The blog Lost in France reports that at the recent annual meeting of the Grand Orient of France, "sixty percent of the 1,200 delegates attending rejected outright the proposal that was put forward by their slightly more liberated Grand Master Jean-Michel Quillardet to allow women to join their Lodges."According to the website, the GODF was founded in 1773, and has over 48,000 members.
Masons | Masonic Trial | Females in Freemasonry | Freemasonry | Grand Orient of France | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com
Well, at least the majority present still have a clear eye on their obligations and the traditions of freemasonry. As for the Grand Master being more "progressive"... well, that is certainly one opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me they took the only, appropriate, masonic action in the face of a... ridiculous request.
Good for them!
That is a sweet picture, though!
ReplyDeleteDig the lid on that dame....
How dare she think she a freemason!
Good, and make sure you keep them coloreds and homosexuals out too!
the nerve of some, really thinking masonry would want those unequals as members.....
Bwahhhhh
Bro Jethro Tull
Oh my goodness! Men are staying true to their word...
ReplyDeleteHow dare they! Don't they know that this day and age you are supposed to sacrifice your word for the PC masses.
I think we should start up a petition to have them censured by the UN for being so bold as to keep their word!
Down with integrity now!
Br. Arthur Peterson
Now if they could just do something about allowing atheists in, we might be able to trust them as Brothers once again.
- Anyway the GOdF have already built or help the building of another GL for men and women and they have the right to visit the lodges of the GOdF.
ReplyDeleteThe only think the GodF don't do is initiation.
- progress is not ridiculous, or maybe there is still a lot of ridiculous things to do in freemasonry.
- Atheist/theist the question anyway is not asked since 1877.
Is it necessarily saying that women aren't equal if they can't be freemasons? I guess I'm just wondering what's wrong with men associating and supporting each other in this organization. Have we progressed any less if we still separate sometimes to associate. And I don't think that homosexuals or african americans, asians, latinos, etc. should be excluded.
ReplyDeleteI certainly can't see myself trying to join the Red Hat Society. Just a thought.
Bro. Newbie
Damn people
ReplyDeleteI am always amazed when I see the tyranny of ignorant men. Atheists? Should a sovereign body bow to your interests?
Where would the United States be if our Constitution could not be changed? Slavery would still be legal. Times change. Get with the times.
I'm laughing. Obviously I can't resist commenting on this one-- but if I stop to do so, I'll be late to my lodge meeting!!!
ReplyDeleteSo more later...
p.s. where can I get a dress like hers?
Sis. Kelley beat me to this one, but I'm going to add my tuppence anyway.
ReplyDeleteBros. Dunn, Peterson, et al., there is a reason why some web forums ban (or heavily moderate) discussions about jurisdictional differences, especially about jurisdictions that are not recognized by the mainstream GLs. Like religion and politics, discussions about "clandestine" lodges have a way of devolving into name calling and insults (witness some of the responses here), for no good reason.
Grand Lodges are sovereign entities, but that does not mean that they exist in political vacuums. GOF made a decision not to admit women, but that does not mean anything beyond that they have decided not to admit women. It's not that the decision is "right" or that they are "keeping their word;" it simply means that they are going to continue the tradition that they've had.
There are, obviously, several large jurisdictions that admit women. Some have been around for a couple of centuries, some are newer, but all of them practice the forms of Masonry very closely to the ones that you and I know. Are they Masons? Well, according to how my GL (and yours, I suspect) defines the term, no.
But the more pertinent question to ask is are they Masons according to their own definition? The answer is obviously yes, they are. In fact, my GL (and yours, I suspect) do consider them to be "Masonic" in some fashion, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. They are a body that we regard as Masonic, but unrecognized.
There's an odd twist of logic there. If "The Feminine Rite of Memphis-Mizrain" called themselves "The Feminine Order of Water Buffaloes," then you and I could visit, or even join a lodge. It's only because they call themselves "Masons" that they are off-limits.
My GL has the right to not recognize orders that admit women. That means that I can't associate with them Masonically; it does not give me the moral authority to denigrate them, or indeed, any other group that would consider admitting them.
Bro. Accuosti,
ReplyDeleteWell spoken. I thank you from my heart, brother.
I have one comment on the whole chicks or no chicks thing--and then one on the GODF.
Freemasonry is a system of morality, not a social club. I am completely in favor of folks *socializing* as they see fit. I am not so much in favor of half of the population saying that the other half cannot access the wisdom of what remains of the western mystery tradition. There is nothing gender specific about wisdom, or self improvement, or honesty, or idealism, or love. And no, the word "fraternity" does not mean all male. Look it up.
I would also posit that the problem with Freemasonry in the US is that it has become too much of a social club, which is what leads to this kind of confusion.
Regarding the GODF. I love the GODF. The GODF lodge in my city helped open my Le Droit Humain (co-freemasonry) lodge, and has been supportive of us ever since. Several of those brothers are actually dual members of our lodges, so our ties are very close.
I am not at all disappointed that they did not go co-ed on that vote. This was not the first vote on the issue, and will not be the last.
It was not a crazy initiative of one wackadoo liberal poobah. As I understand from my GODF sources, it is an ongoing discussion. I don't really care how they decide, I'm just happy that they are willing to think about it. That means they respect me, and my right to be a Mason, and more, they are wondering if working with women wouldn't help them be better Masons. It's their decision to make.
Also, to put their vote into a cultural context, France is a rich in Masonic options. Le Droit Humain is strong there. There is more than one all female GL. There are the godless rabble rousers called the GODF, and there are more conservative masculine obediences that would be more similar to US Masonry. Unlike here in the US, In France, everyone has a chance to find their place in Freemasonry.
When those GODF brothers were voting, they knew their sisters had other high-quality options for participating in Freemasonry--this means that when they vote on whether or not to admit women, the vote is not a shallow PC gesture, nor is it guilt induced, nor is it because of outside pressure to open up.
Brothers of the GODF are free thinkers in the finest tradition, and I'd like to think they'd not crumble under outside pressure but do what is right for them. If the idea is coming to vote it is because a significant portion of them think they might rather work side by side with women. It's that simple.
If they decide never to go co-ed, that is perfectly fine with me. What I care about is that they are willing consider it. What I care about is that they respect me as an equal. I can and do attend GODF meetings, and they do not question my right to be a Mason in the slightest. That's what counts. Respect.
I am a white woman, and I am sorry to say that the only time I've had an inkling of what it must be like to be a black person walking into an all white room has been the times I have tried to associate with GL Masons at non-tyled meetings and other social events. I've had men refuse to shake my hand, I've had men turn their backs on me, give me the cold shoulder, or scramble away to avoid me.
If I'm standing with my husband (he's also in the Droit Humain), he gets all the eye contact, all the questions. I've had a grandfatherly man point to the acacia sprig on my lapel and quiz me about what it means. Another man expressed astonishment to my husband that I could comprehend the symbols, since they're all based on tools. My poor husband, shocked, could only say that we do a lot of home improvement so that hasn't been a problem.
In short, I don't want to change your lodge, your way of practicing. I'm happy to be "clandestine" . But I will ask you with all due respect to try to open your mind to the possibility that a woman can be a Mason, and ask that if you should ever meet a woman who claims to be a Mason, that you extend your hand to her, because she could prove to be a good friend.
And I know it's against your rules, but we recognize you GL guys as Freemasons, so you if you happen to be in Los Angeles, you can visit my lodge anytime you want if you want to see how a mixed lodge works.
Yours fraternally ---
at the risk of sounding sexist, i really don't see what the big problem with freemasonry being only for males is all about.
ReplyDeletedon't get me wrong, co-freemasonry is fine in my eyes.
but frankly, as a young male, i find the affects of feminism on this modern age to be quite frightening.
i'm sick of feeling forced to feel guilty because of how males in previous generations have behaved.
there's so many female-solidarity groups, yet when a time-honoured tradition is put in the spotlight, it's labeled as "sexist" and "not progressive".
i enjoy spending the night with well-mannered, distinguished men who all have the same goals as i regarding their morality and personal development. it gives me a chance to get away from the world (including women), and enjoy an evening of brotherly solidarity.
and i really don't see the problem with that.
peace and blessed be,
c.z.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteWell I can only speak for my jurisdiction, but here, they are not recognised as "Masonic".
The only way a woman can be a Mason is for a Brother to violate his obligation. This is actually what happened and the Masons involved were expelled for it.
My Masonry teaches that a man IS his word.
That is obviously different than what theirs teaches, because they had to break their word to exist.
So plainly what they consider to be Freemasonry and what the rest of us consider to be Freemasonry, are to distinctly different things.
It is not about sexism, elitism, or anything other than keeping your word.
You can dress a wolf in sheeps clothing, it still remains a wolf.
and no, I am not saying they are wolves, literally.
Too often on the internet you see regular Masons trying to make it into something that it isn't. As if trying to take the moral high ground on an issue that has none.
Br. Arthur Peterson
Sister Kelly,
ReplyDeleteExcellent post!
I agree with you 100%.
If male masons want to meet with men only, fine, if men and woman want to practice freemasonry together, great, and if woman want to practice masonry alone, great.
Why should it matter?
If I belong to a male only lodge, then a woman may not enter, does not mean I should not recognise her, it is just I belong to a male only lodge. A man from a co masonic lodge should and would be able to sit in our lodge, just not a woman, and if I wanted to experience a co masonic meeting, I should be allowed to attend by my GL if the co masonic lodge would admit me.
I love and honor all who seek light!
I know a woman who is an MM from a California co masonic lodge, very knowledgable woman, I have no problem talking with her on masonic matters that are non secret.
Life is too short to adhere to divisional ideals.
Tom Coste
Halcyon
http://www.halcyontemple.org/
"A man from a co masonic lodge should and would be able to sit in our lodge"
ReplyDeleteTom C., are you saying that your Grand Lodge recognises male Masons who were raised in Co-Masonic lodges?
If not your lodge should not be allowing him to attend.
If that is what you are saying, I believe your Grand Lodge is the only one in the US (and perhaps the world, as far as "Regular" Grand Lodges go) that does so.
Br. Arthur Peterson
I fail to see a problem here. Didn't the male-only Grand Lodge vote to remain male-only?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the issue then? The blurb said they voted to not initiate women into their lodges. It said nothing about women Masons in general.
Well I can only speak for my jurisdiction, but here, they are not recognised as "Masonic".
ReplyDeleteBro. Peterson, that was a poor choice of words on my part.
The paradox of recognition is that "clandestine" (or the more polite term "unrecognized") jurisdictions are acknowledged to be a form of Masonry; they are forms that our own GL has decided not to associate with, for reasons of politics and tradition. And please note that I'm not saying that these reasons are wrong or right. Each GL has the power to decide what it wants to do, and I agree that they should.
If I started my own lodge and imitated everything that an AF&AM lodge does, but called it "Antient Free & Accepted Machinists," you could join and not be in violation of your GL rules. But as soon as I call it "Masonry" then it's an unrecognized lodge, and you can't be a member.
Similarly, Sis. Kelly is an unrecognized Mason, which means that on some level my GL acknowledges that Masonry is involved on some level.
My Masonry teaches that a man IS his word.
That is obviously different than what theirs teaches, because they had to break their word to exist.
I understand this argument, and I believe it to be specious at best. Our current obligations state this quite clearly, but how do we know that obligations of two centuries ago did the same?
In a similar vein, though, is the idea of breaking obligations. History shows us that what we practice WRT the forms and rituals of Masonry are different than what they were in 1707 or 1507. How does that happen? After all, the obligation that I took as a WM stressed that I was to make no changes or innovations; likewise, the obligations that our GMs take stress the same thing. So how is it that we now have ritual books, "open house" days, and GMs showing Masonic workings on TV?
Again, I want to stress that I don't disagree. Personally, I enjoy belonging to an all-male lodge, and I believe that it would change the dynamics of the fraternity should we move to co-ed lodges. But just because I prefer it does not mean that I can't consider Sister Kelly a brother.
Err... let me rephrase that...
;-)
"I understand this argument, and I believe it to be specious at best. Our current obligations state this quite clearly, but how do we know that obligations of two centuries ago did the same?"
ReplyDeleteTom,
I prefer not to make things more complicated than they need to be. Perhaps , my mind can't handle it, or perhaps I believe it creates unnecessary obfuscation.
Perhaps the obligation was different two centuries ago. So? I did not take an obligation written two centuries ago.
What if my Grand Lodge voted to no longer allow men who wear green hats? Would I be any less obligated to conform?
I may think it is silly, but I will still have to abide by what the majority of my brethren decided was proper, or I could demit.
If I demit, I am still obligated to not share the secrets according to my obligation.
As to the innovations, I believe that applies to the ancient landmarks as established by your particular Grand Lodge and the norms of Masonry.
If our rituals were still spoken the same as they were 200-300 years ago, who would understand what was being said?
The material must be updated from time to time to ensure that the message does not become unintelligable.
Lastly, of course you can call Kelly Brother. I call a lot of people brother who are not masons. I personally would not call Kelly Brother, simply because it offends my ears.
I would not and I know you would not, discuss the secrets of Masonry with them.
Br. Arthur Peterson
Brother Peterson, you are aware that the Masonic obligation is different in different parts of the world, aren't you?
ReplyDeleteJust because you had to promise to keep out the cootie carriers doesn't mean that every Mason did.
It just seems silly to to me want to deny light to 50% of the population. On the other hand, I honestly can't imagine why a woman would want to belong to a mainstream jurisdiction. Hell, *I* don't want to, it's just all I have access to here in the Crossroads of America.
Bring on the Grand Orient, I say.
"Brother Peterson, you are aware that the Masonic obligation is different in different parts of the world, aren't you? "
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that your obligation doesn't say you are to obey your Grand Lodge, and doesn't your Grand Lodge state that a Candidate for Masonry must be a Man?
How about being specific and telling us your Grand Lodge so we can go look it up ourselves?
Br. Arthur Peterson
I have an idle speculation here, much akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I'll throw it out there anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe obligations and rules say women can't be Masons.
At some time in the past, in regular Freemasonry, women secreted themselves inside a working lodge and heard and saw the rituals. Because they then had possession of these secrets, the lodges made them Masons. (One such woman was Elizabeth St. Leger, who was initiated in the regular Cork Lodge No. 95, working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, in the early 1700s. Records indicate she was active in Masonry during her life, and upon her death was given Masonic honors.)
Questions:
Were these regularly initiated women "really" Masons?
Did the Masons who inducted them violate one obligation in order to fulfill another, that of making sure secrets were kept?
Source: Freemasonry.bcy.ca. See also on the same page information about early Masonic references to initiates as "he or she."
— W.S.
Great point WS.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion. MY opinion only. If we are practicing PURE masonry, why can't women share the same benifits? I don't see why not.
But becuase we arn't in the perfect world, freemasonry is a fraternity. Frater, latin root for brother. meaning brotherhood.
I will never hold something against someone that they have no say over. Being Gender, Race, or Age. Learn to accept people for what they CAN help, being their attitudes, effort, ect.
Ephraim.
W.S.
ReplyDeleteYou know and I know that that incident took place before the formalisation of Lodges under a Grand Lodge system.
It happened before brethren had seperate buildings for lodge purposes. In fact this particular incident happened in the home where lodge was being conducted.
However, since the Grand Lodges were established no woman has been initiated into a "regular" lodge. The absense of women being one of the defining characteristics of what makes a lodge "regular".
Why can't women be Masons?
Because we are a private organisation of MEN who sets standards for membership. One is that you be a MAN.
Why doesn't the National Organisation for Women offer scholarships to worthy men?
Why doesn't the NAACP fight equally hard for the advancement of caucasions?
Why can't a black man join the KKK?
Why can't a homosexual be an Eagle Scout?
Why can't I just come into your home and help myself to dinner when I feel like it?
Sheesh... with all the problems in the world you would think folks had better things to focus on than allowing women into regular Masonry.
Br. Arthur Peterson
P.S.
Ephraim, what is PURE masonry?
ReplyDeleteI prefer not to make things more complicated than they need to be.
I can appreciate that ;-)
I was addressing what I believed to be your point that at some time in the past obligations had to be broken in order to make women Masons.
We do both agree, though, that our current obligations are important now.
As to the innovations, I believe that applies to the ancient landmarks as established by your particular Grand Lodge and the norms of Masonry.
In Conn, the WM and (IIRC) the GM are charged accordingly:
"That no innovation can be made upon the body of Masonry without the consent of the Grand Lodge having first been obtained. "
and
"You promise to pay homage to the Grand Master for the time being and to his Officers when duly installed; and strictly to conform to every edict of the Grand Lodge or general assembly of Masons that is not subversive of the principles and ground work of Masonry."
"You admit that it is not in the power of any man or body of men to make innovations in the body of Masonry."
I would assume that most US states are pretty similar.
