|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 13, 2010 23:49:47 GMT
Again I have regrettably had to delete some comments from this thread because some were either off topic, or in response to off topic posts. The intent here is to discover usable information on Independent Lodges, but instead we are seeing far too many arguments .......this thread is not concerned with such opinions. I want to keep it focused on learning about such lodges and hopefully hear more about how and where they operate. Leo, what specific operation questions do you have/ Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jan 13, 2010 23:56:44 GMT
Nothing specific at this stage, just some general info on how they operate, set up charters, Initiate new members, etc. And, when being set up are they done by those who have previously been initiated?
I have no interest in any Lodges started by a Joe Blogs who was not him/herself properly initiated.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 1:48:37 GMT
Nothing specific at this stage, just some general info on how they operate, set up charters, Initiate new members, etc. And, when being set up are they done by those who have previously been initiated? I have no interest in any Lodges started by a Joe Blogs who was not him/herself properly initiated. 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. Most independent lodges are formed by Masons who where previously members of other jurisdictions, Orders. They found something lacking in their previous experience or they just felt the need to determine things for themselves without a foreign hierarchical system getting in the way. There may be some who weren't previous members of any masonic order. Myself I have no problem with that because i get that Genesis has to start somewhere. The original members of the GL of London 1717 where all self initiated. But that is a topic for a whole other thread. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Jan 14, 2010 2:22:27 GMT
Im curious about the use of the term "self-initiated." One of the points of most initiatic orders is that one doesnt initiate oneself, but rather is initiated by those who have gone before. Im not nit-picking, just wondering if we are thinking along the same lines. Its actually a valid question and Im just curious as to what you meant because it doesnt really match with GL of E history Im aware of.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 3:03:22 GMT
This is a very good piece on the original four lodges that made up the GL of London 1717. www.phoenixmasonry.org/goose_and_gridiron_ale-house.htmNotice, that none of the four lodges where "expected to hold a warrant." They weren't made up of Yorks, they weren't Stonemasons. What where they? We know that many of them where Rosicrucian's. I would guess that they gathered together to plan this party and took it from there. They created their own version of Freemasonry without any special permission from anyone, they did it because they liked what they where doing and they wanted to do it. It's pretty exciting that the foundations of such a static and regimented style of Freemasonry came from such loose fast and free beginnings. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by letterorhalveit3 on Jan 14, 2010 3:37:14 GMT
Very interesting article. We always hear about the Goose and Gridiron gang, but the other three are often overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 3:49:01 GMT
It is a very interesting article. To think of the foundations of Modern Freemasonry was simple four "bar clubs" that gathered together in an informal basis to have fun.
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 6:17:52 GMT
Thanks for the additional info on this. I think Euclid Lodge in Michigan was once affiliated with a mainstream GL, then independent, then the GOUSA, then again became independent. Also, Vulcan Lodge was independent, then I think they joined the GOUSA, and is now independent again. I have no comment about the lodges themselves as I do not know, but I know some members who are good individuals. As earlier reported, there are many independent lodges. These are some I am most familiar with. Just to clarify. Euclid Lodge was formed as a GOUSA lodge by former members of the Grand Lodge of Michigan. They have since broken from the GOUSA and are now a "blue sky" Independent lodge with a close working relationship with Emeth Lodge of Phoenix, AZ another former GOUSA lodge. Vulcan Lodge is an independent lodge formed from the ashes of a former UGLA lodge Regulus. 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 6:30:33 GMT
I think the point has always been serious, even amongst these four forming lodges. Certainly, the old manuscripts, the Comacines, the Roman Colleges, the ancient artifacts &c. indicate a serious side to the operative masons. The ancient communities of operative masons held their secrets extremely tightly. So much so, intermarriage was verbotten in many of them. Certainly, fun was and is a partial part of Freemasonry as well. There is also a far more serious side to Freemasonry. It is likely that much of this was dangerous when both church and state would persecute. The ability to trust one another was literally life-or-death. 1717 would certainly have been like that. Remember, Brother Marlowe was killed in a bar fight while doing a bit of spying! Getting stabbed to death don't sound like all that much fun.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jan 14, 2010 8:27:41 GMT
Nothing specific at this stage, just some general info on how they operate, set up charters, Initiate new members, etc. And, when being set up are they done by those who have previously been initiated? I have no interest in any Lodges started by a Joe Blogs who was not him/herself properly initiated. 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. Most independent lodges are formed by Masons who where previously members of other jurisdictions, Orders. They found something lacking in their previous experience or they just felt the need to determine things for themselves without a foreign hierarchical system getting in the way. There may be some who weren't previous members of any masonic order. Myself I have no problem with that because i get that Genesis has to start somewhere. The original members of the GL of London 1717 where all self initiated. But that is a topic for a whole other thread. Love and Light, I appreciate the response. Being charter-less initially makes sense with self-founding lodges, but once established would they then need to set up their own charter? Just wondering on that. Indeed. However, the whole notion of Self-Initiating I guess goes hand in hand with Independent Lodges. For example, someone decides one morning they wants to become a Mason; tries to join an established Masonic Body, but for some reason is found to be unsuitable and subsequently rejected. However, at this stage they've already read or heard so much about the Craft that in their heart they are already a Mason, a self-made one, if you like. This feeling is so strong they cannot simply let go and turn to something else, so thinks on the possibility of starting their own independent lodge. I can see is such circumstances why it would be necessary to go down this route. I feel, too, that the fact someone has gone through an accepted route does not necessarily mean they are a Mason. Sure, they have been initiated and are part of an established Masonic Order, but I have seen a few from certain Orders behave in a manner inconsistent with the Masonry I have come to know and love. This is why for me it is how a person carries themselves that is more important than the fact they have gone through an initiation.
