The Masons

a reply to: network dude

It's not about women in freemasonry, I don't know why you think it's the heart of the matter.

Like I said before, there are no supra-national masonic bodies, yet the Grand Lodge of England act as one, claiming to be the keeper of the "true" masonic tradition.

Traditions are also used to rationalize such wonderful things as genital mutilation, racism or forced marriages. Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, even a non-mason knows that.

You may keep your romantic views regarding what the Grand Lodge of England said about "unrecognized lodges". It's just hypocrisy from their side since they have no authority outside the UK. Even inside English freemasonry there has been a schism between "ancients" and "moderns". That you take side with the ancients and their conservatism only illustrates your personal opinion.

Not what is right or wrong. Nor what it means to be a "real" freemason.

originally posted by: network dude
It's not something I expect any non mason to comprehend.

That's really condescending and unnecessary. You could at least try to explain before passing judgement.

It comes down to the ancient landmarks of the Order, on which the Order was founded.

When Freemasonry started, the founding statement of the Order stated that there were certain landmarks which could never be changed, and if they were, then it could no longer be considered Freemasonry.

This included, amongst other things, the belief in God and the admission of Women.

Changing these, by definition, would mean that it is no longer Freemasonry, but something else.

originally posted by: Saurus
It comes down to the ancient landmarks of the Order, on which the Order was founded.

When Freemasonry started, the founding statement of the Order stated that there were certain landmarks which could never be changed, and if they were, then it could no longer be considered Freemasonry.

This included, amongst other things, the belief in God and the admission of Women.

Changing these, by definition, would mean that it is no longer Freemasonry, but something else.

Again, appeal to tradition. When the constitution of a country needs to be revised, a process is set in motion to do so.

Religions which are unable to reconsider their outdated dogmas are considered retrograde. Free-masonry doesn't escape the same problems. When freemasonry was founded it wasn't open to black people. Today it is. It's still free-masonry, and it's even better thanks to that positive evolution.


And EVEN if I accepted that logic that tradition is all that matters, the Grande Loge Nationale the France is following all the traditions described in the landmarks, and was recognized by the Lodge of England.

UNTIL 2011 when suddenly the English Masons decided that no, the French brothers aren't recognized anymore, and thus shouldn't be considered freemasonry.

Why?

Petty politics and egoes, that's why.

Sorry, it's really not a pretty picture that is depicted by the conservative (and largest) side of freemasonry.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: network dude
It's not something I expect any non mason to comprehend.

That's really condescending and unnecessary. You could at least try to explain before passing judgement.

Don't be so sensitive - what he means is, if you are not a Mason, then you may not necessarily have the same understanding or respect for the craft as we do.

Just as a physicist may not feel compelled to explain complex theories to me to because he says I simply wouldn't get it, I'm not going to be insulted.

originally posted by: Saurus
When Freemasonry started, the founding statement of the Order stated that there were certain landmarks which could never be changed, and if they were, then it could no longer be considered Freemasonry.

Please tell me you can show me exactly where and when "freemasonry" started. And that the "Order" you talk about is a supra-national organization with supreme "masonic authority".

Thanks

originally posted by: noonebutme
Just as a physicist may not feel compelled to explain complex theories to me to because he says I simply wouldn't get it, I'm not going to be insulted.

I'm not hurt. I'm just saying I am expressing interest in this topic so I will do my best to try to get it. I'm genuinely trying to understand things you seem to rationalize out of "respect of the craft" and tradition. I understand why you do it, I'm just saying it's not rational and sounds contrary and paradoxical regarding the very values promoted by freemasonry.


In a certain cultural context, these things made sense. The modern cultural context is different now and the increasing number of "unrecognized" lodges is simply a symptom of the growing dissonance between tradition and social realities. To call them "irregular" or "unrecognized" is simply a way for the ancients to ignore a problem they are unwilling to deal with.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: network dude
It's not something I expect any non mason to comprehend.

That's really condescending and unnecessary. You could at least try to explain before passing judgement.

I assure you, my intention was not to be condescending. Becoming a mason takes a little work. Understanding why masonry operates like it does it key to it's teachings. The same lessons we teach have been taught different ways throughout history. Our way of teaching is what separates us from other groups.

I am part of a regular masonic lodge that is recognized by the UGLE. I obligated myself not to visit an irregular lodge.