My point was that at some period, it may not have been a breaking of one's obligation to make women Masons, in which case those jurisdictions that recognize them are not predicated upon oath breaking. Likewise, Grand Lodges that make changes to the ritual seem to be doing so on their own volition.
Again, this is one of the reasons why discussing Droit Humane or Co-masonry is an issue. The next time I'm in Sis. Kelly's neighborhood, I'd like to stop in; I'll just have to do so on a "public event" night.
Bro. Zampano, please be at peace. You will always be able to work with whom you choose, how you choose. No guilt. I respect that right absolutely.
ReplyDeleteIt seems in this conversation, in Bro. Peterson's comments especially, this notion that if women can be intellectually acknowledged to be Freemasons, then it follows as a matter of course that your lodges will be invaded and your vows broken.
The one does not follow another. Try to separate the two ideas. You can be part of an all-male body of Freemasons, and proudly so, and still acknowledge me as a Freemason.
There is room for more than one kind of Freemasonry. The Temple is very large.
As I said in my previous post, in France there is a "brand" of Freemasonry to suit anyone with an inquiring heart.
I think that is beautiful. This is what I want to see in America. I will spend the rest of my life building the American Federation of Le Droit Humain, to provide a home for my brothers and sisters of like mind.
WS, there are many stories about the woman who had to be initiated to preserve secrets. I don't know that it always happened that way. Read the first pages of Margaret Jacob's "Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in 18th century Europe". In those pages she describes how in the 1740's in France, FM's were under police scrutiny and constantly had their meetings busted and their members taken in for questioning. Police records from that time list names and descriptions of lodge members. They include women and black men.
Are you suggesting that your obligation doesn't say you are to obey your Grand Lodge, and doesn't your Grand Lodge state that a Candidate for Masonry must be a Man?
ReplyDeleteMine? Why, yes it does. I wish it weren't so, but it does and I conduct myself accordingly.
Are we presuming that every Grand Lodge across the face of the planet has the same obligation?
We are a provincial bunch, aren't we?
I would far rather sit in lodge with Sister Kelly than a good many mainstream Masons I know, as her understanding of the precepts of Freemasonry seem a great deal more evolved from the posts I've been fortunate to read. If LDH had a lodge near here I'd certainly be looking it up.
"The one does not follow another. Try to separate the two ideas. You can be part of an all-male body of Freemasons, and proudly so, and still acknowledge me as a Freemason." - Sis. Kelly
ReplyDeleteWell that is your opinion which you hold for obvious reasons.
However, I disagree. My understanding of Freemasonry says that women can not be Freemasons.
Are there women Freemasons today? Not to my knowledge.
I know that there are organisations which allow men and women and claim to be Freemasonry, but I don't know what they practice, I don't know what they teach, I don't know what their landmarks are.
What I do know is they do not fall within what I have been taught and what I believe constitutes a legally constituted Master Masons lodge.
I do not care that you call yourself a Freemason. I am not trying to make it illegal for you to do so.
All I am saying is that as far as what I know Freemasonry to be, you are not.
Michael Jackson could start up his own little club for men who like boys and dress it in Masonic Regalia, initiate his members through ritual books he acquired, and declare himself Grand master of a new Freemason branch, does that mean that I have to recognise him as such?
Br. Arthur Peterson
Bro. Peterson wrote:
ReplyDeleteI know that there are organisations which allow men and women and claim to be Freemasonry, but I don't know what they practice, I don't know what they teach, I don't know what their landmarks are.
The principles of co-masonry were outlined on the same freemasonry.bcy.ca page I referenced earlier. They seem to hold the same beliefs and principles that all "regular" Freemasons do.
A. E. Waite wrote in 1922 that "American and British male freemasons would recognize and follow Co-Masonic work with ease, for the allegories and symbols are universal throughout Freemasonry."
Hardly the kind of group that Michael Jackson would form.
— W.S.
Maybe we should be more worried about making Freemasonry relevant in the 21st century than arguing over whether or not women can be Masons. If we don't begin to address the real problems and issues soon we won't have to worry about men or women becoming Masons.
ReplyDeleteI know that there are organisations which allow men and women and claim to be Freemasonry, but I don't know what they practice, I don't know what they teach, I don't know what their landmarks are.
ReplyDeleteYet you're willing to say that they're not Freemasons.
That lack of intellectual curiosity is a big part of the reason our order is where it is.
Perhaps, before you make proclamations about whether they are or are not Freemasons you should endeavor to find out what they practice and teach.
There's not a thing in the world wrong with not recognizing their order. There is definitely something wrong with disparaging them before you know the first thing about them aside from their differing genitalia.
Brother Peterson,
ReplyDeleteI note that the UGLE several years ago made the official statement in 1998 that two English women's jurisdictions are regular in practice, except for their inclusion of women, and while not formally recognized, these bodies may be regarded as part of Freemasonry, when describing Freemasonry in general.
I can't speak for the wording in your jurisdiction, but my obligation simply said that "I will not be present at nor give my consent" to making a woman a Mason. I have no power to give or withhold consent to the actions of another Grand Lodge jurisdiction.
My obligation further says I will not communicate Masonically with a clandestine Mason. It's that "Masonically" that is ambiguous. Does that mean secrets (grips, words, steps, etc)? Does that mean any conversation about Masonry at all? Does that mean I won't sit in one of their "communications" (an older term for a stated meeting)? Does that mean if I am at a conference and a female Mason begins to read a paper, I am supposed to run screaming from the room with my fingers in my ears, going "la-la-la-la-la?"
Regarding women who have been otherwise regularly made Masons as regular, but not recognized, creates no conflict with my personal philosophy. They can't sit in my lodge, and I would not attempt to sit in theirs. But I will say that if there was a feminine Grand Lodge working in Indiana, my wife would sign up for it in a heartbeat – and I would not discourage her, because we both would regard female Masonry as more philosophically "authentic" than Brother Morris' OES invention. Frankly, I would have no problem renting space in our lodge building to a female lodge either, because taking their rent money does not constitute communicating Masonically.
Where this discussion gets tricky is when it involves even more groups. The reasons for questions of regularity and recognition are good ones – otherwise, we would open ourselves up to any street corner con artist who puts up a shingle, straps aprons on the neighborhood fellas, charges them all $1000 and makes them "Masons" with no authority other than the ability to read out of Lester's "Look To The East." In places like New York, Chicago and elsewhere, it's a problem. At least 12 Grand Lodges have been identified in New York State, and something like 14 in Italy. We have 4 or 5 in Indiana, which virtually none of our members are aware of. God knows how many there are in France.
That's why the simpler answer at least in the US has been to only recognize one, or possibly two when there is a Prince Hall Affiliated GL available. It keeps chaos to a minimum. But the old problem of a strange Mason showing up in town and scamming five or six lodges before skipping to the next village down the street isn't nearly the problem it was 100 years ago. So should we recognize all of them, none of them, or some of them? Who should decide that criteria?
We pronounced Memphis-Misraim lodges clandestine in the 1800s, but were they any more spurious than the York Rite or Scottish Rite? Frankly, I'd like to see those 96 degrees, but I can't. How did some rites become regular while others did not? Who decided, since none of our rituals were passed from God's lips to Preston or Webb's ear?
Making decisions on recognition must be made carefully, or the specialness of being called a Mason and being so recognized almost universally in the world will lose its cachét. But my Grand Lodge and I have no power to stop feminine Grand Lodges from initiating Masons. There is much that female Masons may not share with us, simply because regular, recognized Freemasonry is the 1000 pound gorilla in the Masonic living room. But we have no monopoly on the philosophy of brotherly love, relief and truth, just because we say we do.
to the question :
ReplyDelete"So should we recognize all of them, none of them, or some of them? Who should decide that criteria?"
It's quite easy : treaty between GL mine have mutual relations with height others GLs in France five in Belgium two in the united states etc...
Who should decide ?
the masons of a GL,
I am pleased to have intervisit with certain GLs I am glad not to be recognize by some others.
The automatic recognition may also be a moral problem, In some extreme case, non democratic or racist country.
We are 6 billions of humans and certainly less than two millions of freemasons including all categories women, athesit etc...
... so no paranoia there is place for everyone.
About chaos, there is a moment where there is no more chaos : death.
Imagine a timeline of the masonic history :for every decade you can find one or several major evolution. And that most of the actual mason believe to be from time immemorial, of course.
I have faith in one masonic tradition : Evolution.
Parisfred
Last post on this issue here...
ReplyDeleteWhat bugs the tar right out of me about this issue is anytime this subject comes up and someone voices an opinion like mine, they are met with statements like "your sexist", "your unenlightened", Your intolerant", etc. etc.
So what?
There are a whole lot more "regular" masons who agree with me than there are who don't. The issue is NEVER talked about in lodge, certainly never brought up at Grand Lodge, and never will.
99.9% of Regular Masons world wide understand this issue. It is clearly stated in our obligations and in our Graand Lodge rules. It is a non-issue for regular Masonry.
Only online do you see such a topic brought up. Nine times out of ten it is by a disgruntled Mason using it as an excuse for why our Fraternity is so bad. 1 out of 10 times it is brought up by a member of one of these groups who is disappointed that a regular Mason somewhere chose not to recognise them.
Get over it folks!
If you want to call an irregular Mason Brother, knock yourself out. I don't give a hoot if you even sit in lodge with them. Its your conscience that must be your guide.
However, extend the same courtesy to me and Brothers like me. How about being tolerant of our view! How about letting our conscience be our guide?
If you all want to kick this horse around till hell freezes over, fine by me. I know where I stand, and why I stand there, and this circular conversation isn't going to change it.
Br. Arthur Peterson
Brother Peterson, people like you are the reason I no longer attend lodge and will probably eventually demit.
ReplyDeleteFreemasonry isn't relevant because Freemasons insist that it not be, because Freemasons won't think about the issues, won't try to be any more than they are. Any time any issue that makes you think and reason is brought up Freemasons respond the way you did in your last post.
It's sad, but it's what I've grown accustomed to and why I'm looking for another Grand Lodge where Masons are willing to think and reason. The mainstream ain't it.
Bro. Arthur wrote:
ReplyDelete"99.9% of Regular Masons world wide understand this issue. It is clearly stated in our obligations and in our Grand Lodge rules. It is a non-issue for regular Masonry."
It has been an issue for at least 100 years. It's been debated and written about extensively.
"Only online do you see such a topic brought up. Nine times out of ten it is by a disgruntled Mason using it as an excuse for why our Fraternity is so bad. 1 out of 10 times it is brought up by a member of one of these groups who is disappointed that a regular Mason somewhere chose not to recognise them."
Where do you get such statistics? Can you provide links to at least 10 discussion areas where this has been brought up, with analysis of the mindset of those who brought it up?
The subject was "brought up here" as a simple newsworthy item: The Grand Orient of France voted not to accept women. Nowhere in my article did I voice an opinion about their actions or about women as Masons.
"If you want to call an irregular Mason Brother, knock yourself out. I don't give a hoot if you even sit in lodge with them. Its your conscience that must be your guide."
Irregular Masons are by definition Masons. George Washington was an irregular Mason, having been raised in a lodge that did not yet have a charter, if I remember correctly. Yet everyone loves to refer to him as "Brother."
"However, extend the same courtesy to me and Brothers like me. How about being tolerant of our view! How about letting our conscience be our guide?"
You view, as is everyone's here, is welcome and tolerated. Debate and opposing viewpoints are encouraged. Unlike many Masonic online forums, the Burning Taper appreciates spirited conversations, uncensored and basically unmoderated. No one here is going to shut down a topic because it "got out of hand" or because someone's favorite cow got turned into hamburger.
"Tolerance" of your view doesn't mean others can't disagree with it. That's what conversation is about, the exchange of ideas.
— W.S.
If we don't begin to address the real problems and issues soon we won't have to worry about men or women becoming Masons.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, Bro. Jeff. The sky isn't falling in every jurisdiction. Various DH lodges are reporting increases in numbers, as are many mainstream jurisdictions. And in Conn, we are seeing an upswing of younger members who are already taking places in the lines and committees and helping to get things done, and finding interesting things to do.
Bro. Chris -
ReplyDeleteWell said! Those are my sentiments exactly.
Bro. Peterson -
I want you to know that while I disagree with your opinion, I do understand it and hope that you do not think that I was disparaging. Your understanding of Masonry is your understanding of Masonry; if your GL does not consider women to be Masons, then so be it. You are obliged to abide by your GL rules, and I respect that.
I'm often surprised when issues of recognition become heated, but I've learned that it's best to drop the subject before it reaches the boiling point.
As to other "brothers" intimating that you are sexist, old-fashioned, or whatever, they should take a step back and remember that you are bound by your obligation, whether you - or they - agree with it.
Anonymous (of course) wrote:
ReplyDelete"Brother Peterson, people like you are the reason I no longer attend lodge and will probably eventually demit."
The sooner the better based on how you have replied to these posts, for you and Freemasonry.
"Freemasonry isn't relevant because Freemasons insist that it not be, because Freemasons won't think about the issues, won't try to be any more than they are. Any time any issue that makes you think and reason is brought up Freemasons respond the way you did in your last post."
If you can't handle the will of the majority, it is perhaps best for you to look elsewhere for happiness.
"It's sad, but it's what I've grown accustomed to and why I'm looking for another Grand Lodge where Masons are willing to think and reason. The mainstream ain't it."
If you are so against how the "mainstream" handles its affairs, at least have the integrity to get out of it BEFORE you sit back and trash it.
Do notice that I never once ran you through the mud for your views, yet you can't help yourself from doing just that to "mainsttream" Masonry.
Br. Arthur Peterson
Tom A,
ReplyDeleteNo worries Brother. I understand that we simply disagree.
I don't believe that any of us have the completely "correct" opinion on this matter, and I don't think there is one.
It is one of those subjects that each Mason must make up his mind on based on the facts and his own conscience.
Br. Arthur Peterson
I see three or four guys regularly posting on this subject... you guys need to get a life and start practicing masonry.
ReplyDeleteWho cares? I mean, nice that the GOdF voted 60% to maintain tradition. Nice. Hip hip hooray. I have visited many lodges and am very active in regular masonry. I have to tell you, the issue of women's obediences just doesn't come up, one way or the other.
We are usually busy talking about masonry, not worrying about these outside, and really, irrelevant issues.
Now, one thing you all seemed to just slide on by was Sis Kelly telling us that she recognizes us as masons (how sweet), and then doing what NONE of us would consider, asks us to VIOLATE OUR OBLIGATIONS and our honor, and our integrity, by coming by and joining her in a lodge meeting.
THAT's how you define masonry or masonic?! ASKING, inviting brothers to violate their obligations, the rules of their grand lodge, their given word?
Not very masonic at all.
But she is just one member of that lodge. I am sure they don't all wish us to violate our given word... after all, that would be... unmasonic.
in my obligation as a MM, I am not supposed to be present at the Initiating,p,r-ing of a woman, old man in dotage, young man under age, madman, fool or atheist.
ReplyDeletenow, at our 1 day GM classes, how many old men in dotage were given all 3 degrees? Plenty!
many men in electric wheel chairs who could never even kneel at an alter, or in the middle of the lodge room, or probably can't even give the real grip of a MM or the substitute, are now fez wearing, 32nd degree masons.
Making members not masons.
How many GL officers were present at this initiation of many old men in dotage?
well, if a GL can circumvent that "rule", women and atheists should get the same exemption, no?
I would rather have intellectual discussions in a lodge with an educated atheist over an old man in dotage, who could not work his way into a Lodge, but came in on a 1 day pass?
Rules and regulations have been cherry picked for centuries by men who can circumvent them with edicts.
The legal age of a person joining has changed too.
I never want to sit in my Lodge with a woman, but I am open to recognising them as masons and trying to promote universal brotherhood through masonry for all of mankind. If women spend more time with our children in their deveolpmental stage, would we not want the mothers to have some masonic principles to instill into the children as well while the fathers are away working and attending meetings?
Their is nothing wrong with two parents being exposed to freemasonry and creating an environment of masonic principles in the home.
I've discovered that men who tirade on and on about their honor and integrity often have little or none. I think Robert Pirsig wrote a book about that back in the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteBro. Theron, you've said that Sister Kelly isn't a Mason, at least in your opinion. At best, you've said her Masonry is "outside" the purview of your Masonry, and "irrelevant," too. Let's grant that is true, for a moment, for the sake of this comment.
If she's not a Mason, then how can she act in an unmasonic manner?
And, how would she even know what your obligations are, if you and others weren't online violating their obligations by telling what they are?
Sister Kelly's invitation to us to her lodge doesn't violate her obligations. I think she's honoring us by inviting us to her temple. Her group seems to have a grasp of "brotherly love" that many mainstream lodges can't match, with their long lists of who is recognized and who is clandestine.
You don't have to take her up on her offer, but it would be the polite thing to respond, "No, thank you. I'm not allowed to do that," when offered a graciousness by a fellow human being.
