KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Sept 10, 2010 16:31:38 GMT
Hi Brother Bill,
I agree with you on the reason for the schism. I'm more curious to have the 1760 article verified. It is known that the G.O. has for some time recognized feminine Masonry, yet I do not buy the claim that the 1760 article states British 'masonry' (sic) 'pushed back' and slowed the process. That 1760 article claiming the reason it took the G.O. two and a half centuries to come to their conclusion is because of the British is what I'd like to see for myself. S&F
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 10, 2010 17:19:41 GMT
GOoUSA says this: Modern Freemasonry is sometimes referred to as Grand Orient, Continental, Cosmopolitan, or Liberal Freemasonry, though these terms do not all have equivalent definitions. Modern Freemasonry is derived from the original Grand Lodge of England (1717). It became known as "Modern" when a schism developed and a rival group known as the "Antients" was formed. The Antients referred to the original Grand Lodge as "Modern". Modern Freemasonry, as it left England and spread throughout Europe, preserved and maintained the original Masonic principles and worldviews centered around natural philosophy, the Enlightenment, secularism, and the progressive (if not revolutionary) political and sociological philosophies that attracted men such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, Mozart, and the Marquis de Lafayette. To this day, Modern Freemasonry continues to focus its efforts around principles and values such as the arts & sciences, higher education, separation of church and state, freedom of expression, human rights, tolerance, emancipation of lifestyles, and the global environmental sustainability. www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/europe_grand_lodges.htmlMay be worth a read.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Sept 10, 2010 17:37:47 GMT
I disagree with many of these assertions and could easily back it up with clear evidence. First of all, the schism between the Modern and the Antients is not true, as is quite well pointed out in the 19th century by Brother Henry Sadler. This seems to infer that U.G.L.E.-recognized Masonry does not support the things listed at the end, which is not true either. The brethren are left to their Freedom of Conscience on these matters in U.G.L.E. recognized lodges, and not forced to agree with the dogmatic official party line of their particular G.L. or G.O. I thank you for this information Brother Bill, of which I am well aware.
I am still seeking verification that the article from 1760 shows that the reason for not changing was because of the alleged push-back by 'British masonry' (sic). I believe it might be *inferred* from the article by a subjective viewpoint, but I highly doubt the article *proves* this case as the reason.
S&F
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 10, 2010 20:22:21 GMT
Please understand i put some things here to make it more understandable to the other readers. to fill in the gaps as it were.
i seem to remember having a long and detailed discussion with Jeff, GM of GOoUSA on this specific subject. If he is around he may be able to help you with the article.
|
|
KNOs1s
Member
I am inclined agree or disagree based on the quality and quantity of proffered information.
Posts: 1,330
|
Post by KNOs1s on Sept 10, 2010 20:40:45 GMT
Thanks, Brother Bill. It's much appreciated. S&F
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 10, 2010 20:45:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Sept 10, 2010 21:40:44 GMT
A good find Bill, thanks for sharing.
|
|