in a dangerous sea without the aid a charter would give. It is not so huge a problem at all. I have no preference either way. Chartered lodges are the most likely explanation, and I would gladly love to know the truth of the matter with factual information rather than ad-hominem and attacks against 'traditionalists', evasion by talking about 'the end of the day' when we are clearly discussing the events of 1717, and irrelevant odds games. It is far more likely that the charters were initially given by authorities civil and/or religious than just 'self-created'. The evidence that we have thus far does not show that the "Old Four Lodges" where chartered. So i would suggest the burden of proof would fall on someone claiming that they did hold a charter, not the other way around. The evidence we have thus far does not show the four lodges were self-initiated as is central to the claim you are making. Logic holds it is necessary the claimant defend their claim, not that it has to be proven wrong. Thus, 'innocent until prove guilty: [l]"The burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the party bringing the lawsuit) to show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are probably true." "The burden of proof (latin: onus probandi), falls under the maxim ‘necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’ or, “the necessity of proof lies with he who complains”. The burden of proof usually lies with the party making the new claim, in terms of law" "The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence." [/i] It really doesn't matter much to me , while I find Masonic history fascinating I am more interested in a Masonic future. As am I. Yet the future of Freemasonry is deeply entwined with its past, as is everything and everyone. Your concern is irrelevant to the claim you made, the defense of which rests squarely on your shoulders. Your claims of self-initiation rest upon the distant past whether it is 1717 or some earlier age. It is irrelevant to your initial claim. The central point of my argument is that all traditions and institutions have a beginning. In that beginning was either an individual or group who decided to start something. That's all. Love and Light, That is not relevant to the assertion you made concerning 1717. I'm not even talking about that as it is irrelevant to the discussion. You clearly made the statement and attempted to defend it without success. Now you are trying to change the subject. This is simple evasion on your part and the initial claim is what needs refutation, not some new claim about who might have started something. Defend the claim of the four lodges in 1717 being self-created and stop trying to squirm out of it.
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Jan 15, 2010 23:38:45 GMT
It is not the most probable. You'll have to prove that claim, rather than just offer it as such. Their are records of Freemasonry that goes farther back than 1717. It is a huge problem for the non-traditionalist that there is no evidence aside from speculation to hold up such a claim, when there is evidence of charters before 1717, and all four groups were more likely chartered beforehand than to be floating woodchips in a dangerous sea without the aid a charter would give. It is not so huge a problem at all. I have no preference either way. Chartered lodges are the most likely explanation, and I would gladly love to know the truth of the matter with factual information rather than ad-hominem and attacks against 'traditionalists', evasion by talking about 'the end of the day' when we are clearly discussing the events of 1717, and irrelevant odds games. It is far more likely that the charters were initially given by authorities civil and/or religious than just 'self-created'. As for discussions of Freemasonry earlier than 1717, I would remind those who have forgotten to read a copy of the Regius Manuscript. It is accepted by Mason and non-Mason scholars alike as being among the first if not the first mention of Freemasonry and there we are talking about what...14th century...maybe 15th?
|
|