— W.S.
Bro. Theron,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for that rather flippant invitation. It was born of frustration. I am caught in a Catch-22 situation in regards to you fellows, because some of you say I can not possibly be a Mason, because you don't know what I do in Lodge -- yet I am prevented from interacting with you in any way at all, making it impossible to demonstrate to you that I am a Mason.
Then by saying that our doors are open to you, I have invited you to violate your oaths, and so have proved once and for all that I am not a Mason.
It's all rather tidy and inescapable, isn't it?
At any rate, if I have offended the general readership of this blog with that invitation, I do apologize, and beg you to remember that my oaths are different than yours. My oaths do not forbid me to communicate with you. I do not know what your oaths are, except as I've seen them mentioned here.
As an outsider to your system, I have no way of knowing if a particular way of doing things is due to a solemn oath, or some kind of jurisdictional rule or regulation, or what is merely long standing custom. But I do understand the nature of a solemn oath, and do respect them.
It's perhaps interesting to note that every "argument" Art Peterson makes against "recognizing" female Masons, is equally valid when applied to any other minority group.
ReplyDeleteHe writes:
"If you want to call an irregular Mason Brother, knock yourself out. I don't give a hoot if you even sit in lodge with them. Its your conscience that must be your guide. However, extend the same courtesy to me and Brothers like me. How about being tolerant of our view! How about letting our conscience be our guide?"
Substitute "Prince Hall Masons" for "Le Droit Humain Masons," or any other Masonic group, and you have an excellent example of the "reasoning" that's used by many grand lodges to justify denying recognition to Prince Hall Masons.
Of course, the issue with "recognition" of Prince Hall lodges is more complex than it at first appears. It has traditionally been claimed by EVERY "regular" grand lodge in the US, that only ONE "recognized" grand lodge can exist in any particular geographical area.
In today's society, however, all exclusionary attitudes that are based on race, or can be perceived to be based on race, are essentially untenable. It's become so politically incorrect to be a "racist," that even racist groups like the KKK have learned to instinctively deny the term. That's made it virtually impossible to resist the political pressure of "recognizing" Prince Hall Masons, and in almost 40 "regular" jurisdictions in the US, recognition has been granted in the last 20 years.
The "problem" with that, however, is that it has the potential to open the floodgates to all other Masonic groups. When "regular" grand lodges officially "recognize" Prince Hall grand lodges in the same geographical areas, they're backsliding on their doctrine of "one territory, one grand lodge." Obviously, the question then becomes: "If a Prince Hall grand lodge can be recognized in a 'regular' grand jurisdiction, why can't other grand lodges be recognized as well?"
Sooner or later, Masonry is almost certain to evolve as Christianity did. For the first several centuries of Christianity, the only "regular" church was the Catholic Church. All "regular" Christians were Catholics, and no other Christian groups were "recognized."
In a very real sense, Le Droit Humain lodges and Prince Hall lodges, are equivalent to Protestant churches. They're "splinter groups" of the original, which some view as an improvement and others view as a corruption.
The reason "regular" grand lodges are so reluctant to recognize alternative lodges, is the same reason the Catholic Church was (and is) reluctant to "recognize" Protestant churches. They view them as threats to their control and authority, and they want the parishioners and the money those parishioners contribute.
After several centuries, Christians of all denominations have (for the most part) learned to "recognize" members of other denominations as Christians. Most denominations hold some beliefs that distinguish them from other denominations, but few still deny that members of other denominations are really "Christians."
Art Peterson obviously that thinks "his" Masonry is the only "real" Masonry, and he certainly isn't alone in that belief. As a matter of fact, I'd say the vast majority of "regular" Masons still believe that, although many (particularly the younger ones) now espouse much more inclusive beliefs.
Here's something for Art and others to consider: If (as our ritual teaches) Masons eventually meet in the celestial lodge above, will Prince Hall Masons be recognized there? What about Le Droit Humain Masons?
If "regular" grand lodges here on earth vote to extend "official recognition," does that mean we can then sit together in the celestial lodge above?
How exactly does that work, Art? "Thy will be done in heaven, as it is on earth?"
Masonry labors to improve the social order by enlightening men's minds, warming their hearts with the love of the good, inspiring them with the great principle of human fraternity, and requiring of its disciples that their language and actions shall conform to that principle, that they shall enlighten each other, control their passions, abhor vice, and pity the vicious man as one afflicted with a deplorable malady.
ReplyDeleteFreemasonry is the universal, eternal, immutable religion, such as God planted it in the heart of universal humanity. No creed has ever been long-lived that was not built on this foundation. It is the base, and they are the superstructure. "Pure religion undefiled before God the Father is this; to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." "Is not this the fast that I have chosen to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?" The ministers of this religion are all Masons who comprehend it and are devoted to it; its sacrifices to God are good works, the sacrifices of the base and disorderly passions, the offering up of self-interest on the altar of humanity, and perpetual efforts to attain to all the moral perfection of which man is capable.
To make honor and duty the steady beacon-lights that shall guide your life-vessel over the stormy seas of time; to do that which it is right to do, not because it will insure you success, or bring with it a reward, or gain the applause of men, or be "the best policy," more prudent or more advisable; but because it is right, and therefore ought to be done; to war incessantly against error, intolerance, ignorance, and vice, and yet to pity those who err, to be tolerant even of intolerance, to teach the ignorant, and to labor to reclaim the vicious, are some of the duties of a Mason.
Masonry is engaged in her crusade,---against ignorance, intolerance fanaticism, superstition, uncharitableness, and error. She does not sail with the trade-winds, upon a smooth sea, with a steady free breeze, fair for a welcoming harbor; but meets and must overcome many opposing currents, baffling winds, and dead calms.
bro pike
At any rate, if I have offended the general readership of this blog with that invitation, I do apologize,
ReplyDeleteSis. Kelly -
When I was investigating Masonry, I had a lot of contact with members of non-mainstream lodges. There were none close enough to me that I found interesting, and it's just as well, because I find that I'm pretty happy where I am. I haven't had the negative experiences that some Masons seem to have had, and my lodge really does have a great bunch of guys.
In the last half dozen years, I've had several invitations to visit unrecognized lodges. I'm certainly not offended; in fact, I'm honored to be invited. I do, however, thank them and ask them to let me know when there is a public event. IOW, I try to take it in the spirit in which I believe it was given.
Women don't sit at home all day taking care of kids, ironing clothes, and waiting for husband to get home to serve dinner.
ReplyDeleteToday, Women are more involved in social networking and they contribute to society in a much more multi-faceted way, more so than when the rules were written that women aren't to be recognized by the mainstream as Freemasons.
To deny that women make a contribution to the ultimate purpose behind Freemasonry is doing a disservice to society.
Now if it's that one has an aversion to sitting in a lodge with a woman, fine, but to not recognize women and to refer to them as "clandestine" is total misogyny.
For those mainstreamers with the cocky attitude toward women, I say, if you believe in evolution, act like it!
The issue here ISN'T whether or not women can or should be masons. Lets not get lost in this PC arguments about it.
ReplyDeleteThe Grand Orient d'France voted against allowing women to join. That is the headline, that is what happened. They did not vote that women can't be masons, nor that women AREN'T masons. They voted that they will not allow women to join their lodges.
That is a long way from saying a woman can't be a mason! Now, despite what our erstwhile host implied above, I never stated that a woman can't be a mason. That would be foolish, since many of them act as masons and claim to be masons, and have lodges and Grand Lodges set up.
Sister Kelly,
You claim to be a mason, and on that assurance alone I am more than willing to assume that your invitation was sincere, and that you just really don't know that our obligation prevents us from assisting in or being present at the making a woman a mason.
This carries forward, logically, that if you can't be present or assist in making a woman a mason, you can't be present in a LODGE of women masons.
Further, at least, as I understand it, most regular grand lodges do not consider women's obediences to be regular, and since we cannot have masonic communication with someone from a clandestine lodge, we cannot sit in lodge with you at any tyled session.
I have been to dinners and other functions from many clandestine lodges, I just politely recuse myself when asked to participate in any tyled session. I assumed that as a member of LDH in Los Angeles that you would be very well acquainted with the rules regarding intervisitation.
My point seems to have been lost on my brothers here, who are doing to you precisely what they seem to be accusing Br. Peterson of, denigrating women. You are a smart woman, yet the argument turned into one that essentially was "she doesn't know any better" and making excuses for you because you are a woman.
The one is as bad, in my opinion, as the other. Either you are a mason, and can stand up and take responsibility for your actions, or you aren't and can't be expected to do so.
OR, applying brotherly love to the situation, one can assume that you just didn't know any better. My point was not an attack on you, it was a point that my brothers here were simply ignoring what you had, inadvertently I am sure, done.
And why were they ignoring it? Because you are a woman. How sad a commentary on the real value they place on your masonry is that, then?
My point is that my obligation says I cannot, and asking me to violate it asks me to violate my honor and my integrity. It is not a statement of my oh so superior level of integrity or honor, but a simple notation of what was being asked.
Now, you are either a mason or not. That has nothing to do with the Grand Orient d'France. They chose to continue the tradition of male only lodges, which is not a bad thing in and of itself, nor is it a statement against women masons... nor one FOR them, either, to be sure.
However, and this is the challenge I have with this whole issue, is that it seems less about recognizing women are masons, than about forcing regular grand lodges to throw open their doors and allow women as masons into our lodges.
Now, why should regular masonry do that? Why is it so difficult to allow separate masonry to exist as it does today?
Really, any man can visit a co-ed lodge... by quitting regular masonry and joining one. And if a man feels that strongly, by all means, he should do so.
Why, however, try to change masonry to mean or be something else for the sake of political correctness?
Of course there are women masons. Sheesh.
Bro. Dunn -
ReplyDeleteI think that you may have read too much into Sis. Kelly's "invitation." Certainly, you read much more into it than I did; when I saw this:
And I know it's against your rules, but we recognize you GL guys as Freemasons, so you if you happen to be in Los Angeles, you can visit my lodge anytime you want if you want to see how a mixed lodge works.
She acknowledges that it's against our rules. I have every confidence that Sis. Kelly was not issuing a tempting siren's call, but instead was using a bit of tongue-in-cheekiness to make a point. I'm sure that she didn't expect you, me, or anyone else to take her up on the offer. To consider this to be subterfuge is really a stretch, IMO.
And again, this is an example of why some web boards moderate discussions on this topic.
Hannah -
Now if it's that one has an aversion to sitting in a lodge with a woman, fine, but to not recognize women and to refer to them as "clandestine" is total misogyny.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not only incorrect, you're also missing the bigger picture. It's not that men hate women (which is the definition of "misogyny") but that the organization of Freemasonry, especially the "mainstream" branch, is rooted in a very long tradition. It's also a politically charged issue - it's not like a men's club deciding to open its doors to women. Each Grand Lodge has dozens, perhaps hundreds of cross-recognitions. If one changed, others would withdraw that recognition - as would be correct within their operating charters.
"Of course there are women masons. Sheesh."
ReplyDeleteBro. Dunn, if I had a blog like WS, I'd put this quote right at the top.
Also, I wanted to address this:
"However, and this is the challenge I have with this whole issue, is that it seems less about recognizing women are masons, than about forcing regular grand lodges to throw open their doors and allow women as masons into our lodges."
I cannot speak for all female Masons, I can only speak for myself. But I believe I have said more than once in this debate that I have no interest in forcing American GL Masonry to open their doors and allow women into their Lodges.
In my comment about the GODF, I said I understood their decision, and spoke with respect of my GODF brothers who do recognize me as Mason, while still maintaining their all-male identity. To me, that is an ideal state of affairs.
I believe that Masons should have the right to choose to work in a single sex environment. The energy is different, and the bonding that happens there can be very meaningful. Believe me, I have no wish to see that taken away from anyone, nor do I disrespect the traditions of American GL Freemasonry.
But I do hope to see the day when there are more options available for Americans who are Masons in their hearts but do not fit into the mold of American GL Freemasonry--whether that be due to their plumbing, the color of their skin, or their beliefs considering the metaphysical.
And if someday in the future, the American GLs can ever find their way through the political and historical tangle of recognition in such a way that they might be able to recognize a few of these alternative forms, and allow visiting and cross pollination, that would be good for everyone, imho.
But no, I'm not holding my breath!
Acousti,
ReplyDeletemisogyny is not just "hatred" of women. It is dislike, distrust, etc. I guess I was not using it in the most harshest of ways that it can be used.
But recall what Sis. Kelly said when she said:
"I am a white woman, and I am sorry to say that the only time I've had an inkling of what it must be like to be a black person walking into an all white room has been the times I have tried to associate with GL Masons at non-tyled meetings and other social events. I've had men refuse to shake my hand, I've had men turn their backs on me, give me the cold shoulder, or scramble away to avoid me."
What is THAT?
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteBeing the recipient of that treatment, I'll hazard an answer.
But before I do I will add that though those incidents tend to stick with me, as unpleasant incidents do, I must say that those men DO NOT represent all of American Freemasonry-their actions cannot indite the institution-and that at those same events, after some trial and error, I did end up having good conversations with good men.
I would not call it misogyny. I'd call it a lot of other things. Different for each man.
-: A knee jerk reaction to me presenting myself as a Mason when they are taught that is impossible. Therefore, I look like an imposter, someone posing as a Mason who has no right to be one.
-Guilt.
--And lots of anxiety--fear I'd badger them, guilt trip them, demand to visit their next meeting, threaten to sue, whatever
But out and out misogyny? No, I don't think so. It's not a dislike of women, it is more like puzzlement.
Why does this women think she's a mason?
Sort of like if I walked into a room of physicians 100+ years ago and announced I'd like to join the AMA. They wouldn't understand how I'd ever got my training, or why a woman would ever be interested in medicine, and would wonder why I wasn't satisfied with just being a nurse.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteJust a quick add that the above is what this long conversation has led me to understand. I probably still have it wrong, but that's my opinion, anyway.
Brothers-
ReplyDeleteI believe that some of us are missing the big picture here. What we really seem to be discussing is the definition of a freemason. In this it seems to be somewhat akin to the current debate over gay marriage. If the S.C. decides to change the definition of marriage from being between a man and a woman to between two people, it opens a whole can of worms under the equal protection clause, simply because people will be able to say "you changed the definition for them, now you have to change the definition for me." Now you have a man and 3 women getting married, and on and on. It is plausible that if Freemasonry makes a drastic change such as allowing women in, we may not recognize it as such in 100 years.
Sis. Kelly,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm missing the issue. Do these GL people believe that they are the only true Masons?
Kind of like people from the Church of Christ believe that they are the only true Christians?
Do these GL people claim Ben Franklin as one of them?
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteThat is really something for the brothers to answer, not me.
Looking at the comments above, I'd say that the majority of the brothers demonstrated knowledge of and/or tolerance for alternative forms of Masonry.
Of course, the gentlemen who frequent the Taper are a pretty spiffy crowd.
What are "GL people"???
ReplyDeleteEven Sis. Kelly's obedience has a GL, so this haphazard term should be terminated quicker than "mainstream" as being wholly inaccurate for this discussion.
While it would be nice to untangle ourselves in our morass of recognition issues, and even nicer to not have you hold your breath for so long, consider that the former wish was an un-needed jab at what appears to be our inability or unwillingness to become enlightened enough to recognize you.
Here's my take just so I can be thankfully distinguished by the troglodytes that thought you a leper:
Consider that while I have several co-masonic friends and I have no problem with anyone's choice in this regard; the issue is dead to me and many of my brethren, who are indeed open-minded, by the way. Frankly, I could care less because it has nothing to do with my enlightenment, my value as a human being, my masonic journey, or how I interact with women and other legitimate members of my human race, etc.
Obviously there are those both recognized and non that wish to extend Freemasonry beyond the individual sphere and into the social. Fine--this has been a major sticking point between several traditions for over a hundred years (AASR or GOdF anyone?). However, there are those of us who prefer the quietude of individual contemplation without the burning itch to make it a social cause.
I think Bro. Chris said it the best on this issue and I'll leave it with that.
But as an aside, the fact that some may believe Sis. Kelly may not know any better is totally bogus. While I am fully aware that there are different strains of Freemasonry, there are many things that remain the same. AND, given that many of the co-masonic and feminine orders are some of the most voracious and dedicated readers of all things masonic, I doubt that Sis. Kelly would have missed the part about our oaths forbidding our presence at the making a woman a Freemason.
S. & F.
Bro. Negredo
Ps. Bro. Theron, it's Grand Orient de France and not Grand Oriend d'France. An apostrophe, when required, is only used with a vowel.
Br. Negredo;
ReplyDeleteThanks for the correction. I do not speak French. I write it as I was given it, but I appreciate it as I won't make the same mistake in future.
Kelly, I want to apologize for the poor treatment you have received. I understand who they are and what they are thinking, and its probably pretty much along the lines you presented. MOST mainstream masons do not consider women to be masons, since freemasonry is a male only organization.
