Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2010 4:49:44 GMT
I have a question! I am very weary when comes to independent lodges. I can't help but be. My questions is this, doesn't someone need to know what it takes to open a lodge and the things needed to do so. Such as physical things in a lodge like the alter etc, etc and knowledge of the degrees and rituals. That would mean a person must have prior experience in another masonic organization. I really can't see a group of people starting a independent lodge with no masonic experience. I am not trying to be offensive but I really can't picture that!
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 16, 2010 5:05:38 GMT
I have a question! I am very weary when comes to independent lodges. I can't help but be. My questions is this, doesn't someone need to know what it takes to open a lodge and the things needed to do so. Such as physical things in a lodge like the alter etc, etc and knowledge of the degrees and rituals. That would mean a person must have prior experience in another masonic organization. I really can't see a group of people starting a independent lodge with no masonic experience. I am not trying to be offensive but I really can't picture that! Many of todays most prominent Masonic scholars, historians and ritualists aren't Masons. Jasper Ridley, Margaret Jacob and Pat Zelewski come to mind right away. One can argue that Manly P. Hall was a Mason 20 years before he was formally initiated into a lodge. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Jan 16, 2010 6:46:12 GMT
I have a question! I am very weary when comes to independent lodges. I can't help but be. My questions is this, doesn't someone need to know what it takes to open a lodge and the things needed to do so. Such as physical things in a lodge like the alter etc, etc and knowledge of the degrees and rituals. That would mean a person must have prior experience in another masonic organization. I really can't see a group of people starting a independent lodge with no masonic experience. I am not trying to be offensive but I really can't picture that! I completely agree that it would be virtually if not totally impossible for a Lodge to be created independantly by a group of individuals with absolutely no Masonic knowledge. Of course there is also the question why they would want to. I believe that most and I do mean a majority of the so called independant Lodge or Orders (and by Orders I mean non-AFAM, FAM, etc) were started by Masons, many of who were disillusioned or had some kind of falling out with their mainstream Lodge or for some reason just found somewhere in the initiatory cycle that it was not a good fit for them. There are also members of independant Lodges who maintain their mainstream memberships, though how they keep that from being found out I could not tell you. As to Masonic scholars starting Lodges, I tend to disagree there. I took a great deal of art history and photography classes in college but Im absolutely no good at either one. Reading someone else's scholarship or even creating your own is a far cry from being able to enact and work the ritual that you have studied. Of course as we know, monitors and ritual books also find their way into the hands of individuals for whom they were not intended and if a Lodge could be created by someone with no Masonic experience whatsoever, the internet age would be the time to do it. I also know that there are some independant Lodges which have existed for a number of years now that are still reading existing ritual as its performed and creating their own to fill in gaps. One interesting thing about becoming an internet Masonic expert is what I have seen in new candidates being initiated passed and raised. Once they find out they are accepted the pull to find out whats about to happen is so great that they start looking for information and find themselves soaking up information that is incorrect, inaccurate or just outright fabricated. For example, if one were to look at Morgan's supposed expose of Freemasonry, one that knew what they were looking for would find mistakes on virtually every page. But to the uninitiated the mindset is often that if its in print or on the internet, especially and old source like Morgan, then it must be correct. Ive seen more than one candidate get ahead of their conductor as they are being instructed and have to have a bad habit broken before their first degree is even fulled worked.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 16, 2010 7:46:54 GMT
I don't think I said anything about Scholars creating lodges. I did say that they know plenty about Masonry as to make it effective if they wanted too. I think manly P. Hall is a fine example of a man who was a Mason before he was made a Mason.
Of course he was an atypical human being.
It's simple really, different things for different folks. Some may desire to walk the road of the independent, most never will. That's OK. Plenty of different flavors to choose from.
Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 16, 2010 10:29:14 GMT
Of course you do. Charters confer legitimacy. Greetings, Basiclaly, rejecting a Charter is a bit like rejecting ones birth certificate. It would be normal to create a document of some kind. At the enof the day they will be known by the work they do. I agree. That is a great point. The next step in the argument is just as a birth certificate doesn't grant human life a charter does not grant life to a Masonic lodge. We will be known by the work that we do. I would say that is the biggest point of them all. Love and Light,
|
|
vtmason
Member
Running Dog Lackey
Posts: 251
|
Post by vtmason on Jan 16, 2010 11:13:15 GMT
I have a question! I am very weary when comes to independent lodges. I can't help but be. My questions is this, doesn't someone need to know what it takes to open a lodge and the things needed to do so. Such as physical things in a lodge like the alter etc, etc and knowledge of the degrees and rituals. That would mean a person must have prior experience in another masonic organization. I really can't see a group of people starting a independent lodge with no masonic experience. I am not trying to be offensive but I really can't picture that! There is just a ton of evidence of people doing just this over the years. People did and still do whatever they want and call it Freemasonry. That is why we have rules and ways of approaching true Freemasons
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 16, 2010 11:40:46 GMT
There is simply no clear evidence that the lodges in 1717 were self-initiated. There are many possibilities other possibilities. In 1717 these lodges were mostly still operative and the transition to mostly speculative lodges was brought about by Desaguliers. We need to see these lodges in the context following the Great Fire of London in 1666. Although within its jurisdiction, the work of rebuilding was beyond the capacity of the London Company of Masons, (especially as stone was now mandated as the preferred material for rebuilding) and other Masons were brought in and organised under Lodges, many from Scotland, where there was a dearth of building works and a surplus of builders following successive plagues (the lower population needed fewer buildings than those already standing). These Masons were were NOT cowans. They were no more self-initiated in the Craft than they were self-taught in their trade skills. However, they may not have held charters, given the emergency nature of the task at hand and the reluctance of many fraternities to have expensive charters forced upon them, especially as charters often came with more obligations than rights and opened the way for subsequent oversight and taxation. This does not mean that they were not duly qualified to form their lodges.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 16, 2010 11:49:58 GMT
My questions is this, doesn't someone need to know what it takes to open a lodge and the things needed to do so. Indeed! For instance, I have yet to see an exposé which adequately explains the protocol expected of visitors upon entering a lodge room, one by one. The ignorance of a cowan would at once betray them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2010 16:08:45 GMT
I agree with you Magus that person can be a mason in their heart, soul and mind. I was just curious on how people with no masonic experience would open a lodge. A person would have to be really interested in masonic studies to know certain things. Like rites that are not widely practice, you would have to do extensive research on them and like letterorhalveit3 said fill in the gaps.
I also must agree with what was said about independent lodges and how some of them broke off from other masonic bodies. Which I think is ok!
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 16, 2010 18:07:20 GMT
There is simply no clear evidence that the lodges in 1717 were self-initiated. There are many possibilities other possibilities. In 1717 these lodges were mostly still operative and the transition to mostly speculative lodges was brought about by Desaguliers. We need to see these lodges in the context following the Great Fire of London in 1666. Although within its jurisdiction, the work of rebuilding was beyond the capacity of the London Company of Masons, (especially as stone was now mandated as the preferred material for rebuilding) and other Masons were brought in and organised under Lodges, many from Scotland, where there was a dearth of building works and a surplus of builders following successive plagues (the lower population needed fewer buildings than those already standing). These Masons were were NOT cowans. They were no more self-initiated in the Craft than they were self-taught in their trade skills. However, they may not have held charters, given the emergency nature of the task at hand and the reluctance of many fraternities to have expensive charters forced upon them, especially as charters often came with more obligations than rights and opened the way for subsequent oversight and taxation. This does not mean that they were not duly qualified to form their lodges. Is there any evidence to show that the tavern club lodges where lodges of operative stonemasons? If so I would love to see it. i know that stonemasons guilds in London at the time of Premier Grand Lodge where pretty vocal about their disapproval of it. So, what Guild did these men who where in the tavern lodges belong to? It would be a huge discovery for me to find that out. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Jan 16, 2010 18:54:26 GMT
In 1717 these lodges were mostly still operative and the transition to mostly speculative lodges was brought about by Desaguliers. We need to see these lodges in the context following the Great Fire of London in 1666. Although within its jurisdiction, the work of rebuilding was beyond the capacity of the London Company of Masons, (especially as stone was now mandated as the preferred material for rebuilding) and other Masons were brought in and organised under Lodges, many from Scotland, where there was a dearth of building works and a surplus of builders following successive plagues (the lower population needed fewer buildings than those already standing). These Masons were were NOT cowans. They were no more self-initiated in the Craft than they were self-taught in their trade skills. However, they may not have held charters, given the emergency nature of the task at hand and the reluctance of many fraternities to have expensive charters forced upon them, especially as charters often came with more obligations than rights and opened the way for subsequent oversight and taxation. This does not mean that they were not duly qualified to form their lodges. Is there any evidence to show that the tavern club lodges where lodges of operative stonemasons? If so I would love to see it. i know that stonemasons guilds in London at the time of Premier Grand Lodge where pretty vocal about their disapproval of it. So, what Guild did these men who where in the tavern lodges belong to? It would be a huge discovery for me to find that out. Love and Light, While it may well be true and likely is that the men gathering at the taverns were not members of guilds, could you please offer some sources for the assertion that the stonemason's guilds were unhappy about speculatives. One reasons that speculatives were allowed into Masonic guilds in the first place was that the the massive projects on which the guilds had labored in the past has slowed and they needed income, which the incoming speculatives often had. To my knowledge, there werent as many cathedrals being built in England in 1717 as there were in centuries past. If you could provide source material so we can all learn that would be great.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 16, 2010 19:04:46 GMT
Is there any evidence to show that the tavern club lodges where lodges of operative stonemasons? If so I would love to see it. i know that stonemasons guilds in London at the time of Premier Grand Lodge where pretty vocal about their disapproval of it. So, what Guild did these men who where in the tavern lodges belong to? It would be a huge discovery for me to find that out. Love and Light, While it may well be true and likely is that the men gathering at the taverns were not members of guilds, could you please offer some sources for the assertion that the stonemason's guilds were unhappy about speculatives. One reasons that speculatives were allowed into Masonic guilds in the first place was that the the massive projects on which the guilds had labored in the past has slowed and they needed income, which the incoming speculatives often had. To my knowledge, there werent as many cathedrals being built in England in 1717 as there were in centuries past. If you could provide source material so we can all learn that would be great. You should read the book The Craft, written by John Hamill. This is a really cool Stonemasons Guild in London going back to the 14th century. www.masonslivery.co.uk/ I have had a lot of contact and discussion with them. Their historians are top notch. Contact them, you'll be glad you did. ;D Love and Light,
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 16, 2010 21:24:38 GMT
Is there any evidence to show that the tavern club lodges where [were] lodges of operative stonemasons? Their membership. In Jones' Compendium we are told, " While one of the four lodges consisted largely of well-to-do men, the three others included many artisans and craftsmen..." (1956 edition, p.167). In several papers, Q.C.C.'s Andrew Durr looks at their memberships in some depth and really makes a compelling case for them still being mostly operative (e.g., The Origin of the Craft, AQC #96, 1983). Albeit, given that you had never even heard of Hannah's Darkness Visible(!?), you are unlikely to be acquainted with Durr.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jan 16, 2010 21:41:04 GMT
Now there is name I know well, Bro Andy Durr. He was a member of my UGLE Mother Lodge. A very knowledgeable and a very nice man indeed.