|
|
Harmony
Member
The Craft ; 1241 & 1386 & 1706 (Hon) (SC). OSM - Polnoon Castle Conclave. HRA - Rockmount & Camphi
Posts: 337
|
Post by Harmony on Jan 14, 2010 16:21:18 GMT
Is there any more information on the 3 independent Glasgow lodges?
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 18:43:53 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. Most independent lodges are formed by Masons who where previously members of other jurisdictions, Orders. They found something lacking in their previous experience or they just felt the need to determine things for themselves without a foreign hierarchical system getting in the way. There may be some who weren't previous members of any masonic order. Myself I have no problem with that because i get that Genesis has to start somewhere. The original members of the GL of London 1717 where all self initiated. But that is a topic for a whole other thread. Love and Light, I appreciate the response. Being charter-less initially makes sense with self-founding lodges, but once established would they then need to set up their own charter? Just wondering on that. Indeed. However, the whole notion of Self-Initiating I guess goes hand in hand with Independent Lodges. For example, someone decides one morning they wants to become a Mason; tries to join an established Masonic Body, but for some reason is found to be unsuitable and subsequently rejected. However, at this stage they've already read or heard so much about the Craft that in their heart they are already a Mason, a self-made one, if you like. This feeling is so strong they cannot simply let go and turn to something else, so thinks on the possibility of starting their own independent lodge. I can see is such circumstances why it would be necessary to go down this route. I feel, too, that the fact someone has gone through an accepted route does not necessarily mean they are a Mason. Sure, they have been initiated and are part of an established Masonic Order, but I have seen a few from certain Orders behave in a manner inconsistent with the Masonry I have come to know and love. This is why for me it is how a person carries themselves that is more important than the fact they have gone through an initiation. No problem Leo ;D I don't think most independents would find a value in any charter. I know from my own experience I have the authority to issue charters in and from Washington state. I have issued charters and at the end of the day, charters don't mean anything. I find that those of the independent spirit don't need "permission" to do what they feel in their heart they are called to do. The rest of your post I agree with and I thank you for posting. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 19:00:41 GMT
I think the point has always been serious, even amongst these four forming lodges. Certainly, the old manuscripts, the Comacines, the Roman Colleges, the ancient artifacts &c. indicate a serious side to the operative masons. The ancient communities of operative masons held their secrets extremely tightly. So much so, intermarriage was verbotten in many of them. Certainly, fun was and is a partial part of Freemasonry as well. It is likely that much of this was dangerous when both church and state would persecute. The ability to trust one another was literally life-or-death. 1717 would certainly have been like that. Remember, Brother Marlowe was killed in a bar fight while doing a bit of spying! Getting stabbed to death don't sound like all that much fun. I agree that operative Stonemasons where then and are now very serious. Lot's of deep magickal practice going on. We see this in Nordic Runeology. Please keep in mind also that it was Master Mason tradition amongst stonemasons for them to leave the Guild on horseback and travel. They would travel and teach to need Apprentices in very small tight nit groups of teacher to pupil. Almost an Eastern way of mythical and magickal teaching. The speculative Freemasons of 1717 where not looked upon highly by Stonemasons guilds of the time. They where shouted down as "fakes" and "imposter's." The York Freemasons did not think highly of them either. In fact the Yorks had such a low opinion of the Moderns (and later the Antients) that they never recognized or shared any Ritual with them. Going back to the early Moderns of 1717. I believe that from the fact that many where Rosicrucian's the Freemason formation was the "lighter" and more social function that they practiced. not quite the earliest Shrine but you get the idea. These where gentle mens drinking clubs. Now, i have been unable to find anything authentic that represents 1712-1723 ritual but I would guess that it is very simple and basic. It was not until the group gained a following amongst the Lordship that really expanded and grand ritual began to take hold amongst the Moderns. If you look at the earliest versions of the French Modern Rite that are still practiced (circa 1732 or so) those rituals are very "stripped down." Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 19:03:56 GMT
Is there any more information on the 3 independent Glasgow lodges? I know next to nothing about them other than that two work the French Modern Rite and one works the Rite of Steiner. I do believe that the steiner lodge is made up of Danish and German ex-pats but I am not positive on that. I also believe that they are integrated. I am trying to establish contact to see if we can work in mutual cooperation.