Now, as has been pointed out by a few brothers, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... chances are its a species of duck. Its very easy, and very disingenuous to toss out misogynist, just like homophobic, pro death, anti choice or any of the other attack labels people tend to use to denigrate the opinions of folks they don't agree with.
I am getting to the point where I can consider women as masons, just clandestine. I know many masons from clandestine groups that are just as, or better than in some cases, brothers from my own obedience.
I too, Kelly, have no problem with separate obediences, though I do not care for intervisitation any more than for any other clandestine obedience. For, truth to tell, if my GL accepted, oh, LDH as regular, allowing men to visit the LDH lodges, you have to know it would not be long before someone, most likely from LDH, filed a lawsuit for force the GL to admit women. Which would, of course, end separate freemasonry and destroy the lodge system.
No one wants that, so why even worry about it? Frankly, what I would expect is that the LDH lodges would not allow anyone to visit their lodges if the grand lodge to which the visitor belonged did not allow intervisitation. That would be helping a brother to keep his obligation, which seems to be implicit in our obligations as masons... to aid and assist.
I know that sounded convoluted, but think about it for a moment. WHY would you allow someone to visit your lodge, KNOWING that to do so would put that brother in violation of his obligation to his grand lodge, unless it were a selfish motive, which is itself not masonic.
Being a mason means ALWAYS being a mason, not just when its convenient to be one. Thus, your word is your bond, always, or it never is. If I had a brother mason that held to his obligation only when it fit his desires, and ignored it when it did not, then what kind of trust can I put in him on any level?
This point is well outside the original intent of this blog entry, but we seem to have drifted there unintentionally.
thoughts?
Bro. Negredo wrote: "...the fact that some may believe Sis. Kelly may not know any better is totally bogus...."
ReplyDeleteIn my earlier comment, I hypothesized, for the sake of argument, that Sis. Kelly wouldn't know about our obligations if she wasn't a Mason. I didn't say she wasn't a Mason, nor did I say she wasn't aware of our obligations.
I wrote: "Bro. Theron, you've said that Sister Kelly isn't a Mason, at least in your opinion. At best, you've said her Masonry is 'outside' the purview of your Masonry, and 'irrelevant,' too. Let's grant that is true, for a moment, for the sake of this comment. [emphasis added]
"If she's not a Mason, then how can she act in an unmasonic manner?
"And, how would she even know what your obligations are, if you and others weren't online violating their obligations by telling what they are?"
— W.S.
What is THAT?
ReplyDeleteHannah, this is a reaction that a lot of men have to any contact with unrecognized (or "clandestine") lodges, not just women Masons.
Most of us take our obligations seriously, and frankly, most Masons have never had any contact at all with unrecognized Masons, since the mainstream AF&AM and MWPH make up a huge majority of lodges. In Conn, there are several unrecognized Grand Lodges, but there are only three or four actual operating lodges that I know of, and they are in the urban area closer to NY.
Other states have up to a dozen or more unrecognized GLs, but most do not have a large memberships. Because of this, they are almost mythical beasts and as such, mainstream Masons tend to react to them with Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
I know that sounded convoluted, but think about it for a moment. WHY would you allow someone to visit your lodge, KNOWING that to do so would put that brother in violation of his obligation to his grand lodge, unless it were a selfish motive, which is itself not masonic.
ReplyDeleteBro. Dunn, back in the early 90s, a lot of AF&AM GLs recognized Prince Hall Grand Lodges. The only way that they could do that would be to determine that PH was "regular" in forms and rituals. How could they have done so without "communicating Masonically"? The answer is that the GLs must have given permission for certain officers to intervisit, at least for the purposes of negotiations.
So, if one takes an obligation not to communicate with clandestine Masons, does that obligation still hold if the GL wants to study another? My point is that in order for two jurisdictiosn to recognize each other, there must be some form of communication; how does that happen without violating one's obligations?
"Now you have a man and 3 women getting married, and on and on. It is plausible that if Freemasonry makes a drastic change such as allowing women in, we may not recognize it as such in 100 years. "
ReplyDeleteIs there something wrong with recognizing plural marriage? I personally find it okay... I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do in their personal lives.
There are some who can evolve and some who can't.
Back when the rules were written that women can't be "masons" women weren't working. They had a different place in society. I am not saying that today is better than yesterday, but it's a fact, a reality. Mainstream freemasonsry evidently hasn't changed with the times.
Is that a good thing? I don't know.
and I still won't strike misogyny from my vocabulary, because the root of the problem is that women still aren't recognized as freemasons. Why? Because that's the way it is?
Sis. Kelly, I'm not directing my comments to those progressives that post on here. They are following their rules or whatever, I suppose, and perhaps some of them would vote to amend or change the rules, I don't know, I'm not them.
But I'm directing it at those who are hostile toward the idea of women being freemasons. I believe that the hostility is unwarranted, and the reasons for not recognizing women is baseless.
Oh boy. This does go on, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteBro. Negredo:
Thank you for your thoughts. I do understand your desire to work in peace.
Please allow me to correct that my "holding my breath" comment was not meant to be a jab at you all for being unenlightened. I meant that big wheels turn slowly. Even if there was some will behind an idea, like say allowing visitation, any significant change in the policies of the GLs would happen a glacial pace, not only because they are conservative institutions bound by a great deal of law and tradition, but because, as I think I understand, the network of connections between all of the American GLs--one GL cannot act w/o possibly alienating others? Is that right? So then I imagine the endless and complex negotiations that would have to take place... and I understand how unlikely this is ever to happen. Therefore..not holding my breath.
WS and Bro. Negredo:
On this whole "what does Kelly understand" thing..
Despite Bro. Negredo's faith that I am well read, I am not overly familiar with with your ritual, rules and obligations. You are my Masonic cousins, and I would like to learn more about how you do business--I'm learning quite a bit lately!! But no, I've never looked up your oaths and rituals. But yes, I had heard that your oaths forbid you from initiating women.
But this isn't about initiation, this all started with what I am now considering my ill-advised invitation to drop by our lodge and see how we work. And let me clarify so no one has to speculate anymore -- I did not know that your most solemn oaths prevent you from visiting my lodge.
Bro. Dunn:
"Frankly, what I would expect is that the LDH lodges would not allow anyone to visit their lodges if the grand lodge to which the visitor belonged did not allow intervisitation."
I am no expert on visitation, and I cringe to speak for my Obedience (and that is what I call my Masonic body--we don't use the term Grand Lodge).If anyone else from the LDH is reading, please correct me. All I know is that we admit recognized Masons into our meetings, and I know we recognize the American GL brethren, therefore you can visit. I would not see this a siren's call, but rather an open door should your "Obedience" ever change its policy.
Everybody:
What I really don't understand is the extent of the boundaries placed on our interactions. What can you talk to me about? Where am I welcome, and where not?
Is it wrong for you all to be interacting with me on this forum? Or would it only be wrong if the topic of discussion was ritual? Can we talk about Masonic symbolism?
Should we be talking about your oaths at all?
If I go to an open lecture hosted by, say, the GL of Calif., during discussion afterward do I have to guard my speech so that I don't wander accidentally into a Masonic discussion with one of the hosts and thus render them oath breakers? Should I keep my comments to the weather?
I am not asking these questions facetiously.
Is it possible for me to stand with another Mason and not have a Masonic discussion when I talk with him or her? I am not a Mason sometimes, but not others.
When I was made FC I was instructed to journey forth and learn--by interacting with other Masons. That is what I am still trying to do. That is why I try to go to open meetings and such. That's why I like reading this blog.
But this discussion has made me see that by doing what seems pretty natural to me is not at all simple. Remember, I hang around with guys talking about FM all the time. I was born and raised doing it, you know?
So I'm navigating unfamiliar waters here. I ask your patience as I find my way around.
Is there something wrong with recognizing plural marriage? I personally find it okay... I'm not going to tell people what they can and can't do in their personal lives.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to make was not that I personally think gay marriage is wrong, or plural marriage is wrong. I have my own opinions of these things, but they have no place in this discussion. The point I was merely trying to make here is about fairness, and change. If you allow plural marriage, how do you tell a man that he cannot marry a gorilla? You've already changed the defintion once. Apply the same to freemasonry. Once you allow women in, and shatter one of freemasonry's oldest standards, who is to say where it will stop? Should atheists now be let in? Maybe we should do away with all standards altogether in the name of making everyone feel good.
Sister Kelly;
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, what we are referencing here is what is called "Masonic Intercourse", which is a term for sitting in a tyled lodge session... more, it means that I cannot share with you the grips, words, or signs that would identify me as a mason to you, nor, I suppose, accept the same from you... though the latter seems kind of silly.
For many, it means not discussing the specifics of ritual, though really my GL has stated that ONLY the means and modes of recognition are the "true secrets" and thus cannot be "shared".
For others, it means we could say or discuss anything with you that we would, forgive me here, but that we would be able to discuss with any non mason on the street.
I can talk to you about masonry, I can talk to you about the esoterics of freemasonry, the symbols and how I understand and interpret them, as long as they do not tread too close to the means and modes of recognition.
So, I could go to a dinner at your lodge, go to an open house, or attend an installation (as long as it is not tyled).
So, unless one were willing to put the words, grips or modes of recognition into writing or images and post them to you or on a forum, pretty much everything else a brother is comfortable with is fair game.
So really, this whole issue comes down to "thoughts". Does a man "consider" you in his mind to be a mason, is he willing to extend his hand to you as a brother mason, to aid and assist, to whisper good counsel, to raise you if you fall, to keep your secrets, to essentially treat you as a brother, on the level.
The rest, whether you can visit my lodge, or I yours for tyled sessions... is that really important? Especially on the internet, where anyone could be anything... heck, for all you know, Widow's Son here is a 15 year old in the basement of his mom's house running this blog.
He's not, by the way, but really, how would you know? Most of us "know" each other via the internet only, though some of us have actually met, or know someone who has met and so on.
That's what recognition is... a dual thing. Do I look at you and treat you as a mason, and/or do I recognize you as a MASON, that is, someone that I can sit in lodge with?
My Grand Lodge, the Grand Lodge of California F&AM is considered a regular Grand Lodge, that is, recognized as a regular mason by darn near every grand lodge in the world, and as so by all the OTHER regular Grand Lodges.
That is so because my Grand Lodge can trace its constitution to the legal (regular) charters held by its constituent lodges, and they through their charters back to the constitution of the Grand Lodge that issued their charter and so on, all the way back to the Grand Lodge of England.
This is what determines regularity, at its core. There is more, and if you are really interested, look at Paul Bessel's site, or do a google search on Masonic Regularity Determination.
I hope this helps. If you want, email me at theron(at)therondunn.com and I can send you a lot more, or, my masonic magazine is offered free to anyone that is interested.
To Subscribe: http://www.lodgeroomuk.net//phplists/public_html/lists
Theron:"Being a mason means ALWAYS being a mason, not just when its convenient to be one. Thus, your word is your bond, always, or it never is. If I had a brother mason that held to his obligation only when it fit his desires, and ignored it when it did not, then what kind of trust can I put in him on any level?"
ReplyDeleteBut sometimes obligations are set to make slaves, not free thinkers, and being a free thinker is part of being a mason.
Also part of being a mason is to recognise and war against tyranny at all times. When can over ruling and regulating and stifling growth be considered tyrannical instaed of reasonable modes of operation?
being a mason is also fighting for equality for all humankind.
universal recognition of all mankind as equals should always be at the heart of a masons labor.
brother cooties
Women Masons?
ReplyDeleteI assure you that this is one of those "masonic mysteries". The WOMEN mystery is simply this: it doesn't matter when, women cannot be members of male lodges. A century ago, there was little interest in women becoming masons because of the culture. Men were not interested in encouraging women to get out of the house. And men created and managed freemasonry. So it would be like the founder of a Bank deciding that he should give away bank shares to his customers because "it was the right thing to do".
NOW? Now women are everywhere. They work. Because many women are highly competent they take jobs from men who are not highly competent. All this is well and good. Hooray for women and women's rights. But that means I find it even MORE important to have a place that women do not permeate and sojourn.
Men are the creators and inheritors of freemasonry. Is it a financial issue? I don't think so. Even if we immediately increased our membership by 50% by allowing women masons, the decline would still continue. Perhaps the decline would become a free fall, once masons find out women are being intiated as well.
Women don't need to be part of men's history of freemasonry. They can do their own thing.
Let's find a topic that is actually worth discussing!
Bro.Geo
If the state of New York made it illegal for women to join certain hunting lodges, and for men who are members of all-male hunting lodges to visit "co-ed" hunting lodges, I suspect the majority of people (even today) would think that's ridiculous, and it clearly is!
ReplyDeleteWhy should "Masonic law" be any different?
This entire discussion revolves around issues that are silly! At this very moment, men and women in our armed services are being killed and maimed, while our national treasury is looted to pay the bills. Oil prices are at an all-time high, as are American housing foreclosures, but instead of being concerned about those things, we waste our time arguing about whether a man who's never laid a brick in his life, is more entitled to be called a "mason" than a woman who's never laid a brick in her life.
We could just as easily call ourselves "architects," or "doctors," or "firemen," but virtually all of us, then -- both men and women -- would be claiming to be something we aren't, and arguing about who has a more legitimate claim to the title.
Regardless of whether we call ourselves "masons," or "farmers," or "plumbers," why should any of us have to give up our right as human beings and citizens of the United States, to freely associate with whomever we choose? At the time we took our "obligations," weren't we all assured that those obligations wouldn't "conflict with any duty" that we owe to God, our country, our neighbor, our family, or ourselves? Did any of us realize that we were giving up our right of free association?
The term "freemason" doesn't sound like it restricts freedom, but in many (if not most) jurisdictions, that's exactly what it does. When one joins a group of any kind, it's reasonable to presume that membership affords certain privileges not available to the general public, but how many would think one should have to give up rights, such as what other groups or clubs one can join, or what lawful occupations one can pursue?
Name just one church that prohibits its members from attending services at other churches, a country club that prohibits its members from attending other country clubs, or a hunting lodge that prohibits its members from attending other hunting lodges. To extend the logic further, name one airline that prohibits its employees from flying on other airlines, or one auto maker that prohibits its employees from driving automobiles made by other companies, or one restaurant that prohibits its employees from dining at other restaurants.
If the rest of the world can manage to get by without trying to restrict what people do in their private lives, why does Masonry have to be so different? Are we really saving souls, curing diseases, or doing anything else that's so important that it logically justifies giving up part of our rights?
The Masonic fraternity is admittedly difficult to define. It isn't exactly a religion, and it isn't exactly a social club, a philosophy, or even a charity, although it does contain some elements of all of those things. One thing it is, however, is a VOLUNTARY organization, and for any such organization to remain viable, people have to "enjoy" it on some level. Either they have to enjoy the camaraderie, or the public service, the food, or the "power" to subjugate other people, etc.
"Mainstream" Masonry in the US is clearly not successful anymore. It's been dying a slow death for decades, and continues to do so even now. There are really only three ways of dealing with that reality: (1) deny it and pretend it isn't true, (2) accept it as being inevitable, or (3) change it by evolving to meet modern needs.
I realize that my opinion doesn't mean much, but it seems to me that those who argue that Masonry shouldn't "evolve," are failing to consider it's already evolved over the past several centuries, just to reach its present form. If it hadn't evolved, it would have died as a "trade union" centuries ago, and if it doesn't continue to evolve, it's surely going to die as an irrelevant men's club in our own time.
Theron Dunn writes:
"...if my GL accepted, oh, LDH as regular, allowing men to visit the LDH lodges, you have to know it would not be long before someone, most likely from LDH, filed a lawsuit for force the GL to admit women. Which would, of course, end separate freemasonry and destroy the lodge system."
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Substitute "blacks" for "women," and you get the same stupid excuse many "regular" Masons use against recognizing Prince Hall Masons.
How would allowing any group of honorable and intelligent human beings to join "our" lodge system destroy it? I can understand how it would change the dynamics, just as those change slightly every time new candidates join, and/or existing members die, but "change" does NOT equate to "destroy."
Within the last several years, a number of churches that previously had all male clergy, have allowed women to become clergymen. How many of those churches have been destroyed as a result? Has a single one closed its doors and gone out of business? What about our military? Has allowing women to join our armed services destroyed our military?
On the other hand, how many "regular" Masonic lodges in North America have closed their doors in the past 10 years? In my jurisdiction, it's been about 10%, and not a single new lodge has been chartered in the last 40 years! Are you satisfied with numbers like that, or are you too thick to understand that such a system obviously needs some change if it's going to have any chance of survival?
I still haven't seen any of these mainstreamers who are hostile to the idea of recognizing female Freemasons give any good reasons other than "it's the way it's always been and it's not going to change."
ReplyDeleteI guess the best reason is "I don't want to associate with women."
