wanna pick some freemasons brains :P

in trying to understand the brotherly relationships involved in freemasonry, & how they may influence various circumstances... i'm pondering these things, among others :-

1 - if you travel the world (holidays, business etc), being a mason, are you inclined to actively seek out fellow masons in those countries, for whatever reasons... & if so, do you make arrangements in advance via your own lodge beforehand, or just arrive & go from there?

2 - as freemasonry is based on brotherly love & trust, would you give your total & utter trust to a complete stranger, purely based on his being a fellow mason?

3 - in the worst SHTF situation, if the institution of masonry requested all members to be mobilized "for the greater good" of the community/country to help (kind of) "informally police" your neighbourhood, would you feel obligated & follow through?

4 - in a hypothetical situation, with time of the essence, where you are with just two men (unmarried, childless, same age) whom you know & care for equally - one a mason, the other non-mason, & you can only save one of their lives... whom would you decide upon & why?

5 - same hypothetical as above... however, this time both men are completely unknown to you - suddenly, the mason gives you the distress signal... whom would you favour & why?


6 - i posed this question in another thread, & received only a vague, unsatisfactory reply from someone i don't think was a mason, so i'll ask again...


if one were to be a successful, post-op (female to male) transsexual, & thus a man... would one - upon favourable prospect - be accepted into the fraternity... if not, why exactly?

i know it's a tall order my asking these things - & i mean no offence - the questions are just swimming around my head right now, so i thought i'd give it a shot in asking

thanks in advance

7 - forgot to ask - is there any truth in every newly-appointed POTUS immediately becoming a 33 degree mason?

Originally posted by pattonisit
1 - if you travel the world (holidays, business etc), being a mason, are you inclined to actively seek out fellow masons in those countries, for whatever reasons... & if so, do you make arrangements in advance via your own lodge beforehand, or just arrive & go from there?

Yes, I generally tend to visit at least one lodge in each town that I visit. Normally, I just turn up at the lodge and chat to the secretary or caretaker about which meetings take place on which nights, and then I just turn up for the meeting/s that I choose.

2 - as freemasonry is based on brotherly love & trust, would you give your total & utter trust to a complete stranger, purely based on his being a fellow mason?

Probably, although this is not a straightforward question and is dependent of circumstances. For example, I would not leave trust my baby son with a stranger to look after just because he is a mason. But then, I wouldn't leave him with a friend either.

However, I bought a car from a mason and agreed to pay him off over a five year period. He gave me the car without even having a written contract. He took my word that I would pay the agreed amount because I am a mason.

3 - in the worst SHTF situation, if the institution of masonry requested all members to be mobilized "for the greater good" of the community/country to help (kind of) "informally police" your neighbourhood, would you feel obligated & follow through?

This would depend entirely on whether I personally agreed with the intention or not. I would certainly not feel obligated.

4 - in a hypothetical situation, with time of the essence, where you are with just two men (unmarried, childless, same age) whom you know & care for equally - one a mason, the other non-mason, & you can only save one of their lives... whom would you decide upon & why?

The fact that one is a mason would not play a factor.

5 - same hypothetical as above... however, this time both men are completely unknown to you - suddenly, the mason gives you the distress signal... whom would you favour & why?

I would probably save the Mason. I guess it's human nature - at least I would have some sort of bond/connection/common interest with the Mason.

6 - i posed this question in another thread, & received only a vague, unsatisfactory reply from someone i don't think was a mason, so i'll ask again...

if one were to be a successful, post-op (female to male) transsexual, & thus a man... would one - upon favourable prospect - be accepted into the fraternity... if not, why exactly?

This would depend on the individual masons in the lodge - I believe that if he applied and met the requirements, his application would probably go to ballot. Then it would have to be unanimous approval from the members of the individual lodge.

7 - forgot to ask - is there any truth in every newly-appointed POTUS immediately becoming a 33 degree mason?

No, absolutely not.

reply to post by Saurus


oops, i really gotta go now... but i'll read your reply later, many thanks

Originally posted by pattonisit

1 - if you travel the world (holidays, business etc), being a mason, are you inclined to actively seek out fellow masons in those countries, for whatever reasons... & if so, do you make arrangements in advance via your own lodge beforehand, or just arrive & go from there?

There is a book printed by Pantagraph Publishing every year that lists every regular Masonic Lodge in the world, categorized by country. I would find a Lodge in the area I was going to be in, and attempt to visit if a meeting was held while I was in town.

2 - as freemasonry is based on brotherly love & trust, would you give your total & utter trust to a complete stranger, purely based on his being a fellow mason?

While ideally the answer would be yes, for all practical purposes, no. Not at least until I got to know him well.

3 - in the worst SHTF situation, if the institution of masonry requested all members to be mobilized "for the greater good" of the community/country to help (kind of) "informally police" your neighbourhood, would you feel obligated & follow through?

Actually, this already happened. It's how the Minutemen Militia was organized!

4 - in a hypothetical situation, with time of the essence, where you are with just two men (unmarried, childless, same age) whom you know & care for equally - one a mason, the other non-mason, & you can only save one of their lives... whom would you decide upon & why?