|
|
|
Post by brotherjhairston on Jan 17, 2010 6:06:39 GMT
Here is where I get in need of further light concerning the definition of Independent Lodges. If any body is to assemble as a Body of MASONRY, it is very imperative that they be able to trace their lineage to Masonry's Antiquity. Not an antiquity that is subjective and vague, but a due lineage, regularly constituted by a Grand Body. All Grand Lodge/Grand Orient bodies of America have their origin in either England, Scotland/Ireland or France. Your definition leads me to believe that 3 Master Masons could open a Lodge and make Masons and consider themselves as "Independent", and could some bodies claim their independence based on a Regular GL failure to recognize them? I just need more light....
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jan 17, 2010 6:55:40 GMT
Apparently, one can just start one's own lodge or GL on a whim and claim that lineage matters not. In fact, one can claim that one's new lodge or GL is even more legitimate than the actual, lineaged one's, because it fulfills some perceived shortcoming that the founder has identified in the original. Also, they can then demand that everyone recognize their legitimacy and demand respect be accorded forthwith.
At least, that is the impression I have gotten over the past year or two from the internet wonders floating about in cyberspace.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jan 17, 2010 9:16:51 GMT
Dear Members,
Please be advised that certain posts were removed from this topic because they either added nothing to it, or were considered not pertinent to it.
Apologies to those who had their innocent responses also removed; to have left them would have rendered them out of sync with the topic.
It might be worth considering, that should a member ask questions not relevant to the topic at hand, they be responded to either by starting another thread on the new subject, or by PM-ing a response to the questioner directly. This will go a long way to ensuring topics remains on track and avoid having one's efforts removed.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jan 17, 2010 10:27:05 GMT
As it takes Three to Rule a Lodge, Five to Hold a Lodge and Seven to make it Perfect, I would say that it would take at least Seven Master Masons. Yes, they could set-up a Lodge and even found others Lodges but as to which other Masonic Bodies would accept their validity and that of the Degrees they conferred, that is another matter and a very heated one as we all know.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jan 17, 2010 15:45:45 GMT
As it takes Three to Rule a Lodge, Five to Hold a Lodge and Seven to make it Perfect, I would say that it would take at least Seven Master Masons. And herein lay the concern for those who have never been initiated and want to set up Independent Lodges for themselves. Personally, I feel such people cannot be thought Masons unless they have gone through the relevant ceremonies within established forms of Masonry. But, then there's the concern about those who have gone through all the relevant ceremonies, but do not conduct themselves in accordance with the Obligations they took, or the instructions they received during such ceremonies. For me, such people are less Masons than those who have never join a Lodge, yet act in a manner we’d expect from fellow Masons. But I have no wish to digress. In certain circumstances I can understand when eligible Masons thoughtfully go about setting up Lodges independently; however, not if it’s simply because they could not gain acceptance to the Craft through accepted channels. I don’t see any value in being part of a Lodge, independent, or otherwise that was founded by non-Masons; for example, men or women who decided one day they’d set up a Lodge for themselves, but had not undergone an Initiation, are then subsequently Passed and Raised in accordance with established traditions.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jan 17, 2010 16:37:23 GMT
In certain circumstances I can understand when eligible Masons thoughtfully go about setting up Lodges independently; however, not if it’s simply because they could not gain acceptance to the Craft through accepted channels. I don’t see any value in being part of a Lodge, independent, or otherwise that was founded by non-Masons; for example, men or women who decided one day they’d set up a Lodge for themselves, but had not undergone an Initiation, are then subsequently Passed and Raised in accordance with established traditions. Precisely.
|
|