Maybe women want to have their autonomy but recognition at the same time. Is that not possible? It seems that with most anything Masonic where women are involved, Men can be involved too, but the same is not said when the shoe is on the other foot. That's not cool, man.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Substitute "blacks" for "women," and you get the same stupid excuse many "regular" Masons use against recognizing Prince Hall Masons.
ReplyDeleteJust one problem, Theron. Your Masonic obligations (I'm assuming that you are a Mason) specifically prohibit making women masons. Not so with blacks. Poor comparison.
I still haven't seen any of these mainstreamers who are hostile to the idea of recognizing female Freemasons give any good reasons other than "it's the way it's always been and it's not going to change."
ReplyDeleteI guess the best reason is "I don't want to associate with women."
Hannah-
I think some people on this blog (such as you in my opinion)seem to be confusing the terms Equal and Same. I completely agree of course, that men and women are equal. That does not mean that we are the same. As men and women both know, they are very different from each other- mentally, physically, emotionally. My wife has no problem with me joining an all male organization such as freemasonry. Equally, I know I would have no problem if my wife joined an all female organization. I would not attempt to force myself into her world, and I expect the same in return. Political equality is of course desirable, but do we really need to turn every single organization into a unisex social experiment? There is nothing wrong with my wanting, on occasion, to associate just with males. I refuse to apologize for that. If we change freemasonry to allow females, we will be sacrificing the traditions of the worlds oldest fraternity on the altar of political correctness.
Br. Warrick,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, at least I don't confuse humans with apes when discussing marital laws in America.
In my humble opinion, it is a huge disservice to male mainstream Freemasons that they are not allowed to participate with non-mainstream masons, especially the ones who happen to live in areas where mainstream Freemasonry is not what it is supposed to be.
Bro. Dunn:
ReplyDeleteThank you for the complete and detailed answer to my question. I really appreciate it.
To an annoymous brother, who said:
"I never want to sit in my Lodge with a woman, but I am open to recognising them as masons and trying to promote universal brotherhood through masonry for all of mankind. If women spend more time with our children in their deveolpmental stage, would we not want the mothers to have some masonic principles to instill into the children as well while the fathers are away working and attending meetings?"
I just wanted to say to you that your instincts are right. Kids coming out of two-Mason households are amazing. I think the Masonic code gets wound up in the DNA or something.
Actually, I am fortunate enough to share a lodge with two Masons who both come from 2 Mason families and have 3 or 4 generation Masonic lineages (GODF and LDH)
They are not only all you would want a Mason to be--on the level in every way, well-spoken, fair, forthright -- but they are also really wise about the other parts of lodge life--the politics and disagreements that can arise.
Of course Masonic fathers pass their wisdom to their sons, always have, but somehow when the entire household is steeped in it (ma, pa, grandma and grandpa) -- I don't know -- I guess I'm just saying that the legacy generated by the mixing of so much Masonic DNA--and Masonic nurturing-- is very powerful and very tangible.
Br. Warrick,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, at least I don't confuse humans with apes when discussing marital laws in America.
Hannah-
It is obvious that the subtlety of my argument in comparing and contrasting the Gay marriage controversy and the co-masonry controversy fell on ears unable to understand it. I really don't understand how I confused humans with apes, perhaps you should go back and read my post again. The "At least I don't . . ." response seems to me to be rather shrill, juvenile, and un-masonic.
Br. Warwick,
ReplyDeleteI understand the point you are trying to make in comparing allowing gay marriage with recognition of female
freemasons, but I don't agree with the reasons you pose for supporting your stance.
Next you will be arguing, "if we recognize female Freemasons then must we next recognize gorillas too?"
I know that there are males out there, I have spoken with several of them on the net, who are disappointed in mainstream Freemasonry, that it's not what they thought it would be when they researched it and were eager to join.
It's difficult for some males to change it from the inside when they are vastly outnumbered by the ones who don't practice Tolerance in their lodge.
I am simply asking, what is wrong with these men associating with other Masonic groups that do offer the things they seek but don't get in their lodges? It sounds "unmasonic" to me when one is denied these freedoms.
Hannah-
ReplyDeleteTwo points-
One is that you and I both know that having gorillas as freemasons would never work. Who wants bananas for refreshments? Seriously though, I'll lay it out. If looked at in terms of fairness, gay marriage=polygamy=a man marrying a gorilla, or dog, or whatever. Women in freemasonry=atheists in freemasonry, etc. Once you change the definition of marriage, or freemasonry, who is to say where it will stop? You? Me? I don't think so.
Two- I swore as a Freemason that I would never be party to making a woman a mason. I am not one for dogma, but freemasonry must be able to define for itself exactly what a freemason is. Swearing to what I did, and then attending co-masonry lodges, would be intellectually dishonest to my obligation. I am tacitly participating in making a woman a mason. I'm supporting it and enabling it. If Freemasonry decides that it wants to allow women in, lets put it to a vote. I certainly don't think the answer is to ditch the rules or definition of what a mason is simply because a small minority is dissapointed with what they have found.
Warwick,
ReplyDelete#1, now you see how ridiculous it would be to assume that gay marriage would lead to people arguing for legalizing bestiality.
#2, how is it that you are equating Female Freemasonry to opening up Freemasonry to atheists? They are 2 completely different issues. One is a biological and one is an ideological one.
if it was put to a vote on whether to recognize female Freemasons, how would you vote and why?
if You are against it because you want your right to associate with men only, then what about the ones who don't? Would you vote against it despite the fact that some of your Brothers might want that freedom?
Since you opened up the Female Freemasons = atheists, then what about your Brothers who are getting Christianity shoved down their throats at their lodges, with no Tolerance for other beliefs? Isn't that obligation bein violated?
why is it okay for a majority in a lodge to violate their obligations yet expect the others not to violate theirs by not associating with women?
Sounds like a lot of hypocrisy going on today.
Perhaps it's only a small minority of men who are disappointed because a majority of men who would make really excellent contributions to Freemasonry, decide not to bother with it, because of all the double standards going on?
Hannah;
ReplyDeleteI hate to be the fly in the ointment here, but any man that wants to attend a female co-ed obedience lodge can... simply by the expedient of dimiting from his regular lodge and joining yours.
No sweat.
Why should the majority who do not want to have anything to do with female masonry bend to the will of a few? That sword cuts both ways.
As for men disatisfied with regular masonry, well, there are men who would complain about winning $10 million because they would have to fork of $5 milion of it in taxes... forgetting they are still in possession of $5 million.
And yes, the lodges can be changed from within. I am part of that change in the Grand Lodge of California. We now have a masonic formation program that is being disseminated to all lodges, and is getting rave reviews, thank you.
I have no problem with female only or co-ed obediences, but you knew they were not regular when you joined them, you can hardly complain now that the grand lodge system which defines masonry refuses to recognize and allow intervisitation.
After all, no one is pointing a gun at anyone. ANY brother can quit a regular lodge at any time he feels he can no longer comply with the rules, regulations and traditions of his grand lodge system.
Hannah, why the anger? Use your compasses and get control of yourself.
No one is saying women as less than men, only that women are different. Well... duuhhh.
Some do not want to be part of a woman's lodge... that is still a choice a man, or a woman, gets to make last time I checked.
And for the record, I would vote against recognition of women's lodges. They are their own masonry. Why should they want/need our recognition?
We aren't asking for their recognition or approval.
This is not a condemnation of women's masonry. I am sure it is wonderful and fulfilling. Good deal. Enjoy it.
Br. Warwick writes:
ReplyDelete"I swore as a Freemason that I would never be party to making a woman a mason. ... Swearing to what I did, and then attending co-masonry lodges, would be intellectually dishonest to my obligation."
Didn't you also swear not to "converse upon the secrets of Freemasonry with a clandestinely made Mason?"
If so, how will you ever be able to sit in lodge with a Prince Hall Mason? Even if your Grand Lodge decides to "recognize" Prince Hall Masonry, that doesn't change the fact that every Prince Hall Mason who was a member prior to that time, was "clandestinely made."
I suppose your obligation wouldn't prohibit you from conversing upon the secrets of Freemasonry with Prince Hall Masons who joined AFTER recognition was established, but those who were members before, were by (our) definition "clandestinely made," and extending recognition now won't change what's already been done.
So if you aren't going to violate your obligation not to "converse upon the secrets of Freemasonry" with "clandestinely made Masons," how are you going to be able to interact with Prince Hall Masons without giving and receiving the signs and passwords?
As for your comment that there is no tie of our obligations that specifically prohibits blacks, that's true, but it wasn't the comparison I was attempting to make when I said it's ridiculous to claim that recognizing female Masons would "destroy the lodge system."
To spell it out precisely, Theron Dunn wrote:
"...if my GL accepted, oh, LDH as regular, allowing men to visit the LDH lodges, you have to know it would not be long before someone, most likely from LDH, filed a lawsuit for force the GL to admit women. Which would, of course, end separate freemasonry and destroy the lodge system."
... and I replied:
"That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Substitute 'blacks' for 'women,' and you get the same stupid excuse many 'regular' Masons use against recognizing Prince Hall Masons."
Indeed, if that substitution was actually made, Theron's statement would read:
"...if my GL accepted, oh, PHA [Prince Hall Affiliation] as regular, allowing [intervisitation], you have to know it would not be long before someone, most likely from PHA, filed a lawsuit (to) force the GL to admit blacks, which would, of course, end separate freemasonry and destroy the lodge system."
That's completely asinine, but it's the same argument I've heard countless times to oppose recognition of Prince Hall Masonry. Theron just changed the subject from "blacks" to "women," but it's ridiculous because female clergy members haven't destroyed churches, female military members haven't destroyed the American military, and female athletes haven't destroyed athletic programs, where many now compete with men on otherwise "male" football, basketball, and baseball teams.
In short, reality has long disproven Theron's argument, although it obviously hasn't swayed his opinion. I won't presume to say that's "un-Masonic," but I think it's clearly "unintelligent."
Personally, I think most individuals are better suited to make decisions for themselves, than most institutions are suited to make decisions for them. I'm not opposed to having a choice to attend an "all-male" lodge, an "all-female" one, or a "co-ed" one. Indeed, I think people SHOULD have that choice, but our present grand lodge system effectively forces its members to choose one lodge over the other.
In a way, it's a bit like divorcing parents who place their children in the position of having to choose one, and estrange the other. I don't think that's right.
It seems that with most anything Masonic where women are involved, Men can be involved too, but the same is not said when the shoe is on the other foot. That's not cool, man.
ReplyDeleteHannah, I think you're missing the bigger picture. Freemasonry is not a big, monolithic organization, it's more like a large series of parallel social clubs. There are some interactions between the clubs, but in order to change one thing requires huge amounts of coordination that needs the previous agreement from almost all of the others.
Any major changes to the fraternity will move with the speed of a glacier.
Anonymous-
ReplyDelete"If so, how will you ever be able to sit in lodge with a Prince Hall Mason? Even if your Grand Lodge decides to "recognize" Prince Hall Masonry, that doesn't change the fact that every Prince Hall Mason who was a member prior to that time, was "clandestinely made."
According to my research,anonymous, the non-recognition of PHA lodges is more gray than that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Prince Hall Masons were granted a charter by the Grand Lodge of England to organize and initiate new members. This would make them a legitimate lodge in the eyes of most of the masonic world. They appear to have gotten the short end of the stick after the revolutionary war when American and British lodges were seperating, putting PHA in Masonic limbo. They were then not accepted because white masons were too racist to associate with blacks on an equal level. If a Grand Lodge, such as mine has, admits that it made a mistake, and admits that they should have been legitimate all along, the sins are on the white grand lodges for not accepting them, not the PHA for "Clandestinely" making masons.
I personally don't think that is wrong at all, there being no prohibition in Freemasonry against allowing blacks. Just as Freemasonry must be able to define what a Freemason is, they must be able to say "We're sorry, we made a mistake". They can VOTE on it. Not disregard the rules.
"That's completely asinine, but it's the same argument I've heard countless times to oppose recognition of Prince Hall Masonry. Theron just changed the subject from "blacks" to "women," but it's ridiculous because female clergy members haven't destroyed churches, female military members haven't destroyed the American military, and female athletes haven't destroyed athletic programs, where many now compete with men on otherwise "male" football, basketball, and baseball teams."
In my opinion, female members have been a detriment to the military. Not because they are mentally un-equal or any less entitled to full political equality, but because, once again, they are different PHYSICALLY. I don't know about you, anonymous, but I weigh 200 pounds. If my legs were blown off, and the only person who could carry me to safety was a 120 pound woman in full battle gear, I would make my peace with God. Women in the military, or many fire or police departments, don't even have the same physical requirements as men. For very physical jobs that peoples lives depend on. That sure makes me feel safe. Sure, women play softball and other stuff with the guys from the neighborhood, but you don't see them in the superbowl or world series because they are different. Not bad, or worthless, or sub-par, just different. Women have their own strengths that men do not have. Why not celebrate those attributes instead of trying to treat them as a man?
This is the kind of forced equality that I was talking about with Hannah. Whether its the military, sports, or some private organization like the Boy Scouts or Freemasonry, that because men and women are equal, we pretend that they are the same. I'm not sure what world you are living in, anonymous, but it clearly is not the real world.
Br. Warwick,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, you are focusing too much on physical differences rather than similarities. Women are humans, we are not a sub-species.
Funny. You didn't address anonymous' argument that clergywomen have not adversely affected religious institutions, which I find a better analogy to Freemasonry than I do military.
I don't like repeating myself, but I would like to point out that women today are contributing to society in more ways than one, unlike they did 100 years ago. Women are attorneys, judges, doctors, business people, etc. You would be hard-pressed to find that 100 years ago.
And Theron, I am not a Freemason. I have contemplated it, and I have an application sitting her on my coffee table for a Female only lodge. If my Grandfather was still alive, he would be all for me being recognized as a Freemason and wouldn't hesitate to vote in favor of it. I know that from within the depths of my soul that he would shred any and all arguments that you and the other anti-females are making.
Wow.... these posts are just too long. It's silly. If my Grand Lodge were to allow women as masons, which it would never do, there would be an immediate splinter group of blue lodges and freemasons who would create all-male lodges all over again. And I would be one of them.
ReplyDeleteWomen don't need to be in my lodge.
I don't want them in my lodge. It's the last place I can have that is unashamedly male. And so... I'm not ashamed to want to keep it that way.
All this high-minded discussion is just a waste of good writing. It isn't happening. Don't even pretend to think it will.
Fraternally (that's brotherly),
Brother George
No wonder so many men turn their noses up at the idea of joining mainstream freemasonry and so many are disappointed by it after they join.
ReplyDeleteI understand now what one of my friends was saying to me 10 years ago when he was trying to decide whether he wanted to join Freemasonry. "every single mason I see and talk to have such a sad look in their eyes."
My friends don't have this aversion to interacting with females that so many of you have. What's really disgusting about it is that you want to dictate for every Male Freemason in the Blue Lodges what their choice is to be on this issue.
Amen and well said Brother George. It seems that when all else fails you just throw the "sexist" card out there, kind of like Jonny Cochran playing the race card.
ReplyDeleteSomebody's diverting the issues, and I think his name is Warwick. When he only has a response to part of a question he goes and changes the subject. (sing along to the tune of nanee-nanee boo-boo)
ReplyDeleteAll this high-minded discussion is just a waste of good writing. It isn't happening. Don't even pretend to think it will.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's what the Elks and the Eagles and the Jaycees used to say too. Then a judge swung a gavel and guess what?
Good luck with that, Brother George.
Okay, my last post was an inflammatory taunt. I want to apologize.
ReplyDeleteWhat I would like to see is not women going to the same lodge as men, unless the men and women want to do that... I believe it's only fair that they have that choice.
What I would like to see is that the umbrella that is over all male regular lodges cover female lodges too.
That way, men and women could acknowledge each other as masons and discuss things that they are right now forbidden from discussing.
What's wrong with that? Is that not possible? What am I missing?
There are three questions:
ReplyDelete1) **WILL** they become freemasons?;
2) **WHAT** happens if they did?
3) **SHOULD** women become freemaons?
(1) WILL women become freemasons? There are 50 Grand Lodges. And just possibly one of these Grand Lodges will eventually amend their digest to allow women masons. I suggest you find the one or two that is most likely to do so and spend a decade lobbying. Otherwise you are attempting something on the sacle of convincing an NRA member to throw away his collectible guns.
(2) What is accomplished if a Grand Lodge does amend its constitution? What does this mean? Heck, we already have co-masonry in the world. It's not like there aren't already women masons. But someone's trying to "make history" by arguing that one of the mainstream US Grand Lodges should do it too.
Sure. Make history - - if you think you can.