That is not to say that I look down on other non-recognized orders. We just separate ourselves from that to avoid confusion.

Unless you learned what I learned, how I learned it, then it's hard for me to explain to you why our system is best done exactly as it has been done for centuries. If I was a doctor, I couldn't begin to explain all that I learned in my 8-10 years of school, but if you asked a specific question, I could answer you with ease. Freemasonry is the same way. You brought up a specific point and I can answer it to the best of my ability, but the process in which I learned it is impossible to covey in any other way or manner than that which I received it. If there is a "secret" in masonry, that would be it.

I hope you take my words as I intended them. A friendly attempt to answer your questions.

a reply to: JUhrman

That's a fair point.

One thing I think if often forgotten about Freemasonry is its not a public corporation or a publicly funded organisation - it's private and so long as no laws are being broken, they do not need to conform to any particular social norm.

Just as women are not allowed in men's football (ie: the one played with the feet) and vide versa, women are not allowed in Freemasonry. Should that change? I'd say no, and why should it? Men and women are fundamentally different and the ways in which they bond are different. I love my wife will all my heart - but i don't want her at my meetings!

Likewise, she wouldn't want me hanging out with her group of friends when she does in her particular weekly get-toegthers - the dynamics, in that context, simply do not work.

a reply to: noonebutme

I hear you. It's just that seen from my side, a single lodge, even if it believes it has supra-national authority when it hasn't, even if it believes it can trace its history down to the fabled original lodge that started freemasonry when it cannot, has no right to determine what is freemasonry and what isn't.

The Grand Lodge of England is a masonic orders. The Grand Lodge of France is a masonic orders. The first does not recognize the second one (despite following the rules of the landmarks) and yet member of the French Lodge are as much masons as their English brothers. Whether it pleases them or not.

It's like if an Orthodox Christian was saying to a Catholic Christian "you are not a Christian, only I follow the original tradition of the Church as established by Christ". It's of course incorrect. Both are Christians despite their different traditions.



If for you "being a mason" is something that is determined by the proximity to the Grand Lodge of England, I'm sorry to say this again but this a chauvinistic attitude that is contrary to the values that claim to make good men better all across the globe, regardless of their status or origin. It's not walking the talk.


"Freemason" is not an exclusive trademark that belongs to that Lodge of England. It predates it and the Lodge of England is merely borrowing from that tradition yet talks about it like it's their property.

originally posted by: JUhrman
I hear you. It's just that seen from my side, a single lodge, even if it believes it has supra-national authority when it hasn't, even if it believes it can trace its history down to the fabled original lodge that started freemasonry when it cannot, has no right to determine what is freemasonry and what isn't.

It is not the respective Grand Lodge's decision, it is the decision of each individual Mason who composes that Grand Lodge to adhere to the Ancient Landmarks.

Personally, while I am very far from a chauvinist, I do not want to participate in a co-ed lodge, I, like my wife, occasionally want some time just with members of my own sex.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I really don't get why everyone is coming back to that gender issues when I repeated so many times it's not even my point.

My point was that according to the link sent to me, it's the Grand Lodge of England which can decide by itself what Lodge are Freemasonry or not EVEN IF THEY ALL ADHERE TO THESE ANCIENT LANDMARKS.

The Grand Lodge of France does, they do not accept women, they do believe in God, and yet they are not considered Freemasons since 2011.

UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY? The masonic literature is clear, national Masonic lodges have sovereign authorities, the Lodge of England has no authority over the Lodge of France, and yet it acts like it does.

It's an abuse of power, just like appropriating the term "free mason" like it's their own property when they certainly not invented freemasonry.


That's my concern, not all this talk about women in freemasonry that was only raised pages ago because I talked about the experience of a friend of mine and everyone jumped on it calling it unrecognized freemasonry despite it being recognized by its national masonic authority.

originally posted by: JUhrman
My point was that according to the link sent to me, it's the Grand Lodge of England which can decide by itself what Lodge are Freemasonry or not EVEN IF THEY ALL ADHERE TO THESE ANCIENT LANDMARKS.

They can only decide for themselves. There are plenty of Grand Lodges in the United States that do not recognize, or recognize, other Grand Lodges that their American counterparts, or the United Grand Lodge of England, may recognize or not.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JUhrman
My point was that according to the link sent to me, it's the Grand Lodge of England which can decide by itself what Lodge are Freemasonry or not EVEN IF THEY ALL ADHERE TO THESE ANCIENT LANDMARKS.