|
|
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 19:19:25 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jan 14, 2010 19:19:36 GMT
If you do find out more about them let us know. I have a better understanding now of Independent Lodges and can see where there's a need for such. Perhaps one day some of these lodges will get together and become a sort of a Co-Operative of likeminded Masons... independent, yet allied under the one umbrella. Isn’t this, after all, how well known GLs came to be in the first place?
|
|
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 19:29:22 GMT
Leo, I'm not certain this is not how GLs still are in many ways. Yes, there are differences in the opinions of the brethen, both GL Officers and Entered Apprentices. Isn't that, after all, the nature of a democracy? I'll grant that Freemasonry is not structured as a democracy, though each member is allowed his voice. I think there is too much of a tendency for people outside a GL system to demonize it, as sometimes independent lodges are demonized by those under the GL system and vice-versa. Certainly, it's not always a perfect system. Freemasonry's perfection is only in its direction. Even when we disagree, or especially, we are chipping at the ashlars and laying stones on the walls. I know I've disagreed with the GL and in Lodge, yet we always leave the way we came. On the level.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jan 14, 2010 19:38:06 GMT
Leo, I'm not certain this is not how GLs still are in many ways. Yes, there are differences in the opinions of the brethen, both GL Officers and Entered Apprentices. Isn't that, after all, the nature of a democracy? I'll grant that Freemasonry is not structured as a democracy, though each member is allowed his voice. I think there is too much of a tendency for people outside a GL system to demonize it, as sometimes independent lodges are demonized by those under the GL system and vice-versa. Certainly, it's not always a perfect system. Freemasonry's perfection is only in its direction. Even when we disagree, or especially, we are chipping at the ashlars and laying stones on the walls. I know I've disagreed with the GL and in Lodge, yet we always leave the way we came. On the level. I see what you mean. Lodges may start as independent, yet for some reason come to the notice of other such lodges and find that they share so much in common it makes sense for them to come together. I am sure that somewhere out there in the Masonic world there are such independent lodges who will one day become part of more established GLs.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 19:45:36 GMT
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 magusmasonica on Jan 14, 2010 19:49:47 GMT
Leo, I'm not certain this is not how GLs still are in many ways. Yes, there are differences in the opinions of the brethren, both GL Officers and Entered Apprentices. Isn't that, after all, the nature of a democracy? I'll grant that Freemasonry is not structured as a democracy, though each member is allowed his voice. I think there is too much of a tendency for people outside a GL system to demonize it, as sometimes independent lodges are demonized by those under the GL system and vice-versa. Certainly, it's not always a perfect system. Freemasonry's perfection is only in its direction. Even when we disagree, or especially, we are chipping at the ashlars and laying stones on the walls. I know I've disagreed with the GL and in Lodge, yet we always leave the way we came. On the level. I see what you mean. Lodges may start as independent, yet for some reason come to the notice of other such lodges and find that they share so much in common it makes sense for them to come together. I am sure that somewhere out there in the Masonic world there are such independent lodges who will one day become part of more established GLs. No, not really. Sooner or later one body will attempt to be supreme and make the other subordinate. There is no need for this type of structure when we have seen it fail time and time again. Speaking for myself. I am happy as peach that LNB has found and been found by Masons cut of the same cloth to who we can work with. But, if that ended to tomorrow we would continue as sovereign and independent since day one. We don't need friends, we do appreciate our friends. there is a difference. Love and Light,
|
|