But as I said before, should the day ever arrive, there would be an immediate schism within the Grand Lodge. Approximately 25% of the Grand Lodge membership would demit and form an all-male Grand Lodge that would seek recognition from the other 49 Grand Lodges and lobby for de-recognition of the existing Grand Lodge. The lobbying would probably be successful and another 25% of the old Grand Lodge would move to the new "legitimized" one.
Yep. History would be made. But it really wouldn't change anything. Yep. There would be some more women freemasons (but not *many* more). And there would still be all-male grand lodges. What's the point?
And finally, (3) SHOULD there be women freemasons? This is all definitional. In the ritual it says that madmen should not become masons either.
We could lobby for the admission of madmen. Afterall, just what is a madman? Is this overly prejudicial? And perhaps a madman best benefit from Freemasonry?
But in the end the question becomes what is the intrinsic point to lobby for new classes of membership?
A) Where is the harm to American society if a FRATERNITY remains a BROTHERHOOD? There is no quiet majority of masons that secretly want women masons. There is a very tiny, and loud, group that seeks this end.... for benefits that are fewer than the disadvantages to the vast majority of freemasons. Why? Because we want a fraternity, not a co-ed creature. It's that simple, and we shouldn't be shot because of it.
B) Choose your battles for global reform. Should co-masonry really be in that list? There are things easier to accomplish with greater benefits than this silly concept. Give it a rest and you'll be happier.
Fraternally,
Brother George
PS: As to the Supreme Court... I'll worry about court rulings the day that College Fraternities are compelled to become Sororities!
Br. Warwick writes:
ReplyDelete"Correct me if I'm wrong, but Prince Hall Masons were granted a charter by the Grand Lodge of England to organize and initiate new members. This would make them a legitimate lodge in the eyes of most of the masonic world. They appear to have gotten the short end of the stick after the revolutionary war....."
Prince Hall was granted a charter from the Grand Lodge of England, but it was years AFTER the American revolution, and the formation of the American grand lodge system. That charter was therefore no more legitimate to "regular" Masonry, than any similar charter granted by any other foreign grand lodge, even today.
In short, the Grand Lodge of England granted a charter to Prince Hall to operate in a country where they no longer had any jurisdiction. There's debate about whether they would have granted such a charter if the proposed lodge had still been within their own jurisdiction, or whether they granted it just to spite the newly formed American grand lodges, which they didn't recognize as "regular" at the time.
"Women have their own strengths that men do not have. Why not celebrate those attributes instead of trying to treat them as a man?"
I totally agree with you about that, but I think it applies equally to racial differences, religious differences, etc. Why should those be ignored, when everyone can plainly see they exist?
Perhaps you missed my point. I'm not advocating ignoring differences, I simply advocate "free choice," whether it's in Masonry, religious preference, political affiliation, or anything else. The issue I oppose is the idea that lodges should be entitled to impose restrictions on individual liberties, which is exactly what American grand lodges are doing when they prohibit visitation between their members and other lodges.
Personally, I don't think it's any of my grand lodge's business if I visit another lodge in California, or New York, or China, or anywhere else. I don't know any Masonic "secrets" that haven't already been revealed, and I can't understand how my visiting another lodge would in any way harm "regular" Masonry.
Frankly, I think it's just a bunch of petty BS. The leaders of "regular" Masonry are too insecure about their own positions and abilities, to allow themselves to be "compared" with others in similar positions. They don't want their members to find out what the grass is like on the other side of the fence, because they're afraid they'll like it better.
I think there's much to be said for "healthy competition." It makes people strive for greater degrees of perfection, than they do in closed, communistic societies. Indeed, that's essentially what "regular" Masonry has become today -- it's basically communistic in form and function. Our leaders don't want us to know what it's like anywhere else, because they're afraid we'll demand improved standards in our existing lodges.
It seems to me that Hannah and Kelly have both asked a very legitimate question, which has never been addressed. What would it hurt to allow intervisitation between ALL forms of Masonic lodges? I understand the technicalities about the "obligations," etc., but what's the REASON behind those restrictions?
We could all explain why it's important not to "in anger, knowingly strike or shed the blood" of a fellow Mason, but why do our obligations make it "equally important" not to knowingly make a woman a Mason, or knowingly sit in a "clandestine" lodge? Why is that so important?
I extend an open invitation for ANYONE to provide a logical reason for that.
George,
ReplyDeleteYou've got me pegged. I'm asking these questions in the blogosphere because I want to stroke my ego by going down in Freemasonry history.
Busted!
George,
ReplyDeleteAnd as for "yes there would be more women in Freemasonry, but not *many* more," how do you know?
There are 4 all-female lodges in America. If we want to become Freemasons, many of us would have to travel 1000s of miles a month to do it. How about you? Where is the fairness in that?
P.S. If I was a male, I would have been a mason for at least 12 years by now, but no, I only recently found out about these female lodges.
So, Hannah, because there is not enough demand for female only or co-ed masonry for their to be lodges all over g-d's green earth, the male only lodges should change their traditions?
ReplyDeleteLook, if a man wants to join a lodge with women, no one is stopping him. He should dimit, then go looking, as Steve Foley, late of the UGLE did, and lor' bless him in his efforts.
What you seem to be suggesting is because male only masonry is wildly successful that we should somehow rip it apart so women can have a better chance at getting what there is clearly not enough demand to support...
sorry, run that one again?
Everyone has a choice, at all times. Really, the issue about women's and co-ed lodges isn't even an issue for the male only grand lodges.
Its not on the radar, not being looked at, not being considered. Why should it be? If there is only one lodge in a thousand miles (or even 500 miles considering a round trip), apparently there isn't the demand to support more lodges...
I have no problem with female only or co-ed lodges... I just draw the line when they start telling male only lodges how WE should operate. We don't tell YOU how to operate.
Can't you grant us that same courtesy? To make a free choice, then stick with it?
Its not like we aren't aware there are women and co-ed obediences out there somewhere working...
or is it only a choice when YOU are making it?
I really can't believe this people. It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Do you really believe that you CHIPS programs and fish frys hold anything that remotely resembles Masonry?
ReplyDeleteTimes are changing rather or not you folks want to believe it. The world is a big place. Real freedom is obviously more than some can handle. Is it really better to have some Grand Lodge dictate what you do with your free time?
Get over it. The Antient system is designed to perpetuate an idea that won't make it. Wake up and act like grown ups and take responsibility for your actions and your philosophies.
you're not getting the Point I was trying to make R. Theron Dunn.
ReplyDeletethe reason why there are so few female Freemasons is because the dominant masonic body in America is the one to which you happen to belong; many females do not know of their other options.
And you sure are quick to use the word "demit" "dimit' whatever..... why is that? You want to be the only Mason in America? Does that make you feel special or something?
Hannah;
ReplyDeleteGet over yourself. If a man belongs to a regular grand lodge, to NOT be in violation to his obligation AND visit a co-ed lodge, he would have to dimit from regular masonry.
Now, I know you don't know this, but really, you need to get over your irrational anger.
SO, in reading your rant above, I take it you blame regular masonry for being so successful, and blame it for co-ed and women only masonry not being so successful.
Helloooo-oooo?
Its not the fault of regular masonry. If women were really interested, they will find a female only or co-ed lodge. Its not like there isn't such a thing as the internet, you know.
No one is holding women back. Really. Honestly, truth to tell, regular masonry doesn't give women's or co-ed masonry ANY consideration at all. Not negative, not curiosity, not positive.
It is totally neutral in this regard. The brethren, by and large just don't... care. So, if you want someone to blame, look in the mirror, not in the regular masonic lodges.
I don't blame regular freemasonry for anything. I blame the men who can't seem to realize that the shift from matriarchal to patriarchal societies with the advent of the industrial revolution caused man to take one step forward and 2 steps back.
ReplyDeleteTheron, I know you don't know this, but you really ought to work on your arrogant insensitivities to other people's trials. You tell people that if they are not happy with "the nature of the ways things works" to demit, but have you walked in the shoes of the men who are getting one religion forced down their throats while no other religion is tolerated at all?
OR that some want more from freemasonry than fish fries, and aren't getting it and when they try to they are chastised for it? So the solution is to just demit?
sounds like the "love it or leave it" anti-democracy crowd that plagues the inhabitants of this country, when they find someone who disagrees with the political status quo.
not kind, not kind at all.
Theron Dunn writes:
ReplyDelete"Look, if a man wants to join a lodge with women, no one is stopping him. He should dimit, then go looking..."
Brother Theron is either being very disingenuous, or he isn't the "Masonic scholar" he portrays himself to be.
In my U.S. Masonic jurisdiction, just like all other "regular" jurisdictions of which I'm aware, a dimit does not "excuse" a brother of ANY of his Masonic obligations. Specifically, the bylaws of my jurisdiction say:
"A dimitted Mason is subject to discipline for un-Masonic conduct by any Lodge in whose jurisdiction he may reside."
Un-Masonic conduct is defined to include all violations of Masonic obligations, which prohibit Masons from knowingly sitting in clandestine lodges. Since all "unrecognized" lodges are considered to be "clandestine," any Mason, whether dimitted or not, who knowingly sits in an "unrecognized" lodge, commits a Masonic offense that subjects him to the same Masonic trials and penalties as a Mason who hasn't dimitted.
Furthermore: "Stationed officers cannot resign or dimit during their terms of office." That means if a Mason is a "principal officer" (i.e., Worshipful Master, Senior Warden, or Junior Warden), he's prohibited from resigning or receiving a dimit until his term of office (usually 1 year) has passed.
Theron also writes:
"male only masonry is wildly successful..."
Where exactly would that be? In every jurisdiction of which I'm aware, membership is down at least 50% in the last 50 years, and in some places (such as my own jurisdiction), it's down 75%. When you consider that the population of the US has doubled in that same period of time, the effective percentage loss in the total population is double what it is for the Masonic population alone.
If you owned a car company that routinely sold 600,000 cars per year in the 1950s, but whose sales had steadily declined to the point that it only sold 150,000 cars in 2007, would you consider it to be "wildly successful?"
Mainstream Masonry in the US is not even "mildly successful," let alone "wildly successful!" It's in a state of serious crisis, and if the trend isn't reversed in the near future, the institution is likely to disappear within the course of another lifetime.
The key to the revitalization of Masonry is NOT to ignore the truth, and pretend it doesn't exist. The key is to realize the failures, and take appropriate corrective measures. Simply saying it's "successful," does not make it so.
Well, lets be honest here... for a change.
ReplyDeleteHannah, as I told you via email, Indian culture is hardly representative of Western Culture. Western Culture, in which we live, has been Patriarchal since, oh, 1000 BC at least, not since the "Industrial Revolution".
The United States alone has been a Patriarchal society since its inception, long before the "Industrial Revolution".
Now, as for wildly successful... interesting that anonymous chooses to play with numbers rather than reality... lets see, is there any civilized place on EARTH where there are not male only lodges? Seems pretty successful to me.
As to number, only someone looking to put down regular freemasonry would play with numbers. Of course the numbers are down, the MASSIVE influx of members we saw after WWII and Korean Wars are, well, dying of old age.
The hippies rejected their parents values, so we lost most of a generation. HOWEVER, and here is the good news, that loss is starting to turn around as the youth of today, searching for meaning beyond material acquisition (we aren't Ferengi after all) are turning to the lodges.
Even better news, that resurgence is firing up the esoterics and the historians and the masonic scholars who are now leading the Masonic Education, Traditional Observance, European Model and Esoteric Lodge movements across the US.
Now, as to dimits... well, if you dimit from a lodge, and do not join another regular lodge within a year, you are dropped from freemasonry entirely in most jurisdictions.
Further, if you dimit, it is highly unlikely a grand lodge will waste the time holding a masonic trial for a brother that then joins a clandestine lodge/grand lodge. What this means is that if you choose to join a Co-ed lodge, and dimit from your lodge first, unless you try to come back, the grand lodge will just ignore you.
Unless they want to make a point, which is highly unlikely. The GLoGA ignores one of its sons, who routinely pokes it in the eye... why would they bother with a brother who has dimited and then joined a clandestine lodge?
So, while the letter of what I wrote may be incorrect, the ACTION and ACTUAL outcome that I noted, is correct. If you do NOT dimit, and then DO join a clandestine lodge of any stripe, you will likely face masonic charges.
As for myself, it is a moot point, as I have absolutely no intention of a) Visiting a clandestine lodge in tyled session or b) dimiting from my lodge/grand lodge.
Now, were you trying to be serious, or, anonymous, were you just trying to take a cheap shot at me because I do have a voice that many follow?
And, it is a cheap shot when you state: Brother Theron is either being very disingenuous, or he isn't the "Masonic scholar" he portrays himself to be. and then don't have the courage to actually sign your post.
As for disingenuous... do you actually know what the word means?
acking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness
So, what in my post lacked candor or gave a false appearance by simple frankness?
Just asking....
Bro. Theron writes:
ReplyDeleteThe United States alone has been a Patriarchal society since its inception, long before the "Industrial Revolution."
Bro. Theron:
The USA did not exist "long before" the Industrial Revolution.
From Wikipedia: "The date of the Industrial Revolution is not exact. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in the 1780s and wasn't fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s, while T.S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830 (in effect the reigns of George III, The Regency, and George IV)."
It seems the Industrial Revolution and the birth of our nation were more or less simultaneous events.
As for your attack on one of the anonymous posters for lacking courage by not signing a name: The Burning Taper currently allows and encourages posts from anyone, whether they sign their name or not. Your attack on the anonymous poster is rude. As someone once wrote on one of the many forums you moderate, one should follow the rules of the room. The Taper doesn't require real names; digging at someone for not using a name is simply impolite. It's as much a "cheap shot" as whatever you accused someone else of saying regarding you.
— W.S.
Widow's Son;
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with someone making a point and not signing their name. That is the custom here, and I am okay with the custom. That does not change that the cheap shot, made anonymously, is NOT what I expect from a brother.
The fact that it is customary on this blog, to sign anonymously does not change the fact that the post was a) a cheap shot, and b) in MY opinion, cowardly. Not at all what I expect from a brother.
Regardless of custom and usage,when I have something to say, I sign my name. I do not write or say anything that I am afraid to sign MY name to... and if you look on the internet, I sign EVERYTHING I say with my name and stand behind what I say and write.
But then, I don't take cheap shots at brothers, either.
As for the industrial revolution, the dates are slippery, and I am willing to accept that... which does not at all change my position that Western culture has been Patriarchal since the Romans, nor that the Amerindian culture had then, or now, any significant influence on the patriarchal culture in which we live... dates of the industrial revolution notwithstanding.
Besides, as I read my history, the European culture was here in the Americas as early as the 1620's, which was THEN patriarchal, and DOES predate the industrial revolution.
Now, does any of this really affect the point I was making, or is arguing minor differences going to actually change the point?
thanks
Theron Dunn writes:
ReplyDelete"disingenuous... [L]acking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness. So, what in my post lacked candor or gave a false appearance by simple frankness? Just asking.... "
I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, that rather than being disingenuous, you were simply ignorant of Masonic law and custom. If that isn't the case, however, and you already knew that a "dimit" does not entitle a Mason to join "alternative" lodges, then your message in fact "lacked candor" and "gave a false appearance" by suggesting it was a simple matter for members to change lodges.
If you knew the truth of Masonic law and custom, you certainly "lacked candor" and "gave a false appearance" when you failed to mention that whether dimitted or not, Masons who knowingly visit or join "alternative" lodges, subject themselves to charges of un-Masonic conduct and Masonic trial in their "regular" lodges. Don't you think that's a relatively important point, which most people might want to consider?
The fact that as you suggest, sometimes such charges are pursued and sometimes they aren't, simply illustrates the random, arbitrary, and indeed corrupt nature of American Masonry in the 20th and 21st centuries. How would the justice system of the United States be perceived if "sometimes," treason was prosecuted, and "sometimes" it wasn't? In order for a justice system to be fair, shouldn't the laws be applied consistently EVERY time, not just when it suits the whims or political goals of those in charge?
Theron Dunn also writes:
"...interesting that anonymous chooses to play with numbers rather than reality... lets see, is there any civilized place on EARTH where there are not male only lodges? Seems pretty successful to me."
To follow your "logic," is there any place on earth where corruption doesn't exist, and if not, then according to your definition, isn't corruption "pretty successful?"
More directly to the point, however, there are MANY places on earth where male-only lodges do not exist. In my US state, for example, there are several thousand cities and towns, but fewer than 300 "regular" lodges. Therefore, there are thousands of cities and towns here, in which male-only Masonry does not exist.
To expand on that idea, there are counties in my state in which no "regular" lodges exist, and there are countries in the world in which no "regular" lodges exist. In fact, there are countries where Masonry and other "secret societies" are strictly prohibited by law. Whether or not those countries are "civilized," is a matter of interpretation, but I doubt that the people living there consider themselves to be "barbarians," and I don't think it would be appropriate for you or me to characterize them as such.