They can only decide for themselves. There are plenty of Grand Lodges in the United States that do not recognize, or recognize, other Grand Lodges that their American counterparts, or the United Grand Lodge of England, may recognize or not.

And so, it's why I said the the Belgian and French lodges accepting women and atheists I mentioned ARE RECOGNIZED lodges within their national territories, and that it pleases or not the Lodge of England as zilch to do with their right to call themselves recognized freemasons.

So the link sent to me to explain what is a "recognized lodge" only explains what is a lodge recognized by one specific lodge which is bound to a certain territory and tradition. Certainly not the universal definition of what is freemasonry or what is a mason.

Because there exist no such universal definition. If there is one, I'm still waiting to see it (and not the specific definition of a specific lodge that happens to be popular here).

originally posted by: JUhrman

So the link sent to me to explain what is a "recognized lodge" only explains what is a lodge recognized by one specific lodge which is bound to a certain territory and tradition. Certainly not the universal definition of what is freemasonry or what is a mason.

It is not just the United Grand Lodge of England. I am fairly sure that all 51 Grand Lodges in the United States do not recognize them either.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JUhrman

So the link sent to me to explain what is a "recognized lodge" only explains what is a lodge recognized by one specific lodge which is bound to a certain territory and tradition. Certainly not the universal definition of what is freemasonry or what is a mason.

It is not just the United Grand Lodge of England. I am fairly sure that all 51 Grand Lodges in the United States do not recognize them either.

Who cares. You guys really talk like only english-speaking people exist and matter in this world.

The French and Belgian national Lodges have sovereign masonic authority over their territory, and if they decided to recognize new and modern lodges welcoming agnostics, atheists and women, the Americans and English have nothing to say about this and their right to recognize them as freemasons.


That's most likely why the English suddenly became pissed off at the Grand Lodge of France despite recognizing them for decades until 2011. All it does is to make the English and American Lodges sound like bitter bigot in this story.

originally posted by: JUhrman

The French and Belgian national Lodges have sovereign masonic authority over their territory, and if they decided to recognize new and modern lodges welcoming agnostics, atheists and women, the Americans and English have nothing to say about this and their right to recognize them as freemasons.

Frankly I could not care what they do as whoever they choose to recognize or not makes zero difference to me.

a reply to: JUhrman

I am confused at your anger. We happen to be masons who happen to fall under the recognition of the UGLE. As far as we know, we are part of the original group historically called masons. Maybe we aren't and some group in France really is. But unless they have some amazing proof that explains how they are true masons, and we are not, who cares? I am happy being the mason I am, and I assume a French guy who is a mason is happy being the mason he is. weather or not our overarching bodies recognize each other is immaterial unless we make it so.

What investment do you have in this argument?

a reply to: network dude


I'm not angry. I just want to point how illogical it is that a French or Belgian mason isn't a mason according to the definition that was posted here, simply because one specific lodge in England does not recognize them.

If I was using the same logic, you guys aren't masons because you aren't recognized by the masonic authority of my country.

I hope you see now how ridiculous such a claim sounds, and how it gives the image of freemasonry being even more sectarian than religions. That's quite a feat!

I really want to like freemasons but today I learned they aren't as humanist and above patriotism as they hope to be.


There is nothing like a "true mason" definition. Freemasonry is part of a tradition that extends much further than one specific lodge in England

originally posted by: JUhrman

Religions which are unable to reconsider their outdated dogmas are considered retrograde. Free-masonry doesn't escape the same problems.

You don't get it - the "ancient landmark" of religion is God. You can change anything else, but when you remove the ancient landmark, God, then it is no longer religion.

Same with Freemasonry - you can change many things - just not the ancient landmarks.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Saurus
When Freemasonry started, the founding statement of the Order stated that there were certain landmarks which could never be changed, and if they were, then it could no longer be considered Freemasonry.

Please tell me you can show me exactly where and when "freemasonry" started. And that the "Order" you talk about is a supra-national organization with supreme "masonic authority".

Thanks

The "General Regulations" published by the Grand Lodge of England in 1723 clearly stated that "Every Annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power and Authority to make new Regulations or to alter these [...] provided always that the old Land-Marks be carefully preserved."

Here are the landmarks:

www.masonicworld.com...

Look at #25...