I hardly ever wave wands sir!
No, it’s more that I get a bit sceptical of rules that are not applied uniformly.
My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Greetings from an "irregular"
- Thread starter wufilas
- Start date
No, it’s more that I get a bit sceptical of rules that are not applied uniformly.
Sorry. Typing on my phone I omitted a word. I meant to use the cololqualism that you can't wave a wand. I would never imply you were wandering around the countryside waving wands!
As to not applying the Landmarks uniformly, did you have a specific example? As far as my experience has been, all candidates in mainstream Freemasonry are required to profess a belief in Deity as well as possession of the Requisite plumbing.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Sorry. Typing on my phone I omitted a word. I meant to use the cololqualism that you can't wave a wand. I would never imply you were wandering around the countryside waving wands!
As to not applying the Landmarks uniformly, did you have a specific example? As far as my experience has been, all candidates in mainstream Freemasonry are required to profess a belief in Deity as well as possession of the Requisite plumbing.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
We have had quite a few examples of discrimination based on sexuality, race or religion however when it comes to obligations- consider a brother who is divorced- had he not made a life long binding obligation which he has broken?
Why is a breach of an obligation outside of the craft held to account?
But a marriage contract is not a Landmark of Freemasonry. We are talking about an organization who purports to be a Masonic body but has chosen to not adhere to the Landmarks. We cannot hold non Masons in unrelated situations to the same standards.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
hanzosbm
Premium Member
Well, for one thing, which landmarks? Everyone talks about them, but the first time they were enumerated was in 1858. Before that, there were charges that in some cases bore resemblance to each other, but not one set of codified rules that was universal.
One of the Landmarks that includes that the candidate needs to be a man, also has rules against him being a cripple, or deformed in any way. This is worded in various ways, including being able bodied. I doubt there are many regular Grand Lodges who hold to this Landmark.
Another is the right to visit and sit in every regular lodge. Yet, it is up to the Master of that lodge to allow admission. How can a right laid out by a Landmark be countermanded by the Master? He couldn't simply decide to initiate a woman.
Every time I hear someone try to make sense of our "rules" it comes off like Dogberry and the watchmen in Much Ado About Nothing.
Instant vision of Michael Keaton springing to mind!
LK600
Premium Member
Mackey took liberties in 1858, but it was a nice effort. Still, enumeration and nonexistence are not the same thing. Some "landmarks" run deep regardless what they are called.
Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723
I. Concerning GOD and RELIGION.
A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.
CGMNA is succinct:Mackey took liberties in 1858, but it was a nice effort. Still, enumeration and nonexistence are not the same thing. Some "landmarks" run deep regardless what they are called.
Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723
I. Concerning GOD and RELIGION.
A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.
- Adherence to the Ancient Landmarks – specifically, a Belief in God, the Volume of Sacred Law as an indispensable part of the Furniture of the Lodge, and the prohibition of the discussion of politics and religion.
Numerous jurisdictions though haven’t accepted this in practice, with varying requirements from a belief in the immortality of the soul to Christianity.
hanzosbm
Premium Member
I think this is a perfect example. Your bolding of the term Libertine shows that by the Landmarks, only adherents to "established" religions (whatever that means) are acceptable.Mackey took liberties in 1858, but it was a nice effort. Still, enumeration and nonexistence are not the same thing. Some "landmarks" run deep regardless what they are called.
Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723
I. Concerning GOD and RELIGION.
A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.
So, belief in a Supreme Being is not enough.
Do we conform to this Landmark, or do we fail to apply it uniformily?
hanzosbm
Premium Member
I am, an ass.
Bloke
Premium Member
But even polytheistic religions will tend to have a "Supreme Being" , hence the number of Hindus among our ranks. Freemasonry does not require a belief in monotheism - only a belief in a Supreme Being - they are different. A good example of this which might be accessible to many is Trinitarian Christianity.
To be fair, it's not just a small "divergence" in 1877 the Grand Orient of France removed one of the rules (no atheists) that has existed since the beginning of Freemasonry, it then went on to fully immerse itself in the political scene of France (a second transgression) and most recently it has now welcomed women into meetings of its Lodges. The only step remaining is to actually begin Initiating women and its transformation into another Co-masonry will be complete.
However, at the death, the GOdF took a decision to be different, its membership who voted on this knew exactly what it would lead to with the rest of the Masonic world. So I fail to see why individual members (who have chosen to join that GO although other obediences are available) feel that they should suggest that Grand Lodges need to take any action with regard to GOdF. If you wish to fraternise more widely join a Grand Lodge recognised by more Grand Lodges around the world.
Prince Hall Lodges were never irregular, they were ostracised because of the political climate of the US and sadly had to wait 200 years until that climate changed enough for mainstream Grand Lodges to soften their stance against them.
The OES is not Freemasonry it was modelled, by Rob Morris, on the French "Rite of Adoption" which was also not Freemasonry, here in England it was not accepted due to its requirement to have a Freemason present at all meetings acting in his capacity as a Freemason. Are you thinking of Le Droit Humain?
Last edited:
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
Exactly. Bottom line....this is as irregular as it gets and, IMHO, fraternization with it is, as it should be, forbidden.
Completely separate issue. Trust me, I have argued that one as well being a non-Christian Mason myself. The discussions have never gone in my favor.
But they must be have some form of religion. Atheists need not apply. I have sat on investigation committees where the Cn. did not belong to an established religion but was able to articulate a faith in a Supreme Being. And that was good enough for us. The Landmark barring atheists , whether codified or unwritten, is a foundation of our Order.
Pun intended?