"As to number, only someone looking to put down regular freemasonry would play with numbers. Of course the numbers are down, the MASSIVE influx of members we saw after WWII and Korean Wars are, well, dying of old age."
By that statement, you're clearly suggesting that an "anomaly" in membership is now returning to "normalcy." If that could be backed by showing that new lodges were formed in the 1940s and 1950s to accommodate the new wartime members, and that only those lodges are now starting to falter, while lodges existing prior to that time remain steady in membership, you'd have a sustainable point, but that clearly isn't the case.
The majority of lodges that have closed in the US during the last few decades, have existed since the early 20th century and before. If those lodges predate the "MASSIVE influx of members" in the 1940s and 1950s, why has the loss of those wartime members led to the demise of the pre-existing lodges? In other words, if Masonry exclusive of the wartime influx, had been steadily "successful," why would the loss of wartime members necessitate the closure of lodges that have existed since the nineteenth century?
It seems to me that much of your message(s) above, is basically propaganda. You gloss over important facts, present half-truths, and resort to questioning the integrity of individuals who express ideas and facts that don't support your "spin" on reality. Unfortunately, in my experiences, the tactics you've employed, and the sort of character thereby revealed, are remarkably representative of "mainstream" American Masonry as a whole today, which is perhaps one of the reasons the institution is so rapidly imploding.
Personally, I think the majority of intelligent people in our society today are tired of "spin doctoring" and self-serving political manipulation. I think they want people who'll tell the whole truth about issues, so that the best courses of action can be determined based upon the facts of reality, rather than political propaganda, which inevitably leads to failure.
Again, as I noted above, the key to the revitalization of Masonry is NOT to ignore the truth, and pretend it doesn't exist. I believe the key is to identify the failures, acknowledge them, and take appropriate corrective measures. You can "spin" reality any way you want to, but decisions based on lies, are seldom the best courses of action.
By the way, Theron, I've now answered a plethora of your questions, but if you've answered ANY of mine from my several messages above, I haven't been able to identify those answers. Why don't you start answering a few of my questions, if you think you can without providing me additional opportunities to reveal your "arguments" for the transparent propaganda they truly are?
I am not a mason; I've just been reading a lot about masonry lately. English is also not my first language, so please bear with me. With that said, let me comment a few of the previous posts:
ReplyDelete"If my legs were blown off, and the only person who could carry me to safety was a 120 pound woman in full battle gear, I would make my peace with God."
Br. Warwick
Ever heard of female snipers? I bet you'd rather have a good female sniper covering your butt than a 300 pound gorilla that could carry your remains in a bag with a single hand... Men and women are different, and have different abilities. Focusing on stereotypes - like raw physical strength - doesn't overcome the fact that women and men do complement each other in more ways than... you know. Maybe masonry could benefit from that, too. At least for some.
"I have no problem with female only or co-ed lodges... I just draw the line when they start telling male only lodges how WE should operate. We don't tell YOU how to operate."
Theron Dunn
"Women don't need to be in my lodge. I don't want them in my lodge. It's the last place I can have that is unashamedly male. And so... I'm not ashamed to want to keep it that way."
Bro. Geo
These two posts pretty much sum it up: these gentlemen do not want women in their lodges, even if only as a visit. If I'm not mistaken - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - recognition would imply inter-visitation, and that's precisely the reason why they don't even want to discuss the matter.
"First of all, what we are referencing here is what is called "Masonic Intercourse", which is a term for sitting in a tyled lodge session... more, it means that I cannot share with you the grips, words, or signs that would identify me as a mason to you, nor, I suppose, accept the same from you... though the latter seems kind of silly.
For many, it means not discussing the specifics of ritual, though really my GL has stated that ONLY the means and modes of recognition are the "true secrets" and thus cannot be "shared".
Let's imagine 3 lodges which are precisely the same in all aspects except in that one is exclusively male, another exclusively female, and the third has both men and women. The grips, the signs, the principles, the rituals, all are the same. Now, let's imagine they know it - through a hole in the wall, a hidden camera, or mind reading. It doesn't matter how: they know that "other" are precisely the same as they are. How could they not recognize each other?!
I understand that I only invite to my house the people I want; it's not a public place. I'm free to say "if you have green eyes, please knock on the door, and I'll share a cup of tea with you". That doesn't force every green-eyed person to knock on my door, and still doesn't make me accept a blue-eyed person in my kitchen, either.
I guess it wouldn't be too hard to have similar rules in your lodges, as it's possible to conceive a rule set accomodating everyone comfortably. As Hannah saidm "What I would like to see is that the umbrella that is over all male regular lodges cover female lodges too." It could be done. Just suppose that recognition would be based on current principles, except for sex and race. Now, imagine that every lodge could say: "these and those are welcome." It could be blacks, women, men, asian... whatever, as long as they're regular in every other aspect.
Mixed lodges would welcome anyone. Male lodges would (mostly) welcome males, and female lodges would (mostly) welcome women. I say "mostly" because, if they all wanted to, they might want to welcome members of the opposite sex in special circumstances. Men could visit mixed and male lodges; women could visit mixed or female lodges. Nobody would feel uncomfortable, as nobody would visit a lodge where they knew they wouldn't be welcome.
Everyone would, however, consider each other "a brother" or "a sister". And talk about anything.
Would that be so difficult?!
As for the "love it or leave it" argument... I'm a catholic. I am against my church's doctrine on contraception, and I'm against the idea that women should have "as many children as God gives them". Does that make me a bad catholic? I don't think so. Does that make me want to quit my church? Definitely not. Does it make me try and change my church in every way I can (and I know, I can do very little...)? Of course it does. If the church was always right, the earth would be flat. I know masonry intends to be above all religions, but it sure doesn't reclaim to itself "papal infallibility"... :)
Simple Aureole
Theron Dunn said...
ReplyDeleteWell, lets be honest here... for a change.
Hannah, as I told you via email, Indian culture is hardly representative of Western Culture. Western Culture, in which we live, has been Patriarchal since, oh, 1000 BC at least, not since the "Industrial Revolution".
The United States alone has been a Patriarchal society since its inception, long before the "Industrial Revolution".
Theron, come on!! You mean to tell me that you can't think of any examples of how the Indigenous Americans have contributed to Western culture?
Look at how wars are fought pre-and post- American Indian contact.
Look at our Declaration of Independence and bicameral form of government! America is supposed to be this great experiment of Democracy, and part of that "experiment" includes a mixture of American Indian culture here and a dab of American Indian influence there. Need I mention the Iroquois Confederacy's influence on our government?
Now, the Iroquois were a matriarchal society before the 19th century, thus their influence and why America has the "potential" to be so great, is because of this matriarchal influence.
We all know that many Freemasons were instrumental in the formation of this government, bringing along their own cultural influences (patriarchal) and mixing them with Indigenous American influences (matriarchal).
Yes, the Anderson constitution was written before the U.S. Constitution was written and before many of these Freemasons made their way to this new Land now known as America (1740s).
Why they decided to keep the male-only while not acknowledging the matriarchal influence in our Democracy is something that maybe your people can learn now, and try to understand. It's a mystery to me. Want to try to solve it?
Hannah;
ReplyDeleteWhether the Iraquois had a small influence on American culture or not is irrelevant to whether or not WESTERN CULTURE is patriarchal or not. Maybe there was an influence of Iraquois, maybe not. However, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not, as I noted, that WESTERN CULTURE is patriarchal.
Simple:
Nice sentiments. Problem with your point is that Male Masonry, which has been the fount of freemasonry, and has set the rules for the majority of masonic lodges the world over, does not see anything that does not follow its rules as masonry.
I have stated that I recognize women masons as a variety of masons. They practice masonry, and, as the UGLE noted, as far as can be determined, except that they admit women, they are otherwise regular in their practice.
The question arises, why should mainstream masonry change? They are what they are, and LDH and so on are what they are. Its all good.
Now, as to intervisitation. A woman mason can visit any non tyled session at my lodge. That is not much, open house, dinners, awards, installations... however, I am not welcome at a tyled session of a women only lodge, either.
What's the big deal? If someone wants co-ed masonry, it exists as well. However, expecting Mainstream Masonry to change to accomodate these other bodies just isn't realistic. In my opinion.
Masonic Law: I am not an expert on masonic law, never held myself out as such. HOWEVER, if someone dimits from their lodge, this has the effect of removing themselves from masonic jurisprudence.
If you dimit from your lodge and join a clandestine lodge, what difference does it make to you if your ex-lodge prefers charges? You are no longer a member of that Mainstream Grand Lodge anyway.
By joining a clandestine lodge, you have removed any chance of returning to a mainstream lodge... oh, I suppose if you went back and apologized and made ammends you might be allowed back in. I wouldn't know.
However, what I wrote, as far as it goes, is correct. Dimiting is just a formal statement of intent. Its a way of quitting. Not paying your dues has the same effect.
If you want a legal discourse on Maosnic Law, go see your Grand Secretary. I am not offering legal advice here, just a generalization that is fit for "mixed company", masons and non masons.
Now, anonymous, whoever you are, you state you have asked me questions I have never answered. Really? Where? I have no clue what you are talking about.
If you really have questions, post them to me on Lodgeroom US: www.lodgeroomuk.com/bb or email them to me at theron(at)therondunn.com.
Thanks
Theron Dunn writes:
ReplyDelete"Now, anonymous, whoever you are, you state you have asked me questions I have never answered. Really? Where? I have no clue what you are talking about. If you really have questions, post them to me on Lodgeroom US: www.lodgeroomuk.com/bb or email them to me at theron(at)therondunn.com."
As much as I appreciate your invitation to submit to the authority of your web site, or provide you with my email address so that you can bombard me with "spam," I'd rather see you answer my questions here, in the forum where they've already been asked and ignored.
A quick perusal of my notes above reveals more than two dozen unanswered questions, but just to make things as simple for you as possible, I've selected and listed below 10 of the ones I'd most like to see you try to answer.
And by "answer," I don't mean with another question, like "why not," or with circular reasoning, which I can assure you will be vigorously and enthusiastically challenged.
None of the questions are as profound as "what is the meaning of life," and just plain, simple answers should be quite sufficient. Of course, I don't really expect you to provide those, but it would be fun to see you give it a shot.
(1) If a Prince Hall grand lodge can be recognized in a "regular" grand jurisdiction, why can't other grand lodges be recognized as well?
(2) How would allowing any group of honorable and intelligent human beings to join "our" lodge system destroy it (as you flatly stated it would in one of your messages above)?
(3) Has allowing women to join our armed services destroyed [the US] military?
(4) What would it hurt to allow intervisitation between ALL forms of Masonic lodges?
(5) I understand the technicalities about the "obligations," etc., but what's the REASON behind those restrictions?
(6) We could all explain why it's important not to "in anger, knowingly strike or shed the blood" of a fellow Mason, but why do our obligations make it "equally important" not to knowingly make a woman a Mason, or knowingly sit in a "clandestine" lodge? Why is that so important?
(7) If you owned a car company that routinely sold 600,000 cars per year in the 1950s, but whose sales had steadily declined to the point that it only sold 150,000 cars in 2007, would you consider it to be "wildly successful" (as you stated that "regular" Masonry is today)?
(8) If you knew the truth of Masonic law and custom, you certainly "lacked candor" and "gave a false appearance" when you failed to mention that whether dimitted or not, Masons who knowingly visit or join "alternative" lodges, subject themselves to charges of un-Masonic conduct and Masonic trial in their "regular" lodges. Don't you think that's a relatively important point, which most people might want to consider?
(9) In order for a justice system to be fair, shouldn't the laws be applied consistently EVERY time, not just when it suits the whims or political goals of those in charge (as you admitted that Masonic "laws" are often "selectively applied" today)?
(10) The majority of lodges that have closed in the US during the last few decades, have existed since the early 20th century and before. If those lodges predate the "MASSIVE influx of members" in the 1940s and 1950s, why has the loss of those wartime members led to the demise of the pre-existing lodges?
If you'll be so kind as to enumerate your answers, it'll make it much easier for everyone here to follow your logic, and avoid any confusion about which questions (if any) you may attempt to answer.
And thank you in advance for your replies!
If we were all totally honest about it, we would admit that the "men only" rule in mainstream Freemasonry is a way to establish and maintain control over the brand.
ReplyDeleteIf I could join a mixed lodge without fear of retribution in my mainstream lodge, I would certainly do so. Many men would.
Of course, the watered-down Masonic auxiliary, the OES, would die even faster than it is now, and there's a fairly good chance that the mainstream GLs would have to consider becoming mixed in order to maintain control.
There are a couple of simple facts here. Number one, in 2007 there is no valid reason to deny membership to 50% of the population other than tradition and control issues. Number two, I've been in mainstream lodges, and I can't imagine why any woman would want to join one. They don't think fart jokes are any funnier than I do.
I'm 43 years old and am almost always the youngest guy in the room. The average age of my GL is 68. The Eagles, Elks and Jaycees have already been successfully sued to force the admission of women. There's writing on the wall, it's just too bad so many are unwilling to read the words.
But I'm tired of the arguments and the self-righteous screeching. What happens happens. And we all know what's going to happen.
what I don't understand is why do so many men join one, find out it's not what they thought it was, but maintain their membership?
ReplyDeleteIs it because there are so many lodges, and because of how it's established throughout the world?
Is it becuase they think they can change it once all the old-timers die off, make it something different from the outdated societal norms that the old folks live by?
For the record, after talking with some Freemasons online I have learned that many young ones, are disenchnated with what they have gotten themselves into. For that reason, this is why I argue for recognition by all Freemasons of all Freemasons, for the sake of these young men who are disenchanted mainstreamers.
But as many of them realize, recognition of individuals, and better yet, your deity, is better than recognition by the official mainstream masonic body.
Submit to my authority... man, are you paranoid. As for your email address, use a hotmail if you are that afraid.
ReplyDeleteI email Widow's Son here, and I have never spammed him. I find it endlessly amusing, your posturing, but for my amusement, I will play along with the game.
I have answered these questions in a number of locations before, so there will hardly be any surprises...
Let the games begin. LOL
(1) If a Prince Hall grand lodge can be recognized in a "regular" grand jurisdiction, why can't other grand lodges be recognized as well?
Good question. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge System proceeds from a legal charter issued by a regular Grand Lodge. In this instant case, the Premiere Grand Lodge of England.
(2) How would allowing any group of honorable and intelligent human beings to join "our" lodge system destroy it (as you flatly stated it would in one of your messages above)?
Again, good question. Mostly because the traditions of regular freemasonry is that there are no women. Men join the regular lodge system BECAUSE its male only. So why would it destroy it? Because men that want it as it is would quit a grand lodge that began to admit women, get a charter from another grand lodge that maintained the traditions, and continue as before.
(3) Has allowing women to join our armed services destroyed [the US] military?
No. Apples and oranges though.
(4) What would it hurt to allow intervisitation between ALL forms of Masonic lodges?
Because if a male only lodge allowed visitation, it would no longer be a male only lodge. What is so hard to understand?
(5) I understand the technicalities about the "obligations," etc., but what's the REASON behind those restrictions?
As I have stated before, men and women work from different premises in general. Men need time with men, as women need, and get, time with only women. There is a time and a place for everything, and I just don't see why some few feel they have to eliminate every venue where men can work with men. You don't see men trying to force themselves into every venue where women work with just women.
(6) We could all explain why it's important not to "in anger, knowingly strike or shed the blood" of a fellow Mason, but why do our obligations make it "equally important" not to knowingly make a woman a Mason, or knowingly sit in a "clandestine" lodge? Why is that so important?
I don't see why this is repeatedly asked, even though its repeatedly answered. REGULAR Masonry is male only. Its the tradition, its what the men who join predominantly want, its what the constitutions state. Its what our obligation states. Since regular masonry is male only, it only makes sense that brining women into it, or sitting in tyled session with them would violate that tradition. Now, really, how hard is it to understand?
(7) If you owned a car company that routinely sold 600,000 cars per year in the 1950s, but whose sales had steadily declined to the point that it only sold 150,000 cars in 2007, would you consider it to be "wildly successful" (as you stated that "regular" Masonry is today)?
Nope. Apples and Oranges again though.
(8) If you knew the truth of Masonic law and custom, you certainly "lacked candor" and "gave a false appearance" when you failed to mention that whether dimitted or not, Masons who knowingly visit or join "alternative" lodges, subject themselves to charges of un-Masonic conduct and Masonic trial in their "regular" lodges. Don't you think that's a relatively important point, which most people might want to consider?
No. Asked AND answered above. Twice. Asking over and over will not change the answer. Nice try though.
(9) In order for a justice system to be fair, shouldn't the laws be applied consistently EVERY time, not just when it suits the whims or political goals of those in charge (as you admitted that Masonic "laws" are often "selectively applied" today)?
Not a lawyer are you? Laws are selectively applied depending on circumstance. The FBI knows, for instance, who killed Jimmy Hoffa. They are not bringing charges against him because the killer has already been sentenced to multiple life sentences. There is no point in pursuing another, for the cost of the trials.