No way I can answer that, it would depend on the circumstances.

5 - same hypothetical as above... however, this time both men are completely unknown to you - suddenly, the mason gives you the distress signal... whom would you favour & why?

Same as above.

if one were to be a successful, post-op (female to male) transsexual, & thus a man... would one - upon favourable prospect - be accepted into the fraternity... if not, why exactly?

No. Remember, sex change surgery is more of a plastic surgery type thing, it doesn't actually change the gender of the person.

7 - forgot to ask - is there any truth in every newly-appointed POTUS immediately becoming a 33 degree mason?

No. Only 14 Presidents of the US have been Masons. Of those 14, only two have 33° Masons: Harry S. Truman and Gerald R. Ford.

reply to post by pattonisit

1. You are not inclined to seek out the Masons, but if I have the chance I'll contact them. You can just show up, but it's better if the Grand Secretary sends a letter to the other Grand Lodge  to show you are in good standing and if sent soon enough they can contact the local Lodges.

2. I would give my trust to a Brother until he gave me reason not to. It depends on the circumstances.

3. Freemasonry would never do such a thing nor would the Brethren allow a police force to form. Attendance is not compulsory in Freemasonry.

4. I'd save the one who I thought I had a greater chance of saving.

5. Same as 4

6. I'm not sure how to answer or how to approach it. I know there was some talk about a Brother who wanted a sex change and still retain membership.

7. No. Only 14 have ever been Masons, but not all of them were in the Scottish Rite. The last Oresident who was a Mason was Ford. Reagan received honorary membership with the Shriners and Scottish Rite, but that didn't entitle him to attend meetings or any benefits of membership. 

Asking questions is not a bad thing nor do we mind.

reply to post by Masonic Light

No. Only 14 Presidents of the US have been Masons. Of those 14, only two have 33° Masons: Harry S. Truman and Gerald R. Ford.

Even then, Truman wasn't made a 33° until October 1945 despite being inaugurated that April. Far from "immediate", especially considering he lived five minutes from the House of the Temple.

reply to post by OnTheLevel213


True. However, of all US Presidents who wre Masons, Truman was probably the most active. Before becoming President, he had previously served as Grand Master of Masons in Missouri, and was a Past Potentate of Ararat Shrine Temple. It's actually odd that it took him so long to receive the 33°.

reply to post by Masonic Light


I was thinking the same thing when I looked it up. Is white-hatting all Grand Masters a recent phenomenon?

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

I was thinking the same thing when I looked it up. Is white-hatting all Grand Masters a recent phenomenon?

Technically, being elected Grand Master does not automatically guarantee the white hat. However, since the 33rd is given in recognition of service to the fraternity, and since those in the grand line serve almost full-time, it is often the case that are coroneted 33rds (if they haven't gotten it already).

reply to post by pattonisit


I'm exhausted from answering so many questions in This Thread so I am just going to pick the two hard questions that you asked. The others will do a fine job of answering your other questions.

4 - in a hypothetical situation, with time of the essence, where you are with just two men (unmarried, childless, same age) whom you know & care for equally - one a mason, the other non-mason, & you can only save one of their lives... whom would you decide upon & why?

There is no way any circumstance could ever be 100% equal in all regards. Of course all decision making would boil down to the biggest chance of success. I would save the one I was certain I could save. In the strange hypothetical situation that all things were equal, I would save the one with the youngest family, or the youngest man. Hypothetically assuming everything else was absolutely equal, including their family situation, their own age, etc., etc. YES, I would probably save the Mason. There is no right answer. It is terrible to let one man die, and whether or not they were Masons would not factor into my decision making in real life. But, in your hypothetical, all things being equal, and there has to be some deciding factor, the Mason would win my choice.

5 - same hypothetical as above... however, this time both men are completely unknown to you - suddenly, the mason gives you the distress signal... whom would you favour & why?

Same as above. I can add this though, if there was a situation that I did not intend to interfere in. Perhaps I was a spectator, or the danger seemed to be too great, or it looked like others had things under control, or whatever. If I saw the grand hailing sign of distress, I would immediately do what I could to help. It would make me rethink my original decision to not intervene. In all likelihood, I would attempt to help in 99.9% of all cases anyway, even without the sign, but in that 0.1% where I was hesitant, the sign would make me rethink my hesitation, and possibly change my decision.

Folks can flame away if they would like, but in all honesty, if that unlikely hypothetical ever came to fruition, something would have to be the deciding factor, so it might as well be our brotherhood.

************************************************************

Along those same lines of thought. I think a Doctor should always choose to save the life of a cop over the life of a criminal. If the doctor only has enough time or resources to save one person from a shootout, save the good one. Along those lines in a car crash, save the innocent victim, not the DUI driver. Save the mother instead of the newborn. Save the young family man instead of the old man. Etc., etc. In those hypothetical situations, there is no choice but to arbitrarily choose one life over another, so make the decision wisely.

just a quick thanks to those who replied... much appreciate your time & consideration!