In the instant case, if a man dimits, then joins a clandestine lodge, there is no need for the grand lodge to waste time and money pursuing charges. He has quit already. If a man does not dimit, and joins or attends a clandestine lodge, there is then a reason to pursue masonic charges against him.
Further, as I stated the FIRST time I answered this question, I am not a legal representative of a grand lodge. I do not make the decisions. I understand the decisions. Were it up to me, any man that attended a clandestine lodge in tyled session would be summarily expelled from the fraternity for violating his obligation. You DO understand keeping your word, don't you?
(10) The majority of lodges that have closed in the US during the last few decades, have existed since the early 20th century and before. If those lodges predate the "MASSIVE influx of members" in the 1940s and 1950s, why has the loss of those wartime members led to the demise of the pre-existing lodges?
Yes. Costs have gone up, dues have not. As members pass, costs continue to rise and consolidations are necessary. Men move more now than in the past. Some lodges are more successful than other.
So, yes, these men passing are cause for the lodges closing.
Nice leading questions. When you get serious about any of this, you let me know. You claim I never answered these "questions" (more posturing by you, really) but if you actually read what I wrote, you will find I did answer them
You just don't like the answers.
Anyway, like I wrote, when you get serious, you come to my forum or email me. I really don't have time to waste with useless posturing like you are engaging in here.
By the way;
ReplyDeleteI know the "tradition" of this blog is posting anonymously, and that's fine. However, if someone wants to post anonymously, I will ignore the posts and no longer waste my time with them.
If you can't take yourself seriously enough to sign, I refuse to take you seriously as well.
I have my own blog and forum and magazine to tend to without wasting time with folks who don't even respect themselves.
Mr. Dunn --
ReplyDeleteI must admit that, as a whole, I'm surprised by the relative candor of the answers you offered. In some instances, I'll even concede that we simply have a difference of opinion, but in others, there are still issues I think are worthy of discussion.
<< (1) If a Prince Hall grand lodge can be recognized in a "regular" grand jurisdiction, why can't other grand lodges be recognized as well?
Good question. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge System proceeds from a legal charter issued by a regular Grand Lodge. In this instant case, the Premiere Grand Lodge of England. >>
As I noted in one of my replies above, the Grand Lodge of England DID issue a charter to Prince Hall, but it was issued at a time when the Grand Lodge of England had no authority to issue such a charter in the United States. It was also issued at a time when there was no fraternal relationship between US lodges and British lodges, and each considered the other(s) to be "clandestine."
Additionally, Prince Hall's lodge became inactive after his death, and eventually went defunct. It was stricken from the rolls of the Grand Lodge of England, and when a group of men attempted to "reactivate" it a number of years later, they were denied a charter. They then declared themselves to be "independent" of ANY Grand Lodge, and began operating without any fraternal relationship and/or recognition from ANY "regular" Grand Lodge, anywhere in the world.
Prince Hall lodges today, therefore "proceed" from a "rogue" lodge, not from Prince Hall's original British charter, but the real question is not about the legitimacy of modern Prince Hall lodges, the question is about the legitimacy of "concordant jurisdiction."
Why can't "regular" grand lodges recognize other forms of Masonry, just like many now recognize "concordant jurisdiction" with Prince Hall lodges?"
<< (2) How would allowing any group of honorable and intelligent human beings to join "our" lodge system destroy it (as you flatly stated it would in one of your messages above)?
Again, good question. Mostly because the traditions of regular freemasonry is that there are no women. Men join the regular lodge system BECAUSE its male only. So why would it destroy it? Because men that want it as it is would quit a grand lodge that began to admit women, get a charter from another grand lodge that maintained the traditions, and continue as before. >>
I adamantly disagree that "men join the regular lodge system BECAUSE it's male only." I believe the vast majority of men join the "regular" lodge system because it's the only one that's available to them, or because they aren't aware of any other options. I seriously doubt that most men, prior to joining a lodge, really understand that there are numerous types of Masonry, most of which aren't affiliated with each other, and don't even recognize each other's right to exist.
Given an equal opportunity to join (1) an all male lodge of single race, (2) an all male lodge of mixed races, or (3) a lodge that's open to all people of good character regardless of race or gender, I strongly suspect that the majority of American men and women today, would choose option # 3. (In fact, that might be a good "poll" question.....)
<< (3) Has allowing women to join our armed services destroyed [the US] military?
No. Apples and oranges though. >>
Apples and oranges are small consumable fruits that grow on trees in temperate climates, and like Masonry and the military, they share enough similarities that the two can be reasonably compared in many ways.
Many men (and some women) claimed just a few years ago that allowing women (and before them blacks, and later homosexuals) to join our armed services would "destroy" our military, just as you claim that "recognizing" co-ed Masonry would destroy "mainstream" Masonry. Since our military hasn't been destroyed, however, what justification exists for your belief that recognizing co-ed Masonry would destroy the existing lodge system?
<< (4) What would it hurt to allow intervisitation between ALL forms of Masonic lodges?
Because if a male only lodge allowed visitation, it would no longer be a male only lodge. What is so hard to understand? >>
That's a totally bogus argument. Visitation with co-ed lodges would no more change the all-male status of existing lodges, than it changes the "all-American" status of American lodges when foreign brothers visit from other countries! Any lodge can "recognize" and allow visitation with other lodges, yet maintain its own standards and practices, just as happens today with Prince Hall lodges and "regular" lodges in nearly 40 American states.
More to the point, however, your answers to questions (4), (5), and (6), are classic examples of "circular reasoning." I warned you that circular reasoning would be identified and challenged, and such is the case.
What you're basically saying is: "regular Masonry is all-male because females aren't allowed, and females aren't allowed because regular Masonry is all-male." No actual "reason" is ever provided in any of that! It's like saying: "all-male Masonry is all-male because it's all-male." There's no beginning and no end to that statement, thus the term "circular reasoning."
<< (9) In order for a justice system to be fair, shouldn't the laws be applied consistently EVERY time, not just when it suits the whims or political goals of those in charge (as you admitted that Masonic "laws" are often "selectively applied" today)?
Not a lawyer are you? Laws are selectively applied depending on circumstance. The FBI knows, for instance, who killed Jimmy Hoffa. They are not bringing charges against him because the killer has already been sentenced to multiple life sentences. There is no point in pursuing another, for the cost of the trials. >>
BS! If anyone could prove who killed Jimmy Hoffa beyond a reasonable doubt, some prosecutor would instantly drag in a defendant for trial. Also, serial killers and rapists are routinely transferred all over the country, tried and convicted in state after state, and sentenced to terms of incarceration totaling thousands of years. The practical purpose for that is that it closes cases, and gets them off the "unsolved" books.
In this instance, however, you are comparing apples to automobiles! I never suggested repeatedly trying individuals for visiting "clandestine" lodges on different occasions, which would be analogous to a situation where murderers aren't tried multiple times for multiple murders. The essence of the question is: "Would it be fair to try some Masons for certain Masonic offenses, while other Masons are not tried for the exact same offenses in the same jurisdictions, at the same time, and under the same circumstances?"
<< "if someone wants to post anonymously, I will ignore the posts and no longer waste my time with them." >>
You're entitled to do as you please, but I can't see how it should matter to you if I'm a 10-year-old girl in Haiti, or a Grand Master of Masons in Minnesota; the truth shouldn't be "variable," and as Shakespeare said: "A rose by any other name......"
What difference should my name make to you? Call me what you will; it's the strength of my argument that should concern to you, not my name, age, race, or gender.
I adamantly disagree that "men join the regular lodge system BECAUSE it's male only." I believe the vast majority of men join the "regular" lodge system because it's the only one that's available to them, or because they aren't aware of any other options. I seriously doubt that most men, prior to joining a lodge, really understand that there are numerous types of Masonry, most of which aren't affiliated with each other, and don't even recognize each other's right to exist.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely correct. Under no circumstances did I join the lodge I did BECAUSE it was male only. If anything, I joined it DESPITE its being male only. If there had been a mixed option available to me I certainly would have joined it. To the best of my knowledge, the closest mixed lodge to me is the George Washington Union lodge in Chicago.
I have no idea where these silly notions come from, but I believe Brother Dunn may be projecting his own (occasionally odd) ideas about why people do various things upon others.
Here are a few interesting questions to consider:
ReplyDelete(1) How are transgender individuals treated in "regular" Masonic jurisdictions? If a Mason in a "regular" jurisdiction undergoes a sex-change, would that person be allowed to continue participating in lodge as a woman? Alternatively, if a female undergoes a sex-change, would that person then meet the gender requirement for admission into "regular" Masonry?
It seems to me that without exhibiting bigotry, at least one or the other would have to be accepted. If a gender change can legitimately disqualify a person for membership, then the opposite gender change should legitimately have the opposite effect.
(2) In our modern world, should Masonic obligations that forbid violating the chastity of Master Masons' wives, widows, mothers, sisters, or daughters, also be extended to include Master Masons' domestic partners, fathers, brothers, or sons? Why should the chastity of female family members be protected, while that of male family members is not?
In "regular" lodges, if a brother takes sexual liberties with another brother's daughter, charges of un-Masonic conduct are certain to follow. What if a gay brother takes sexual liberties with another brother's son? Wouldn't that be equally bad for the brothers involved, and shouldn't such conduct be equally addressed by Masonic law?
(3) In lodges where females are allowed to become Masons, are they "received in ancient form," in the same way that males are, through ceremonies involving their naked breasts, or are the ceremonies amended to dispense with the necessity for naked breasts?
In the words of a brother above, I'm "Just asking...."
This thread has taken on a life of it's own, and almost appears to be on the edge of becoming it's own blog.
ReplyDeleteFor the Anon who had questions about the transgender & homosexual stuff:
Look - Freemasonry draws on some very old rituals and ceremonies and practices, but anyone who interpets these obligations too literally misses the essential point. The point is not to obligate ourselves against seducing a brother's wife to the exclusion of anyone else; the point is to remind us as men - in a solemn and ancient ceremony - of what it means to be moral, honest, and upright.
Yes, if we were so inclined, we could change the wording to apprear more PC, but why? Good Masons - ones that work at applying those moral lessons to every aspect of their lives - don't need it, and poor Masons won't care in the first place.
BTW, the transgender issue has come up in the past, but I'm not aware of any Grand Lodge that has made a ruling on it.
Also, I have it on very good authority that women in feminine or mixed lodges get very tired of being asked about the "naked breast" question. When you understand that we are not a college fraternity, you should be able to answer that question.
Tom;
ReplyDeleteThe Grand Lodge of California recently expelled a brother who underwent sex reassignment surgery. She showed up at lodge, I guess seriously expecting to be admitted. Her dues card was seized and she was escorted to the door.
The Grand Lodge not only supported the decision, they applauded the lodge's handling of the issue. So I guess you could say the GLoCA has taken a stand on the "transgender issue"
I'd like to see that case end up in court, just to find out what the arguments for and against the lodge's actions would be.
ReplyDelete— W.S.
Widow's Son;
ReplyDeleteLegal arguments for and against... what, exactly? The tenets and foundation of our fraternity state that it is a male only organzation. She was no longer a male. As the United States Constitution, first amendment grants us the right to assemble, and the right NOT to assemble with whomever we chose, there is not issue.
She was refunded the value of her dues paid for the year, so she has no financial loss at all. And since the Fraternity is a private organization that does not take tax dollars in any way, we are allowed to set our own rules as to membership.
I understand she made noises about suing until she talked to her attorney who, according to her, told her she did not have a leg to stand on. I also understand she was directed to the local women's only and co-ed lodge(s) nearest her.
No legal issue to argue over.
Theron Dunn writes:
ReplyDelete"The Grand Lodge of California recently expelled a brother who underwent sex reassignment surgery. She showed up at lodge, I guess seriously expecting to be admitted. Her dues card was seized and she was escorted to the door. The Grand Lodge not only supported the decision, they applauded the lodge's handling of the issue.... The tenets and foundation of our fraternity state that it is a male only organzation [sic]. She was no longer a male."
I guess that answers one half of the question above, but the question that remains is: "What about a woman who undergoes a sex change and becomes a man? Does such an individual then meet the gender requirement for 'regular' Masonry?"
If so, then the obvious "answer" for women who want to be recognized as "mainstream" Masons, is to undergo sex changes. I'm sure that many people who regularly donate to Shriners' hospitals and other Masonic charities, would be very interested to learn about that "family values" sort of stance.
Theron Dunn writes:
"She was refunded the value of her dues paid for the year, so she has no financial loss at all."
What about her investment of time? It takes more than just an investment of money to become a Mason (at least, for most people it does). In most instances, it takes a considerable investment of time, which is a part of a person's life that he/she can never get back. How has the lodge reimbursed their former member for her investment of time?
Furthermore, what justification was used to revoke her lodge membership? Was she charged with un-Masonic conduct, and did she receive a Masonic "show" trial, as required by the bylaws, or was she simply stricken from the rolls, as Jeff Peace and so many others have been recently in various other grand jurisdictions?
Theron Dunn writes:
"And since the Fraternity is a private organization that does not take tax dollars in any way, we are allowed to set our own rules as to membership."
Not only does the fraternity not take any tax dollars, it doesn't contribute any either, despite billions of dollars in real estate holdings and hundreds of millions of dollars in endowment funds, all because of federal tax exemption status, which is specious at best.
Theron Dunn writes:
"No legal issue to argue over."
There are all sorts of valid legal issues to argue over, from the loss of invested time, to the loss of association, to the violation of the organizational bylaws if lodge membership was revoked without just cause, as outlined in the organization's bylaws.
A lot of attorneys would take that case pro bono, and unless some dirty politics is used to influence the litigation of the case (and we all know that Masons would never stoop so low as to use politics to their own advantage), there's a very good chance that a jury (particularly in California) would find in favor of the plaintiff.
You guys are playing Russian roulette, and you may have gotten away with it so far, but sooner or later, the hammer is going to fall on a loaded chamber, and that's going to be the end. If smarter men prevailed in Masonry, it wouldn't have to be that way, but then again, if smarter men prevailed, things wouldn't be the way they are now, either.
Anonymous-
ReplyDelete"Many men (and some women) claimed just a few years ago that allowing women (and before them blacks, and later homosexuals) to join our armed services would "destroy" our military, just as you claim that "recognizing" co-ed Masonry would destroy "mainstream" Masonry. Since our military hasn't been destroyed, however, what justification exists for your belief that recognizing co-ed Masonry would destroy the existing lodge system?"
It is amazing how you managed to sidestep the earlier post I made about women in the military, police and fire-departments having to meet lesser standards than the men. This is fact, and I have a hard time seeing anyone logically explain how this has not been a detriment to those organizations. Yet you continue to spout off about it and show that you live in a world of your own creation, not the real one.
"I adamantly disagree that "men join the regular lodge system BECAUSE it's male only." I believe the vast majority of men join the "regular" lodge system because it's the only one that's available to them, or because they aren't aware of any other options. I seriously doubt that most men, prior to joining a lodge, really understand that there are numerous types of Masonry, most of which aren't affiliated with each other, and don't even recognize each other's right to exist.
Given an equal opportunity to join (1) an all male lodge of single race, (2) an all male lodge of mixed races, or (3) a lodge that's open to all people of good character regardless of race or gender, I strongly suspect that the majority of American men and women today, would choose option # 3. (In fact, that might be a good "poll" question.....)
Hannah tried this. I have yet to see the legions of young men shaking their heads sadly and walking away from freemasonry once they come to the sad conclusion that it is not the watered-down, politically correct institution that they thought it was. Some proof would be nice. Like a poll or something. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but certainly not on any really important scale. I mean, come on! The Grand Orient of France votes with a solid majority not to allow women? If those socialist, cheese-eating surrender monkeys won't do it, I guarantee you that there isn't a snow-ball's chance in hell it's going to happen anywhere else. You are wasting your time trying to get us to accept visitation from women. When that happens, we might as well allow all lodges to be co-ed. That's really what this is all about in the end. Over the months and years, the brethren will finally shrug their shoulders and say "what's the use?". The line of continuity will be broken.
"As much as I appreciate your invitation to submit to the authority of your web site, or provide you with my email address so that you can bombard me with "spam," I'd rather see you answer my questions here, in the forum where they've already been asked and ignored."
I disagree, anonymous. We're not asking for details about your personal life,your social, or your e-mail address. Although I have to say you seem to have some delusion of persecution. I certainly would never bombard you with spam. We're simply wanting to know who we're dealing with. How are you approaching this problem? As a mason? Or something else? Take a page out of Brother John Hancock's book and be proud of your opinions. I have, and so has Theron.
who is the "majority" in mainstream freemasonry anyway?
ReplyDeleteAre there really "legions" of young men joining Freemasonry today?
hmmmmmm.